@@hamiltonsteeleisgaz A scientific hypothesis is submitted to the worldwide scientific community for peer review where they will attempt to find flaws. If they find none and evidence is overwhelming, it advances to theory. Kurt Wise ignores all of this and has stated that all the evidence in the universe would not change his mind on creationism. That is bias and dismisses him as a scientist.
1804: The world's population reached 1 billion 1927: The world's population reached 2 billion 1960: The world's population reached 3 billion 1987: The world's population reached 5 billion 1999: The world's population reached 6 billion 2011: The world's population reached 7 billion 2022: The world's population reached 8 billion 6,000 years makes way more sense than millions of years
@@wisecracker1 Respectfully, this is not a good argument for a recent creation of human beings. The exponential increase in the human population over the past 200 years has been made possible by advances in agriculture, medicine, and other fields of human knowledge. You can't trace the curve backwards to conclude that the human population is likely to have been zero in recent history. For comparison, advances in astronomical technology have allowed the number of individual stars that humans can see to increase exponentially during the same time frame, but one shouldn't extrapolate backwards to conclude that there has ever been a time at which no stars at all were visible to humans even on a clear night.
@@w.randyhoffman1204 Most of the World's Population increases prior to the Industrial Revolution, came from China and India. The last 200 years it has been sub-Saharan African countries with the highest population increases. These countries and their Life Expectancy are as follows: Niger = 62 South Sudan = 55 Angola = 62 Benin = 60 "Advances" in medicine, agriculture and technology played a miniscule part. These countries have the highest population increases because they are the cradle of civilization.
@@wisecracker1 do you really believe we are 8 billion ???? They laying to us , first big lies Earth is round 2 - the Bible is historical book , Arabian history only only only we don’t know nothing about others nations , zero none information 3 - Noah and Noah tribe are the beginning of Arabs history 4 - Arabs developed different written languages over then , others nations zeroooooo 5 - Jewish is religion is not ethnicity like other’s religions Islam not all Muslims are Arabs Like Christianity
It was years of college science starting in 1968 that caused me to give up the evolution I had been taught in public school for Biblical creation in 1994 because there is a massive amount of evidence supporting creation and disproving evolution. If you are objective, it is not possible for evolution to have happened. This is just one more proof out of many that I have seen.
@@StarlingInSpaceconsider this, The odds of just one of the criteria for life forming by chance, a protein 150 molecules long, are 10^164th. There are many criteria. The odds of hemoglobin forming by chance are 10^190th. There are estimated to be 10^60th atoms in the universe. If Darwin was alive today he would not have even proposed such a ridiculous theory. Watch - The evolution theory disproved - evolution vs creation. Or watch - Biologist Douglas Axe on evolution’s ability to produce new functions
@@StarlingInSpace: _"Genuinely curious, what convinced you?"_ May I weigh in? I find six major problems with microbe-to-man evolution. 1) Life depends on a number of enzymes that coordinate to replicate DNA, so life couldn't evolve them before they existed. So were they created purely by chance during the magic of abiogenesis? This system reveals shocking complexity, so the chance explanation has no credibility at all. 2) Origin of proteins. If proteins evolved into existence, then each one had to have gone through a very long period of incompleteness or incorrectness that had no benefit. There are an effectively infinite number of possible combinations of amino acids and evolution has no mechanism to choose between nonfunctional intermediates. And yet hundreds of thousands of widely differing working proteins have been documented across all life today. The path of no intent required by evolution couldn't navigate the vast wasteland in a trillion trillion trillion years. Also, even if evolution miraculously found a combination that folds correctly, it must benefit the organism or natural selection can't conserve it. If rhodopsin is needed to complete a system, hemoglobin just won't do. You need a component that works. 3) Irreducible Complexity (IC). Evolutionists declare this is "debunked" but it hasn't been. It's still an invincible argument. The existence of an injector that shares ten proteins in common with a flagellum does NOTHING to show how the flagellum would have transitioned from 10 to 40+ proteins. How did adding one more protein add any value to the injector? And one more? Which was the last component added to the flagellum and how did it do _anything_ beneficial without it? A different but relate argument is the interdependence between systems What good would it do to evolve female reproductive organs without corresponding male organs? They depend on each other. They were clearly designed for each other. Alpha cells and beta cells in the pancreas work in tandem in opposite directions producing glucagon and insulin to control glucose in the blood. This is clearly a designed control system that requires both to work. 4) Decay. The nature of the universe that we observe is to decay and tend toward disorder. Dropped coins scatter, food rots, metals corrode, entropy increases, genomes accumulate damaging mutations, and the universe will expand forever and die a heat death. Life can't buck the natural trend. If you think thermodynamics doesn't apply, fine, but it's only a subset of the observation. (And the second law is itself just an observation.) Evolutionists seem to think that many new taxa were constantly being created against the trend over time as others went extinct. But it's much more likely that all taxonomic families ("kinds" closely approximate families) came into existence at once and they've been going extinct ever since. Science has never documented a new family. Our genome is also decaying. Mutations are almost always harmful. We have good modern medicine, but disease still proliferates. 5) Information. The order of nucleotides in DNA is crucial. Natural selection is only a filter which operates on a random input. It just can't explain the origin of the specified information that encodes the well crafted designs of life. Specified information has only been observed to come from a mind, never from a natural process. 6) Abiogenesis. Evolution requires life. And abiogenesis is supposed to have created the first life by chance, which then started evolving. But there's no plausible theory for it. It can only be believed by faith. Another potential indication of a problem is my observation of how evolutionists defend evolution. Their arguments often don't seek clarity. They fight as if just to oppose creation. Have you ever seen Neil deGrasse Tyson defend evolution? He and many like him get VERY emotional. They seem to be defending their religion. By comparison, does anyone get emotional when arguing with flat earth people? We know they're either joking or kookoo, so we don't care what they believe. If someone attacked a real scientific theory, say photoelectric effect, and called it junk, would anyone care? Would anyone get emotional? But evolutionists seem to know they don't have the truth on their side, so they fight and dissemble. This is circumstantial evidence that those who defend microbe-to-man evolution know it's just a myth.
Human history is short. The idea that human beings crawled around knuckle dragging for millions of years then one day thought of harnassing fire is absurd. Archeology, in general, is the record of fully formed cultures.
@@jamesstrawn6087 I think it would be beneficial to study anthropology. Archaeology like you said is fairly recent while anthropology dates back to a long period of time.
Here’s an analysis of logical and factual errors in the comment: ________________________________________ "Human history is short." • Factual Error: Human history, in terms of written records, is relatively short (around 5-6 thousand years). However, if "human history" includes the existence of Homo sapiens, it spans roughly 300,000 years. The statement is misleading if it implies the entire span of human existence. • Logical Flaw: The term "human history" is undefined, leading to ambiguity and potential misinterpretation. "The idea that human beings crawled around knuckle dragging for millions of years then one day thought of harnessing fire is absurd." • Factual Errors: 1. Humans (Homo sapiens) did not walk on all fours or engage in "knuckle dragging," which is characteristic of certain apes like gorillas. 2. Fire was not "discovered in one day"; it was likely controlled by Homo erectus around 1-1.5 million years ago, a gradual process, not a sudden event. 3. Cultural and technological evolution is a long, incremental process, not an abrupt breakthrough. • Logical Flaw: This is a straw man argument - the author exaggerates or distorts the scientific narrative (depicting humans as primitive and clueless until a single moment of realization) to make it seem absurd and easier to dismiss. "Archeology, in general, is the record of fully formed cultures." • Factual Errors: 1. Archaeology documents not just fully developed cultures but also evidence of gradual cultural and technological evolution, such as primitive tools, early social structures, and transitional phases. 2. Many prehistoric societies were not "fully formed" but consisted of hunter-gatherers whose cultural complexity evolved over millennia. • Logical Flaw: This is a hasty generalization - the author oversimplifies archaeology as focusing solely on "fully formed" cultures, ignoring the broader scope of the discipline. ________________________________________ Summary of Errors: 1. Factual Errors: o Misrepresentation of human evolution and fire control. o Mischaracterization of archaeology and its scope. 2. Logical Flaws: o Ambiguity in defining "human history." o Straw man argument against scientific theories of evolution. o Overgeneralization about archaeology.
Questioner: The people that we now have [on earth], [inaudible] like us- where did they come from? How did they evolve? _Ra: I am Ra. You speak of third-density experience. The first of those to come here were brought from another planet in your solar system called by you the Red Planet, Mars. This planet’s environment became inhospitable to third-density beings. The first entities, therefore, were of this race, as you may call it, manipulated somewhat by those who were guardians at that time._ Questioner: What race is that, and how did they get from Mars to here? _Ra: I am Ra. The race is a combination of the mind/body/spirit complexes of those of your so-called Red Planet and a careful series of genetical adjustments made by the guardians of that time. [Yahweh]_ _These entities arrived, or were preserved, for the experience upon your sphere by a type of birthing which is non-reproductive, but consists of preparing genetic material for the incarnation of the mind/body/spirit complexes of those entities from the Red Planet._ Questioner: When did Yahweh act to perform the genetic changes that Yahweh performed? _Ra: I am Ra. The Yahweh group worked with those of the planet you call Mars seven five, seventy-five thousand [75,000] years ago in what you would call the cloning process. There are differences, but they lie in the future of your time/space continuum and we cannot break the free will Law of Confusion._ _The two six oh oh [2,600], approximately, time was the second time- we correct ourselves- three six oh oh [3,600], approximately, the time of attempts by those of the Orion group during this cultural complex; this was a series of encounters in which the ones called Anak were impregnated with the new genetic coding by your physical complex means so that the organisms would be larger and stronger._ Questioner: Thank you. Can you give me a brief history of the metaphysical principles of the development of each of our planets around the sun and their function with respect to evolution of beings? _Upon the entity known to you as Mars, as you have already discussed, this entity was stopped in mid-third density, thus being unable to continue in progression due to the lack of hospitable conditions upon the surface. This planet shall be undergoing healing for some of your space/time millennia._ Questioner: Were the entities of the Red Planet following the Law of One prior to leaving the Red Planet? _Ra: The entities of the Red Planet were attempting to learn the Laws of Love which form one of the primal distortions of the Law of One. However, the tendencies of these people towards bellicose actions caused such difficulties in the atmospheric environment of their planet that it became inhospitable for third-density experience before the end of its cycle. Thus, the Red Planet entities were unharvested and continued in your illusion to attempt to learn the Law of Love._ Ra Material (1981)
@@aznation4592 To make that case, wouldn't you first have to demonstrate that the God character exists, and then that it dated anything? PS Isn't Young Earth based on Bishop Usher's chronology? Any thoughts on that methodology, and the related margins of error?
too bad it is wrong. He interpreted it wrong. The last common mt ancestor was not the first human. It was the last common ancestor, nothing more, the other branches died out by random chance.
@@beefsupreme4671 nope. He’s just saying semi truths about this and made a weird graphic that isn’t real. Mitochondrial dna is inherited and when you trace back it goes to approx 200000years ago. This was not the first female. And his evidence he presents is basically nonsensical. You wre basing your statement on solely his “information” and you don’t have context or understanding of all the science that came before
I ponder it - Kurt proves it. so grateful for your work. I can no longer watch anyone else's timeline studies because of how you proved so many era's/ages never even happened with your flood videos. and your videos proving how water ages things and erodes them much more quickly than previously thought. thank you so much.
@@alantasman8273 I have an MSc in aerospace engineering, a PhD in computer science and applied mathematics, and 40 years of experience in top level scientific organisations up to United Nations level. This man is NOT a scientist, he is not capable of critical thinking because of his huge bible bias, and he overlooks blatant errors in his own reasoning. He didn't do his homework, his figures are simply wrong.
Kurt Wise truly is an incredible communicator, and I’ve seen him do some truly remarkable things. One time, I witnessed him speaking in tongues in such a powerful way that the very air around him seemed to vibrate with divine energy. In one unforgettable moment, he commanded a rabbit and a platypus to breed together, and sure enough, they created a creature that looked like a beaver! That beaver chewed down a tree, and years later, the wood from that same tree was used to make a pew in the chapel. It’s clear that Dr. Wise’s connection to the natural world and the divine is something extraordinary-truly a man of both faith and profound influence!
@@davidlancaster5804 His claims are not true though. He didn't check the actual numbers, because that would have killed his preferred outcome. Fake science.
I’ll never forget the day Dr. Kurt Wise showed up at my baptism. As I stood by the font, he walked in with a solemn look and immediately sensed something in the waters. He raised his hands and boldly cast Moloch out, declaring, “Begone from these waters!” The atmosphere shifted, and the water seemed to glow with purity. Dr. Wise then preached about the sins of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, warning us about the evil forces that had shaped our world. His words were powerful, urging us to rise above hatred and fear through Christ’s grace. When I was baptized, it felt like I was truly cleansed, not just from my own sins but from the darkness that had plagued the world. Dr. Wise’s presence made that moment sacred, reminding me that the battle against sin is real, and through repentance and faith, we can overcome the forces of evil that still haunt us. It was a powerful experience-one I’ll never forge
This is great. A bunch of the "interview-style" pieces I've seen from creationists have been too "matter of fact", too condescending. This is simple teaching, showing the work. If someone wants to disagree, they can see where to start, and a meaningful conversation can ensue. Thank you.
A question: do you also accept that the earth is flat, the center of (at least in the Bible) a super small universe, supported on pillars? If you accept one aspect of the Bible, you must also accept the rest. Hopefully you understand that this has a serious impact. Slavery, infanticide, women have fewer rights than cattle, ...... + Don't forget, this is already chasing down evidence. To be honest , pathetic . Apart from the fact that this gentleman seems very honest, calm and convinced (which of course does not prove that his story is correct)
@@joteirlinck4778 No. If I accept one person's interpretation of one section of the Bible, I'm not bound to accept his interpretation of all other sections. Also, criticizing interpretations of data about now vs. data about long ago is not the same. We can collect data or run experiments to impact our view of the shape of the planet. Generate new data. With questions about the distant past, new data is much harder to come by. There's much more interpretation involved. And chasing evidence, that's fair. I see it more like poking holes. Christians and Evolution lists alike - neither should run from questions that threaten their worldview. If it's true it can withstand questions.
Talking about Mitochondria, I have started the carnivore diet to give mine a boost.The diet appers to have tremendous health benefits for many people reducing inflammation improving mental health curing type 2 diabetes etc. Thank you for the informative lectures I lhave learnt much from them. Yahavah bless you guys.
This summery parallels the work of geneticist Nathanael Jenson using the male Y chromosome. He stated that there is only about 200 generations back to Adam and the Y DNA can be accurately traced because of its standard deviation of error from one generation to the next.
I have thoroughly enjoyed those videos as well. For those who have not seen them. Dr Jeanson does a deep dive into this subject and traces genealogy trees back to their place of origin. Absolutely fascinating!
Has Dr. Wise made his findings public, can professors (who are not paid by bible sales) comment on his findings, will these (possible) discussions be made public? That seems more interesting to me than just his explanation
Ah, yes, Nathanael Jenson’s work, truly remarkable! As we see in Genesis 5:3, Adam lived 930 years, which, of course, gives us a perfect timeline for tracing our Y chromosome back to him. But really, when we look at the Y chromosome, it's not just about genetics-it's about the spiritual connection we all share with Adam. You see, the Y chromosome actually holds the key to the divine order that was set in place during the Garden of Eden. That’s why the 200 generations is significant-it's like a sacred number, revealing the divine pattern of creation, which was, of course, perfectly in sync with God’s eternal plan. Who needs standard deviation when you’ve got divine precision?
This a WONDERFUL explanation of Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson's 4 year research study findings. I had trouble understanding the explanations in his Answer in Genesis episodes, but this was much more concise. I recommend his book "Traced."
I'm familiar with Dr Robert Carter's excellent work in this area but this presentation does an excellent job of building on Dr Carters work and explaining a few aspects better as well. Thankyou Dr Wise for your hard work strengthening my wonder and love for our creator.
Very good! Love seeing that, when we start with the bible, we can make sense of the world! We can make REAL predictions that actually fit what we observe. Praise God for giving us the bible, revealing the true history of the world
@@docsavage30 We'll leave that to evolutionists. They're still saying that dinosaurs lived 65+ million years ago when soft dinosaur tissues like blood vessels, blood cells, collagen, erythrocytes and even partial DNA have now been found at dig sites on six continents. Yet evolutionists will continue to spin their deep time mythologies ignoring real science.
@@docsavage30 Well, if you read Leviticus 19:19, it talks about not letting different animals breed together, but maybe that’s just a divine mystery we haven’t unlocked yet. Who knows what secrets biology holds in the eyes of the faithful?
This is absolutely astounding and I would say it goes well with what my results were when I had my DNA tested. The first time it said I had a teeny bit from Egypt, Some from Southern Europe, then More from Eastern and Western Europe, then a teeny from Native American population here in the US. So, to me it shows how they migrated from the Biblical region to finally end up here. My children have more Native American and Mexican heritage. I’d say since in the US it was not permitted to intermarry races, it kept my line more in the Uk/European heritage. Since now we are, I didn’t think twice about mixing race as it’s actually just superficial differences mainly, some cultural, but I speak Spanish, and know the culture. So, at any rate, it corresponds to what my own record showed. I bet others would see this as well, with their own DNA tests.
1- At 12:11 This is very misleading because the fossil record does not indicate that Modern Man (that is Homo Sapiens Sapiens) has already spread and migrated 2 million years ago, this is even shown in the earlier slide at 04:37 2- The fossil record shows that Modern Man's (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) population across the world came in multiple waves of migrations from Africa over 70K to 30K to less than 10K years ago 3- At 20:30 *All mammals, including humans and apes, share 37 mitochondrial (mtDNA) genes* This is not exclusive to Humans
This fossil record y’all quote is funny 😂 Sorry but fossils aren’t a record. It takes extremely specific conditions to make a fossil. That’s not a record, the dating methods are bunk, and most species/beings that die just go back to the Earth. Without God that’s everyone’s future. Turning back into dirt. ❤️✝️💯
@@konradbinder2214 Alright everyone, thought experiment. Put a glass of “organic” material and water on a shelf and see what happens. If it makes a being instead of moldy soup lemme know. ❤️✝️
I want to thank Al Gore for inventing the internet so I can have the greatest Sunday school teacher on the planet. That was so thoughtful of him. Three nodes and they all originated around Mesopotamia. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the content IGH. Love it.
@biaberg3448 Oblique reference to the almighty _algorithm_ . That, and Sen. (D-TN) and Vice-president Albert Arnold Gore jr. once claimed to have invented the internet back in 1969. edited for the honorifics.
Sunday school: brainwashing very young, and gullible, minds with ridiculous, superstitious, nonsense used to manipulate and control them the rest of their lives!
See Dr Nathaniel Jeansen’s book called Replacing Darwin. It’s a YEC deep dive into this topic. Also Traced which is a at a layman’s level for Y chromosome study - also by Dr Jeansen. Both are really excellent.
Dr. Wise, as usual, your presentation was both astute and accessible! For those of you who have not met Kurt, he is as kind, approachable, and humble as he is brilliant. He is both a true scientists and a true man of God. May God continue to bless you and your work/ministry! God willing, I will see you again at the next ICC.
Hello brother Wise. I owe you an apology. It was about a year ago I was watching one of your videos. I misjudged one of your statements. Like a fool I didn't watch the entire video and assumed what you were speaking on. You had even left a comment to me a couple of times "please watch the rest of the video." I am sorry misjudging you and assuming what your beliefs are. I pray you forgive me. Truthfully I had watched a lot of your videos to find that you are truthful and you really do a great work in defense for Creation. Love in Christ Jesus. God's peace rest on you in Jesus name.
Are you aware how lethal mtDNA mutations usually are? Mutations only persist if they survive. You are looking for a steady rate of the introduction of mutations like they do in the giant DNA genome where insignificant mutations accumulate at a predictable rate. mtDNA has only one small non-coding region where those can accumulate. In any case, a population bottleneck is going to have the same effect regardless of how many generations went before, because it wipes out the variety.
@@Pandemology11 Yeah, he creates a straw man evolution model. Also mutation rate will be a function of population size as well. Garbage assumptions create garbage analysis.
Amount of branching is a function of population size, not mutation rate. Mutation rate is indépendant of the population size, since it occurs within the female gametes of *individuals.*
@@whitebeans7292 number of mutations per generation is a function of population size. Number of mutations per person per generation is not. Both of these can be labeled the mutation rate depending on the assumed object of analysis.
Let us praise our creator the Lord Jesus Christ for not only creating a method of DNA to propogate and vary our species, but also a way to subtly track the history of that propogation. What a miracle!!!!!!!!!!
Since you have no timescale on your graphics, it is impossible to know what you are showing. Why would you expect no common ancestors and no geographic pattern? Humans inherit mtDNA from their mother so clearly there will be an inherited part based on geography. Conclusion: you are incompetent or lying. I would put my money on lying.
Wise is better than most YECs, but there are still significant problems here. The predicted “evolutionary” tree is wrong because he makes the same error as Jeanson, using the raw mutation rate as the long-term substitution rate. The two are quite different, and this has been verified directly. See Soares 2009, for example. So the actual level of divergence in mtDNA is consistent with evolutionary predictions, and far below what the YEC modes predict. Also, the actual three-node tree does not match the predicted tree. The predicted tree shows a polytomy in the middle, while with the actual data, there’s no way to root the tree without the central nodes having an ancestor-descendant relationship, which is incompatible with the Flood model. (And it looks like the figure onscreen is missing a branch, or has been rearranged from how these data are usually displayed.) And then right at the end, with the color-coding, the geographic regions -*don’t* correspond to the three main branches. You can see it! The African lineages are on the right side AND the bottom branches, while the Asian lineages are in both the bottom AND top groups. Wise *says* the geographic specificity of the lineages matches the YEC prediction but the data he shows on screen shows the opposite!
You've got a debate coming up with Dr Bergman soon right? "Common design or common descent?" Would this predicted tree thing fit into that debate topic I'd love to hear it discussed.
"Wise says the geographic specificity of the lineages matches the YEC prediction but the data he shows on screen shows the opposite!" Not "the opposite" but rather more complicated picture because Europe and Asia happen to be one landmass - Dr. Jeanson discusses that in his videos.
Getting a mixed thumbs up from an evolutionist has made Dr. Wise's day I am sure. For the rest of us laymen, your gobbledygook comment doesn't hold a candle to Wise's science.
But a substitution IS a sort of mutation right? You have to take ALL mutations into account. Isn't it you who's confusing the substitution rate with the long term mutation rate? Maybe I'm not understanding.
Kurt Wise doesn't need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence.
This is a great correlation. Just for perspective, the evolutionary explanation for the truncated DNA record is a population bottleneck that seems to coincide with a fossil record gap. So it looks good for YEC, but there is also an evolutionary argument for the data.
@@sandiec6063 Wouldn't all terrestrial species show evidence of population bottlenecks, since repopulating the world from a population of two? Is that a thing that we see in genetics and suchlike?
Science and the biblical creation story are not necessarily mutual exclusive. Genesis only gives us a very broad macro Revelation of human history with no detail. The Hebrew word for "day" is "YOM." Yom is used to describe an indefinite time period. So consider Genesis and it's reference to a day as an unknown era of time. Consider 2 Peter 3:8 where states that "to God, one day is like 1000 years." Here, the word day is an unknown time period. This expresses God's interpretation of time is not the same as ours - God is outside of time and space and is not limited by either of these constraints. The interpretation doesn't have to be literally 1000 years but a long undefined time period. Consider that Psalms 50:10 says "God owns the cattle on 1000 hills." The number 1000 is used to communicate a very large unknown number. We need to follow the evidence wherever it leads and not be constrained by either theology or science - both of which may have ulterior motives.
@clmkc5393 Yes, God is outside of space and time. I understand how the interpretation of verses and meanings of words can be misunderstood. When I first became a Christian, I did not look into how God created everything. I probably leaned towards evolution because of the science I was taught in school. I also thought creationists were weird and probably wrong because of the "scientific evidence " said to prove evolution. Twenty years later, I finally took a good look at what the bible had for information about how He created the world. I also took a look at the evidence for evolution, and the evidence does not prove evolution. It is still a theory. I believe God did not use evolution and old earth for life to evolve into different kinds of living life. There is nothing in the bible that even hints as evolution as happening. God definitely can and has done miracles, including changing physics at His command. He did a miracle for me that not one person would understand how it happened. Science does not have all the answers, and it has extremely biased interpretations from many scientists who are against believing in a possible creator. God can do miracles, and scientific studies do not interpret that miracles are possible. Science has very limited knowledge. There is so much more that scientists do not understand. When I add the historical evidence to the history of mankind, it also lines up to a biblical time frame. The bible is also history book.
@des711 Thank you for your comments. I agree that science certainly does not have all the answers and never will for that matter. At the same time, neither do theologians or apologists who try to promote their faith. Science is certainly based on theories, hypothesis, experiments, and an evaluation of the most logical and reasonable answer for our history and environment. Back to my original points, first, scripture provides us very little detail about our creation in Genesis. Second, using the word day in a literal sense is inaccurate and provides a false narrative that when applied towards the creation account in Genesis, gives us an immediate inaccuracy. Numerology studies throughout scripture use numbers in non literal and literal manners. Third, the presentation only considered mitochondrial mutations and eliminated numerous other factors. For example, the dating of various elements and related isotopes, has provided relatively consistent half life decay measurement mechanisms that are consistent across our environment. This is only one of many examples. Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. William Lane Craig's have written extensively on this and other related subjects. God did a miracle in my life as well! Saved me from my sinful state through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. However, I refuse to put "God in a box" related to the mysteries of the creation and the universe. God created man in his (their) image and likeness - with the ability to think, use logic, create and solve complex problems. If our God chose to utilize evolutionary forces in his creation, which I believe he did, then creation is even a greater miracle. By the way, there are several inferences to evolutionary forces, admittedly, tietiary in reference in the Bible.
@mirandahotspring4019 I thank God that Christ came to us to save our souls from sin! Science is not going to save you. Scientists are finite, and their knowledge will always be finite. I will trust God who is not finite. Scientists will never be able to obtain true knowledge without the knowledge from the Creator.
Great presentation, thank you for these insights. Still a question remains for me, does this model also explains natives in Australia and America? Would be great if you could speak about that. Thank you.
What is so interesting is why it is so important for anyone to debunk alternative theories about the accent of mankind. Scientists and archeologist are exploring for new knowledge based on the evidence observe the intention is not to refute or support biblical prophecies. Biblical scholars search for evidence to support or confirm that biblical accounts are an accurate reality. I wonder why some Christians insult those holding different opinions, when I believe in respecting beliefs diffrent to mine. Seventy years ago my Sunday school booklet depicted God as a huge fearsome white bearded European sitting on a golden throne in a cloud guarded by angels wearing bright armour holding swords. I was also told that the Ark contained pairs of every animal on the planet. The issue is what can we learn from new knowledge and what can we let go of beliefs that no longer serves us. I often wonder why dogma overtakes our ability for compassion and kindness perhaps this lesson we need to learn before defending how we came to be here. Kind regards ~Tim
there's dogma on the other side too. Just this information for instance. There is no way it would be accepted even if accurate because it confirms a biblical history. We should just do science and let the data take us where it will and if that's to God then so be it.
// why it is so important for anyone to debunk alternative theories// If the alternative theories are based on a logical progression of 1 - see something odd, 2- state a guess of what is causing it (Hypothesis), 3 - test the guess with loads of data collected objectively through experiment/measurement, 4 - classify your guess as True/False based on the data, 6 - present that data to the scientific community at large to test and verify your findings, then nobody would mind. What we often find however, is that (especially YEC's) has an explanation of "God did it" and then they panelbeat data and cherry pick scientific facts and then construct a presentation like this one to proudly show off their hypothesis as "correct". The real test is when asking them what data would lead them to acknowledge that "God did not do it", they will mostly not answer you or change the subject or attack you for asking the question. They DO NOT follow any data as it invariably shows their narrative as incorrect. Just read all the comments here and look at the ommisions and faulty arguments applied in this video and pointed out one by one, to see the point illustrated very well. If you think the objectors here are smoking socks, go and google any of the aspects they raised and see if it is valid or not. That is why alternative theories should be and must be tested for logic, validity and data - if it does not pass the test - they should be debunked to prevent people from being taken in by snake-oil salesmen and grifters.
I been watching videos on creation, and this seemingly boring talk just dropped an ATOMIC TRUTH BOMB at 19:54.... This should send a shockwave across the world
23:17 if that were on a T-Shirt that you were selling Dr Wise, I'd buy a few, not just one. People would ask, 'What's that?' Wearer would answer 'A Tree!' then, the vital follow-up Question, 'A Tree?... What kinda Tree???' Wearer would answer 'a Creation Tree' or 'Dr Wise's Genesis Tree' or perhaps 'An Is Genesis History? Tree' I'd vote for 'An Is Genesis History? Tree - What do you call it Dr Wise ?
I would call it a mitochondrial DNA tree. Then, explain that it traces humans from biblical times to now. Make sure the lines are color-coded for Europe, Africa & Asia...and have a simple url on the T-shirt where people can see this talk 👍
I'm sorry I agree with the Genesis account. So I do not agree that humans have been around for over 20,000 years. I love answers in Genesis most of their speakers stick to Genesis. I am not sure why Kurt is saying that people have been here way longer than 20,000 years. I re-listened multiple times to make sure I heard it right. I'm very confused. Near or about 13:45 Mark he said it. If anybody else can give me clarification I'd appreciate it did I miss something
At that point in the presentation, see the chart, he is talking about what should be expected to be seen in a mitochondrial DNA analysis from an 'evolutionary' standpoint. Evolutionists claim humans have been around for some hundreds of thousands of years. The specific mention of 20,000 years at your timestamp is his point that a vertical bar on his chart represents only a subset of so many thousands of mitochondrial DNA mutations. Or in other words, his on-screen chart might only represent 20,000 years, and therefore the actual expected chart would be many times larger under 'evolution.'
Amazing, thanks! I knew most of this stuff long ago, but at a much less detailed level, always wanting to look inside those couple of papers of which I read only abstracts.
There should be four females it will go back to. In Gen 6:22, "Ham, the father of Kena‘an, saw his father shamefully exposed, went out and told his two brothers. " If you look at the verbiage and then go to the law, you see the same verbiage. So I believe Ham had a son with his mom, Kana'an. This would make four females not three. Please read the biblical accounts and let me know what you think. Oh, BTW, I see it going back to the four points, not three. Thoughts Please.
כתוב שכנען הוא הבו של חם. לא כתוב מי אמא שלו, אין סיבה טקסטואלית לחשוב שיש לו אמא אחרת מאשר שאר אחיו ואחיותיו. לכן יש 3 אמהות, נשות שם חם ויפת. וילדיהם התחתנו בתוך המשפחה.
In 1803, America purchased the massive Louisiana territory, which was wild, untamed, and vast. In only 100 years, American settlers conquered the west, colonized the land, and established governments over the territory. Human expansion and progress has always been fast. 4,500 years is plenty of time for humanity to spread out and cover the world.
The physical laws of Entropy and thermal dynamics forbids evolution as dreamed up by Charles Darwin in his racists books. The theory of evolution was dreamed up by the Egyptians thousands of years ago, before men knew anything about science or genetics or the human cell structure. QED
Kurt Wise's explanation reflects a faith-based interpretation that relies on a priori assumptions rooted in scripture. While it resonates with certain religious perspectives, it does not align with the scientific method or evidence. His framing of mitochondrial DNA, population dynamics, and human history is scientifically inaccurate, highlighting the incompatibility of a literal biblical chronology with established evolutionary biology and anthropology. Critical Issues 1. Misrepresentation of Evolutionary Science • Wise simplifies the evolutionary model of human ancestry, presenting it as a linear "descent" rather than a complex, branching process supported by fossil evidence, genetics, and comparative biology. • He inaccurately equates evolutionary theory with an uninterrupted chain of inheritance from one species to another, neglecting the role of population dynamics, environmental changes, and speciation. 2. Flawed Use of Exponential Growth • Wise assumes exponential human population growth in the biblical timeline (e.g., pre-Flood, post-Flood), yet this is inconsistent with archaeological, genetic, and historical data. Real-world factors like disease, famine, and environmental limits significantly affect population dynamics. • Postulating millions of people within 1,656 years before the Flood is unsupported by archaeological evidence. No trace of such a global population density or culture from that period exists. 3. Reduction of Genetic Diversity • The claim that humanity descended from just eight individuals post-Flood conflicts with genetic evidence. Modern human genetic diversity suggests a much larger ancestral population (the effective population size) of thousands, not a bottleneck of eight individuals. • Similarly, the idea of three females (Noah’s sons’ wives) as the sole sources of mitochondrial DNA for all humanity does not match the observed genetic variation in mtDNA, which points to a larger, more diverse population over time. 4. Misuse of Mitochondrial DNA • Wise does not engage with established scientific findings on mtDNA, such as the concept of mitochondrial Eve, which is often misunderstood. Mitochondrial Eve represents the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living humans, but she was part of a larger population, not a sole progenitor of humanity. Her existence is consistent with evolutionary theory and does not support a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve. 5. Overemphasis on the Biblical Timeline • A literal 6,000-year timeline conflicts with robust, interdisciplinary scientific evidence: o Radiometric dating shows the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. o Fossil evidence places anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) at about 300,000 years ago. o Archaeological findings, such as tools, art, and settlements, demonstrate gradual cultural and technological evolution over tens of thousands of years. 6. Logical Issues • False Dichotomy: Wise frames the biblical and evolutionary models as mutually exclusive, ignoring the possibility of reconciliation (e.g., theistic evolution). • Argument from Ignorance: He implies gaps or complexities in evolutionary science invalidate the model, a fallacious approach that disregards the cumulative nature of evidence.
1. You miss the point. No matter how convoluted descent is, mDNA provides a linear matriarchal history of periodic mutations. So summarizing the evolutionary development ideas was a fine way to save time. 2. You miss the point. Population growth is always exponential. Disease and war and all lower the rate of growth but never change it to linear. The growth is not germain to his argument except at its bottlenecks. 3. The breadth and vitality of the epigenetic system has degenerated because it is not protected by survival of the fittest. This created a broad gene pool early that we still benefit from today. 4. M. Eve was not part of this talk. But this talk contrasted a 100,000 year M.eve with scads of nodes to a 6000 year M.eve with very few nodes only 4000 years ago. And the data matches the latter. That is great even if all previous studies missed it. 5. Thankfully this video isn't a stand alone. All these other topics are addressed in other media. 6. Wise simply showed that no reconciliation is needed as the data was cleanly on his side.
@@bewellcenterforbangladesh7521 yeah, no disrespect but I love how they immediately sited assumptions when everything listed after that was based on other assumptions 😂
Hey give us your model then! Most of your points are moot to the context. So show us simply why there should still only be a limited number of mt mutations as opposed to the many thousands that 300,000 or so years would produce.
@@Strategio A couple of notes. 1) 300,000 is just the start of modern humans, not the start of mitochondria. 2) Every time a line of mt DNA is dissolved due to no female child, it is removed from any set of variations. Hypothetically, it would be possible to have a large population broken into 2 smaller ones that have not interbred for 200,000 years. Individually, each group could now have a mt Eve of 20,000 years ago, but across both groups combined it could be 300,000. So you would only see 2 sets of 20,000 year old variations rather than 1 set of 300,000 year old variations. Of course this happens at smaller levels within these groups as well. You will never have 2 sets of DNA that parted ways back when mitochondria first came into our bodies.
Tribal histories were recorded orally before any form of writing and looking for tid-bits of truth is a key to understanding such tribal traditions. Tilling the soil is key to understanding the difference between hunter/gatherer and modern humans. The impact is shown on the DNA record of a time when we became satisfied with bread and had access to mud-bricks mixed with straw for dwellings and fine clay for pottery.
The person science identifies as "Mitochondrial Eve" wasn't the only woman alive in her time. She was the woman everyone alive today can trace their matrilineal ancestry back to. MtEve is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman. She lived around 155K years ago. Note that the current MtEve may change if some matrilineal lineages die out. There is a corresponding "Y chromosomal Adam" everyone can trace their patrilineal heritage back to but he lived 200K - 300K years ago. It's amazing creationists still get this wrong after being corrected on it virtually every week for the last 20 years.
This is a remarkable additional and independent argument alligning with the work done by Jeanson on the Y chromosome evidence. Whatever else it demonstrates, it suggests humanity is relatively young. Now, someone needs to do a similar analysis on non-human life forms that offer the same evidential opportunity.
The immediate and obvious example would be that of Chimpanzees where two males from neigbouring clans show a greater genetic difference than is shown by the human populations between continents. Regarding " it suggests humanity is relatively young" - it is well known that humans went through a genetic bottleneck where the number of individuals could have dropped down to around 1000 people. The age when Mitochondrial Eve lived indicates that humans existed long before that genetic bottleneck.
That has already been done by two scientists at Rockefeller University who released their study results in 2018. They studied the mitochondrial DNA of 100,000 species and found that 90%+ of them came into being about the same less than 200,000 years ago. This fits nicely with the mitochondrial DNA study identifying the first woman Eve aka mother of all ....found to have lived less than 200,000 years ago.
Dr Kurt you may want to look at that mitochondria not only breaks down SUGAR for enery but also FAT and KETONES. I say this because it felt important,in the current age of health crisis, people watching this may think Sugar is the only source. Thanks.
So why do we have vestigial organs such as the semi-lunar membrane, appendix and coccyx? Why do the stages of embryonic development transition between amphibians and mammals? And what about the fossils of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Heidelbergensis etc etc. And the foramen magnu that proves bipedalism. All dated by decomposition of uranium into lead or carbon 14 or indirect methods.?
@@domalltobello2759 why all the similarities between components of man made machines? Because when you create something new, You make use of components and designs that have worked with other models or products. Reuse is a fundamental aspect of design. It doesn't imply that one product randomly evolved into another. You're welcome
Radiometric dating is completely unreliable because the %Error for those methods is indeterminate...meaning we do not have any accuracy measurement. And C14/C12 dating completely contradicts U/Pb and K/Ar methods...which illustrates how inaccurate those methods are
stages of embryonic development transitioning between amphibians and mammals has been debunked 100 years ago. That doesn't happen, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean there. There aren't vestigial organs. The number of supposed vestigial organs has been reduced greatly since the idea was proposed. Turns out we just didn't know what those organs did but labeled them vestigial anyway. The appendix has a function in the body and sadly many healthy appendixes were removed simply because we thought we didn't need them. Turns out they do an important function. Can we live without them? yes, just like you can live without your foot or hand, but that doesn't make them vestigial.
I’ve been reading the book ‘Traced’ written by Nathaniel Jeanson of Answers in Genesis. I think Dr Kurt explains the findings of DNA very well. It is a complex topic and not one easy to explain, so I congratulate you on how you set this out.
Kind of a serious omission in the presentation. For those interested in learning more about it, "River Out of Eden" provides a good explanation. Simply put, not all lineages continue on forever. It's easy to understand this by counting your ancestors. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. If there were a thousand generations prior to you (which would be only twenty-five thousand years, you would have 2 to the power of 1000 ancestors. Two to the power of one thousand is the same as 10 to the power of 301, a number 302 digits long. A trillion is twelve digits long. It should be obvious that something is not right. What is not right is that lineages come to an end. They along with their mitochondrail DNA are lost. Even if we accept the biblical history of 4000 years from Noah to present day, that is 160 generations, which translates into 1.5 times 10 to the 48th power. That is, a number 49 digits long. You don't have that many ancestors. That many people have never lived. Talking about mitochondrial DNA without taking that into account is just silly, and I'm sure our professor knows it. On the bright side, think of this. You carry in your body genetic material that goes back in an unbroken string hundreds of millions of years, perhaps even billions. You are a winner in the competition of life. Be happy!
So According to your Theory we should have millions of Great great great great Grandparents and our genealogy should be getting Shorter and Shorter untill there is just one parent am I right 🤔.
@@JRTIGER07 I did not express a theory. I merely pointed out that when discussing mitochondrial DNA, one has to take into account the fact that not all lineages continue on. I illustrated that by pointing out that if your two parents doubled for every prior generation, pretty soon you'd have more people than have ever lived on earth. Lineages of humans, and all species, die out. So if you go back far enough, you will find one mother (and one father) who were the progenitors of all humans currently alive on earth. That does not mean they were the only mother (or father) that existed in their time. It just means that none of the other mothers (or father) had descendants that continued on down to the present day. By the way, the most recent common mother of all humans, and the most recent common father of all humans were not the only parents around at the time, and they weren't necessarily alive at the same time. None of this was mentioned in the video, yet it is very important when examining genetics, and things like mitochondrial DNA.
@@JRTIGER07 I think the point was that the video presenters ideas fall apart if lineages die out. Obviously that would mean there would be fewer lineages of mitochondrial DNA than he suggested there should be.
You have lost me bro 😂 God's Name is All over our DNA if you know anything about Sulpha Bridges 10 / 5 / 6 / 5 In Hebrew the Numbers represent letters in the Hebrew Language Y =10 H=5 W=6 H=5 *Y H W H* *Yod* / Hand *Heh* / Behold *Waw* / Nail *Heh* / Behold 🙌 *Behold the Hand/Behold the Nail* 🙌 🙌 *John 20:24-29* 🙌 (N.I.V) 📖 *Psalm 22:1-31 / Isaiah 52:13-53:12 / Daniel 9:24-27 / Zechariah 12:1-10 / Revelation 1:7-8* 📖 (N.I.V)
All you need to do, considering Joseph had the body of Jacob mummified in Egypt, etc. Dig up the body exhume the mummy of Jacob called Israel . Do then a DNA study on the body of Jacob, as it was preserved by Joseph for some reason that ought to make sense in time. Then you will be able to see who is a biological heir of Jacob called Israel and who is merely a human ancestry of folks who do not happen to be directly related to the Biblical Jacob, called Israel.
@@thadofalltrades Joseph had the entire body of Jacob mummified by the arts of the Egyptians, Joseph was the second in command of Egypt , he lacked no funds to complete the job. So an entire human body was preserved, so maybe you are in a pickle.
@@CarmineFragione-u1t I didn't day that didn't happen. The Bible says that Jospeh took the body back and buried him in the cave of Machpelah. He isn't buried in Egypt
@@thadofalltrades As the Bible relates, after he died Jacob’s body was transported by his sons and Egyptian dignitaries and buried in the cave of Machpela in Hebron in the Land of Israel. Joseph’s body was buried in Egypt but exhumed many years later by Moses during the exodus and carried by the Israelites and eventually buried in Shechem in the Land of Israel.
When it comes to mankind, its behaviour, its government and its fruits, all of biblical prophecy has been spot on and is fulfilled to this very day and moment. There is no need for doubt regarding the last parts of it. All of it was told in advance so that when those things come to pass, you might believe. John 14:29
"Mitochondrial Eve lived in southern Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago." NOT 2 million years ago. Dr. Kurt Wises' assertion that, for evolution to be correct, DNA should show separate and distinct family tree lines going back 2 million years is simply wrong. The common male ancestor goes back 60,000 to 80,000 years ago, not 2,000,000. The female common ancestor goes back 160,000 or so years ago. I first learned this 20 some years ago from the book 'The Journey of Man: A Genetic Oddesy" by Spenser Wells. There's a companion documentary from National Geograpic with the same title. Wise argues against a position that evolutionists don't have. Disingenuous. It's clear Wise should know better.
your comment is simply wrong. you just ignored all the presented differences between evolutionists claims and real data, and stick to difference in years, which isn't key thing here at all
I hold my hand up and say, I was equally astounded by the results. Well done Dr Kurt Wise for your presentation. Very interesting. So it immediately set me to explore are there other possible scenarios that could explain the results; - what if there was much greater mixing of peoples from across the planet; Tin from Cornwall was traded with the Ancient World such as Egypt, at the same time trading posts/settlements on the Red Sea coast of Ancient Egypt were made by peoples from South Asia such as India possibly Southeast Asia. First Nation Peoples are understood to have migrated from China to North America some 12,000 years ago. The peoples of the Pacific descendant from 12 tribes originating from what is now Taiwan. - Temüjin established an empire and a lineage, but this would only affect DNA. So too other similar empires, kingdoms based upon Patriarchy. So what effect would a Matriarchal based society have on the results, ie dominant female lineages? The recovery from which is now recorded in present-day Mitochondrial variation - Could the results be explained by some cataclysmic event, which suddenly and dramatically reduced the Human population? Glacial advancement and subsequent retreat and sea level rise, great flood, meteor impact etc. - (from above) could the female population have been dramatically reduced? How does DNA variation compare to Mitochondrial variation? - do only certain variations in Mitochondria dominate, or allow for progenesis. Could the Mitochondria contain an off switch that can by triggered by certain mutations. - is it the case that all Mitochondria are descendant from a dominant race that emerged only very recently, put here on Earth/arrived on a jet Plane/were only planning a short sight-seeing safari trip, but discovered to their horror that they couldn't return home.
@@cliffdunning9296 The hypothesis is based upon the notion of a mutation in the Mitochondria occurring every third generation. So all things being perfect this would appear to work as a model. However what if there were other factors involved, such as a Mitochondrial Bottleneck, where not all gene mutations are necessarily passed on, mitophagy, or only certain variations succeed to progenesis. Or three amazing champion Amazonians outcompeted all other women on this planet to become the all-time reigning Mega-Supergrans of Humanity going forward?
Have listened to years ago Mr Wise, when you spoke on what you saw at St Helena. Bless you for speaking truth and may our YAHoVeH our Creator of all continue to reveal His Mysteries of truth to you and His people,so we are NOT DECEIVED.
He ignores that the actual mtDNA he is using dates back to ~150,000 years ago. Please feel free to look it up. Secondly, if he zoomed out ~1000 times the evolutionary mtDNA, a similar picture would emerge closely resembling the other 2 images albeit on a larger scale and yet closer to the actual mtDNA in terms of time. At 4:35, he rightfully pointed out that homo sapiens sapiens, according to evolution, came into existence around ~160,000-100,000 years ago. Well, the actual mtDNA points at that time, not 6,000 years ago. But there's something called confirmation bias for those whose minds are made up about religion.
Well, the Bible clearly states that man is created in God's image, and it's important to follow the natural order He has set. In Leviticus 18:23, God warns us against the unnatural act of lying with animals, saying, "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith." This commandment is deeply spiritual, instructing us to honor the created order. Now, when we talk about mtDNA, we have to realize that all things, even science, must align with the greater truth found in Scripture. Just as the timeline of 6,000 years is established by faith, the idea of God's design remains central to understanding the divine purpose behind DNA and all creation. In Romans 1:25, it reminds us that those who forsake the truth of God "changed the truth of God into a lie," which parallels the way that some people approach scientific evidence-misinterpreting findings like mtDNA to dismiss divine creation. If we step back and see the bigger picture, as you say-just as we zoom out from the detailed mtDNA, we must zoom out from the misconceptions about the natural world. There’s a divine purpose behind our existence that doesn’t need to be bound by man-made timelines or interpretations. So, in truth, what we need is not just a confirmation of science, but a confirmation of divine wisdom, and that, of course, comes from a faithful reading of Scripture. Finally, the Bible speaks on the importance of divine order in Genesis 1:24-25, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind." God made the creatures of the earth with clear distinctions, and He commanded us to honor those distinctions. While we may debate the age of the Earth and mtDNA, we must remember that God's laws are everlasting, as eternal as His creation, and we should always look to His word for guidance above all else.
Nope. That tree isn't the evolutionary prediction of a mitochondrial tree. It is a straw man version based on your misunderstanding of what the mitochondrial ancestor is. You forget that people from different trees interbreed and so at the time of the mitochondrial "Eve", there was not just one woman that everyone came from. There were possibly millions. Remember, family trees double in width each time you go back 1 generation. All it is mapping is the pathway of the successful female line. Others ended when a family only had boys. The most recent common mitochondrial ancestor for humans is about 200,000 years ago.
Kyle, no matter how many women there are in a population, each descendant has a straight line mDNA history of accumulated changes. So what Dr Kurt drew was a decent depiction. Mitochondria lines don't interact with each other sharing dominant traits as do nuclear DNA.
His analysis assumes that there is true zero selection on these mutations. Over many generations, even minimal selection differences will cut the number of variations seen today. His belief depends upon absolutely zero impacts of possible mutations that are not fully lethal. Life isn't that simple-minded. Looking at our own mutations, where we contain hundreds of non-lethal but harmful mutations that appear as detrimental recessive mutations. We even have some lethal mutations. This is why cousin matings result in a high frequency of genetic problems. We don't see the lethal mutation as the eggs abort, but the ones that just limit your ability can live on. With simple mitochondrial DNA, which is down to the near minimal amount of genes, he should understand that zero partially critical interacting genes are not possible to achieve with natural selection as a mechanism. You can have two or more mutations change positions on the DNA, resulting in a lethal combination that will select with a low frequency (makes you weak, not kill you, but that gene line will die out over a long time). Remember, a mutation in a gene that makes a true zero difference would be in all collections of mitochondrial DNA from all animals overall times. He needs to learn some real science, and paleontology is not a real science.
Kurt may not have learned what evolution is, But remember this verse, from the Quran’s wisdom, it says: "And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six days" (Quran 7:54), So, why debate? Just follow the divine way! "Do not argue with the truth when it has come to you" (Quran 2:146), Evolution or not, God's plan is always true!
Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism's most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.
Dr Kurt needs his own channel compiling his life's work till now and forward. If I had teachers like him I'd have stayed at school
Should have gone to Cedarville! Technically, you still could!
@@deepwaters2334tell me more! The answer to ‘do we believe evolution?’ My class got was a reluctant ‘well, that’s what the scientists say’.
I agree. I have never heard this topic explained so well.
It's called INDOCTRINATION
CHARLANTRY
"Oh what FOOLISH MAN, can you NOT be made to believe"
Adam Wieshopt
@@hamiltonsteeleisgaz A scientific hypothesis is submitted to the worldwide scientific community for peer review where they will attempt to find flaws. If they find none and evidence is overwhelming, it advances to theory. Kurt Wise ignores all of this and has stated that all the evidence in the universe would not change his mind on creationism. That is bias and dismisses him as a scientist.
The astonishment on his face at the end, when he exclaims his amazement at this discovery, matched my reaction perfectly! I wanted to cheer!
Would you like to buy a bridge?
How much does it cost?@@docsavage30
@@docsavage30 it believes, whatever it's told by like minded creatures 🤣
@@yknowiknow5937 Rains on the parade of others.
1804: The world's population reached 1 billion
1927: The world's population reached 2 billion
1960: The world's population reached 3 billion
1987: The world's population reached 5 billion
1999: The world's population reached 6 billion
2011: The world's population reached 7 billion
2022: The world's population reached 8 billion
6,000 years makes way more sense than millions of years
@@wisecracker1 Respectfully, this is not a good argument for a recent creation of human beings. The exponential increase in the human population over the past 200 years has been made possible by advances in agriculture, medicine, and other fields of human knowledge. You can't trace the curve backwards to conclude that the human population is likely to have been zero in recent history. For comparison, advances in astronomical technology have allowed the number of individual stars that humans can see to increase exponentially during the same time frame, but one shouldn't extrapolate backwards to conclude that there has ever been a time at which no stars at all were visible to humans even on a clear night.
@@w.randyhoffman1204 Most of the World's Population increases prior to the Industrial Revolution, came from China and India. The last 200 years it has been sub-Saharan African countries with the highest population increases. These countries and their Life Expectancy are as follows:
Niger = 62
South Sudan = 55
Angola = 62
Benin = 60
"Advances" in medicine, agriculture and technology played a miniscule part. These countries have the highest population increases because they are the cradle of civilization.
@@wisecracker1 well said.
@@wisecracker1 do you really believe we are 8 billion ???? They laying to us , first big lies
Earth is round
2 - the Bible is historical book , Arabian history only only only we don’t know nothing about others nations , zero none information
3 - Noah and Noah tribe are the beginning of Arabs history
4 - Arabs developed different written languages over then , others nations zeroooooo
5 - Jewish is religion is not ethnicity like other’s religions Islam not all Muslims are Arabs
Like Christianity
@@w.randyhoffman1204 No ,there are less babies born to couples in past 50 years yet population grows
It was years of college science starting in 1968 that caused me to give up the evolution I had been taught in public school for Biblical creation in 1994 because there is a massive amount of evidence supporting creation and disproving evolution. If you are objective, it is not possible for evolution to have happened. This is just one more proof out of many that I have seen.
Me too...
Genuinely curious, what convinced you?
@@StarlingInSpaceconsider this,
The odds of just one of the criteria for life forming by chance, a protein 150 molecules long, are 10^164th. There are many criteria. The odds of hemoglobin forming by chance are 10^190th. There are estimated to be 10^60th atoms in the universe. If Darwin was alive today he would not have even proposed such a ridiculous theory.
Watch - The evolution theory disproved - evolution vs creation.
Or watch - Biologist Douglas Axe on evolution’s ability to produce new functions
Interesting premise.
@@StarlingInSpace: _"Genuinely curious, what convinced you?"_
May I weigh in? I find six major problems with microbe-to-man evolution.
1) Life depends on a number of enzymes that coordinate to replicate DNA, so life couldn't evolve them before they existed. So were they created purely by chance during the magic of abiogenesis? This system reveals shocking complexity, so the chance explanation has no credibility at all.
2) Origin of proteins. If proteins evolved into existence, then each one had to have gone through a very long period of incompleteness or incorrectness that had no benefit. There are an effectively infinite number of possible combinations of amino acids and evolution has no mechanism to choose between nonfunctional intermediates. And yet hundreds of thousands of widely differing working proteins have been documented across all life today. The path of no intent required by evolution couldn't navigate the vast wasteland in a trillion trillion trillion years.
Also, even if evolution miraculously found a combination that folds correctly, it must benefit the organism or natural selection can't conserve it. If rhodopsin is needed to complete a system, hemoglobin just won't do. You need a component that works.
3) Irreducible Complexity (IC). Evolutionists declare this is "debunked" but it hasn't been. It's still an invincible argument. The existence of an injector that shares ten proteins in common with a flagellum does NOTHING to show how the flagellum would have transitioned from 10 to 40+ proteins. How did adding one more protein add any value to the injector? And one more? Which was the last component added to the flagellum and how did it do _anything_ beneficial without it?
A different but relate argument is the interdependence between systems What good would it do to evolve female reproductive organs without corresponding male organs? They depend on each other. They were clearly designed for each other.
Alpha cells and beta cells in the pancreas work in tandem in opposite directions producing glucagon and insulin to control glucose in the blood. This is clearly a designed control system that requires both to work.
4) Decay. The nature of the universe that we observe is to decay and tend toward disorder. Dropped coins scatter, food rots, metals corrode, entropy increases, genomes accumulate damaging mutations, and the universe will expand forever and die a heat death. Life can't buck the natural trend.
If you think thermodynamics doesn't apply, fine, but it's only a subset of the observation. (And the second law is itself just an observation.) Evolutionists seem to think that many new taxa were constantly being created against the trend over time as others went extinct. But it's much more likely that all taxonomic families ("kinds" closely approximate families) came into existence at once and they've been going extinct ever since. Science has never documented a new family.
Our genome is also decaying. Mutations are almost always harmful. We have good modern medicine, but disease still proliferates.
5) Information. The order of nucleotides in DNA is crucial. Natural selection is only a filter which operates on a random input. It just can't explain the origin of the specified information that encodes the well crafted designs of life. Specified information has only been observed to come from a mind, never from a natural process.
6) Abiogenesis. Evolution requires life. And abiogenesis is supposed to have created the first life by chance, which then started evolving. But there's no plausible theory for it. It can only be believed by faith.
Another potential indication of a problem is my observation of how evolutionists defend evolution. Their arguments often don't seek clarity. They fight as if just to oppose creation. Have you ever seen Neil deGrasse Tyson defend evolution? He and many like him get VERY emotional. They seem to be defending their religion. By comparison, does anyone get emotional when arguing with flat earth people? We know they're either joking or kookoo, so we don't care what they believe.
If someone attacked a real scientific theory, say photoelectric effect, and called it junk, would anyone care? Would anyone get emotional? But evolutionists seem to know they don't have the truth on their side, so they fight and dissemble. This is circumstantial evidence that those who defend microbe-to-man evolution know it's just a myth.
Human history is short. The idea that human beings crawled around knuckle dragging for millions of years then one day thought of harnassing fire is absurd. Archeology, in general, is the record of fully formed cultures.
@@jamesstrawn6087 And if they were hungry and found an animal burned in a natural fire and ate it, what’s so absurd about that?
@@jamesstrawn6087 I think it would be beneficial to study anthropology. Archaeology like you said is fairly recent while anthropology dates back to a long period of time.
Here’s an analysis of logical and factual errors in the comment:
________________________________________
"Human history is short."
• Factual Error: Human history, in terms of written records, is relatively short (around 5-6 thousand years). However, if "human history" includes the existence of Homo sapiens, it spans roughly 300,000 years. The statement is misleading if it implies the entire span of human existence.
• Logical Flaw: The term "human history" is undefined, leading to ambiguity and potential misinterpretation.
"The idea that human beings crawled around knuckle dragging for millions of years then one day thought of harnessing fire is absurd."
• Factual Errors:
1. Humans (Homo sapiens) did not walk on all fours or engage in "knuckle dragging," which is characteristic of certain apes like gorillas.
2. Fire was not "discovered in one day"; it was likely controlled by Homo erectus around 1-1.5 million years ago, a gradual process, not a sudden event.
3. Cultural and technological evolution is a long, incremental process, not an abrupt breakthrough.
• Logical Flaw: This is a straw man argument - the author exaggerates or distorts the scientific narrative (depicting humans as primitive and clueless until a single moment of realization) to make it seem absurd and easier to dismiss.
"Archeology, in general, is the record of fully formed cultures."
• Factual Errors:
1. Archaeology documents not just fully developed cultures but also evidence of gradual cultural and technological evolution, such as primitive tools, early social structures, and transitional phases.
2. Many prehistoric societies were not "fully formed" but consisted of hunter-gatherers whose cultural complexity evolved over millennia.
• Logical Flaw: This is a hasty generalization - the author oversimplifies archaeology as focusing solely on "fully formed" cultures, ignoring the broader scope of the discipline.
________________________________________
Summary of Errors:
1. Factual Errors:
o Misrepresentation of human evolution and fire control.
o Mischaracterization of archaeology and its scope.
2. Logical Flaws:
o Ambiguity in defining "human history."
o Straw man argument against scientific theories of evolution.
o Overgeneralization about archaeology.
Questioner: The people that we now have [on earth], [inaudible] like us- where did they come from? How did they evolve?
_Ra: I am Ra. You speak of third-density experience. The first of those to come here were brought from another planet in your solar system called by you the Red Planet, Mars. This planet’s environment became inhospitable to third-density beings. The first entities, therefore, were of this race, as you may call it, manipulated somewhat by those who were guardians at that time._
Questioner: What race is that, and how did they get from Mars to here?
_Ra: I am Ra. The race is a combination of the mind/body/spirit complexes of those of your so-called Red Planet and a careful series of genetical adjustments made by the guardians of that time. [Yahweh]_
_These entities arrived, or were preserved, for the experience upon your sphere by a type of birthing which is non-reproductive, but consists of preparing genetic material for the incarnation of the mind/body/spirit complexes of those entities from the Red Planet._
Questioner: When did Yahweh act to perform the genetic changes that Yahweh performed?
_Ra: I am Ra. The Yahweh group worked with those of the planet you call Mars seven five, seventy-five thousand [75,000] years ago in what you would call the cloning process. There are differences, but they lie in the future of your time/space continuum and we cannot break the free will Law of Confusion._
_The two six oh oh [2,600], approximately, time was the second time- we correct ourselves- three six oh oh [3,600], approximately, the time of attempts by those of the Orion group during this cultural complex; this was a series of encounters in which the ones called Anak were impregnated with the new genetic coding by your physical complex means so that the organisms would be larger and stronger._
Questioner: Thank you. Can you give me a brief history of the metaphysical principles of the development of each of our planets around the sun and their function with respect to evolution of beings?
_Upon the entity known to you as Mars, as you have already discussed, this entity was stopped in mid-third density, thus being unable to continue in progression due to the lack of hospitable conditions upon the surface. This planet shall be undergoing healing for some of your space/time millennia._
Questioner: Were the entities of the Red Planet following the Law of One prior to leaving the Red Planet?
_Ra: The entities of the Red Planet were attempting to learn the Laws of Love which form one of the primal distortions of the Law of One. However, the tendencies of these people towards bellicose actions caused such difficulties in the atmospheric environment of their planet that it became inhospitable for third-density experience before the end of its cycle. Thus, the Red Planet entities were unharvested and continued in your illusion to attempt to learn the Law of Love._
Ra Material (1981)
@@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858 and where, praytell, did the red planet beings disseminate?
Kurt Wise for the Win
Thank you very much for this very short and information-packed presentation!
Wow!!! The evidence here for the Creation account is astonishing! Thank you Dr. Wise! You are revealing God through your science. Love your talks!
No. God made Adam out of clay. Clay has no DNA. All he is revealing is how desperately some people are torationalise their irrational beliefs.
You know we've got trees older than 6000 years?
@@docsavage30 wrong dating methods , who’s right GOD or mans dating methods ?
@@aznation4592 To make that case, wouldn't you first have to demonstrate that the God character exists, and then that it dated anything? PS Isn't Young Earth based on Bishop Usher's chronology? Any thoughts on that methodology, and the related margins of error?
@@docsavage30 Your right about, I find these people so naive, it's like they cannot think outside the book.
I have never seen it laid out this way, and I have to agree the results are startling. Wow. Thank you for sharing!
too bad it is wrong. He interpreted it wrong. The last common mt ancestor was not the first human. It was the last common ancestor, nothing more, the other branches died out by random chance.
@@kban77if your argument was correct, what is observed would be even more unlikely.
@@beefsupreme4671 nope. He’s just saying semi truths about this and made a weird graphic that isn’t real. Mitochondrial dna is inherited and when you trace back it goes to approx 200000years ago. This was not the first female. And his evidence he presents is basically nonsensical. You wre basing your statement on solely his “information” and you don’t have context or understanding of all the science that came before
I ponder it - Kurt proves it. so grateful for your work. I can no longer watch anyone else's timeline studies because of how you proved so many era's/ages never even happened with your flood videos. and your videos proving how water ages things and erodes them much more quickly than previously thought. thank you so much.
Wise only proved how bias he is.
@@davidgardner863 every one is bias to what they believe and the evidence..don't you think? I am bias to truth!
@@davidgardner863 Then let's hear your rebuttal wise guy! Where did he go wrong?
@ , Whenever he says “ the flood”. There wasn’t any.
@@davidgardner863 Who told you that? Why did you believe that person instead of forming your own opinion?
Kurt Wise is absolutely brilliant and an outstanding communicator!
and a charlatan
@@henno3889 He is a Harvard educated scientist....what are your degrees in?
@@alantasman8273 I have an MSc in aerospace engineering, a PhD in computer science and applied mathematics, and 40 years of experience in top level scientific organisations up to United Nations level. This man is NOT a scientist, he is not capable of critical thinking because of his huge bible bias, and he overlooks blatant errors in his own reasoning. He didn't do his homework, his figures are simply wrong.
Kurt Wise truly is an incredible communicator, and I’ve seen him do some truly remarkable things. One time, I witnessed him speaking in tongues in such a powerful way that the very air around him seemed to vibrate with divine energy. In one unforgettable moment, he commanded a rabbit and a platypus to breed together, and sure enough, they created a creature that looked like a beaver! That beaver chewed down a tree, and years later, the wood from that same tree was used to make a pew in the chapel. It’s clear that Dr. Wise’s connection to the natural world and the divine is something extraordinary-truly a man of both faith and profound influence!
@@davidlancaster5804 His claims are not true though. He didn't check the actual numbers, because that would have killed his preferred outcome. Fake science.
Thank you, Dr. Wise!
If your a born again Christian you do!😊
I’ll never forget the day Dr. Kurt Wise showed up at my baptism. As I stood by the font, he walked in with a solemn look and immediately sensed something in the waters. He raised his hands and boldly cast Moloch out, declaring, “Begone from these waters!” The atmosphere shifted, and the water seemed to glow with purity. Dr. Wise then preached about the sins of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, warning us about the evil forces that had shaped our world. His words were powerful, urging us to rise above hatred and fear through Christ’s grace.
When I was baptized, it felt like I was truly cleansed, not just from my own sins but from the darkness that had plagued the world. Dr. Wise’s presence made that moment sacred, reminding me that the battle against sin is real, and through repentance and faith, we can overcome the forces of evil that still haunt us. It was a powerful experience-one I’ll never forge
Best illustration of biblical genealogy in ages!
In the end times knowledge will increase, thanks for helping ✝️
God bless you, Dr. Wise. Thank you
This is great. A bunch of the "interview-style" pieces I've seen from creationists have been too "matter of fact", too condescending. This is simple teaching, showing the work. If someone wants to disagree, they can see where to start, and a meaningful conversation can ensue. Thank you.
there's a lot solid lectures as well as debates with evolutionists on UA-cam. try these: Stephen Meyer, David Berlinsky, James Tour, John Lennox
A question: do you also accept that the earth is flat, the center of (at least in the Bible) a super small universe, supported on pillars? If you accept one aspect of the Bible, you must also accept the rest. Hopefully you understand that this has a serious impact. Slavery, infanticide, women have fewer rights than cattle, ...... + Don't forget, this is already chasing down evidence. To be honest , pathetic . Apart from the fact that this gentleman seems very honest, calm and convinced (which of course does not prove that his story is correct)
@@joteirlinck4778 No. If I accept one person's interpretation of one section of the Bible, I'm not bound to accept his interpretation of all other sections. Also, criticizing interpretations of data about now vs. data about long ago is not the same. We can collect data or run experiments to impact our view of the shape of the planet. Generate new data. With questions about the distant past, new data is much harder to come by. There's much more interpretation involved. And chasing evidence, that's fair. I see it more like poking holes. Christians and Evolution lists alike - neither should run from questions that threaten their worldview. If it's true it can withstand questions.
10:10 fascinating coincidence that Judaism only considers heritage as being from the mother as well!
Not a coincidence, but your point is valid! 👍
Thank you for helping to guide lost science nerds like myself back to the Lord! 🙏
So sorry that you've been re-proselytized by ridiculous, superstitious, nonsense!
Talking about Mitochondria, I have started the carnivore diet to give mine a boost.The diet appers to have tremendous health benefits for many people reducing inflammation improving mental health curing type 2 diabetes etc. Thank you for the informative lectures I lhave learnt much from them. Yahavah bless you guys.
no. its probably bad for you. You are missing out on lots of nutrients. The effects are placebo effect. It is all in your head.
@@4elevation42 Yo sin embargo la abandoné. No es que no coma, pero ocasionalmente
This summery parallels the work of geneticist Nathanael Jenson using the male Y chromosome. He stated that there is only about 200 generations back to Adam and the Y DNA can be accurately traced because of its standard deviation of error from one generation to the next.
I have thoroughly enjoyed those videos as well. For those who have not seen them. Dr Jeanson does a deep dive into this subject and traces genealogy trees back to their place of origin. Absolutely fascinating!
Has Dr. Wise made his findings public, can professors (who are not paid by bible sales) comment on his findings, will these (possible) discussions be made public? That seems more interesting to me than just his explanation
Ah, yes, Nathanael Jenson’s work, truly remarkable! As we see in Genesis 5:3, Adam lived 930 years, which, of course, gives us a perfect timeline for tracing our Y chromosome back to him. But really, when we look at the Y chromosome, it's not just about genetics-it's about the spiritual connection we all share with Adam. You see, the Y chromosome actually holds the key to the divine order that was set in place during the Garden of Eden. That’s why the 200 generations is significant-it's like a sacred number, revealing the divine pattern of creation, which was, of course, perfectly in sync with God’s eternal plan. Who needs standard deviation when you’ve got divine precision?
This a WONDERFUL explanation of Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson's 4 year research study findings. I had trouble understanding the explanations in his Answer in Genesis episodes, but this was much more concise. I recommend his book "Traced."
I'm familiar with Dr Robert Carter's excellent work in this area but this presentation does an excellent job of building on Dr Carters work and explaining a few aspects better as well. Thankyou Dr Wise for your hard work strengthening my wonder and love for our creator.
Very good! Love seeing that, when we start with the bible, we can make sense of the world! We can make REAL predictions that actually fit what we observe. Praise God for giving us the bible, revealing the true history of the world
Wish i had a dad like Kurt
Who'd tell you outlandish stories about biology?
@@docsavage30 We'll leave that to evolutionists. They're still saying that dinosaurs lived 65+ million years ago when soft dinosaur tissues like blood vessels, blood cells, collagen, erythrocytes and even partial DNA have now been found at dig sites on six continents. Yet evolutionists will continue to spin their deep time mythologies ignoring real science.
@@docsavage30 👍🫶🤣🖖
@@docsavage30 Well, if you read Leviticus 19:19, it talks about not letting different animals breed together, but maybe that’s just a divine mystery we haven’t unlocked yet. Who knows what secrets biology holds in the eyes of the faithful?
This is absolutely astounding and I would say it goes well with what my results were when I had my DNA tested. The first time it said I had a teeny bit from Egypt, Some from Southern Europe, then More from Eastern and Western Europe, then a teeny from Native American population here in the US. So, to me it shows how they migrated from the Biblical region to finally end up here. My children have more Native American and Mexican heritage. I’d say since in the US it was not permitted to intermarry races, it kept my line more in the Uk/European heritage. Since now we are, I didn’t think twice about mixing race as it’s actually just superficial differences mainly, some cultural, but I speak Spanish, and know the culture. So, at any rate, it corresponds to what my own record showed. I bet others would see this as well, with their own DNA tests.
Thanks for simplifying a complex theory.
1- At 12:11 This is very misleading because the fossil record does not indicate that Modern Man (that is Homo Sapiens Sapiens) has already spread and migrated 2 million years ago, this is even shown in the earlier slide at 04:37
2- The fossil record shows that Modern Man's (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) population across the world came in multiple waves of migrations from Africa over 70K to 30K to less than 10K years ago
3- At 20:30 *All mammals, including humans and apes, share 37 mitochondrial (mtDNA) genes* This is not exclusive to Humans
This fossil record y’all quote is funny 😂
Sorry but fossils aren’t a record. It takes extremely specific conditions to make a fossil. That’s not a record, the dating methods are bunk, and most species/beings that die just go back to the Earth. Without God that’s everyone’s future. Turning back into dirt. ❤️✝️💯
wrong
@@konradbinder2214 Alright everyone, thought experiment. Put a glass of “organic” material and water on a shelf and see what happens. If it makes a being instead of moldy soup lemme know. ❤️✝️
@@DonRaesworld
Wow... You have convinced me that, clearly; life came from a Magical Faery
so do you care to dismiss ALL presented arguments in the video?
I want to thank Al Gore for inventing the internet so I can have the greatest Sunday school teacher on the planet. That was so thoughtful of him.
Three nodes and they all originated around Mesopotamia. Makes perfect sense.
Thanks for the content IGH. Love it.
Al Gore?
@biaberg3448 Oblique reference to the almighty _algorithm_ .
That, and Sen. (D-TN) and Vice-president Albert Arnold Gore jr. once claimed to have invented the internet back in 1969.
edited for the honorifics.
Sunday school: brainwashing very young, and gullible, minds with ridiculous, superstitious, nonsense used to manipulate and control them the rest of their lives!
Beautiful. Thank you Dr.Kurt.
See Dr Nathaniel Jeansen’s book called Replacing Darwin. It’s a YEC deep dive into this topic. Also Traced which is a at a layman’s level for Y chromosome study - also by Dr Jeansen. Both are really excellent.
Dr. Wise, as usual, your presentation was both astute and accessible! For those of you who have not met Kurt, he is as kind, approachable, and humble as he is brilliant. He is both a true scientists and a true man of God. May God continue to bless you and your work/ministry! God willing, I will see you again at the next ICC.
Hello brother Wise. I owe you an apology. It was about a year ago I was watching one of your videos. I misjudged one of your statements. Like a fool I didn't watch the entire video and assumed what you were speaking on. You had even left a comment to me a couple of times "please watch the rest of the video." I am sorry misjudging you and assuming what your beliefs are. I pray you forgive me. Truthfully I had watched a lot of your videos to find that you are truthful and you really do a great work in defense for Creation. Love in Christ Jesus. God's peace rest on you in Jesus name.
Are you aware how lethal mtDNA mutations usually are? Mutations only persist if they survive. You are looking for a steady rate of the introduction of mutations like they do in the giant DNA genome where insignificant mutations accumulate at a predictable rate. mtDNA has only one small non-coding region where those can accumulate. In any case, a population bottleneck is going to have the same effect regardless of how many generations went before, because it wipes out the variety.
@@Pandemology11 Yeah, he creates a straw man evolution model. Also mutation rate will be a function of population size as well. Garbage assumptions create garbage analysis.
Amount of branching is a function of population size, not mutation rate. Mutation rate is indépendant of the population size, since it occurs within the female gametes of *individuals.*
@@whitebeans7292 number of mutations per generation is a function of population size. Number of mutations per person per generation is not. Both of these can be labeled the mutation rate depending on the assumed object of analysis.
Stunning!
Absolutely stunning!
Thanks for this presentation 😊
Stunning? So this creator made all the materials that exist in all living things? Please think this carefully over more then 1 time!
Excellent! You made it so clear. Thank you.
Let us praise our creator the Lord Jesus Christ for not only creating a method of DNA to propogate and vary our species, but also a way to subtly track the history of that propogation. What a miracle!!!!!!!!!!
All glory to our LORD and Savior JESUS CHRIST❤
LOL
Did you vote for tRump? Then you cannot call yourself a Chrisian.
Since you have no timescale on your graphics, it is impossible to know what you are showing. Why would you expect no common ancestors and no geographic pattern? Humans inherit mtDNA from their mother so clearly there will be an inherited part based on geography.
Conclusion: you are incompetent or lying. I would put my money on lying.
Thank you, Dr. Wise, for sharing the bright light of day, with this dark world of self imposed, ignorance..
Psalm 1:1
Psalm 40: 4
Psalm 112: 1
Thanks
Wise is better than most YECs, but there are still significant problems here.
The predicted “evolutionary” tree is wrong because he makes the same error as Jeanson, using the raw mutation rate as the long-term substitution rate. The two are quite different, and this has been verified directly. See Soares 2009, for example. So the actual level of divergence in mtDNA is consistent with evolutionary predictions, and far below what the YEC modes
predict.
Also, the actual three-node tree does not match the predicted tree. The predicted tree shows a polytomy in the middle, while with the actual data, there’s no way to root the tree without the central nodes having an ancestor-descendant relationship, which is incompatible with the Flood model. (And it looks like the figure onscreen is missing a branch, or has been rearranged from how these data are usually displayed.)
And then right at the end, with the color-coding, the geographic regions -*don’t* correspond to the three main branches. You can see it! The African lineages are on the right side AND the bottom branches, while the Asian lineages are in both the bottom AND top groups.
Wise *says* the geographic specificity of the lineages matches the YEC prediction but the data he shows on screen shows the opposite!
You've got a debate coming up with Dr Bergman soon right? "Common design or common descent?" Would this predicted tree thing fit into that debate topic I'd love to hear it discussed.
"Wise says the geographic specificity of the lineages matches the YEC prediction but the data he shows on screen shows the opposite!" Not "the opposite" but rather more complicated picture because Europe and Asia happen to be one landmass - Dr. Jeanson discusses that in his videos.
Getting a mixed thumbs up from an evolutionist has made Dr. Wise's day I am sure.
For the rest of us laymen, your gobbledygook comment doesn't hold a candle to Wise's science.
But a substitution IS a sort of mutation right? You have to take ALL mutations into account. Isn't it you who's confusing the substitution rate with the long term mutation rate? Maybe I'm not understanding.
@@AndreyBrizhinev That's my point! The more complicated view is not compatible with the words he says. The picture and the words don't match.
Kurt Wise doesn't need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence.
Actually the evidence clearly is on the side of scripture ....not the evolutionist faith of mythical deep time.
This is a great correlation. Just for perspective, the evolutionary explanation for the truncated DNA record is a population bottleneck that seems to coincide with a fossil record gap. So it looks good for YEC, but there is also an evolutionary argument for the data.
Yes that's a good point, that evo population bottleneck rescue device needs some explanation here.
There are trees older than he claims the universe is.
@@sandiec6063 Wouldn't all terrestrial species show evidence of population bottlenecks, since repopulating the world from a population of two? Is that a thing that we see in genetics and suchlike?
@@docsavage30YEC proponents would point out the assumption there being of 1 year per tree ring and constant C14 levels.
@@docsavage30 even fish show evidence of a population bottleneck
God bless your work dr. Wise.
This is i great evidence for humans having no common ancestors from millions of years ago. This evidence is evidence for biblical accuracy.
Science and the biblical creation story are not necessarily mutual exclusive. Genesis only gives us a very broad macro Revelation of human history with no detail. The Hebrew word for "day" is "YOM." Yom is used to describe an indefinite time period. So consider Genesis and it's reference to a day as an unknown era of time. Consider 2 Peter 3:8 where states that "to God, one day is like 1000 years." Here, the word day is an unknown time period. This expresses God's interpretation of time is not the same as ours - God is outside of time and space and is not limited by either of these constraints. The interpretation doesn't have to be literally 1000 years but a long undefined time period. Consider that Psalms 50:10 says "God owns the cattle on 1000 hills." The number 1000 is used to communicate a very large unknown number. We need to follow the evidence wherever it leads and not be constrained by either theology or science - both of which may have ulterior motives.
@clmkc5393 Yes, God is outside of space and time. I understand how the interpretation of verses and meanings of words can be misunderstood.
When I first became a Christian, I did not look into how God created everything. I probably leaned towards evolution because of the science I was taught in school. I also thought creationists were weird and probably wrong because of the "scientific evidence " said to prove evolution.
Twenty years later, I finally took a good look at what the bible had for information about how He created the world. I also took a look at the evidence for evolution, and the evidence does not prove evolution. It is still a theory. I believe God did not use evolution and old earth for life to evolve into different kinds of living life. There is nothing in the bible that even hints as evolution as happening. God definitely can and has done miracles, including changing physics at His command. He did a miracle for me that not one person would understand how it happened. Science does not have all the answers, and it has extremely biased interpretations from many scientists who are against believing in a possible creator.
God can do miracles, and scientific studies do not interpret that miracles are possible. Science has very limited knowledge. There is so much more that scientists do not understand.
When I add the historical evidence to the history of mankind, it also lines up to a biblical time frame. The bible is also history book.
@des711
Thank you for your comments. I agree that science certainly does not have all the answers and never will for that matter. At the same time, neither do theologians or apologists who try to promote their faith. Science is certainly based on theories, hypothesis, experiments, and an evaluation of the most logical and reasonable answer for our history and environment. Back to my original points, first, scripture provides us very little detail about our creation in Genesis. Second, using the word day in a literal sense is inaccurate and provides a false narrative that when applied towards the creation account in Genesis, gives us an immediate inaccuracy. Numerology studies throughout scripture use numbers in non literal and literal manners. Third, the presentation only considered mitochondrial mutations and eliminated numerous other factors. For example, the dating of various elements and related isotopes, has provided relatively consistent half life decay measurement mechanisms that are consistent across our environment. This is only one of many examples. Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. William Lane Craig's have written extensively on this and other related subjects.
God did a miracle in my life as well! Saved me from my sinful state through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. However, I refuse to put "God in a box" related to the mysteries of the creation and the universe. God created man in his (their) image and likeness - with the ability to think, use logic, create and solve complex problems. If our God chose to utilize evolutionary forces in his creation, which I believe he did, then creation is even a greater miracle. By the way, there are several inferences to evolutionary forces, admittedly, tietiary in reference in the Bible.
Try actually reading some real science.
@mirandahotspring4019
I thank God that Christ came to us to save our souls from sin!
Science is not going to save you. Scientists are finite, and their knowledge will always be finite. I will trust God who is not finite. Scientists will never be able to obtain true knowledge without the knowledge from the Creator.
Great presentation, thank you for these insights.
Still a question remains for me, does this model also explains natives in Australia and America? Would be great if you could speak about that. Thank you.
What is so interesting is why it is so important for anyone to debunk alternative theories about the accent of mankind. Scientists and archeologist are exploring for new knowledge based on the evidence observe the intention is not to refute or support biblical prophecies. Biblical scholars search for evidence to support or confirm that biblical accounts are an accurate reality. I wonder why some Christians insult those holding different opinions, when I believe in respecting beliefs diffrent to mine. Seventy years ago my Sunday school booklet depicted God as a huge fearsome white bearded European sitting on a golden throne in a cloud guarded by angels wearing bright armour holding swords. I was also told that the Ark contained pairs of every animal on the planet. The issue is what can we learn from new knowledge and what can we let go of beliefs that no longer serves us. I often wonder why dogma overtakes our ability for compassion and kindness perhaps this lesson we need to learn before defending how we came to be here. Kind regards ~Tim
there's dogma on the other side too. Just this information for instance. There is no way it would be accepted even if accurate because it confirms a biblical history. We should just do science and let the data take us where it will and if that's to God then so be it.
// why it is so important for anyone to debunk alternative theories// If the alternative theories are based on a logical progression of 1 - see something odd, 2- state a guess of what is causing it (Hypothesis), 3 - test the guess with loads of data collected objectively through experiment/measurement, 4 - classify your guess as True/False based on the data, 6 - present that data to the scientific community at large to test and verify your findings, then nobody would mind. What we often find however, is that (especially YEC's) has an explanation of "God did it" and then they panelbeat data and cherry pick scientific facts and then construct a presentation like this one to proudly show off their hypothesis as "correct". The real test is when asking them what data would lead them to acknowledge that "God did not do it", they will mostly not answer you or change the subject or attack you for asking the question. They DO NOT follow any data as it invariably shows their narrative as incorrect. Just read all the comments here and look at the ommisions and faulty arguments applied in this video and pointed out one by one, to see the point illustrated very well. If you think the objectors here are smoking socks, go and google any of the aspects they raised and see if it is valid or not. That is why alternative theories should be and must be tested for logic, validity and data - if it does not pass the test - they should be debunked to prevent people from being taken in by snake-oil salesmen and grifters.
Between Dr. Wise and Dr. Jeanson genetics proves creation.
No, it doesn't. It just proves that there are a lot of fools who don't check the "facts" that these clowns misuse to serve their creationist agenda.
I been watching videos on creation, and this seemingly boring talk just dropped an ATOMIC TRUTH BOMB at 19:54.... This should send a shockwave across the world
But it won't
The religion of evolution will not allow its faith in deep time to be challenged...no matter what the science says.
Thank you Dr Wise.
No one mentioned Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson yet?
(He worked on Y-chromosomes)
Yes, I have read both of Dr. Jeanson's books. They are sometimes a bit technical for me, but the research he has done is groundbreaking.
"Traced" is an amazing work by a true scientist.
Mind blowing Kurt, I thank God for all your hard work. Many blessings.
23:17 if that were on a T-Shirt that you were selling Dr Wise, I'd buy a few, not just one. People would ask, 'What's that?' Wearer would answer 'A Tree!' then, the vital follow-up Question, 'A Tree?... What kinda Tree???' Wearer would answer 'a Creation Tree' or 'Dr Wise's Genesis Tree' or perhaps 'An Is Genesis History? Tree' I'd vote for 'An Is Genesis History? Tree - What do you call it Dr Wise ?
Awesome idea, id buy some too!
I would call it a mitochondrial DNA tree. Then, explain that it traces humans from biblical times to now. Make sure the lines are color-coded for Europe, Africa & Asia...and have a simple url on the T-shirt where people can see this talk 👍
I completely know what he is feeling... we Know, we have Faith, we Believe. That said, when you can prove it: AMAZING!
He can't prove anything, though. He is fiddling the figures, because he knows that people like you will fall for it. He's a liar and a charlatan.
I'm sorry I agree with the Genesis account. So I do not agree that humans have been around for over 20,000 years. I love answers in Genesis most of their speakers stick to Genesis. I am not sure why Kurt is saying that people have been here way longer than 20,000 years. I re-listened multiple times to make sure I heard it right. I'm very confused. Near or about 13:45 Mark he said it. If anybody else can give me clarification I'd appreciate it did I miss something
He's only saying that as a polemical tactic. Its called an internal critique. Kurt believes the masoretic timeline of a ~6000 year old earth.
At that point in the presentation, see the chart, he is talking about what should be expected to be seen in a mitochondrial DNA analysis from an 'evolutionary' standpoint. Evolutionists claim humans have been around for some hundreds of thousands of years.
The specific mention of 20,000 years at your timestamp is his point that a vertical bar on his chart represents only a subset of so many thousands of mitochondrial DNA mutations. Or in other words, his on-screen chart might only represent 20,000 years, and therefore the actual expected chart would be many times larger under 'evolution.'
He is talking about the evolutionary model, not the biblical view. At 14:30 he goes on to describe the biblical model.
Nicht die Erde ist 6000 Jahre alt sondern die neue Abstammung der Menschheit!
There couldn't be a better name for this Dr. ❤
Amazing, thanks! I knew most of this stuff long ago, but at a much less detailed level, always wanting to look inside those couple of papers of which I read only abstracts.
There should be four females it will go back to. In Gen 6:22, "Ham, the father of Kena‘an, saw his father shamefully exposed, went out and told his two brothers. " If you look at the verbiage and then go to the law, you see the same verbiage. So I believe Ham had a son with his mom, Kana'an. This would make four females not three. Please read the biblical accounts and let me know what you think. Oh, BTW, I see it going back to the four points, not three. Thoughts Please.
כתוב שכנען הוא הבו של חם. לא כתוב מי אמא שלו, אין סיבה טקסטואלית לחשוב שיש לו אמא אחרת מאשר שאר אחיו ואחיותיו. לכן יש 3 אמהות, נשות שם חם ויפת. וילדיהם התחתנו בתוך המשפחה.
I was reading the comments to see if anyone else noticed he should have said 4 females. Good job. (aa)
I’m going to be sharing this one!!
Spread the ignorance and nonsense.
Brilliant timing for a Facebook conversation, thanks
In 1803, America purchased the massive Louisiana territory, which was wild, untamed, and vast. In only 100 years, American settlers conquered the west, colonized the land, and established governments over the territory. Human expansion and progress has always been fast. 4,500 years is plenty of time for humanity to spread out and cover the world.
The physical laws of Entropy and thermal dynamics forbids evolution as dreamed up by Charles Darwin in his racists books. The theory of evolution was dreamed up by the Egyptians thousands of years ago, before men knew anything about science or genetics or the human cell structure. QED
Thermodynamics in no way forbid evolution.
Nope
What absolute nonsense!
Thanks for this information! God bless 🙏
Excellent discussion, although I think I would estimate the time between the Flood and Babel as about 600 years.
Any evidence that we had a global flood that almost sterilized the planet about 4000 years back?
Neither happened!
多謝！
The reason why the Actual Tree is a bit larger than the Biblical Predicted Tree is because Noah's wife did actually bear a son after the flood.
there would be four nodes then
This is awesome!! Thank you !!
Kurt Wise's explanation reflects a faith-based interpretation that relies on a priori assumptions rooted in scripture. While it resonates with certain religious perspectives, it does not align with the scientific method or evidence. His framing of mitochondrial DNA, population dynamics, and human history is scientifically inaccurate, highlighting the incompatibility of a literal biblical chronology with established evolutionary biology and anthropology.
Critical Issues
1. Misrepresentation of Evolutionary Science
• Wise simplifies the evolutionary model of human ancestry, presenting it as a linear "descent" rather than a complex, branching process supported by fossil evidence, genetics, and comparative biology.
• He inaccurately equates evolutionary theory with an uninterrupted chain of inheritance from one species to another, neglecting the role of population dynamics, environmental changes, and speciation.
2. Flawed Use of Exponential Growth
• Wise assumes exponential human population growth in the biblical timeline (e.g., pre-Flood, post-Flood), yet this is inconsistent with archaeological, genetic, and historical data. Real-world factors like disease, famine, and environmental limits significantly affect population dynamics.
• Postulating millions of people within 1,656 years before the Flood is unsupported by archaeological evidence. No trace of such a global population density or culture from that period exists.
3. Reduction of Genetic Diversity
• The claim that humanity descended from just eight individuals post-Flood conflicts with genetic evidence. Modern human genetic diversity suggests a much larger ancestral population (the effective population size) of thousands, not a bottleneck of eight individuals.
• Similarly, the idea of three females (Noah’s sons’ wives) as the sole sources of mitochondrial DNA for all humanity does not match the observed genetic variation in mtDNA, which points to a larger, more diverse population over time.
4. Misuse of Mitochondrial DNA
• Wise does not engage with established scientific findings on mtDNA, such as the concept of mitochondrial Eve, which is often misunderstood. Mitochondrial Eve represents the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living humans, but she was part of a larger population, not a sole progenitor of humanity. Her existence is consistent with evolutionary theory and does not support a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve.
5. Overemphasis on the Biblical Timeline
• A literal 6,000-year timeline conflicts with robust, interdisciplinary scientific evidence:
o Radiometric dating shows the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
o Fossil evidence places anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) at about 300,000 years ago.
o Archaeological findings, such as tools, art, and settlements, demonstrate gradual cultural and technological evolution over tens of thousands of years.
6. Logical Issues
• False Dichotomy: Wise frames the biblical and evolutionary models as mutually exclusive, ignoring the possibility of reconciliation (e.g., theistic evolution).
• Argument from Ignorance: He implies gaps or complexities in evolutionary science invalidate the model, a fallacious approach that disregards the cumulative nature of evidence.
1. You miss the point. No matter how convoluted descent is, mDNA provides a linear matriarchal history of periodic mutations. So summarizing the evolutionary development ideas was a fine way to save time.
2. You miss the point. Population growth is always exponential. Disease and war and all lower the rate of growth but never change it to linear. The growth is not germain to his argument except at its bottlenecks.
3. The breadth and vitality of the epigenetic system has degenerated because it is not protected by survival of the fittest. This created a broad gene pool early that we still benefit from today.
4. M. Eve was not part of this talk. But this talk contrasted a 100,000 year M.eve with scads of nodes to a 6000 year M.eve with very few nodes only 4000 years ago. And the data matches the latter. That is great even if all previous studies missed it.
5. Thankfully this video isn't a stand alone. All these other topics are addressed in other media.
6. Wise simply showed that no reconciliation is needed as the data was cleanly on his side.
@@bewellcenterforbangladesh7521 yeah, no disrespect but I love how they immediately sited assumptions when everything listed after that was based on other assumptions 😂
Hey give us your model then! Most of your points are moot to the context.
So show us simply why there should still only be a limited number of mt mutations as opposed to the many thousands that 300,000 or so years would produce.
@@Strategio A couple of notes. 1) 300,000 is just the start of modern humans, not the start of mitochondria.
2) Every time a line of mt DNA is dissolved due to no female child, it is removed from any set of variations. Hypothetically, it would be possible to have a large population broken into 2 smaller ones that have not interbred for 200,000 years. Individually, each group could now have a mt Eve of 20,000 years ago, but across both groups combined it could be 300,000. So you would only see 2 sets of 20,000 year old variations rather than 1 set of 300,000 year old variations. Of course this happens at smaller levels within these groups as well. You will never have 2 sets of DNA that parted ways back when mitochondria first came into our bodies.
so you can prove that graph with parallel bar is correct and the 3-branch graph is incorrect? Cause that's the key point of whole difference
Tribal histories were recorded orally before any form of writing and looking for tid-bits of truth is a key to understanding such tribal traditions. Tilling the soil is key to understanding the difference between hunter/gatherer and modern humans. The impact is shown on the DNA record of a time when we became satisfied with bread and had access to mud-bricks mixed with straw for dwellings and fine clay for pottery.
The person science identifies as "Mitochondrial Eve" wasn't the only woman alive in her time. She was the woman everyone alive today can trace their matrilineal ancestry back to. MtEve is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman. She lived around 155K years ago. Note that the current MtEve may change if some matrilineal lineages die out. There is a corresponding "Y chromosomal Adam" everyone can trace their patrilineal heritage back to but he lived 200K - 300K years ago.
It's amazing creationists still get this wrong after being corrected on it virtually every week for the last 20 years.
@@BmoreGrrrrl you know this how?
From actual published scientific studies on human mitochondrial DNA. There are thousands of papers on the subject readily available online.
@@duanesheets5484
Because we have brains and education and follow the science.
thank you for this presentation very informative? what data did you use to put this together?
This is a remarkable additional and independent argument alligning with the work done by Jeanson on the Y chromosome evidence. Whatever else it demonstrates, it suggests humanity is relatively young. Now, someone needs to do a similar analysis on non-human life forms that offer the same evidential opportunity.
The immediate and obvious example would be that of Chimpanzees where two males from neigbouring clans show a greater genetic difference than is shown by the human populations between continents. Regarding " it suggests humanity is relatively young" - it is well known that humans went through a genetic bottleneck where the number of individuals could have dropped down to around 1000 people. The age when Mitochondrial Eve lived indicates that humans existed long before that genetic bottleneck.
That has already been done by two scientists at Rockefeller University who released their study results in 2018. They studied the mitochondrial DNA of 100,000 species and found that 90%+ of them came into being about the same less than 200,000 years ago. This fits nicely with the mitochondrial DNA study identifying the first woman Eve aka mother of all ....found to have lived less than 200,000 years ago.
Dr Kurt you may want to look at that mitochondria not only breaks down SUGAR for enery but also FAT and KETONES. I say this because it felt important,in the current age of health crisis, people watching this may think Sugar is the only source. Thanks.
So why do we have vestigial organs such as the semi-lunar membrane, appendix and coccyx? Why do the stages of embryonic development transition between amphibians and mammals? And what about the fossils of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Heidelbergensis etc etc. And the foramen magnu that proves bipedalism. All dated by decomposition of uranium into lead or carbon 14 or indirect methods.?
Shhh...Don't ask. Read the room😉
@@domalltobello2759 why all the similarities between components of man made machines? Because when you create something new, You make use of components and designs that have worked with other models or products. Reuse is a fundamental aspect of design. It doesn't imply that one product randomly evolved into another. You're welcome
Radiometric dating is completely unreliable because the %Error for those methods is indeterminate...meaning we do not have any accuracy measurement. And C14/C12 dating completely contradicts U/Pb and K/Ar methods...which illustrates how inaccurate those methods are
Carbon 14 is false. You can make it date what ever you want, but DNA is accurate.
stages of embryonic development transitioning between amphibians and mammals has been debunked 100 years ago. That doesn't happen, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean there. There aren't vestigial organs. The number of supposed vestigial organs has been reduced greatly since the idea was proposed. Turns out we just didn't know what those organs did but labeled them vestigial anyway. The appendix has a function in the body and sadly many healthy appendixes were removed simply because we thought we didn't need them. Turns out they do an important function. Can we live without them? yes, just like you can live without your foot or hand, but that doesn't make them vestigial.
I’ve been reading the book ‘Traced’ written by Nathaniel Jeanson of Answers in Genesis. I think Dr Kurt explains the findings of DNA very well. It is a complex topic and not one easy to explain, so I congratulate you on how you set this out.
Kind of a serious omission in the presentation. For those interested in learning more about it, "River Out of Eden" provides a good explanation.
Simply put, not all lineages continue on forever. It's easy to understand this by counting your ancestors. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. If there were a thousand generations prior to you (which would be only twenty-five thousand years, you would have 2 to the power of 1000 ancestors.
Two to the power of one thousand is the same as 10 to the power of 301, a number 302 digits long. A trillion is twelve digits long.
It should be obvious that something is not right. What is not right is that lineages come to an end. They along with their mitochondrail DNA are lost. Even if we accept the biblical history of 4000 years from Noah to present day, that is 160 generations, which translates into 1.5 times 10 to the 48th power. That is, a number 49 digits long.
You don't have that many ancestors. That many people have never lived. Talking about mitochondrial DNA without taking that into account is just silly, and I'm sure our professor knows it.
On the bright side, think of this. You carry in your body genetic material that goes back in an unbroken string hundreds of millions of years, perhaps even billions. You are a winner in the competition of life.
Be happy!
So According to your Theory we should have millions of Great great great great Grandparents and our genealogy should be getting Shorter and Shorter untill there is just one parent am I right 🤔.
@@JRTIGER07 I did not express a theory. I merely pointed out that when discussing mitochondrial DNA, one has to take into account the fact that not all lineages continue on.
I illustrated that by pointing out that if your two parents doubled for every prior generation, pretty soon you'd have more people than have ever lived on earth.
Lineages of humans, and all species, die out. So if you go back far enough, you will find one mother (and one father) who were the progenitors of all humans currently alive on earth.
That does not mean they were the only mother (or father) that existed in their time. It just means that none of the other mothers (or father) had descendants that continued on down to the present day.
By the way, the most recent common mother of all humans, and the most recent common father of all humans were not the only parents around at the time, and they weren't necessarily alive at the same time.
None of this was mentioned in the video, yet it is very important when examining genetics, and things like mitochondrial DNA.
Umm Hello logic bro 😂
@@JRTIGER07 I think the point was that the video presenters ideas fall apart if lineages die out. Obviously that would mean there would be fewer lineages of mitochondrial DNA than he suggested there should be.
You have lost me bro 😂 God's Name is All over our DNA if you know anything about Sulpha Bridges
10 / 5 / 6 / 5
In Hebrew the Numbers represent letters in the Hebrew Language
Y =10
H=5
W=6
H=5
*Y H W H*
*Yod* / Hand
*Heh* / Behold
*Waw* / Nail
*Heh* / Behold
🙌 *Behold the Hand/Behold the Nail* 🙌
🙌 *John 20:24-29* 🙌 (N.I.V)
📖 *Psalm 22:1-31 / Isaiah 52:13-53:12 / Daniel 9:24-27 / Zechariah 12:1-10 / Revelation 1:7-8* 📖 (N.I.V)
All you need to do, considering Joseph had the body of Jacob mummified in Egypt, etc. Dig up the body exhume the mummy of Jacob called Israel . Do then a DNA study on the body of Jacob, as it was preserved by Joseph for some reason that ought to make sense in time. Then you will be able to see who is a biological heir of Jacob called Israel and who is merely a human ancestry of folks who do not happen to be directly related to the Biblical Jacob, called Israel.
Jacob's bones were carried back to Israel.
@@thadofalltrades Joseph had the entire body of Jacob mummified by the arts of the Egyptians, Joseph was the second in command of Egypt , he lacked no funds to complete the job. So an entire human body was preserved, so maybe you are in a pickle.
@@CarmineFragione-u1t I didn't day that didn't happen. The Bible says that Jospeh took the body back and buried him in the cave of Machpelah. He isn't buried in Egypt
@@thadofalltrades As the Bible relates, after he died Jacob’s body was transported by his sons and Egyptian dignitaries and buried in the cave of Machpela in Hebron in the Land of Israel. Joseph’s body was buried in Egypt but exhumed many years later by Moses during the exodus and carried by the Israelites and eventually buried in Shechem in the Land of Israel.
Prophecies are never history.
Trolls never have a relevant take.
@@beestoe993 Never. 😄
When it comes to mankind, its behaviour, its government and its fruits, all of biblical prophecy has been spot on and is fulfilled to this very day and moment. There is no need for doubt regarding the last parts of it. All of it was told in advance so that when those things come to pass, you might believe. John 14:29
Thank you!! GOD bless 🫵🏼
beautiful
Great work, Dr Wise!
"Mitochondrial Eve lived in southern Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago."
NOT 2 million years ago.
Dr. Kurt Wises' assertion that, for evolution to be correct, DNA should show separate and distinct family tree lines going back 2 million years is simply wrong. The common male ancestor goes back 60,000 to 80,000 years ago, not 2,000,000. The female common ancestor goes back 160,000 or so years ago.
I first learned this 20 some years ago from the book 'The Journey of Man: A Genetic Oddesy" by Spenser Wells. There's a companion documentary from National Geograpic with the same title.
Wise argues against a position that evolutionists don't have. Disingenuous. It's clear Wise should know better.
what will be the future of humanity
your comment is simply wrong. you just ignored all the presented differences between evolutionists claims and real data, and stick to difference in years, which isn't key thing here at all
I hold my hand up and say, I was equally astounded by the results. Well done Dr Kurt Wise for your presentation. Very interesting. So it immediately set me to explore are there other possible scenarios that could explain the results;
- what if there was much greater mixing of peoples from across the planet; Tin from Cornwall was traded with the Ancient World such as Egypt, at the same time trading posts/settlements on the Red Sea coast of Ancient Egypt were made by peoples from South Asia such as India possibly Southeast Asia. First Nation Peoples are understood to have migrated from China to North America some 12,000 years ago. The peoples of the Pacific descendant from 12 tribes originating from what is now Taiwan.
- Temüjin established an empire and a lineage, but this would only affect DNA. So too other similar empires, kingdoms based upon Patriarchy. So what effect would a Matriarchal based society have on the results, ie dominant female lineages? The recovery from which is now recorded in present-day Mitochondrial variation
- Could the results be explained by some cataclysmic event, which suddenly and dramatically reduced the Human population? Glacial advancement and subsequent retreat and sea level rise, great flood, meteor impact etc.
- (from above) could the female population have been dramatically reduced? How does DNA variation compare to Mitochondrial variation?
- do only certain variations in Mitochondria dominate, or allow for progenesis. Could the Mitochondria contain an off switch that can by triggered by certain mutations.
- is it the case that all Mitochondria are descendant from a dominant race that emerged only very recently, put here on Earth/arrived on a jet Plane/were only planning a short sight-seeing safari trip, but discovered to their horror that they couldn't return home.
The actual model still fits the biblical account much better than your one to two hundred thousand years of recent human evolution.
@@cliffdunning9296 The hypothesis is based upon the notion of a mutation in the Mitochondria occurring every third generation. So all things being perfect this would appear to work as a model. However what if there were other factors involved, such as a Mitochondrial Bottleneck, where not all gene mutations are necessarily passed on, mitophagy, or only certain variations succeed to progenesis. Or three amazing champion Amazonians outcompeted all other women on this planet to become the all-time reigning Mega-Supergrans of Humanity going forward?
Have listened to years ago Mr Wise, when you spoke on what you saw at St Helena.
Bless you for speaking truth and may our YAHoVeH our Creator of all continue to reveal His Mysteries of truth to you and
His people,so we are NOT DECEIVED.
Parfaitement explicite un peu trop technique pour moi mais c est totalement la vérité 🔥💜🔥merci 🔥alléluia
This should be STANDARD elementary curricula, Dr. Wise. Fantastic!
No, religious nonsense should not be in any curricula outside a church.
Nollaig shona agus athbhlian faoi mhaise duit
Just wow! Thank you Dr. Wise!
He ignores that the actual mtDNA he is using dates back to ~150,000 years ago. Please feel free to look it up. Secondly, if he zoomed out ~1000 times the evolutionary mtDNA, a similar picture would emerge closely resembling the other 2 images albeit on a larger scale and yet closer to the actual mtDNA in terms of time. At 4:35, he rightfully pointed out that homo sapiens sapiens, according to evolution, came into existence around ~160,000-100,000 years ago. Well, the actual mtDNA points at that time, not 6,000 years ago. But there's something called confirmation bias for those whose minds are made up about religion.
This is a serious question, not a challenge. Can you point to any beginner-friendly resources on this subject? Thanks!
Well, the Bible clearly states that man is created in God's image, and it's important to follow the natural order He has set. In Leviticus 18:23, God warns us against the unnatural act of lying with animals, saying, "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith." This commandment is deeply spiritual, instructing us to honor the created order. Now, when we talk about mtDNA, we have to realize that all things, even science, must align with the greater truth found in Scripture. Just as the timeline of 6,000 years is established by faith, the idea of God's design remains central to understanding the divine purpose behind DNA and all creation.
In Romans 1:25, it reminds us that those who forsake the truth of God "changed the truth of God into a lie," which parallels the way that some people approach scientific evidence-misinterpreting findings like mtDNA to dismiss divine creation. If we step back and see the bigger picture, as you say-just as we zoom out from the detailed mtDNA, we must zoom out from the misconceptions about the natural world. There’s a divine purpose behind our existence that doesn’t need to be bound by man-made timelines or interpretations. So, in truth, what we need is not just a confirmation of science, but a confirmation of divine wisdom, and that, of course, comes from a faithful reading of Scripture.
Finally, the Bible speaks on the importance of divine order in Genesis 1:24-25, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind." God made the creatures of the earth with clear distinctions, and He commanded us to honor those distinctions. While we may debate the age of the Earth and mtDNA, we must remember that God's laws are everlasting, as eternal as His creation, and we should always look to His word for guidance above all else.
Amazing presentation, thanks!
Nope. That tree isn't the evolutionary prediction of a mitochondrial tree. It is a straw man version based on your misunderstanding of what the mitochondrial ancestor is. You forget that people from different trees interbreed and so at the time of the mitochondrial "Eve", there was not just one woman that everyone came from. There were possibly millions. Remember, family trees double in width each time you go back 1 generation. All it is mapping is the pathway of the successful female line. Others ended when a family only had boys. The most recent common mitochondrial ancestor for humans is about 200,000 years ago.
Liar
Kyle, no matter how many women there are in a population, each descendant has a straight line mDNA history of accumulated changes. So what Dr Kurt drew was a decent depiction. Mitochondria lines don't interact with each other sharing dominant traits as do nuclear DNA.
His analysis assumes that there is true zero selection on these mutations. Over many generations, even minimal selection differences will cut the number of variations seen today. His belief depends upon absolutely zero impacts of possible mutations that are not fully lethal. Life isn't that simple-minded. Looking at our own mutations, where we contain hundreds of non-lethal but harmful mutations that appear as detrimental recessive mutations. We even have some lethal mutations. This is why cousin matings result in a high frequency of genetic problems. We don't see the lethal mutation as the eggs abort, but the ones that just limit your ability can live on.
With simple mitochondrial DNA, which is down to the near minimal amount of genes, he should understand that zero partially critical interacting genes are not possible to achieve with natural selection as a mechanism. You can have two or more mutations change positions on the DNA, resulting in a lethal combination that will select with a low frequency (makes you weak, not kill you, but that gene line will die out over a long time). Remember, a mutation in a gene that makes a true zero difference would be in all collections of mitochondrial DNA from all animals overall times.
He needs to learn some real science, and paleontology is not a real science.
in other words, kurt completely failed to learn how evolution works.
Dr Wise is a Harvard educated PHD. his training is top notch. What are your degrees?
@@alantasman8273Kurt Wise is a geologist. My auto mechanic knows more about biology than him.
@@alantasman8273
If he is is so smart and educated, then why is he so obviously wrong? Is he just lying?
Kurt may not have learned what evolution is,
But remember this verse, from the Quran’s wisdom, it says:
"And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six days" (Quran 7:54),
So, why debate? Just follow the divine way!
"Do not argue with the truth when it has come to you" (Quran 2:146),
Evolution or not, God's plan is always true!
@davidlancaster5804 Because there's no evidence for the existence of any god.
Very very good presentation.
Thank you Professor Kurt Wise
This is nonsense.
Any proof ?
Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism's most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.
Dope theory
@Michał-z7u nothing intelligent to say? Yep, you’re a dope
@@anthonyprince2095dope means awesome or cool 🙂
@@Pyr0Benso why didn’t he say that? Not all slang translates around the globe….
Thank You, Dr.Wise, much appreciated 😅 !
Jesus is NOT a descendant of monkeys
Did you know you've got broken and functional "monkey" genes all through your genome?
Thank you sir. For your dedication and this great lesson.
I never seen so much 'scientific' fraud compressed in 25 minutes in my entire life 😅
Excellent lecture- Thank you!