Creationists really love transitional fossils, even though they deny them. Every time a transitional fossil is found, they get two new gaps they can claim have no transitionals between them!
Jonathan Wells was a grad student in Molecular and Cell Biology when I was a grad student in Zoology at Berkeley (late 1980s, early 90s). Had lunch with him several times. He tried to give me the impression he was just a confused grad student, trying to reconcile his faith with his work. Nothing could be further from the truth. His entry into MCB was directly funded by Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Yup, before he was a schill for the discotute, he was a moonie. People like this are literally programmed from an early age NOT to tell the truth. They literally CANNOT be honest with you if you ask them pointed questions. It's sad and pathetic. There were MANY heated arguments between MCB and the other biological sciences about them letting him even BE a student there. Sad to say, money talks, all the rest walks. MCB was happy to take moonie money.
So much of our country’s cultural rot traces back to the moonies. They even got trump to do a little grovelling for the dear leader during his birthday celebration! It’s a trip!
So, if I understand correctly, in the USA you can buy a degree with money?? In my country (Belgium) this is completely unthinkable. Everyone has to pay the same amount of subscription, if you have a low income you are entitled to income based scholarship. So, in principe at least, everyone who wants can start studying at university. Then you have to pass the exams. If you don't, you don't get the degree. Money doesn't come into it. This is very dangerous.
@@David34981 Not purely. I mean, you CAN, but they're not actual degrees. But someone or some organization can pay your way through school. This is supposed to be used to make sure that not just the rich get to be educated, but lots of... well, almost entirely right wing organizations use this to pump chosen students through schools through endowments and scholarships. It's most prominent in law, where there's been a damn near 50 year project to seed the profession with right-wing judges, but the Moonies also did it everywhere to spread their influence. That whole... freedom of religion thing turns out to be a VERY good shield for cults and scoundrels.
@@David34981I think that paying ones way onto any particular course is acceptable to the learning institutions of our friends in the US of A, but getting a qualification means having to pass the exams.
Ever noticed the irony of calling yourself the “discovery institute” when you’re not concerned with discovering anything but instead starting with a conclusion and forcing the data to fit that conclusion?
I am so very grateful you are exposing these clowns. My greatest accomplishment was getting my university library to move Discovery Institute books from “science” to “religious fiction.” They were categorized in the Dewey system as “science.”
_Religious Fiction_ is narrative in nature. A book pretending/claiming to be science doesn't belong there. It's not telling a story, not in the sense that fiction generally does. As an example, God's Not Dead is a _Religious Fiction_ movie. It is a fictional narrative story centered on religious faith. Discovery Institute/Intelligent Design books bear approximately zero resemblance to that description. They don't belong in the _Science_ section, but they also don't belong in _Religious Fiction._ (This is a total rewrite of the comment I had here. The concept is the same, but I think I expressed it far better this time.)
@@bengreene4972 Your response makes zero sense no matter how I try to interpret it. The Bible doesn't go in _Religious Fiction._ It goes in _Religion._ I only brought up the Bible to point this out. You could argue for putting it in _Religious Fiction,_ as it has narrative stories within. DI books do not have narrative stories, and are thus not _Religious Fiction._ Sorry that you had to read it twice in order to get it. They should have a _Pseudoscience_ category, actually. Things like reflexology, homeopathy, chiropracty, and acupuncture can go with them.
Always find it fascinating when people say “Darwin had no evidence.” Yes, Origin of Species is Darwin presenting an idea, but it’s also him giving reason and evidence for that idea. Whether or not someone “believes” in evolution or not, I cannot believe that anyone who’s read Origin of Species would say honestly that Darwin presents no evidence.
It's because they've _never_ read Origin of Species. So they don't know what it says. And they never will, because the book presents forbidden ideas. Religion demands adherence, and in the age where it's no longer acceptable to stone apostates to death, it conditions individual believers to reject all avenues to apostacy, lest they be barred from the afterlife VIP section.
It's also irrelevant. Darwin is 150 years out of date and the modern Theory of Evolution doesn't rely on Darwin being right about everything and, in fact, he didn't know a majority of what we now know about Evolution. They only use his name to make it seem as if Evolution is the preachings of a prophet rather than science. They need Evolution to be on the same religious footing as their own fairy tales regardless of how much lying that requires. If you can't believe that anyone who’s read Origin of Species would say honestly that Darwin presents no evidence, that's because they're blatantly being dishonest.
Most of what he teaches ether flys too far over my head for me to grasp, or I’m just not interested. But stuff like this and debunking idiots who can’t admit their own ignorance is fascinating.
I love the fact that Professor Dave and others like him who are intending to push back against science denial are becoming the DeFacto teachers of present times. You might not have started this channel intending anything like this, but the children of today and tomorrow are better for your efforts. On their behalf, thank you.
@@skepticaliam5857 Another stupidly vague claim. You're an exceptionally triggered little Creationist gimp, aren't you? Is that you Wells? I'm getting the impression you might actually be Wells himself? Why else would you be trying to defend this Creationist idiot, who's an insult and an irrelevance to academia and scientific discovery? A complete failure within the sciences, so he panders to the clueless gullibility of superstitious zealots for his grift.
Yes they find a bone or two and hype their "finding." They use their IMAGINATION to support their hyped "finding" with DRAWINGS of what it once looked like. FACT! Repeatedly done.
@@skepticaliam5857But you do? Then you must be an expert and have a university degree in this topic and you can easily name numerous scientific studies that prove your point. Creationists are constantly trying (unsuccesful) to poke holes in evolution and Darwin's scientific theory, but even that doesn't make their own creastionists garbage automatically true. You have to present your own scientific evidence to substantiate your claim. This fallacy is called 'false dichotomy'...and you creationists love such fallacies...and besides your lies, it is the only thing you have to fall back on.
Thanks for these videos. I studied math and physics. Biology is my Achilles Heel. But just from watching your videos I'm developing an understanding of the nomenclature and the processes of biology. In debates I usually steer clear of the biological arguments. The other day I was unfortunately presented with a peer reviewed biology paper that was purported by an old earth creationist, as proof that there were new species appearing in Cambrian Explosion that had no ancestors. Because of your excellent work, I was able to understand enough of the paper to show that he completely misunderstood the paper. So much so that he immediately backpedalled and instead launched into a diatribe on abiogenesis. The funny thing is he was using all the Discovery Institute talking points, but claimed to have never heard of them or any of the members I named. If he wasn't lying about that, he seemed pretty honest, then the DI has more of an influence than I thought. A bad sign indeed.
yea they do have alot of influence, the books their workers publish dont mention the DI in them and they have multiple "news" outlets that they pretend arent related to them as well. Thats why a series like this is so good because it targets the individuals and all of their far reach both inside and outside of the actual institute
"The evidence has been plugged into that story to serve as illustrations-so in fact the story comes first." This has to be the least self-aware statement ever uttered by a human being.
I want to say: I really appreciate how direct and blunt you are in these videos. Too often I read and hear debunks that describe people as "deceptive", "misleading", or "using bad data". It's refreshing to hear it put plainly that an obvious liar is lying.
Agreed. I can understand using softer language when you're dealing with someone who might legitimately not understand why what they're saying is wrong, but the people associated with the DI absolutely know why what they're saying is wrong and just push it anyway. There's 0 chance that they aren't aware that what they're saying is wrong and exactly _why_ it's wrong because it's been presented to them time and time again. So, at this point, they're just disingenuous frauds and they don't deserve polite debunkings.
The process needs to be more executable since it apparently exists. A lawyer is immediately on a knife-edge if they misrepresent before a judge, or other activities. Publicly misrepresenting scientific information related to your field should immediately have your case before whatever board.
@@Silenttalker22 it was only possible in the case of Schön because the university that gave him the phd had the right to revoke the PhD because they explicitly stated in their official PhD process
I get your point but i would disagree, PhD is a certificate you finished a specific course, like a degree. Lawyers need a specific autorization for practicing regardless of the law degree they got. In other words, your degree cannot be withdrawn simply because you are disbarred.
So, have I got this right? God created a world in which all the evidence points to evolution and then specifically told Jonathan Wells to do a PhD so that he could prove that all the evidence God created was false?
@@SextusHempiryk well, the same can be said about the bible then. The devil probably made it, since he seems to make so many proofs that science is true yet there is not one proof of it being false xD
creationists: Talk nonsense about evolution Dave: It explains everything they did wrong in less than 30 minutes, for the thousandth time creationists: 👁️👄👁️ I love your channel ❤️🔬
@@skepticaliam5857 cool, evolution doesn't depend on the moth experiment to prove it's validity. There are countless other experiments that prove basically the same things, so it doesn't matter if one was flawed. Also your quotation is faulty, if you want to quote something you should tell us what your are quoting so we can verify that the source is trustworthy and you aren't cutting something out of context.
It's hilarious how Wells considers "materialistic science" to be promoting "a story" when his entire belief system comes from a book of stories from the Bronze Age.
It's equivocation. If we witness someone turn on a light switch, one potential "story" is that the switch completed a circuit which allowed a flow of electricity to illuminate a light bulb. Another "story" is that an omnipotent, omniscient wizard constantly watches all light switches, everywhere in the universe, and wills any associated bulbs to glow any time someone flips a switch. One of these stories is based on observation and can be used to gain further understanding and the other one is the story pushed by Wells and the DI.
@@shassett79 If you had the need to use quote-marks for "story", then I don't know if your argument really applies. One of those is not a story, and the other is.
Dr. Dave is an extraordinary teacher , other than explaining complex sciences and maths , he also exposed many things which is kinda entertaining . Love your videos , sir ❤
I hope he gets his phd one day so the stupid con men with phds, which were all aware now is not an indication of intellence or expertise on topics like this, can stop saying "he doesnt have this, therefore hes wrong and im right"
@@gavinbarnum9458 As someone who's halfway through a PhD let me tell you it does not make you special. At the end of the day it's just a degree. It's a lot of work for sure but I reckon a lot of people could manage to earn one given the chance.
@@gavinbarnum9458 Their own fields of study prove them wrong, as can anyone with a modicum of understanding about the subject matter, and a compliment of more than one brain cell. Creationism and it's plethora of anti-science idiots are a safety net for these automatic failures, when they inevitably get laughed out of their particular fields.
It's only fairly recently that this elderly Brit found out about just how much of this creationism was around in certain parts of America. I think its a bit scary and am so glad that you, Erica, Forrest, Aron et al work so hard to counteract it. And the updating of my half century old biology education is most enjoyable too! Many thanks.
12:15 I was actually about to say that I'm only getting an associates degree, and anyone who passed biology should know that mutations in genes happen all the time. There's no way someone with a PhD could honestly say that.
Unless of course they are deliberately lying, which all so called "Creation scientists" are just by using that moniker that is a contradiction in terms!
My aunt, who was a nun her entire adult life, knew science and religion were separate. She had a Master’s degree in biology and knew evolution was the best explanation for the diversity we observe. You don’t have to deny science to believe in pretend supernatural beings.
@@SirPhysicsYeah, this is why I consider the "religion is compatible with science" line to be basically a comforting lie. If you're somebody who takes stuff like Adam & Eve or the Noah's Flood seriously, then yes, science absolutely IS in conflict with your religion. On the other hand, if you don't take those stories seriously, then you face the problem of moderates - while you likely are a better person and more scientifically literate than fundamentalists and literalists, your faith actually makes less sense than theirs. I mean, the story of Adam and Eve is where the idea of the Original Sin comes from. If you reject that story, then you're rejecting the concept of the OS, and therefore, you don't need Jesus to (inefficiently) save you from it. And the rabbit hole goes deeper...
"Where are all the transitions...." "New discoveries of new fossils makes things worse..." Can't have it both ways. No real biologist would have expected a single, straight line.
24:55 he didn't say evolved he said transformed. After I was told something like this by a creationist I asked them if they had a picture of their mother. They did. I looked at it, then looked at them. And I told them I don't see any way that their mother transformed into them. They tried to say that they were born from their mother, and I said that it was irrelevant to my question. and I repeated "How did this *points to the mother* 'Transform' into this *points at them*?" When they said I was being unreasonable, I just responded "How am I being unreasonable? You said that you are related to your mother, right? and you disputed the claim that this is related to humans, right? And your reason was that it seems impossible for this to evolve into a human, right? I just swapped human and this with you and your mother, since I am comparing like relations."
@21:25 "When I look at an artistic depiction of a neanderthal, I give it as much credit as I would give something I see in the tabloids" Funny, that is as much credit I give to what I read in, or hear told from the Bible. The difference of course is that the tabloids are usually a smidge more up-to-date with current knowledge.
Learned alot about them and cannot wait for the Douglas Axe debunk. Who literally is at Biola trying to find a new theory to "replace evolution" good luck to him I guess.
31:10 Off topic, but I got so excited when he mentioned Ida! I saw her just a few weeks ago in Solnhofen, Germany (well known for being the location where the first specimen of Archaeopteryx were found). The museum there had a special exhibition featuring marvellous exhibits from the Messel pit. The most outstanding ones were Ida and a tiny horse from roughly the same time (~50 Million years ago) that is totally recognizable as a horse, but still has 4 separate digits and a vestigial thumb. Modern horses have only one digit left, but start their embryonic development with five, another detail that creationists love to ignore.
I've long been the type to attribute failings of this magnitude to genuine belief and consistent information control in a person's environment, and I try my best never to assume malicious intent without just cause. Jonathan Wells gave me just cause to blatantly accuse him of lying in less than 20 minutes. It's a new record, he should be proud. Throughout the video, if you listen carefully to what Wells says (a herculean effort, I know), you may notice that a lot of what he says is true, but that he consistently says it in such a way as to imply the absolute worst possible interpretation of that true information. Pointing out the sensationalization of new discoveries in the media, but hinting that this is science's ploy, not a vast annoyance done _against_ science's best interest by click-hungry news outlets. Talking about how few bones we had from Lucy, but ignoring the countless other specimens from her species, many of whom have complete or nearly complete skeletons. Again and again, he brushes up against the truth, but comes away from it making scientists sound like an evil cabal of god-haters desperate for any other explanation of life. This takes skill. This takes careful consideration and fine-tuning to get just right. This takes understanding of the source material in order to misrepresent it in such a way. I've SEEN people who don't understand evolution. Their explanations of how they think it works are always baffling to the highest degree. This ain't it. This is careful, calculated, and controlled. The only way this man doesn't know full-well he's lying through his teeth is if he's just a talking head that reads out scripts that other people write for him. And since he _himself_ admits he studied evolution with the sole purpose of destroying it in the name of his god, the answer here should be obvious. He learned what it all is...and then used that to lie about it and destroy it. Exactly like he always wanted to.
This one was pretty quick because I've heard all this bullshit before. I was even able to use screenshots from previous debunks because he says the same exact shit as Luskin and Meyer.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Do you think they're actually masks they swap with each other on the regular? I bet they have a pull-string on their backs too?
Thanks for the video. I’ve been a big fan of the astrophysics debunks as it allowed me to learn about new areas of science in an entertaining way, but frankly, I haven’t always been able to fully comprehend them. As an undergraduate geneticist though, these DI debunks unlocked a new level of absurd for me, and I suspect now how anybody with any knowledge of physics must have felt about guys like the sky scholar or suspicious observers. I’m not even halfway through the video and I already had to stop a few times for a face palm, a few mindful breaths and a slow wtf in silence
23:07 How is it that in the Year of Their Lord 2023 we are STILL getting the "Lucy is an incomplete fossil, therefore we don't know anything about Australopithecus afarensis" argument? Lucy was found in a dig site with hundreds of specimens, including at least 96 basically complete skulls... In the 1970s. There is a photograph of this find (including Lucy) with the skulls laid out in a big array, and that photo was included in the Genesis Apologetics movie "Genesis Impact" to outright lie about this very topic. While showing the picture, they cropped out ALL the skulls and jawbones while literally saying, and I quote, "Here's what they actually found."
Really tired of these grifters who think getting a PhD adds credibility to their nonsense, like how William Lane Craig got a philosophy PhD just so he could try to be a better apologist
I have so much religious trauma from my childhood and no one to talk to. Watching Dave's videos and studying maths are the closest I can get right now to something that amounts to the opposite of being gaslit.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🧬 *Jonathan Wells' Background and Motivation* Wells' academic *background: religious studies and cellular biology* Entered biology *due to religious conviction against Darwinism* Joined Discovery *Institute with the aim to discredit science* 02:49 🌳 *Challenge to the Tree of Life Concept* Wells questions *the concept of the tree of life based on molecular inconsistencies* Refutes the *empirical evidence supporting the tree of life* Empirical evidence *and historical context solidify the tree of life's credibility* 04:15 🌐 *Refutation of Alleged Inconsistencies* Scientific explanation *of nested hierarchy and biological evolution* Highlight of *David Hillis et al.'s experiment validating phylogenetic inference* Addressing misconceptions *about molecular inconsistencies and introgression* 07:28 🧬 *Inconsistencies: Genes, Anatomy, and Phylogeny* Clarification on *genetic and anatomical consistency in line with evolution* Explanation of *introgression's impact on genetic variation* Dissecting Wells' *misleading claims regarding genetic and anatomical disparities* 12:07 🧬 *Orphan Genes and Phylogenetic Context* Discussion on *orphan genes as a concept in evolutionary biology* Refutation of *Wells' assertion about orphan genes' implications on ancestry* Emphasizing the *evidence of orphan genes supporting common ancestry* 16:44 🧪 *Empirical vs. Materialistic Science Debate* Wells' distinction *between empirical and materialistic science debunked* Empirical evidence's *pivotal role in scientific discovery and explanation* Exposing the *fallacy in equating materialism with empirical science* 19:32 🦕 *Transitional Fossils and Evolutionary Theory* Wells' denial *of transitional fossils countered with evidence* Dissection of *Wells' misleading claims about Neanderthal reconstructions* Debunking Wells' *argument from incredulity in light of scientific findings* 23:08 🦍 *Lucy and Human Evolution* - Lucy, the Australopithecus afarensis, was facultatively bipedal, conclusively indicated by her pelvis, knees, feet, and foramen magnum. - Wells misrepresents Lucy, denying evidence that Australopithecus was bipedal and part of the human evolutionary line. - Evolutionary pathways between apes and humans are supported by intermediate species exhibiting gradual characteristics. 26:22 📰 *Hyped Fossil Finds* - Media sensationalizes fossil discoveries, leading to misconceptions about their significance. - Wells disregards Homo erectus and other known hominid species while discrediting entire fields based on incomplete fossil assessments. - He undermines valid scientific findings by focusing on media hype and misinterpretations. 29:36 🎨 *Misrepresentation of Evolutionary Icons* - Wells criticizes the "March of Progress" image, highlighting it as an inaccurate representation of evolutionary biology. - His focus on a single illustration oversimplifies complex evolutionary processes, ignoring the non-linear, branching nature of evolution. - He misleads viewers by attributing significance to artistic depictions as representative of scientific knowledge. 31:27 🦧 *Misinterpretation of Fossil Discoveries* - Wells distorts the significance of Ida, misrepresenting her as "just a lemur" while ignoring her transitional status among earlier primates. - His dismissal of fossil discoveries contradicts established evolutionary predictions, intentionally misleading his audience. - He simplifies the complexity of human evolution, claiming that every discovery further complicates the evolutionary narrative without factual basis. 34:11 🌳 *Representation of Evolutionary Lineage* - Wells incorrectly presents evolution as a linear process, disregarding the branching nature of the tree of life. - His insistence on a straight-line representation contradicts established evolutionary principles, leading to misinterpretations. - The misrepresentation of missing links and ancestor-descendant relationships showcases Wells's flawed understanding of evolutionary lineage. Made with HARPA AI
I've been following creationism pseudoscience rhetoric since the 1970s. Now, in the 1970s I was a young earth creationist myself, because of my fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. When I was a teenager, being educated about various aspects of science in high school, my level of "cognitive dissonance" was coming into play in regard to the fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs I had been raised with (my parents were fundamentalist Christians, and I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian culture in the fundamentalist Christian denomination called the Church Of Christ). Young earth creationism pseudoscience was a "lifeline" to me in regard to me justifying my belief in the fundamentalist Christian interpretation of the Genesis stories (in the broader context of my fundamentalist Christian belief in the Bible as "God's Word") in the face of all of the science I was being educated about in high school. (In those days, it was just biology, and a smattering of astronomy, because there were no classes in geology or "earth science" in my high school back then. Even these days, I don't think astronomy/cosmology has become a standard science course in high school, but I could be wrong about this - I don't know. But I think geology has become a common course in most high schools - again, I'm not sure this, it's just my impression. My personal opinion is that "earth science" should be a required course in every high school, as part of the standard required curriculum.) It was actually a course in astronomy that I took in college (at Abilene Christian University in Abilene, Texas, in fact) in which I learned so many details about the scientific facts related to astronomy that I came to realize that the young earth creationism that I believed in was completely wrong. I mean, unequivocally wrong, factually wrong, in regard to the relevant real world facts. I became an old earth creationist after that, but despite that, it genuinely "shook up" my perception of the people who promoted creationism pseudoscience, in regard to giving me the realization that I could not merely trust these people just because they happened to share my fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. In other words, being a naive teenager, brought up in the fundamentalist Christian perspective of supposedly valuing "truth" and "seeking the truth" and "following the truth" regardless of the consequences, I TRUSTED these people BECAUSE of those values that were taught. BUT, THEN I LEARNED through my own personal study, by digging into the details of the facts, that all that rhetoric about valuing "truth" and "seeking the truth" and "following the truth" was deeply, fundamentally, pure hypocrisy - because, in the specific context of dealing with science, fundamentalist Christians literally used their exact fundamentalist Christian ideology to deliberately ignore the truth and attack the truth at every step. And, increasingly, as I studied the details of subject after subject after subject, I came to realize not only how Christian apologists (promoters of young earth creationism pseudoscience are, literally, just Christian apologists engaging in pseudoscience to try to pretend that their particular religious beliefs are "scientific") are deep hypocrites in regard to literally all of the rhetoric they spew in regard to respecting "truth" and "seeking the truth," but how they are the exact opposite. They promote falsehoods - and, worse, when anyone points out to them, personally, the factual errors of what they're saying, instead of engaging in any process of revision to correct their errors, they deliberately refuse to correct their errors, and keep right on promoting their falsehoods, and many times even employ further rhetoric to try to pretend that nothing has ever even been presented to them at all that might indicate that what they are saying is wrong. After considerable personal experience with witnessing this behavior for myself, that's when I finally put "paid" to the creationism position entirely, because, despite my upbringing, I had never once considered that kind of behavior to be some kind of virtue (religious, or otherwise). Fortunately, and maybe luckily, I had internalized the ideals of "truth" and "seeking the truth" and intuitively blocked out the notion of clinging to particular religious beliefs in the case where the truth (i.e., relevant real world facts) happened to contradicts the religious beliefs I believed in. And this - my own personal experience - is why, when Dave Farina refers to these people as lying all the time - I know for a fact, base on my own personal experience, I know he is merely stating a truth about how these people behave. It is NOT merely people stating claims that are factually wrong. Yes, what they say is factually wrong. But, much worse, they promote their falsehoods in a deliberately dishonest manner. They are a deceitful people - and they're not just deceitful, but they are deceitful in a deliberate manner, even to the point where they have manufactured a cognitive framework for the very purpose of justifying to themselves in their own minds why such deceitful behavior is not only "okay," but also that this deceitful behavior is VIRTUOUS, in the sense of religious virtue. And that, all on its own, is a demonstration of the fundamentally corrupt nature of this religious way of thinking.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime I would say that it's because they reached a point in their own minds in regard to their particular religious beliefs that believing that the Bible ("God's Word") is the infallible "truth" - and that belief has totally corrupted their thinking AGAINST the concept of "seeking the truth" to actually be about digging in the facts and getting your facts straight (and revising your personal ideas to fit the facts). Thus, to them, ignoring any and all facts that contradict what they believe based on "God's Word" IS A RELIGIOUS VIRTUE. Now, it's obvious to everyone - including creationists - that it is dishonest (lying) to deliberately ignore dealing with the facts, and the details of the facts, that contradict some idea you have. Which is why creationists do spend so much time developing and using all manner of rhetorical gimmicks to try to disparage and bury all of the facts that contradict them, in order to pretend that the facts aren't factual. (With young earth creationists, it's just ever more obvious - but old earth creationists engage in exactly the same dishonest behavior.) This dishonest rhetorical framework of justification has literally been built into the fundamentalist/evangelical Christian apologetics way of thinking - and these various rhetorical gimmicks of that framework are what are drilled into their children by constant repetition while they're growing up - in other words, not just the religious doctrines, but a way of thinking that justifies in their own minds the idea of ignoring any and all facts that contradict what they believe. Then, when these children start maturing, there may come a point where a particular person experiences such cognitive dissonance that one of two things is going to happen: either he's going to come to some level of comprehension of the corrupt nature of that way of thinking in regard to how it is based on ignoring the contradictory facts and he's going to start paying attention to the facts and end up rejecting his false belief (by accepting the fact that the belief is factually wrong) - OR he's going to have the adverse maladaptive response to the cognitive dissonance, which is to consciously embrace that corrupt way of thinking. (Obviously, for any particular person, this is a matter of degree, and can happen at varying ages depending how much the person learns about science in the first place. It's relatively much easier for someone who knows little to nothing about science in the first place to just dismiss it. It's the people who are interested in the subject who are actively promoting the pseudoscience - and they are the ones deliberately ignoring the relevant facts that contradict them in order to do so.) Thus, these pseudoscience promoters have embraced dishonesty as a matter of principle, in order to promote their particular religious belief no matter what. It's a self-selection process.
17:30 Professor Dave you hit the nail on the head! Really the conflict between science and religion can be boiled down to what you said: dogmatic religious people think that since is bent on the denial of the supernatural. But quite the opposite is true. Rather than wonder about mysterious things, worry about them and maintain superstitions, science is the attitude that says "if we're not sure, lets ask...let's have a look, use whatever instruments or modelling is available, and as long as we're still curious, we're free to keep looking and sketching and checking". Rather than hiding from lightning behind a tree and thinking it was sent by Zeus or Thor. In this way, so many things previously thought of as supernatural turn out to be natural. But scientists would be the first to admit that doesn't make them any less magical in terms of awe inspiring and intriguing. After learning about electricity we don't scoff at a thunderstorm, in fact a person can admire nature all the more with what little we know so far, and amazed at the possibility of how richly we may all continue to learn. And at the end of the day science keeps showing us fascinating results that far from being bland or reductive in a religious or empirical sense, the world around us is so complex, self regulating, and naturally giving rise to intelligence at least among ourselves as human beings. But we are no different from reality. We are right at home in the universe living as the stuff of nature, and our relationships among ourselves and the whole are not fixed, but free to interact with the universe in more new ways via science and technology. That's the irony of the thing, some religious people feel totally at home in the universe, and many scientific-approach people do too, but kinda for opposite reasons. Unlike religion, science doesn't try to throw its weight around in areas it doesn't fully understand yet, (at least not yet to a level of reproduceability) like the specific origin of which particular genomic style primitive RNA or DNA sequence gave rise to the tree of life. But science is happy to look, interested in fact to see what we can learn. Just like "test tube babies" were once opposed strongly by some churches but now widely accepted without issues, religious people have some fear that knowing more about the origins of life debases it.... on the contrarythe more we learn the more it enlivens our appreciation for our natural world. And going back further, to the heart and root of all things, science speaks of the big bang, religion speaks of god. Well at least science minded people are willing to say, "If it is any specific thing at all, we're open to the facts as they become available. Either it doesn't exist and multiple factors simultaneously gave rise to the universe as we know it, purely by the accident of chance that various physical constants are compatible with the anthropogenic universe as we know it, or it was a particular factor that resulted in the universe as we know it, and if it is, then we might learn it or qe might not, but if it exists, it is what it is. If we see something that leads us not to believe the question matters, we'll admit it. And if there's something more fascinating there, scientists love to share what they learn, and science curious laypeople like me love to hear about their work. But what we don't do is make up specific stories to fill the gaps in our knowledge today. If something is unknown it's okay to admit that it's unknown. If we believe something today based on available evidence so far and later find it to be wrong, it's good to admit that it's wrong and update the discussion where needed. What we don't do is hide from available pathways to gain knowledge about our world and worse play dumb about existing knowledge because of some sentimental attachment to Thor and Zeus that makes us resistant to actual evidence as it emerges. Sure you could go looking for particular scientists who are wrong or stubborn, but in so being they put themselves in debate with the scientific community and the challenge is for consensus with the prevailing scientific community to see who's right or wrong or is it a mixed bag. Professor Dave you summed this up in a perfect and efficient way, with far fewer words and better impact. Thankyou well done and keep up the good work
"For materialistic science, stories matter the most." This statement directly contradicts itself, for matter is everything with substance and independent from words, while stories consist of all words and no tangible substance.
Wow. I stumbled upon Dave on his Flat Earth debunk videos (I like to learn about Universe), only to find these debunk series on Discovery Institude and especially James Tour soap opera. I am from Central Europe, we are blessed to have minimum of this Christian church nonsense, it feels the religion here is rather minor without this dogmatic anti-science approach. It was very suprising as I checked the videos on James Tour and DI and how dramatic and somehow crazy the events can get in America! Kudos to Dave to stand up and be the voice of reason, after seeing the videos, I strongly beleive it is neccessary and great to have people like Dave to spend their energy and time to keep the nonsense at check.
I wish creationism would be so uncommon in europe but in turkey teaching evolution was partially outlawed in regular school and migrants usually believe in the literal Adam and Eve story completely oblivious about reality.
Wells is right when he says new discoveries make things worse. It makes it harder to lie about science and gives fewer gaps to insert God into. Of course, that's a good thing, but I'd imagine our good friends at the DI don't think so.
Hey guys, if anyone could help me here with some references, I would be very grateful. Here in Brazil, this obscurantist wave is gaining some traction on the internet. Biology content creators don't seem to understand the gravity and danger of this anti-scientific discourse, so many don't respond or just mock nagationists, but very few make rebuttal videos as detailed as Prof. Dave does. I got involved in a discussion in some comment sections and, although I'm not doing badly, I would like references in the following topics: 1 - Studies that demonstrate common ancestors in species with different "body plans". 2 - An evolutionary explanation of the phenomenon of metamorphosis in insects. Thank you all.
1. Which species has "different body plans" within itself? If that's not what you're asking, then you need to reformat the question 2. Evolutionary explanations for metamorphosis, like the process seen in insects, involve advantages gained at different life stages. Metamorphosis can provide distinct ecological niches, reducing competition between larvae and adults for resources. This separation of life stages may enhance overall fitness by optimizing each stage for specific functions, such as feeding or reproduction. This adaptation likely evolved over time, contributing to the success of organisms that undergo metamorphosis in various ecosystems. You're welcome
I'd suggest you look up LUCA Last universal common ancestor Absolutely all known lifeforms share 360 distinct genetic markers that verify universal common descent in the exact same way that your possession of your parents' genetic markers proves you descended from them in a court of law While that makes no reference to "body plans," it does demonstrate the verifiable evidence for speciation, what theists like to call macroevolution
To question 1, I suggest mitochondrial DNA and teeth. Gutsick Gibbon, Forrest Valkai and AronRa have all talked about the teeth, I think. Mitochondrial DNA is the DNA of those little not-quite-bacteria living in membrane pockets inside all eukaryotes' cells. They grow, duplicate their own chromosomes and divide, and the pockets around them divide too so they get separate, individual pockets again. When a cell divides, some mitochondria get caught on each side of the division, so each daughter cell has mitochondria that are duplicates of the parent cell's mitochondria. Significantly, in reproduction they not transferred from the "delivery vehicle" gamete to the ovum, so descendants' mitochondria are all from the ovum and mitochondrial DNA is passed down the maternal line. This means mitochondrial DNA isn't a mixture of two parents' DNA or a mixture of four grandparents' DNA or a mixture of eight great-grandparents' DNA or a duplicate of the DNA of one randomly selected great-great-grandparent out of sixteen. It's a copy of the mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mitochondrial DNA. By comparing mitochondrial DNA sequences, we can get an estimate of how long ago two individuals more recently share a female-line ancestor. To be clear, that doesn't mean a _thing_ gave birth to two daughters, one a wolf and one an elephant. It means that some vaguely honey-possum-like, vaguely shrew-like, vaguely weasel-like, vaguely Javan-tree-shrew-like, vaguely dunnart-like, fluffy mammal out of a huge population of such animals had at least two daughters, one of which had at least one daughter who had at least one daughter who {insert 90 million years here} had a daughter who is a wolf while the other had at least one daughter who {insert 90 million years here} had a daughter who is an elephant. If you could magically line up all the animals in every maternal line of descent from 150 million years ago to a dozen specimens of each of a few hundred mammal species alive today, it'd be really obvious that the wolves of 100 years ago belonged with the wolves of today and really obvious that the elephants of 100 years ago belonged with the elephants of today, but you'd have a hard time predicting which lineage of 149 million years ago was going to connect to which modern lineage and likewise a very hard time predicting which of some early protomustelid's daughters was the ancestor of all otters and which the ancestor of all stoats. Making a family tree of families by mtDNA sequencing produces results that match comparisons of tooth patterns, comparisons of bone patterns and the fossil record, which is a bit like how dozens of different methods of measuring the shape of the Earth all come up with results involving a radius of curvature of sea level somewhere between 6335 and 6400 km. A hundred flat-earthers will give you three hundred descriptions of the shape of the Earth, all contradictory. A thousand scientists can all agree on one, even if they got there by a dozen different means. Bats are more closely related to bears than to mice. Check out a Daubenton bat's mouth some time. That's no mouse. Sorry, German. Seals are far more closely related to dogs than bats are to each other. Compare a harp seal pup to a Great Pyrenees pup. The Germans got that one right: Seehunde.
@@aaronpolichar7936 Probably no current laws, but I do think it should be illegal to pose as a scientifically based organization when you are literally spewing religious propaganda trying to invalidate scientific findings. It is demonstrably harmful for society, physical and mental health, progress and well-being.
@@David34981 Bear in mind that the people whose job it is to legislate against these things are employed by, and answer to, others who are inherently invested in the same beliefs as those promoted by DI. Even if what I just claimed was incorrect, they are voted into office by people indoctrinated into the same belief system from birth.
It would be neat to see a show where these creationists are enrolled as part time students to learn in a program on these topics with full permission to pause and challenge the teaching as they go. I’m sure it would be informative and entertaining. (Also could be a fun hell for scientists to go through a creation science program)
Yeah it'd only be so creationists could do these experiments and be asked to poke holes in what they just completed. It would be entertaining if not demonstratively helpful.@@muskyoxes
_MR. FARiNA!!_ Whenever I see a new one of these videos, my first thought is something like, _"GO! GO! GO!"_ (Yes, I'm still trying to proselytize Tour memes in the comments)
I love this series so much. Being someone who was raised in this type pseudoscience it makes me happy seeing it deconstructed by people who actually understand the topics. This "institute" is nothing but a cult and it is sad people continue to be deceived by it.
I first ran into Discovery Institute and the Center for Science and Culture (one of their propagandist offshoots) in a bunch of FB videos. They present themselves as scientific experts and then preceded to "debunk" evolution. A quick Google search led to their webpage were they make the claim that they are highly regarded in their fields.
Dave, thank you for doing the work! Thank you for making these videos confronting these creationism pseudoscience peddlers on their lies - and not just on their lies, but also on other aspects of their routinely shady behavior.
Hey Professor Dave! I knew these god shills were bogus liars long before I discovered your channel. I subscribed anyhow because you expose them in new and fun ways!🤪😜 You go into details that are above my pay grade. Keep up the good work!
I just realized, this is the 3rd consecutive DI member you've covered named "John"/"Jon". Waaaaat a bunch of toilets! [Sorry, I couldn't resist] Great series, so far. Keep it going. :)
The Discovery Institute has started making animated videos called "Long Story Short," where they lie about evolution. And they got completely debunked by another UA-camr called Jackson Wheat.
Jonathan Wells is actually part of the reason for my de-conversion from the Unification church. I was filming lectures at a conference we were holding at the Unification Theological Seminary, and his talk made no sense to me and included young earth reasoning and a lot of other pseudo-science. I talked with him after the lecture about carbon dating, which he brought up in the lecture, and was dismissed. Wish I'd kept the recordings.
Interesting series Dave. Would it be possible to add two videos on “Intelligent Design” please? 1) Focus on the maths of William Dembski and “Specified Complexity” plus some brief discussion of the concept of “Information”. 2) A more stepped back and brief overall summary of why ID is not science, perhaps from a more philosophical basis. Without all of the endless details and depths which, while important, risk becoming very mind numbing and confusing after a point. Your detailed analysis is useful but it can lead one to get lost from the overall picture. As part of this, I think it would be useful to run through Steven Meyer’s own concept of “science”, in particular his notion of “science by analogy” as opposed to “science by explanations/mechanisms/operational definitions”. Rather than “inference to the best explanation”, I would characterise Meyer’s approach to science as “Inference (by analogy) to the preferred ideology”. It would also be interesting to hear you discuss Meyer’s (and Dembski’s) notions (NOTIONS) of “biological information” and complexity. Hey, do you have a “ask me anything” section?
Dave, I thank you for doing what you do. I really don't know how you can stand it. These people are just so blind. (Or consciously manipulative). Believe in your religion if you want. But this agonizing twisting of what we see with our own eyes - this is very sad. Never forget how Galileo was treated. And now everything he discovered everyone (including the creationists?) takes for granted. Craters on the moon? God would never allow imperfections!
I love this debunking content please keep it up dude! I have been watching you for a while for your educational content but ever since the "Globebusters" post years ago I have been hooked on the debunking content. Anyway, I hope you have a great day Dave even if you probably won't see this.
Hey Dave nice videos debunking DI I have some ideas 1. Top 10 worst kinds of pseudoscience ranking Flat Earth, Quantum Mysticism, and Creationism and others in terms of stupidity. 2. A video on perceptions of science as dogmatic, blind, and rigid and anti establishment narratives 3. Videos on life after death and NDEs 4. A video debunking Dr. Bruce Lipton 5. Videos on Religion 6. More Videos on Physics preferably advanced topics
If you want a new target I would like to nominate John Sanford and his "genetic entropy" and "waiting time problem". I don't think he's part of the DI though. However there's a lot of learning potential in unraveling all his misrepresentations of research and his flat out dishonest models.
Creationists really love transitional fossils, even though they deny them. Every time a transitional fossil is found, they get two new gaps they can claim have no transitionals between them!
This makes me remember that creationist orangutan from Futurama
Where's the, "missing link", then, huh?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣💯👍🖕🖕🖕👎👎👎💯
Probably their most blatant lie. Pathetic.
All fossils are transitionary if you think about it
@@adamsparks9082 I suppose, though you really need modified but related fossils older and younger to be really sure.
Jonathan Wells was a grad student in Molecular and Cell Biology when I was a grad student in Zoology at Berkeley (late 1980s, early 90s). Had lunch with him several times. He tried to give me the impression he was just a confused grad student, trying to reconcile his faith with his work. Nothing could be further from the truth. His entry into MCB was directly funded by Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Yup, before he was a schill for the discotute, he was a moonie. People like this are literally programmed from an early age NOT to tell the truth. They literally CANNOT be honest with you if you ask them pointed questions. It's sad and pathetic. There were MANY heated arguments between MCB and the other biological sciences about them letting him even BE a student there. Sad to say, money talks, all the rest walks. MCB was happy to take moonie money.
"🎶and when your head explodes with dark forebodings too, I'll see you on the dark side of the moon🎶"
So much of our country’s cultural rot traces back to the moonies. They even got trump to do a little grovelling for the dear leader during his birthday celebration! It’s a trip!
So, if I understand correctly, in the USA you can buy a degree with money??
In my country (Belgium) this is completely unthinkable.
Everyone has to pay the same amount of subscription, if you have a low income you are entitled to income based scholarship. So, in principe at least, everyone who wants can start studying at university.
Then you have to pass the exams. If you don't, you don't get the degree. Money doesn't come into it.
This is very dangerous.
@@David34981 Not purely. I mean, you CAN, but they're not actual degrees. But someone or some organization can pay your way through school. This is supposed to be used to make sure that not just the rich get to be educated, but lots of... well, almost entirely right wing organizations use this to pump chosen students through schools through endowments and scholarships. It's most prominent in law, where there's been a damn near 50 year project to seed the profession with right-wing judges, but the Moonies also did it everywhere to spread their influence.
That whole... freedom of religion thing turns out to be a VERY good shield for cults and scoundrels.
@@David34981I think that paying ones way onto any particular course is acceptable to the learning institutions of our friends in the US of A, but getting a qualification means having to pass the exams.
Ever noticed the irony of calling yourself the “discovery institute” when you’re not concerned with discovering anything but instead starting with a conclusion and forcing the data to fit that conclusion?
Lol it's really is ironic, is it! Never thought about it much
James Tour openly said that he wants scientists to stop researching the origin of life. The DI is very much anti-discovery.
"starting with a conclusion and forcing the data to fit that conclusion"
Creationist science in a nutshell:
@@Claudius_Ptolemy honestly, it’s apologetics in a nutshell
Yes. Top remark in the remarking part of the film presentation
I am so very grateful you are exposing these clowns. My greatest accomplishment was getting my university library to move Discovery Institute books from “science” to “religious fiction.” They were categorized in the Dewey system as “science.”
well done, Sir! 😊👍
_Religious Fiction_ is narrative in nature. A book pretending/claiming to be science doesn't belong there. It's not telling a story, not in the sense that fiction generally does.
As an example, God's Not Dead is a _Religious Fiction_ movie. It is a fictional narrative story centered on religious faith.
Discovery Institute/Intelligent Design books bear approximately zero resemblance to that description.
They don't belong in the _Science_ section, but they also don't belong in _Religious Fiction._
(This is a total rewrite of the comment I had here. The concept is the same, but I think I expressed it far better this time.)
@@Mythraenthe bible is a religious text and is a fictional book as all religious books are. This classification is appropriate
@@bengreene4972 Your response makes zero sense no matter how I try to interpret it.
The Bible doesn't go in _Religious Fiction._ It goes in _Religion._ I only brought up the Bible to point this out.
You could argue for putting it in _Religious Fiction,_ as it has narrative stories within.
DI books do not have narrative stories, and are thus not _Religious Fiction._
Sorry that you had to read it twice in order to get it.
They should have a _Pseudoscience_ category, actually.
Things like reflexology, homeopathy, chiropracty, and acupuncture can go with them.
Always find it fascinating when people say “Darwin had no evidence.” Yes, Origin of Species is Darwin presenting an idea, but it’s also him giving reason and evidence for that idea.
Whether or not someone “believes” in evolution or not, I cannot believe that anyone who’s read Origin of Species would say honestly that Darwin presents no evidence.
Honesty has nothing to do with creationism. never has, never will.
@@thomasneal9291 Yeah, honesty and creationism are oxymóron.
It's because they've _never_ read Origin of Species. So they don't know what it says.
And they never will, because the book presents forbidden ideas. Religion demands adherence, and in the age where it's no longer acceptable to stone apostates to death, it conditions individual believers to reject all avenues to apostacy, lest they be barred from the afterlife VIP section.
@@Seticzech and creationists are morons 😆
It's also irrelevant. Darwin is 150 years out of date and the modern Theory of Evolution doesn't rely on Darwin being right about everything and, in fact, he didn't know a majority of what we now know about Evolution. They only use his name to make it seem as if Evolution is the preachings of a prophet rather than science. They need Evolution to be on the same religious footing as their own fairy tales regardless of how much lying that requires. If you can't believe that anyone who’s read Origin of Species would say honestly that Darwin presents no evidence, that's because they're blatantly being dishonest.
Honey! Wake up! Professor Dave is spanking the Discovery Institute again.
“Babe, why aren’t you spanking me like that anymore? 😢”
@@traegreenlee-dg4st 😶
The tree has branches!
Kinky
@@Heavenly-Disaster stinky
Massive respect to professor Dave.
CAME FOR THE DEBUNKS, STAYED FOR THE KNOWLEDGE
Most of what he teaches ether flys too far over my head for me to grasp, or I’m just not interested.
But stuff like this and debunking idiots who can’t admit their own ignorance is fascinating.
Based
Ditto
I really enjoyed the periodic table series. I was crap at chemistry at school
@@skepticaliam5857did you actually watch the video? He completely and thoroughly rebutted every single point the guy made, hardly just insults.
I love the fact that Professor Dave and others like him who are intending to push back against science denial are becoming the DeFacto teachers of present times. You might not have started this channel intending anything like this, but the children of today and tomorrow are better for your efforts. On their behalf, thank you.
His videos are helping me with my college classes! Absolutely love this channel!
@@skepticaliam5857
Another stupidly vague claim.
You're an exceptionally triggered little Creationist gimp, aren't you?
Is that you Wells? I'm getting the impression you might actually be Wells himself? Why else would you be trying to defend this Creationist idiot, who's an insult and an irrelevance to academia and scientific discovery? A complete failure within the sciences, so he panders to the clueless gullibility of superstitious zealots for his grift.
Yes they find a bone or two and hype their "finding." They use their IMAGINATION to support their hyped "finding" with DRAWINGS of what it once looked like. FACT! Repeatedly done.
@@lloyds7828Do you have any proof for that claim?
@@skepticaliam5857But you do? Then you must be an expert and have a university degree in this topic and you can easily name numerous scientific studies that prove your point. Creationists are constantly trying (unsuccesful) to poke holes in evolution and Darwin's scientific theory, but even that doesn't make their own creastionists garbage automatically true. You have to present your own scientific evidence to substantiate your claim. This fallacy is called 'false dichotomy'...and you creationists love such fallacies...and besides your lies, it is the only thing you have to fall back on.
Thanks for these videos.
I studied math and physics. Biology is my Achilles Heel. But just from watching your videos I'm developing an understanding of the nomenclature and the processes of biology.
In debates I usually steer clear of the biological arguments. The other day I was unfortunately presented with a peer reviewed biology paper that was purported by an old earth creationist, as proof that there were new species appearing in Cambrian Explosion that had no ancestors.
Because of your excellent work, I was able to understand enough of the paper to show that he completely misunderstood the paper. So much so that he immediately backpedalled and instead launched into a diatribe on abiogenesis.
The funny thing is he was using all the Discovery Institute talking points, but claimed to have never heard of them or any of the members I named. If he wasn't lying about that, he seemed pretty honest, then the DI has more of an influence than I thought. A bad sign indeed.
DI's misinformation gets laundered.
yea they do have alot of influence, the books their workers publish dont mention the DI in them and they have multiple "news" outlets that they pretend arent related to them as well. Thats why a series like this is so good because it targets the individuals and all of their far reach both inside and outside of the actual institute
"The evidence has been plugged into that story to serve as illustrations-so in fact the story comes first." This has to be the least self-aware statement ever uttered by a human being.
No he's perfectly aware of how ironic and projective it is, he's a lying fraud.
I want to say: I really appreciate how direct and blunt you are in these videos. Too often I read and hear debunks that describe people as "deceptive", "misleading", or "using bad data". It's refreshing to hear it put plainly that an obvious liar is lying.
Hundred percent. You can't be kind with these people, because they're being disingenuous. They don't want to learn, they want to warp learning.
Agreed. I can understand using softer language when you're dealing with someone who might legitimately not understand why what they're saying is wrong, but the people associated with the DI absolutely know why what they're saying is wrong and just push it anyway. There's 0 chance that they aren't aware that what they're saying is wrong and exactly _why_ it's wrong because it's been presented to them time and time again. So, at this point, they're just disingenuous frauds and they don't deserve polite debunkings.
Yessss, a new episode of my favorite series - Professor Dave wrecks YEC hacks.
Tour got left in shambles 😂
Considering who the Speaker of the house is, this work is more important than ever
Science videos + Pseudoscience debunks, it's just bliss here Dave. Thank you for balancing both, I hope they're fun to make for you as well.
PhDs need to be revokable, like disbarring a lawyer.
it actually IS revokable, at least it was in several specific cases. google Jan Hendrik Schön. he got his PhD revoked.
Absolutely.
The process needs to be more executable since it apparently exists. A lawyer is immediately on a knife-edge if they misrepresent before a judge, or other activities. Publicly misrepresenting scientific information related to your field should immediately have your case before whatever board.
@@Silenttalker22 it was only possible in the case of Schön because the university that gave him the phd had the right to revoke the PhD because they explicitly stated in their official PhD process
I get your point but i would disagree, PhD is a certificate you finished a specific course, like a degree. Lawyers need a specific autorization for practicing regardless of the law degree they got. In other words, your degree cannot be withdrawn simply because you are disbarred.
So, have I got this right? God created a world in which all the evidence points to evolution and then specifically told Jonathan Wells to do a PhD so that he could prove that all the evidence God created was false?
Well, God is testing your faith or Devil placed evidence there to deceive you, pick one... ;-)
@@SextusHempiryk well, the same can be said about the bible then. The devil probably made it, since he seems to make so many proofs that science is true yet there is not one proof of it being false xD
@@SextusHempiryk The argument I find fun is: "How do you know the Bible wasn't written by the devil to lead you away from God's obvious science?"
@@Silenttalker22 Beautiful 😁
creationists:
Talk nonsense about evolution
Dave:
It explains everything they did wrong in less than 30 minutes, for the thousandth time
creationists:
👁️👄👁️
I love your channel ❤️🔬
@@skepticaliam5857 No need to believe, unlike your bible.
@@skepticaliam5857 No, the knowledge is out there, if you cared to look.
@@skepticaliam5857 I don't know what you're referring to. Perhaps provide some context instead of random quotations.
@@skepticaliam5857 cool, evolution doesn't depend on the moth experiment to prove it's validity. There are countless other experiments that prove basically the same things, so it doesn't matter if one was flawed. Also your quotation is faulty, if you want to quote something you should tell us what your are quoting so we can verify that the source is trustworthy and you aren't cutting something out of context.
@@skepticaliam5857belief has nothing to do with it when the facts are presented. He doesn't ask for your "belief"
Just keep showing your ignorance.
This is important work that takes power away from charlatans. Keep it up
It's hilarious how Wells considers "materialistic science" to be promoting "a story" when his entire belief system comes from a book of stories from the Bronze Age.
It's equivocation.
If we witness someone turn on a light switch, one potential "story" is that the switch completed a circuit which allowed a flow of electricity to illuminate a light bulb.
Another "story" is that an omnipotent, omniscient wizard constantly watches all light switches, everywhere in the universe, and wills any associated bulbs to glow any time someone flips a switch.
One of these stories is based on observation and can be used to gain further understanding and the other one is the story pushed by Wells and the DI.
@@shassett79 If you had the need to use quote-marks for "story", then I don't know if your argument really applies. One of those is not a story, and the other is.
@@shassett79How is that equivocation?
I fully agree that the DI is lying, but that’s not equivocation…
@frogfrog4710 It's equivocation between a narrative based on empiricism and one based on ignorance
Um, acktually, it's the early iron age!
Dr. Dave is an extraordinary teacher , other than explaining complex sciences and maths , he also exposed many things which is kinda entertaining . Love your videos , sir ❤
I hope he gets his phd one day so the stupid con men with phds, which were all aware now is not an indication of intellence or expertise on topics like this, can stop saying "he doesnt have this, therefore hes wrong and im right"
@@gavinbarnum9458I hope he doesn’t, so that he can show that even the average layman can know better than these «experts».
@@gavinbarnum9458 As someone who's halfway through a PhD let me tell you it does not make you special. At the end of the day it's just a degree. It's a lot of work for sure but I reckon a lot of people could manage to earn one given the chance.
@@gavinbarnum9458
Their own fields of study prove them wrong, as can anyone with a modicum of understanding about the subject matter, and a compliment of more than one brain cell. Creationism and it's plethora of anti-science idiots are a safety net for these automatic failures, when they inevitably get laughed out of their particular fields.
@@mism847 hes not an average layman though
Your education videos are fun and informative but your dunking videos are so entertaining! Love these.
It's only fairly recently that this elderly Brit found out about just how much of this creationism was around in certain parts of America. I think its a bit scary and am so glad that you, Erica, Forrest, Aron et al work so hard to counteract it. And the updating of my half century old biology education is most enjoyable too! Many thanks.
12:15 I was actually about to say that I'm only getting an associates degree, and anyone who passed biology should know that mutations in genes happen all the time. There's no way someone with a PhD could honestly say that.
Unless of course they are deliberately lying, which all so called "Creation scientists" are just by using that moniker that is a contradiction in terms!
I barely passed high school Biology class and even I know that haha
"Orphan genes disprove evolution!"
...that literally _is_ evolution*. What _else_ would random mutations result in?
* one type
My aunt, who was a nun her entire adult life, knew science and religion were separate. She had a Master’s degree in biology and knew evolution was the best explanation for the diversity we observe. You don’t have to deny science to believe in pretend supernatural beings.
It's one of the few that counter Voltaire and his grievances with the church
It's not religion which is incompatible with basic reality, it's biblical literalism.
@SirPhysics It's a bit of both but mostly the literalism yeah.
@@SirPhysicsYeah, this is why I consider the "religion is compatible with science" line to be basically a comforting lie.
If you're somebody who takes stuff like Adam & Eve or the Noah's Flood seriously, then yes, science absolutely IS in conflict with your religion.
On the other hand, if you don't take those stories seriously, then you face the problem of moderates - while you likely are a better person and more scientifically literate than fundamentalists and literalists, your faith actually makes less sense than theirs. I mean, the story of Adam and Eve is where the idea of the Original Sin comes from. If you reject that story, then you're rejecting the concept of the OS, and therefore, you don't need Jesus to (inefficiently) save you from it. And the rabbit hole goes deeper...
@@SirPhysics Most religions are incompatible with basic reality.
"Where are all the transitions...." "New discoveries of new fossils makes things worse..." Can't have it both ways. No real biologist would have expected a single, straight line.
When I hear "there are no transitional fossils" my brain plugs in the yodeling slide show from Dapper Dinosaur.
24:55 he didn't say evolved he said transformed. After I was told something like this by a creationist I asked them if they had a picture of their mother. They did. I looked at it, then looked at them. And I told them I don't see any way that their mother transformed into them. They tried to say that they were born from their mother, and I said that it was irrelevant to my question. and I repeated "How did this *points to the mother* 'Transform' into this *points at them*?" When they said I was being unreasonable, I just responded "How am I being unreasonable? You said that you are related to your mother, right? and you disputed the claim that this is related to humans, right? And your reason was that it seems impossible for this to evolve into a human, right? I just swapped human and this with you and your mother, since I am comparing like relations."
This never happened
Yeessss. Was literally thinking 10 minutes ago that I really needed a new Professor Dave debunk. Thank you!!
@21:25 "When I look at an artistic depiction of a neanderthal, I give it as much credit as I would give something I see in the tabloids"
Funny, that is as much credit I give to what I read in, or hear told from the Bible.
The difference of course is that the tabloids are usually a smidge more up-to-date with current knowledge.
Obligatory thumbs-up and comment for taking it to 'em, Dave! Looking forward to digging into Jackson's content now as well!
Imagine being that old, and the only thing for which people will remember you is lying.
Sadly, when he dies, his creationist supporters will say what a great man he was.
Everyone at the DI when Dave's video dropped = 😱🤔🤥👺🧟♂️🧟🧟♀️🙈🙉🙊
Meanwhile Dave = 🧘🏻♂️
Learned alot about them and cannot wait for the Douglas Axe debunk. Who literally is at Biola trying to find a new theory to "replace evolution" good luck to him I guess.
31:10 Off topic, but I got so excited when he mentioned Ida! I saw her just a few weeks ago in Solnhofen, Germany (well known for being the location where the first specimen of Archaeopteryx were found). The museum there had a special exhibition featuring marvellous exhibits from the Messel pit. The most outstanding ones were Ida and a tiny horse from roughly the same time (~50 Million years ago) that is totally recognizable as a horse, but still has 4 separate digits and a vestigial thumb. Modern horses have only one digit left, but start their embryonic development with five, another detail that creationists love to ignore.
Anyone with a theistic bias is always suspicious or shady. They always want to smuggle in their religion while pretending to be legit.
Aron Ra has a fun go-to line: "Every logical fallacy has been used as an argument for God and that every argument for god is a logical fallacy".
Dave rolled outta bed and chose violence!!!
I've long been the type to attribute failings of this magnitude to genuine belief and consistent information control in a person's environment, and I try my best never to assume malicious intent without just cause.
Jonathan Wells gave me just cause to blatantly accuse him of lying in less than 20 minutes.
It's a new record, he should be proud.
Throughout the video, if you listen carefully to what Wells says (a herculean effort, I know), you may notice that a lot of what he says is true, but that he consistently says it in such a way as to imply the absolute worst possible interpretation of that true information. Pointing out the sensationalization of new discoveries in the media, but hinting that this is science's ploy, not a vast annoyance done _against_ science's best interest by click-hungry news outlets. Talking about how few bones we had from Lucy, but ignoring the countless other specimens from her species, many of whom have complete or nearly complete skeletons.
Again and again, he brushes up against the truth, but comes away from it making scientists sound like an evil cabal of god-haters desperate for any other explanation of life. This takes skill. This takes careful consideration and fine-tuning to get just right. This takes understanding of the source material in order to misrepresent it in such a way. I've SEEN people who don't understand evolution. Their explanations of how they think it works are always baffling to the highest degree. This ain't it. This is careful, calculated, and controlled.
The only way this man doesn't know full-well he's lying through his teeth is if he's just a talking head that reads out scripts that other people write for him. And since he _himself_ admits he studied evolution with the sole purpose of destroying it in the name of his god, the answer here should be obvious. He learned what it all is...and then used that to lie about it and destroy it. Exactly like he always wanted to.
what's up, professor? i really like how you explain things and your general attitude. I appreciate your presence on youtube!
One of the best parts of this series! Thank you, Dave. You surpass yourself again and again.👍
Thank you Professor Dave. Please keep exposing these people that teach lies.
*preach lies... there was no teaching involved, i wouldn't even say he _attempted_ it.
@@irrelevant_noob thank you for correcting me. 😀
This is gold!
By the way, how long does it take to make these debunks from start to finish? Looks like a metric fcukton of work.
This one was pretty quick because I've heard all this bullshit before. I was even able to use screenshots from previous debunks because he says the same exact shit as Luskin and Meyer.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains thats really funny
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
Do you think they're actually masks they swap with each other on the regular?
I bet they have a pull-string on their backs too?
@@skateboardingjesus4006The strings are probably up their arse
@@_Omega_Weapon
Same place they keep their science comprehension.
Thanks for the video. I’ve been a big fan of the astrophysics debunks as it allowed me to learn about new areas of science in an entertaining way, but frankly, I haven’t always been able to fully comprehend them. As an undergraduate geneticist though, these DI debunks unlocked a new level of absurd for me, and I suspect now how anybody with any knowledge of physics must have felt about guys like the sky scholar or suspicious observers. I’m not even halfway through the video and I already had to stop a few times for a face palm, a few mindful breaths and a slow wtf in silence
Sir, you are Richard Dawkins II Truly doing "God's work" out here. We need more people like you.
Prof. Dave is really bright, but he will never discover another memology.
23:07 How is it that in the Year of Their Lord 2023 we are STILL getting the "Lucy is an incomplete fossil, therefore we don't know anything about Australopithecus afarensis" argument? Lucy was found in a dig site with hundreds of specimens, including at least 96 basically complete skulls... In the 1970s.
There is a photograph of this find (including Lucy) with the skulls laid out in a big array, and that photo was included in the Genesis Apologetics movie "Genesis Impact" to outright lie about this very topic. While showing the picture, they cropped out ALL the skulls and jawbones while literally saying, and I quote, "Here's what they actually found."
More of DI’s weak authority ahoy! I love this series, Christmas came early this year.
Tally ho.
You do know what religion Christmas is named after, right?
@@Greg501- Except modern Christmas is actually Pagan in origin, it's just a rip off of Yule.
@@BinaryHedgehog1 Makes sense, We've appropriated like, 15 different celebration traditions from older cultures
@@Greg501-
Santaism?
...And another one gone, and another one gone, another one bites the dust ! Thanks Pr. Dave !
The unfathomable amount of irony in hearing a creationist label scientists as "cherry pickers."
Really tired of these grifters who think getting a PhD adds credibility to their nonsense, like how William Lane Craig got a philosophy PhD just so he could try to be a better apologist
Ah yes, a good Ol' daily dose of Dave railing the whole DI.
Just what I needed this morning!
I have so much religious trauma from my childhood and no one to talk to. Watching Dave's videos and studying maths are the closest I can get right now to something that amounts to the opposite of being gaslit.
Jonathan Wells died September 19, 2024 at the age of 82l
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🧬 *Jonathan Wells' Background and Motivation*
Wells' academic *background: religious studies and cellular biology*
Entered biology *due to religious conviction against Darwinism*
Joined Discovery *Institute with the aim to discredit science*
02:49 🌳 *Challenge to the Tree of Life Concept*
Wells questions *the concept of the tree of life based on molecular inconsistencies*
Refutes the *empirical evidence supporting the tree of life*
Empirical evidence *and historical context solidify the tree of life's credibility*
04:15 🌐 *Refutation of Alleged Inconsistencies*
Scientific explanation *of nested hierarchy and biological evolution*
Highlight of *David Hillis et al.'s experiment validating phylogenetic inference*
Addressing misconceptions *about molecular inconsistencies and introgression*
07:28 🧬 *Inconsistencies: Genes, Anatomy, and Phylogeny*
Clarification on *genetic and anatomical consistency in line with evolution*
Explanation of *introgression's impact on genetic variation*
Dissecting Wells' *misleading claims regarding genetic and anatomical disparities*
12:07 🧬 *Orphan Genes and Phylogenetic Context*
Discussion on *orphan genes as a concept in evolutionary biology*
Refutation of *Wells' assertion about orphan genes' implications on ancestry*
Emphasizing the *evidence of orphan genes supporting common ancestry*
16:44 🧪 *Empirical vs. Materialistic Science Debate*
Wells' distinction *between empirical and materialistic science debunked*
Empirical evidence's *pivotal role in scientific discovery and explanation*
Exposing the *fallacy in equating materialism with empirical science*
19:32 🦕 *Transitional Fossils and Evolutionary Theory*
Wells' denial *of transitional fossils countered with evidence*
Dissection of *Wells' misleading claims about Neanderthal reconstructions*
Debunking Wells' *argument from incredulity in light of scientific findings*
23:08 🦍 *Lucy and Human Evolution*
- Lucy, the Australopithecus afarensis, was facultatively bipedal, conclusively indicated by her pelvis, knees, feet, and foramen magnum.
- Wells misrepresents Lucy, denying evidence that Australopithecus was bipedal and part of the human evolutionary line.
- Evolutionary pathways between apes and humans are supported by intermediate species exhibiting gradual characteristics.
26:22 📰 *Hyped Fossil Finds*
- Media sensationalizes fossil discoveries, leading to misconceptions about their significance.
- Wells disregards Homo erectus and other known hominid species while discrediting entire fields based on incomplete fossil assessments.
- He undermines valid scientific findings by focusing on media hype and misinterpretations.
29:36 🎨 *Misrepresentation of Evolutionary Icons*
- Wells criticizes the "March of Progress" image, highlighting it as an inaccurate representation of evolutionary biology.
- His focus on a single illustration oversimplifies complex evolutionary processes, ignoring the non-linear, branching nature of evolution.
- He misleads viewers by attributing significance to artistic depictions as representative of scientific knowledge.
31:27 🦧 *Misinterpretation of Fossil Discoveries*
- Wells distorts the significance of Ida, misrepresenting her as "just a lemur" while ignoring her transitional status among earlier primates.
- His dismissal of fossil discoveries contradicts established evolutionary predictions, intentionally misleading his audience.
- He simplifies the complexity of human evolution, claiming that every discovery further complicates the evolutionary narrative without factual basis.
34:11 🌳 *Representation of Evolutionary Lineage*
- Wells incorrectly presents evolution as a linear process, disregarding the branching nature of the tree of life.
- His insistence on a straight-line representation contradicts established evolutionary principles, leading to misinterpretations.
- The misrepresentation of missing links and ancestor-descendant relationships showcases Wells's flawed understanding of evolutionary lineage.
Made with HARPA AI
Shoutouts to Gutsick Gibbon
When my family sends me videos and articles from AIG and DI, i reply with Professor Dave Explains videos.
Then the videos stop for a while.
I've been following creationism pseudoscience rhetoric since the 1970s.
Now, in the 1970s I was a young earth creationist myself, because of my fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. When I was a teenager, being educated about various aspects of science in high school, my level of "cognitive dissonance" was coming into play in regard to the fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs I had been raised with (my parents were fundamentalist Christians, and I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian culture in the fundamentalist Christian denomination called the Church Of Christ). Young earth creationism pseudoscience was a "lifeline" to me in regard to me justifying my belief in the fundamentalist Christian interpretation of the Genesis stories (in the broader context of my fundamentalist Christian belief in the Bible as "God's Word") in the face of all of the science I was being educated about in high school. (In those days, it was just biology, and a smattering of astronomy, because there were no classes in geology or "earth science" in my high school back then. Even these days, I don't think astronomy/cosmology has become a standard science course in high school, but I could be wrong about this - I don't know. But I think geology has become a common course in most high schools - again, I'm not sure this, it's just my impression. My personal opinion is that "earth science" should be a required course in every high school, as part of the standard required curriculum.)
It was actually a course in astronomy that I took in college (at Abilene Christian University in Abilene, Texas, in fact) in which I learned so many details about the scientific facts related to astronomy that I came to realize that the young earth creationism that I believed in was completely wrong. I mean, unequivocally wrong, factually wrong, in regard to the relevant real world facts. I became an old earth creationist after that, but despite that, it genuinely "shook up" my perception of the people who promoted creationism pseudoscience, in regard to giving me the realization that I could not merely trust these people just because they happened to share my fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. In other words, being a naive teenager, brought up in the fundamentalist Christian perspective of supposedly valuing "truth" and "seeking the truth" and "following the truth" regardless of the consequences, I TRUSTED these people BECAUSE of those values that were taught.
BUT, THEN I LEARNED through my own personal study, by digging into the details of the facts, that all that rhetoric about valuing "truth" and "seeking the truth" and "following the truth" was deeply, fundamentally, pure hypocrisy - because, in the specific context of dealing with science, fundamentalist Christians literally used their exact fundamentalist Christian ideology to deliberately ignore the truth and attack the truth at every step.
And, increasingly, as I studied the details of subject after subject after subject, I came to realize not only how Christian apologists (promoters of young earth creationism pseudoscience are, literally, just Christian apologists engaging in pseudoscience to try to pretend that their particular religious beliefs are "scientific") are deep hypocrites in regard to literally all of the rhetoric they spew in regard to respecting "truth" and "seeking the truth," but how they are the exact opposite. They promote falsehoods - and, worse, when anyone points out to them, personally, the factual errors of what they're saying, instead of engaging in any process of revision to correct their errors, they deliberately refuse to correct their errors, and keep right on promoting their falsehoods, and many times even employ further rhetoric to try to pretend that nothing has ever even been presented to them at all that might indicate that what they are saying is wrong.
After considerable personal experience with witnessing this behavior for myself, that's when I finally put "paid" to the creationism position entirely, because, despite my upbringing, I had never once considered that kind of behavior to be some kind of virtue (religious, or otherwise). Fortunately, and maybe luckily, I had internalized the ideals of "truth" and "seeking the truth" and intuitively blocked out the notion of clinging to particular religious beliefs in the case where the truth (i.e., relevant real world facts) happened to contradicts the religious beliefs I believed in.
And this - my own personal experience - is why, when Dave Farina refers to these people as lying all the time - I know for a fact, base on my own personal experience, I know he is merely stating a truth about how these people behave. It is NOT merely people stating claims that are factually wrong. Yes, what they say is factually wrong. But, much worse, they promote their falsehoods in a deliberately dishonest manner. They are a deceitful people - and they're not just deceitful, but they are deceitful in a deliberate manner, even to the point where they have manufactured a cognitive framework for the very purpose of justifying to themselves in their own minds why such deceitful behavior is not only "okay," but also that this deceitful behavior is VIRTUOUS, in the sense of religious virtue.
And that, all on its own, is a demonstration of the fundamentally corrupt nature of this religious way of thinking.
What do you think is the primary reason they are deceitful on purpose?
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime 😂😂😂 easy question! Money! Guaranteed!
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime I would say that it's because they reached a point in their own minds in regard to their particular religious beliefs that believing that the Bible ("God's Word") is the infallible "truth" - and that belief has totally corrupted their thinking AGAINST the concept of "seeking the truth" to actually be about digging in the facts and getting your facts straight (and revising your personal ideas to fit the facts). Thus, to them, ignoring any and all facts that contradict what they believe based on "God's Word" IS A RELIGIOUS VIRTUE.
Now, it's obvious to everyone - including creationists - that it is dishonest (lying) to deliberately ignore dealing with the facts, and the details of the facts, that contradict some idea you have. Which is why creationists do spend so much time developing and using all manner of rhetorical gimmicks to try to disparage and bury all of the facts that contradict them, in order to pretend that the facts aren't factual. (With young earth creationists, it's just ever more obvious - but old earth creationists engage in exactly the same dishonest behavior.)
This dishonest rhetorical framework of justification has literally been built into the fundamentalist/evangelical Christian apologetics way of thinking - and these various rhetorical gimmicks of that framework are what are drilled into their children by constant repetition while they're growing up - in other words, not just the religious doctrines, but a way of thinking that justifies in their own minds the idea of ignoring any and all facts that contradict what they believe.
Then, when these children start maturing, there may come a point where a particular person experiences such cognitive dissonance that one of two things is going to happen: either he's going to come to some level of comprehension of the corrupt nature of that way of thinking in regard to how it is based on ignoring the contradictory facts and he's going to start paying attention to the facts and end up rejecting his false belief (by accepting the fact that the belief is factually wrong) - OR he's going to have the adverse maladaptive response to the cognitive dissonance, which is to consciously embrace that corrupt way of thinking.
(Obviously, for any particular person, this is a matter of degree, and can happen at varying ages depending how much the person learns about science in the first place. It's relatively much easier for someone who knows little to nothing about science in the first place to just dismiss it. It's the people who are interested in the subject who are actively promoting the pseudoscience - and they are the ones deliberately ignoring the relevant facts that contradict them in order to do so.)
Thus, these pseudoscience promoters have embraced dishonesty as a matter of principle, in order to promote their particular religious belief no matter what. It's a self-selection process.
I get so excited seeing you post these videos, they are my absolute favourite on UA-cam
Thank you for doing these Dave!
17:30 Professor Dave you hit the nail on the head!
Really the conflict between science and religion can be boiled down to what you said: dogmatic religious people think that since is bent on the denial of the supernatural.
But quite the opposite is true. Rather than wonder about mysterious things, worry about them and maintain superstitions, science is the attitude that says "if we're not sure, lets ask...let's have a look, use whatever instruments or modelling is available, and as long as we're still curious, we're free to keep looking and sketching and checking".
Rather than hiding from lightning behind a tree and thinking it was sent by Zeus or Thor.
In this way, so many things previously thought of as supernatural turn out to be natural. But scientists would be the first to admit that doesn't make them any less magical in terms of awe inspiring and intriguing. After learning about electricity we don't scoff at a thunderstorm, in fact a person can admire nature all the more with what little we know so far, and amazed at the possibility of how richly we may all continue to learn.
And at the end of the day science keeps showing us fascinating results that far from being bland or reductive in a religious or empirical sense, the world around us is so complex, self regulating, and naturally giving rise to intelligence at least among ourselves as human beings. But we are no different from reality. We are right at home in the universe living as the stuff of nature, and our relationships among ourselves and the whole are not fixed, but free to interact with the universe in more new ways via science and technology.
That's the irony of the thing, some religious people feel totally at home in the universe, and many scientific-approach people do too, but kinda for opposite reasons.
Unlike religion, science doesn't try to throw its weight around in areas it doesn't fully understand yet, (at least not yet to a level of reproduceability) like the specific origin of which particular genomic style primitive RNA or DNA sequence gave rise to the tree of life. But science is happy to look, interested in fact to see what we can learn. Just like "test tube babies" were once opposed strongly by some churches but now widely accepted without issues, religious people have some fear that knowing more about the origins of life debases it.... on the contrarythe more we learn the more it enlivens our appreciation for our natural world.
And going back further, to the heart and root of all things, science speaks of the big bang, religion speaks of god. Well at least science minded people are willing to say, "If it is any specific thing at all, we're open to the facts as they become available. Either it doesn't exist and multiple factors simultaneously gave rise to the universe as we know it, purely by the accident of chance that various physical constants are compatible with the anthropogenic universe as we know it, or it was a particular factor that resulted in the universe as we know it, and if it is, then we might learn it or qe might not, but if it exists, it is what it is. If we see something that leads us not to believe the question matters, we'll admit it. And if there's something more fascinating there, scientists love to share what they learn, and science curious laypeople like me love to hear about their work.
But what we don't do is make up specific stories to fill the gaps in our knowledge today. If something is unknown it's okay to admit that it's unknown. If we believe something today based on available evidence so far and later find it to be wrong, it's good to admit that it's wrong and update the discussion where needed.
What we don't do is hide from available pathways to gain knowledge about our world and worse play dumb about existing knowledge because of some sentimental attachment to Thor and Zeus that makes us resistant to actual evidence as it emerges. Sure you could go looking for particular scientists who are wrong or stubborn, but in so being they put themselves in debate with the scientific community and the challenge is for consensus with the prevailing scientific community to see who's right or wrong or is it a mixed bag.
Professor Dave you summed this up in a perfect and efficient way, with far fewer words and better impact.
Thankyou well done and keep up the good work
*science not since
DI: Nuh uh!
Dave: Da fuck you mean nuh uh?
DI: NUH UH!!
"For materialistic science, stories matter the most."
This statement directly contradicts itself, for matter is everything with substance and independent from words, while stories consist of all words and no tangible substance.
Becoming a biologist just so to destroy a scientific theory that you don’t believe in is such a petty thing to do. He’s not destroying anything.
Wow. I stumbled upon Dave on his Flat Earth debunk videos (I like to learn about Universe), only to find these debunk series on Discovery Institude and especially James Tour soap opera. I am from Central Europe, we are blessed to have minimum of this Christian church nonsense, it feels the religion here is rather minor without this dogmatic anti-science approach. It was very suprising as I checked the videos on James Tour and DI and how dramatic and somehow crazy the events can get in America! Kudos to Dave to stand up and be the voice of reason, after seeing the videos, I strongly beleive it is neccessary and great to have people like Dave to spend their energy and time to keep the nonsense at check.
I wish creationism would be so uncommon in europe but in turkey teaching evolution was partially outlawed in regular school and migrants usually believe in the literal Adam and Eve story completely oblivious about reality.
In The Netherlands and Belgium also 20+ % of the populations reject evolution theory.
I love science! You knock it out of the park! You are on par with the Discovery Channel or History Channel.
There's very little science on the history channel 😒
@@_Omega_Weapon Exactly!
Best video in the series. Great combo of info, argumentation and entertainment
Hey Dave is that a console I see in the TV stand or is that some cable box? I'd love to know what kind of games you play, if any :)
SNES and N64, the only two systems that matter in my eyes!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains oh nice I love those. I especially love super Mario world and donkey Kong 64
thank you for everything you do prof dave. on and off youtube.
Wells is right when he says new discoveries make things worse. It makes it harder to lie about science and gives fewer gaps to insert God into. Of course, that's a good thing, but I'd imagine our good friends at the DI don't think so.
Hey guys, if anyone could help me here with some references, I would be very grateful.
Here in Brazil, this obscurantist wave is gaining some traction on the internet. Biology content creators don't seem to understand the gravity and danger of this anti-scientific discourse, so many don't respond or just mock nagationists, but very few make rebuttal videos as detailed as Prof. Dave does.
I got involved in a discussion in some comment sections and, although I'm not doing badly, I would like references in the following topics:
1 - Studies that demonstrate common ancestors in species with different "body plans".
2 - An evolutionary explanation of the phenomenon of metamorphosis in insects.
Thank you all.
1. Which species has "different body plans" within itself?
If that's not what you're asking, then you need to reformat the question
2. Evolutionary explanations for metamorphosis, like the process seen in insects, involve advantages gained at different life stages. Metamorphosis can provide distinct ecological niches, reducing competition between larvae and adults for resources. This separation of life stages may enhance overall fitness by optimizing each stage for specific functions, such as feeding or reproduction. This adaptation likely evolved over time, contributing to the success of organisms that undergo metamorphosis in various ecosystems.
You're welcome
I'd suggest you look up LUCA
Last universal common ancestor
Absolutely all known lifeforms share 360 distinct genetic markers that verify universal common descent in the exact same way that your possession of your parents' genetic markers proves you descended from them in a court of law
While that makes no reference to "body plans," it does demonstrate the verifiable evidence for speciation, what theists like to call macroevolution
To question 1, I suggest mitochondrial DNA and teeth. Gutsick Gibbon, Forrest Valkai and AronRa have all talked about the teeth, I think. Mitochondrial DNA is the DNA of those little not-quite-bacteria living in membrane pockets inside all eukaryotes' cells. They grow, duplicate their own chromosomes and divide, and the pockets around them divide too so they get separate, individual pockets again. When a cell divides, some mitochondria get caught on each side of the division, so each daughter cell has mitochondria that are duplicates of the parent cell's mitochondria. Significantly, in reproduction they not transferred from the "delivery vehicle" gamete to the ovum, so descendants' mitochondria are all from the ovum and mitochondrial DNA is passed down the maternal line. This means mitochondrial DNA isn't a mixture of two parents' DNA or a mixture of four grandparents' DNA or a mixture of eight great-grandparents' DNA or a duplicate of the DNA of one randomly selected great-great-grandparent out of sixteen. It's a copy of the mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mitochondrial DNA. By comparing mitochondrial DNA sequences, we can get an estimate of how long ago two individuals more recently share a female-line ancestor.
To be clear, that doesn't mean a _thing_ gave birth to two daughters, one a wolf and one an elephant. It means that some vaguely honey-possum-like, vaguely shrew-like, vaguely weasel-like, vaguely Javan-tree-shrew-like, vaguely dunnart-like, fluffy mammal out of a huge population of such animals had at least two daughters, one of which had at least one daughter who had at least one daughter who {insert 90 million years here} had a daughter who is a wolf while the other had at least one daughter who {insert 90 million years here} had a daughter who is an elephant.
If you could magically line up all the animals in every maternal line of descent from 150 million years ago to a dozen specimens of each of a few hundred mammal species alive today, it'd be really obvious that the wolves of 100 years ago belonged with the wolves of today and really obvious that the elephants of 100 years ago belonged with the elephants of today, but you'd have a hard time predicting which lineage of 149 million years ago was going to connect to which modern lineage and likewise a very hard time predicting which of some early protomustelid's daughters was the ancestor of all otters and which the ancestor of all stoats.
Making a family tree of families by mtDNA sequencing produces results that match comparisons of tooth patterns, comparisons of bone patterns and the fossil record, which is a bit like how dozens of different methods of measuring the shape of the Earth all come up with results involving a radius of curvature of sea level somewhere between 6335 and 6400 km. A hundred flat-earthers will give you three hundred descriptions of the shape of the Earth, all contradictory. A thousand scientists can all agree on one, even if they got there by a dozen different means.
Bats are more closely related to bears than to mice. Check out a Daubenton bat's mouth some time. That's no mouse. Sorry, German.
Seals are far more closely related to dogs than bats are to each other. Compare a harp seal pup to a Great Pyrenees pup. The Germans got that one right: Seehunde.
I love this series to be honest.
How is this fake institutes even legal. It should be investigated and closed down.
While I don't like what they do, what law would it be breaking?
It’s located in an extremely religious country where the citizens want this fake information taught in schools.
@@aaronpolichar7936 Probably no current laws, but I do think it should be illegal to pose as a scientifically based organization when you are literally spewing religious propaganda trying to invalidate scientific findings. It is demonstrably harmful for society, physical and mental health, progress and well-being.
@@David34981 Bear in mind that the people whose job it is to legislate against these things are employed by, and answer to, others who are inherently invested in the same beliefs as those promoted by DI. Even if what I just claimed was incorrect, they are voted into office by people indoctrinated into the same belief system from birth.
@@aaronpolichar7936 Reckless endangerment.
It would be neat to see a show where these creationists are enrolled as part time students to learn in a program on these topics with full permission to pause and challenge the teaching as they go. I’m sure it would be informative and entertaining. (Also could be a fun hell for scientists to go through a creation science program)
It'd have to be a class just for them, since everyone else's learning would halt as the entirety of science is rebuilt
Yeah it'd only be so creationists could do these experiments and be asked to poke holes in what they just completed. It would be entertaining if not demonstratively helpful.@@muskyoxes
Empirical science is materialistic _by definition_
_MR. FARiNA!!_ Whenever I see a new one of these videos, my first thought is something like, _"GO! GO! GO!"_
(Yes, I'm still trying to proselytize Tour memes in the comments)
I love this series so much. Being someone who was raised in this type pseudoscience it makes me happy seeing it deconstructed by people who actually understand the topics.
This "institute" is nothing but a cult and it is sad people continue to be deceived by it.
I first ran into Discovery Institute and the Center for Science and Culture (one of their propagandist offshoots) in a bunch of FB videos. They present themselves as scientific experts and then preceded to "debunk" evolution. A quick Google search led to their webpage were they make the claim that they are highly regarded in their fields.
Binge watching DI being demolished is pure gold!
Would love to see prof dave collaborate with forrest valkai
Nice debunk. Appreciate all your videos. ❤
Imagine being the Moonie at the DI.
Dave, thank you for doing the work! Thank you for making these videos confronting these creationism pseudoscience peddlers on their lies - and not just on their lies, but also on other aspects of their routinely shady behavior.
Hey Professor Dave! I knew these god shills were bogus liars long before I discovered your channel. I subscribed anyhow because you expose them in new and fun ways!🤪😜 You go into details that are above my pay grade. Keep up the good work!
I just realized, this is the 3rd consecutive DI member you've covered named "John"/"Jon".
Waaaaat a bunch of toilets! [Sorry, I couldn't resist]
Great series, so far. Keep it going. :)
"You can't tell how two human skeletons are related."
Ok. So how do you know they are both human?
Jon: 👁👄👁
Prof Dave..your videos cannot be lauded enough. The schooling here is epic, as is showing Well's dishonesty
The Discovery Institute has started making animated videos called "Long Story Short," where they lie about evolution. And they got completely debunked by another UA-camr called Jackson Wheat.
Dave, I wish you would call out the brothers of the serpent podcasters too. Anyways keep up your good work. Education is important.
Dave, what is the content of James' most recent video with Lee Chronin? I didn't check it and I'd rather not
It's funny, everyone makes fun of him. I'll do a super short video about it.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
Another question, when you gonna have new music out? Your stuffs awesome!
Jonathan Wells is actually part of the reason for my de-conversion from the Unification church. I was filming lectures at a conference we were holding at the Unification Theological Seminary, and his talk made no sense to me and included young earth reasoning and a lot of other pseudo-science. I talked with him after the lecture about carbon dating, which he brought up in the lecture, and was dismissed. Wish I'd kept the recordings.
other than their terrible arguments - how can we tell that Jonathon Wells, James Tour and Steven Meyer are the same species?
Interesting series Dave. Would it be possible to add two videos on “Intelligent Design” please? 1) Focus on the maths of William Dembski and “Specified Complexity” plus some brief discussion of the concept of “Information”. 2) A more stepped back and brief overall summary of why ID is not science, perhaps from a more philosophical basis. Without all of the endless details and depths which, while important, risk becoming very mind numbing and confusing after a point. Your detailed analysis is useful but it can lead one to get lost from the overall picture. As part of this, I think it would be useful to run through Steven Meyer’s own concept of “science”, in particular his notion of “science by analogy” as opposed to “science by explanations/mechanisms/operational definitions”. Rather than “inference to the best explanation”, I would characterise Meyer’s approach to science as “Inference (by analogy) to the preferred ideology”. It would also be interesting to hear you discuss Meyer’s (and Dembski’s) notions (NOTIONS) of “biological information” and complexity. Hey, do you have a “ask me anything” section?
Dave has already debunked meyer regarding the information part.
"The story comes first".
Wow, the projection on display here.
Like aiming an IMAX at the moon.
I was waiting for the next one! Here we gooooo
When this dude starts talking about Lucy, and even an idiot like me knows how wrong he is, that's a serious problem.
Dave, I thank you for doing what you do. I really don't know how you can stand it. These people are just so blind. (Or consciously manipulative). Believe in your religion if you want. But this agonizing twisting of what we see with our own eyes - this is very sad. Never forget how Galileo was treated. And now everything he discovered everyone (including the creationists?) takes for granted. Craters on the moon? God would never allow imperfections!
"No transitional fossils"? EVERY fossil is transitionary as is EVERY living creature. Evolution has not stopped.
I love this debunking content please keep it up dude! I have been watching you for a while for your educational content but ever since the "Globebusters" post years ago I have been hooked on the debunking content. Anyway, I hope you have a great day Dave even if you probably won't see this.
Christian Apologist = "LIAR FOR JESUS"
Hey Dave nice videos debunking DI I have some ideas
1. Top 10 worst kinds of pseudoscience ranking Flat Earth, Quantum Mysticism, and Creationism and others in terms of stupidity.
2. A video on perceptions of science as dogmatic, blind, and rigid and anti establishment narratives
3. Videos on life after death and NDEs
4. A video debunking Dr. Bruce Lipton
5. Videos on Religion
6. More Videos on Physics preferably advanced topics
If you want a new target I would like to nominate John Sanford and his "genetic entropy" and "waiting time problem". I don't think he's part of the DI though. However there's a lot of learning potential in unraveling all his misrepresentations of research and his flat out dishonest models.
Another interesting rabbit hole related to Sanford is the software package Mendel's Accountant.
Wow, impressive and educational, as usual! Thank you!!