Scientist vs Scientist - Is Evolution Real? | Reacteria
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лис 2021
- Cyber Month Deal! Go to nordvpn.com/valkailabs to get a 2-year plan with a huge discount plus 1 additional month free. It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee!
Dr. Anderson’s Paper - citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/...
Isaac’s Recommended Evolution Video - • The Evolution of Bacte...
FREE Biology Resources:
bio.libretexts.org/
www.biointeractive.org/
learn.genetics.utah.edu/
humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
www.khanacademy.org/science/b...
ourclimateourfuture.org/videos/
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/
Forrest Valkai, an evolutionary biologist who teaches science on the internet, embarks on a quest to endure videos from people who claim everything he studied in college is wrong. Will he be convinced by creationist claims? Or will he remain steadfast in his study of science? Let's find out!
Subscribe at / renegadescienceteacher
Need more science in your life?
Follow Forrest!
RenegadeScienceTeacher.com
TikTok - TikTok.com/@RenegadeScienceTeacher
Instagram - RenegadeScienceTeacher
Twitter - ProfForrest
Visit the Valkai Labs Giftshop!
www.bonfire.com/store/renegad...
Don't miss Forrest's terrible weekly podcast "I'm Not Comfortable with This" on UA-cam, Spotify, Breaker, Google Podcasts, Radio Public, and Pocketcasts!
/ imnotcomfortablewiththis
Want to send Forrest something?
Send your letters, artwork, science kits, or other surprises to
P.O. Box 1810
Broken Arrow, OK
74013
Want to help fund more shows like this?
Become a patron at Patreon.com/RenegadeScienceTeacher
or Donate with
Venmo - @ProfForrest
CashApp - $ProfForrest
PayPal.me/YourScienceTeacher
Have an awesome day and never stop learning!
Leave Darwin alone. His work was a stroke of genius at the time, but you don't go to Galileo for the latest in gravitational theory.
Still a theory
@@captainsalty5688 🤦♂️
@@captainsalty5688 Yes!
@@captainsalty5688 So's gravity. A theory, in Science, is a higher order thing than a fact. A theory explains a set of facts.
@@captainsalty5688 tell me you don’t know what a theory is without telling me you don’t know what a theory is
Anyone that refers to evolution as Darwinism is dishonest.
Yep! And you know what’s coming next
Neo-Darwinism, nevertheless
Why? Darwinism= Natural Selection, or the process of natural selection. So, since Natural selection is THE main process of evolutionary theory I personally don't see an issue calling it Darwinism. I consider myself a UltraMegaRadical-Darwinist 🤣
@@Raydensheraj
Do,you consider your Model T Ford a reflection of the modern automobile?
Or refers to people as "evolutionists"
“It’s a freshman mistake. Your analogy’s bad, and you should feel bad.”
I’m still laughing at Forrest’s delivery of this sentiment, especially the “and you should feel bad” part! 😂
Forrest is obviously a Futurama fan.
I loved the gloves😅
However I’m missing one thing from this reaction video. You kept hammering down the point that his logic doesn’t hold up, but this is not going to convince Creationists, because the argument used is so ingrained.
I think it comes from a time when the only examples of evolutionary mechanics documented were in fact “deleterious” for the gene, but beneficial for the organism in that particular environment. That doesn’t explain new genes, as in a net increase in amount of DNA/genes.
What I’m missing is an example of eg gene duplication and consequently mutation of this newly “made” DNA that codes for a beneficial protein.
Examples of this of course now exist, but is not well known. Lots of wilful ignorance exists around this.
As a last point. I guess it could still be argued that this is “micro” evolution since a new protein doesn’t make a new “Kind”, but that’s an argument that then becomes harder and harder to postulate.
@@hopelessnerd6677 i said the same.. isnt everyone?
@@troynorris388My favorite people are anyway.
I love how the video started with "Let's ignore time" as if that is something that is possible.
I feel like trying to disprove evolution by pointing out Darwins mistakes is like trying to prove coffee is bad by saying that the first coffee ever sold wasn't very good.
more like that the first house ever built wouldn't stand up to modern-day building codes. The first coffee ever made was a mild hallucinogen, and I'd take that over my modern coffee :)
@@jeremyhulbert3343 mild hallucinogens sound nice rn
Rick n morty is on Hulu
@@Erik_patchin I have HBO max, it's there, too
Wait until this man learns what the first pizzas were like. Dudes never gonna want a slice again.
"I feel like I've just spent the last 60 minutes of my life watching someone beat their head into a wall to prove to me that walls don't exist" is possibly the best statement I've ever heard
If you beat your head against the wall enough times you can eventually prove that your brain cells don't exist.
@James Henry Smith babes you're on the wrong video to be trying to convince people evolution isn't real.... Did you watch it?
@James Henry Smith you can... Believe that.... If you want..... Gtfo of my comment replies with it though
@James Henry Smith no one wants to hear it here. I could easily go on a video about creationism and tell people that God hasnt been proven to exist but I don't do that because I respect their views. I don't respect yours because you don't respect other people's. I believe in what I've been given evidence for, and that is evolution. Have a nice life, dear, I wish you all the best, but please keep your nose out of my belief system
Forest: your mixing up acclimatization , adaptation, and evolution it’s a freshman mistake.
Me a freshman bio major: taking notes so I don’t mix those up next semester when we start really going into evolution
The maintenance of genome integrity is essential for organism survival and for the inheritance of traits to offspring.
Can’t believe I was a creationist for 18 years up until I received an actual education, was allowed to ask questions and discuss without being shushed or shamed….I no longer believe in it.
I may not have extensive knowledge on evolution but there is so much material about it. Whether it’s videos on the internet, peer-reviewed scholarly sources, science newspapers and publications, books, textbooks, lectures, and so on, it’s possible to learn. And I’m glad I changed my views because the more I learn about evolution, the more I laugh at my old self. How could I have believed in such bogus? Probably because I was terrified of going to hell, because some ancient Semitic god demands worship and sacrifice of your happiness for an afterlife that seems boring
You should be proud of yourself. Many creacrappers stick to their theology of lies no matter what.
@@marknieuweboer8099 Yeah. And the thing is I am fine with people believing in creationism, but their idea of apologetics isn’t to prove creationism is real, but that evolution is wrong. I grew up in a Baptist church, watched Answers in Genesis and Wretched, all that evangelical stuff. Whenever I had a question I was shot down. Debates were always as hominem attacks towards evolutionists and I was taught that all atheists are cold-hearted people who hate god. Turns out they’re just normal people and that when I would ask questions in my biodiversity and evolution class the teacher was more than happy to explain it.
Ay, we have another OEC, these YECs are really going up my nerves, I disprove em in long comments and they say that they disproved it without giving evidence ooor, they say they are not going to@@kuarahyyva
Proud for you men
A lot of people are sadly in this situation, the idea of going to hell has traumatised a lot of kids growing up, When you grow up you get to understand that the bible is a fairytale book for adults.
"I'm gonna send this to a few friends"
*The Entire population of a small town appears*
*the entire scientific community has appeared!*
@@pineapplerr valkai labs question mark
@@dooda9566 …what
I loled at how they kept coming. It reminded me of the Adult Swim short "Too Many Cooks"
@@Fusterclucked00 Yea it was like a clown car. They just kept coming… wait. Not meaning they are clowns. I-I’m not saying their clow-
Creationist: If we lost 99.99999% of the population, that's an extinction level event.
Also Creationist: Only 8 people survived on Noah's Ark.
Puts, you forgot the 99.99999% of every other species on the planet. Talk about “population bottlenecks. With today’s genetic analysis, these bottlenecks are easy to spot in CURRENT animals’ genomes. For example, from cheetah’s genetic analysis, they know that they experienced 2 bottlenecks (one in the last 100 years, likely due to hunting) and one about 10,000 years ago, likely due to climate or ecosystem change. Curiously, NO SPECIES shows the extreme, unrecoverable reduction to 1 reproducing pair of animals anywhere close to when creationists claim Noah’s flood occurred.
100% proof that the flood did NOT happen!
That is exactly what I yelled. Almost threw something at my tv. Why? Sometimes I wish they got everything they wanted but I'd have to live here too. They have no idea how bad people had it under the church. Is it they are so afraid of death they will do anything to live forever?
LMAO oh my god yes this to this day still pisses off people I talk to when discussing god. now yes I do believe in god but common damn since shows the stupidity of the teachings the bible shows us. if your family idea of love is inbreeding you are gonna destroy the gene pool so if noahs flood was fact (and not the story it is) we'd be extinct on the stupidity our species would incur and the diseases all this inbreeding would of brought. and thats just starting at noah lets not start with adam and eve it wont get better.
@@bigbrobonobo the problem is young earth creationists are as extreme as you people from
The religion of atheism are .
There is a middle ground .
What’s silly is to believe is that all mutations are completely random mutations . If you look at how the organism that causes malaria adapts to chloroquin biologists know that the odds of this adaptation happening through random mutations alone is greater then all the atoms in the universe .
But things like this won’t be talked about in universities where the religion of Darwinism .
You can believe in evolution without being. Darwinist .
I’m a
Believer in both evolution and intelligent design
@@bigbrobonobo haha, yup, I literally screamed this at my laptop when I heard him say it... these people man.
Whenever someone asks me, “if we are descended from apes, why are there still apes?” I ask them, “If dogs are descended from wolves, why are there still wolves?” Sometimes it makes them think (Sometimes!). And if these descendants can create so much variety in just a few thousand years through artificial selection, imagine what natural selection can accomplish in billions of years!
Forrest dragging his friends into his conspiracy theory debunking is just the best
For those who want to know the basics: Mutations and chromosome rearrangements are usually associated with pathological disorder.
For those who want to know the basics, unlike Appy (my pet name for AlbertL), who only wants to know what suits him and neglects or lies about everything else:
researchers from the University of Montana and the Georgia Institute of Technology have let a unicellular alga evolve into a multicellular organism. This is operational, repeatable science. Macro-evolution from one kind into another is an observable, scientifically verifiable fact.
Every single mutation changes genetic order to genetic disorder.
Appy nicely confirms that he doesn't want to know about observable, scientifically verifiable macro-evolution from unicellulars to multicellulars.
Every single mutation changes genetic order to genetic disorder.
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the most common, fatal genetic disease in the United States. About 30,000 people in the United States have the disease.
Mutations in a single gene - the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Regulator (CFTR) gene - causes CF.
It's really interesting to hear these people talk about Darwin as some sort of deity that all atheist worship. They literally cannot get out of their religious mindframe. They simply can't wrap their heads around the fact that science evolves and changes over time in the face of new information and that that's a good thing.
Their entire system of logic is based on finding an irrefutable authority and investing entirely in the irrefutability kf that authority. The idea to them that people can accept the ideas of a source that work, improve upon those ideas, and be able to refute the source itself is unconscionable to them, because their logical foundation requires tha tthe source and the ideas are inseparable, that the logic gains its value from the strength of its source rather than being self-supporting. Otherwise they wouldn't build their lives around the self-proclaimed book of truth that was penned over 1500 years ago, some of which was penned far before that, and none of which is allowed to change. Their identity requires that they have the absolute truth from the beginning.
Yes this explains a lot actually. Creationists have been raised to only understand everything in the contexts of prophets and prophetic texts. Tons of their behavior stems from projecting this expectation (that there has to be a man to revere and a dogmatic scripture) on everything else, since they don't know another way of understanding things in life.
They genuinely view it as a weakness. They often complain about how science keeps changing its mind as if that is proof of science being unreliable.
@@tardigrade8019 Yeah, heard Doctor Fauci explain why he changed his advice on wearing masks. He said when the Data changes, he changes his mind. And the dimwits think that means he is a fraud, instead of a very good Scientist.
Pretty on the nose. I think it's why when they fail to understand what evolution is even claiming, they describe it in ways that sound like, staged creationism. Whole organs or such must evolve at once, in their view. Their starting assumptions about how reality works, hinders of prevents understanding of these alien ideas such as, not having a concrete belief, accepting other ideas, or not worshipping something.
Creationists: "Without a long long time, then the entire theory of evolution falls apart."
Also Creationists: *Believe in a theory based on the idea that a 400 year old edition of a 1900 year old collection of folk stories is fact above all else*
That's not true
@@ImperatortotiusHispaniae which part
@@ImperatortotiusHispaniae you'll need to specify so I can let the 4 year Bible College I got a minor in biblical studies from that their curriculum was wrong.
@@dasfowler Probably means about it being folk stories.
That it's based on 400 year old edition and there not folk stories but eye witness testimony
I worry sometimes about applying to grad school (for evolution biology and microbiology) and then I see videos with people like the scientist in this video and I feel much better about it
Nothing boosts my self-confidence like seeing someone that ignorant and close-minded spout their nonsense as if it's the most brilliant thing since wave-particle duality 😂
some people might watch this video, especially creationists, and say "why are you so mad over this guy believing in something?" but Forrest's frustration is 100% justified. The dude was a professor, imagine all the dumb shit he spewed to his students and now those students will tell their children, friends, family, etc., if the topic is ever brought up. Not to mention consequences of how they think in general
I really like what you had to say at the end:
"Degrees don't make scientists, vocations don't make scientists, the degrees that I've achieved and the research that I have done has nothing to do with me being a scientist. What makes a scientist is curiosity, integrity, and the ability to change your mind when presented with new evidence. If you could question everything, assume nothing, and follow the evidence wherever it leads, the universe is yours."
very well said.
Ima steal this. FOR GOOOOOOD!!!
And perseverance!
@AdamMcinnes... Questioning everything and assuming nothing leads to the conclusion that God is real. The universe isn't yours. You're Earth bound. You're restricted to this little blue dot until the next life. If you do well in this life---and exemplify the virtues and generosity of Christ---a universe will be yours and more.
@@bobgarrett7134 "the universe is yours" is just a figure of speech man, calm down.
I love it when creationists say evolution relies on a magic wand.
everyone knows that spells are superior to magic wands.
That is why genesis is true: god didn't need tools, he spoke all into existence.
@@DanieleNiero I don't understand what you meant by "That's why genesis is true, he spoke it all into existence." Could you elaborate?
@@user-yc5gi1sx5p Magic
I love it when creationists mock the scientific for believing evolution 'thinks'.
Guys, that isn't how it works and second, you just described god and said it was silly.
@@DanieleNiero Wow, that's a case of Poe's Law.
Conflating the concept of "Complicated" with the word "Sophisticated"
I'm sure the ven diagram of the 2 has a bit of overlap, but the thing Dr. Gloves is saying isn't in the overlapped area.
BTW, some bacteria have evolved antibiotic resistance by change the amino acid sequence of their enzymes to break down antibiotics, while still maintaining the original enzymatic function. So that was strictly an added feature, with no loss of features. It is true someone gave Darwin a copy of Mendel's book translated into English. It's not clear if Darwin did or did not read it. But Darwin had his own pet hypothesis for how inheritance worked, which turned out to be wrong (gemules). Other people rejected Mendel b/c they thought his results were may not be significant, or they might not have general applicability beyond pea plants.
You just casually summoned the Biology Avengers to disprove this random dude and I love it XD
@@davesisonn BIOLOGY AVENGERS NEEDS TO BE A THING!!! IT IS AN AWESOME IDEA THING!!!
damn now we need the avengers theme on the background when they are all introducing themselves
Thank you for giving me the excuse to type the words biology Avengers
@James Henry Smith first of all, it's a theory not a hypothesis, a theory is the highest praise an idea in science can have, second of all where's your Nobel prize? because if the entire foundation of modern biology were overturned, some rando in the comments section of a science teacher's youtube channel would not be the one breaking that news.
Biology avengers ASSEMBLE!
Forrest straight up included a peer review panel to dissect this guy’s “work” in the middle of the video. Boss.
It made me smile so much seeing them do that.
19:20
Absolutely. And to some people who watch this video, that might be the first time they've ever really understood what a peer review is, and why it's the life blood of published science.
@James Henry Smith In what way does it not work?
Do you happen to be religious?
@James Henry Smith Citation required.
Because pretty much any reputable biologist, you know people who actually work in that field, tends to disagree.
Kevin: if 99.999% of humans were wiped out, it would take centuries to recover.
Also Kevin: Noah was real.
Just throw in a little God magik, and the thing you just said that was impossible, becomes possible.
I love watching your video's because you never let "what you know" guide the story you let all the facts do it it's not about showing you know what you are talking about its "here are the facts here is what they say make your own decision" . so glad I subscribed you offer a lot of info and do a great job of providing facts that can be researched and verified. thanks for being an awesome teacher
It is ironic that creationists preaching their opinions only makes me understand the science of evolution better. Love you Valkai
That's the kind of irony I love!
So have you seen Tony Reed's series "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science"? ua-cam.com/play/PL2vrmieg9tO3fSAhvbAsirT2VbeRQbLk7.html
That's exactly the outcome I was hoping for. Thanks for watching!
Ideas that are objectively true, hold up to scrutiny and criticism. This is one of the glories of the scientific method.
@@RenegadeScienceTeacher *HOW* does the pseudoscience of abiogenesis *get past THIS FACT, BELOW ?:*
My favorite thing is how they said "if you wrote The Origin Of Species today, it'd be unaccepted." And yet they didn't think about the other side. "If you wrote a Bible today, which talks about a dead guy becoming reanimated with magic, it'd be unaccepted because nowadays, we know reanimation doesn't exist."
You dont need to go that far... there are today, and have been for a long time, a lot of claimants that they are the "second coming of jesus crist", but for people that have been waiting for Jesus for 2000 years, christians are very relunctant to accept their "miracles"...
I think you underestimate people. Scientology is a thing.
@@michaelgoldstein8516 Scientologists believe in "god" and teach under one's special words, like priests talking "from the bible" when they've never read it (my father was starved, abused and neglected in a christian school as a child. We'd know). Brainwashing is easy when beliefs are already present. If christianity never existed people likely wouldn't've believed scientology.
@@rat_dragon I brought up scientology because it became a religion based on a science fiction book from the 20th century. People will believe anything.
And your story about your father doesn't negate that in any way. I'm sorry that happened to him, and that is absolutely not Christian or from the Bible. That is shitty people doing shitty things while hiding behind religion.
But humans will believe lots of things.
Here's the key question though: Accepted or "unaccepted" by who? Back in the mid-19th century when Darwin was actually writing and seeking to publish the book in question, there were some peer-reviewed scientific journals, but nowhere near as many as exist today. So there were fewer publishers around to actually accept and publish his book. Despite this, the work was so revolutionary that there were several publishing houses willing to accept his work. Murrays were just the first one to make a firm bid for actually doing it.
The point being that although some parts of the process are similar, there is a massive difference between scientific publications and publishers of fictional works. Scientific publishing though is subject to the peer review process, which seeks to weed out works of fiction and only publishes that which can be demonstrated to be correct, or at least as close to correct as possible. While the big journal publishers do make profits today, this is mainly from selling bulk subscriptions to universities and other institutions. They don't make a whole lot by selling single articles to individual people - because this is usually priced at extortionate levels, such as $40 to $60 per article downloaded. Hardly anyone buys articles that way - most people go through friends or colleagues who have proxy server access through one university or another. Or you just use SciHub, which is the same thing, more or less.
However, publishers of fictional works only really care about whether they can profitably sell whatever the book might be. Any other considerations are either non-existent or at best secondary. So for the world of non-scientific publishing, there is little or nothing to stop anyone writing a work of complete bullshit and getting it published somewhere. A case in point: Andrew Wakefield managed to get his book of vaccine misinformation published, and today uses this to deflect arguments, telling any critics to "go read my book" whenever he is challenged or questioned. So a book being filled with falsities is not a barrier to publication.
This is why who originally wrote any given book is less important that other criteria, such as: Why did they write it? What is the expected readership? What message is it intended to convey, if any? But most importantly of all, who published it? Because that last criterion alone can tell you a lot about the book before you even open it.
I love watching your videos. You explain things so well and when you encounter a problem, you express that so interestingly!
I once was arguing with a creationist (I was arguing for theistic evolution and he was arguing that the theory of evolution is infused with atheistic and naturalistic philosophy and was made to drive people away from God) and he sent me the same exact video to show me how evolution couldn't happen the way the theory of evolution says. I counted at least 16 mistakes in 1 watching and I'm not even a scientist nor a philosopher. One of the most annoying things was that the man didn't even say why he thought the earth might be young. He started the conversation with that and left us with the impression that it's going to be the main theme of the interview and he didn't even address it 1 more time, and gave no reason to think that it's even possible. Like, I could say that the big bang theory couldn't be true if there wasn't enough time for the "bang" form the universe, which is true, but what's the whole point of bringing it up if I don't explicitly say that there was not enough time or give (even wrong) evidence?
"You're making this God an ever-shrinking pocket of ignorance. Until, finally, you have nowhere left to hide so it just explodes and now it's everything again." In the context of Creationism, this is the best summary of the Argument from Ignorance I've heard. Thank you!
On that note. Couldnt a god of any higher power make evolution sequence in to, yknow, people? A literal GOD.
yo, that is the simulation argument - I subscribe to that. something programmed this whole mess and just pressed enter 14b y ago! now we have to figure out how everything precisly works so we programm the next simulation press enter and - so on...
@@Blahaj_Gaming847
The problem that creationists have isn't necessarily that they think the Abrahamic god _can't_ make evolution happen, it's that the book they believe in claims that god created earth in 7 days, and made Adam from dirt and Eve from his rib. They believe that that's the literal story, and the theory of evolution contradicts that. Hence, they get into apologetics and trying to prove evolution wrong. Not because they believe its impossible, but because its not what their doctrine says.
@@werm3169 i think that could be up to interperetation, hence what i said. But thats just me
@@Blahaj_Gaming847
You're definitely right - many Christians/Muslims/Jewish people believe just what you suggested.
The people who don't, however, typically don't for the reasons I suggested. It's a common belief that the bible (in the case of these particular creationists) is the _absolute_ and _final_ truth. This includes all the events described, unless they're explicitly stated to be parables.
It is entirely possible that the Abrahamic god, according to the Abrahamic mythology's descriptions of him being omnipotent and all-powerful, could cause evolution to take place.
But, the doctrine says that god made humans first and completed the creation of earth in 7 days, and to creationists doctrine is not to be questioned or negotiated. The bible doesn't say god made evolution happen, therefore evolution didn't happen (in their minds).
For them, they'd have to forfeit their religion altogether in order to accept evolution, which would be logical, but also extremely difficult and not likely to happen.
Bringing a toothpick to an atom bomb fight is probably my new favorite saying
6:41
Will that be the plot of John Wick 4?
I'm filing that one right next to Anon Ra's description of creationists trying to disparage evolution as "the pot calling the silverware black."
Its really nice to see this "scientist's" paper reviewed by people who actually grasp the subject. If only creationists would actually submit their papers to peer review, if there was any basis to their claims they may be able to work through the flaws to bring the real "evidence" out. But alas, they can't handle criticism.
Thank you Forrest, for making sense in a crazy world.
The fact that you basically got this guys work peer reviewed by actual experts in the evolutionary field makes your response to him so much more compelling. You've gone above and beyond the the usual youtuber and earned another subscriber
This is why I subscribed too. I love the detailed breakdowns of exactly why these arguments are wrong. Many other 'debunking' youtubers will just say 'well, that's wrong!' and make a joke and then move on. But Forrest goes into much more detail.
The difference between creation and evolution is a matter of not seeing the trees for the forest. People can provide a very convincing argument on any subject even if it is wrong it could sound believable. Most people are not educated as an evolutionary biologist to know for sure what they are being told is true. Most people are not motivated enough to get a higher education in the sciences and would rather have their ears tickled by people who think they knew better. (2 Timothy 4:3) "For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled" People have had evolution shoved down their throats by educators from their first day of school and the idea has been part of the media and educational text books for many years so by the time these kids are ready to start college they have a healthy bias evolution. People say that those who believe in God are brain washed, really?
@@ronhansen8471 so... I'm not sure which way you're trying to go on this one. Are you arguing for or against evolution versus scripture?
@@ronhansen8471 I don't know about your school, but in my High School Freshman Biology textbook, we had about 3 pages on Evolution, in the back of the book. That isn't indoctrination, it is pandering to Creationists who don't want kids to learn about one of the greatest achievements of Mankind, The Theory of Evolution.
@@Foolish188 I don't know about your school, but in my High School Freshman Biology textbook, we had about 3 pages on Evolution, in the back of the book.
Ron's response: You are telling me that the subject of evolution never come up in your class studies except in your last year of high school. I don't believe that for a minute. The subject of evolution came up in every class not to mention the media and science programs.
@doug randall That isn't indoctrination, it is pandering to Creationists who don't want kids to learn about one of the greatest achievements of Mankind, The Theory of Evolution.
Ron's response: First of all I am not a creationist. Their views do not align with the bible. I wouldn't call biological evolution the greatest achievement of mankind. What the theory is doing is turning man away from God which is what the wicked spirit creatures want and is setting them up for Armageddon. Just like these wicked spirit creature are using false religion as a platform to spread lies and deceptions. You can believe what you want it is your life. If I did not tell the truth and expose the lie I would be blood guilty. Knowledge brings a certain amount of responsibility to the one that has it.
"Bacteria don't have sex" Joke's on you Valkai, neither do some of us.
Pain😭😭😭😭
Bruh why you callin me out like this :(
yooo ace gang where you at ✌️⚫️🟣⚪️⚫️
Yeah, I don't, and I am happy this way
@@jadude378 👍
As a builder, I can tell you that opening a wall will tell you how it was made, how old it is, and will often pose further questions. Additionally, if it's a load bearing wall you can reinforce it with a beam. The house and the organism are better suited to their existence due to change.
"Biologist thinks into battle" has no business going so hard, that should be the name of your album if you were a musician
The fact that Anderson seems somewhat intelligent makes his ignorance that much more infuriating.
That's how I always felt about my grandfather. He was the smartest person I've ever met, but he was YEC his entire life.
What makes you think it’s ignorance?
- Why not deliberate dishonesty?
I think the word you're looking for as "contrived".
Most professional apologists are deliberately lying. They know the arguments they make are nonsense and they know they are deliberately decieving people. They're just doing it for religious, financial and/or political reasons.
There is no such thing as an honest creationist.
Well, considering he works at a creation research center, my money is on him having to sign a statement of faith. If he ever does realize he's wrong he can't state it or he loses his job
@@tardigrade8019 He would have realized he was wrong while he was getting his degree (and he does have a legitimate degree).
It is NOT POSSIBLE for someone to have a PhD in the field of biology and yet not know that every single thing said in this video is bogus. He must have gone to university, studied this subject, gained an understanding of it, and then discarded that the moment his degree was earned because his religion and his income depended on lying about it.
His degree was likely only pursued so that he could hold it up as a badge of credibility while he deliberately lied to his gullible followers.
I love how they're talking about how it's IMPOSSIBLE for fish to walk onto land, and they use amphibians as a background video. It looks straight out of a parody video.
and they forget about mudpuppies
They think it's some kinda proof that these things were designed. "You'll never see a fish grow legs! So these fish-like animals with legs must hve been made that way because you'll never be able to show it happening otherwise!" They can't think beyond their one argument ebcause their entire way of life is based on investing as fully as possible into a single argument, and their life philosophy is filled with instruction on how to stand defiant in the face of good counterargument.
@@LathosZan I'd argue that while you're mostly correct, I think instead their argument is about taking what we see, right now, and insisting that must be how those things were designed.
Mudskippers were designed that way, because their argument cannot be allowed to look beyond this exact moment. This way anything we show them, to detail how things plausibly happened, it can be dismissed, because we can't know for 100% certain, because "we weren't there."
Of course, then they have to twist and bend every single other piece of evidence to fit into this narrative. "All fossils are of creatures that died during the flood of Noah! He took two to seven of every 'kind' with him on the ark, and what we see today micro evolved from those." They'll state that, and refuse to answer any detailed questions beyond that, because they cannot look beyond right now, because as you stated, it's about denying understanding in favor of standing defiant against good arguments.
@@Thoron_of_Neto The irony is that to get all the different species from the base Kinds on the Ark would take an acceleration of micro-evolution of amazing propensity and yet in this video they suggest that evolution needs immense periods of time. Cat to Lion, Tiger, Leopard, Panther, Caracal, Ocelot, Lynx, Puma and Cat (why are there still cats?) all in 4000 years? Not sure how far back they think the great flood occurred but if the world is only 6000 years old and we have evidence all these animals existed at least 2000 years ago then it must have happened in 4000.
and when, eels, catfish and mud skippers just like, exist
Brilliant peer review. Thanks to you and all of your friends.
This is such a cool video. I love seeing you just stop and do a quick search about the topic, and actually trying to look at the evidence they provide, instead of just dismissing it outright. The peer review was marvellous.
41:10 this segment actually made me stop and look into how many members of a species are needed for a population to grow without major inbreeding issues. A quick Google search led me to the 50/500 rule, where you need 50 mating individuals to prevent inbreeding depression, and 500 for adaptation, that was proposed by geneticist Ian Franklin and biologist Michael Soulé. From what I read, the current estimate is actually around 500/5000, in order to accomodate random genetic losses. The same source also mentions that this isn’t always necessary for a species to survive, as humans did not have groups that large, but still successfully repopulated and spread.
This scientist claims that humans cannot bounce back from a near extinction event in the same way bacteria can. But if all but a millionth of the people on earth died, there would still be 8000 people alive, who would likely be able to repopulate just fine. This, of course, assumes that the population is in one location and not spread all across the globe, that the surviving humans are still capable of breeding, and that they are not going to be threatened again immediately. The more I write this the more illogical it seems, but I still feel like I have thought about it more than gloves guy. I would love to learn more about this.
(Source: www.bbc.com/future/article/20160113-could-just-two-people-repopulate-earth , and Britannica)
In humans, genomic instability is often associated with premature ageing, predisposition to various types of cancer and with inherited diseases.
"If you can question everything, assume nothing and follow the evidence wherever it leads, the universe is yours."
What a great saying! I'm gonna start quoting you on that.
Inthperation (insperational quote)
Don’t mind me just saving this for later
Only works if you don’t start questioning your evidence as actually benign real or true or whatever. Sometimes you gotta assume
@@christianschwartz7660 That sentence truly befuddles me. It seems entirely contradictory.
@@brookejon3695 Basically a philosophical query. Like we have to assume we exist in a reality. That this reality is true and not some deception or mirage or something akin to that. At some base level when you break it down you have to pick a point and say: this is real. Not pragmatic at all I guess.
"What makes a scientist is curiosity, integrity, and the ability to change your mind when presented with new evidence. If you can question everything, assume nothing, and follow the evidence wherever it leads the universe is yours"
*I am shookith*
"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
_-Thomas Henry Huxley_
A great quotation.
The hypocrisy is absolutely incredible.
@@alexz31cujo31 ?????????
@@fairisblue8051 assume nothing, except the naturalistic world view...
It amazes me and scares me the amount of time and resources creationist put in being wrong and spread their wrong positions to other people.
It’s starting to feel more cultish with every generation.
And what the creationists are ignoring is that life exists on a continuum because ecosystems exist on a continuum. There are not only lungfish but "flying" (gliding) fish. There are fish and amphibians that essentially shut down all their processes to survive drought conditions. I'm sure Forest could come up with many more of these examples of living organisms that have evolved novel ways of surviving. You know, they evolved!
Love learning from you Forest!!❤
Okay, holding them to the same standards, if they can't tell me exactly who wrote each part of the bible originally and who made every single translation until today, then the bible isn't valid.
Unfortunately that doesn't work for them. Remember, when they're caught red-handed they automatically insert the god of blanks or that God works in mysterious ways and that his works are above our understanding. 😑😑😑 It's never worth arguing or debating against them.
I love it.
It's funny how they think the bible was written by eye-wittness accounts. As if eye-wittnesses could be trusted. Even funnier, they won't believe it when somebody from another religion says the same thing about their religion.
I'd like to see a paternity test that shows that Jesus is God's son and God should show his ID that he is really the one and only creator of everything.
@@maythesciencebewithyou ..and his license to create habitable universes in the first place, I kinda have doubt he has one.
His complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Rube Goldberg machines upsets me. They are the opposite of cobbled together. It's an amazing series of mismatched parts that come together to make something incredible. The parts might not be the best for a given job, but they still are required. It's a great analogy.
I was looking for this comment before I made it. 👍🏻
I concur. The only reason Rube Goldberg machines aren't heralded as "enormously sophisticated" is because they're usually seen applied to tasks that could be accomplished far more simply. That may be less true for cellular systems, but it doesn't make the comparison of their complexity any less apt.
This got me too. Rube Goldberg machines may come from mismatched parts, but are incredibly well engineered
Exactly! He takes Rube Goldberg machine to mean “complicated thing that has no purpose” focused on the idea that it is useless. It’s actually a very good analogy because every part does something, there’s a process that is a lot of steps and we look at it and say “why?”
(answer: usually “because we can” which is not that different from evolution’s “it didn’t *not* work”)
Yeah; the comparison works because they are more complex than is absolutely necessary to accomplish a given task. Sophistication (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.
I think the critique of his academic paper by peers was a great approach to really kill his argument
I have for some time been aware of the importance of the Gut Biome in the functions of life, but the idea that it has a huge effect on the expression of physical characteristics is very interesting.
I cringe at the idea that I used to follow and think AIG, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind & Ray Comfort were experts. Glad I opened my eyes to their deception.
Also: these videos are show to the average highschool and middle schooler (so he's excepting his audience to not know evolution).
I used to as well and I cringe too. Especially now that Kent isn't a doctor, is a proven felon, and has gone to jail for beating one of his many wives.
Why do you believe they are deceptive vs honesty believing?
I'm honesty curious because I often wonder if the older generation of young earth creationism is simply ignorant or know better and ate just continuing a profitable lie.
@@gctcauto Ray Comfort I can see more as honestly believing to an extent. Ken and Kent I can't imagine there's no deception going on. Kent claims that he used to teach science classes in that past as his form of credibility-- but the degree he does have comes from a degree mill and he won't take correction in any form around the false info he spews out. Also as someone who went to prison for 10 years for tax evasion and structuring-- he's not one for being honest.
Ken Ham is known for warping facts about evolution on purpose to make a case for a young earth. His display of Lucy in his Ark replica changes Lucy's bone anatomy to cancel out her bipedal features. He also is notorious for quote mining to make his points and misrepresenting the thoughts of whom he takes those quotes from.
@@gctcauto besides actively denying just about the entire knowledge base of history and science of the past? Some deliberately lie about the contents and methods of scientific papers. For an example off the top of my head, they might cite a paper saying dates for a freshly formed lava rock vary from 10 mil to 2.5 billion years. They however intentionally omit that it was the zirconium crystal inclusions within the rock that were actually dated, not the rocks themselves. Or they will, sometimes knowingly, use dating methods incorrectly, such as using potassium argon dating, which I think has a minimum range of 5 mil years, on fresh lava rocks. They then use this incorrect dating to say these are "evolutionist lies" so they can solicit more donations from their flock to "fight the lies".
For Kent especially, he's had multiple people close to him come out and say he's a snake, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a lying con man. This includes a couple of Kent's past wives. His "whack an atheist" videos are really telling. He really is the epitome of a money and power hungry cult leader.
Ray Comfort also deliberately deceptively and dishonestly edits his videos that involve people debating or confronting his beliefs. He will straight up remove good responses to his questions in many of his "on the street" videos. He also spends days on site interviewing dozens of people, only to upload cherry picked footage of the worst answers from maybe 2-5 of those people. He's also been caught splicing footage from different debates together to make his opponents look worse, in addition to his already deceptive editing. He also at one point charged $25 to "respond" to emails.
It's definitely about the money, fame, and power brought in by their "ministry", not about sharing honest or genuine belief.
Good job! It's not your fault you were being lied to, so don't take it too hard.
I love how this guy says he's been doing this for 20 years and Forrest takes a good 15 minutes tearing apart his whole career.
Kinda sad really, not sure if I fell sorry for him, or did he have it coming?
@@kerianhalcon3557 He has made a career out of lying to people.
Let's go with "had it coming."
Serves him right, honestly. He’s spent twenty years trying to legitimize his bullshit beliefs with science jargon, and feeding that to people who don’t know better. He legitimately, genuinely, for real has an agenda he’s trying to push. And that’s scummy.
Thank you so much for that note at the end, that needs to be repeated over and over and over with no end. "Degrees don't make scientists, publications don't make scientists, its the ability to follow evidence, and change your mind when presented with new evidence that makes someone a scientist."
@8:30 the guy doesnt even know that fish exist today that can live on land for hours and even days. Most catfish and the Snakehead are prime examples of "eyes/gills for underwater working on land".
But i'm sure he has a really good explanation for why snakes need hip bones or why whales need finger bones. "God is funny, he likes to play jokes on us!" Or "the devil put those there, he is actually more powerful than god."
As someone who was raised in a Christian, Creationist community these videos mean so much to me.
It was a huge deal to my family when I left the church but videos like these show me that I have people and, most importantly, science on my side.
♥️♥️♥️
Same for me. I respect my family and friends’ religions but for me love having a community like this
His inclusion of the human genome project is hilarious because it was led by a Christian who believes young earth creationism is stupid 😆
REACT INFERIOR , BY FOREST DUMP ? 😨 MAL EYE BLABS EVOLUTION REVOLUTION 😲👎👎🙉🙈🙊😉😃😆
@@lwmaynard5180 what is this guy trying to say?
@James Henry Smith I'm open to new ideas, can you explain?
“I feel like I just spent 16 minutes watching a person beat their head against a wall to prove walls don’t exist” - best summary ever
@James Henry Smith false
12:39 Yeah, it seems like they treat darwin and mendel as prophets. Everything they say must be factual and true for the scientific bible to preach evolution. They dont realize that science is about admiting you are wrong and seeking new answers instead of being indoctrinated.
Yup, its so amazing to see them talking about how Darwin didn't know about X, Y, or Z, therefore his entire theory is wrong, when we've moved so far beyond Darwin it would blow his mind.
I am a carpenter and I build and or remodel house I do consider the destruction of part as ways to build a house often we build temporary structures for temporary suport for yhe larger over all structure then nock the temporary structure or existing structure like evolution you end up with something functional different.
As someone who is studying engineering, I will tell you that somehing being more complex doesn't mean that it was “intelligently” designed, but rather it indicates that the designer is either incopetent or doesn't know any better solutions. Any good designer would try to make their creations as simple and efficient as possible to minimize the chances of something breaking.
The fact that God, the supposed all knowing creator entity made such decisions imply that he isn't really an intelligent, all-knowing designer that they claim he is.
Sorry if this comment was a mess.
Don’t worry, it made sense
But this is clearly proof of god since, for example, if we had two different tubes for breathing and eating, there’d be twice the chance for either breaking! It makes much more sense to have a single one to do both! I know how math works, and I see no issue with that whole setup of the human body. Thanks god for making thanks god for making our breathing and eating tube the same as each other!!! 🙏🙏
@@tapatorta I can't tell if this is sarcasm-- sorry if it is-- but if it's not... let's say I grant one tube for eating and drinking being the best solution ( which I don't). I don't understand why God would design us in a way where babies temporarily have a very low chance of choking on food because the larynx is higher as newborns-- but then design the larynx to drop after about 3 months-- then also design toddlers and infants to constantly put weird things in their mouths as a vital part of child development-- but all of these factors make choking one of the leading causes of death among children under the age of five? I'm not sure how we can even ponder this as good design.
Chimps don't even have this problem at any stage of development
@@frozenraspberries1552 it’s sarcasm
My example of why attributing us to an intelligent creator would be dumb as we are anything but intelligently designed, I thought it was funny, but yours might’ve topped it...
Or... I guess... I guess funny isn’t the best word to use to describe the leading cause of child death...
Let’s just say I like your example more and leave it at that :p
@@tapatorta thanks for clarifying and your comment is beautiful! 😊 I've heard weird ass things from theists so sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between a bad argument and sarcasm lol.
No no you're right! This is what I was thinking as well; of course many beneficial mutations would involve taking things out, the original thing was probably pretty bloated in the first place
Why do these people who speak against evolution always say: "the scientists say this and that" and the these and those are always something no scientist has ever said or said by some pre 20th century scientist? Almost as if they don't know what scientists nowaday know about evolution.
Because the only way to even kind of win an argument against a proven fact is to lie about what that fact is.
@@thomasdendtler4077 I would rather call this the Dunning-Kruger effect. When you don't know much, you think you know everything because you don't know how much there is to know. They just don't know how much our knowledge of evolution has expanded because they don't want to know more about this "nonsense". Which is quite dum considering they are trying to prove themselves right "scientifically".
@@lare1856 I guess it comes down to whether they're sincere or not. I gotta be honest, i'm skeptical about most of the creationist content creators. I think they know they're wrong, but they're propagating this crap anyway
@@thomasdendtler4077 a good point. I want to beleive that they are sincere about this because then they are just dum. If they do it for the views they are evil.
@@lare1856 Don't forget that the places people like this work at (creation research and suchlike) have clauses in their contracts that state that if their research is different from scripture then the scripture is correct and their research is wrong.
38 minutes in, and the glove guy goes to brush back his non-hair with his gloved hand. I'm pretty sure the gloves are there just for this video, and he did this amid talking about his experience with studying bacteria. So... possibly... this guy is an evolved person who is more resistant to bacterial exposure than most people... or he didn't do much lab work in his career. One of those things feels true.
Not just lan work, any dirty work in general. I've done labs in class before, but I've used gloves more at work (fast food), and that's enough for me to realize touching my face with greasy gloves is both unsanitary and a very bad idea.
"They forget that learning is supposed to be a lifelong endeavor." Well said, Forrest! Even Neil Degrasse Tyson says we should always try to learn one mind-blowing fact everyday that we didn't know yesterday.
That’s why I keep watching some of this stuff, even in my 80s. And I get really cross when I waste my time because they have nothing to offer.
I don’t understand why the guy doesn’t think Rube Goldberg Machines are sophisticated. They are, by definition, quite elaborate
Quite unnecessarily. :)
Indeed. And our cells are more complex than they would be if they were designed.
I wish my Rube Goldberg eyes worked better, dropped my glasses and been hunting for them for the last twenty minutes. Grr don't remember where I left my old glasses. Listening to this while hunting, and typing with the phone 6 inches from my face. Why didn't the Giant Spaghetti Monster design me some better eyes? Don't worry I will find them, just hope I don't have to call my Sister again to find them.
@@Foolish188 Haha, I have the same quality eyesight. 144p.
@@etherealstars5766 I want to know why god gave all those awesome extra-vision features to a damn shrimp and not us!
I just discovered your videos and I’m really loving this series!! I grew up with a creationist worldview as the backbone for a lot of my “education”. Is there a selection of educational books you would recommend for people coming out of creationism to better understand evolution and other accepted theories of the universe? I would have loved to study science in college but felt woefully unprepared to do so.
Also I’m definitely stealing “sweet merciful jibbly”
If Dr Anderson were still alive, I would like to see his answer to this peer review. This is how science works. You make a claim, someone comes by and says "No, you are wrong, here us why:" and then a good 'PhD' would review their work, rewrite their thesis and then put it up for peer review again or realize their idea is wrong on a foundational level.
Him being the Chief Editor of his own publisher/journal to publish his work is a SERIOUS issue of ethics.
I am not a full time educator and I never obtained a doctorate, but I understand how to write a thesis...and his anti-bacterial paper is missing A LOT of 'proofs' supporting his assertions/findings.
"Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad"
I did not expect that, but it was a nice laugh.
Also GFL trying to tell them this when you can't interject, it's just pure "shut up, let me talk, you don't know what you're talking about", there's so many tactics that are almost always used and you can't make any ground. It's either manipulation or willful ignorance.
I literally spat out my coffee
"You're not oppressed. You're just wrong." Crying here with laughter with that line. Thank you.
It also leaves out horizontal gene transfer. Probably one of the most important factors that aren’t well understood, yet.
Edit: it gets talked about around 26:00 mark. To add it’s also very important in plant and animal evolution besides Archaea and Bacteria. And it doesn’t have to be a close relative. Bacteria to plant, algae to animal etc etc
My background: I am a medical doctor and as such we had to study microbiology and genetics. (In fact I had to study it twice since I moved to the US from a foreign country and hold a medical degree now in two different countries). Anyway, I completely understand your frustration. He describes one thing after another which couldn't better demonstrate evolution and then just throws it off without any good reason. This is like sitting in front of a house and calling the house a forrest...
Fun fact: There is a process of bacteria which could be interpreted as having sex (since you mentioned bacteria don't have sex). This is called conjugation. What happens is that one bacteria forms a pilus (and it is even called sex-pilus) then contacts another bacteria cell with it and transfers genetic information, hence DNA to the other cell. That is a common mechanism, how plasmides coding for antibiotic resistance are transferred from one bacterium to another. Means this information is not only transferred to the off springs of a bacterium, but also from one bacterium to another. Unfortunately for us in medicine, this process can even happen between different species of bacteria, so antibiotic resistance can also be transferred between species. Making our job of treating infections with antibiotics even more difficult.
That being sad: It always drives me nuts if people go to Mexico, buy antibiotics and take it for a common cold. That is very irresponsible since colds are almost always virus infections. Antibiotics don't work against viruses and taking antibiotics in this scenario not only doesn't help, it does harm with side effects, destroying your natural flora and increases the forming of resistance!!!
The fact that the middle school teacher marked up the paper like a graded paper is so funny to me- the dude didn’t even pass as an 8th grade paper 😂
29:14
And I especially loved how Valkai mocked Kevin’s unnecessary glove-wearing at the end to advertise a VPN, that creationist got pwned so hard!! 😂😂😂
"Happy wife is a happy home" isn't how I heard the expression but as "happy wife, happy life", that if your wife is happy, you're happy.
So yeah, creationists have the worst worldviews. Torture is love, murdering your children is holy, women and children are property... ugh!
@James Henry Smith Wow, you're ignorant. We have watched life evolve.
Evolution is a fact.
Thanks for allowing me to see peer reviews in action
„If you can question everything, assume nothing, and follow the evidence wherever it leads, the universe is yours.“
I can‘t help but being pedantic here, but I disagree in one point: You CAN assume anything you want, and in fact that’s a very powerful way to grow understanding. Only it’s imperative that you stay aware and clearly communicate when and what you‘re assuming, and that every conclusion that - however distant - builds upon it remains a hypothetical until it’s sufficiently shown to actually be the case.
[Edit: Does the name „Riemann“ ring a bell? 😉]
The sheer disappointment in "You're a microbiologist" was beautiful. Just sad at this point that someone would reject logic that heavily.
Exactly how I felt working with anti-vax nurses.
Yet another reason why we say the vast majority of biologists recognize the truth of evolution, instead of all of them; some of them just weren’t willing to swallow their pride and their preconceived conclusions during all their college classes
As someone who has ditched Christianity and creationism 3 years ago, I really appreciate your videos. I am learning a lot and and hope to continue to learn as much as possible.
I'm thrilled to hear that you're free! Happy learning!
@@RenegadeScienceTeacher Woot! Much thanks!
@@NefariousDreary I ditched christianity about 4 or 5 years ago myself. Welcome, we're glad to have you!
@@Thoron_of_Neto 👍🏾
@@Thoron_of_Neto I'll learn from the experience and keep trying to be a better person.
Great video. I wish you could get together with some of these quacks for a good old fashioned debate. But if I were a creationist, I would not to be in the same room as someone who knows what they are talking about. This is a great series !
Its great to see people peer review someone who is too scared to actually submit his work for actual peer review.
"You're not oppressed, you're just wrong."
SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE ONES IN THE BACK
Dude is pro science and basic human rights, that's enough for me, subbed
Same. The bar's so low, I feel sad for feeling pleasantly surprised everytime someone meets it.
@@bruhmoment1835 Einstein said there are only 2 things that are infinite, space and human ignorance, and he's not too sure about space.
It is so good to see people being pro science instead of anti-religion. You aren't helping people by just debunking everything they know. He proves countless times that science is real, but it is more rare for him to debunk religion specifically. It helps people have a new foundation and lets them learn better for themselves. Removing what they believe without teaching them anything new is not going to help them. We need to educate people and then they can grow out of outdated worldviews.
He also is so accepting of people and loving when other people rarely are. He goes above and beyond to support disadvantaged minorities and it makes me so happy to see. It makes me happy watching his videos because he seems like such a kind person that I would want to meet. I love Forrest, he is my favorite UA-camr.
the only thing lacking is basic animal rights
@@Stichting_NoFap Is it?
The cut away to introduce all of the peers felt like the scene from Avengers EndGame, where everyone comes through the portals. "On your left"
I thought, when he started about the bacteria experiments, and how they repopulate so quickly after a bottleneck event, he would go for a flood story. After all, his holy book also talks about killing off 99,9% of the population and just starting over. Does that mean we are all flood-resistant? Unfortunately not, but it would be cool🤷♀️
Love the gloves and microscopes to verify the legitimacy of their amazing scientific explanation. 😂
Pretty sure the image on the monitor is a stock image too
Yep, that's creationism in a nutshell: superficial authority on the subject, while they sit around and talk about it.
@@gabbro2290 it at least doesnt look like a optical microscope image, its more 3d so my guess would be electron microscope. But they dont have it on the table. So thats odd indeed
Yeah, there's no reason they couldn't have had that same conversation in an empty conference room, but it wouldn't have looked science-y enough.
The way he touched his head with gloves hands was making alarm bells go off in my head, then I remembered it’s literally just for show.
It’s so nice to have you and the scientific community. Living in the south, I was directly introduced to creationism. They visited my church, told me how they got evolutionary science degrees from a university that they did not name. They told me how the world was 1 day old and how dinosaurs lived among men. How their dating system is correct and how carbon dating is incorrect. I was young and confused. It made an impression for sure, but I got out thanks to science.
Now you believe that you are a descendant of a fictional unicellular organism called LUCA. Is that science?
That’s what I hate about certain religions (or cults in some cases), they try to push it on to you and say ‘everything you know is wrong and your being brainwashed by the scientism’ or something
@@albertleibold1415 Either you mean Lucy, which isn't fictional in the slightest, or Mitochondrial Eve, which also isn't fictional, but is impossible to show which *specific* matrilinial ancestor it was.
Those comedians watched flintstones as if it were a documentary.
What is your point? I am sure I would have hated some of the religious views of the people you talk about but I was brought up to be an atheist and studied evolution as an atheist and saw thatthe idea had more holes than swiss cheese while still an atheist. I now realise what a deception it is and that many of it's adherents are every bit as "fundamentalist" as the people you describe. If there is a God there is obviously nothing illogical about believing that God created the world. What is illogical, absurd and a lie of monumental proportions is teaching that hydrogen eventually turned into Mozart and having the temerity to call this idea science.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
I am an atheist but i had to quote this bible verse because it fits those christian "scientists" really well.
Every single mutation is a permanent error or damage affecting the genome.
If a wild-type F8 allele is copied WITH ERRORS that do not get corrected, it results in a MUTANT F8 allele.
@@albertleibold1415 No, the statement "If a wild type of f8 allele is copied with errors that do not get corrected, it results in a mutant f8 allele" does not disprove evolution; rather, it is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory.
Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Mutations are one of the key mechanisms that drive evolution by introducing genetic variation into populations. When a mutation occurs in a gene, it can alter the function or expression of the protein encoded by that gene, which can result in a change in the phenotype of the organism. If this mutation confers a survival advantage, the individuals carrying the mutated allele may have a better chance of surviving and reproducing, leading to an increase in the frequency of the mutant allele in the population over time.
In the case of the F8 gene, a mutation that results in a mutant F8 allele can have various effects on an organism's phenotype, such as causing hemophilia A. If the mutation confers a survival advantage, such as increased resistance to a particular pathogen, individuals with the mutant allele may have a better chance of surviving and reproducing, leading to an increase in the frequency of the mutant allele in the population over time.
Therefore, the statement you provided supports the concept of evolution by providing an example of how mutations can result in the creation of new alleles, which can then be acted upon by natural selection to drive evolutionary change over time
YECs trying to disprove evolution by disproving Darwin is like someone trying to disprove all of geometry by pointing out thay the Babylonian calculation of pi=3 was wrong.
"God is an ever-shrinking pocket of ignorance". That's the best summary of "God of the Gaps", "Missing Link" and such other arguments that I can think of.
Until you find out what we thought we knew was wrong.Every once in awhile a new discovery is made that makes us have to re think what we thought we knew.
“Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad” caught me so off guard that I nearly choked on my coffee. 😂
Forrest must be talking to his picture in the mirror.
@@albertleibold1415 What makes you say that?
@@Luigi2262_ : Forrest defends mutations as a means to create functional genes. BAD ‼️
Reasonable people do NOT believe that damaging existing computer programs will generate new apps.
However, that is exactly what the theory of evolution is proposing concerning the generation of functional genes by means of mutation.
@@albertleibold1415 Sick burn, Branch.
So what the creationists are proving is that they don't understand words, specifically scientific words.
Coming back to this video, I still think this is one of your best!
it really is, especially when he has the guy's work peer reviewed and they just steam roll it.
I just love how there is a common stereo microscope and SEM image of cells on the monitor
My oldest kid was born w his own version of a normally inherited thyroid disease. DNA analysis shows it’s a mutation unique to him. I’ve always wondered how that happened, but the fact that it happened has expanded my whole view of genetics and how they are passed down.
Love your videos! #teamScience
That’s exactly the right way to respond to something you don’t know much about. You read up on it, you do research, and you figure it out. Where some folks would probably figure out some way to blame a unique thyroid mutation on god and his plan, you actually listened to the experts, accepted what they had to say, and continued looking into the subject.
And that’s the way to live your life. Always be curious, always be learning, and always be asking what’s happening and why.
Sorry about your kiddo. Sending happy thoughts
*that they're aware of.
Hey, I was born with my own version of polycystic kidney dieaese!
Usually, its inherented, and in fact for a long time doctors didn't want to diagnose me wiith it because I didn't have family that had the diease. I also had to get a genetic test just to prove I was actually sick.
It sucks, its like all their knowledge they have aboutthe diease suddenly disappears because I dont have one of the three normal mutations. I had a nephrologist tell me to my face there is no reason polycystic kidney diease would cause pain. AFTER the cysts destroyed part of my liver and gallbladder. It was a relief to hear why this was happening to me when so many doctors said, "it isnt". A simple mutation seperates me from my family, such mutations happen a BUNCH in every pregnancy, I was just unlucky enough to get this one. No one said, "turn off this gene an change the expression of that one, that will really mess eith her." It just happened, and that fits with literally everything I've heard about evolution.
Yes, blind and mindless processes are really good at producing genetic diseases and deformities. But that is about it.
This is why I love science so much. It's a collective effort and we as humans have gotten really good at it. :)
Half Life 2 suggests we’re also the *best* at it, doing in 5 years what a multiverse-spanning ubermassive superpower capable of easily enslaving clouds (Dr Breen mentions “advanced meteorological intelligences”) failed to do within an indefinite period of time (localized teleportation).
@@iamlordstarbuilder5595 never played the game but shit I just might after your description. A thought experiment I find engaging is to imagine how advanced science could become with unlimited funding.
@@timothybailey6501 A Humanity Driven By Passion Not Power
@@Gumbly_ so true, power and greed corrupts.
... some of us have gotten good at... some have gotten good at denying it... 🤣😂
Funny to see Cedarville University mentioned, I went to a summer camp there
Since ampicillin is used here, the thing that WOULD explain the original molecules binding affinity to ampicillin in the first place is basically found in the organism that made beta lactam. It’s a target that is vulnerable to a specific molecule that wouldn’t harm the original producing organism, and is also crucial to the bacteria. This makes way more sense in an evolutionary framework than a design framework. An intelligent being decided to design bacteria with this odd vulnerability that mold would exploit, but then also gave the bacteria some ability to fight off this exploit? It would proceed to do give similar vulnerabilities to many microbes which are exploited by other microbes….why? all so we could study these microbes and one day also exploit them?
Complexity isn't the hallmark of good design, so if there was a designer then they wouldn't be a very good one.
Highschooler looking into going to college for computer science here. From all i know on biology and cs not only is this comment a mood, but if creationism was true i can say god isnt good with logical principals
I've often said I'm not sure I can argue against intelligent design, but I can make a good case against SOBER design.
I rather not imagine how awful and inconvenient technology would be if it was designed by God lol. Instead of cell phones we would just get a longer wires like that one nerve that travels all the way down our neck to near our heart just to come back up again lol.
@@GameLeaderR it is the laryngeal nerve
I think it was AronRa who asked the question "why is it god can't do things the way humanity does?" Or something like that.
Basically, he asked why god is allegedly the designer of all life on earth, yet it couldn't even write its own holy book. The Christian god had to inspire mankind to write a book, because that god couldn't write a book. That god has to inspire mankind to create life saving surgical procedures, because god can't heal anyone from anything that you don't already have a chance of recovering from anyway. It seems god can't design things better than mankind, which sure does kind of put a fine point on the question of gods absolute power.
I recently read an article about how elephants are currently evolving due to the evolutionary pressure caused by poaching.
They are losing their tusks, as those without survive longer & are able to reproduce more than those with tusks, who are often killed for the ivory trade.
The % of females without tusks has jumped from 20 to 50% (I forget the precise numbers but it was about that.)
It's incredible to see things like this, especially as they aren't bacteria or fruit flies, they reproduce much more slowly yet scientists believe they are undergoing rapid evolution. It's really sad to think of all that poaching, and it's super cool that nature is defending itself!
It blows my mind that young earth creationists & evolution deniers will brush off this, and all the evidence we have of evolution in the past. The mental gymnastics are Olympian!
They will continue to doubt evolution until science can show one species evolve into a completely different species with completely different characteristics in a lab setting. And then I’m sure some will still doubt it…
What those Poachers are doing with the Elephants is basically inverse breeding. They selectively breed Elephants for having no tusks, by removing those that do. So we're not really seeing anything new happening here, it's just the scale and the circumstances of the Breeding Program that are strange. So this is actually not an example of Natural Selection (since it's Artificial Selection). Still a cool Story.
The example you gave is loss of information and definitely not evolution
@@mauricedicke9527 Who says "loss of information" is not evolution? If this "loss of information" causes a change in allele frequency in a population then it surely is evolution. Evolution doesn't only add traits to an organism. It can also remove things. Here is an example: Some underground species, like moles, will evolve to remove unnecessary eyes since they aren't necessary for an organism that spends it's whole life underground. This would still be evolution.
Now, of course, elephants losing their tusks would be artificial selection since humans are causing this change, but still evolution nonetheless.
@@Akira-jd2zr you’re totally wrong, this is adaptation or micro evolution. Like all the dogs are descendants of wolves and are all less healthy with a lot of mutation and diseases, this also proves that the dogs are devolving instead of evolving.
Mutations are almost all deleterious and cause diseases that makes species less fit every generation.
In the human genome there will be 100 extra mutations every generation. These mutations are for 99.99% deleterious.
21:04 Oh man, you know it's gon' get good when the middle school science teacher shows up to peer review.
On top of the very frustrated point Forrest made after the cost of selection stuff, there's also the important note that 99.9999% removal of humans... still leaves us with 8000 individuals, which is plenty high enough for us to be able to repopulate assuming that they're not so spread out as to never encounter each other.
"degrees don't make scientists" - thanks for that, you put something very eloquently into words that I found myself to believe for quite a while now.
I will shamelessly copy that. Keep up the good work mate!
While accurate, as proven by the fellow in the video... the only issue I have with that is that... in theory getting a degree is, supposed to at least suggest a logical disposition. There are plenty of self proclaimed and normally internet born "experts" these days with no degree, or education, or basic concept of logic, who would find this idea, very compelling for all the wrong reasons
Use it carefully though because even though I agree with the main point, this statement used very frequently by anti-science crowd who thinks just because not every scientist is up to the level we expect from them, no scientist (or people with degrees in this case) can be trusted.
I tend to agree with that statement as well. I dropped out of college 34 credits shy of a BS in Human Physiology... but I did 10+ years of studying on my own, looking at all arguments from all sides, as well as my life experience and ALL available research, paying careful attention to study methods and procedures. I was researching nutrition. I was/am a fitness guy, nationally certified personal trainer and nutritionist... been in the gym since I was 9. There are SOOO many different "camps" as well call them, in the fitness world, each with its own theory about what a healthy diet is, each one passionately insisting that they have the answer and following any other pathways is an express trip to the mortuary. I wanted to know the real truth, who was really correct... the traditional, mainstream, Dr recommended, low fat whole grainers (the camp my certification program exists in... unfortunately), the vegan/vegetarian camp, the carnivore diet, Atkins/keto, maybe the middle of the road Mediterranean diet is the one... or could it be the "caveman" Paleo diet?? All so different, each with outspoken passionate supporters and here we were, a nation in an obesity epidemic... it was time to put an end to the madness. Long story short - the answer is, undoubtedly, unequivocally THE PALEO DIET. period. I do not have a degree, yet I had a paper published titled "Age related muscle loss and the role of Cortisol in the development of metabolic syndrome," I trained over a dozen board certified Dr's in a variety of specialties... they all argued tooth and nail with me about everything in my program (despite witnessing the dramatic, life changing results that my clients were getting... one after another, after another... we are talking people losing 150lbs, seniors getting ripped and strong and becoming naturally healthy and medication free for the first time in decades, even curing type II diabetes in multiple clients - in less than 90 days). Several of them said they had to throw away half of what they learned in medical school and change their entire approach to practicing medicine after working with me.... and my high school diploma. No degrees here... still out there changing lives on a daily.
So it's pick and choose for convenience. Got it
@@captainsalty5688 what
I just went on a rant to my dog how a Rube Goldberg devise is not bits and parts thrown into a box and shaken until something works, it is designed for a specific task. It’s just evidence that he is talking nonsense about things that he know nothing about. And my only understanding of Rube Goldberg devises are from playing MouseTrap as a kid.
Was going to comment on this. Nothing about a RG device is "cobbled together." They are often (but not always) made from household items, but they are rigorously and systematically balanced and put together. The opposite of "cobbled together.:
Well at least you got back a more intelligent answer from your dog than what you would ever get from the creationist in the video :-)
yep, many of those things are carefully thought out and precise with tons of testing before full assembly, it is a complex machine in the end (usually to end up doing (a) task(s), etc) but it has a rhythm of sorts and is systematic in function
Why is he wearing latex gloves? Did this interview also include a complimentary prostate exam?
Ha! I typed this before you mentioned them 😂
When he chose the words “ hobbled together “ it revealed that he doesn’t understand, because that describes some kind of outside creator with a goal.
Teaching science in Kansas must be rough. In highschool there was ONE single female, in my class, in a school of nearly 3000 kids, who was an extreme creationist. She would get so worked up and argue everything science teachers said that eventually the school decided we just couldn't talk about evolution at all. I was in a discussion group called CATS - critical and advanced thinking seminar (our mascot was Waldcats) that was only offered to the top 25 students in the school. We met twice a week during lunch to have discussions. Frustratingly, she also made it into the group. It ruined the whole point as we couldn't have real, rational, evidence based debates..