The theory of Evolution is so simple that I felt I understood it on first hearing. However, the stuff that is evolving (life) is so complex that decades later, I feel I am still deepening my understanding. Very much enjoyed the video.
@@sombodysdad "you couldn't reference any scientific theory of evolution if your sad life depended on it"...-> it's literally called "the Theory of Evolution". You might as well be saying Gravity isn't real here. That's how stupid you sound.
I love the way he used Answers In Genesis for a definition of evolution non-critically. But I would reject "supposedly" from an organisation which displays both motivated skepticism and credulity.
If you are creationist, don't say "Evolution can't..." ect, because it just reveals that you are either terrible at Googleing for facts or you just don't want to. Saying Evolution isn't possible isn't going to convince the rest of use who already know how it happened.
*HUMAN GROUP EVOLVING TO BE AQUATIC HUNTERS* The Bajau people, or Sea Nomads, have engaged in breath-hold diving for thousands of years. Evolution has doubled the Bajau spleen size, providing an oxygen reservoir for diving, just like in other sea-going mammals like otters, seals and whales. They can stay underwater for 13 minutes, which is even longer than a dolphin can do it for! Most of us humans can only handle less than two. We would drown at 13. Oh yeah, and the Bajau people are also capable of seeing clearly underwater. They are able to make their pupils smaller and change their lens shape. Seals and dolphins have a similar adaptation. This has been proven in underwater visual testing, the Bajau see twice as well as other humans.
Actually, evolution does not rise to the level of a scientific theory. It’s more like a hypothesis. It fails the scientific method. It is not observable, testable, repeatable under controlled conditions, like our technology. It is actually a wild interpretation of evidence. You should read The Altenburg 16. In it, evolutionist talk about how the evolution industry sells ideas like snake oil at a carnival. Some of the 16 evolutionists have pronounced Neo-Darwinism is dead. another said, “I don’t think anyone knows how evolution works.” and “People think we have the answers, but we don’t have the answers.” Now, keep in mind, these are evolutionist saying this, who hang on to the faith despite the fact that modern discoveries have dismantled its main tenants.
@@greenguitarfish Found the guy with the "i'm stupid" sign. "It is not observable, testable, repeatable under controlled conditions," No, it is. That's why it's a scientific fact. "You should read The Altenburg 16." YOu should actually look into that and not all the lies you Creationists made up about it.
@@EBDavis111 When someone resorts to name calling, and can’t refute what you said, you know you won the argument. So are you going to give that dummy sign to Dr Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI scanner which has diagnosed millions and saved countless lives? He completely rejected evolution and said it is the greatest fraud foisted on mankind. Or give that sign to Dr John Sanford, A Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years. has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. Is he stupid by your estimation because he totally rejects evolution ? Maybe your the blind dummy, did you ever consider that ? There are many scientists who understand evolution to be a fraud. More than you know, however, to save their careers they keep silent about it.
@@greenguitarfish No, Green. That's not how arguments work. Also, if you can't take it, you shouldn't be dishing out the insults in the first place. You insulted eveyrbody's intelligence with your pathetic lies from your first post. "So are you going to give that sign to Dr Raymond Damadian' Raymond Damadian is a horrible person and scientific fraud. He's not just stupid, he's immoral. And no, there's no such thing as a creation scientists. Only frauds like Damadian. "More than you know, however, to save their careers they keep silent about it." Ah, there's the vast evil conspiracy that exists for no reason. Just like the people silencing the truth about the flat earth.
@@EBDavis111 Did you say Dr. Damadian is IMORAL ? Lol. The guy who dedicated his life in creating the machine that saves countless lives was immoral because he rejected evolution. What a deluded piece of work you are…. Under an evolutionist worldview there is no such thing as morality. There is no right or wrong. Your actually borrowing from a Christian worldview without even knowing it. Hitler used evolutionary arguments to justify murdering the so called inferior people in his quest to produce the super man. Stalin also did not see humans as special, so he starved 15 million. Chairman Mao did much the same, all of them had an evolutionary worldview that saw people as no more than animals to be culled. Evolution was the foundation that made the 20th Century the bloodiest in world history. What is murder, but one bag of random chemicals impacting another, right? We are all just re- arranged pond scum. That is your worldview. So, give me a break with your ignorance in talking about morality !
UA-cam recommended this channel to me. I see we have a random smattering of commenters who either accept or deny evolution because UA-cam doesn't differentiate. Let's see if this changes over time.
The confidence of creationists always makes me laugh. Evolution is accepted fact by every scientific institute on the planet, every academy of science on the planet, every accredited college and university on the planet, and 99% of living scientists. All creationists think it means something else and entails something else.
@@speciesspeciate6429 What creationists disagree with is the nonsensical claim that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced the diversity of life starting with unknown populations of prokaryotes.
1. Genetic mutations happen occasionally 2. Sometimes those mutations help the organism create more offspring 3. The mutation carries to the offspring and also helps them create more offspring 4. Mutation becomes more and more common in the species until those without that mutation are weeded out 5. Now the whole species has the mutation making it a new kind of species
Nick, that sequence DOES NOT describe speciation (new species arising from an ancestral population). It is just a new trait within an existing population of a species.
They think evolution is not a thing, not a noun? What do they think it is, a preposition, an adjective, a verb? Ok, the US has always been loose with the English language anyway.
@@uthman2281 ERV, the anomalous number of centromeres and telomeres present in the human chromosome number two, the direct observation of ring species, the genetic markers of ring species the fact that speciation has been directly observed both in the lab and in the field. Lets's start with ERV, since that's my favorite lune of evidence. How do you explain ERV without a working model of common ancestry?
@Max Xam ERVs are not evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. The alleged telomere in HC2 is so degenerate it doesn't resemble 2 telomeres being spliced together. There isn't any naturalistic mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. So, that would be a problem.
The same way as any information that controls structure of self replicating system would have evolved. At the beginning it’s just a bare molecule, that when conditions are right can prudence the copy of itself. While copying itself there can be copying errors. Those errors are getting filtered by the environment, allowing only those changes which are beneficial to carry on and those which are detrimental will die out. And then it’s a long road from bare molecules to us.
The information in DNA is the most complex ever discovered, it can be read in multiple directions, utilizes encryption, and bizarrely for a process that supposedly relies on random mutations has a sophisticated error correction system. It also has the claim of the worlds most compact data storage method and if this data were written into books they would stretch to the moon and back 500 times. Despite all of this the consensus is it created itself over millions of years, ignoring the absolute fact, information, especially purposeful complexly arranged information, is only known to come from a mind. What sort of mind is required for information that is so complex it cannot be arranged in the method DNA utilises using todays supercomputers? Evolution requires a special pleading for a mechanism that has never been observed, that purposeful complexly arranged information comes into existence without intelligent input. How does evolution which relies on matter going through random mutations without intent or purpose explain the emergence of mathematics which is an abstract concept devoid of matter and only resides within a mind? Which came first DNA or proteins? You guys wet your pants when new technology is released and many of you will rush out and buy a PS6 when it is launched, and every single one of you understands the extremely high levels of intelligence, engineering, design, manufacturing, and knowledge required to bring that PS6 into existence. A single cell in your body is vastly superior to that same PS6, the pure processing power required by your eyes would bring millions of those PS6's to their virtual knees, your body processes more instructions per second than every computer on Earth COMBINED (using millions of watts) and does this using a measly 20 watts of electricity. This level of design is way beyond human capabilities and we know from thousands of years of using OBSERVATION that the greater the level of complexity, the higher the level of intelligence required. It's clear to anyone without a blinding world view that all of life was designed, to dispute this means you believe blind, purposeless, random mutations without intent creates systems so complex with unparalleled levels of efficiency and exquisite design, that it supersedes anything man has achieved using purpose, design, intent, knowledge, and genius levels of intelligence Evolution is a misguided interpretation of adaptation that is already coded into all living organisms and is propped up by presuppositions, assumptions, and bias confirmation, it requires a dogmatic ignorance of all known observation that the higher the level of complexity, the higher the level of intelligence, knowledge, and understanding is factually necessary. The information in DNA is the most complex ever discovered, it utilizes encryption, and a sophisticated error correction system (bizarre for evolutions proposed undirected mutational process). Evolution requires a special pleading for an unknown mechanism to explain this and the fact any information's origin has always led to an intelligent agent (A.I. for example), it is baffling how anyone could attribute complexity beyond human capabilities that utilises intelligence, knowledge, understanding, and intent, to evolutions blind purposeless process without intent. The universe and life was intelligently designed, the more science uncovers, the more obvious this is, only a blinding world view refuses to see this and cling onto a paradigm that is against observation. A single cell is so complex it is still revealing secrets after 60 years of scientific scrutiny, each new layer of discovery is pushing researchers progress backwards and its design is crystal clear to anyone but the truly blinded. Scientists cannot create life despite highly knowledgeable expertise, pristine laboratories with state of the art technologies, highly controlled environments and decades of attempts. Despite the fact highly intelligent knowledgeable scientists cannot create a single cell it is believed that matter without a mind and therefore not capable of understanding mathematics, supposedly over the course of time, using unguided, random mutational processes without intent constructs a complex brain that is capable of understanding the abstract concept of numbers, surely the most ridiculous thought (pun intended) in the history of mankind.
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement "Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." - Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement
*Magnetic brain stimulation reduces belief in God, prejudice toward immigrants* Disabling certain areas of the brain with transcranial magnetic stimulation can reduce a person’s belief in God and negativity toward immigrants, claims a new study published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.
So, the suggestion is damaging your brain keeps you from realizing the obvious, that all creation shows evidence of obvious design. The “research” was likely tax payer and George Soros funded. The evolutionist believing Nazis loved doing torturous experiments like that on people. I’m sure you would love to do the same on those who remind you about reality from which you hide.
@@greenguitarfish no, it isn't. Your brain does not get damaged. It just shows that your beliefs are nothing but neuro-chemical reactions, a product of the mind, that God is imaginary. "all creation shows evidence of obvious design" -> except nothing ever got created. There's not even the tiniest shred of evidence ANYTHING was created, nor that nature is the product of design. These are fantasies, delusions, imagination, with no facts or evidence to support it. "tax payer, George Soros funded" -> more coping, LOL! Well, because it's SCIENCE, we can have it repeated independently, using the same methodology those scientists used. If we get the same results, then regardless of who originally paid for the research, the results are factual. "evolutionist" -> no such thing exists "Nazis" -> Nazism and Evolution contradict each other. For Evolution, genetic diversity is important. First of all, the process itself creates diversity, and secondly, you need diversity to increase the odds of survival for a given species. The Nazis with their "ubermensch" had the exact opposite goal. They wanted to get rid of genetic diversity and wanted blue eyed, blond haired, white people to dominate...yet these are 3 recessive (weak) traits. So what they did was ANTI-Evolution. The persecution and genocide of the Jews, falls perfectly in line with Christianity and Islam, as they've tried this many times throughout history. Persecution of homosexuals, gypsies, atheists, etc. all fit perfectly with the christian worldview. Nazism was pro-christian, including Hitler. We're not the ones hiding from reality, YOU ARE. The only thing we need to do, is ask you for objective, demonstrable, scientific evidence for your beliefs, and you give up, because you know you have none. You just use random excuses, try changing the subject, or even present frauds and lies. But never any evidence.
@@jehandesains8674 LOL. That’s cute. So, then perhaps all of existence is illusionary. How can we trust our senses, since they are simply neuro-chemical reactions, right ? Lol. Maybe your thinking like a Hindu, trying to obtain “Maya”. in which you come to the realization nothing is real….lol. Or we are in The Matrix ! Back here in reality land, where real science is conducted, we know that randomness can not compete with intelligence. The mind boggling Design we see in nature does not come about by random molecules. When a person sees Mt. Rushmore, even if that person does not know the history can obviously see it was not random erosion, wind and rain that produced the design, it was an intelligent skilled sculptor. How much more obvious is a real living person was designed, which is far more complex than an inanimate object carved from stone. Open your eyes. 👀
@@jehandesains8674 Also, Hitler and the Nazis were total evolutionists ! Their genocide fit right in with the Darwinistic evolutionary idea that some humans are less evolved than others, and so it’s ok to kill them off. Darwin wrote in his book, The decent of man, about a future time when the most evolved humans would surely eliminate the inferior ones. He was a total racist, by the way. Hitler was an evolutionist madman, and the genocide he enacted went right in line with his evolutionary delusions of Germans being the super race. After all, in a materialistic worldview, we are all just accidental rearranged pond scum. So, what is murder ? It’s simply one bag of random chemicals impacting another, right ? There is no moral law giver, and so there is no moral law in your materialistic worldview. Hitler was consistent in his evolutionary belief system. The same was true for Stalin and Mao. All total evolutionists who saw humans as nothing more than animals to be culled. These made the 20th century the bloodiest in world history, all stemming from an evolutionary belief. That’s reality.
🤣 because you are apparently ignorant to science. It makes perfect sense. This is actually the easy stuff. Go to college and take some science classes.
Yes: Mutations happen and natural selection is real. But evolution in Darwin´s sense does not exist. It´s like this: later product adaptations and quality control in a producing factory are NOT the story how the product was engineered and produced in the first place. If you want to be intellectually honest, you have to take into account, what Darwin himself said: All his "evidence for evolution" could just as well be attributed to the work of a Creator. But, he and his supporters decided (it was a decree!) that assuming Creation could not be called scientific any more. Scientists quickly agreed, seeing all the career and money possibilities, making science really great - in a very dishonest and unscientific fashion. Let me give you the quote from Origin of Species: "On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; - that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation." - Not scientific according to the new definition of science, yeah, but true nonetheless. AT LEAST it must be said that all the evidence is nothing, it can be used either to argue for evolution or just as well for creation. If you want to be intellectually honest, you also have to take into account that all proposed evidence for evolution ended up being called into question like: Junk DNA, Hox genes, ERV. The "Darwinian paradox" has no solution, as geneticist John F. McDonald says. Here in simple words: Mutations that evolution needs in order to build new body plans do not occur, and those that do occur, evolution doesn’t need. I highly recommend Matti Leisola´s book Heretic for a start into criticism. That´s got all the other major problems like fossils in it too. It´s a good starting point. And don´t be afraid, if you fall from evolution, even if they fire you for it, you can repent for leading all these kids astray, you can turn to Jesus and make it to heaven. Please do. Jesus died for you. Truth, real truth is all that matters, and the only truth is in Jesus Christ. All man-made wisdom against God is lies and illusion.
Evolution may not be real. That doesn't make myths and legends real. The theory of evolution may be wrong. That doesn't mean miracles have happened. And even if the existence of miracles could be confirmed, that doesn't prove that there's a god. I've talked to many people who identify as Christian who believe the theory of evolution is valid. I know some atheists that don't. I am not a believer in the Bible, though I have read and studied it for over fifty years. I know many Christians who won't talk about the Bible with me because they "don't care about the details", they just " follow their hearts", and I, of course, ask questions they can't(or won't) answer and which make them feel uncomfortable. Now I see you quibbling about the details of evolution, as if most people who accept the theory really "care about the details". Most people are not as intelligent and learned as you in science, history and Christian apologetics. You must, though, realize that Darwin died about 150 years ago and much has been discovered that might call into question that his seminal theory, about natural selection driving changes to populations over time, didn't happen. His theory seems, to this cowboy, to have plenty of novel predictive power. Pointing to some quotes from an old book that likely has only marginal similarity to the state of the science as it is practiced in the modern age, is analogous to pointing to passages in ancient scripture as if they are instructive to a present day moral framework. It's weak!
@@russellmillar7132 You misrepresent what I said. People follow an idea that was implemented with a book from 1859 and it would be irrelevant that you can actually see in this book that it´s all one big speculative story with decrees and big hopes for future evidence - that didn´t turn up? But yeah, science makes discoveries and progress by the use of false theories all the time. That´s not the problem. The problem is that under the guise of the science a new religion was introduced, and almost everyone now believes in this religion but does not know anything about it. In my comments here, I made roughly two dozen points and talking about Darwin´s book is only one of them, and you´re claiming: It´s weak? Seriously? One point you´re right though, people don´t care about the details. Doesn´t seem worth all the trouble. So they don´t know the newer developments either, but I do. Never mind. Christians not caring about the Bible is a contradiction in terms, but that´s another matter.
@@russellmillar7132 And nowhere do I claim the failure of modern science to explain origins would prove God or miracles. It just proves that science has no better explanation than Genesis. Once people understand this, they can began to think and hear about God and the supernatural.
@@martha-schalleck I am not sure that you are really up to date on the state evolutionary science, but neither am I. I'll hazard a guess that you don't believe there is a god because of all the objections you have to evolutionary biology. I'd guess you have believed this since you were young, or a life changing event showed you the fact of the creator. I'm okay with however a person puts it together. Yet most people who identify as Christian accept the theory of evolution. I guess because they don't know the details of either they go along to get along, cause it likely doesn't seem to matter that much. One of my heroes is a woman named Mary Schweitzer. She is an evangelical Christian and an evolutionary biologist. She made a revolutionary find in a dinosaur bone from 66+ million years ago. You may be familiar with this and, as with all things in scientific research, it could change tomorrow. But she displayed courage that few seem to have these days. She was a woman in what had been an all male field. She made a find and developed a theory that challenged the beliefs of all the male researchers she with whom she worked. They tried to dismiss her work out of hand. She was pressured, simultaneously, by her Christian community to proclaim that her find indicated something she knew was incorrect; namely that the world is quite young and that dinos lived with homos. like on the Flintstones. She stuck to her guns, however, and is now a respected researcher and theorist, and she still claims Jesus is her lord. The theory of evolution doesn't make sense to me. But that's similar to the theory of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, the big bang, relativity etc. Science works things out that we can't know any other way. If we were left with only stories that were told us by the elders, or preached to us from the pulpit, and science had yet to provide us with electricity, modern medical care, mechanized transportation...the internet, and things too numerous...I doubt that pontificating about the impossibility of an idea of change over time would occupy much of your attention. In fact I surmise that the only reason you are sniping at evolution, and not the germ theory of disease or aerodynamics, is that you think evolution somehow contradicts your religious presuppositions. I get it. I'm the same way...but in reverse. Live long and prosper...or until next time.
There is this thing called known human history. There are sixteen known ancient civilizations that are descended from known progenitors that are the sixteen grandsons of Noah. That’s real human history.
Jungle, is that the story where your loving god murdered our entire species, except for a drunk and his family? Oh yeah, and that little boat that was supposed to carry animals. Ever wonder how the pandas and kangaroos got there?
In known human history, what you say is objectively false. Not only are there far more ancient civilisations known, we know that Noah, the ark, and the global flood never existed. THAT is real human history. According to young earth creationists, this global flood supposedly happened somewhere around 4004-4400 years ago (2004-2400 BCE). This is when big civilisations existed...yet these civilisations simply continued to live and thrive with MILLIONS of inhabitants, and never suffered any consequences of a supposed global flood.
What was the mechanism for universal common descent? It has to be testable. It has to have evidentiary support. And it has to be determined that it was blind and mindless processes.
You've already been told this a couple dozen times. Do you have a learning disability? There is no one mechanism, it has several. The mechanisms of evolution and common descent are natural selection, sexual selection, gene flow, genetic drift, recombination, and speciation.
@@speciesspeciate6429 Again, there isn't any evidence that those mechanisms are capable of producing the diversity of life! There aren't any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing eukaryotes from starting populations of prokaryotes! There aren't any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing sexual reproduction and meiosis. YOU have the learning disability. You think that mindlessly spewing mechanisms that have never been tested to show they are capable of such a feat! Not only that, DNA doesn't determine biological form!
Whether evolution exists or not, whether you accept evolution or not, those are the mechanisms. So stop asking for them. You could have verified it at any time just by typing 'what are the mechanisms of evolution' into Google. Why don't you?
@@speciesspeciate6429 Wow! Learn how to read. No one has ever demonstrated that those mechanisms are capable of producing the diversity of life. I know what the mechanisms of evolution are. I want to know what the mechanisms of universal common descent are. Again, no one has ever demonstrated that the proposed and observed mechanisms of evolution are capable of producing the diversity of life. What part of that don't you understand?
Intelligent Design posits that organisms were intelligently designed with the information and ability to evolve and adapt. Evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of telic processes.
Now prove, scientifically, that any intelligence got involved anywhere in any process. Prove, scientifically, that any such intelligence exists or ever existed to cause this. You're making an extraordinary claim, so you require extraordinary evidence to back it up. Yet so far, the only thing you've ever presented, is...well, nothing.
@@sombodysdad "prove that blind and mindless processes did it. hypocrite. or shut up." -> see Theory of Evolution, or at this point, the Modern Evolutionary Theory. You won't find any intelligence or guiding hand in any process. Just pure blind and mindless processes, as always in everything in nature.
@@jehandesains8674 There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. That's because evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is total untestable nonsense unless you are discussing genetic diseases and deformities.
@@sombodysdad so we're back to your one and only argument you've ever made, being "nu'uh". Sorry kid, but no matter how many times you deny reality, the Theory of Evolution will still be scientific. Also, the processes that causes genetic diseases and deformities are the EXACT SAME as the ones causing beneficial traits to arise, so once again you admit that Evolution DOES happen through blind and mindless processes, while still being unable to present even the tiniest shred of evidence for it not to be. "I never said that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes didn't happen." -> you have said it dozens and dozens of times already. You saying there is no scientific theory of evolution, is yet another rejection of exactly that. "no evidence" -> if there were no evidence, Evolution would've never been a Theory, so we'd never have been talking about the Theory of Evolution, because a Theory means it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by science. I'm sorry you don't understand the meaning of words and need to actively deny reality to shove your fantasy into whatever hole you love shoving it. "take a biology course" -> I did, that's why I keep saying the things I say, because that's what biology said. "no evidence for naturalistic abiogenesis" -> it's the only explanation for the origin of life that has evidence for it. Again, if your reply is going to be yet another version of "nu'uh", don't bother replying, because my reply to that will be the same as this one. So do us all a favor and stop repeating the same bullshit over and over. If your goal as a science hater is to get rid of Evolution, then you'll never achieve your goal doing this. You're just keeping yourself away from the actual fight.
More love and tolerance from Christ your Lord: *Whosoever hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.* For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries.” Lev.21 17-23
Evolution has several meanings. It is only definition 6 that people argue against. And that is because there isn't any evidence for it: 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
@@sombodysdad The thing you just posted about the six types of evolution. Because just by searching "limited common descent" I got that list in several sites, all of them creationists.
@@sombodysdad lnsults and insecurities aside, yes, limited common descent _is_ evolution. Do you agree that two different, non-interbreeding species of salamander at the end of a ring system share a common ancestor?
We've already presented a valid definition of Evolution, long ago. YECs refuse to accept Evolution, because of religious indoctrination. It's the same reason they reject the concept of radioactive decay, geology, the speed of light, and anything that proves ages older than they claim Earth is. Which includes actual history.
@Jehan Desains You are an equivocating coward. The ONLY evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is genetic diseases and deformities.
@@sombodysdad "the only evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is genetic diseases and deformities" -> so you admit evolution by blind and mindless processes does, in fact, happen, despite your raging tantrum saying it doesn't. Well, aside from the negative mutations, it also causes positive mutations, leading to improved survival. Such as ability to better withstand malaria without downsides, ability to better get rid of bad cholesterol, ability to digest lactose as adults, tetrachromic vision, etc. All the exact same processes happening, which you just admitted do happen.
@Jehan Desains I never said that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes didn't happen. You are just unable to read for comprehension. There isn't any evidence that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced anything beyond genetic diseases and deformities.
No he didn't. You asked him what was the mechanism for universal common descent and he correctly said evolution. You didn't ask him what the mechanism for evolution was.
@Species Speciate Wow! Evolution is a result. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution. Neither of those evolutionary mechanisms are capable of producing the diversity of life.
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement "Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." - Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement
Great content and very didactic style. Thanks!!!
The theory of Evolution is so simple that I felt I understood it on first hearing. However, the stuff that is evolving (life) is so complex that decades later, I feel I am still deepening my understanding.
Very much enjoyed the video.
There isn't any scientific theory of evolution.
@@sombodysdad science says there is. I'll take science's word (and the plethora of evidence to back it up) over the word of an anti-science cultist.
@Jehan Desains Liar. You couldn't reference any scientific theory of evolution if your sad life depended on it.
@@sombodysdad "you couldn't reference any scientific theory of evolution if your sad life depended on it"...-> it's literally called "the Theory of Evolution". You might as well be saying Gravity isn't real here. That's how stupid you sound.
I love the way he used Answers In Genesis for a definition of evolution non-critically. But I would reject "supposedly" from an organisation which displays both motivated skepticism and credulity.
If you are creationist, don't say "Evolution can't..." ect, because it just reveals that you are either terrible at Googleing for facts or you just don't want to. Saying Evolution isn't possible isn't going to convince the rest of use who already know how it happened.
Comedian Debunks Evolution. Reno Collier.
They think evolution is like in Pokemon or something 🤦♂
That's exactly what they think. They all think it's one thing morphing shape and changing into a different kind of thing. Pathetic really.
@@speciesspeciate6429 Comedian Debunks Evolution. Reno Collier. Its funny stuff.
I don't find scientific illiteracy funny.
*HUMAN GROUP EVOLVING TO BE AQUATIC HUNTERS*
The Bajau people, or Sea Nomads, have engaged in breath-hold diving for thousands of years. Evolution has doubled the Bajau spleen size, providing an oxygen reservoir for diving, just like in other sea-going mammals like otters, seals and whales. They can stay underwater for 13 minutes, which is even longer than a dolphin can do it for! Most of us humans can only handle less than two. We would drown at 13. Oh yeah, and the Bajau people are also capable of seeing clearly underwater. They are able to make their pupils smaller and change their lens shape. Seals and dolphins have a similar adaptation. This has been proven in underwater visual testing, the Bajau see twice as well as other humans.
Every time I hear, “Evolution is only a Theory” I want to give them an “I’m Stupid “ sign.
Actually, evolution does not rise to the level of a scientific theory. It’s more like a hypothesis. It fails the scientific method. It is not observable, testable, repeatable under controlled conditions, like our technology. It is actually a wild interpretation of evidence. You should read The Altenburg 16. In it, evolutionist talk about how the evolution industry sells ideas like snake oil at a carnival. Some of the 16 evolutionists have pronounced Neo-Darwinism is dead. another said, “I don’t think anyone knows how evolution works.” and “People think we have the answers, but we don’t have the answers.” Now, keep in mind, these are evolutionist saying this, who hang on to the faith despite the fact that modern discoveries have dismantled its main tenants.
@@greenguitarfish Found the guy with the "i'm stupid" sign.
"It is not observable, testable, repeatable under controlled conditions,"
No, it is. That's why it's a scientific fact.
"You should read The Altenburg 16."
YOu should actually look into that and not all the lies you Creationists made up about it.
@@EBDavis111 When someone resorts to name calling, and can’t refute what you said, you know you won the argument. So are you going to give that dummy sign to Dr Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI scanner which has diagnosed millions and saved countless lives? He completely rejected evolution and said it is the greatest fraud foisted on mankind. Or give that sign to Dr John Sanford, A Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years. has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. Is he stupid by your estimation because he totally rejects evolution ? Maybe your the blind dummy, did you ever consider that ? There are many scientists who understand evolution to be a fraud. More than you know, however, to save their careers they keep silent about it.
@@greenguitarfish No, Green. That's not how arguments work. Also, if you can't take it, you shouldn't be dishing out the insults in the first place. You insulted eveyrbody's intelligence with your pathetic lies from your first post.
"So are you going to give that sign to Dr Raymond Damadian'
Raymond Damadian is a horrible person and scientific fraud.
He's not just stupid, he's immoral. And no, there's no such thing as a creation scientists. Only frauds like Damadian.
"More than you know, however, to save their careers they keep silent about it."
Ah, there's the vast evil conspiracy that exists for no reason. Just like the people silencing the truth about the flat earth.
@@EBDavis111 Did you say Dr. Damadian is IMORAL ? Lol. The guy who dedicated his life in creating the machine that saves countless lives was immoral because he rejected evolution. What a deluded piece of work you are….
Under an evolutionist worldview there is no such thing as morality. There is no right or wrong. Your actually borrowing from a Christian worldview without even knowing it. Hitler used evolutionary arguments to justify murdering the so called inferior people in his quest to produce the super man. Stalin also did not see humans as special, so he starved 15 million. Chairman Mao did much the same, all of them had an evolutionary worldview that saw people as no more than animals to be culled. Evolution was the foundation that made the 20th Century the bloodiest in world history. What is murder, but one bag of random chemicals impacting another, right? We are all just re- arranged pond scum. That is your worldview. So, give me a break with your ignorance in talking about morality !
Hello there got recomended zour second part and just watching the first part now.
UA-cam recommended this channel to me. I see we have a random smattering of commenters who either accept or deny evolution because UA-cam doesn't differentiate. Let's see if this changes over time.
The confidence of creationists always makes me laugh. Evolution is accepted fact by every scientific institute on the planet, every academy of science on the planet, every accredited college and university on the planet, and 99% of living scientists.
All creationists think it means something else and entails something else.
Even YECs accept speciation. Speciation is evolution.
@@sombodysdad Yeah I know. It's impossible for it to not be.
@@speciesspeciate6429 What creationists disagree with is the nonsensical claim that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced the diversity of life starting with unknown populations of prokaryotes.
@@sombodysdad Doesn't matter if they don't like it, it is exactly what the evidence suggests.
@@speciesspeciate6429 What evidence? The only evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is genetic diseases and deformities.
1. Genetic mutations happen occasionally
2. Sometimes those mutations help the organism create more offspring
3. The mutation carries to the offspring and also helps them create more offspring
4. Mutation becomes more and more common in the species until those without that mutation are weeded out
5. Now the whole species has the mutation making it a new kind of species
Even mutations that cause a loss of function can be beneficial. It's all contingent serendipity.
Nick, that sequence DOES NOT describe speciation (new species arising from an ancestral population). It is just a new trait within an existing population of a species.
@@Dr.IanPlect Yeah, that’s just an added trait, not a whole new animal. Which helps to drive the point that evolution takes FUGGIN FOREVER
@@dryfox11 Not necessarily an added trait either.
Mutation of what?
Thank you
FACT.
Why would it take 17+ minutes to understand this?
They think evolution is not a thing, not a noun? What do they think it is, a preposition, an adjective, a verb? Ok, the US has always been loose with the English language anyway.
Evolution is magic.
Except that it isn't. It's a natural, well undertood, directly observed, evidence-based fact.
@@maxxam3590
Really? What evidence do you have and what does it prove?
@@uthman2281 ERV, the anomalous number of centromeres and telomeres present in the human chromosome number two, the direct observation of ring species, the genetic markers of ring species the fact that speciation has been directly observed both in the lab and in the field.
Lets's start with ERV, since that's my favorite lune of evidence. How do you explain ERV without a working model of common ancestry?
@Max Xam ERVs are not evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. The alleged telomere in HC2 is so degenerate it doesn't resemble 2 telomeres being spliced together.
There isn't any naturalistic mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. So, that would be a problem.
@@sombodysdad - cool. Please cite your sources.
How did the information in dna evolve?
The same way as any information that controls structure of self replicating system would have evolved. At the beginning it’s just a bare molecule, that when conditions are right can prudence the copy of itself. While copying itself there can be copying errors. Those errors are getting filtered by the environment, allowing only those changes which are beneficial to carry on and those which are detrimental will die out. And then it’s a long road from bare molecules to us.
The idea that information in DNA is separate from the chemicals of DNA is a fallacy. So DNA forms and evolves based on organic chemistry.
The information in DNA didn't evolve. It was written by a genius.
It's called emergent complexity.
Yes. The complexity emerged as soon as it was created by a genius.
man, him god, is one clever dude, when he devolept all that , with proteins, and dna
let me tell you the truth. we live in a multiverse. take a look at ur, watch when u are doing good. 11.11. 16.16. 17.17 and so on.
Better to understand and believe fact , than mythical magical nonsense about a man made god
The information in DNA is the most complex ever discovered, it can be read in multiple directions, utilizes encryption, and bizarrely for a process that supposedly relies on random mutations has a sophisticated error correction system. It also has the claim of the worlds most compact data storage method and if this data were written into books they would stretch to the moon and back 500 times. Despite all of this the consensus is it created itself over millions of years, ignoring the absolute fact, information, especially purposeful complexly arranged information, is only known to come from a mind. What sort of mind is required for information that is so complex it cannot be arranged in the method DNA utilises using todays supercomputers? Evolution requires a special pleading for a mechanism that has never been observed, that purposeful complexly arranged information comes into existence without intelligent input. How does evolution which relies on matter going through random mutations without intent or purpose explain the emergence of mathematics which is an abstract concept devoid of matter and only resides within a mind? Which came first DNA or proteins? You guys wet your pants when new technology is released and many of you will rush out and buy a PS6 when it is launched, and every single one of you understands the extremely high levels of intelligence, engineering, design, manufacturing, and knowledge required to bring that PS6 into existence. A single cell in your body is vastly superior to that same PS6, the pure processing power required by your eyes would bring millions of those PS6's to their virtual knees, your body processes more instructions per second than every computer on Earth COMBINED (using millions of watts) and does this using a measly 20 watts of electricity. This level of design is way beyond human capabilities and we know from thousands of years of using OBSERVATION that the greater the level of complexity, the higher the level of intelligence required. It's clear to anyone without a blinding world view that all of life was designed, to dispute this means you believe blind, purposeless, random mutations without intent creates systems so complex with unparalleled levels of efficiency and exquisite design, that it supersedes anything man has achieved using purpose, design, intent, knowledge, and genius levels of intelligence
Evolution is a misguided interpretation of adaptation that is already coded into all living organisms and is propped up by presuppositions, assumptions, and bias confirmation, it requires a dogmatic ignorance of all known observation that the higher the level of complexity, the higher the level of intelligence, knowledge, and understanding is factually necessary. The information in DNA is the most complex ever discovered, it utilizes encryption, and a sophisticated error correction system (bizarre for evolutions proposed undirected mutational process). Evolution requires a special pleading for an unknown mechanism to explain this and the fact any information's origin has always led to an intelligent agent (A.I. for example), it is baffling how anyone could attribute complexity beyond human capabilities that utilises intelligence, knowledge, understanding, and intent, to evolutions blind purposeless process without intent. The universe and life was intelligently designed, the more science uncovers, the more obvious this is, only a blinding world view refuses to see this and cling onto a paradigm that is against observation. A single cell is so complex it is still revealing secrets after 60 years of scientific scrutiny, each new layer of discovery is pushing researchers progress backwards and its design is crystal clear to anyone but the truly blinded. Scientists cannot create life despite highly knowledgeable expertise, pristine laboratories with state of the art technologies, highly controlled environments and decades of attempts. Despite the fact highly intelligent knowledgeable scientists cannot create a single cell it is believed that matter without a mind and therefore not capable of understanding mathematics, supposedly over the course of time, using unguided, random mutational processes without intent constructs a complex brain that is capable of understanding the abstract concept of numbers, surely the most ridiculous thought (pun intended) in the history of mankind.
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement
"Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do."
- Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement
Would you be ok if God was actually the creator and designer? Or is your goal to diaprove intelligence design so you can proof God doesn't exist?
@@ByGraceThroughFaith777 - demonstrate any of those are factual, and the conversation can begin.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Proof He isn't.
@@ByGraceThroughFaith777 - If you assert god exists, you assume the burden of proof.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 If you assert naturalism you also have the burden of proof.
*Magnetic brain stimulation reduces belief in God, prejudice toward immigrants*
Disabling certain areas of the brain with transcranial magnetic stimulation can reduce a person’s belief in God and negativity toward immigrants, claims a new study published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.
So there's hope for them yet!
So, the suggestion is damaging your brain keeps you from realizing the obvious, that all creation shows evidence of obvious design. The “research” was likely tax payer and George Soros funded. The evolutionist believing Nazis loved doing torturous experiments like that on people. I’m sure you would love to do the same on those who remind you about reality from which you hide.
@@greenguitarfish no, it isn't. Your brain does not get damaged. It just shows that your beliefs are nothing but neuro-chemical reactions, a product of the mind, that God is imaginary. "all creation shows evidence of obvious design" -> except nothing ever got created. There's not even the tiniest shred of evidence ANYTHING was created, nor that nature is the product of design. These are fantasies, delusions, imagination, with no facts or evidence to support it.
"tax payer, George Soros funded" -> more coping, LOL! Well, because it's SCIENCE, we can have it repeated independently, using the same methodology those scientists used. If we get the same results, then regardless of who originally paid for the research, the results are factual.
"evolutionist" -> no such thing exists
"Nazis" -> Nazism and Evolution contradict each other. For Evolution, genetic diversity is important. First of all, the process itself creates diversity, and secondly, you need diversity to increase the odds of survival for a given species. The Nazis with their "ubermensch" had the exact opposite goal. They wanted to get rid of genetic diversity and wanted blue eyed, blond haired, white people to dominate...yet these are 3 recessive (weak) traits. So what they did was ANTI-Evolution. The persecution and genocide of the Jews, falls perfectly in line with Christianity and Islam, as they've tried this many times throughout history. Persecution of homosexuals, gypsies, atheists, etc. all fit perfectly with the christian worldview. Nazism was pro-christian, including Hitler.
We're not the ones hiding from reality, YOU ARE. The only thing we need to do, is ask you for objective, demonstrable, scientific evidence for your beliefs, and you give up, because you know you have none. You just use random excuses, try changing the subject, or even present frauds and lies. But never any evidence.
@@jehandesains8674 LOL. That’s cute. So, then perhaps all of existence is illusionary. How can we trust our senses, since they are simply neuro-chemical reactions, right ? Lol. Maybe your thinking like a Hindu, trying to obtain “Maya”. in which you come to the realization nothing is real….lol. Or we are in The Matrix ! Back here in reality land, where real science is conducted, we know that randomness can not compete with intelligence. The mind boggling Design we see in nature does not come about by random molecules. When a person sees Mt. Rushmore, even if that person does not know the history can obviously see it was not random erosion, wind and rain that produced the design, it was an intelligent skilled sculptor. How much more obvious is a real living person was designed, which is far more complex than an inanimate object carved from stone. Open your eyes. 👀
@@jehandesains8674 Also, Hitler and the Nazis were total evolutionists ! Their genocide fit right in with the Darwinistic evolutionary idea that some humans are less evolved than others, and so it’s ok to kill them off. Darwin wrote in his book, The decent of man, about a future time when the most evolved humans would surely eliminate the inferior ones. He was a total racist, by the way. Hitler was an evolutionist madman, and the genocide he enacted went right in line with his evolutionary delusions of Germans being the super race. After all, in a materialistic worldview, we are all just accidental rearranged pond scum. So, what is murder ? It’s simply one bag of random chemicals impacting another, right ? There is no moral law giver, and so there is no moral law in your materialistic worldview. Hitler was consistent in his evolutionary belief system. The same was true for Stalin and Mao. All total evolutionists who saw humans as nothing more than animals to be culled. These made the 20th century the bloodiest in world history, all stemming from an evolutionary belief. That’s reality.
Guardians of dogmas
for deluded americans
🤣 because you are apparently ignorant to science. It makes perfect sense. This is actually the easy stuff. Go to college and take some science classes.
1. Fiction
2. Unscientific
3. Anti-biblical
🎻
1. Fact
2. Entirely scientific
3. Who cares?
1: Factual
2: Very scientific
3: Irrelevant
Both micro and macroevolution are directly observed in real life and in real time. Dozens of new species have evolved in your own lifetime.
Can you tell me more about how evolution is fictional and unscientific? I’d love to learn more about it.
Yes: Mutations happen and natural selection is real. But evolution in Darwin´s sense does not exist. It´s like this: later product adaptations and quality control in a producing factory are NOT the story how the product was engineered and produced in the first place.
If you want to be intellectually honest, you have to take into account, what Darwin himself said: All his "evidence for evolution" could just as well be attributed to the work of a Creator. But, he and his supporters decided (it was a decree!) that assuming Creation could not be called scientific any more.
Scientists quickly agreed, seeing all the career and money possibilities, making science really great - in a very dishonest and unscientific fashion.
Let me give you the quote from Origin of Species: "On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; - that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation." - Not scientific according to the new definition of science, yeah, but true nonetheless. AT LEAST it must be said that all the evidence is nothing, it can be used either to argue for evolution or just as well for creation.
If you want to be intellectually honest, you also have to take into account that all proposed evidence for evolution ended up being called into question like: Junk DNA, Hox genes, ERV. The "Darwinian paradox" has no solution, as geneticist John F. McDonald says. Here in simple words: Mutations that evolution needs in order to build new body plans do not occur, and those that do occur, evolution doesn’t need. I highly recommend Matti Leisola´s book Heretic for a start into criticism. That´s got all the other major problems like fossils in it too. It´s a good starting point.
And don´t be afraid, if you fall from evolution, even if they fire you for it, you can repent for leading all these kids astray, you can turn to Jesus and make it to heaven. Please do. Jesus died for you. Truth, real truth is all that matters, and the only truth is in Jesus Christ. All man-made wisdom against God is lies and illusion.
Heaven huh? There's your real objection to evolution. No heaven if you're just another evolved organism.
Evolution may not be real. That doesn't make myths and legends real.
The theory of evolution may be wrong. That doesn't mean miracles have happened. And even if the existence of miracles could be confirmed, that doesn't prove that there's a god.
I've talked to many people who identify as Christian who believe the theory of evolution is valid. I know some atheists that don't.
I am not a believer in the Bible, though I have read and studied it for over fifty years. I know many Christians who won't talk about the Bible with me because they "don't care about the details", they just " follow their hearts", and I, of course, ask questions they can't(or won't) answer and which make them feel uncomfortable.
Now I see you quibbling about the details of evolution, as if most people who accept the theory really "care about the details".
Most people are not as intelligent and learned as you in science, history and Christian apologetics. You must, though, realize that Darwin died about 150 years ago and much has been discovered that might call into question that his seminal theory, about natural selection driving changes to populations over time, didn't happen. His theory seems, to this cowboy, to have plenty of novel predictive power.
Pointing to some quotes from an old book that likely has only marginal similarity to the state of the science as it is practiced in the modern age, is analogous to pointing to passages in ancient scripture as if they are instructive to a present day moral framework. It's weak!
@@russellmillar7132 You misrepresent what I said. People follow an idea that was implemented with a book from 1859 and it would be irrelevant that you can actually see in this book that it´s all one big speculative story with decrees and big hopes for future evidence - that didn´t turn up?
But yeah, science makes discoveries and progress by the use of false theories all the time. That´s not the problem. The problem is that under the guise of the science a new religion was introduced, and almost everyone now believes in this religion but does not know anything about it.
In my comments here, I made roughly two dozen points and talking about Darwin´s book is only one of them, and you´re claiming: It´s weak? Seriously?
One point you´re right though, people don´t care about the details. Doesn´t seem worth all the trouble. So they don´t know the newer developments either, but I do. Never mind.
Christians not caring about the Bible is a contradiction in terms, but that´s another matter.
@@russellmillar7132 And nowhere do I claim the failure of modern science to explain origins would prove God or miracles. It just proves that science has no better explanation than Genesis. Once people understand this, they can began to think and hear about God and the supernatural.
@@martha-schalleck I am not sure that you are really up to date on the state evolutionary science, but neither am I. I'll hazard a guess that you don't believe there is a god because of all the objections you have to evolutionary biology. I'd guess you have believed this since you were young, or a life changing event showed you the fact of the creator. I'm okay with however a person puts it together.
Yet most people who identify as Christian accept the theory of evolution. I guess because they don't know the details of either they go along to get along, cause it likely doesn't seem to matter that much.
One of my heroes is a woman named Mary Schweitzer. She is an evangelical Christian and an evolutionary biologist. She made a revolutionary find in a dinosaur bone from 66+ million years ago. You may be familiar with this and, as with all things in scientific research, it could change tomorrow. But she displayed courage that few seem to have these days. She was a woman in what had been an all male field. She made a find and developed a theory that challenged the beliefs of all the male researchers she with whom she worked. They tried to dismiss her work out of hand.
She was pressured, simultaneously, by her Christian community to proclaim that her find indicated something she knew was incorrect; namely that the world is quite young and that dinos lived with homos. like on the Flintstones.
She stuck to her guns, however, and is now a respected researcher and theorist, and she still claims Jesus is her lord.
The theory of evolution doesn't make sense to me. But that's similar to the theory of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, the big bang, relativity etc. Science works things out that we can't know any other way.
If we were left with only stories that were told us by the elders, or preached to us from the pulpit, and science had yet to provide us with electricity, modern medical care, mechanized transportation...the internet, and things too numerous...I doubt that pontificating about the impossibility of an idea of change over time would occupy much of your attention.
In fact I surmise that the only reason you are sniping at evolution, and not the germ theory of disease or aerodynamics, is that you think evolution somehow contradicts your religious presuppositions. I get it. I'm the same way...but in reverse. Live long and prosper...or until next time.
There is no mechanism for getting written programming that’s not there.
DNA is not “writing”.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Yes DNA is written programming ordering you to be a human instead of a chinchilla.
@@JungleJargon - it’s a sequence of nucleotides. No one wrote it. The sequences emerged via natural processes.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 It didn’t write itself. Programming never writes itself.
@@JungleJargon - and yet new sequences are observed emerging naturally all the time, so obviously yes it does that without anyone “writing” it.
There is this thing called known human history. There are sixteen known ancient civilizations that are descended from known progenitors that are the sixteen grandsons of Noah. That’s real human history.
That’s mythology, not history.
Jungle, is that the story where your loving god murdered our entire species, except for a drunk and his family? Oh yeah, and that little boat that was supposed to carry animals. Ever wonder how the pandas and kangaroos got there?
In known human history, what you say is objectively false. Not only are there far more ancient civilisations known, we know that Noah, the ark, and the global flood never existed. THAT is real human history.
According to young earth creationists, this global flood supposedly happened somewhere around 4004-4400 years ago (2004-2400 BCE). This is when big civilisations existed...yet these civilisations simply continued to live and thrive with MILLIONS of inhabitants, and never suffered any consequences of a supposed global flood.
Entirely disproved by genetics. Although I would be interested to know what "sixteen ancient civilizations" you are referring too, just for giggles.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 You must not know anything about ancient civilizations.
Why the Hell did you give AIG publicity?! Ken Ham and his minions are liars!
What was the mechanism for universal common descent? It has to be testable. It has to have evidentiary support. And it has to be determined that it was blind and mindless processes.
You've already been told this a couple dozen times. Do you have a learning disability?
There is no one mechanism, it has several. The mechanisms of evolution and common descent are natural selection, sexual selection, gene flow, genetic drift, recombination, and speciation.
@@speciesspeciate6429 Again, there isn't any evidence that those mechanisms are capable of producing the diversity of life! There aren't any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing eukaryotes from starting populations of prokaryotes! There aren't any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing sexual reproduction and meiosis. YOU have the learning disability. You think that mindlessly spewing mechanisms that have never been tested to show they are capable of such a feat! Not only that, DNA doesn't determine biological form!
Whether evolution exists or not, whether you accept evolution or not, those are the mechanisms. So stop asking for them.
You could have verified it at any time just by typing 'what are the mechanisms of evolution' into Google. Why don't you?
@@speciesspeciate6429 Wow! Learn how to read. No one has ever demonstrated that those mechanisms are capable of producing the diversity of life. I know what the mechanisms of evolution are. I want to know what the mechanisms of universal common descent are. Again, no one has ever demonstrated that the proposed and observed mechanisms of evolution are capable of producing the diversity of life. What part of that don't you understand?
Not going to waste time by reading that. Your question was answered, whether you like it or not.
Intelligent Design posits that organisms were intelligently designed with the information and ability to evolve and adapt. Evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of telic processes.
Now prove, scientifically, that any intelligence got involved anywhere in any process.
Prove, scientifically, that any such intelligence exists or ever existed to cause this.
You're making an extraordinary claim, so you require extraordinary evidence to back it up. Yet so far, the only thing you've ever presented, is...well, nothing.
@@jehandesains8674 Prove that blind and mindless processes did it. Hypocrite. Or shut up.
@@sombodysdad "prove that blind and mindless processes did it. hypocrite. or shut up." -> see Theory of Evolution, or at this point, the Modern Evolutionary Theory. You won't find any intelligence or guiding hand in any process. Just pure blind and mindless processes, as always in everything in nature.
@@jehandesains8674 There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. That's because evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is total untestable nonsense unless you are discussing genetic diseases and deformities.
@@sombodysdad so we're back to your one and only argument you've ever made, being "nu'uh". Sorry kid, but no matter how many times you deny reality, the Theory of Evolution will still be scientific.
Also, the processes that causes genetic diseases and deformities are the EXACT SAME as the ones causing beneficial traits to arise, so once again you admit that Evolution DOES happen through blind and mindless processes, while still being unable to present even the tiniest shred of evidence for it not to be.
"I never said that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes didn't happen." -> you have said it dozens and dozens of times already. You saying there is no scientific theory of evolution, is yet another rejection of exactly that.
"no evidence" -> if there were no evidence, Evolution would've never been a Theory, so we'd never have been talking about the Theory of Evolution, because a Theory means it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by science.
I'm sorry you don't understand the meaning of words and need to actively deny reality to shove your fantasy into whatever hole you love shoving it.
"take a biology course" -> I did, that's why I keep saying the things I say, because that's what biology said.
"no evidence for naturalistic abiogenesis" -> it's the only explanation for the origin of life that has evidence for it.
Again, if your reply is going to be yet another version of "nu'uh", don't bother replying, because my reply to that will be the same as this one. So do us all a favor and stop repeating the same bullshit over and over. If your goal as a science hater is to get rid of Evolution, then you'll never achieve your goal doing this. You're just keeping yourself away from the actual fight.
More love and tolerance from Christ your Lord:
*Whosoever hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.* For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries.” Lev.21 17-23
Your mythology refutes nothing
@@AMC2283 It's not my mythology.
@@DocReasonable your religious beliefs refute nothing
@@AMC2283 What fcn religious beliefs? Ckskr.
@@DocReasonable ummmm, were you awake when you posted your original comment?
Evolution has several meanings. It is only definition 6 that people argue against. And that is because there isn't any evidence for it:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
Where did you get that notion from?
@@maxxam3590 What notion?
@@sombodysdad The thing you just posted about the six types of evolution. Because just by searching "limited common descent" I got that list in several sites, all of them creationists.
@@maxxam3590 So what? Limited common descent is still evolution, duh. You have some sort of mental issue. Seek help.
@@sombodysdad lnsults and insecurities aside, yes, limited common descent _is_ evolution. Do you agree that two different, non-interbreeding species of salamander at the end of a ring system share a common ancestor?
It all depends on how you are defining "evolution ". So, start with a valid definition of evolution, first. Even YECs accept speciation.
We've already presented a valid definition of Evolution, long ago. YECs refuse to accept Evolution, because of religious indoctrination. It's the same reason they reject the concept of radioactive decay, geology, the speed of light, and anything that proves ages older than they claim Earth is. Which includes actual history.
@Jehan Desains You are an equivocating coward. The ONLY evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is genetic diseases and deformities.
@@sombodysdad "the only evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is genetic diseases and deformities" -> so you admit evolution by blind and mindless processes does, in fact, happen, despite your raging tantrum saying it doesn't. Well, aside from the negative mutations, it also causes positive mutations, leading to improved survival. Such as ability to better withstand malaria without downsides, ability to better get rid of bad cholesterol, ability to digest lactose as adults, tetrachromic vision, etc. All the exact same processes happening, which you just admitted do happen.
@Jehan Desains I never said that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes didn't happen. You are just unable to read for comprehension. There isn't any evidence that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced anything beyond genetic diseases and deformities.
Speciation is macroevolution.
Evolution is the mechanism for evolution? Evolution by means of evolution? This is what some evos are telling me!
No he didn't. You asked him what was the mechanism for universal common descent and he correctly said evolution. You didn't ask him what the mechanism for evolution was.
@Species Speciate Wow! Evolution is a result. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution. Neither of those evolutionary mechanisms are capable of producing the diversity of life.
Evolution is just the name of the process. You asked for the name, and now you complain that you were given the name.
Mutagens cause genetic drift chief.
@@maxxam3590 Evolution is a result. Natural selection is a process of evolution.
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement
"Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do."
- Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement
Phillip e Johnson eh? Is there some problem with that j.h.c. fellow?
@@AMC2283 What are you blabbering about now, d-bag?