I suggest Aron Ra's 50 part series 'Systematic Classification of Life' for more Good luck getting someone who doesn't understand or "believe" in evolution to pass a Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy course
As a former Young Earth Creationist, I appreciate the way you explain these concepts. I don't know if I would've been receptive to hearing them back when I was drunk on the Kool-Aid, but I hope others who are still as I was will be open to it.
The fact that people believe a bunch of untrained religious leaders over specially trained experts is always the part that shocks me. And it's ironic because they would never do that on any other topic. For instance, the congregation would not go to a dental hygienist for cardiac issues, or to a plumber to rewire their house.
We’re you ever really a biblical creationist ? Many former evolutionist believing scientists have turned away from the evolutionary faith when examining the evidence. Many in scientific fields don’t believe evolution, but keep their mouths shut so as to get grant money for research and keep their tenure at Universities, and keep their jobs in other fields of research. Religious adherence to evolution is the fee you must pay to get into the club.
@@greenguitarfish yes. I worked for Answers in Genesis doing IT/POS support for three years, 2016-2019. Even after quitting, it was almost a year later than I finally deconstructed Creationism. The rest of what you say is bullocks. Of degreed professionals who specialize in any field tangential to biology or Earth science, the percentage of YECists is virtually 0%. There are many Christians who study biology, geology, astronomy, and paleontology and are in full agreement with their fields, that life has evolved from a single common ancestor and the universe is ~13.8 billion years old. There's no conspiracy to push evolution on the masses; if it weren't correct, it wouldn't be researched and taught. Scientists receive grants to study reality; Creationists have to grift for donations because they teach mythology.
they like to ignore evolution but when arguing about noah's flood they suddenly use it as how diversity happened after the flood because the ark could never carry 2 of every species and keep them alive. so then they argue for evolution at supersonic speed.
@ 14:00 Depending upon the Swallowtail species, you would need a suitable host. Cherry, dill, Aristolochia, Liriodendron, Pawpaw or citrus all are hosts for Swallowtail in question. And Goldfinches like yellow daisy like flowers and thistles.
A scientific theory which not only has lasted 164 years without being disproved, but has also accumulated evidence to support it at an increasing exponential rate is fact! It is more than can be said for gravity, which I believe has been debunked as a force, if not as a perception.
evolution is logically conclusive and can be observed in real time...I really dont get the denial of facts in our reality. And its coming from people who believe in something they cannot see, touch or experience in any way other then "fuzzy feelings"....
Fruit fly breeding experiments published by Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky in 1971 showed that if you start with “semispecies” within a fruit fly species which are “indistinguishable morphologically,” and then subject the strains to artificial breeding experiments, then “in none” of the experiments “has anything like complete isolation been achieved.” These results led a later reviewer to list this study among various studies where “none has succeeded in establishing complete sexual isolation.” Moreover, there was no suggestion that the populations were no longer “indistinguishable morphologically” after the experiments. In fact, after reviewing this example, Dobzhansky concludes that sometimes “reproductive isolation and speciation precede differential adaptedness,” suggesting they had not diversified. At best, only a “new race or incipient species” was created.
Awesome, you have nailed the YECs. There is no such thing as a Young Earth Evolutionists and there are other independent lines of compelling evidence to support the belief in an old earth, sun, solar system, galaxy and universe, etc, the issue is time. YECs should be considered Young Earthers. I think they know this, but they prefer to argue with Life Scientists rather than Physicists, Geologists and Astronomers.
When you say the general public I believe you are referring to well in excess of 40% of Americans - staggering! Is it the result of religious insanity or is it because it makes televangelists wealthy?
1:12 DNA mutations that lead to new proteins that lead to new cell functions that lead to new traits or characteristics emerging that are selectively advantageous in populations or become _________________________ this statement is way beyond what DNA can actually do
@@raysalmon6566 if you don't believe DNA has anything to do with evolution, then you haven't actually read anything at all yet. Evolution being all about DNA, is the very BASICS of this topic, so if you haven't even figured that out yet, then you've not read anything at all. Probably just reading creationist propaganda, which is anti-science and full of lies. Here's Evolution because of DNA: - every living thing has DNA - there's a copying mechanism for DNA - this copying mechanism is imperfect, thus mistakes are made - these copying mistakes are called mutations - mutations are in every cell - these mutations get into the gametes (eggcell, spermcell) - during conception, when eggcell and spermcell meet, the newly formed DNA contains those mutations - this causes every individual of every species to be unique - as everyone and everything is unique, this means different traits and features, strengths and weaknesses - resources are limited and life is hard - you need to survive long enough to reproduce - those who reproduce, pass on their genes - the cycle repeats THIS is Evolution, because of genetics. You are different than your parents, because of Evolution. That's why a simple DNA test (paternity test) can prove Evolution. There, now you've learned more about this whole topic than from everything you've read before.
@@jehandesains8674 well actually i have read a lot about DNA but it degrades over time and does not evolve anything and species eventually goes extinct
@@raysalmon6566 so you demonstrate you having read a lot about DNA, but showing you don't know how DNA works, got it. DNA degrades over time on its own, but this does not apply to Evolution, where reproduction is involved. DNA does cause Evolution, as we can clearly see in every single generation. Species going extinct has more to do with selective pressure, not with DNA degradation.
@@sjey8665 maybe...is it the one with monkeys and typewriters writing shakespear? Because if that's the one, it has been extremely thoroughly debunked a billion times over and you should never ever use that retarded shit ever again...but if it's not this, then go ahead.
@@jehandesains8674 But the important thing is, Do you know why it's logically impossible the infinite monkeys given infinite time can't recreate the works of Shakespeare?
@@sjey8665 the argument is a creationist fallacy. Same with the explosion in a junkyard argument. They deliberately misrepresent Evolution, thus only attacking a strawman, not Evolution itself. Your premise is false, hence your conclusion is as well. Evolution is directly observable. Btw, just so you know: every single argument you can find on creationist websites, has all been thoroughly debunked by science. So if you can find it there, it's already debunked and you shouldn't waste your time with it. There's a very good reason why Evolution is science, and creationism is not.
You need a proof for this tree-like related structure. Description is not a proof. Two explanations come to mind: 1. evolution as you seem to indicate, 2. creation. Per se, I see no objections to either. Perhaps the fossil record (sudden Cambrian phyla appearance), population dynanics (small populations cannot be successful in making mutational changes stick), the working of mutations (one at a time, not millions) the sheer number of differences in nucleotides, etc. could possibly support 2.
Explanations are nice, but 5 year olds can make up "explanations". Evidence and predictions for future observations/findings are better. "Creation" categorically can provide neither of these, and will therefore be forever an ad-hoc "explanation" and nothing more...something that 5 year old might make up.
Small populations actually have mutations "stick" more quickly than large populations. There is, of course a limit to how small a population can be and still be viable. A population reduced to two members is doomed to extinction.
Gene mutations have a number of different causes such as smoking, radiation, viruses, cancer-causing chemicals, obesity, hormones, chronic inflammation and a lack of exercise.
@@vesuvandoppelganger what about directly observed genetic mutations, generating entirely new features, or even new species? This can't be explained through your list of causes, as most of them would destroy organisms, not improve upon them.
It's like calling a Tire the entire automotive industry. Your talking about idealism in code which is very contradictory to a materlisit explanation of darwin & lyles contextual gradualism of the strong will survive. . the very code and program is in line with entropy with an orgon that is fully coded then decays. Nothing advanced forward .the dominate mutation is negative. Besides who are we to decide what is an advantage of this universe ?it's not fundamental to reality.. Tiny mechanism that doesn't explain engineering. The prohibition of law in USA doesn't allow it to be challenged is why its not liked. No competing school of thought.
The mechanisms of evolution are natural selection, sexual selection, mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, and recombination. You've already been told that about 20 times.
“First, DNA is not self-reproducing, second, it makes nothing and third, organisms are not determined by it” (Lewontin, 1992). Lewontin, Richard C. (1992). "The Dream of the Human Genome", The New York Review, May 28, 31-40.
I suggest Aron Ra's 50 part series 'Systematic Classification of Life' for more
Good luck getting someone who doesn't understand or "believe" in evolution to pass a Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy course
As a former Young Earth Creationist, I appreciate the way you explain these concepts. I don't know if I would've been receptive to hearing them back when I was drunk on the Kool-Aid, but I hope others who are still as I was will be open to it.
The fact that people believe a bunch of untrained religious leaders over specially trained experts is always the part that shocks me. And it's ironic because they would never do that on any other topic. For instance, the congregation would not go to a dental hygienist for cardiac issues, or to a plumber to rewire their house.
Check out Aron Ra's 50 part series 'Systematic Classification of Life'
We’re you ever really a biblical creationist ? Many former evolutionist believing scientists have turned away from the evolutionary faith when examining the evidence. Many in scientific fields don’t believe evolution, but keep their mouths shut so as to get grant money for research and keep their tenure at Universities, and keep their jobs in other fields of research. Religious adherence to evolution is the fee you must pay to get into the club.
@@greenguitarfish yes. I worked for Answers in Genesis doing IT/POS support for three years, 2016-2019. Even after quitting, it was almost a year later than I finally deconstructed Creationism.
The rest of what you say is bullocks. Of degreed professionals who specialize in any field tangential to biology or Earth science, the percentage of YECists is virtually 0%. There are many Christians who study biology, geology, astronomy, and paleontology and are in full agreement with their fields, that life has evolved from a single common ancestor and the universe is ~13.8 billion years old. There's no conspiracy to push evolution on the masses; if it weren't correct, it wouldn't be researched and taught. Scientists receive grants to study reality; Creationists have to grift for donations because they teach mythology.
@@whatabouttheearth oh I have! It's such a great series!
they like to ignore evolution but when arguing about noah's flood they suddenly use it as how diversity happened after the flood because the ark could never carry 2 of every species and keep them alive. so then they argue for evolution at supersonic speed.
Yup, they either need the Ark to be immensely larger than the Bible claims, or the need evolution to happen at a speed which is ridiculous.
explain evolution in your own words
@@gerardo811 Change in allele frequency over generations in a population
no new word can ever change god's word.
@@gerardo811 which god
I'm over 50 and the fact that this is still an issue in the U.S. is depressing to me.
the public is gullible enough to consume evolution propaganda
@ 14:00
Depending upon the Swallowtail species, you would need a suitable host.
Cherry, dill, Aristolochia, Liriodendron, Pawpaw or citrus all are hosts for Swallowtail in question.
And Goldfinches like yellow daisy like flowers and thistles.
You bet!! 😄
A scientific theory which not only has lasted 164 years without being disproved, but has also accumulated evidence to support it at an increasing exponential rate is fact! It is more than can be said for gravity, which I believe has been debunked as a force, if not as a perception.
evolution is logically conclusive and can be observed in real time...I really dont get the denial of facts in our reality. And its coming from people who believe in something they cannot see, touch or experience in any way other then "fuzzy feelings"....
_Evolution can be observed in real time_
Yep. Just the other day I was at the zoo and saw some amazing evolution going on.
@@vesuvandoppelganger so you saw a birth, that's cool.
I'm sure they would. Fruit flies evolved into fruit flies. Maybe in 5,000,000 years they will become fruit flies.
@@vesuvandoppelganger different species of fruit flies, with different traits and features, proving speciation. Thus proving Evolution.
Fruit fly breeding experiments published by Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky in 1971 showed that if you start with “semispecies” within a fruit fly species which are “indistinguishable morphologically,” and then subject the strains to artificial breeding experiments, then “in none” of the experiments “has anything like complete isolation been achieved.” These results led a later reviewer to list this study among various studies where “none has succeeded in establishing complete sexual isolation.”
Moreover, there was no suggestion that the populations were no longer “indistinguishable morphologically” after the experiments. In fact, after reviewing this example, Dobzhansky concludes that sometimes “reproductive isolation and speciation precede differential adaptedness,” suggesting they had not diversified. At best, only a “new race or incipient species” was created.
Awesome, you have nailed the YECs.
There is no such thing as a Young Earth Evolutionists and there are other independent lines of compelling evidence to support the belief in an old earth, sun, solar system, galaxy and universe, etc, the issue is time.
YECs should be considered Young Earthers. I think they know this, but they prefer to argue with Life Scientists rather than Physicists, Geologists and Astronomers.
thanks
This will bring out the Science deniers and moon-howlers. As they vent their frustrations with reality LOL. 😂😂
1:15 they don’t leave their philosophy at the door of the laboratory, or if they do, they don’t leave it there very long!
1:15 Everyone brings a philosophy to their laboratory!
When you say the general public I believe you are referring to well in excess of 40% of Americans - staggering! Is it the result of religious insanity or is it because it makes televangelists wealthy?
1:12 DNA mutations that lead to new proteins that lead to new cell functions that lead to new traits or characteristics emerging that are selectively advantageous in populations or become
_________________________
this statement is way beyond what DNA can actually do
@Anon Ymous Im reading all I can about it
but I don't believe it has anything to do wih evolution
@@raysalmon6566 if you don't believe DNA has anything to do with evolution, then you haven't actually read anything at all yet. Evolution being all about DNA, is the very BASICS of this topic, so if you haven't even figured that out yet, then you've not read anything at all. Probably just reading creationist propaganda, which is anti-science and full of lies.
Here's Evolution because of DNA:
- every living thing has DNA
- there's a copying mechanism for DNA
- this copying mechanism is imperfect, thus mistakes are made
- these copying mistakes are called mutations
- mutations are in every cell
- these mutations get into the gametes (eggcell, spermcell)
- during conception, when eggcell and spermcell meet, the newly formed DNA contains those mutations
- this causes every individual of every species to be unique
- as everyone and everything is unique, this means different traits and features, strengths and weaknesses
- resources are limited and life is hard
- you need to survive long enough to reproduce
- those who reproduce, pass on their genes
- the cycle repeats
THIS is Evolution, because of genetics. You are different than your parents, because of Evolution. That's why a simple DNA test (paternity test) can prove Evolution.
There, now you've learned more about this whole topic than from everything you've read before.
@@jehandesains8674
well actually i have read a lot about DNA but it degrades over time and does not evolve anything and species eventually goes extinct
@@jehandesains8674 your confusing reproduction with evolution
@@raysalmon6566 so you demonstrate you having read a lot about DNA, but showing you don't know how DNA works, got it.
DNA degrades over time on its own, but this does not apply to Evolution, where reproduction is involved.
DNA does cause Evolution, as we can clearly see in every single generation.
Species going extinct has more to do with selective pressure, not with DNA degradation.
The similarity is not enough when there is a problem in the process (Random mutations) itself.
There is no problem in the process.
@@jehandesains8674 Have heard about the infinite monkey theorem?
@@sjey8665 maybe...is it the one with monkeys and typewriters writing shakespear? Because if that's the one, it has been extremely thoroughly debunked a billion times over and you should never ever use that retarded shit ever again...but if it's not this, then go ahead.
@@jehandesains8674 But the important thing is, Do you know why it's logically impossible the infinite monkeys given infinite time can't recreate the works of Shakespeare?
@@sjey8665 the argument is a creationist fallacy. Same with the explosion in a junkyard argument. They deliberately misrepresent Evolution, thus only attacking a strawman, not Evolution itself.
Your premise is false, hence your conclusion is as well.
Evolution is directly observable.
Btw, just so you know: every single argument you can find on creationist websites, has all been thoroughly debunked by science. So if you can find it there, it's already debunked and you shouldn't waste your time with it. There's a very good reason why Evolution is science, and creationism is not.
You need a proof for this tree-like related structure. Description is not a proof. Two explanations come to mind: 1. evolution as you seem to indicate, 2. creation. Per se, I see no objections to either. Perhaps the fossil record (sudden Cambrian phyla appearance), population dynanics (small populations cannot be successful in making mutational changes stick), the working of mutations (one at a time, not millions) the sheer number of differences in nucleotides, etc. could possibly support 2.
Explanations are nice, but 5 year olds can make up "explanations".
Evidence and predictions for future observations/findings are better.
"Creation" categorically can provide neither of these, and will therefore be forever an ad-hoc "explanation" and nothing more...something that 5 year old might make up.
Small populations actually have mutations "stick" more quickly than large populations. There is, of course a limit to how small a population can be and still be viable. A population reduced to two members is doomed to extinction.
OMG he has his evolution religion tattooed on his arms.
It's not a religion. Though I do admit some numbskull somewhere may end up making one based on it
OMG you have shown extreme ignorance right here in public. You should be sooooo embarrassed.
5:14
Species that have similar gene sequences were created that way. They don't share a recent common ancestor.
How would you explain the accumulation of the mutations that take place within the gene sequences?
Gene mutations have a number of different causes such as smoking, radiation, viruses, cancer-causing chemicals, obesity, hormones, chronic inflammation and a lack of exercise.
Cool. Please demonstrate that any such creator actually exists.
@@vesuvandoppelganger what about directly observed genetic mutations, generating entirely new features, or even new species? This can't be explained through your list of causes, as most of them would destroy organisms, not improve upon them.
I am not aware of genetic mutations causing entirely new features or new species. Some examples would be helpful.
It's like calling a Tire the entire automotive industry.
Your talking about idealism in code which is very contradictory to a materlisit explanation of darwin & lyles contextual gradualism of the strong will survive. . the very code and program is in line with entropy with an orgon that is fully coded then decays. Nothing advanced forward .the dominate mutation is negative. Besides who are we to decide what is an advantage of this universe ?it's not fundamental to reality..
Tiny mechanism that doesn't explain engineering. The prohibition of law in USA doesn't allow it to be challenged is why its not liked. No competing school of thought.
That did not make sense. What are you talking about?
Mechanisms determine patterns.
The mechanisms of evolution are natural selection, sexual selection, mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, and recombination.
You've already been told that about 20 times.
@@speciesspeciate6429 And not one of those mechanisms are capable of producing the diversity of life!
“First, DNA is not self-reproducing, second, it makes nothing and third, organisms are not determined by it” (Lewontin, 1992). Lewontin, Richard C. (1992). "The Dream of the Human Genome", The New York Review, May 28, 31-40.