National Geographic View of Fossil Record is WRONG Says Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лип 2024
- Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg challenges what he calls the "National Geographic" or "textbook" view of the fossil record as a support for modern Darwinian theory. In this bonus interview released as part of the Science Uprising series, Sternberg unpacks what the fossil record really shows, what we learn from population genetics about Darwinian theory, and how the Darwinian mechanism can't account for the evolution of whales. He also examines competing scientific explanations for the abrupt appearance of new body plans in the history of life.
Richard Sternberg is an evolutionary biologist with interests in the relation between genes and morphological homologies, and the nature of genomic “information.” He holds two Ph.D.'s: one in Biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International University and another in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) from Binghamton University. From 2001-2007, he served as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, and from 2001-2007 was a Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. Dr. Sternberg is presently a research scientist at Discovery Institute.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official UA-cam channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery.org/id/
www.evolutionnews.org/
www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Visit other UA-cam channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: / cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallace: / alfredrwallaceid - Наука та технологія
What he seems to be saying is that, without a creator, life would have no porpoise.
OK that's a good one. Very creative.
Obviously, we are not here just for the halibut.
LMAO!
😂😂😂😂👍👍
Nice one. :)
I think we all had that moment when we were hearing the story of the first mammals. As the dinosaurs were dying off, there it was: a cute little furry creature, timidly watching from the bushes…
As young students, this account conditions us to not ask the big questions.
But where are the mutations that demonstrate that any upwards "directionality" is even possible, let alone probable?
Dawkins was asked this and after a long pause the camera was switched off . He never answered the question.
There are no mutations that would be considered beneficial or upwards "directed" for evolution to occur. Every evolutionists should be put on the spot by asking this question.
@@albertsmith6717 I mean we have the development of citrate metabolism in E. Coli due to the duplication of the Cit+ gene, the development of DDT resistance in mosquitoes due to the mutation of the DseT2 gene, just to name a few.
An excellent example is found in studying bacterial evolution. See, for example, the paper "Adaptive Evolution within Gut Microbiomes of Healthy People"
There is no directionality.
I remember asking my biology instructor in college how prehistoric animals can be the ancestors of current animal life forms when they were wiped out in a extinction event. Wouldn't that break the evolutionary chain? How can an extinct life form be the ancestor of anything? She said that she had never thought about that before so for now we call them the ancestors of current life forms. Dumb da dumb dumb.
Well said Ted. I had the same instincts in public education science classes.
Great point. I guess the only argument would be that modern forms are ancestors of similar related species, but for which we have no fossil evidence.
Huh? Who has ever said that specimens belonging to species that went extinct during an extinction event are the ancestors of current life forms? Fossils and fossilspecies we found are also most accurately show them being an off-branch of modern linages, as them being directly ancestral to modern animals are quite unlikely.
Who's saying this?
Because not all species are killed during mass extinctions...
The problem of the evidence is that fossils form in water which is mineral rich causing fast fossilization so we get as good preservation as we have. We haven then people studying Dino mummies of which this should not even be possible and what’s been found with microscopy, that these vast ages could not be possible. Damn the evidence, what we need is more proof that the complexity we know is impossible no matter how the time scale is increased.
It is absurd. We expect that an irrational process produced people who can reason and that we are not willing to say this is just plain wrong. Shall we go to the junkyard to buy our next generation computer? Of course not, however we just keep going that way while the numbers of aborted babies exceed what has been killed by all our wars. The purpose of evolution was to demoralize us, so we could achieve a socialist government and guess what, who the heck wants to pay for the wrecking of our economy which was built out of people who were committed to raising their families because they went to church!
Even the Russians have realized that people do better with a benign religion. Meanwhile the Liberals love to promote Islam, and that we should take care of everyone flooding our borders, when these countries are emptying their prisons and insane asylums to send them to us to ease their own burdens and we just say “come on in”. One would have to be completely stupid to vote for Democrats, so that i who they are importing in order to stay in power.
Who cares about these fairy tails which have flushed our way of life down the toilet!!!!
Weird how people just buy evolution as fact when there are so many things that don't hold up under scrutiny. The thing is they really don't want to question it or have it questioned because another view doesn't fit with their worldview.
that's preposterous. The only thing that doesn't "hold up to scrutiny" is the specific hypothesis of neodarwinism which has been criticized for over 40 years now in the peer review. But that is just one proposed MECHANISM. The falsification of neodarwinism as a mechanism has no bearing whatsoever on the OCCURRENCE of evolution.
Based on what happened over the last 2 years w Covid19, I started to believe that so-called 'mainstream science' can be extremely inaccurate.
Nah, bro, just read a science book and think about what it’s telling you. The great thing about the theory of evolution is that it’s falsifiable, and no one has done so yet, not even this lame video
Oh, please. You clearly haven't read a single scientific paper about evolution.
Confirms everything I always thought while growing up listening to teachers feed me crap about the subject with such confidence...
Finally scientists are following the data!! Thank you for putting these videos together showing how wrong the textbooks have been all these years.
It is true that the video shows the problems with the current theory. But the interviewee takes an odd turn when he talks about "template" as the basis for evolution. This is not quite scientific. It would seem more rational for scientists to look for other variants of the theory of evolution than just random DNA mutations. For example, they could look for theories that implicate epigenetics.
Textbooks? The mountain of Scientific Papers supporting evolution is in disagreement with this pseudoscience
And what is the data saying….
@@davidchung1697 Here's a great paper about epigenetic evolution: "Epigenetic inheritance and plant evolution"
What Mr Sternberg is saying is not science.
Smart people are able to construct incredibly complex scientific theories, but when they're completely wrong they are just as wrong as any idiot.
I love you so MUCH! 😍
And he has TWO PhDs! May GOD bless him and use him MIGHTILY! In the name of JESUS!
"For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding."
Proverbs 2:6!
Great minds belong to GOD! 🙏🙌
Better paid, though.
Yep. When we do that we use all our brain power to come-up with arguments and theories to justify and support the impossible. It’s not an issue of smarts; it’s an issue of intellectual honesty. An issue of deciding whether the goal is finding truth or supporting the popular theory.
You're speaking of Richard Dawkins, I assume?
@@CJFCarlsson Christian apologists gain more money than actual scientists. I don't know where you get the idea that scientist have a good income.
I have a serious question for evolutionists. How long do i and my decendants have to be near water to be like aquaman?
Probably more than a milion of years, but you would need to make sure only those with favored traits get to reproduce.
It would basically work like creating a dog breed.
It would never happen if you lived near water since breathing water wouldn’t give you any advantage over other humans. If you lived in the water, it would take millions and millions of years if at all. Whales for instance live in the water but don’t breath it
Forever.
@@Dunger974 What is impossible will be impossible. Even billions of years can't change it.
You can nudge the process along by wearing beige tights, green dish gloves and speaking in dolphin. Best of luck.😂
Just to add-on about whale evolution, the rate of genetic mutation is abysmally low due to DNA repair mechanism and, generally speaking mutations are detrimental in nature. The aquatic features like the blowhole are morphological changes what about the metabolic changes? You need both to be present simultaneously for a creature to successfully adapt to an aquatic life.
Cite verifiable evidence for mutations being detrimental
@@professorneturman2249
No, you have the burden of proof to show that mutations, as per your belief, can yield positive effects.
Michael Behe has covered this issue extensively, do your own research fake professor of nothing.
Drosophila has had every possible mutation and combination of genes, and all that was obtained was deformed fruit flies or small changes that any breeder could expect going back centuries.
@@sliglusamelius8578 It is the environment that sculpts organisms. Therefor, the failure of beneficial evolution in LABORATORY experiments is EXPECTED. When we study organisms in their NATURAL environment, we DO see evolution. For instance, the paper "Adaptive Evolution within Gut Microbiomes of Healthy People"
"the rate of genetic mutation is abysmally low due to DNA repair mechanism" So what? All that means is that the specific hypothesis of neodarwinism is flawed. It does NOT just magically mean that it didn't happen. We just don't know HOW it happened. Neodarwinism has been criticized in the peer review for over 40 years so using that to dismiss all of evolution is an extremely dishonest strawman.
@@professorneturman2249 ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.]
Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.]
Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.]
Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.]
Science doesn't know any evolutionary beneficial mutations which reform the basic anatomical structure of any given organism. All known mutations have been non-structural like sickle-cell mutation, lactose tolerance, wingless flies, antibiotic resistant bacteria etc. So they are in fact just adaptations, not evolution. Even these adaptations derive from loss of genes, not from new genes. As you know, evolution means that there should've been a "Common Universal Ancestor". If there ever was such a creature, it should have produced a mind blowing amount of different anatomical structures while in practice it only could've been making copies of itself.
I think evolutionary estimates for the required changes ignores the complexity thorough out. There's discussions about humans, chimpanzee and whale evolution while ignoring the level of anatomical development. The supposed evolutionary traits are minor when considered.
I appreciate how these videos keep fact-checking my high school years in science class. I'm amazed how much of the information I was taught was also being debunked at the same time. Sadly we did not have so many resources to update/correct that information quickly enough.
How did these animals transition from land birth to waterbirth? I've yet to hear a coherent explanation.
As I understand it, the hippo is the only other mammal that frequently gives birth in water, why don't seals and sealions?
The one that gets me is the supposed transition from external fertilization (fish, amphibians) to internal fertilization (reptiles, mammals). That just could _not_ be a gradual process.
@@KenJackson_US Why wouldn't it? Do you know genitals form in an embrio?
@@KenJackson_US Why not?
@@KenJackson_US that's a good point that I'm ashamed to say I have not considered before.
That first transition would die from the ability to process salt water. And while I'm here the salt concentrations would be a lot higher over millions of years
Can I ask you guys to put the questions also in audio? I’m a bus driver and it’s quite hard for me to guess the question that was posed while driving. Thanks!
Thanks for the suggestion... we will try to do this for future interviews not already produced!
We have a mystery right here on earth of how the species arrived and the main stream science doesn't want anyone to look at it, because they say it's already known. What a disservice to knowledge for humanity. By admitting we don't know would release all the minds of humanity to look for an explanation. Solving that deep mystery would more than likely lead to huge advancement in all the other sciences. I waited so long for someone like him to say what I also believe. I look at the ducks on the pond and am amazed.
We gotta get someone to read the prompts. I only ever listen to this channel and I always have to guess the prompt based on the guests answer.
you have a whole series of these videos where questions are asked on a slide silently then they answer verbally. this makes it very hard to follow the video if you are listening to audio only…. why not have someone ask the questions?
Not really an ID proponent, but I find Richard Sternberg to be so insightful especially when bringing about issues relating Neo-Platonism to evolution. Would like to see more content from him and to see him publish some books!
Really just read Steven Meyer maybe that will help educate you
Raised Catholic w 12 years of Catholic school and never truly believed in God until I saw these molecular machines inside our cells. There is NO WAY those things came to be on their own.
@@joxyjoxyjoxy1
Yes, it's common sense and easily discernable. Intellectuals have always been famous for lacking common sense. Society used to have and use the term "intellectual idiots" concerning the phenomenon of the highly educated not being able to relate to reality. Really!
Many of them are proficient in a very small area. They just rely on other Intellectuals to decide what they think. Many can't see the whole picture through all the tiny broken off areas.
Many do not want to believe in God. They are proud of their intellectual prowess and do not want to humble themselves before Almighty God. They do not want to admit that they have been wrong. They also do not want to not be esteemed by their peers. It's the herd instinct.
Thank you, Prof. Sternberg, for having the courage to share!
I can't help but feel that the word Mr Sternberg was searching for in his image of the tree and the bird, was, Function. Indeed it is the interconnectivity of the functionality of different species, that allows a balance for each to continue, and may therefore be considered as the ultimate example of 'irreducible complexity' ?
You guys HAVE to add the questions to the audio as well.
Nearly no one actually WATCHES UA-cam videos.
Many have complained about this and you guys are really dropping the ball by not making this simple change.
Love the content, but you're right. Having to look at the screen is annoying.
I agree ☝️
Highly listenable. The missing lecture at uni. Thank you.
Please provide audio of the questions! When I am listening (not viewing) the clip, I have no idea what the question is that is being answered
Thanks for the great suggestion... these videos have already been produced, but we will try to do this in the future.
Love how long these videos are!!
This is an interesting examination of the theory of evolution, explaining exactly how lacking the theory is in all aspects of what is referred to as evolution of species. The scrutinization of the "holy grail" that every evolutionists regards as the single greatest proof of evolution was torn down and stomped on. Yes, in blatant honesty the evolutionist declared there wasn't enough time for whale evolution to have occurred, so logically, whale evolution never occurred.
Nonsense
@@professorneturman2249
Show your work. Grade: F
Greetings from Turkey There are many people in Turkey who speak positively about the theory of evolution, but there is not even one person who can criticize the theory of evolution like you, but I do not believe in macro evolution. When all the scientists around spoke positively about the theory of evolution, many high school and university students in Turkey became atheists or agnostics. I felt like I found a treasure when I found it, I was very happy, even though I can't understand you, it comforts my heart that there are scientists like you. I am a high school student, I know English, but I do not know enough to fully understand you. I want to improve my English completely and prepare Turkish subtitles for your videos in the next year. God bless you, don't quit this job. I apologize for the grammar mistakes I made.
If it is true you shouldn't mind if the fossil record is scrutinised
It is a great presentation. I had to listen to it the second time to be able to digest the majority of the information some of the terminology used was new to me. And I will look them up
Thank you very much
Fascinating interview. The platonist view of nature matches my own thought that the story of evolution is one of matter navigating towards making real physical copies of various forms/ideas/templates. I am a Christian so obviously have a bias towards these ideas originating in the mind of God. I believe the various adaptive mechanisms in biology,natural genetic engineering, mutations etc....endow nature with the creative freedom to produce variations on top of these templates.
Its so frightening how many people casually talk about how evolution gave rise to this and that like it can give rise to life they have been fed BS
Especially after seeing Dr tour's origin of life impossible odds...
Intelligent design is a prerequisite... is what I'm gleaning from his thoughts.
That’s what you got?! I got that evolution is not only impossible, but at this point in history is so clearly a lie, that the only proponents of it are delusional or liars themselves.
@@nattybumppo4151 Then what is your explanation of how life came about? Evolution has some problems for sure but do you have a better theory? And if you say God did it then produce this god that no one has ever seen.
my english is not that good, I can't understand it i'm learning english to understand your videos
It’s really sad that can’t listen to this at all because THE QUESTIONS ARE NOT NARRATED!!! Please narrate them so I can listen and work.
its so hard to learn evolution through objective resources smhhhh all the articles i have read so far already assumes prior that darwininan evolution is true
Thank you
Discovery Science keep up the good work
The great naturalist/materialist question must be: can any complex biological event account for quantum evolutionary change? Perhaps there are wildly complex mechanisms at work, of which we are as yet unaware, that create these explosively new biological forms ....
Speculation is rife...
Hundreds of thousands of computer professionals over the past 75 years have failed to find or devise one algorithm capable to solve complex search problems, ones much less complex than those evolution supposedly solved. And many variations of natural selection, called genetic algorithms, have fared miserably to solve any of thousands of such types of problems in the lab speeded up on computers to equidistant the earth's time span and beyond. Biologists aren't mathematicaly inclined and discount both that and stronger analytics that contradict natural selection. But the math shows solving such evolution problems by natural selection (or any known algorithm) would far exceed the entire lifespan of earth and even spans of time that physicists discuss. But it doesn't take a math geek and sophisticated analysis to figure out what is obvious to anyone who lives in the real world that complex problems are usually much more complicated than they seem. In the case of evolution, they are exponentially more complicated, and that's speaking conservatively.
Actually, we might wonder what's the creator mechanism through which he gives origin to the species, including us, steaming from the assumption there's is Creator. That's great.
Fantastic information. Thank you.
54 minutes?! 😮 Awesome 😁
Happy to see Dr Richard Sternberg.
Enjoyed your lecture. Informative.
Thank you for the video, very brave of Richard to do this, thank you both.
Thank you too!
It sure would help listeners a lot if someone read the questions aloud instead of silent text.
The extrinsic source I call the fifth dimension not just to give it a number, but it is the middle dimension where reflex is potential.
what an erudite and eloquent commentator -- thank you
Excellent. This really puts the evolutionary handwaving into perspective.
As long as a better explanation is not available, people accept just most convincing Theory. Take any stream of Science , Physics, Chemistry or Biology. One can see how over time we rejected previous understanding either completely or partially. Yet some say Science can answer everything. They should say Science gives most convincing understanding based on measures developed by human.
I have thought on my own about these problems connected with both generation time and population size, but you rarely hear evolution advocates take it into account. Actually, I can't remember it ever being addressed by someone promoting evolution. Yet its relevance is hugely obvious, even to a nonscientist.
Fossils are replica memorials or images of former living things, made of substituted materials, not the original matter involved in the life form. Information in the DNA has to have a method of storing data , which humans did not observe because it exists almost subatomic as particles bearing information about former expressions of life that run along with the current issue of life forms, in a parallel estate of stored or memorialized data, that can re enter the fray of life and bring back former life forms and designs as pressures arise to challenge the life form . That means there is a will to live, some innate primitive intelligent data bank , or memory system, to wit this must be the message bearer from the creator itself.
I appreciate everything he said. I guess my question to him is how is his view of looking at things any different from Intelligent Design or was he agreeing with Intelligent Design and just didn't use the term? It sounded like he described Intelligent Design or defined it and then didn't use the term.
I'm about halfway through listening carefully when I got to your comment.... What he is doing is describing the "evidence".... And our brains are processing the new "information".... Leading us to an obvious "conclusion"👍😂
Walking whale and a aquatic whale ... How would it reproduce with no other aquatic whales? What triggered the change of more then one evolving.
It was a gradual process. There was a point where the wale ancestors were basically semi-aquatic and lived like otters and seals.
It was always clear to me that genetic faithfulness in copying was good for most offspring being healthy. But the better the organism was at being a faithful copy limits the amount of errors to result in new modifications.
we need to get more people to see it by commenting and liking it a lot
His excellent coverage of the extreme improbability of the rapid sequential mutations seems to be only the tip of the ice berg. Each of these bizarre intermediate forms would have to have an advantage in survival. Picture the big roundish terrestrial mamal with very short hind limbs and a bizarre tail joint having the ability to out reproduce the existing competing forms. This would be true at every intermediate stage. This exponentially reduces the possibility of rapid multiple mutations.
My view... Genesis 1!
What rapid sequential mutations?
@@professorneturman2249 you weren't listening at all, obviously
Nice, shared. For those interested, even more than just ID, but more specifically within the YeC division of ID, is the mantle of science.
Owning 'The mantle of science' being defined as advocating the highest probability explanation of the empirical observations.
reference Pearlman YeC for the alignment of Torah testimony, science and ancient civ.
The big question to me is why why would a land mammal morph into a sea mammal what's the purpose there really isn't a good answer
Survival and natural pressures, it's not like they just suddenly stopped being land mammals as some would have you believe.
Every word is measured… perfect manner to explain sophisticated topics.
He dont explan, he saying what he belive. Because we don't see evolution from one species to another, so he have to imagine how it can have happens, because he cant let go of million of years :)
We need to search geological evidence to demonstrate geology that Darwin's theory is incorrect
How would geology even disprove it? It's about rocks, while evolution is about life.
Plate Tectonics support evolution
The speaker does not seem to be taking into account the existence of niches, and the survival advantages of being in them.
He dont take into accont how new and more advanced code in genome can arrive from errors in same genome (mutasjon) also. It just have to happen because million of years cant be wrong. How likely is it I get Windows12 with new and better code, if i corrupt the code in Windows11?
Any survival advantage is nixed by the difficulty in major body plan change.
How does a mutation occur in a population or are we expected to believe that everything living kind had an Adam and Eve?
purpose can be algorithm execution
I know he's considered a quack, but Rupert Sheldrake's concept of morphic resonance seems to offer a hypothesis to explain teleology, which doesn't evoke the need for an intelligence.
If nothing else, Sheldrake inspired Terry Pratchett to write some pretty amusing stuff, and his ideas deserve some respect for that reason, if nothing else.
Resorting to the quacks and the amusing is the fate of the diehard evolutionist
Why do people assume the whales didn't evolve into cows, while some whales remained unchanged? Geologic layers?
Some whales evolved (slightly) into feminists
Science lies ✅
Even the geologic evidence is based on faulty dating methods.
It become harder and harder to explain million of years this days when all show something other. :)
Please can you translate this interview to Arabic?
The hopeful monster would not make it out of the nest.
I wish they would have asked him if he thought spending 20 Million dollars to create a museum to push the whale theory was a good idea.
14:50 - a penguin? :D
PLEASE ADD THE SOUND TO THE QUESTION. I DON’T WANNA STARE AT THIS GUYS FACE FOR ONE HOUR STRAIGHT
The story of whale evolution would be a lot more believable if he spoke whale.
TWO PhDs? WOOHOO!
Adds new meaning to the the chicken or the egg
I had no clue that whales were once a land mammal. What if we are looking at human evolution all wrong? Maybe it happened in a reverse order like the whale?
Human evolution has a mountain of verifiable scientific evidence.
Whales never were a land animal. Macro Evolution is all BS
@@professorneturman2249 no it doesn't. All the human fossil evidence can fit into one coffin, not one mountain.
Great speaker.
My 6,000 year geological timeline is the same as theirs…they just move the decimal point over 10 places
I love you so MUCH! 💞
Thanks
Why is Dr. Sternberg still using the term "Evolutionary" Biologist? That title, which replaced the simpler "Biologist" about 20 years back, seems to be a shiboleth for the ev. establishment.
Anyone who likes this needs to watch the video "Mathematical refutations to neo darwinism" with David Berlinski, Steven Meyer and David Galehnter (sp?). You'll never look at Darwinism the same.
Big fan of Richard, great communicator.
Athe-Faith!
Oxford dictionary; trust, loyalty; Latin root, 'fides'
First grade philosophy; 'We exercise our faith when we choose to sit in a chair, ie, for it to support our weight'
Like any human, the atheist puts faith in himself, that he is of good character, can overcome obstacles
Faith in his health, his accumulated material wealth and possessions;
[he loves 'peace', appreciates art, music, humour; loves the beauty of the nature, but cant prove they exist]
The atheist has faith he will not die tonight in his sleep, but cannot prove he wont
He goes to his car, has faith the key works/car runs, that he has a job still; he has faith in his employer to keep him on...he cant be sure, but that's faith
He has faith in his soccer team and players to win a title; he raises his hands in the air to his 'idols', closes his eyes and sings, chants, pleads for them to 'score'... from the terraces every week; such faith in winning brings him joy.
He has faith his wife is loyal/faithful, and not committing adultery; he cant be sure
He has faith his wife, mom, dad, children, loves, respects him, but cant prove they do, or even those traits, or even his own thoughts exist; but he keeps the faith up anyway
So, you're basically saying that creatures were on land first then water. Embryology seems to think humans came from water first then became land creatures. Sounds a lot like circular reasoning. By the way, the pelvis in a whale is not vetistigeal, it connects muscles used for reproduction (making baby whales).
THE EVIDENCE PROVES CREATION, PERIOD... UNLESS YOU DON'T WANT IT THAT WAY.
Just because something sounds like it makes sense and fits your particular worldview, does not make it true.
See "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory... " with over 3.3 million views.
So does he support Darwinian evolution or not? Clearly whales have evolved. The question is not whether they evolved from land animals but how, and in the time available. Is an intelligent designer required or not? What doesn't make sense to me about intelligent design is why would a land animal be turned into a whale? Intelligent design implies a purpose. It sounds like we're imputing human characteristics to this intelligent designer, which seems very presumptuous.
Life did not assemble itself. Man cannot create one living cell and will never be able to. God reserves that right.
Welcome to the club of failed prophets who said: "Man will never ..."
According to the accepted interpretation of the fossil record life appeared rapidly, was around for awhile, then 96% went extinct rapidly. Geologically speaking. Current estimate is that 96% of fossils are extinct flora and fauna. With no transitions whatsoever. Clearly the deposition of such a huge variety of life forms had to be rapid. So the whole timeline of the oldest, generally declared to be the lowest or bottom of the geologic strata, and the top or youngest, needs to be reanalyzed. Hint: density. If deposition was rapid, how could that happen? A great flood? Yep, that would do it. And until evolutionists can present a scenario (that isn't laughable) whereby complex molecules were created by random events and not only survived but became more complex by more random events until they self replicate in some perfect environment before there is precursor DNA ........and still no life at that point.
I want to add a translation of I want to add a translation of Arabic.
Thank you! Please submit a translation request here and we will contact you: www.discovery.org/forms/translation/
Which of these so called intermediate creatures resemble a form of sea otter?
Thank you
The EM field gives life its form. Change the earth's EM environment and lifeforms change.
They may adapt but they don't create new plans.
There were definitely sea creatures !
Definitely are sea creatures 😉
Cites National Geographic? What do they have to do with the subject?
Prove you can get written programming that's not there.
The difference between the evolution v.s. the creation narrative is. The former changes from"expert"to"expert",from opinion to opinion to opinion and from day to day. Whereas the creation account is unchanged since God said :"Let there be Light ". (Genesis 1:3)
Without inserting another wild theory, why do you think the vast majority of scientists and academia are so adamant about maintaining Darwin’s theory?
Because Darwin gives them a non-conscious based secular foundation of life.
Many scientists and academicians are proudly atheist.
@@neomonk5668 What about people like Francis Collins and the many who strongly embrace both the Gospel and Darwinism?
@@CriticalThinker02 There are a few but they aren't that many but hes right once you get rid of the soul then you're just a bag of meat and it's easy to put a bullet in your head Check out any Communist regime that has ever existed
Models that point to God confer dignity to man and makes you accountable for sin. Something atheists definitely dont want. Then there-s also the prestige element, this is the main paradigm currently so those who disbelieve it dont want to be pariahs and called pseudo scientists.
As to those who believe the current paradigm and the Gospel, they might have their reasons, but they are wrong reasons.
You get rewarded in the mainstream academic world for publishing work that supports the narrative. They want to feel like they "Got an A" on the assignment.
Its when things dont change that we have to be concerned. We are a little overdue for another look at Darwin and his sacred cow.
The number of different species known from the fossil record: 250 000. The number of species estimated to have existed on the planet: 5 000 000 000. Utterly ridiculous to argue that it contains "gaps". It is nothing more than a big gap. This argument is a God of the gaps in the fossil record...
Praise to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - God Almighty - the Creator... That's all we need to remember.
The theory of evolution has been proven to be false. The rest of what our professor has to say is total malarkey