"We apologize for the quality of the video. We were having technical difficulties" - Are you also going to appologize for the quality of the information presented, or I should say misinformation.
@@VernonsYT You wrote that comment with technology that has been made possible by science based on many educated guesses about the natural world. Useless nonsense is a way to describe it, for sure. Not something I'd use though.
@@tomi-Q And you are conflating operational science with historical science. One builds the machines your are touting and the other is an extrapolation to an imagined past.
@@wesleygafoor7050 Maybe it is a language barrier, but I don't know what operational science is exactly, could you elaborate, and give some sources too? I'm talking about natural sciences. Physics and chemistry to be exact. They are based on (our) best guesses about reality and many technologies we have today are the product of said guesses. If best guesses are not enough for you, you should not accept the results we get from physics and chemistry. Evolutionary biology combines many other scientific fields, and the evidence is overwhelming. Not accepting it is okay, I guess. But no alternative theory comes even close to what we have with the evolutionary biology and its theories and predictions.
@tomis1398 Well, that is just it, I'm not disregarding physics and chemistry or biology for that matter. The difference I am speaking of is this, operational science adheres to the classical model of science, that is an observation or an idea followed by an hypothesis, then that hypothesis is tested by experiment to hopefully yield a theory. If there are no exceptions observed in the data obtained, the theory becomes a scientific law by definition. Now contrast that with contriving an imagined past versus say for instance, the laws of physics or chemistry.
Evolution is a unifying principle of modern biology and among the most well-substantiated scientific theories in history. Creationism, on the other hand, is not. Rather telling, don't you think?
I will give you credit for stating that Charles Darwin was not the first (nor last) scientist who furthered the field of evolutionary biology. But *PLEASE* stop saying "evolutionists" and "darwinists". Darwinism (and even neo-darwinism) do not make up all of evolutionary biology. Focusing on "darwinism" (random mutation and random selection) to debunk all of evolution is a straw man, it is like trying to disprove general relativity by going back to Newton. Your description of natural selection (around 6 minutes) is not accurate. Natural selection is in essence those species (or individuals within a species) who survive in their specific environment get to propagate their genes further. In this way, beneficial, neutral and harmful mutations are selected for/against depending on the context of the environment. At 8 minutes: This is a good teaching moment. The reason scientific literature often has long, specific names/titles is to accurately describe what is contained within. The titles of scientific literature are not lies and clickbait, they accurately describe the contents of the literature, not least to help reviewers find what they are looking for. At 9 minutes: I will again give you credit here for actually stating “the modern evolutionary synthesis”. This makes me wonder why the talk and video are named “doubting darwinism” and why the focus is on Darwin, instead of the modern synthesis? Between 10 and 12 minutes you make it sound like there is a battle between evolution and religion. There is, if you want to hold religious scripture to be absolutely literal. But for most people who are religious (at least in western society/educated countries) religion and science coexist. You can be both a Christian (or other religion) and accept the scientific theory of evolution. So, it’s not a spiritual battle. You can keep your cake and eat it, so to speak. Does accepting combustion make you less Christian? Gravity? Electromagnetism? If not, then why does evolution make you less Christian? That is certainly what it sounds like the speaker is saying, that you “can’t have both”. But you can. 25:48 oh great, can’t wait.. 28:30 You are missing quite a lot of steps, but I guess this is not really meant to be an accurate portrayal of evolution? 30:00 Evolution does not necessitate “more complex” organisms. For the record, those who accept evolution AND are religious accept this idea that god actually USES evolution, a way to compromise scripture with science (so called Theistic Evolution). 31:30 This makes me worried that this talk is not being held honestly. “Dissent from Darwinism” was a PR stunt by an organization called “Discovery Institute”. Firstly, there are few biologists on the list of names “dissenting” (you actually even show this soon after), secondly, evolutionary biologists made a funny joke reply list where people named Project Steve, where any biologist named Steve who accepts evolution could sign. This petition received more signatures than the dissent from darwinism stunt (over 1400 biologists have signed it). I should also point out that again, the use of “darwinism” is a straw man, it does not accurately reflect the status of evolutionary biology. 33:30 This is a lie. Scientific discourse does not ostracize people for their beliefs, and religious people certainly are not banned from having Phds simply because they are creationists. Any creationist can write papers in evolutionary biology. For instance, Jonathan McLatchie is a creationist who works at Discovery Institute and has a Phd in evolutionary biology. At 36 minutes you start talking about origin of life, which is a separate field of research. I want to make it really clear that evolution, the diversification of life, does not necessitate abiogenesis or any specific type of origin of life. So I won’t bother addressing this part, since it is a non sequitur as to the validity of evolutionary biology. (1/3)
41:00 This is one of the most common misconceptions I see. Creationists MUST stop dividing evolution into “micro” and “macro” evolution and saying yes to the former, but no to the latter. *They are the same thing over different periods of time*. I will try an analogy so you may understand. An inch is an inch. An inch is a micro foot or micro yard. But if you have twelve inches in a row? That is a foot. Micro becomes macro when you “zoom out”, for lack of a better term. So, no one is stating that pakicetus gave birth to a whale. But an inch of change (so to speak) every generation will look like heck of a lot of progress after a few million years. 42:00 The “source” of genetic information is DNA. DNA is what mutates, it changes over generations. That is how evolution works… 43:30 You have no “debt” to ancestors, I’m not even sure what you are trying to say here. 44:00 The idea that we have “missing links” is getting very old, it stems from your refusal to simply look up evidence. 44:40 We *DO* find them. There has been almost two hundred years of paleontology and we have a very solid understanding of evolution in general as well as hominid evolution. 45:00 This is blatantly dishonest. You are trying to claim that, since there are 43 extant species of x, and only 42 in the fossil record, then the fossil record is 98% complete. I cannot begin to describe how ignorant of actual paleontology this is.. There are plenty of orders that are not currently extant, but used to exist, that we have not found. Your argument assumes that there are NO extinct species, which of course is a ridiculous assumption. 46:10 “a mouse turned into a bat!” more strawman argumenting. No one is proposing that one day a mouse gave birth to a bat. This argument borders on Kent Hovind level ignorance. 48:00 If you want to find evidence.. Just go look? You can look up the entire transition from dinosaur to bird (Archaeopteryx) or land mammal to sea mammal (packi to whale as I touched on earlier). 48:30 Punctuated equilibrium does not work against evolution, it is a part of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium and phyletick gradualism both work in tandem, depending on the species and environmental context/fitness landscape. 49:00 This is simply a Gould quote mine, just like Discovery Insitute does (I can tell these talking points are similar to theirs, not least by this talking point). The full excerpt can be found here, on page 2 /www.uky.edu/~tmute2/GEI-Web/password-protect/GEI-readings/gould_episodic-evolution 50:20 Information comes from the sequence of nucleotides in DNA. “Darwinism” does not *need* to explain the origin of life to explain how life diversifies. 51:00 Mutations do not “corrupt” information. If that were the case, all life on earth would die out in a matter of generations. 51:20 Of course natural selection cannot on its own explain evolution. That is why focusing on “darwinism” is dishonest. Why are you not bringing up genetics? Or recombination? Because it invalidates this entire talking point. 52:00 You just read emphatically a brief section of a biologist, explaining how evolution is becoming so diverse and such a big field, that it needs to incorporate fringe fields of biology into the main modern synthesis, and then go on to talk about how others do not accept evolution. How is it not obvious to anyone in the room that you are reading one thing and extrapolating a completely different thing? 54:00 Of course biologists don’t find darwinism alone to be enough to explain the diversity of life, *because darwinism is a tiny part of the modern synthesis*. Had you asked the same biologists if *evolutionary biology was enough to explain the diversity of life, almost all I suspect would answer yes. (2/3)
56:00 Let’s calm down buddy. They are not saying that we have no idea how evolution happens. They are simply stating, like I’ve said several times now, that natural selection acting on mutations does not *by itself* explain evolution. 56:50 “Evolutionnews” is not a scientific, peer reviewed journal. It is a blog website run by Discovery institute, such as Casey Luskin, as you mentioned. 1:00:00 Even if you somehow did falsifie all of evolution, how would that make a case for creation? x = 0 does not mean y = 1 1:03:10 Evolution does not require “faith”, if faith is defined as “belief without evidence”. 1:04:00 When DNA mutates, it does not “devolve”. All change and mutation is evolution. You seem to be claiming here that as human DNA “breaks down” with time, we become more and more diseased. Not only is this not the case (humans live longer now than before), it would also mean humans either would have already gone extinct or would soon go extinct. 1:05:50 This is actually rather funny. In an attempt to give an example of “degredation”, you cite the human immune system “not being capable” of recognising that certain allergens are dangerous. But allergies are the immune system *overreacting*, not working less than it is supposed to. 1:06:50 This is simply untrue. The human body still kills off cancerous cells in humans. 1:07:35 What do you mean “lifespans are plummeting”? Before the 1900s, people lived to about 40. Ten thousand years ago, the average life expectancy of a human was just over 30. 1:15:50 Not only does it take a long time, but humans are still apes. Why would a monkey or ape today turn into a human? 1:10:00 This completely butchers the concept of punctuated equilibrium. 1:19:10 Marxism did in no way, shape or form require or support darwinism or evolutionary biology. Marxism is a political ideology based on the criticism of the economic model of capitalism. The USSR/Soviets, who killed countless people, denied evolution. One of the most brilliant evolutionary biologists in history, Nikolai Vavilov, was persecuted by the Soviet state for his acceptance and propagation of Mendelian inheritance and early genetics. It’s a similar case with “naziism” and eugenics. To conclude: This video was free for me to watch, and I still want my money back. I won’t claim that anyone was trying to be intentionally dishonest, but this video is quite dishonest, even if not by intention. It was nothing more than thousand time debunk arguments from Discovery Institute, rejection of empirical evidence such as the fossil record, quote mining (Gould) and a general misunderstanding of what evolutionary biology is and how it works. For crying out loud, *please* stop going after Darwin. As I said in the beginning, trying to dismantle all of evolution by going after Darwin is like trying to invalidate all of modern physics by criticizing Newton. In the future, if you want to have an honest conversation about evolution… just ask someone. Or take a biology 101 course. What I want to end on is that this video promotes a false dichotomy. “It’s either Christ, or evolution!”. You can *have both*. (3/3)
Idrg the point in saying Darwin doesnt represent the modern understanding of evolution, I mean everything pivots on those two principles of selection and adaptation. Doesn't everything else either follow from that or is well explained by that? What am I missing?
@@pianoraves a fair question! Everything does not pivot on random mutation and natural selection. Natural selection is probably one of the most important parts of evolution, absolutely, but natural selection is not as the person who held the talk makes it out to be. It’s not a “guiding force” that picks what it wants to make or has an end goal in mind. Natural selection means in a single sentence, organisms that are successful in surviving in their environment will ensure the continuation of their genes. But there are many other forms of genetic change other than random mutation, and there are other types of selection than natural selection. For instance, mutations can come about during full genome duplication (polyploidy), during recombination (which happens to organisms that are binarily sexual like mammals) and other forms of selection too, such a sexual selection (prevalent in humans, but the best example is peacock or other types of birds. This is why, when people say “scientists say that Darwinism can’t explain life!”, this sentence is dishonest. It hinges on these following steps: 1. Make the viewer equate all of evolutionary biology and the modern synthesis with “Darwinism” 2. Attack “Darwinism” (a straw man, unknowing to the audience) 3. People are now convinced that all of evolution is false, and are under the misapprehension that scientists also think that, since the audience has been told (even if not outright) to equate “Darwinism” with all of evolution To draw a parallel I made in my earlier comment, this is like making the viewer think all physics hinges on newton, attacking “Newtonian physics”, and calling it a day. I hope this comment answers your question, feel free to ask more or clarify if I didn’t quite capture the question :)
@@kemicalhazard8770 I see your point. The lack of education makes these theist target audiences vulnerable to misinforation, but to be precise, any mutations during mitosis and meiosis are still random, at least to a large extent. What isnt random would be gene modification that doesnt alter the actual code but just the "metadata", this is still encompassed by "adaptation", and so are changes in behaviour. What I was trying to say is that, if we can convey those two essentially Darwinian notions correctly, as you did very well in your response to me, there is no reason to claiming that Darwin is in any way invalid or insignificant to modern evolutionary theory. It's true that Darwin himself didnt see the full picture, but his core theory encompasses the whole picture.
so suppose you demonstrate that evolution is wrong. that does not add support to any other idea. you have to show how your idea better fits all the observed facts of physics, geology, archaeology and chemistry. which you don't do because you have no theory that does that.
According to religion evolution isn't a thing and has never happened, well then why does religion put so much time and effort into trying to refute and debunk it??.
"We apologize for the quality of the video. We were having technical difficulties" - Are you also going to appologize for the quality of the information presented, or I should say misinformation.
The fact that "Darwinism" is synonymous with "Evolution" around creationists just shows their lack of education.
You differentiate between best guesses. You think that makes you educated. You are educated in useless nonsense.
@@VernonsYT You wrote that comment with technology that has been made possible by science based on many educated guesses about the natural world. Useless nonsense is a way to describe it, for sure. Not something I'd use though.
@@tomi-Q And you are conflating operational science with historical science. One builds the machines your are touting and the other is an extrapolation to an imagined past.
@@wesleygafoor7050 Maybe it is a language barrier, but I don't know what operational science is exactly, could you elaborate, and give some sources too?
I'm talking about natural sciences. Physics and chemistry to be exact. They are based on (our) best guesses about reality and many technologies we have today are the product of said guesses. If best guesses are not enough for you, you should not accept the results we get from physics and chemistry.
Evolutionary biology combines many other scientific fields, and the evidence is overwhelming. Not accepting it is okay, I guess. But no alternative theory comes even close to what we have with the evolutionary biology and its theories and predictions.
@tomis1398 Well, that is just it, I'm not disregarding physics and chemistry or biology for that matter. The difference I am speaking of is this, operational science adheres to the classical model of science, that is an observation or an idea followed by an hypothesis, then that hypothesis is tested by experiment to hopefully yield a theory. If there are no exceptions observed in the data obtained, the theory becomes a scientific law by definition. Now contrast that with contriving an imagined past versus say for instance, the laws of physics or chemistry.
Evolution is a unifying principle of modern biology and among the most well-substantiated scientific theories in history. Creationism, on the other hand, is not. Rather telling, don't you think?
I will give you credit for stating that Charles Darwin was not the first (nor last) scientist who furthered the field of evolutionary biology. But *PLEASE* stop saying "evolutionists" and "darwinists". Darwinism (and even neo-darwinism) do not make up all of evolutionary biology. Focusing on "darwinism" (random mutation and random selection) to debunk all of evolution is a straw man, it is like trying to disprove general relativity by going back to Newton.
Your description of natural selection (around 6 minutes) is not accurate. Natural selection is in essence those species (or individuals within a species) who survive in their specific environment get to propagate their genes further. In this way, beneficial, neutral and harmful mutations are selected for/against depending on the context of the environment.
At 8 minutes: This is a good teaching moment. The reason scientific literature often has long, specific names/titles is to accurately describe what is contained within. The titles of scientific literature are not lies and clickbait, they accurately describe the contents of the literature, not least to help reviewers find what they are looking for.
At 9 minutes: I will again give you credit here for actually stating “the modern evolutionary synthesis”. This makes me wonder why the talk and video are named “doubting darwinism” and why the focus is on Darwin, instead of the modern synthesis?
Between 10 and 12 minutes you make it sound like there is a battle between evolution and religion. There is, if you want to hold religious scripture to be absolutely literal. But for most people who are religious (at least in western society/educated countries) religion and science coexist. You can be both a Christian (or other religion) and accept the scientific theory of evolution.
So, it’s not a spiritual battle. You can keep your cake and eat it, so to speak.
Does accepting combustion make you less Christian? Gravity? Electromagnetism?
If not, then why does evolution make you less Christian? That is certainly what it sounds like the speaker is saying, that you “can’t have both”. But you can.
25:48 oh great, can’t wait..
28:30 You are missing quite a lot of steps, but I guess this is not really meant to be an accurate portrayal of evolution?
30:00 Evolution does not necessitate “more complex” organisms. For the record, those who accept evolution AND are religious accept this idea that god actually USES evolution, a way to compromise scripture with science (so called Theistic Evolution).
31:30 This makes me worried that this talk is not being held honestly. “Dissent from Darwinism” was a PR stunt by an organization called “Discovery Institute”. Firstly, there are few biologists on the list of names “dissenting” (you actually even show this soon after), secondly, evolutionary biologists made a funny joke reply list where people named Project Steve, where any biologist named Steve who accepts evolution could sign. This petition received more signatures than the dissent from darwinism stunt (over 1400 biologists have signed it). I should also point out that again, the use of “darwinism” is a straw man, it does not accurately reflect the status of evolutionary biology.
33:30 This is a lie. Scientific discourse does not ostracize people for their beliefs, and religious people certainly are not banned from having Phds simply because they are creationists. Any creationist can write papers in evolutionary biology. For instance, Jonathan McLatchie is a creationist who works at Discovery Institute and has a Phd in evolutionary biology.
At 36 minutes you start talking about origin of life, which is a separate field of research. I want to make it really clear that evolution, the diversification of life, does not necessitate abiogenesis or any specific type of origin of life. So I won’t bother addressing this part, since it is a non sequitur as to the validity of evolutionary biology.
(1/3)
41:00 This is one of the most common misconceptions I see. Creationists MUST stop dividing evolution into “micro” and “macro” evolution and saying yes to the former, but no to the latter. *They are the same thing over different periods of time*. I will try an analogy so you may understand. An inch is an inch. An inch is a micro foot or micro yard. But if you have twelve inches in a row? That is a foot. Micro becomes macro when you “zoom out”, for lack of a better term. So, no one is stating that pakicetus gave birth to a whale. But an inch of change (so to speak) every generation will look like heck of a lot of progress after a few million years.
42:00 The “source” of genetic information is DNA. DNA is what mutates, it changes over generations. That is how evolution works…
43:30 You have no “debt” to ancestors, I’m not even sure what you are trying to say here.
44:00 The idea that we have “missing links” is getting very old, it stems from your refusal to simply look up evidence.
44:40 We *DO* find them. There has been almost two hundred years of paleontology and we have a very solid understanding of evolution in general as well as hominid evolution.
45:00 This is blatantly dishonest. You are trying to claim that, since there are 43 extant species of x, and only 42 in the fossil record, then the fossil record is 98% complete. I cannot begin to describe how ignorant of actual paleontology this is.. There are plenty of orders that are not currently extant, but used to exist, that we have not found. Your argument assumes that there are NO extinct species, which of course is a ridiculous assumption.
46:10 “a mouse turned into a bat!” more strawman argumenting. No one is proposing that one day a mouse gave birth to a bat. This argument borders on Kent Hovind level ignorance.
48:00 If you want to find evidence.. Just go look? You can look up the entire transition from dinosaur to bird (Archaeopteryx) or land mammal to sea mammal (packi to whale as I touched on earlier).
48:30 Punctuated equilibrium does not work against evolution, it is a part of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium and phyletick gradualism both work in tandem, depending on the species and environmental context/fitness landscape.
49:00 This is simply a Gould quote mine, just like Discovery Insitute does (I can tell these talking points are similar to theirs, not least by this talking point). The full excerpt can be found here, on page 2 /www.uky.edu/~tmute2/GEI-Web/password-protect/GEI-readings/gould_episodic-evolution
50:20 Information comes from the sequence of nucleotides in DNA. “Darwinism” does not *need* to explain the origin of life to explain how life diversifies.
51:00 Mutations do not “corrupt” information. If that were the case, all life on earth would die out in a matter of generations.
51:20 Of course natural selection cannot on its own explain evolution. That is why focusing on “darwinism” is dishonest. Why are you not bringing up genetics? Or recombination? Because it invalidates this entire talking point.
52:00 You just read emphatically a brief section of a biologist, explaining how evolution is becoming so diverse and such a big field, that it needs to incorporate fringe fields of biology into the main modern synthesis, and then go on to talk about how others do not accept evolution. How is it not obvious to anyone in the room that you are reading one thing and extrapolating a completely different thing?
54:00 Of course biologists don’t find darwinism alone to be enough to explain the diversity of life, *because darwinism is a tiny part of the modern synthesis*. Had you asked the same biologists if *evolutionary biology was enough to explain the diversity of life, almost all I suspect would answer yes.
(2/3)
56:00 Let’s calm down buddy. They are not saying that we have no idea how evolution happens. They are simply stating, like I’ve said several times now, that natural selection acting on mutations does not *by itself* explain evolution.
56:50 “Evolutionnews” is not a scientific, peer reviewed journal. It is a blog website run by Discovery institute, such as Casey Luskin, as you mentioned.
1:00:00 Even if you somehow did falsifie all of evolution, how would that make a case for creation? x = 0 does not mean y = 1
1:03:10 Evolution does not require “faith”, if faith is defined as “belief without evidence”.
1:04:00 When DNA mutates, it does not “devolve”. All change and mutation is evolution. You seem to be claiming here that as human DNA “breaks down” with time, we become more and more diseased. Not only is this not the case (humans live longer now than before), it would also mean humans either would have already gone extinct or would soon go extinct.
1:05:50 This is actually rather funny. In an attempt to give an example of “degredation”, you cite the human immune system “not being capable” of recognising that certain allergens are dangerous. But allergies are the immune system *overreacting*, not working less than it is supposed to.
1:06:50 This is simply untrue. The human body still kills off cancerous cells in humans.
1:07:35 What do you mean “lifespans are plummeting”? Before the 1900s, people lived to about 40. Ten thousand years ago, the average life expectancy of a human was just over 30.
1:15:50 Not only does it take a long time, but humans are still apes. Why would a monkey or ape today turn into a human?
1:10:00 This completely butchers the concept of punctuated equilibrium.
1:19:10 Marxism did in no way, shape or form require or support darwinism or evolutionary biology. Marxism is a political ideology based on the criticism of the economic model of capitalism. The USSR/Soviets, who killed countless people, denied evolution. One of the most brilliant evolutionary biologists in history, Nikolai Vavilov, was persecuted by the Soviet state for his acceptance and propagation of Mendelian inheritance and early genetics. It’s a similar case with “naziism” and eugenics.
To conclude: This video was free for me to watch, and I still want my money back.
I won’t claim that anyone was trying to be intentionally dishonest, but this video is quite dishonest, even if not by intention.
It was nothing more than thousand time debunk arguments from Discovery Institute, rejection of empirical evidence such as the fossil record, quote mining (Gould) and a general misunderstanding of what evolutionary biology is and how it works. For crying out loud, *please* stop going after Darwin. As I said in the beginning, trying to dismantle all of evolution by going after Darwin is like trying to invalidate all of modern physics by criticizing Newton.
In the future, if you want to have an honest conversation about evolution… just ask someone. Or take a biology 101 course. What I want to end on is that this video promotes a false dichotomy. “It’s either Christ, or evolution!”. You can *have both*. (3/3)
Idrg the point in saying Darwin doesnt represent the modern understanding of evolution, I mean everything pivots on those two principles of selection and adaptation. Doesn't everything else either follow from that or is well explained by that? What am I missing?
@@pianoraves a fair question!
Everything does not pivot on random mutation and natural selection.
Natural selection is probably one of the most important parts of evolution, absolutely, but natural selection is not as the person who held the talk makes it out to be. It’s not a “guiding force” that picks what it wants to make or has an end goal in mind. Natural selection means in a single sentence, organisms that are successful in surviving in their environment will ensure the continuation of their genes.
But there are many other forms of genetic change other than random mutation, and there are other types of selection than natural selection.
For instance, mutations can come about during full genome duplication (polyploidy), during recombination (which happens to organisms that are binarily sexual like mammals) and other forms of selection too, such a sexual selection (prevalent in humans, but the best example is peacock or other types of birds.
This is why, when people say “scientists say that Darwinism can’t explain life!”, this sentence is dishonest.
It hinges on these following steps:
1. Make the viewer equate all of evolutionary biology and the modern synthesis with “Darwinism”
2. Attack “Darwinism” (a straw man, unknowing to the audience)
3. People are now convinced that all of evolution is false, and are under the misapprehension that scientists also think that, since the audience has been told (even if not outright) to equate “Darwinism” with all of evolution
To draw a parallel I made in my earlier comment, this is like making the viewer think all physics hinges on newton, attacking “Newtonian physics”, and calling it a day.
I hope this comment answers your question, feel free to ask more or clarify if I didn’t quite capture the question :)
@@kemicalhazard8770 I see your point. The lack of education makes these theist target audiences vulnerable to misinforation,
but to be precise, any mutations during mitosis and meiosis are still random, at least to a large extent. What isnt random would be gene modification that doesnt alter the actual code but just the "metadata", this is still encompassed by "adaptation", and so are changes in behaviour. What I was trying to say is that, if we can convey those two essentially Darwinian notions correctly, as you did very well in your response to me, there is no reason to claiming that Darwin is in any way invalid or insignificant to modern evolutionary theory. It's true that Darwin himself didnt see the full picture, but his core theory encompasses the whole picture.
Imagine thinking your god is so weak, you gotta spend much of your time thinking of excuses and pathetic justifications for its seeming non-existence.
so suppose you demonstrate that evolution is wrong. that does not add support to any other idea. you have to show how your idea better fits all the observed facts of physics, geology, archaeology and chemistry. which you don't do because you have no theory that does that.
My man. Not a single theory of creation.
You already screwed up by calling it Darwinism.
According to religion evolution isn't a thing and has never happened, well then why does religion put so much time and effort into trying to refute and debunk it??.
Evolution is a fact. Get over it.
God created the world and all life hereon in 6 days about 6000 years ago. That's a fact.
🤣
@@VernonsYT All the evidence we have says otherwise.
@@VernonsYT I'm afraid it's not even a claim - it's a myth.
@@VernonsYT Without using your bible provide evidence of that.