When people tell me that mutations don't make new information because it's just using the same stuff that already there I tell them that no author has ever written a "new" book because they are all the same letters that are in every other book.
@@subaru4920 then why do they consistently try to claim that absolutely anything that changes in an organisms DNA is not new "information" but instead a "deletion?" Besides, even if it were true that changes in the order of the nucleotides did not constitute new information, arguing that animals had to have been "created" at the origin of life is not arguing against evolution, it's arguing against abiogenesis, which is a completely different topic.
@@Sciguy95 idk about the whole deletion thing, etc. But to answer your why? Cause creationists are dishonest and lie to make things add up. Either to others, themselves, or most often both
"Nature doesn't have a brain, it's not a person, so it's not capable of selecting anything." Neither does a coin sorter. It's just a slope with different holes on it. Yet it's perfectly capable of selecting coins by size and making neat columns just using gravity and geometry. Dave's point was so far divorced from reality I can't attribute it to either malice or stupidity any more: it's pure insanity.
He knows that, he's just attempting to steer his followers back to the avenue of intelligent design; "if nature is not capable of selecting traits, then "someone" cough:god:cough must be the explanation!"
@@missk1697 So are coins, what's your point? I specifically quoted what I'm addressing to make it clear what my analogy was about. As you already know, analogies are never perfect. Even if a god designed and created nature, that wouldn't change the fact that afterwards natural forces still apply evolutionary selection pressures. Which was my point before you intentionally misunderstood it. I personally don't believe in deism or theistic evolution but I think both are infinitely more believable than intelligent deign for this simple reason.
I would be cautious about using this line of argumentation as it can leave you open to the rejoindre “A coin machine is designed though! You’re proving creationism”. You have to pay excruciating attention to the fact that you’re talking about the mechanism of the sorting rather than how it got to be that way in the first place
@@vincentheartland2088 I have already got that kind of a response just a few days ago (is this vid trending again or what?) and I wasn't impressed by it then. I don't think I'm obligated to worry about people who don't want to understand how analogies work. If someone is so obstinate, no single argument will change their minds anyway.
@@ominous-omnipresent-they Always puzzles me that people so proudly recommend ad-blockers. UA-cam and their creators offer you content in exchange for ad-views which pay for the service and the content. You use technical tricks to get the content without paying (with money or ad views). That’s immoral. And short-sighed, because if everyone would follow your suggestion, the content you want to watch couldn’t even be created or delivered anymore. If you don’t like the ads, pay for a UA-cam subscription. That’s the right recommendation.
I was watching and hoping that Luke Skywalker's _"Every word of what you just said was wrong"_ would make an appearance. It's devastating to realise the evil that creationists will plan and propagate to lie to children.
AronRa has been listening and debunking creationists for 15 years. I can't watch 15min of creationist stupidity, it actually hurts.... AronRa the most patient and tolerant person on earth.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 lol nobody is "arranging bones" that's extremely dumb. And yes Darwin was wrong on a few things but that was about 150 years ago and biology has come a long way since then. You guys treat Darwin like the Boogeyman it's funny lol 😆 Your just angry that evolution completely disproves Genesis and the claim that a sky genie made everyone from dirt.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 you are right, that is not evolution. Can you correctly describe what evolution is? Or are you required to lie for sky daddy?
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264so if you find a skull bone and a leg bone and a vertebral bone, you will put the skull at the end of the leg? Your stupidity is disturbing
I just can't believe these people understand selective breeding, but can't wrap their heads around as simple a concept as genetic drift... It blows my mind.
@@thelordjesus1136 I feel so lucky that you use UA-cam to spew your religious bullshit. That way I don't have restrain my dog from eviscerating you, he seems to dislike door-to-door god-botherers. Now don't go away mad, just go away.
RE: his Natural Selection presentation. It's not just the hair. Imagine EVERYTHING evolving to suit the desert environment. Everything. Why just the hair? because it's easy to understand? Yes, an animal in a desert has some selective pressure to not be hairy. But it also has selective pressure to not drool And it has selective pressure to favor specific foods and it has selective pressure to know where water is It has selective pressures from a million different directions How many of these clever "adaptations" would it take for him to consider it a different animal? At some point, it's not going to be able to breed with the original. Is it then? That's when We think it does but clearly this guy is a genius when it comes to natural selection so maybe he could elucidate for the rest of the class. Is it 100 clever adaptations? Do they have to be obvious from the outside? Does he have to look like a completely different animal? Does he have to look like an animal that already exists, for some stupid reason? Creationists are so simple minded it hurts my head trying to think like them. Its like putting on a pair of underpants owned by a 5 year old.
Aron, there are creationist ads on this video lol. Made me literally laugh out loud. As an epidemiologist, evolution is one of the cores to understanding disease - especially infectious disease. :)
@@AronRa Makes sense. Electricity companies need people to sweep the floors too. Much like Hovind's claim to gave "taught high school science" doesn't mean that he taught acience *in* a high school.
I evolved a new hot sauce recipe that will outcompete most others in the ecosystem of the grocery store shelves. Gonna have to come up with a cheeky name and send a bottle to everybody's favorite death metal atheist! I will make him a believer and make him tremble before the mighty Scotch Bonnet Lord of Fire... hey that's a pretty good name
@@herbiehopkins I'd love to share but this year was the prototype year, probably made only a half gallon of the special scotch bonnet recipe, and a couple gallons of other good recipes but those don't have the same magic. Next year I'll know what to grow to make lots more! I'd be happy to share the recipe if you're interested, I'm not wanting to keep this deliciousness secret
The tame foxes in Russia: If I remember correctly it only took them 40 years of breeding out aggression to get tame dog like foxes that could be pets. I think they started in 1950s and by the time the USSR fell they already had tame foxes.
Creationist are incapable of the title of this video. Also love how they think basic 10th grade science can "debunk" the most supported theory in all biology as if experts havent already considered these "issues"
I think part of the problem with creationists, is they look at the very surface of what they think evolution is, read a few Google articles and think they have a decent amount of knowledge, when in reality, they have no idea what so ever just how in depth the theory is and everything thats been tested and seen to further the theory. Not to mention that their definition of a "theory" is a basic thought and nothing else. Lastly, the voice he uses as if he's coddling children is creepy af...
I asked a religious guy the same thing when he said evolution is not real and just a theory i told him all the other theories like germ, gravity, plate tectonics etc... And the guy said that its all Fake you cant reason with these ppl
@@colinsixhitter3303 yes they make claim after claim after claim but after thousands of years they have no evidence or proof to back up those claims and yet science has been around for centuries and we have a plethora more evidence and proof to back up our claims then they ever will and thats why they always say their proof and evidence is the bible which we all know thats not evidence lol
Another issue with the hybrid breeds is that their traits don't breed true, that is if you take 2 hybrids and breed them then the resulting traits of the puppies will be random because every trait that is part of each pure bred breed will be heterozygotic in the hybrids. Which then get mixed punitt square style for each chromosome pair. It would take a lot of breeding to get the recombinations and mutations required to make those traits breed true to make a breed that you can classify as a breed.
Can comfirm. Was helping a friend try to get a [redacted]¹ coloration into the Araucana breed of chicken. It was a very long, drawn out process, and I eventually had to stop, because I was having too hard a time keeping the records in order. See, the records had to keep track of who was bred to whom and what colors chicks hatched, as well as whether they had tufts (a specific trait in the Araucana breed that makes them rare, but can also be fatal to the chick in the egg, if they get two of the genes for them), and if there were one tuft or two, and keep track of those parents, to try to avoid the fatal cross, which kills all chicks that get the doubling up of that gene. The Araucana breed already has a higher rate of embryo loss between fertilized egg being stuck under the hen or in the incubator and the end of the first 7 days, anyway, just because of their oddball genetics. But the gene for tufts (which is basically a few feathers that stick straight out from the side of their head, at their ear hole, either on one side or both) makes things much more complicated, yet. One can't breed a bird with 2 tufts with a bird that has any tufts, or you'll lose, if memory serves, 75% of the embryos that start any growth at all, and those that survive to hatch almost inevitably have very bad birth defects and often must be put down immediately to prevent them suffering and dying in great pain. And putting down baby chicks is just heartbreaking to me. I cry. Every single time I have to do it. So, anyway, one has to breed a bird with 2 tufts to a bird with no tufts (which isn't even technically an Araucana, according to the SOP², just an Araucana-based Easter-Egger), but that still must be purebred (but with the attempts to get the feather color changed, this is where we put the ½ [color pattern redacted]¹-feathered[insert breed here]³/½ Araucana-based Easter Egger (non-tufted Araucana) as one parent, to work the feather color pattern into the breed, while diffusing the fatal gene expression to a safe level that doesn't kill all of the chicks! And then you take note of if there were even a hint of [redacted]¹ (the desired color pattern) in their (undesirable color) feathers, or if there were any (undesirable color/pattern) showing up in the one or two rare ones that hatch with [redacted]¹ desirable feathers, and keep track of those chicks' parents, to try to breed them to others that may carry a strong expression of the [redacted]¹ feather gene, too. Oh, and also keep track of those pairs who have and chicks with any [color pattern]¹ in their feathers, because they at least should have a weak expression of the desired color for feathering trait. Oh, and you must always watch to see if the skin color and foot color were correct, or if not, because skin color and feather color is often intertwined, and note which parents could have the undesirable recessive skin or foot color trait, and watch for it in their later chicks when they are paired with other mates, to weed out the ones that do have the wrong foot and skin color genes recessive in their DNA, even if they're throwing the correct color offspring. Well, you can see how complicated just changing a color feather on chickens can be, in a breed where you don't want to lose another trait. And chickens getting their feather color changed isn't that rare a thing that people do. Especially since, if you manage it, you can become pretty darned rich! I mean, not Walton, or Besos, or Musk kind of rich, but extreme comfortable, LOL! But the point is, yes, it's very complicated. And it's a brain ache to keep track of as you're doing the breeding, too! [1] I'm not involved any more, but I'm not sure if they're still working on the project, so I am not giving any hints about what she was working on as far as the feather color/pattern. It would be very unfair to them if I did. [2] SOP = Standards Of Perfection, the very exacting list of things that must be correct on a breed (and even color of chicken) for it to be acceptable as one of that breed, according to the rules. This allows the breed to be entered into shows (much like dog shows, or any other animal show] where they're judged on how much they do match the "perfect" example of that breed. [3] Like with the coloration they were working on, if this were given out, it could directly affect their attempts to be the first with this coloration into the breed they are working with. Were I to give the breed and color pattern of the "donor" breed, someone else could, if really lucky, beat my friends to the punch, so to speak, affecting them and the potential direction of their lives immensely. (Edited to add explanations) (And edited again to add another whole chunk of sentence I totally missed writing... added "makes things much more complicated, yet," to I believe it was Paragraph Three. _~sigh~_ )
All I know is despite still being catholic in 6th grade, I could have easily seen through Bisby's ridiculous and lazy arguments. Thanks Debate class, lol.
It all depends on with what exactly you are indoctrinated as a kid. Most Catholics have accepted Evolution (started by God) as fact. So it's not surprising that you'd see that as ridiculous. Yet at that point, you still were a Catholic who didn't question the core stupidity of that religion. If you had been raised with the belief in Genesis as fact and evolution as bullshit, you might have agreed with him.
I love Arons edits. They're fucking hilarious. On his previous video on this subject, when the guy introduces himself as "Big Wave Dave", he edits in Mad Dog Tannen saying "what kind of stupid name is that?". I laugh my ass off every time I hear it.
That Futurama episode sums up that guys whole argument. I have told his type that not only would he get a Nobel prize but scientists would love him for opening up new areas of research and grant money.
All sorts of scientists would love to get a god into their lab and poke it with every instrument they can think of. Alas.... none has been found that could be investigated beyond "thinking really hard about what you feel"...
This reminds me of when I was programming a game. The game had a genetic breeding model for almost all NPCs as well as the player character. I wanted to have an option to disable evolution (so that the relative frequencies of traits remained roughly constant over time. You know, if you want to run it far into the future and still have recognizable plants and animals many generations later. What I discovered was that this wasn't possible without removing heritability entirely or creating some kind of god entity that just went around balancing the frequency of different alleles and making sure things didn't go extinct. Any initial species I populated the world with would rapidly evolve toward meta-optimal strategies or go extinct. Now, it was possible to disable mutation, but sexual selection inevitably ended up with a bunch of completely unintended, completely novel combinations. Including interspecies hybrids that were sometimes viable.
I don't mean to stereotype but I LOVE the dichotomy between your gruff outside and your well-mannered, extremely well-educated insides. Your breadth of knowledge and your lucidity are always amazing to me. They have helped me explain things to others I thought were a "lost cause". Thank you, sir.
It's pretty awesome that the ad that played at the beginning of this video was for Genesis Apologetics, because I can't imagine a youtube video whose audience would be made up of fewer potential customers for their products. Nice to know The Algorithm has completely wasted their advertising dollars.
The funny part is that if they know, they're not only fine with it, they think these are the people who need to see the ad the most so they'd be happy supporting Aron's channel.
Watching Aron over the years has made me realize that creationists always make up an argument that evolutionists say but atheists always show the creationist argument being made thoroughly before debunking it. Creationism is really just creating your own reality no matter what the facts are. It’s hard for me to distinguish between mental illness and creationism a lot of the time.
@@paulbarclay4114 It depends on what your religion is. If your religion is as a creationist, that is, you absolutely must take a literal interpretation of everything the Bible says, then yes, Science CAN disprove it.
@@paulbarclay4114 You want to talk about logical fallacies? "many of the greatest scientists in the history of the world were devoutly religious" Association fallacy. Any scientist who ever claimed to have faith in a theory, or that it was "revealed truth" would rightly be denounced as a fraud. "you can never prove that god exists outside of and transcends creation, from the perspective of creation" Meaningless word-salad. White noise. Gibberish. "anyone who uses religion to "disprove" science is just as wrong as anyone who tries to disprove religion with "science."" More bothsiderism. And you're wrong. Holy scriptures like the Bible make claims about the physical world that can be tested and shown to be wrong. If this is the revealed word of God, was God lying? What else was God wrong or lying about? Religious people can't answer these challenges honestly, so they hide behind apologetics, arrogance, special pleading, and world-salad.
Thank you, AronRa, for this presentation. Sometimes I feel I am the only person in my area of Montana, which seems to have a church at almost every prominent corner, who recognizes the fallacies of the bible. If "The Truth shall set you free," then knowing and understanding the Big Bang and Evolution are the truths that set us free from the mythology and ignorant Bronze and Iron age tales of the bible.
I lost count of the number of times that I said: oh no, not THAT argument again. Ending with Fred Hoyle. There’s a great example of a mind poisoned by bias. A genius in his own field, but utterly incompetent in almost every other field. What a waste of a brain! Thank you for yet another excellent video. You got my vote at 0.19. Assuming you didn’t just google Wavy Davy, but Bob Mortimer is a comic genius. And somehow your memes got better from there!
That Russian study of foxes is really interesting. I heard about it before they selected for various different things. what I found most interesting was that that selecting for aggression breeding the top 10% and the lowest 10% is that the most variation in fur colour etc was in the lower aggression group which also tend to show more ‘juvenile’ traits into adulthood as well. (It been a few years since I read the study so my memory may be wrong about the details). Still fascinating study if somewhat ethically in the the grey at times.
@Lord Omacron - too bad they ended up tainting their findings by getting their original breeding pairs from a breeder that already was breeding for their pelts instead of wild foxes. It doesn't necessarily completely discredit the results, but it does damage the findings by introducing biases and tainted data.
While selecting for tamer foxes they also selected for floppy ears. The question is are those genes really connected with each other that they inevitably got passed down together. Or did they just unconciously selected for both traits because floppy ears just appeared less aggressive. I think it is the latter, I think the researchers as the humans they are also looked at cute outwards appearance and selected for both traits. So they got less agressive foxes that also looked a bit "cuter". I don't see an ethical concern with these kinda studies, only with how they keep and treat the animals. We do that all the time with dogs, pigeons and other domesticated animals, so why should this with foxes be a grey zone.
@@maythesciencebewithyou I believe the ethical issue was breeding for pelts that if my memory is correct included particularly cruel slaughtering methods .
I was waiting for the Russian Fox Breeding experiment to show up. The interesting part of that study is, being a Russian study, they not only bred the nice domestic fox. They ran a parallel experiment breeding the most aggressive fox from the groups.
They weren't breeding the docile foxes to be pets either. The foxes are used for their fur and they wanted a breed that was easier to handle. Except that the domesticated breed ended up with the "wrong" fur colouration and was thus useless for commercial skin-removal purposes.
Dave compared rolling a six on a 6 sided die 5 million times in a row as having the same odds as a tornado going through a junkyard and creating an airplane. Now he laughed it off but it bothered me. A dice can land on six 5 million times in a row. The chances are astronomically low, but the chance of that happening will never be zero. The chance of a tornado creating a plane will always be zero
They always get this analogy wrong g anyway. Natural selection makes it more like infinite Yahtzee, where every time you roll a 6 you put that die aside and keep it.
@@simongiles9749 It seems to be a combination of "thinking in your own terms" (how else could creation happen but suddenly) and ""making the other side sound as stupid as possible".
What's worse is that evolution as an actual concept isn't really very complicated. To get down to the details one might need a 38 minute long video and more, but evolution isn't hard at all to grasp as a concept. These religious people are too stupid to do something as simple as spend 5 minutes educating themselves on the most bare bones of evolution.
Mind boggling that people can take their own made up intuition as more reliable than demonstrable observation. I'll give them this, that's commitment. Also, editing is fucking brilliant
Not to argue but you'd be surprised how many people take things seriously on faith alone. Very few people actually know the binary code running on their computers or how the local nuclear power plant works but it just does and then they don't ask questions or wonder because they were raised to believe in those things.
@@lameduck3105 those things aren't really taken on faith alone though, they demonstrably work. Even if we don't know the details about how they work, there us still imperic validation going on. Faith in God on the other hand, can't be validated, this is the divine hiddenness problem.
@@uninspired3583 Imagine being born into a world where there's computers, television, nuclear power plants etc and you don't understand how any of it works. Then imagine you were born into a christian family and got told that god created the universe (something we still can't prove how actually happened). What would make you dismiss one thing, that works but you don't understand, and then not believe a creation story you were brought up with when science has little answers for that question? If it works, it works. If the universe exists, something must've created it. That line of logic isn't too far for any religious person. I'd also add that most people are gullible and believe whatever a person they are fond of says. Whether that's your parents, teachers, friends, preacher etc. Trust is a value that is inherent to humans due to their social nature. So that sometimes mean taking someone's word as a truthful statement and not doubt everything everyone tells you.
@@lameduck3105 i don't have to imagine, you've described my past. The first thing that caused me to doubt the creation story I was told, was the thought that if I was born to an Islamic, or Hindu family, I would have those beliefs instead. Just because I care about someone doesn't mean they aren't mistaken, if I care about believing true things I need more reliable conditions. According to your argument for the beginning of the universe, I could present a like analogy. Water is heavier than air, so someone powerful must be responsible for making rain fall. Now that we understand the cycles of evaporation and condensation, we don't dance for rain gods. We don't have the ability to investigate universe making the way we can investigate rain making, but that isn't a good enough reason to anthropomorphize a cause.
The theory of evolution is (probably ??) the most tested and validated theory because it is so fundamental to pretty much all medical science. And, of course most other life sciences.
The theory of evolution is, IMHO validated most by the simple fact that it would actually be completely impossible to design a genetic reproductive system which does NOT result in constant adaptive change. 1) any biological system involving the use of a genetically based method of information transfer between generations WILL carry a certain level of mutation or change. No chemical process is 100% reliable. 2) genetic change will, to some extent, determine the characteristics of offspring 3) changing characteristics will affect organism's likelihood of reproductive success with a population 4) changing physical environments will also impact which characteristics are best adapted to survival and reproductive success in a population. QED: evolution is not only an observable fact, but is an INEVITABLE fact of biological reality
Keep fighting the good fight Aron and continue to shine a light on these liars. They really think it’s a valid argument that because a complex idea takes more than a paragraph to explain it’s ridiculous. Thinking you can use a simple example like two genetic based characteristics and extrapolate that to sum up the whole process is beyond idiotic- we are only starting to understand how the interplay of genetics works including epigenics. I still find it fascinating how our expanding understanding of DNA has significantly substantiated the process of a theory initially proposed over 100 years ago.
I read about the fox experiment a few years ago. It's one of my favorites; it really shows a possible way that we could have domesticated dogs. I also love that they found that the "friendly" ones all had waggy tails and the droopy ears.
Uh, Darwin did NOT see just little "blobs". Mr. Creationist, you really need to actually read Darwin's scientific papers and look at the drawings he made of fungi, for example. Pretty detailed for "blobs".
Evolution has to be the best example of how truth withstands scrutiny. Billions of people have tried to refute it over the years, but it stands strong. Evolution only has more and more evidence behind each day. Truly inspiring.
Oh that would be grand! I may never want to go into the back of a butcher shop and watch a slaughter, but this one I wouldn't want to miss for anything!
The only thing that would make an Aron Ra video even better is a post-credits finale involving his dog seeking some attention and interrupting an earlier 'take'.
Did anyone else ever try plugging their own random codes into a Game Genie to see what happens to the game? I've been thinking that that's a pretty good analogy for mutations. I used to see some really weird stuff.
I remember reading about the Russian sable farm years ago. After breeding the sable to get them tame enough to handle they lost the traits that that wanted for fur production. They made a really neat and incredibly soft dog. I am so glad you used that. It is a small thing but it was really entertaining to me when I heard it the first time.
I grew up in a Christian home and considered myself Christian my whole life. That is until about 3 years ago. I used to argue for the faith and somehow always thought my arguments were weak. I started watching more science videos, as well as former Christians turned atheist videos. Can now say I am a much much, so much, happier person now since I walked away from religion. Science is real. Fairytales are not.
No one but a christian would ever ask "duh..do you believe in evolution?..duh.." because that would be like asking "do you believe in Venus?" No. I KNOW Venus exists because we have observed and studied it in the same way we have studied, observed, and analysed evolution. So anybody with a brain would actually ask; "do you accept the process of evolution?" Evolution is like any other fact of life; unlike religion, it does not require belief to make it true. It exists with or without our believing in it.
I feel like the moon would be a better example, because I can't see proof of Venus with my naked eye. I can see proof of evolution and watch it happen all around me, though. Honestly evolution is closer to me than the moon, but at least I can see the moon in the sky with my own 2 eyes!
Thank you for arming me for my trip to the Dallas CRT tomorrow (Creation type museum). Going to the Perot Museum Saturday, keeping that firmly in mind.
"Evolution is ... the most scrutinized and critically examined and rigorously tested of all scientific theories, only because it challenges a literal interpretation of a favorite fairy-tale and not for any other reason." That👆👆👆
Thank you for making these videos. Ever since I got to University and went for a biology major my extremely conservative Christian father is trying his best to convince me to be "open minded" and "critical" about evolution. He believes that I was "indoctrinated" by "evil science" because I understand reality while at the same time his arguments are exactly the same as the arguments of creationist in this video. These videos just give me a better way to form an argument to destroy his christian bs and thank you again for that. *PS, he also disowned me when I came out as bisexual, so...
The biggest issue with Dave's "knowledge" here is that if Aron published manure alike, one wouldn't comprehend whether he was serious or pulling a prank. Having said that, I gather Aron has more integrity than to do so. And would make it sound far more convincing.
Wow! I'm first!! I absolutely love your videos Aron. I've learned so much and have been fascinated with studying evolution further on my own time thanks to you. Keep them coming!
I used his 'Systematic Classification of Life' series combined with: 'Vertebrate Palaeontology' by Michael Benton, 'History of Life' by Richard Cowen, 'Evolution of Earth' by Donald Prothero and Robert Dott ua-cam.com/play/PLgRoK-eyLjomaNEGNHjb1r8YWbUzVIskd.html
Have you ever considered the true oddity of his argument for adaptation. God creates a perfect creature with a pure genome and places this creature in a perfect environment for it to live. But because this perfect environment that was created perfectly, changes (changes?) it was built into the animal with the perfect genome, the ability to change, (perfect genome changing?) They have perfect plants for food, changing to keep from being eaten, then perfect consumers of that food changes to eat the changed plants so they can develop the strength to avoid the predator for which they are the perfect food for, and of course the predator with a perfect pure genome is able to change to keep up with the perfect food....my head is spinning. It makes perfect sense that god would build a perfect world and then introduce an arms race between all the organisms. Not!
Like all pseudoscientific ad hoc "explanations" the only purpose of this presentation by Pig-Wave Dave is to try and cover up all the points where the idealized, naive religious story clashes with reality and clearly is debunked by not talking about what is really happening. Of course an almighty and allknowing god wouldn't need to make genes malleable or vulnerable to "a fall from grace"... but as we do not SEE perfect genomes there HAS to be an explanation and as god is "perfect" the explanation has to begin with god WANTING it to happen... which IMO ends in utter ridiculousness, but people like Dave seem to take comfort from the nonsense. Goes only to show they never actually bother to think their "model" through to the extremes of it's implications. Cause that might lead them directly to undeniable problems with this god image they so need and crave to be real... Things like Epicurus Problem of Evil description.
the o shit moment when he was reading the real definition, just the greatest, the moment that the lies are exposed. then his quick scramble to straw man it to death. just funny on it own
You can start by studying the "mice from grain" that seem to happen in Australia from time to time. At least... the mice are found around grain stores.
@AronRa keep up the good work sir I was a Christian but after reading the bible and watching your videos im a atheist now , what you say is backed up by proof love your videos sir and thank you for helping me see the truth.
22:28 sums up most Christian anti-evolution positions nicely! Their mind melts reading a coherent explanation and would rather be infantilized by "God did this".
As an expert in the field of dark souls and elden ring, i can confirm that magic and miracles are very different things. Too bad that only applies to video games and not reality
Oh, thanks a lot, Aaron. You just had to call it water bending. Now for the rest of my life the image of Moses parting the Red Sea is going to include him doing a bunch of martial arts moves. ... and then when Moses ticked him off, God made him walk around in a DESERT for the rest of his life! It makes so much sense!
Hoyle wasn't an _utter_ incompetent. He did do some groundbreaking work on stellar nucleosynthesis...how nuclear fusion in the cores of stars create elements heavier than helium. His work in the field is still the basis for a lot of astrophysical theory on how elements are created through various stellar processes.
I'm always flabbergasted when I hear about a case like Hoyle's where a person so brilliant in one field can be such a drooling moron when thinking about another. The tornado creating an airliner analogy was Hoyle's, and reveals that he had no clue whatsoever about the incremental stochastic process in which random mutation builds up an enormous reservoir of genetic variation in any large population of animals, which is then acted on by circumstantial selection in a kind of ratcheting system that continuously refines adaptation to the environment. How could a scientifically trained and acclaimed man have avoided the most basic understanding of another field that he had the temerity to criticize? I just don't get it, but fortunately examples of that kind of extreme incongruity are rare.
@Miraak Sure. Brilliant cardiologist, but doesn't know jack about botany. Fine with me. I'm not a plant, and doubt that I have a forsythia growing in my coronary arteries .
I'm enjoying this series on the Bad Surf Smurf and his awful attempts to sell absurdity to kids. It's scary to think that these "lessons" might actually be used in a classroom. Not only is the information a mishmash of levels that doesn't fit into any of the education key stages properly, but it's inherently dishonest. In the UK this would never be allowed in a certified classroom, even in a private establishment (though that might not stop it being used.) As a teacher, it's really very unsettling to realise that their will be parents and schools that are happy to show this propaganda to their trusting children.
And to top it off, he also seems to be wrong about how deserts work. He's another person who thinks desert = always hot all the time. I know it's tangential, but it supports the "doesn't know what he's talking about" point.
He needs to stop it with the hebrew. He just chose the ones who said the words meant what he wanted. ua-cam.com/video/Ges5GxUXAXk/v-deo.html And I think the word for firmament "reik'a" means emty space.
If “evolution” equals “mistake” then “Wavy Dave’s” “presentation” is “evolving” with every other word! Great job absolutely destroying Davy the Dunce, Aron- as always!
Utterly enjoyed it I have lots of friends around me who believes in creationism thought they are highly educated but for some reason refusing to research and try to understand I guess magic is more entertaining
Magic isn't just more entertaining it also takes a lot less work. Religious people are outright too lazy to get educated. They're so incredibly lazy that the fact that it's incredibly easy to debunk any given religious claim with hardly any time or effort involved at all they still can't be bothered. Science and Religion are polar opposites, but the fact that people with actual education and expertise can claim any religion is true shows the capacity of the human brain for self delusion. The very existence of something as paradoxical as a religious scientist proves this.
@@immortalfrieza i don't think i completly agree with you. obviously some theists are intelectualy lazy, but in many cases i think it's more psychological effects sutch as fear of the unknown. to them theism is a part of their identity and a the way they interpret the world so just throwing that away likely feels horribly wrong on an instincual level just like you would be hesitant to throw away atheism.
Well for many, I think it's just psychologically comforting to not have to admit that we're all here with no particular purpose beyond procreation. No 'divine plan', nor 'meaning of life', nor 'everlasting hereafter'. Looking up at the night sky and realizing just how insignificant we are can be a hard pill to swallow.
@@mikefochtman7164 And, if we were willing to admit that, we'd be far far more advanced as a species because everyone to a man would be working to change that.
"in a desert...long haired dogs can adapt or move to a different climate or they will die" aww, poor stupid man. The Afghan Hound was actually bred in a desert, has long hair and is better suited to warm and hot climates than cold ones.
It is super silly trying to refute an established part of science, it's like fighting the final boss that cannot be stopped, and it's an absolutely hilarious sight to see.
It's not so funny when you remember that his audience is going to include a lot of home-schooled children who don't have the knowledge to approach these ideas critically.
@@richardfurness7556 here's hoping somebody teaches them critical thinking sooner than later where they'll see the atrocities their uninformed parents teach
I can't get over how absolutely infantilizing the way religious zealots speak is. It's downright creepy. "The dogs love each other very much and get married" "Oooh, so many words, let's simplify this" If someone spoke like that to me I'd probably punch them, and I'm not a violent person but fuck's sake speaking like that to children is already bad, doing it to adults is disgusting.
Today I read a silent omission walking the streets of Buenos Aires: "The biggest force in the universe is the faith in God". That implies that the faith is powerful, god less powerful (if he exists at all, which would not be necessary for the faith).
All of these little creationist things, all their cute concepts that sound like science, none of them are discoveries. They never tested any of this junk. They literally make stuff up that sounds like it should sound at home in a documentary, report it as if it was fact and expect to be taken seriously by the scientific community without ever understanding what science is. I'm sure some of them are aware of this. I wonder how many.
@@jesuslord6822 Blah blah blah. None of that had anything to do with what I said. This drive by evangelism is extremely irritating. I wouldn't mind having a conversation with you but you're never going to be able to just link me to the right video and recite the right Bible verse and change my mind. And honestly, I'm not going to watch them. Why would I? You couldn't even be bothered to respond to what I wrote or maybe even find out why I'm so skeptical. Ever thought of that? If you really want to change my mind, maybe get to know me a little? Maybe find out if I just think atheism is just super cool or if I looked into it a little and gave it some thought... Had you done that you would have found out that I used to be a Bible thumping Southern Baptist and I heard all this stuff before. Then you could either know not to waste your time OR y'know, you could provide some evidence. But since I don't believe in miracles I won't hold my breath.
I'm so confused by the whole "it's just genetic recombination" thing... Like, there are literally new genes in there. WE CHECKED. You can't recombine into genes that neither parent had in the first place!
I propose a modification to Hitchens' Razor: "That which is asserted without evidence, is to be discarded with impunity." ---This in particular when religious piffle is bandied about the room.
When people tell me that mutations don't make new information because it's just using the same stuff that already there I tell them that no author has ever written a "new" book because they are all the same letters that are in every other book.
"BuT yOu CaNt GeT nEw InFoRmAtIoN fRoM tHe SaMe GeNeSSSSSSSS"
Then you ask them to try to define evolution, and things fall apart.
@@subaru4920 then why do they consistently try to claim that absolutely anything that changes in an organisms DNA is not new "information" but instead a "deletion?" Besides, even if it were true that changes in the order of the nucleotides did not constitute new information, arguing that animals had to have been "created" at the origin of life is not arguing against evolution, it's arguing against abiogenesis, which is a completely different topic.
Thank you. I'm gonna use that one.
@@Sciguy95 idk about the whole deletion thing, etc. But to answer your why? Cause creationists are dishonest and lie to make things add up. Either to others, themselves, or most often both
Um..yeah..but... It's still a book lol. 😂
"Nature doesn't have a brain, it's not a person, so it's not capable of selecting anything." Neither does a coin sorter. It's just a slope with different holes on it. Yet it's perfectly capable of selecting coins by size and making neat columns just using gravity and geometry. Dave's point was so far divorced from reality I can't attribute it to either malice or stupidity any more: it's pure insanity.
He knows that, he's just attempting to steer his followers back to the avenue of intelligent design; "if nature is not capable of selecting traits, then "someone" cough:god:cough must be the explanation!"
Well... a coin sorter was obviously designed.
@@missk1697 So are coins, what's your point? I specifically quoted what I'm addressing to make it clear what my analogy was about. As you already know, analogies are never perfect.
Even if a god designed and created nature, that wouldn't change the fact that afterwards natural forces still apply evolutionary selection pressures. Which was my point before you intentionally misunderstood it. I personally don't believe in deism or theistic evolution but I think both are infinitely more believable than intelligent deign for this simple reason.
I would be cautious about using this line of argumentation as it can leave you open to the rejoindre “A coin machine is designed though! You’re proving creationism”. You have to pay excruciating attention to the fact that you’re talking about the mechanism of the sorting rather than how it got to be that way in the first place
@@vincentheartland2088 I have already got that kind of a response just a few days ago (is this vid trending again or what?) and I wasn't impressed by it then. I don't think I'm obligated to worry about people who don't want to understand how analogies work. If someone is so obstinate, no single argument will change their minds anyway.
I love how I always get an ad for Genesis Apologetics at the start of these videos. They're practically paying Aron to debunk them.
Perhaps you should try using an adblock.
Money well spent, supporting Aron
@@ominous-omnipresent-they youtube premium is better. Skip the ads, support the creator.
@@ominous-omnipresent-they Always puzzles me that people so proudly recommend ad-blockers. UA-cam and their creators offer you content in exchange for ad-views which pay for the service and the content. You use technical tricks to get the content without paying (with money or ad views). That’s immoral. And short-sighed, because if everyone would follow your suggestion, the content you want to watch couldn’t even be created or delivered anymore. If you don’t like the ads, pay for a UA-cam subscription. That’s the right recommendation.
It’s so they can prep on their way in before adding comments.
I was watching and hoping that Luke Skywalker's _"Every word of what you just said was wrong"_ would make an appearance. It's devastating to realise the evil that creationists will plan and propagate to lie to children.
He's not even "the pot calling the silverware black"... more like "the pot calling a Buick an orange."
AronRa has been listening and debunking creationists for 15 years. I can't watch 15min of creationist stupidity, it actually hurts.... AronRa the most patient and tolerant person on earth.
@Toughen Up, Fluffy yeah arranging bones in some imaginary order that you want evolution to happen isn’t evidence
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 lol nobody is "arranging bones" that's extremely dumb. And yes Darwin was wrong on a few things but that was about 150 years ago and biology has come a long way since then. You guys treat Darwin like the Boogeyman it's funny lol 😆
Your just angry that evolution completely disproves Genesis and the claim that a sky genie made everyone from dirt.
From someone who arranges history and biology to fit a story book...that's kinda laughable
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 you are right, that is not evolution.
Can you correctly describe what evolution is? Or are you required to lie for sky daddy?
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264so if you find a skull bone and a leg bone and a vertebral bone, you will put the skull at the end of the leg?
Your stupidity is disturbing
"Never Trust an Atom. It Makes Up Everything!"
Great work Aron. Always learning and getting a chuckle from your excellent educational videos.
Never ask atoms to leave. It’s dangerous when they split 🤓
@@dr.floridamanphd Well said, because when they get excited, they tend to release an abundant amount of energy.
Never ask an atom for its opinion. Its always neutral.
Yet another brilliant debunking of absurd creationists Lies and extremely educational in the process. Thank you Aron keep up the good work.
@@thelord3561 A Male created , misogynist monster. Take your bullshit somewhere else!
I just can't believe these people understand selective breeding, but can't wrap their heads around as simple a concept as genetic drift... It blows my mind.
And that's just the smart ones. Most of them are too stupid to even acknowledge that selective breeding is a thing much less evolution as a whole.
It because selective breeding is obvious and cant be denied. But genetic drift can be ignored and lied about.
Most 30+ minute UA-cam videos feel too long. But from Aron, they don't feel long enough. Could watch for ages.
Even the hour and a half video felt like half an hour. I love hearing Aron eviscerate the twaddle from the bible thumping pillock.
100%
They way he speaks, it gives me comfort
You're so right, I have no idea why it's true I just know it is and am very grateful for it!
@@thelordjesus1136 I feel so lucky that you use UA-cam to spew your religious bullshit. That way I don't have restrain my dog from eviscerating you, he seems to dislike door-to-door god-botherers. Now don't go away mad, just go away.
RE: his Natural Selection presentation.
It's not just the hair.
Imagine EVERYTHING evolving to suit the desert environment. Everything.
Why just the hair? because it's easy to understand?
Yes, an animal in a desert has some selective pressure to not be hairy.
But it also has selective pressure to not drool
And it has selective pressure to favor specific foods
and it has selective pressure to know where water is
It has selective pressures from a million different directions
How many of these clever "adaptations" would it take for him to consider it a different animal? At some point, it's not going to be able to breed with the original. Is it then? That's when We think it does but clearly this guy is a genius when it comes to natural selection so maybe he could elucidate for the rest of the class.
Is it 100 clever adaptations? Do they have to be obvious from the outside? Does he have to look like a completely different animal? Does he have to look like an animal that already exists, for some stupid reason?
Creationists are so simple minded it hurts my head trying to think like them. Its like putting on a pair of underpants owned by a 5 year old.
wait he thinks Adaptation is what a Winter Fox does?
Just.... No.
🤣I would say more them trying to convince you the underpants were actually a hat.... maybe cute dinosaur-patterned ones
Actually it's bloody cold in the desert at night so some hair helps keep the sun off and provides warmth at night. Look at the camels !
His constant quoting of Ken Ham's quips just reinforces the fact that his arguments are intellectually bankrupt.
"We know more than you wish we didn't." That's a good line.
Aron, there are creationist ads on this video lol. Made me literally laugh out loud. As an epidemiologist, evolution is one of the cores to understanding disease - especially infectious disease. :)
Advertising dollars well spent supporting Aron's work! 👍🏼😂
@@Starhawke_Gaming thats right :)
@Buck Rothschild Could be! Its just so funny that I only see them on Aron's channel
Must be related to ad buys
As someone who works in construction I’m shocked Big Wave Dave was able to pass his journeyman’s test.
As someone who has examined the wiring in several houses, I am not shocked, not figuratively, anyway.
I don't know that Dave is an electrician; only that he worked for an electric company.
@@AronRa That sounds more accurate. You need to get your science right to be licensed.
@@AronRa Makes sense. Electricity companies need people to sweep the floors too.
Much like Hovind's claim to gave "taught high school science" doesn't mean that he taught acience *in* a high school.
@@simongiles9749 I thought we used brooms and mops for sweeping floors. Dave doesn't have nearly enough hair to be useful.
I'm telling you, Aron gets all this fire breathing from the hot sauce, by now he basically evolved into being a Tejas skepticus draconis.
I evolved a new hot sauce recipe that will outcompete most others in the ecosystem of the grocery store shelves. Gonna have to come up with a cheeky name and send a bottle to everybody's favorite death metal atheist! I will make him a believer and make him tremble before the mighty Scotch Bonnet Lord of Fire... hey that's a pretty good name
I believe that to be true!
@@joefization sign me up for a bottle or two, it sounds great 👍
@@herbiehopkins I'd love to share but this year was the prototype year, probably made only a half gallon of the special scotch bonnet recipe, and a couple gallons of other good recipes but those don't have the same magic. Next year I'll know what to grow to make lots more! I'd be happy to share the recipe if you're interested, I'm not wanting to keep this deliciousness secret
@@joefization scotch bonnet you say?
Jamaican me Jerk Face Lava Sauce
The tame foxes in Russia: If I remember correctly it only took them 40 years of breeding out aggression to get tame dog like foxes that could be pets. I think they started in 1950s and by the time the USSR fell they already had tame foxes.
@Miraak they're cute, but wouldn't make a great pet
Creationist are incapable of the title of this video.
Also love how they think basic 10th grade science can "debunk" the most supported theory in all biology as if experts havent already considered these "issues"
I think part of the problem with creationists, is they look at the very surface of what they think evolution is, read a few Google articles and think they have a decent amount of knowledge, when in reality, they have no idea what so ever just how in depth the theory is and everything thats been tested and seen to further the theory. Not to mention that their definition of a "theory" is a basic thought and nothing else. Lastly, the voice he uses as if he's coddling children is creepy af...
@@exlibrisscientia6741 agreed 100%. Peak dunning keuger.
@Toughen Up, Fluffy oops. Sorry.
I asked a religious guy the same thing when he said evolution is not real and just a theory i told him all the other theories like germ, gravity, plate tectonics etc... And the guy said that its all Fake you cant reason with these ppl
Isn't any religion just a theory with no evidence to support it, not observable and certainly not testable
lol, if you ever meet up with him again, ask him how he feels about the theory of gravity not being real after tripping and falling xD
@@Callimo lol sure thing lol
@@colinsixhitter3303 yes they make claim after claim after claim but after thousands of years they have no evidence or proof to back up those claims and yet science has been around for centuries and we have a plethora more evidence and proof to back up our claims then they ever will and thats why they always say their proof and evidence is the bible which we all know thats not evidence lol
I wonder how they feel about the theory of music?
Just a theory?😳
Another issue with the hybrid breeds is that their traits don't breed true, that is if you take 2 hybrids and breed them then the resulting traits of the puppies will be random because every trait that is part of each pure bred breed will be heterozygotic in the hybrids. Which then get mixed punitt square style for each chromosome pair.
It would take a lot of breeding to get the recombinations and mutations required to make those traits breed true to make a breed that you can classify as a breed.
Can comfirm. Was helping a friend try to get a [redacted]¹ coloration into the Araucana breed of chicken. It was a very long, drawn out process, and I eventually had to stop, because I was having too hard a time keeping the records in order.
See, the records had to keep track of who was bred to whom and what colors chicks hatched, as well as whether they had tufts (a specific trait in the Araucana breed that makes them rare, but can also be fatal to the chick in the egg, if they get two of the genes for them), and if there were one tuft or two, and keep track of those parents, to try to avoid the fatal cross, which kills all chicks that get the doubling up of that gene.
The Araucana breed already has a higher rate of embryo loss between fertilized egg being stuck under the hen or in the incubator and the end of the first 7 days, anyway, just because of their oddball genetics. But the gene for tufts (which is basically a few feathers that stick straight out from the side of their head, at their ear hole, either on one side or both) makes things much more complicated, yet.
One can't breed a bird with 2 tufts with a bird that has any tufts, or you'll lose, if memory serves, 75% of the embryos that start any growth at all, and those that survive to hatch almost inevitably have very bad birth defects and often must be put down immediately to prevent them suffering and dying in great pain. And putting down baby chicks is just heartbreaking to me. I cry. Every single time I have to do it.
So, anyway, one has to breed a bird with 2 tufts to a bird with no tufts (which isn't even technically an Araucana, according to the SOP², just an Araucana-based Easter-Egger), but that still must be purebred (but with the attempts to get the feather color changed, this is where we put the ½ [color pattern redacted]¹-feathered[insert breed here]³/½ Araucana-based Easter Egger (non-tufted Araucana) as one parent, to work the feather color pattern into the breed, while diffusing the fatal gene expression to a safe level that doesn't kill all of the chicks!
And then you take note of if there were even a hint of [redacted]¹ (the desired color pattern) in their (undesirable color) feathers, or if there were any (undesirable color/pattern) showing up in the one or two rare ones that hatch with [redacted]¹ desirable feathers, and keep track of those chicks' parents, to try to breed them to others that may carry a strong expression of the [redacted]¹ feather gene, too. Oh, and also keep track of those pairs who have and chicks with any [color pattern]¹ in their feathers, because they at least should have a weak expression of the desired color for feathering trait.
Oh, and you must always watch to see if the skin color and foot color were correct, or if not, because skin color and feather color is often intertwined, and note which parents could have the undesirable recessive skin or foot color trait, and watch for it in their later chicks when they are paired with other mates, to weed out the ones that do have the wrong foot and skin color genes recessive in their DNA, even if they're throwing the correct color offspring.
Well, you can see how complicated just changing a color feather on chickens can be, in a breed where you don't want to lose another trait. And chickens getting their feather color changed isn't that rare a thing that people do. Especially since, if you manage it, you can become pretty darned rich! I mean, not Walton, or Besos, or Musk kind of rich, but extreme comfortable, LOL!
But the point is, yes, it's very complicated. And it's a brain ache to keep track of as you're doing the breeding, too!
[1]
I'm not involved any more, but I'm not sure if they're still working on the project, so I am not giving any hints about what she was working on as far as the feather color/pattern. It would be very unfair to them if I did.
[2] SOP = Standards Of Perfection, the very exacting list of things that must be correct on a breed (and even color of chicken) for it to be acceptable as one of that breed, according to the rules. This allows the breed to be entered into shows (much like dog shows, or any other animal show] where they're judged on how much they do match the "perfect" example of that breed.
[3]
Like with the coloration they were working on, if this were given out, it could directly affect their attempts to be the first with this coloration into the breed they are working with. Were I to give the breed and color pattern of the "donor" breed, someone else could, if really lucky, beat my friends to the punch, so to speak, affecting them and the potential direction of their lives immensely.
(Edited to add explanations)
(And edited again to add another whole chunk of sentence I totally missed writing... added "makes things much more complicated, yet," to I believe it was Paragraph Three. _~sigh~_ )
As an owner and lover of schnoodles (poodle schnauzer mix) I can confirm this to be accurate.
All I know is despite still being catholic in 6th grade, I could have easily seen through Bisby's ridiculous and lazy arguments. Thanks Debate class, lol.
Good for you, keep working on those critical thinking skills!
It all depends on with what exactly you are indoctrinated as a kid. Most Catholics have accepted Evolution (started by God) as fact. So it's not surprising that you'd see that as ridiculous. Yet at that point, you still were a Catholic who didn't question the core stupidity of that religion. If you had been raised with the belief in Genesis as fact and evolution as bullshit, you might have agreed with him.
I love Arons edits. They're fucking hilarious. On his previous video on this subject, when the guy introduces himself as "Big Wave Dave", he edits in Mad Dog Tannen saying "what kind of stupid name is that?". I laugh my ass off every time I hear it.
Some surfer poser name is what it is lol
@@AntiChrxzt and the concept of seeing _him_ in anything resembling a swimsuit is an image I didn't need in my mind, either, so... thanks for that. 😐
@@MaryAnnNytowl I sincerely apologize. That was not my intention at all.
That Futurama episode sums up that guys whole argument.
I have told his type that not only would he get a Nobel prize but scientists would love him for opening up new areas of research and grant money.
All sorts of scientists would love to get a god into their lab and poke it with every instrument they can think of.
Alas.... none has been found that could be investigated beyond "thinking really hard about what you feel"...
@@Ugly_German_Truths
Ah, but the scientists will have to wait while said God is tried for crimes against humanity!
@@dragonhealer7588 Reminds me of the movie God On Trial.
ua-cam.com/video/tD7v9phroGM/v-deo.html
@@BaronVonQuiply
A passably good drama.
Ironic that both sides claimed faith in the same God.
Humanity still has far to go.
This reminds me of when I was programming a game.
The game had a genetic breeding model for almost all NPCs as well as the player character.
I wanted to have an option to disable evolution (so that the relative frequencies of traits remained roughly constant over time. You know, if you want to run it far into the future and still have recognizable plants and animals many generations later.
What I discovered was that this wasn't possible without removing heritability entirely or creating some kind of god entity that just went around balancing the frequency of different alleles and making sure things didn't go extinct. Any initial species I populated the world with would rapidly evolve toward meta-optimal strategies or go extinct. Now, it was possible to disable mutation, but sexual selection inevitably ended up with a bunch of completely unintended, completely novel combinations. Including interspecies hybrids that were sometimes viable.
I don't mean to stereotype but I LOVE the dichotomy between your gruff outside and your well-mannered, extremely well-educated insides.
Your breadth of knowledge and your lucidity are always amazing to me. They have helped me explain things to others I thought were a "lost cause".
Thank you, sir.
Except his gruff outside keeps being discredited by his animals interrupting his recordings. Too adorable.
It's pretty awesome that the ad that played at the beginning of this video was for Genesis Apologetics, because I can't imagine a youtube video whose audience would be made up of fewer potential customers for their products. Nice to know The Algorithm has completely wasted their advertising dollars.
Great use of their advertising dollars, supporting the debunking of their own garbage claims. 👍🏼😂
The funny part is that if they know, they're not only fine with it, they think these are the people who need to see the ad the most so they'd be happy supporting Aron's channel.
Watching Aron over the years has made me realize that creationists always make up an argument that evolutionists say but atheists always show the creationist argument being made thoroughly before debunking it.
Creationism is really just creating your own reality no matter what the facts are. It’s hard for me to distinguish between mental illness and creationism a lot of the time.
Creationists: "It makes no sense that life came from mud"
Also creationists: "God made Adam from the dust of the earth (and Eve from his rib)"
@@paulbarclay4114 It depends on what your religion is. If your religion is as a creationist, that is, you absolutely must take a literal interpretation of everything the Bible says, then yes, Science CAN disprove it.
@@paulbarclay4114 Trite bothsiderism.
Under harsh critical scrutiny, science thrives. Religion dies.
@@paulbarclay4114 You want to talk about logical fallacies?
"many of the greatest scientists in the history of the world were devoutly religious"
Association fallacy. Any scientist who ever claimed to have faith in a theory, or that it was "revealed truth" would rightly be denounced as a fraud.
"you can never prove that god exists outside of and transcends creation, from the perspective of creation"
Meaningless word-salad. White noise. Gibberish.
"anyone who uses religion to "disprove" science is just as wrong as anyone who tries to disprove religion with "science.""
More bothsiderism. And you're wrong. Holy scriptures like the Bible make claims about the physical world that can be tested and shown to be wrong. If this is the revealed word of God, was God lying? What else was God wrong or lying about? Religious people can't answer these challenges honestly, so they hide behind apologetics, arrogance, special pleading, and world-salad.
@@paulbarclay4114 LOL you've given no logic and explained nothing. But feel free to project your own many flaws on to me.
Thank you, AronRa, for this presentation. Sometimes I feel I am the only person in my area of Montana, which seems to have a church at almost every prominent corner, who recognizes the fallacies of the bible. If "The Truth shall set you free," then knowing and understanding the Big Bang and Evolution are the truths that set us free from the mythology and ignorant Bronze and Iron age tales of the bible.
I lost count of the number of times that I said: oh no, not THAT argument again. Ending with Fred Hoyle. There’s a great example of a mind poisoned by bias. A genius in his own field, but utterly incompetent in almost every other field. What a waste of a brain!
Thank you for yet another excellent video. You got my vote at 0.19. Assuming you didn’t just google Wavy Davy, but Bob Mortimer is a comic genius. And somehow your memes got better from there!
The Monty Python Argument Clinic cuts make this so much more enjoyable. Phenomenal presentation, as usual, Mr. Ra. Thanks for sharing, kind sir.
That Russian study of foxes is really interesting. I heard about it before they selected for various different things. what I found most interesting was that that selecting for aggression breeding the top 10% and the lowest 10% is that the most variation in fur colour etc was in the lower aggression group which also tend to show more ‘juvenile’ traits into adulthood as well. (It been a few years since I read the study so my memory may be wrong about the details). Still fascinating study if somewhat ethically in the the grey at times.
@Lord Omacron - too bad they ended up tainting their findings by getting their original breeding pairs from a breeder that already was breeding for their pelts instead of wild foxes.
It doesn't necessarily completely discredit the results, but it does damage the findings by introducing biases and tainted data.
While selecting for tamer foxes they also selected for floppy ears. The question is are those genes really connected with each other that they inevitably got passed down together. Or did they just unconciously selected for both traits because floppy ears just appeared less aggressive. I think it is the latter, I think the researchers as the humans they are also looked at cute outwards appearance and selected for both traits. So they got less agressive foxes that also looked a bit "cuter".
I don't see an ethical concern with these kinda studies, only with how they keep and treat the animals. We do that all the time with dogs, pigeons and other domesticated animals, so why should this with foxes be a grey zone.
@@maythesciencebewithyou I believe the ethical issue was breeding for pelts that if my memory is correct included particularly cruel slaughtering methods .
I believe they actually sell them as pets now
Thank Goodness Aron Ra has dropped another video on this series, as always, it's a point to education and value to me.
Thank the darkness indeed
I learnt what a 'wavy Davy' is
I was waiting for the Russian Fox Breeding experiment to show up. The interesting part of that study is, being a Russian study, they not only bred the nice domestic fox. They ran a parallel experiment breeding the most aggressive fox from the groups.
The Russians are masters at running experiments in parallel. Drives American astronauts crazy.
They weren't breeding the docile foxes to be pets either. The foxes are used for their fur and they wanted a breed that was easier to handle.
Except that the domesticated breed ended up with the "wrong" fur colouration and was thus useless for commercial skin-removal purposes.
Dave compared rolling a six on a 6 sided die 5 million times in a row as having the same odds as a tornado going through a junkyard and creating an airplane. Now he laughed it off but it bothered me. A dice can land on six 5 million times in a row. The chances are astronomically low, but the chance of that happening will never be zero. The chance of a tornado creating a plane will always be zero
They always get this analogy wrong g anyway. Natural selection makes it more like infinite Yahtzee, where every time you roll a 6 you put that die aside and keep it.
@@simongiles9749 I'm pretty sure the Creationist view of abiogenesis involves a one-time event in one afternoon.
@@robertmiller9735 Ah yes, I see the mistake I made- I underestimated just how wrong creationists can be.
@@simongiles9749 It seems to be a combination of "thinking in your own terms" (how else could creation happen but suddenly) and ""making the other side sound as stupid as possible".
Having a basic understanding of evolution and hearing the lies of this guy makes my brain hurt🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
What's worse is that evolution as an actual concept isn't really very complicated. To get down to the details one might need a 38 minute long video and more, but evolution isn't hard at all to grasp as a concept. These religious people are too stupid to do something as simple as spend 5 minutes educating themselves on the most bare bones of evolution.
Don’t worry. You need to be made of mud to understand them so I guess you never will... from my, part, they make my tooth roots ache with despair.
@AronRa is hereby awarded two internets for use of the wonderful Futurama clip in an very appropriate context.
Mind boggling that people can take their own made up intuition as more reliable than demonstrable observation. I'll give them this, that's commitment.
Also, editing is fucking brilliant
Not to argue but you'd be surprised how many people take things seriously on faith alone. Very few people actually know the binary code running on their computers or how the local nuclear power plant works but it just does and then they don't ask questions or wonder because they were raised to believe in those things.
It's a very prevalent attitude, used in many more contexts than religion. Try arguing about masks or vaccines sometime.
@@lameduck3105 those things aren't really taken on faith alone though, they demonstrably work. Even if we don't know the details about how they work, there us still imperic validation going on.
Faith in God on the other hand, can't be validated, this is the divine hiddenness problem.
@@uninspired3583 Imagine being born into a world where there's computers, television, nuclear power plants etc and you don't understand how any of it works.
Then imagine you were born into a christian family and got told that god created the universe (something we still can't prove how actually happened).
What would make you dismiss one thing, that works but you don't understand, and then not believe a creation story you were brought up with when science has little answers for that question? If it works, it works. If the universe exists, something must've created it. That line of logic isn't too far for any religious person.
I'd also add that most people are gullible and believe whatever a person they are fond of says. Whether that's your parents, teachers, friends, preacher etc. Trust is a value that is inherent to humans due to their social nature. So that sometimes mean taking someone's word as a truthful statement and not doubt everything everyone tells you.
@@lameduck3105 i don't have to imagine, you've described my past. The first thing that caused me to doubt the creation story I was told, was the thought that if I was born to an Islamic, or Hindu family, I would have those beliefs instead.
Just because I care about someone doesn't mean they aren't mistaken, if I care about believing true things I need more reliable conditions.
According to your argument for the beginning of the universe, I could present a like analogy. Water is heavier than air, so someone powerful must be responsible for making rain fall.
Now that we understand the cycles of evaporation and condensation, we don't dance for rain gods. We don't have the ability to investigate universe making the way we can investigate rain making, but that isn't a good enough reason to anthropomorphize a cause.
"Let's look at the definition of Evolution...."
"Actually, let's not, it doesn't really help me here...."
The theory of evolution is (probably ??) the most tested and validated theory because it is so fundamental to pretty much all medical science. And, of course most other life sciences.
@Joe Andersen why did you mark your lecture as for kids? Was it an excuse to have the comments turned off?
@Joe Andersen LIAR
The theory of evolution is, IMHO validated most by the simple fact that it would actually be completely impossible to design a genetic reproductive system which does NOT result in constant adaptive change.
1) any biological system involving the use of a genetically based method of information transfer between generations WILL carry a certain level of mutation or change. No chemical process is 100% reliable.
2) genetic change will, to some extent, determine the characteristics of offspring
3) changing characteristics will affect organism's likelihood of reproductive success with a population
4) changing physical environments will also impact which characteristics are best adapted to survival and reproductive success in a population.
QED: evolution is not only an observable fact, but is an INEVITABLE fact of biological reality
@Joe Andersen we welcome your demonstration of this claim's truth.
Genesis Apologetics has turned comments off on their videos. Shows a whole lot of confidence in their own material.
Keep fighting the good fight Aron and continue to shine a light on these liars. They really think it’s a valid argument that because a complex idea takes more than a paragraph to explain it’s ridiculous. Thinking you can use a simple example like two genetic based characteristics and extrapolate that to sum up the whole process is beyond idiotic- we are only starting to understand how the interplay of genetics works including epigenics. I still find it fascinating how our expanding understanding of DNA has significantly substantiated the process of a theory initially proposed over 100 years ago.
Kindergarten has a better grasp of the science of evolution than these creationists!
I read about the fox experiment a few years ago. It's one of my favorites; it really shows a possible way that we could have domesticated dogs.
I also love that they found that the "friendly" ones all had waggy tails and the droopy ears.
LOL, when I clicked on this video it said it was uploaded 34 seconds ago, and already 9 comments on it!
Great content as usual, Aron!
Uh, Darwin did NOT see just little "blobs". Mr. Creationist, you really need to actually read Darwin's scientific papers and look at the drawings he made of fungi, for example. Pretty detailed for "blobs".
I don't think he will leave his christian blob to read a decent book.
Evolution has to be the best example of how truth withstands scrutiny. Billions of people have tried to refute it over the years, but it stands strong. Evolution only has more and more evidence behind each day. Truly inspiring.
Please tell me, please, Aron Ra, that Big Wave Dave knows about this series and is ready to challenge you to a debate? It must happen.
It would be unfair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
@@jmaniak1 ouch
Stop! STOP! He's already been beaten!
Dave is bringing a Bible to a gunfight...He would've been better off at least bringing a knife.
Oh that would be grand! I may never want to go into the back of a butcher shop and watch a slaughter, but this one I wouldn't want to miss for anything!
The only thing that would make an Aron Ra video even better is a post-credits finale involving his dog seeking some attention and interrupting an earlier 'take'.
It is hilarious that when Talking about two dogs mating, that creationist feels need to say "they marry"
Did anyone else ever try plugging their own random codes into a Game Genie to see what happens to the game? I've been thinking that that's a pretty good analogy for mutations. I used to see some really weird stuff.
There is a channel on here called Gruz,he has all kinds of crazy codes for Mario 3. I used to love using a Game Genie.
Masterful roasting, Aron! 👏
That ignorant electrician-turned-teacher never stood a chance! Keep up the awesomeness, thank you for your activism!!!
I remember reading about the Russian sable farm years ago. After breeding the sable to get them tame enough to handle they lost the traits that that wanted for fur production. They made a really neat and incredibly soft dog. I am so glad you used that. It is a small thing but it was really entertaining to me when I heard it the first time.
I grew up in a Christian home and considered myself Christian my whole life. That is until about 3 years ago. I used to argue for the faith and somehow always thought my arguments were weak. I started watching more science videos, as well as former Christians turned atheist videos. Can now say I am a much much, so much, happier person now since I walked away from religion. Science is real. Fairytales are not.
Ironic he would mention the civets when the Hyena is a well known “Dog” of the “Civet kind”
No one but a christian would ever ask "duh..do you believe in evolution?..duh.." because that would be like asking "do you believe in Venus?" No. I KNOW Venus exists because we have observed and studied it in the same way we have studied, observed, and analysed evolution. So anybody with a brain would actually ask; "do you accept the process of evolution?" Evolution is like any other fact of life; unlike religion, it does not require belief to make it true. It exists with or without our believing in it.
But isnt Venus a religion?
@@turkoositerapsidi No, but it is the name of a god IN a specific religion.
@@ilikecookies9796 That is indeed what i was pondering about.
I feel like the moon would be a better example, because I can't see proof of Venus with my naked eye. I can see proof of evolution and watch it happen all around me, though. Honestly evolution is closer to me than the moon, but at least I can see the moon in the sky with my own 2 eyes!
Thank you for arming me for my trip to the Dallas CRT tomorrow (Creation type museum). Going to the Perot Museum Saturday, keeping that firmly in mind.
"Evolution is ... the most scrutinized and critically examined and rigorously tested of all scientific theories, only because it challenges a literal interpretation of a favorite fairy-tale and not for any other reason."
That👆👆👆
Aron’s depth of knowledge blows me away.
Can you imagine if they were to scrutinize gravity with same fervor and zeal as they did evolution? We’d have anti-grav and warp drive by now surely.
I love the little edits. The Bug’s Life one got a chuckle out of me.
Thank you for making these videos. Ever since I got to University and went for a biology major my extremely conservative Christian father is trying his best to convince me to be "open minded" and "critical" about evolution. He believes that I was "indoctrinated" by "evil science" because I understand reality while at the same time his arguments are exactly the same as the arguments of creationist in this video. These videos just give me a better way to form an argument to destroy his christian bs and thank you again for that.
*PS, he also disowned me when I came out as bisexual, so...
31:34 - We know a lot more than you don't. We know more than you wish we didn't.
Nominated for quote of the year.
The biggest issue with Dave's "knowledge" here is that if Aron published manure alike, one wouldn't comprehend whether he was serious or pulling a prank. Having said that, I gather Aron has more integrity than to do so. And would make it sound far more convincing.
"A corn stalk growing hamsters" Thank you for adding to my future D&D campaigns Aron
In the Middle Ages there was an art motif of a bush that grew sheep. The theory is that the original European artist misunderstood cotton.
Wow! I'm first!!
I absolutely love your videos Aron. I've learned so much and have been fascinated with studying evolution further on my own time thanks to you. Keep them coming!
I used his 'Systematic Classification of Life' series combined with:
'Vertebrate Palaeontology' by Michael Benton,
'History of Life' by Richard Cowen,
'Evolution of Earth' by Donald Prothero and Robert Dott
ua-cam.com/play/PLgRoK-eyLjomaNEGNHjb1r8YWbUzVIskd.html
How you find the patience, is beyond me. But you deserve all my respect and I highly enjoy your effort and rebuttals.
Have you ever considered the true oddity of his argument for adaptation. God creates a perfect creature with a pure genome and places this creature in a perfect environment for it to live. But because this perfect environment that was created perfectly, changes (changes?) it was built into the animal with the perfect genome, the ability to change, (perfect genome changing?) They have perfect plants for food, changing to keep from being eaten, then perfect consumers of that food changes to eat the changed plants so they can develop the strength to avoid the predator for which they are the perfect food for, and of course the predator with a perfect pure genome is able to change to keep up with the perfect food....my head is spinning.
It makes perfect sense that god would build a perfect world and then introduce an arms race between all the organisms. Not!
Like all pseudoscientific ad hoc "explanations" the only purpose of this presentation by Pig-Wave Dave is to try and cover up all the points where the idealized, naive religious story clashes with reality and clearly is debunked by not talking about what is really happening.
Of course an almighty and allknowing god wouldn't need to make genes malleable or vulnerable to "a fall from grace"... but as we do not SEE perfect genomes there HAS to be an explanation and as god is "perfect" the explanation has to begin with god WANTING it to happen... which IMO ends in utter ridiculousness, but people like Dave seem to take comfort from the nonsense. Goes only to show they never actually bother to think their "model" through to the extremes of it's implications. Cause that might lead them directly to undeniable problems with this god image they so need and crave to be real...
Things like Epicurus Problem of Evil description.
A "perfect" God. That's an "important" detail.
And the free-for-all smack-down happened as soon as they stepped off the ark judging by the fossils🤣
the o shit moment when he was reading the real definition, just the greatest, the moment that the lies are exposed. then his quick scramble to straw man it to death. just funny on it own
“Cornstalks growing hamsters.”
That’s a million dollar idea. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some schmucks to con. 😁
@Eastern fence Lizard, shut up and take my money!
You can start by studying the "mice from grain" that seem to happen in Australia from time to time. At least... the mice are found around grain stores.
"We know a lot more than you don't."
Are you sure about that? Bisby strikes me as not knowing almost everything.
I find it absolutely amazing how a person says "We are god's perfect creation", yet wears corrective eyeglasses.
I lost it when Dave said the, " Dogs get married."
And love each other very, very much ...
Obviously farm children are not in his classes demographic.
And they lived happily ever after.🤣🤣🤣
27:55 The precise definition of how population diversity causes evolution and adaptation. TY!
Of course the dogs need to married before having puppies.
@AronRa keep up the good work sir I was a Christian but after reading the bible and watching your videos im a atheist now , what you say is backed up by proof love your videos sir and thank you for helping me see the truth.
22:28 sums up most Christian anti-evolution positions nicely! Their mind melts reading a coherent explanation and would rather be infantilized by "God did this".
Ignorance is not just what you don't know, it's also what you refuse to know. (Aron Ra)
32:50 "appeared, emerged, arose..." funny that his magic god can't manage to accomplish anything any of these magical words describe.
I am currently sitting next to both a golden doodle and a labradoodle. They are really offended by his doggie example.
As an expert in the field of dark souls and elden ring, i can confirm that magic and miracles are very different things. Too bad that only applies to video games and not reality
That use of Futurama to diss him in the first few seconds is very hilarious 😂.
Oh, thanks a lot, Aaron. You just had to call it water bending. Now for the rest of my life the image of Moses parting the Red Sea is going to include him doing a bunch of martial arts moves.
... and then when Moses ticked him off, God made him walk around in a DESERT for the rest of his life! It makes so much sense!
Hoyle wasn't an _utter_ incompetent. He did do some groundbreaking work on stellar nucleosynthesis...how nuclear fusion in the cores of stars create elements heavier than helium. His work in the field is still the basis for a lot of astrophysical theory on how elements are created through various stellar processes.
And yet he chose to spend his time teaching utter bunkum to children 😔
I'm always flabbergasted when I hear about a case like Hoyle's where a person so brilliant in one field can be such a drooling moron when thinking about another. The tornado creating an airliner analogy was Hoyle's, and reveals that he had no clue whatsoever about the incremental stochastic process in which random mutation builds up an enormous reservoir of genetic variation in any large population of animals, which is then acted on by circumstantial selection in a kind of ratcheting system that continuously refines adaptation to the environment. How could a scientifically trained and acclaimed man have avoided the most basic understanding of another field that he had the temerity to criticize? I just don't get it, but fortunately examples of that kind of extreme incongruity are rare.
@Miraak those rants don't negate his brilliance in another field, though. That was the OP's point here.
@Miraak
Sure.
Brilliant cardiologist, but doesn't know jack about botany. Fine with me. I'm not a plant, and doubt that I have a forsythia growing in my coronary arteries .
@Miraak
Good luck, because ( probably) around 99% of them are going to be clueless in some scientific field/fields.
I'm enjoying this series on the Bad Surf Smurf and his awful attempts to sell absurdity to kids. It's scary to think that these "lessons" might actually be used in a classroom. Not only is the information a mishmash of levels that doesn't fit into any of the education key stages properly, but it's inherently dishonest. In the UK this would never be allowed in a certified classroom, even in a private establishment (though that might not stop it being used.) As a teacher, it's really very unsettling to realise that their will be parents and schools that are happy to show this propaganda to their trusting children.
And to top it off, he also seems to be wrong about how deserts work. He's another person who thinks desert = always hot all the time. I know it's tangential, but it supports the "doesn't know what he's talking about" point.
In fact, Antarctica is the largest desert on the planet.
Rock on Ra , as ever...what is trivia for one is forbidden knowledge for others.
And I've had a lecture from a PhD in History who said that evolution is true. So, check mate, Big Wave Dave.
As always..top notch and a slam dunk on creationist apologists .
He needs to stop it with the hebrew. He just chose the ones who said the words meant what he wanted.
ua-cam.com/video/Ges5GxUXAXk/v-deo.html
And I think the word for firmament "reik'a" means emty space.
Much, much better than "a book said a thing". Outstanding.
That's a Professor Dave quote, isn't it?
If “evolution” equals “mistake” then “Wavy Dave’s” “presentation” is “evolving” with every other word! Great job absolutely destroying Davy the Dunce, Aron- as always!
36 religiot butts were *SERIOUSLY HURT* by this video.
Keep up the good work, AronRa :) .
Utterly enjoyed it I have lots of friends around me who believes in creationism thought they are highly educated but for some reason refusing to research and try to understand I guess magic is more entertaining
Magic isn't just more entertaining it also takes a lot less work. Religious people are outright too lazy to get educated. They're so incredibly lazy that the fact that it's incredibly easy to debunk any given religious claim with hardly any time or effort involved at all they still can't be bothered.
Science and Religion are polar opposites, but the fact that people with actual education and expertise can claim any religion is true shows the capacity of the human brain for self delusion. The very existence of something as paradoxical as a religious scientist proves this.
@@immortalfrieza i don't think i completly agree with you. obviously some theists are intelectualy lazy, but in many cases i think it's more psychological effects sutch as fear of the unknown. to them theism is a part of their identity and a the way they interpret the world so just throwing that away likely feels horribly wrong on an instincual level just like you would be hesitant to throw away atheism.
You claim atnheists arent lazy?
Well for many, I think it's just psychologically comforting to not have to admit that we're all here with no particular purpose beyond procreation. No 'divine plan', nor 'meaning of life', nor 'everlasting hereafter'. Looking up at the night sky and realizing just how insignificant we are can be a hard pill to swallow.
@@mikefochtman7164 And, if we were willing to admit that, we'd be far far more advanced as a species because everyone to a man would be working to change that.
"When you look at modern cells that are part of complex organisms they're clearly not what started life so therefor God" -This Preacher
"in a desert...long haired dogs can adapt or move to a different climate or they will die"
aww, poor stupid man. The Afghan Hound was actually bred in a desert, has long hair and is better suited to warm and hot climates than cold ones.
Yes it both protects from sunburn and helps disepate heat
It is super silly trying to refute an established part of science, it's like fighting the final boss that cannot be stopped, and it's an absolutely hilarious sight to see.
It's not so funny when you remember that his audience is going to include a lot of home-schooled children who don't have the knowledge to approach these ideas critically.
@@richardfurness7556 here's hoping somebody teaches them critical thinking sooner than later where they'll see the atrocities their uninformed parents teach
I can't get over how absolutely infantilizing the way religious zealots speak is. It's downright creepy. "The dogs love each other very much and get married" "Oooh, so many words, let's simplify this"
If someone spoke like that to me I'd probably punch them, and I'm not a violent person but fuck's sake speaking like that to children is already bad, doing it to adults is disgusting.
Today I read a silent omission walking the streets of Buenos Aires: "The biggest force in the universe is the faith in God".
That implies that the faith is powerful, god less powerful (if he exists at all, which would not be necessary for the faith).
All of these little creationist things, all their cute concepts that sound like science, none of them are discoveries. They never tested any of this junk. They literally make stuff up that sounds like it should sound at home in a documentary, report it as if it was fact and expect to be taken seriously by the scientific community without ever understanding what science is. I'm sure some of them are aware of this. I wonder how many.
ua-cam.com/video/2utSDK3zqYA/v-deo.html
#JESUS FIRST Salvation Is Only Through The Jesus Of The Bible Brother For Everything That Moves Is Created Through The Lord
@@jesuslord6822 Blah blah blah. None of that had anything to do with what I said. This drive by evangelism is extremely irritating. I wouldn't mind having a conversation with you but you're never going to be able to just link me to the right video and recite the right Bible verse and change my mind. And honestly, I'm not going to watch them. Why would I? You couldn't even be bothered to respond to what I wrote or maybe even find out why I'm so skeptical. Ever thought of that? If you really want to change my mind, maybe get to know me a little? Maybe find out if I just think atheism is just super cool or if I looked into it a little and gave it some thought... Had you done that you would have found out that I used to be a Bible thumping Southern Baptist and I heard all this stuff before. Then you could either know not to waste your time OR y'know, you could provide some evidence. But since I don't believe in miracles I won't hold my breath.
I feel sorry for the poor children that are forced to attend his Sunday school.
I'm so confused by the whole "it's just genetic recombination" thing... Like, there are literally new genes in there. WE CHECKED. You can't recombine into genes that neither parent had in the first place!
I propose a modification to Hitchens' Razor:
"That which is asserted without evidence, is to be discarded with impunity." ---This in particular when religious piffle is bandied about the room.
I hope the people that need to see this see this! The outro music had me headbanging in the kitchen.