I think there are several issues with the arguments. The idea of homology being evidence for common ancestry (I'm assuming that's what you call "evolution") are not mere similarities. Those similarities must look inherited instead of, for instance, based on composition (like a having a toolbox with reusable tools used for unrelated beings). Bats and birds have wings, fish, whales and seals have fins, but those similarities aren't unrelated and are superficial. The video doesn't have that explanation before trying to refute it. It seems, the idea that homology as an evidence for common ancestry is circular seems to be based on definitions: homology is a similarly that was inherited. If A descents from B, then they have similarities which A inherited from B. That is not a circular argument. It merely requires evidence that similarities are inherited. Otherwise, something like this is also circular: 1) Being taller is having a greater height 2) A has a greater height than B 3) Therefore, A is taller than B Another thing is asking evidence for 2). I tried to find information about cytochrome-b associated to the theory of evolution problems. I only found a Red It forum ("Does cytochrome-B disprove evolution?"). It says: "[...] I was advised that Cytochrome-B would challenge my assumptions since cats and whales group within primates (apparently) [...] The idea that cats and whales group within primates came from a book on intelligent design called Explore Evolution. [...]" It states Michael Lynch was misquoted in that book. I think you should provide your sources to check them.
Evolution was debunked a long time ago. It is pseudo-science. But disproving any theory doesn't mean that another would necessarily be supported. The problem is, the evidence we do have - what we do know, experience, and observe - is better explained by the Biblical narrative.
@@jessebryant9233I’m just curious, but when was the evolution theory ever ‘debunked’? Evolution is still considered a theory, essentially meaning factual or a proven explanation in science. “Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution.” -National Library of Medicine, 2019
Why is it always one thing versus another, are we in some sort of contest, isn't the goal to discover rather than be the first to be right about something?
@quinno5885 the theory of evolution has been thoroughly debunked with every new discovery of the true complexity of life. Darwin’s pseudoscientific fairytale published in 1859 was nearly 100 years before discovery of the DNA double helix. You and others are doing as you always do and move the goalposts by claiming “evolution is both a fact and a theory” because populations change over time. NO ONE denies populations change over time. That’s NOT the theory of evolution- of a universal common ancestor evolving through random mutations and natural selection. What we observe is adaptation or “microevolution”, changes within a species. What we don’t observe and has been debunked is “macroevolution”, changes from one species into a more advanced “evolved” species”. Humans have turned wolves into Labs and Poodles, into Labradoodles, and every size and shape from the Mastiff to the Pug by means of artificial selection. We could breed dogs for another billion years with express intent of producing an evolved more advanced species of animal BUT we would NEVER produce anything other than new wacky species of dog, who by that point would have acquired so many genetic defects they probably wouldn’t exist anymore.
The bigger problem with definition is the definition of the word *"evolution"* itself. When most creationists say "evolution", they typically mean the hypothetical process from primordial soup to man. When an most evolutionists say "evolution", they typically mean the non-controversial process that results in new species. But they _always_ say you've defined it wrong.
Even worse my friend All theists believe in evolution in the sense we adapt to our environments however the hypothetical process is Darwinism/common ancestry
It's impossible to get a consistent definition for evolution. I've tried. They change the definition to suit whatever argument they are trying to prove. If you ask for clarification, they ignore you.
@@bobblacka918 The change in allele frequencies within populations over succesive generations. That's a pretty good definition for evolution, one that everyone would agree with, and leads logically to common ancestry, if we rewind time.
@@bobblacka918 The scientific definition for the theory of evolution: the process by which populations of organisms change over time. ... ... just like it has been since the theory was written down.
Which is why they love to misuse the term species. It is used to represent all organisms. But, it is also used to refer to the individual members of that species. Which is wrong? The one that refers to the KINDS OF ORGANISMS. There are different kinds of organisms that are made up of various species that belong to the kind of organism in question. This is cleary observed when a new species of one kind of organism is found. How is this announced to the world? They say a new species of such and such has been found. They do not say, "A NEW SPECIES HAS BEEN FOUND". iT WOULD LEAVE EVERYONE THINKING, "a new species of what". So, it will be a new species of spider, whale, dolphin, shrimp, and so on and so on.
Carl Linnaeus formalised binomial nomenclature, i.e., the modern system of naming organisms, based on homologies, and Linnaeus was NOT thinking in terms of a common ancestors. Indeed, Linnaeus was a creationist, ... and still able to build consistent categories, while he asserted that “we can count as many species now as were created at the beginning”. Anybody could think that his metaphysical believings were right or wrong, but hey... he did not need Darwinism or God (sensu Theology) to build systematics. And this is an important piece of data.
@@ThatisnotHair Deep sea fish with gills tend to be sluggish and operate at a bare minimum of activity due to the lack of oxygen at the depths whales are known to frequent. So you have these enormous marine mammals, with enormous concentrations of myoglobin packing literally tons of oxygen, it elicits a much greater capacity for hunting etc. at greater depths. There are advantages to lungs in whales. And also, because gills are what you'd be expecting if evolution were true. But if you ask the whales themselves, I'm sure they don't mind.
"a succession of very similar forms... could instead point to a common designer" Could it? Given no information besides the commonality of the forms, could you determine that the cars had a common designer, or a designer at all? It seems like you would need more information to determine that. Like, say, 'was the form designed at all?' I don't know how you can say anything about whether they share a designer if you can't demonstrate that the things were designed to begin with Also, there's something I'm curious about. Given the scientific view, more similarity generally means closer relatedness, while less similarity generally means more distant relatedness. Under the "common design, common designer" view, does more similarity mean common designer(s), while less similarity means different designer(s)? To put it another way: According the the theory of evolution, similar organisms are similar because they are more closely related, and dissimilar organisms are dissimilar because they are more distantly related. According to "common design," similar organisms are similar because they have a common designer, and dissimilar organisms are dissimilar because... they also have a common designer? Certainly, a designer doesn't need to design everything the same, but you can't say that similarity is evidence of a common designer if difference isn't evidence for a different designer- - that would be special pleading. So do you think that organisms that scientists would say are more distantly related (i.e., organisms that are substantially different morphologically and/or genetically) can be explained by "different design, different designer?"
Name one single thing of known origins that appears to have been designed (has multiple parts and a function - and isn't mere patterns that result from the nature of chemical processes like snowflake and crystal formation) that in fact were not designed. _Can you produce even one such example?_
So we can all agree that descent with modification is possible up to a limit. Mind to show evidence for a solid limit then? Because evidence for limitlessness is weak (when you consider solid predictions about genetics, well documented evolutionary adaptations in bacteria, insects* fruits, vegetabbles and cattle and literally having the entire evolutionary history of various living organisms weak) but present. Also evolution is the descent with modifications I see most of the people here accept, the thing is that evolution says that we have no reason to believe there is a limit to it. And it doesn't really contradict a creator either, it just doesn't need one.
"Why would they be so similar unless they were related?" MAYBE because they have the same DESIGNER!! Does that thought ever come into your mind? Maybe the structure and design works so well, the DESIGNER used it in many different applications? Oh a Chevy Silverado and a Ford Mustang both have wheel bearings and windshield wipers....they must be related!!!
6:00 that is not cherry-picking, cytochrome c genes are used for phylogenetic trees that include distantly related species, while cytochrome b genes are used for closely related species. Let me give an analogy, when you see two people, there is a good chance that you can tell if they are of the same or different race. How could you tell? Through the color of their skin, the shape of their face, maybe even through their height. For example, you are given 4 individuals, 2 have white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes, while the other 2 have dark skin, curly hair and brown eyes. Through this information alone you are able to know that the 2 individuals who have white skins are more closely related than any of the two individuals who have dark skin and vice versa. However, let's say that we have 1 individual with white skin is blood type A, and the other is type O, while one of the dark skinned individuals was type A and the other type B. Would we say that the white individual with type A blood is more closely related to the dark individual who was also type A compared to the white skinned person who is type O? No, because skin color is more conserved than blood type among distantly related people. Similarly, cytochrome c is much more conserved than cytochrome b over distantly related species.
It may sound confusing because it actually is. That is why there is a whole field of biology dedicated to understanding this, systematics. Do not dismiss something merely because you do not understand it.
The reason for cytochrome C being highly conserved is because of the prominent variant of cytochrome c contains 22 amino acids that is directly involved in the binding of oxygen to the blood. Any individual who have mutations and therefore changes any of the 22 amino acids into a different amino acid will not have effective oxygen-binding to their blood and they will naturally be selected against. Cytochrome B is still very important but it can tolerate mutations because it does not do anything as important as oxygen-binding. That means individuals who have mutations in their cytochrome B are not necessarily selected against. That is why using cytochrome c is much more informative in constructing phylogenetic trees compared to using cytochrome b especially if the phylogenetic tree includes distantly related species.
What if the Creator created evolution? A built-in method for life to spring up in the most hostile places in the universe? What if ALL MATTER contained both ETERNITY and OBLIVION in a TEMPORAL BALANCE that was conducive to creating LIFE? What if our TEMPORAL existence was impelled by ETERNITY and dispelled by OBLIVION? Can a dead universe create something greater than itself?... LIFE? Or...is all matter and forces derivatives of ETERNITY which must be mitigated by OBLIVION? (Outer darkness).
I, like so many others really liked the video. It's done well, it's short, it's fun, and it's not forcing anything on anyone, just asking some honest questions that science doesn't have good answers for. I just want to point out that even if DNA were more like what evolutionists expected, it still wouldn't rule out intelligent design. After all, DNA is essentially biological code. Programmers are notorious for reusing code in any number of different applications. Why create your own random number generator when there are perfectly good ones available. In fact, code for generating random numbers is so common and useful that it's built into most programming languages and referenced by a single command, which means millions, if not billions, of apps and programs all have the same "DNA" segment, or code segment, in them. And this is true of other segments of computer code. So why wouldn't an intelligent designer reuse various bits of DNA when creating all the various life forms? And if DNA segments aren't reused where we might expect them to be, that could just indicate that the designer, who would know way more about how life of every type works compared to us, knew that the different bit of DNA was in fact needed for the creature to live in the manner the designer intended it to live.
No, wait a second! It was Carl von Linné, about 100 years before Darwin, who classified all living things and noticed the nested hierarchy of homology in all living things. All Darwin did was provide an explanation for the question posed by Carl von Linné, the challenge he put on the scientific community to find an explanation for why life falls into a nested hierarchy of traits. We already knew that artificial selection could produce new varieties, like what we have done to dogs, cats, and all sorts of plants and crops. What Darwin realized is that something he called "natural selection" could act as artificial selection, and thus produce variations based on fitness to the environment, and that this explains the observations of Carl von Linné.
Explains it in a very horrible way that is, what Darwin did with the theory of evolution tracing back all species is the equivalent of looking at a cat and a chair and going: They both have 4 legs! They must be connected to each other in some way!
_"Is homology due to common descent or common design? Is descent with modification overwhelmingly obvious?"_ - *Common descent and yes... unless you want to argue that your designer is incredibly wasteful and bad at designing, and ignore descent with modification that we made use of through selective breeding in agriculture to end up with ALL of our important crops and livestock...* Let me congratulate you for making an almost honest creationist video though. You almost represented the question/idea properly and only took a few quotes and analogies out of context. For a creationist, only misrepresenting things some of the time is a step up... though you still played some dishonest games and ignored everything that doesn't support your claims.
an 8 minute video isn't going to provide a complete dissertation on the subject. It gets the conversation started, nothing more. Homology does *not* lead us to common descent. Your objections to design are ... poorly considered. First, you accused biology of poor design and impugned the idea of a designer for it. This presumes you understand the nature and purpose of creation and intent of a designer, it's an exercise in theology, not biology. You then equate breeding and cultivation with common descent. Common descent means all organisms share a common ancestor, breeding and cultivation has never caused novel families of organisms. Common descent has been presumed even though the evidence often contradicts the presumption. cephalopods, for example, possess a number of unique genetic characteristics that have no known ancestors. It would seem evolutionists ignore everything that calls into question their claims.
There you are! Still faithful in your trolling! Now, as for the "proper" representation of YOUR faith... Well, let's have it already! _What doesn't support the claims?_ As for biology being poorly designed (all design requires compromise), well, let us know when you've come up with something better... [elevator music]
In Polish we have a saying, who will forbid the rich guy? Perhaps the designer had so much freedom to use that being wasteful was no issue? You know, he did not have to keep the bread crumbs from breakfast for future hunger satisfaction, kind of. Moreover, what to you seems wasteful is simply a show off of this omnipotence and freedom of creation? Can a pot raise issues against the potter for having wasted some clay while turning the wheel and making the pot? What evolutionists considered junk genes turned out to be highly important genes. Evolutionists seem fond of making the claims that later have to be turned into a counter argument. Some more sensibility in their claim making would be appreciated here. Homology seems to indicate ID rather powerfully, if u r unbiased.
Question: Why there are the same bones in structures with such a different function like human hand, wing of a bat, flipper of a seal? Answer evolutionary biology: Because they share a common ancestor, this creature had these bones, all its descendants inherited these bones from it and used and modified they for different functions. Answer Intelligent designer theory: An intelligent designer likes to use the same bones. It is evidence of a common designer not a common descend, its shows his finger prints. So if an insect wing has a completely different design as wing of a bat and use different structures for the same function does it mean that there is more than one intelligent designer each with his typical style?
Good video in general...but I need more detail about why "cytochrome b" refutes common descent. Is it because "b" is present in species that are in radically different supposed lineages? Is the "b" gene in whales exactly the same as the one in cats? So if they are far divergent, they should not have the exact same "b" gene?
Cytochrome B refutes common descent in the same way that cytochrome C refutes inteligent design. It doesn't. Both cytochromes do nothing to prove or refute any of those theories. Mainly because Common descent accepts both (it that predicted cytochromes like C have to exist and that's why it's shown as evidence but the fact that some branches lost it is irrelevant) and intelligent design is irrefutable by definition (God can design animals *through* evolution so, as a hypothesis, it accepts both again).
Discordant genes like cytochrome B disconfirms common descent the same way a suspect being across town at the time of a murder disconfirms him as a suspect. If he isn't where you expect him to be, the chances of him committing the crime tend to go down. Sure, he *may* still be guilty, but you'd need other evidence to come to that conclusion, and you now have a lot more to explain away. The reference is from Lee's review, quote here "the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied a similarly absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers (Fig. 1b). Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting." and the paper he references is this Andrews, T.D., Jermiin, L.S. and Easteal, S. (1998) Accelerated evolution of cytochrome b in simian primates: adaptive evolution in concert with other mitochondrial proteins? J. Mol. Evol. 47, 249-257
Now that you’ve released videos on Whale Evolution and Antibiotic Resistance, I can’t wait to see the coming videos in Embryology, Biogeography, and Vestigial Organs!
I teach ancient Greek so let me clarify the point at 2:45. Homology in English is borrowed from ancient Greeks word ὁμολογία homologia. The prefix homo meant similar or same. Many know that but don't know where logia or "logy" in English derives etymologically (a word's origin and family tree). λόγος in Greek has do with all of the following: 1. reason, logic, rational thought 2. spoken words of logical reason The verb in Greek sharing the same root is λέγω lego to speak rationally. So the misdefining of this by scientists is ignorant at best or dishonest at worst. The irony is the Latin word "science" means knowledge... but these are not knowledgeable on this definition.
If I've designed and created a line of mobile phones. Each and every phone will share very similar functionality, you will be able to find similarities quite easily, despite there being apparent differences too. If I've used certain amount of lithium, silicon, aluminium etc for each phone then the molecular structure of these metals will exist in all the phones in varying degrees. So they won't match identically unless I've used the exact amount of metals in one phone and another. You may be able to tell which is my earlier iteration simply by seeing which has fewer tools or bells and whistles compared to my more modern iterations. If i were to line up all my phones in order of date it was created, you would clearly see an 'evolution' in my phone designs. Now if i were to bring a line of led tvs from another designer. It would contain some of the same metals. It would look somewhat similar to my phones but bigger, serve somewhat same functionality minus few things, so it would be easy to infer common designer, yet we will only know if there is in fact the same designer for both only if we are told. I can fit all of the above data in an equivalent to phylogenetic tree to infer common ancestry. So even though the tvs and phones are designed i can mislead simply by how i compile my data. So the take home message is that the prior assumption will affect the conclusion.
These animated videos are really great. I think the voice actor, dialogue, research put into it and whatever animation/production studio you went with, has done a fantastic job.
This was extremely entertaining. The graphics, your voice and more importantly the facts were spot on! The only so called "evidence" people provide is for micro-evolution (small dogs, big dogs, black bear or brown bear, etc.) which are just variations, which does happen. However, they need to provide evidence for macro-evolution, which is one kind of animal changing into a totally different kind of animal. Something no evolutionist is able to provide. However, on the contrary we have very good evidence for common design. Every building has a builder, every watch has a watchmaker, etc.
Survival of the fittest is a tautology. Which ones are the fittest?........those that survive Which ones survive?.......those that are the fittest, .......and around and around we go.
This video is just semantics. Why not actually discuss the phenomenon and not the word that describes it. If I say that structural similarities between animals are evidence of common ancestry, this video has nothing to respond. Because I did't use the word homology. And yet my argument points to the exactly same observation of nature.
The correct analogy would be 'this scripture is from God because it says its from God' Its obviously circular. If I've defined a thing to mean both the evidence and the conclusion then i can no longer use it as an argument. Again e.g The Quran/Bible/Torah is evidence of Gods words due to it being God's words. Homology is a statement of 'fact' about CA not an articulation like your alternative sentence. E.g Statement of fact - These two boys look similar because they are brothers As opposed to: These boys looking similar is good evidence for them being brothers. Its a subtle difference, but still noticable enough to see which one is circular and which isn't.
comedy gold: Co-Founder of Evolution was a believer in intellegant design and Tim berra used a product of engineering to illustrate common decent. i guess we live in the age of post-reasonism
"Dr. Berra demonstrates exactly the opposite:" or does it? the cart. A primitive design that has been evolving and branching on its uses. From primitive carts, the design has evolved and branched as different methods of transportation. the common ancestor, the cart, evolved into the primitive car, and then it started branching into different kinds of transport to accommodate to different uses. Even the "common designer" point is absurd, as the common designer IS EVOLVING THE DESIGN OF CARS TO BE MADE BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT. Why don't the Chevrolet engineers use the same designs as they used in 1955? because the design has EVOLVED to accommodate better technologies and changes in the human environment. Same in nature, except that instead of being created by one designer it's simply passed onto the next generation by selective adaptation. It's like there's a designer creating a bunch of different car designs, and only the best ones are used as placeholders in the next generation (something that kinda already happens in the car industry). Homology is defined as similarity due to common ancestor, and CASES of Homology are used as proof for evolution. We do not use "Homology" as proof. We tell you "Hey , the fact that these very different animals that are from the same group have the same bone structure accommodated to different uses is proof of evolution, and we call it "Homology"". "if Darwinism is true, we should be able to construct a reasonably coherent family tree, regardless of which genes we compare" Why? Literally why? This phrase pops out of literally nowhere. Proteins are wildly different between each other. One change in aminoacids in one protein could render it totally useless, while other changes could have no effect. Cytochrome C is an electronic transportator formed by only one polypeptide of 104 amino acids. Any structural changes made can destroy it, and without it the host will die. THAT's why it's a proof, because given that it's such a delicate gene, the presence of a difference on the genes points at them having a similar ancestor that had that gene successfully mutate without him dying in the process. Cytochrome B is a much larger (400 amino acids) structural subunit of a protein complex. It's much more resilient to changes, and that's why it's not that important when using it to compare genes. BUT EVEN THEN, it's ALREADY USED to establish phylogenetic relationships between families and genders of species. This whole video is based on trying to deconstruct Darwinism with flawed arguments, fallacies and defamations to try to support your point. Fallacies found: -Metaphor fallacy: The mistaken belief that one metaphor provides an adequate cognitive frame for a given abstract concept. You picked a metaphor used to make evolution easier to understand, pointed out how the metaphor makes no sense, and then used the oversimplified metaphor not making sense to say "see? And that's why Evolution doesn't make sense!", while funnily using your own very flawed metaphor that can easily be turned around to show how your point is the one not making sense. -False equivalence - describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not. and -Denying the antecedent - the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A "If you look at different creature's DNA, the rule of thumb is: The more closely related they are, and vice versa" is NOT the same as "If Darwinism was real, we should be able to construct a reasonably coherent family tree regardless of which genes we compare". So using the second to disprove the first is NOT correct, MORESO when you LITERALLY MAKE THE SECOND PHRASE UP OUT OF NOWHERE. And for what? To try to suggest that the "intelligent design" is a good alternative? Darwinism may not be perfect, but it's based on something. Your theory is literally based on nothing. The only evidence you are giving to "prove" your theory is "Darwinism is not perfect, so surely the alternative I'm giving founded on literally nothing must be true". Which must probably be other kind of fallacy by itself.
I think the same and thought I may have been one of the only ones to see things this way. I think the real difference between people today compared to yesteryear is agenda. There is so much agenda being pushed that people muck up their findings to push a certain agenda, whereas before they were more genuine and sincere. I think the more science digs the more creationism becomes more relevant but they twist and contort scientific jargon to suit their own agenda.
@@johnbrinsmead3316 Well lets examine the creation, under the Christian Biblical theory. God created Adam fully grown, so on Adam's first day alive, he was full grown, probably the equivalent of a 25-35 year old body. God then took a rib from Adam to create Eve...again on her 1st day alive she was full grown. Of course the bible also says God created the plants and animals full grown and told them to bring forth after their own kind. So why would it be so difficult to think God created the planet Earth already pre-aged to be full grown. So on day 1 of earth being created, it would appear to be way older, say maybe millions of years old. This is the difference between age as in appearance and age as in length of time duration. Adam would appear to be 35, but only had just been created. But the moment you think the earth has existed for millions or billions of years you have to factor in what that means for like the sun and moon. The Sun consumes about 5 billion kilograms (5 million tons) of its nuclear hydrogen fuel every second. So if its been burning for billions of years, you gotta wonder how much BIGGER was the sun back then and what effects that would have on the earth and moon, as far as heat and gravity. Dont get me started on where the hydrogen fuel/energy came from.. Next, lets talk about the moon. The Moon is being pushed away from Earth by 1.6 inches (4 centimeters) per year, if the earth and moon are billions of years old, how much closer would the moon have been to earth back then? Lets face it, the ONLY reason people want to believe the earth has been around for billions of years is because they need the long periods of time to explain their crappy racist evolutionary theory. That somehow, magically, if you wait billions of years a monkey will produce a human. Or my favorite, life comes from rocks..
There is a reason homology implies evolution in its definition, and that is because we don't just point towards a similarity, claim it is homologous and therefore evidence of evolution. In fact we know that there are some features that are similar but not homologous. We call them analagous features. This may seem strange; only an evolutionist would consider there being different kinds of similarities, and they would have to make believe in order to distinguish between them and decide which similarities prove a common descent, right? Well, to give a bit of an intuition; birds and bats both have wings which they might use to fly, but even a creationist could tell that bats are not birds, nor that the fact bats have wings like a bird and can fly like a bird is not evidence of bats being a bird; and yes, we have very good reasons to think that. What you have just done is identified the wings of bats and birds as analogous rather than homologous. Now you might be offended by the fact that the defintion of homology contains common ancestry, but the fact is that it's extremely difficult for biologists to define homology without using evolution, because if organisms are similar because they were created that way then there is only one kind of similarity; created similarity. As I've already demonstrated however that isn't a concept bioligists find particularly useful. Also, there is the fact that modern creationists do in fact believe in common ancestry and use homology to demonstrate this. To begin with, what you call 'micro evolution' is a mathematical inevitability; creatures are not immutably the same forever. Not only is it ridiculous to imagine that to be the case, but we can in fact observe changes occur in insects and bacteria etc. If you decide that a wolf, cayote and a dog had a common ancestor because they appear similar, then are you not using circular reasoning? Are you dejecting the possibility they are similar because they have a common designer?
Evolution theory is an idea based on the ignorance about the complexity of the cell parts and functions, i feel grateful i just do not believe it any more and make me feel weird about being really good at biology class knowing all these "answers" in my exam.
As a person in the artistic fields- ill just say this -the more an artist of any fashion can break out of their shell and use new ideas, often times, the more respected they are. This is because it shows that they are not constrained by some principles that would stop creativity basically if it all was up to a common designer, they would be a designer that was much too afraid to try anything new once they found something that worked.
No, we do NOT see a world of nothing but algae, or yeast, or bacteria... Look at a tree, then an octopus, then a bat, then a slime mold, then look in the mirror... Human artists and their creativity is a dim reflection of God's creativity...
1) Conceitos importantes: Evolução é modificação por descendência ao longo do tempo. Ou seja, um processo bem conhecido que resulta em adaptações e no surgimento de novas espécies. 2) Usar carros como exemplo de descendência com modificação não faz sentido algum. Objetos inanimados, sem vida, não evoluem biologicamente. 3) Em momento algum o vídeo menciona que existem similaridades que NÃO estão presentes nos ancestrais comuns (analogias). Assim, não existe circularidade, pois similaridades podem estar ou não presentes no ancestral comum. Apenas aquelas que estão presentes no ancestral comum mais recente dos grupos em questão (homologias) são evidências de evolução e podem ser usadas para reconstruir histórias de parentesco evolutivo. 4) A teoria da evolução não corrobora ou refuta a hipótese da existência de deuses. Apenas não precisa de um ou mais deuses para explicar a origem das espécies. Pensando na hipótese de deuses criando a vida, qual a origem desses deuses? Se os deuses não precisam ser explicados, então para que explicar a origem da vida? 5) Qual é a idéia por trás de desconstruir uma teoria bastante compreendida ao invés de buscar fatos que corroborem a hipótese da vida ter sido criada pelo seu deus favorito? Isso torna o debate criacionismo x evolucionismo sem sentido. Enquanto os criacionistas não mostrarem fatos que comprovem a existência do seu deus, ele continua sendo um mito ou uma mera hipótese. 6) Em relação às baleias, como eles explicam os ossos vestigiais de membros traseiros encontrados nos esqueletos das baleias (pode ser visto no museu da PUC em Belo Horizonte)? "Deus" os teria colocado lá, junto a todas as outras inúmeras evidências da evolução, apenas para nos confundir? Qual seria o objetivo deste "deus"? Se hoje alguma descoberta viesse a colocar em cheque toda a teoria da evolução, como isso poderia corroborar a teoria bíblica? Vejo como falha central do design inteligente o uso de uma mitologia para explicar a origem da vida e das espécies, como se fosse verdade absoluta. No caso do design inteligente, por que logo a mitologia judaica, descrita no livro bíblico do Gênesis? Por que não qualquer uma das outras milhares de mitologias existentes pelo mundo? Ou por que não várias dessas mitologias ao mesmo tempo? Afinal é assim que os mitos coexistem na Terra: cada povo com os seus. Quem disse que os judeus devem estar certos, e apenas eles? O poder das suas armas? (O deus judaico é chamado de "Senhor dos Exércitos" inúmeras vezes no Antigo Testamento, e até no Novo Testamento, ex: Romanos 9:29 e Tiago 5:4).
Você é uma comédia, olha seu item dois: inanimados NÃO produzem vida, o que concordo plenamente, pois uma rocha não produz vida é muito menos uma “sopa primordial” pois são componentes químicos sem vida , inanimados , e o que se diria sobre a origem da vida ? O que o seu deus evolução apregoa ? Kkkkkkkk quer saber como tudo começou? Comece em Gênesis 1.1, aí sim você vai saber tudo.
Damn beat their whole video in Spanish. Also for the thing about cars the video completely misses the point being made, go look at the actual source. All he was trying to illustrate (to laymen like the people who made this vid) is how we can see lineages in the fossil record.
I have never understood the popularity of this common designer mantra. Why would you assume that an all-powerful god would need to constantly reuse the same models in such a way that everything points to a common ancestor? At least no god that possesses the virtue of honesty would do that.
Granted, this video didn't get into making a positive case for a designer in biology (hopefully some day I'll get a chance to make that video). Maybe these questions will help you sort through the argument a bit more, because it seems you're making a few unfounded assumptions yourself. 1) Would you argue that the engineers at Chevy or Bob Ross were dishonest for reusing elements in things they designed? 2) If they reuse something, is it necessarily because then *needed* to? 3) If someone came along and misattributed their work to something else, whose fault would that be?
@@LongStoryShortVideos 1) I fail to see how there is any analogy to make. Car designers aren't gods. Also cars don't reproduce sexually. God, in theory, could reuse same structures without having the result look like there was evolution. If he doesn't do that then it's dishonest, don't you agree? 2) If god didn't need to create the things this way, then he has no reason for lying. And yet he does. 3) Your analogy breaks here. Engineers don't purposefully hide their fingerprints.
The popularity is due to the fact there being obvious design in the world, that is if you don't have your eyes closed or intellect disengaged. A God does what He pleases not what you think He should do. Even if God designed it your way there would definitely be some people saying why didn't he do it x or y way. So you can't build an argument based on that assumption. Its like someone looking at The Scream painting and saying 'thats a rubbish painting' because it doesn't look realistic. So if we don't know the design specifications of the designer we can't assume it is bad design.
Oh god i never knew the common design argument !! Lolz!! Homology made me think that evolution should be true.. or might be.. but i never thought it could be argued the other way around.. like painter who uses the similar palettes, styles and techniques that give him his uniqueness
The fairytale is this; that nothing made everything and everyone and that the miracle of life did not require a miracle maker. And if you say something made us, what made that something? Information is not random, it requires a mind. Which came first? The mind or the something? The chicken or the egg? - You can't say that because we have something like GRAVITY or The Laws of Quantum Mechanics that these prove the Universe did not require a designer. The flaw in that argument is, what created GRAVITY and what made the Laws of Quantum Mechanics? If you say the Universe did then you are using circular logic. Those two laws can describe our Universe but they cant explain their existence or the mechanics that created those laws. The chicken or the egg? Which came first? - The Big Bang theory says that the universe had a beginning and that something outside of the universe (time, space, matter and energy) made the universe. Since the universe did not begin itself, there had to be a beginner. That beginner has a mind and is more powerful and knowledgeable than anything or anyone beyond our comprehension. Our universe was intelligently designed. That designer was God and only God can decide and act upon to do something so magnificent. - It’s really unbelievable what unbelievers must believe to be unbelievers. - Given enough time, anything is possible. Correct? But what made time possible? The rule that there are no rules, is a rule. Everything needs order (rules). Chaos cannot bring order. Chemicals (Death) cannot bring forth LIFE. - Species are not evolving. We are loosing information in our DNA with each passing generation. You can get a dog from a wolf, but you can’t get a wolf from a dog. Evolution can explain survival of the fittest but it can't prove its arrival. - Life and the universe is too complicated to support the apparatus of evolution (macroevolution). Matter cannot exist in eternal time. - The multiverse is not possible since it cannot exist in eternal time since matter is not eternal nor can it produce matter for eternity. Also, eternity in the material world is not possible because, today would be forever in the past since eternity does not have a beginning or an end. Thus you could never arrive to the present (today). - Want more proof there is a God? Read the Bible. But unbelievers are afraid of the truth. Correct? - Extra Credit. Did you know that the God of the Christian Bible is the only God who exists outside of our universe? He also lives inside the universe and inside of believers. No other so called "god" or significant world religion makes that claim. - Think about this. Good trees give forth good fruit. Bad trees give forth bad fruit. To which tree does the human race belong?
If it seems too stupid to be true then it probably is. Scientists DON'T pretend that they have proved that similarity means common descent by defining "homology" to mean "similarity due to common descent." They use the word "analogy" to mean similarity not due to common descent. If you find a similarity, you then have to look at the evidence to see whether homology or analogy fits better. Scientists give concepts names to make them easier to talk about, not win arguments with word games. The authors of this video must know this, if they know anything about the matter at all. Scientists don't try to win arguments with word games, only creationists do that.
All that shows is that we have a common Creator who used the basic building blocks and designs of life common among us. It's proof of God, rather than proof of "evolution".
The problem with your reasoning is basically you still can't reconcile that with the evolutionary sequence of the observable modifications. Non-vertebrates are also considered to be part of living things without limbs.
No, because it would also support a common designer if everything were to be different, then the common designer would just be said to be very creative.
This video is largely wrong, the idea of a common creator for the homology in organisms isn't a valid argument because we clearly know from the fossil record about the tiktaalik that is the true reason for it. It was a transitional fossil from fish to the first tetrapods, and it is an example of the earliest organisms with this bone structure, looking up through the fossil record you can see it becoming more and more complex.
Good video. I think it is a better public presentation than the "Science Uprising" bit. Don't get me wrong. The latter featured some very good segments from Egnor, Meyer, Behe, and Tour. The gorilla nosed Guy Fawkes mask, glitchy screens, and Max Headroom voice effects, with "thoughtful people nodding as they stared at their hacked devices" worked to undermine things.
How about Common Environment? We all live on the same planet. Eat the same kinds of food. Need to survive in the same weather. Interact with the same objects. Etc. Etc. Etc. so of course we’re going to have similarities in pieces and parts. Designer designed creatures for One Planet. Um. Duh?
Not a good argument. If that were so, we would expect the DNA "for" penguin flippers to more closely resemble that for seal flippers than the sequences encoding eagle's wings. Wanna guess how this checks out in the DNA databases?
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has." ~ Malcolm Muggeridge
@@matteomastrodomenico1231a quote being from a journalist doesn’t make it any less profound, the same way a quote being from a scientist doesn’t automatically make it profound either
About Tim berra, the analogy is only used to make a point or to help to understand the concept. Changing the central point of an analogy doesn't mean you've debunk the original idea...
And to honestly say all, evolution is well proven by other many stronger and incontrovertible arguments, NO ONE uses homology ALONE to explain evolution. Homology is a side argument that however STILL support and PERFECTLY matches the evolution theory but it's never used alone because is collateral, not the point. We are no longer in 1920, we are in 2020, our knowledge about ALL the field of evolution is this huge that we can call it THEORY. Now before self-shitting you, check what a 'theory' is in scientific language.
But if everything looked different then wouldn't you also be able to argue that there is a common designer but they were just very creative? So how would you know if there is a common designer and who/what is this common designer?
Genes show that identity by descent IS the most parsimonious explanation for (most of) the observed morphological similarities. For example, the similarities are found in silent sites (3rd base of degenerate codons, pseudogenes and so on). The DNA similarities (nested hierarchies) bolster the morphological ones and absolutely confirm common ancestry. The game is 100% up for a common designer
I think it's time you support that claim with evidence. EVERY paper I've read on the topic has admitted that morphology and genetic trees are incongruent. A study by Winston Ewert comparing common descent to a dependency graph revealed the dependency graph model was favored by a Bayes factor of over 10,000. That means the dependency graph was superior by a factor of 1 followed by more than 3000 zeros. bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.3 Descent is the ONLY explanation ever contemplated in academia and research science. The a priori commitment to naturalism isn't justified by science, it's a philosophical predilection.
We share 50% of our DNA with bananas Comparing genes after 80-90% of a match isn't nearly as accurate sometimes. A common designer is impossible, though I'd say the amount of genes we're comparing to are kinda exponential with how close we are to the organism? Such as, sharing ~90-100% of our dna with something means we're recently related, though by the time we've gotten to 50% we aren't near the organism whatsoever really, and most likely it's just a coincidence that we share this much DNA.
Yes, but it’s more nuanced than that. Your father’s round nose might explain yours… but evolutionists will say that the round nose on some apes means that you and those apes had the same parents.
@@rodrigodias3000 I dont think so. I've noticed that when one part of the puzzle is shown to have problems like homology in this video, a response similar to yours about how it is good evidence in conjunction with all the other evidence, not just by itself. But then I go on to investigate, and find big problems with the other pieces of the puzzle 1, by 1 individually. So when I get to the end of it all, and all the evidence for evolution has big problems in each category, and all the categories are only good evidence when held in conjunction with other evidence, then that puts the theory in a state of assuming its conclusion. And that's where I run into big problems with taking evolution as solid fact. I think at minimum living organisms have adaptive capacity but the evidence to extrapolate past adaptation to full blown darwinian evolution is lacking. And possibly the biggest problem is when evolution is put under mathmatic rigor, it almost always fails. And it's always met with a " there is just some mechanism we haven't discovered yet" well mabey, but if the theory is supposed to be objective then it shouldn't have been touted as correct until such a mechanism is found.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 You should watch viced rhino’s video reacting to this one, he explains the problem this video has with homology as close to perfect as any laymen can get. And if you do check out his video but end up disagreeing with it please by respectful if you’re gonna leave a comment, he recently lost his wife in a stroke.
The anatomical similarities (i.e. between limb bones) that exist in nature are clearly better evidence for evolution than for common design. Such anatomical similarities are clearly expected on evolution, but there is no particular reason to expect a God to create in this way. The framing of homology as being circular is clever, but ultimately is just a distraction. The anatomical similarities still exist and are still clearly evidence for evolution over design. Pointing out that gene trees do not always agree, is a clever way of throwing doubt onto the reliability of using DNA to reconstruct evolutionary relationships (it reminds of the creationists picking particular instances of incorrect radiometric dates and reworked fossils as evidence against the fossil record), however ironically it is simply an example of cherry-picking contradictory evidence, while ignoring that DNA evidence has confirmed the broad patterns of what we already knew from morphological analysis. It is fully expected under evolution that gene trees will not agree 100% of the time, due to processes such as incomplete lineage sorting, hybridization and horizontal gene flow. It should be noted that different genes evolve at different rates, and therefore will give wrong results if used to construct trees that are too old or young, which is what I expect is going on here with cytochrome-b, from what I understand it works best for the family and genus level.
Homology used as a understanding of evolution and how it works not best evidence for evolution existing but evidence on how it works And homology first relied solely on speculation But we managed to understand a lot more with genetics and how they are related Homology is as much evidence for common designer as it is evolution Which is bad it’s not evidence that these things exist It’s because Homology exist we use it to understand how evolution works Its good evidence that things are similar would be related Like how we tell what dogs are without genetics base off the physical aspect They can definitely be also used for how a creative designer could work But we don’t have any evidence for a designer The reasons we have such a differences in other creatures is because of mutations which again what evolution says And genetics help It’s more so the understanding of how evolution works not that evolution exists
If science cant explain abiogenesis how can you expect them to have solved every other biological Theory for instance evolution that is a byproduct of abiogenesis
Since when is not knowing everything an argument for being right? And with the internet, we lesser educated can still look up big words. Maybe people should look up argument from authority fallacy too.
If you look at Darwin's family, his journals and a lot of other things it doesn't appear to me that Darwin was out to prove evolution as a means of 'how we got here' but rather trying to show why some 'races arent as evolved as others' and even had a list of races organized from most evolved to least evolved.
Darwin was one of the major proponents of racist ideology which was supported by his theory. Of course this was grasped by other evolutionary zealots at the time and was postulated by those so enlightened by bad science. What these simpletons couldn't grasp was that these supposed other races that were less evolved , but happened to be in countries where thru many reasons were less educated . Mind you , monsters like Stalin and Hitler both used that same demeaning evolutionery ideology in justifying the mass genocide of 10's of millions of these subhumans. This mindset was evident during WW 11 in the American Armed Services where they believed "The Negro" wasn't intelligent enough to fly planes or operate tanks , although latter in the war they did allow for a squadron of fighter pilots as well a tank company which in both cases turned out to be some of the most decorated units.
I absolutely love these videos. You've made something that makes it simple to understand, and also entertaining to show to younger kids. Parents really need to start being a part of their children's education and stop just passing it off on the public education system, which IMPO is on par with child abuse.
Neither DNA can be evidence because, similarities are just similarities. They don't mean anything unless you have a transformation mechanism followed by background assumptions. There is no single objective methodology of figuring out similarities in DNA. Furthermore, DNA doesn't conclude that evolution is true rather it already assumes the DNA of species X and species Y have a common ancestor (BECAUSE they are homologus). All they do is just shoehorning of the data with this assumption.
Isn't the same paradox true either way? Homology there for evolution, evolution therefore homology. And vice versa: God, therefore common designer, common designer, therefore God?
@2ish mins in your anaolgy of the cars is so wrong and is so overused. Have we ever seen a self-reproducing car? Things that look similar to other things that can not self-reproduce tend to look designed, the same shape on someting that can not reproduce thus far on earth has been in overwhelming favor for design. So we believe those things were designed. If you want to use an analogy to represent homology, you will have to do it using two things that have the ability to self-reproduce (have ofspring) and mutate. Good luck!!
I normally love Discovery Science but these videos are unwatchable. The self-satisfied tone and cheesy graphics are the sort of thing I'd expect from 'the other side'.
The argument still works if we recognize that the definition for homology changed after our discovery that it supports evolution, and simply use the definition that they are similar in a way. Also, some of your quotes say that those structures shared through common ancestry are called homologous structures, not that homologous structures are structures they share through common ancestry. It's a subtle but important different. A PC is a computer, but a computer is not by definition a PC. Because my smart phone is also a computer. So those books don't say homologous structures are by definition similar structures because of common ancestry, but simply calls similar structures that are because of common ancestry homologous structures.
*Sigh*......come on Discovery Institute. I am with you on the argument....but why the cartoon and jr. high narration?? Why not use Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, David Berlinski? I have watched videos where they all point out the circular logic in the homology argument. Cut out the cringeworthy humor and raise the intellectual bar.
I get it, I'd rather listen to a 14 hour lecture or debate that goes more in depth, but that isn't everyone's cup of tea. Scientific concepts need to be spread on a popular level as well. Also, sorry you didn't like my lame jokes, send me better ones and I'l use those next time ;)
Can someone who disliked this video explained what is wrong with its content? I find the ending quite gracious as it does not impute motive to evolutionary scientists. Scientifically, I have found the papers cited and have no objections. So?
Now make a video proving how the biblical god is just one god among many, or in other words, only one more mythology in this large and beautiful planet.
If we take into consideration the randomness of evolution, shouldn't homology be an argument against it ? Shouldn't randomness give random mutation instead of similarities in bone structure ?
That’s a good way to look at it. Great insight, sure their supposed “natural selection” could select similar traits (hand bone structure) for survival of different species, but for these similarities to persist amongst vastly different species from widely different environments is an evidence that homology is against evolution.
@@Darkev77 originally I was kinda critical of that point, but you illustrated it out very well. It doesnt make much sense that a whale would even maintain the 2 forearm bones,while its hips shrank due to its morphological changes. Idk. It still seems kinda up in the air to me. Evolution might be true. Theres definatly some simple intuitions that favor it. But on the other hand the argument against random mutation as a plausible mechanism is very solid. Mabey a middle road of directed evolution is correct?
I can see why this confuses you, what you’re missing is that evolution doesn’t just start over every time but it has to work with what’s already there. A mutation is an adjustment but it does not create anything new. If an organism reproduces it doesn’t pass on totally new dna but its own, then as its offspring develops every time there a cell division there a chance of mutation or an “imperfect” copy. So with something like bone structure you’re not gonna go from dense bones to hollow bones, you’re gonna get bones with such a minor difference that it’s practically unnoticeable.
Опять вы врёте. Назовите мне хоть один эксперимент, подтверждающий Творца, или что он создал существ. Вы можете только критиковать других, но у вас нет собственной доказательной базы. Эволюционизм опять победил.
Sure, a number of the papers cited list many more examples; eg: metazoan animals, turtles, lizards even grasses. From Michael Lynch's paper: "Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees"
Eric Metaxes mocking evolutionists about abiogenesis - Evolutionist: "If we find a puddle on Mars, we just know that fish will be jumping out at any moment."
How can you mock someone who believes evolution with a hypothesis that has nothing to do with it? Also, if we find any source of water on Mars, that'd be our best guess to find any life form on other planets until we travel further in the Solar System. And no, it wouldn't be a fish
Hello vlogger. Science vs Philosophy. I find science more fun. Showing the equivalent bones in mammals really perks me up. Pointing out the philosophy of interpretation of those facts. Ho hum. Thank you.
I think there are several issues with the arguments.
The idea of homology being evidence for common ancestry (I'm assuming that's what you call "evolution") are not mere similarities.
Those similarities must look inherited instead of, for instance, based on composition (like a having a toolbox with reusable tools used for unrelated beings).
Bats and birds have wings, fish, whales and seals have fins, but those similarities aren't unrelated and are superficial.
The video doesn't have that explanation before trying to refute it.
It seems, the idea that homology as an evidence for common ancestry is circular seems to be based on definitions: homology is a similarly that was inherited.
If A descents from B, then they have similarities which A inherited from B. That is not a circular argument. It merely requires evidence that similarities are inherited.
Otherwise, something like this is also circular:
1) Being taller is having a greater height
2) A has a greater height than B
3) Therefore, A is taller than B
Another thing is asking evidence for 2).
I tried to find information about cytochrome-b associated to the theory of evolution problems. I only found a Red It forum ("Does cytochrome-B disprove evolution?").
It says: "[...] I was advised that Cytochrome-B would challenge my assumptions since cats and whales group within primates (apparently) [...] The idea that cats and whales group within primates came from a book on intelligent design called Explore Evolution. [...]"
It states Michael Lynch was misquoted in that book.
I think you should provide your sources to check them.
Quick question. If evolution was debunked tomorrow, how would that support a biblical narrative?
Evolution was debunked a long time ago. It is pseudo-science. But disproving any theory doesn't mean that another would necessarily be supported. The problem is, the evidence we do have - what we do know, experience, and observe - is better explained by the Biblical narrative.
@@jessebryant9233I’m just curious, but when was the evolution theory ever ‘debunked’? Evolution is still considered a theory, essentially meaning factual or a proven explanation in science. “Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution.” -National Library of Medicine, 2019
Why is it always one thing versus another, are we in some sort of contest, isn't the goal to discover rather than be the first to be right about something?
@quinno5885 the theory of evolution has been thoroughly debunked with every new discovery of the true complexity of life. Darwin’s pseudoscientific fairytale published in 1859 was nearly 100 years before discovery of the DNA double helix. You and others are doing as you always do and move the goalposts by claiming “evolution is both a fact and a theory” because populations change over time. NO ONE denies populations change over time. That’s NOT the theory of evolution- of a universal common ancestor evolving through random mutations and natural selection. What we observe is adaptation or “microevolution”, changes within a species. What we don’t observe and has been debunked is “macroevolution”, changes from one species into a more advanced “evolved” species”. Humans have turned wolves into Labs and Poodles, into Labradoodles, and every size and shape from the Mastiff to the Pug by means of artificial selection. We could breed dogs for another billion years with express intent of producing an evolved more advanced species of animal BUT we would NEVER produce anything other than new wacky species of dog, who by that point would have acquired so many genetic defects they probably wouldn’t exist anymore.
The bigger problem with definition is the definition of the word *"evolution"* itself. When most creationists say "evolution", they typically mean the hypothetical process from primordial soup to man. When an most evolutionists say "evolution", they typically mean the non-controversial process that results in new species. But they _always_ say you've defined it wrong.
Even worse my friend
All theists believe in evolution in the sense we adapt to our environments however the hypothetical process is Darwinism/common ancestry
It's impossible to get a consistent definition for evolution. I've tried. They change the definition to suit whatever argument they are trying to prove. If you ask for clarification, they ignore you.
@@bobblacka918 The change in allele frequencies within populations over succesive generations. That's a pretty good definition for evolution, one that everyone would agree with, and leads logically to common ancestry, if we rewind time.
@@bobblacka918 The scientific definition for the theory of evolution: the process by which populations of organisms change over time. ... ... just like it has been since the theory was written down.
Which is why they love to misuse the term species. It is used to represent all organisms. But, it is also used to refer to the individual members of that species.
Which is wrong? The one that refers to the KINDS OF ORGANISMS. There are different kinds of organisms that are made up of various species that belong to the kind of organism in question.
This is cleary observed when a new species of one kind of organism is found. How is this announced to the world? They say a new species of such and such has been found. They do not say, "A NEW SPECIES HAS BEEN FOUND". iT WOULD LEAVE EVERYONE THINKING, "a new species of what".
So, it will be a new species of spider, whale, dolphin, shrimp, and so on and so on.
Carl Linnaeus formalised binomial nomenclature, i.e., the modern system of naming organisms, based on homologies, and Linnaeus was NOT thinking in terms of a common ancestors. Indeed, Linnaeus was a creationist, ... and still able to build consistent categories, while he asserted that “we can count as many species now as were created at the beginning”. Anybody could think that his metaphysical believings were right or wrong, but hey... he did not need Darwinism or God (sensu Theology) to build systematics. And this is an important piece of data.
Could your please include your sources in the video description.
Sure could do that on future videos, thanks for the feedback Lucas.
@@ThatisnotHair Deep sea fish with gills tend to be sluggish and operate at a bare minimum of activity due to the lack of oxygen at the depths whales are known to frequent. So you have these enormous marine mammals, with enormous concentrations of myoglobin packing literally tons of oxygen, it elicits a much greater capacity for hunting etc. at greater depths. There are advantages to lungs in whales.
And also, because gills are what you'd be expecting if evolution were true. But if you ask the whales themselves, I'm sure they don't mind.
@@ThatisnotHair Are the whales dying because they have lungs instead of gills?
@@ThatisnotHair It's really simple: Because He wanted to. Plus they couldnt drown in the garden of Eden so it didnt really matter.
"a succession of very similar forms... could instead point to a common designer"
Could it? Given no information besides the commonality of the forms, could you determine that the cars had a common designer, or a designer at all? It seems like you would need more information to determine that. Like, say, 'was the form designed at all?' I don't know how you can say anything about whether they share a designer if you can't demonstrate that the things were designed to begin with
Also, there's something I'm curious about. Given the scientific view, more similarity generally means closer relatedness, while less similarity generally means more distant relatedness. Under the "common design, common designer" view, does more similarity mean common designer(s), while less similarity means different designer(s)? To put it another way: According the the theory of evolution, similar organisms are similar because they are more closely related, and dissimilar organisms are dissimilar because they are more distantly related. According to "common design," similar organisms are similar because they have a common designer, and dissimilar organisms are dissimilar because... they also have a common designer? Certainly, a designer doesn't need to design everything the same, but you can't say that similarity is evidence of a common designer if difference isn't evidence for a different designer- - that would be special pleading. So do you think that organisms that scientists would say are more distantly related (i.e., organisms that are substantially different morphologically and/or genetically) can be explained by "different design, different designer?"
Name one single thing of known origins that appears to have been designed (has multiple parts and a function - and isn't mere patterns that result from the nature of chemical processes like snowflake and crystal formation) that in fact were not designed. _Can you produce even one such example?_
Darwin and other biologists didn’t get the ball to say “I don’t know”.
So we can all agree that descent with modification is possible up to a limit. Mind to show evidence for a solid limit then? Because evidence for limitlessness is weak (when you consider solid predictions about genetics, well documented evolutionary adaptations in bacteria, insects* fruits, vegetabbles and cattle and literally having the entire evolutionary history of various living organisms weak) but present. Also evolution is the descent with modifications I see most of the people here accept, the thing is that evolution says that we have no reason to believe there is a limit to it. And it doesn't really contradict a creator either, it just doesn't need one.
"Why would they be so similar unless they were related?"
MAYBE because they have the same DESIGNER!! Does that thought ever come into your mind?
Maybe the structure and design works so well, the DESIGNER used it in many different applications?
Oh a Chevy Silverado and a Ford Mustang both have wheel bearings and windshield wipers....they must be related!!!
didn't know cars reproduced.
John Brinsmead didn’t know that random mutations ( breakages ) creates functionally complex specified information either 🤷🏻♂️🍩....
@@JoeMorreale1187 and yet it happens.
oth mommy cars getting together with daddy cars and creating babby cars...
John Brinsmead no , it does not happen . 🤦♂️It’s assumed and wished that it does by deluded atheist Darwinian plums 😂😂
@@JoeMorreale1187 and yet the change in frequency of heritable traits within a population over time is observable and can be measured.
it happens.
6:00 that is not cherry-picking, cytochrome c genes are used for phylogenetic trees that include distantly related species, while cytochrome b genes are used for closely related species. Let me give an analogy, when you see two people, there is a good chance that you can tell if they are of the same or different race. How could you tell? Through the color of their skin, the shape of their face, maybe even through their height. For example, you are given 4 individuals, 2 have white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes, while the other 2 have dark skin, curly hair and brown eyes. Through this information alone you are able to know that the 2 individuals who have white skins are more closely related than any of the two individuals who have dark skin and vice versa. However, let's say that we have 1 individual with white skin is blood type A, and the other is type O, while one of the dark skinned individuals was type A and the other type B. Would we say that the white individual with type A blood is more closely related to the dark individual who was also type A compared to the white skinned person who is type O? No, because skin color is more conserved than blood type among distantly related people. Similarly, cytochrome c is much more conserved than cytochrome b over distantly related species.
It may sound confusing because it actually is. That is why there is a whole field of biology dedicated to understanding this, systematics. Do not dismiss something merely because you do not understand it.
The reason for cytochrome C being highly conserved is because of the prominent variant of cytochrome c contains 22 amino acids that is directly involved in the binding of oxygen to the blood. Any individual who have mutations and therefore changes any of the 22 amino acids into a different amino acid will not have effective oxygen-binding to their blood and they will naturally be selected against. Cytochrome B is still very important but it can tolerate mutations because it does not do anything as important as oxygen-binding. That means individuals who have mutations in their cytochrome B are not necessarily selected against. That is why using cytochrome c is much more informative in constructing phylogenetic trees compared to using cytochrome b especially if the phylogenetic tree includes distantly related species.
I'm a college student from India , we were also taught in high school and now in college that homology is one of the many proof for evolution.
The religion of evolution. You need lots more faith.
And be stupid.
@@gerardmoloney9979 in order to have faith, you first need to be stupid and gullible
Credulity is the word for it.
well that's a catchy slogan.
What if the Creator created evolution? A built-in method for life to spring up in the most hostile places in the universe?
What if ALL MATTER contained both ETERNITY and OBLIVION in a TEMPORAL BALANCE that was conducive to creating LIFE?
What if our TEMPORAL existence was impelled by ETERNITY and dispelled by OBLIVION?
Can a dead universe create something greater than itself?...
LIFE?
Or...is all matter and forces derivatives of ETERNITY which must be mitigated by OBLIVION? (Outer darkness).
I, like so many others really liked the video. It's done well, it's short, it's fun, and it's not forcing anything on anyone, just asking some honest questions that science doesn't have good answers for. I just want to point out that even if DNA were more like what evolutionists expected, it still wouldn't rule out intelligent design. After all, DNA is essentially biological code. Programmers are notorious for reusing code in any number of different applications. Why create your own random number generator when there are perfectly good ones available. In fact, code for generating random numbers is so common and useful that it's built into most programming languages and referenced by a single command, which means millions, if not billions, of apps and programs all have the same "DNA" segment, or code segment, in them. And this is true of other segments of computer code. So why wouldn't an intelligent designer reuse various bits of DNA when creating all the various life forms? And if DNA segments aren't reused where we might expect them to be, that could just indicate that the designer, who would know way more about how life of every type works compared to us, knew that the different bit of DNA was in fact needed for the creature to live in the manner the designer intended it to live.
"Is homology due to common descent or common design?" Common descent.
"Is descent with modification overwhelmingly obvious?" Yes. Yes it is.
No, wait a second! It was Carl von Linné, about 100 years before Darwin, who classified all living things and noticed the nested hierarchy of homology in all living things.
All Darwin did was provide an explanation for the question posed by Carl von Linné, the challenge he put on the scientific community to find an explanation for why life falls into a nested hierarchy of traits.
We already knew that artificial selection could produce new varieties, like what we have done to dogs, cats, and all sorts of plants and crops. What Darwin realized is that something he called "natural selection" could act as artificial selection, and thus produce variations based on fitness to the environment, and that this explains the observations of Carl von Linné.
Explains it in a very horrible way that is, what Darwin did with the theory of evolution tracing back all species is the equivalent of looking at a cat and a chair and going: They both have 4 legs! They must be connected to each other in some way!
_"Is homology due to common descent or common design? Is descent with modification overwhelmingly obvious?"_
- *Common descent and yes... unless you want to argue that your designer is incredibly wasteful and bad at designing, and ignore descent with modification that we made use of through selective breeding in agriculture to end up with ALL of our important crops and livestock...*
Let me congratulate you for making an almost honest creationist video though. You almost represented the question/idea properly and only took a few quotes and analogies out of context. For a creationist, only misrepresenting things some of the time is a step up... though you still played some dishonest games and ignored everything that doesn't support your claims.
an 8 minute video isn't going to provide a complete dissertation on the subject. It gets the conversation started, nothing more.
Homology does *not* lead us to common descent. Your objections to design are ... poorly considered.
First, you accused biology of poor design and impugned the idea of a designer for it. This presumes you understand the nature and purpose of creation and intent of a designer, it's an exercise in theology, not biology.
You then equate breeding and cultivation with common descent. Common descent means all organisms share a common ancestor, breeding and cultivation has never caused novel families of organisms. Common descent has been presumed even though the evidence often contradicts the presumption. cephalopods, for example, possess a number of unique genetic characteristics that have no known ancestors.
It would seem evolutionists ignore everything that calls into question their claims.
There you are! Still faithful in your trolling! Now, as for the "proper" representation of YOUR faith... Well, let's have it already! _What doesn't support the claims?_ As for biology being poorly designed (all design requires compromise), well, let us know when you've come up with something better... [elevator music]
In Polish we have a saying, who will forbid the rich guy? Perhaps the designer had so much freedom to use that being wasteful was no issue? You know, he did not have to keep the bread crumbs from breakfast for future hunger satisfaction, kind of.
Moreover, what to you seems wasteful is simply a show off of this omnipotence and freedom of creation? Can a pot raise issues against the potter for having wasted some clay while turning the wheel and making the pot?
What evolutionists considered junk genes turned out to be highly important genes. Evolutionists seem fond of making the claims that later have to be turned into a counter argument. Some more sensibility in their claim making would be appreciated here.
Homology seems to indicate ID rather powerfully, if u r unbiased.
Question: Why there are the same bones in structures with such a different function like human hand, wing of a bat, flipper of a seal? Answer evolutionary biology: Because they share a common ancestor, this creature had these bones, all its descendants inherited these bones from it and used and modified they for different functions. Answer Intelligent designer theory: An intelligent designer likes to use the same bones. It is evidence of a common designer not a common descend, its shows his finger prints. So if an insect wing has a completely different design as wing of a bat and use different structures for the same function does it mean that there is more than one intelligent designer each with his typical style?
Good video in general...but I need more detail about why "cytochrome b" refutes common descent. Is it because "b" is present in species that are in radically different supposed lineages? Is the "b" gene in whales exactly the same as the one in cats? So if they are far divergent, they should not have the exact same "b" gene?
Cytochrome B refutes common descent in the same way that cytochrome C refutes inteligent design. It doesn't. Both cytochromes do nothing to prove or refute any of those theories. Mainly because Common descent accepts both (it that predicted cytochromes like C have to exist and that's why it's shown as evidence but the fact that some branches lost it is irrelevant) and intelligent design is irrefutable by definition (God can design animals *through* evolution so, as a hypothesis, it accepts both again).
Discordant genes like cytochrome B disconfirms common descent the same way a suspect being across town at the time of a murder disconfirms him as a suspect. If he isn't where you expect him to be, the chances of him committing the crime tend to go down. Sure, he *may* still be guilty, but you'd need other evidence to come to that conclusion, and you now have a lot more to explain away.
The reference is from Lee's review, quote here "the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied a similarly absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers (Fig. 1b). Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting." and the paper he references is this Andrews, T.D., Jermiin, L.S. and Easteal, S. (1998) Accelerated evolution of cytochrome b in simian primates: adaptive evolution in concert with other mitochondrial proteins? J. Mol. Evol. 47, 249-257
Fantastic! Clear, witty, funny and informative. Looking forward to the sequels!
Now that you’ve released videos on Whale Evolution and Antibiotic Resistance, I can’t wait to see the coming videos in Embryology, Biogeography, and Vestigial Organs!
I teach ancient Greek so let me clarify the point at 2:45.
Homology in English is borrowed from ancient Greeks word ὁμολογία homologia.
The prefix homo meant similar or same. Many know that but don't know where logia or "logy" in English derives etymologically (a word's origin and family tree).
λόγος in Greek has do with all of the following:
1. reason, logic, rational thought
2. spoken words of logical reason
The verb in Greek sharing the same root is λέγω lego to speak rationally.
So the misdefining of this by scientists is ignorant at best or dishonest at worst. The irony is the Latin word "science" means knowledge... but these are not knowledgeable on this definition.
If I've designed and created a line of mobile phones. Each and every phone will share very similar functionality, you will be able to find similarities quite easily, despite there being apparent differences too. If I've used certain amount of lithium, silicon, aluminium etc for each phone then the molecular structure of these metals will exist in all the phones in varying degrees. So they won't match identically unless I've used the exact amount of metals in one phone and another. You may be able to tell which is my earlier iteration simply by seeing which has fewer tools or bells and whistles compared to my more modern iterations. If i were to line up all my phones in order of date it was created, you would clearly see an 'evolution' in my phone designs. Now if i were to bring a line of led tvs from another designer. It would contain some of the same metals. It would look somewhat similar to my phones but bigger, serve somewhat same functionality minus few things, so it would be easy to infer common designer, yet we will only know if there is in fact the same designer for both only if we are told.
I can fit all of the above data in an equivalent to phylogenetic tree to infer common ancestry. So even though the tvs and phones are designed i can mislead simply by how i compile my data.
So the take home message is that the prior assumption will affect the conclusion.
These animated videos are really great. I think the voice actor, dialogue, research put into it and whatever animation/production studio you went with, has done a fantastic job.
This was extremely entertaining. The graphics, your voice and more importantly the facts were spot on! The only so called "evidence" people provide is for micro-evolution (small dogs, big dogs, black bear or brown bear, etc.) which are just variations, which does happen. However, they need to provide evidence for macro-evolution, which is one kind of animal changing into a totally different kind of animal. Something no evolutionist is able to provide. However, on the contrary we have very good evidence for common design. Every building has a builder, every watch has a watchmaker, etc.
Survival of the fittest is a tautology.
Which ones are the fittest?........those that survive
Which ones survive?.......those that are the fittest, .......and around and around we go.
Fitness for survival depends on the environment. Which ones are the fittest? It depends. It's not a straight line towards objective improvement.
This video is just semantics. Why not actually discuss the phenomenon and not the word that describes it. If I say that structural similarities between animals are evidence of common ancestry, this video has nothing to respond. Because I did't use the word homology. And yet my argument points to the exactly same observation of nature.
Hmm, did you watch the 2nd half of the video? Numerous papers were cited explaining the difficulties of the concept, absent the circular reasoning.
The correct analogy would be 'this scripture is from God because it says its from God' Its obviously circular.
If I've defined a thing to mean both the evidence and the conclusion then i can no longer use it as an argument.
Again e.g
The Quran/Bible/Torah is evidence of Gods words due to it being God's words.
Homology is a statement of 'fact' about CA not an articulation like your alternative sentence.
E.g
Statement of fact - These two boys look similar because they are brothers
As opposed to:
These boys looking similar is good evidence for them being brothers.
Its a subtle difference, but still noticable enough to see which one is circular and which isn't.
comedy gold: Co-Founder of Evolution was a believer in intellegant design and Tim berra used a product of engineering to illustrate common decent. i guess we live in the age of post-reasonism
"Dr. Berra demonstrates exactly the opposite:"
or does it?
the cart.
A primitive design that has been evolving and branching on its uses. From primitive carts, the design has evolved and branched as different methods of transportation. the common ancestor, the cart, evolved into the primitive car, and then it started branching into different kinds of transport to accommodate to different uses.
Even the "common designer" point is absurd, as the common designer IS EVOLVING THE DESIGN OF CARS TO BE MADE BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT. Why don't the Chevrolet engineers use the same designs as they used in 1955? because the design has EVOLVED to accommodate better technologies and changes in the human environment. Same in nature, except that instead of being created by one designer it's simply passed onto the next generation by selective adaptation. It's like there's a designer creating a bunch of different car designs, and only the best ones are used as placeholders in the next generation (something that kinda already happens in the car industry).
Homology is defined as similarity due to common ancestor, and CASES of Homology are used as proof for evolution. We do not use "Homology" as proof. We tell you "Hey , the fact that these very different animals that are from the same group have the same bone structure accommodated to different uses is proof of evolution, and we call it "Homology"".
"if Darwinism is true, we should be able to construct a reasonably coherent family tree, regardless of which genes we compare"
Why? Literally why? This phrase pops out of literally nowhere. Proteins are wildly different between each other. One change in aminoacids in one protein could render it totally useless, while other changes could have no effect.
Cytochrome C is an electronic transportator formed by only one polypeptide of 104 amino acids. Any structural changes made can destroy it, and without it the host will die. THAT's why it's a proof, because given that it's such a delicate gene, the presence of a difference on the genes points at them having a similar ancestor that had that gene successfully mutate without him dying in the process.
Cytochrome B is a much larger (400 amino acids) structural subunit of a protein complex. It's much more resilient to changes, and that's why it's not that important when using it to compare genes.
BUT EVEN THEN, it's ALREADY USED to establish phylogenetic relationships between families and genders of species.
This whole video is based on trying to deconstruct Darwinism with flawed arguments, fallacies and defamations to try to support your point.
Fallacies found:
-Metaphor fallacy:
The mistaken belief that one metaphor provides an adequate cognitive frame for a given abstract concept.
You picked a metaphor used to make evolution easier to understand, pointed out how the metaphor makes no sense, and then used the oversimplified metaphor not making sense to say "see? And that's why Evolution doesn't make sense!", while funnily using your own very flawed metaphor that can easily be turned around to show how your point is the one not making sense.
-False equivalence - describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.
and
-Denying the antecedent - the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A
"If you look at different creature's DNA, the rule of thumb is: The more closely related they are, and vice versa" is NOT the same as "If Darwinism was real, we should be able to construct a reasonably coherent family tree regardless of which genes we compare". So using the second to disprove the first is NOT correct, MORESO when you LITERALLY MAKE THE SECOND PHRASE UP OUT OF NOWHERE.
And for what?
To try to suggest that the "intelligent design" is a good alternative?
Darwinism may not be perfect, but it's based on something. Your theory is literally based on nothing.
The only evidence you are giving to "prove" your theory is "Darwinism is not perfect, so surely the alternative I'm giving founded on literally nothing must be true". Which must probably be other kind of fallacy by itself.
Short answer, evolution is a myth
Nope.
No it’s not
We are devolving, people were much smarter as you go back in the past.
I think the same and thought I may have been one of the only ones to see things this way. I think the real difference between people today compared to yesteryear is agenda. There is so much agenda being pushed that people muck up their findings to push a certain agenda, whereas before they were more genuine and sincere. I think the more science digs the more creationism becomes more relevant but they twist and contort scientific jargon to suit their own agenda.
But we are still people, humans...we aren't becoming something physically/biologically different.
I know right. look at the rise of young earth creationism.
@@johnbrinsmead3316
Well lets examine the creation, under the Christian Biblical theory.
God created Adam fully grown, so on Adam's first day alive, he was full grown, probably the equivalent of a 25-35 year old body.
God then took a rib from Adam to create Eve...again on her 1st day alive she was full grown.
Of course the bible also says God created the plants and animals full grown and told them to bring forth after their own kind.
So why would it be so difficult to think God created the planet Earth already pre-aged to be full grown. So on day 1 of earth being created, it would appear to be way older, say maybe millions of years old. This is the difference between age as in appearance and age as in length of time duration.
Adam would appear to be 35, but only had just been created.
But the moment you think the earth has existed for millions or billions of years you have to factor in what that means for like the sun and moon.
The Sun consumes about 5 billion kilograms (5 million tons) of its nuclear hydrogen fuel every second. So if its been burning for billions of years, you gotta wonder how much BIGGER was the sun back then and what effects that would have on the earth and moon, as far as heat and gravity. Dont get me started on where the hydrogen fuel/energy came from..
Next, lets talk about the moon.
The Moon is being pushed away from Earth by 1.6 inches (4 centimeters) per year, if the earth and moon are billions of years old, how much closer would the moon have been to earth back then?
Lets face it, the ONLY reason people want to believe the earth has been around for billions of years is because they need the long periods of time to explain their crappy racist evolutionary theory.
That somehow, magically, if you wait billions of years a monkey will produce a human. Or my favorite, life comes from rocks..
Yeah same here
There is a reason homology implies evolution in its definition, and that is because we don't just point towards a similarity, claim it is homologous and therefore evidence of evolution. In fact we know that there are some features that are similar but not homologous. We call them analagous features. This may seem strange; only an evolutionist would consider there being different kinds of similarities, and they would have to make believe in order to distinguish between them and decide which similarities prove a common descent, right?
Well, to give a bit of an intuition; birds and bats both have wings which they might use to fly, but even a creationist could tell that bats are not birds, nor that the fact bats have wings like a bird and can fly like a bird is not evidence of bats being a bird; and yes, we have very good reasons to think that.
What you have just done is identified the wings of bats and birds as analogous rather than homologous. Now you might be offended by the fact that the defintion of homology contains common ancestry, but the fact is that it's extremely difficult for biologists to define homology without using evolution, because if organisms are similar because they were created that way then there is only one kind of similarity; created similarity. As I've already demonstrated however that isn't a concept bioligists find particularly useful.
Also, there is the fact that modern creationists do in fact believe in common ancestry and use homology to demonstrate this. To begin with, what you call 'micro evolution' is a mathematical inevitability; creatures are not immutably the same forever. Not only is it ridiculous to imagine that to be the case, but we can in fact observe changes occur in insects and bacteria etc.
If you decide that a wolf, cayote and a dog had a common ancestor because they appear similar, then are you not using circular reasoning? Are you dejecting the possibility they are similar because they have a common designer?
Programming Libraries (lots of stuff maybe or maybe not being used in that particular compilation).
We want more! Love the humour & visuals bound with the explanation
Evolution theory is an idea based on the ignorance about the complexity of the cell parts and functions, i feel grateful i just do not believe it any more and make me feel weird about being really good at biology class knowing all these "answers" in my exam.
As a person in the artistic fields- ill just say this
-the more an artist of any fashion can break out of their shell and use new ideas, often times, the more respected they are. This is because it shows that they are not constrained by some principles that would stop creativity
basically if it all was up to a common designer, they would be a designer that was much too afraid to try anything new once they found something that worked.
No, we do NOT see a world of nothing but algae, or yeast, or bacteria... Look at a tree, then an octopus, then a bat, then a slime mold, then look in the mirror... Human artists and their creativity is a dim reflection of God's creativity...
1) Conceitos importantes: Evolução é modificação por descendência ao longo do tempo. Ou seja, um processo bem conhecido que resulta em adaptações e no surgimento de novas espécies.
2) Usar carros como exemplo de descendência com modificação não faz sentido algum. Objetos inanimados, sem vida, não evoluem biologicamente.
3) Em momento algum o vídeo menciona que existem similaridades que NÃO estão presentes nos ancestrais comuns (analogias). Assim, não existe circularidade, pois similaridades podem estar ou não presentes no ancestral comum. Apenas aquelas que estão presentes no ancestral comum mais recente dos grupos em questão (homologias) são evidências de evolução e podem ser usadas para reconstruir histórias de parentesco evolutivo.
4) A teoria da evolução não corrobora ou refuta a hipótese da existência de deuses. Apenas não precisa de um ou mais deuses para explicar a origem das espécies. Pensando na hipótese de deuses criando a vida, qual a origem desses deuses? Se os deuses não precisam ser explicados, então para que explicar a origem da vida?
5) Qual é a idéia por trás de desconstruir uma teoria bastante compreendida ao invés de buscar fatos que corroborem a hipótese da vida ter sido criada pelo seu deus favorito? Isso torna o debate criacionismo x evolucionismo sem sentido. Enquanto os criacionistas não mostrarem fatos que comprovem a existência do seu deus, ele continua sendo um mito ou uma mera hipótese.
6) Em relação às baleias, como eles explicam os ossos vestigiais de membros traseiros encontrados nos esqueletos das baleias (pode ser visto no museu da PUC em Belo Horizonte)? "Deus" os teria colocado lá, junto a todas as outras inúmeras evidências da evolução, apenas para nos confundir? Qual seria o objetivo deste "deus"?
Se hoje alguma descoberta viesse a colocar em cheque toda a teoria da evolução, como isso poderia corroborar a teoria bíblica? Vejo como falha central do design inteligente o uso de uma mitologia para explicar a origem da vida e das espécies, como se fosse verdade absoluta. No caso do design inteligente, por que logo a mitologia judaica, descrita no livro bíblico do Gênesis? Por que não qualquer uma das outras milhares de mitologias existentes pelo mundo? Ou por que não várias dessas mitologias ao mesmo tempo? Afinal é assim que os mitos coexistem na Terra: cada povo com os seus. Quem disse que os judeus devem estar certos, e apenas eles? O poder das suas armas? (O deus judaico é chamado de "Senhor dos Exércitos" inúmeras vezes no Antigo Testamento, e até no Novo Testamento, ex: Romanos 9:29 e Tiago 5:4).
Você é uma comédia, olha seu item dois: inanimados NÃO produzem vida, o que concordo plenamente, pois uma rocha não produz vida é muito menos uma “sopa primordial” pois são componentes químicos sem vida , inanimados , e o que se diria sobre a origem da vida ? O que o seu deus evolução apregoa ? Kkkkkkkk quer saber como tudo começou? Comece em Gênesis 1.1, aí sim você vai saber tudo.
Damn beat their whole video in Spanish. Also for the thing about cars the video completely misses the point being made, go look at the actual source. All he was trying to illustrate (to laymen like the people who made this vid) is how we can see lineages in the fossil record.
@@shroomer8294it's Portuguese, not Spanish.
Because parts from a Chevy cavalier fits on a oldsmobile does not mean a oldsmobile evolved from a Chevy. Same creator .
I have never understood the popularity of this common designer mantra. Why would you assume that an all-powerful god would need to constantly reuse the same models in such a way that everything points to a common ancestor? At least no god that possesses the virtue of honesty would do that.
Granted, this video didn't get into making a positive case for a designer in biology (hopefully some day I'll get a chance to make that video). Maybe these questions will help you sort through the argument a bit more, because it seems you're making a few unfounded assumptions yourself. 1) Would you argue that the engineers at Chevy or Bob Ross were dishonest for reusing elements in things they designed? 2) If they reuse something, is it necessarily because then *needed* to? 3) If someone came along and misattributed their work to something else, whose fault would that be?
@@LongStoryShortVideos
1) I fail to see how there is any analogy to make. Car designers aren't gods. Also cars don't reproduce sexually.
God, in theory, could reuse same structures without having the result look like there was evolution. If he doesn't do that then it's dishonest, don't you agree?
2) If god didn't need to create the things this way, then he has no reason for lying. And yet he does.
3) Your analogy breaks here. Engineers don't purposefully hide their fingerprints.
The popularity is due to the fact there being obvious design in the world, that is if you don't have your eyes closed or intellect disengaged. A God does what He pleases not what you think He should do. Even if God designed it your way there would definitely be some people saying why didn't he do it x or y way.
So you can't build an argument based on that assumption. Its like someone looking at The Scream painting and saying 'thats a rubbish painting' because it doesn't look realistic. So if we don't know the design specifications of the designer we can't assume it is bad design.
Oh god i never knew the common design argument !! Lolz!! Homology made me think that evolution should be true.. or might be.. but i never thought it could be argued the other way around.. like painter who uses the similar palettes, styles and techniques that give him his uniqueness
You know that evolution and intelligent design are not opposites, right?
@@Zancibar i am a layman ☹️😁
I dnt know the details
The fairytale is this; that nothing made everything and everyone and that the miracle of life did not require a miracle maker. And if you say something made us, what made that something? Information is not random, it requires a mind. Which came first? The mind or the something? The chicken or the egg?
-
You can't say that because we have something like GRAVITY or The Laws of Quantum Mechanics that these prove the Universe did not require a designer. The flaw in that argument is, what created GRAVITY and what made the Laws of Quantum Mechanics? If you say the Universe did then you are using circular logic. Those two laws can describe our Universe but they cant explain their existence or the mechanics that created those laws. The chicken or the egg? Which came first?
-
The Big Bang theory says that the universe had a beginning and that something outside of the universe (time, space, matter and energy) made the universe. Since the universe did not begin itself, there had to be a beginner. That beginner has a mind and is more powerful and knowledgeable than anything or anyone beyond our comprehension. Our universe was intelligently designed. That designer was God and only God can decide and act upon to do something so magnificent.
-
It’s really unbelievable what unbelievers must believe to be unbelievers.
-
Given enough time, anything is possible. Correct? But what made time possible?
The rule that there are no rules, is a rule. Everything needs order (rules).
Chaos cannot bring order.
Chemicals (Death) cannot bring forth LIFE.
-
Species are not evolving. We are loosing information in our DNA with each passing generation. You can get a dog from a wolf, but you can’t get a wolf from a dog.
Evolution can explain survival of the fittest but it can't prove its arrival.
-
Life and the universe is too complicated to support the apparatus of evolution (macroevolution).
Matter cannot exist in eternal time.
-
The multiverse is not possible since it cannot exist in eternal time since matter is not eternal nor can it produce matter for eternity. Also, eternity in the material world is not possible because, today would be forever in the past since eternity does not have a beginning or an end. Thus you could never arrive to the present (today).
-
Want more proof there is a God? Read the Bible. But unbelievers are afraid of the truth. Correct?
-
Extra Credit. Did you know that the God of the Christian Bible is the only God who exists outside of our universe? He also lives inside the universe and inside of believers. No other so called "god" or significant world religion makes that claim.
-
Think about this. Good trees give forth good fruit. Bad trees give forth bad fruit. To which tree does the human race belong?
Then who made God?
If it seems too stupid to be true then it probably is. Scientists DON'T pretend that they have proved that similarity means common descent by defining "homology" to mean "similarity due to common descent." They use the word "analogy" to mean similarity not due to common descent. If you find a similarity, you then have to look at the evidence to see whether homology or analogy fits better. Scientists give concepts names to make them easier to talk about, not win arguments with word games. The authors of this video must know this, if they know anything about the matter at all. Scientists don't try to win arguments with word games, only creationists do that.
All that shows is that we have a common Creator who used the basic building blocks and designs of life common among us. It's proof of God, rather than proof of "evolution".
I agree!!!
The problem with your reasoning is basically you still can't reconcile that with the evolutionary sequence of the observable modifications. Non-vertebrates are also considered to be part of living things without limbs.
No, because it would also support a common designer if everything were to be different, then the common designer would just be said to be very creative.
This video is largely wrong, the idea of a common creator for the homology in organisms isn't a valid argument because we clearly know from the fossil record about the tiktaalik that is the true reason for it. It was a transitional fossil from fish to the first tetrapods, and it is an example of the earliest organisms with this bone structure, looking up through the fossil record you can see it becoming more and more complex.
Can you add Arabic in automatic translation on UA-cam
Good video. I think it is a better public presentation than the "Science Uprising" bit. Don't get me wrong. The latter featured some very good segments from Egnor, Meyer, Behe, and Tour. The gorilla nosed Guy Fawkes mask, glitchy screens, and Max Headroom voice effects, with "thoughtful people nodding as they stared at their hacked devices" worked to undermine things.
Need more of these. How about abiogenesis?
Good stuff there guys but convincing those hard-headed evolutionists will prove difficult, especially when they view intelligent design as incredible.
This is brilliant. These are the videos you need to make. Simple, short, gets the idea across.
Thanks Hayden! We're releasing more of them soon-ish.
Some of the best video series on UA-cam. Keep up the excellent work.
I laughed at evolution and its arguments at school.
How about Common Environment? We all live on the same planet. Eat the same kinds of food. Need to survive in the same weather. Interact with the same objects. Etc. Etc. Etc. so of course we’re going to have similarities in pieces and parts. Designer designed creatures for One Planet.
Um. Duh?
Not a good argument. If that were so, we would expect the DNA "for" penguin flippers to more closely resemble that for seal flippers than the sequences encoding eagle's wings. Wanna guess how this checks out in the DNA databases?
Long story short evolution is based on induction and we philosophically know that the is a problem with induction and that it cannot lead to certainty
Theory of Gravity is also based on induction
And talking to yourself somehow does?
Great job on this video.
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has." ~ Malcolm Muggeridge
And why is the word of a journalist relevant?
@@matteomastrodomenico1231a quote being from a journalist doesn’t make it any less profound, the same way a quote being from a scientist doesn’t automatically make it profound either
About Tim berra, the analogy is only used to make a point or to help to understand the concept. Changing the central point of an analogy doesn't mean you've debunk the original idea...
And to honestly say all, evolution is well proven by other many stronger and incontrovertible arguments, NO ONE uses homology ALONE to explain evolution. Homology is a side argument that however STILL support and PERFECTLY matches the evolution theory but it's never used alone because is collateral, not the point. We are no longer in 1920, we are in 2020, our knowledge about ALL the field of evolution is this huge that we can call it THEORY. Now before self-shitting you, check what a 'theory' is in scientific language.
But if everything looked different then wouldn't you also be able to argue that there is a common designer but they were just very creative? So how would you know if there is a common designer and who/what is this common designer?
Genes show that identity by descent IS the most parsimonious explanation for (most of) the observed morphological similarities. For example, the similarities are found in silent sites (3rd base of degenerate codons, pseudogenes and so on). The DNA similarities (nested hierarchies) bolster the morphological ones and absolutely confirm common ancestry. The game is 100% up for a common designer
I think it's time you support that claim with evidence. EVERY paper I've read on the topic has admitted that morphology and genetic trees are incongruent.
A study by Winston Ewert comparing common descent to a dependency graph revealed the dependency graph model was favored by a Bayes factor of over 10,000. That means the dependency graph was superior by a factor of 1 followed by more than 3000 zeros.
bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.3
Descent is the ONLY explanation ever contemplated in academia and research science. The a priori commitment to naturalism isn't justified by science, it's a philosophical predilection.
We share 50% of our DNA with bananas
Comparing genes after 80-90% of a match isn't nearly as accurate sometimes.
A common designer is impossible, though I'd say the amount of genes we're comparing to are kinda exponential with how close we are to the organism? Such as, sharing ~90-100% of our dna with something means we're recently related, though by the time we've gotten to 50% we aren't near the organism whatsoever really, and most likely it's just a coincidence that we share this much DNA.
Homology is great evidence for common descent. It's just one piece of a larger puzzle. I don't get the controversy.
Yes, but it’s more nuanced than that. Your father’s round nose might explain yours… but evolutionists will say that the round nose on some apes means that you and those apes had the same parents.
.......... an evidence for a common designer
@@gatmyne You're distorting the argument.
@@rodrigodias3000 I dont think so. I've noticed that when one part of the puzzle is shown to have problems like homology in this video, a response similar to yours about how it is good evidence in conjunction with all the other evidence, not just by itself. But then I go on to investigate, and find big problems with the other pieces of the puzzle 1, by 1 individually. So when I get to the end of it all, and all the evidence for evolution has big problems in each category, and all the categories are only good evidence when held in conjunction with other evidence, then that puts the theory in a state of assuming its conclusion. And that's where I run into big problems with taking evolution as solid fact.
I think at minimum living organisms have adaptive capacity but the evidence to extrapolate past adaptation to full blown darwinian evolution is lacking. And possibly the biggest problem is when evolution is put under mathmatic rigor, it almost always fails. And it's always met with a " there is just some mechanism we haven't discovered yet" well mabey, but if the theory is supposed to be objective then it shouldn't have been touted as correct until such a mechanism is found.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 You should watch viced rhino’s video reacting to this one, he explains the problem this video has with homology as close to perfect as any laymen can get. And if you do check out his video but end up disagreeing with it please by respectful if you’re gonna leave a comment, he recently lost his wife in a stroke.
The anatomical similarities (i.e. between limb bones) that exist in nature are clearly better evidence for evolution than for common design. Such anatomical similarities are clearly expected on evolution, but there is no particular reason to expect a God to create in this way. The framing of homology as being circular is clever, but ultimately is just a distraction. The anatomical similarities still exist and are still clearly evidence for evolution over design. Pointing out that gene trees do not always agree, is a clever way of throwing doubt onto the reliability of using DNA to reconstruct evolutionary relationships (it reminds of the creationists picking particular instances of incorrect radiometric dates and reworked fossils as evidence against the fossil record), however ironically it is simply an example of cherry-picking contradictory evidence, while ignoring that DNA evidence has confirmed the broad patterns of what we already knew from morphological analysis. It is fully expected under evolution that gene trees will not agree 100% of the time, due to processes such as incomplete lineage sorting, hybridization and horizontal gene flow. It should be noted that different genes evolve at different rates, and therefore will give wrong results if used to construct trees that are too old or young, which is what I expect is going on here with cytochrome-b, from what I understand it works best for the family and genus level.
please, make the rest of them!!!
you must not make them so funny and ideal - just make them!!!
Homology used as a understanding of evolution and how it works not best evidence for evolution existing but evidence on how it works
And homology first relied solely on speculation
But we managed to understand a lot more with genetics and how they are related
Homology is as much evidence for common designer as it is evolution
Which is bad it’s not evidence that these things exist
It’s because Homology exist we use it to understand how evolution works
Its good evidence that things are similar would be related
Like how we tell what dogs are without genetics base off the physical aspect
They can definitely be also used for how a creative designer could work
But we don’t have any evidence for a designer
The reasons we have such a differences in other creatures is because of mutations which again what evolution says
And genetics help
It’s more so the understanding of how evolution works not that evolution exists
I love how he used cars as an example to prove evolution. Lmao r/woooosh -ed himself.
Quality content, will there be more of it?
Yep.
If science cant explain abiogenesis how can you expect them to have solved every other biological Theory for instance evolution that is a byproduct of abiogenesis
Yo you still selling meth? 😂 anyways... is it true that we still dnt know about abiogenesis?
Assalamo alaikum!!
Yo pls dnt kill Mr walter white!!! 😂😍
Hey ASAC hank schrader's buddy ramey was seen around ur laundry.
Since when is not knowing everything an argument for being right? And with the internet, we lesser educated can still look up big words. Maybe people should look up argument from authority fallacy too.
Now thats what we call a BIGGEST SCAM IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCES 3:26
Great Video! I hope you get to those other topics really soon!
Yes, that's the plan!
The DNA LOOKED SO CUTE 😍😍😍
it's time for the embryology and biogeography videos! let's go! :0)
If you look at Darwin's family, his journals and a lot of other things it doesn't appear to me that Darwin was out to prove evolution as a means of 'how we got here' but rather trying to show why some 'races arent as evolved as others' and even had a list of races organized from most evolved to least evolved.
Darwin was one of the major proponents of racist ideology which was supported by his theory. Of course
this was grasped by other evolutionary zealots at the time and was postulated by those so enlightened
by bad science. What these simpletons couldn't grasp was that these supposed other races that were
less evolved , but happened to be in countries where thru many reasons were less educated . Mind you ,
monsters like Stalin and Hitler both used that same demeaning evolutionery ideology in justifying
the mass genocide of 10's of millions of these subhumans. This mindset was evident during WW 11
in the American Armed Services where they believed "The Negro" wasn't intelligent enough to fly
planes or operate tanks , although latter in the war they did allow for a squadron of fighter pilots
as well a tank company which in both cases turned out to be some of the most decorated units.
Thanks for the effort
I absolutely love these videos. You've made something that makes it simple to understand, and also entertaining to show to younger kids. Parents really need to start being a part of their children's education and stop just passing it off on the public education system, which IMPO is on par with child abuse.
Neither DNA can be evidence because, similarities are just similarities. They don't mean anything unless you have a transformation mechanism followed by background assumptions. There is no single objective methodology of figuring out similarities in DNA. Furthermore, DNA doesn't conclude that evolution is true rather it already assumes the DNA of species X and species Y have a common ancestor (BECAUSE they are homologus). All they do is just shoehorning of the data with this assumption.
Same designer
i LOVED this video!!. Please make more videos that tackle each of the topics you raised at 7:30.
That's the goal!
Isn't the same paradox true either way? Homology there for evolution, evolution therefore homology. And vice versa: God, therefore common designer, common designer, therefore God?
Careful, you're making too much sense for them.
@2ish mins in your anaolgy of the cars is so wrong and is so overused. Have we ever seen a self-reproducing car? Things that look similar to other things that can not self-reproduce tend to look designed, the same shape on someting that can not reproduce thus far on earth has been in overwhelming favor for design. So we believe those things were designed.
If you want to use an analogy to represent homology, you will have to do it using two things that have the ability to self-reproduce (have ofspring) and mutate. Good luck!!
Now I want pizza.
Good points about cherry picking and redefining words to support one's beliefs.
Is this Ironic? I REALLY can't see if it's ironic or not.
If it isn't, that would be very ironic on itself.
This is what I’ve always thought and could never explain it properly. I’m subscribing to this channel!
That "54 Vette" was not a 54, more like a 58. Lol
Really well done make a million more videos like this one
well done
FANTASTIC VIDEO! Ok, you've spoiled us! Now we want more!
Thanks Jeff! Spoiling you like I'm your grandpa.
I normally love Discovery Science but these videos are unwatchable.
The self-satisfied tone and cheesy graphics are the sort of thing I'd expect from 'the other side'.
The argument still works if we recognize that the definition for homology changed after our discovery that it supports evolution, and simply use the definition that they are similar in a way.
Also, some of your quotes say that those structures shared through common ancestry are called homologous structures, not that homologous structures are structures they share through common ancestry. It's a subtle but important different. A PC is a computer, but a computer is not by definition a PC. Because my smart phone is also a computer. So those books don't say homologous structures are by definition similar structures because of common ancestry, but simply calls similar structures that are because of common ancestry homologous structures.
*Sigh*......come on Discovery Institute. I am with you on the argument....but why the cartoon and jr. high narration??
Why not use Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, David Berlinski? I have watched videos where they all point out the circular logic in the homology argument. Cut out the cringeworthy humor and raise the intellectual bar.
I get it, I'd rather listen to a 14 hour lecture or debate that goes more in depth, but that isn't everyone's cup of tea. Scientific concepts need to be spread on a popular level as well. Also, sorry you didn't like my lame jokes, send me better ones and I'l use those next time ;)
Excellent presentation, beautifully and artfully produced.Let's see more please. Thank you.
Thanks man good Video
Can someone who disliked this video explained what is wrong with its content? I find the ending quite gracious as it does not impute motive to evolutionary scientists. Scientifically, I have found the papers cited and have no objections. So?
This is deeply engaging and displays information, thx mate.
Hi
Can you make a video about the geologic Column?
Excellent content, so engaging and love the animation! Great work!
Now make a video proving how the biblical god is just one god among many, or in other words, only one more mythology in this large and beautiful planet.
That will be difficult because the God of the Bible is the only one which explains our reality the best.
How come having many would disprove that only one is authentic and the others just resemblances...? It's irrelevant. It doesn't proves nor disproves.
If we take into consideration the randomness of evolution, shouldn't homology be an argument against it ? Shouldn't randomness give random mutation instead of similarities in bone structure ?
That’s a good way to look at it. Great insight, sure their supposed “natural selection” could select similar traits (hand bone structure) for survival of different species, but for these similarities to persist amongst vastly different species from widely different environments is an evidence that homology is against evolution.
@@Darkev77 originally I was kinda critical of that point, but you illustrated it out very well.
It doesnt make much sense that a whale would even maintain the 2 forearm bones,while its hips shrank due to its morphological changes. Idk. It still seems kinda up in the air to me. Evolution might be true. Theres definatly some simple intuitions that favor it. But on the other hand the argument against random mutation as a plausible mechanism is very solid. Mabey a middle road of directed evolution is correct?
I can see why this confuses you, what you’re missing is that evolution doesn’t just start over every time but it has to work with what’s already there. A mutation is an adjustment but it does not create anything new. If an organism reproduces it doesn’t pass on totally new dna but its own, then as its offspring develops every time there a cell division there a chance of mutation or an “imperfect” copy. So with something like bone structure you’re not gonna go from dense bones to hollow bones, you’re gonna get bones with such a minor difference that it’s practically unnoticeable.
Опять вы врёте. Назовите мне хоть один эксперимент, подтверждающий Творца, или что он создал существ. Вы можете только критиковать других, но у вас нет собственной доказательной базы. Эволюционизм опять победил.
Great video. Can you please give us some more examples of how genetics doesn't fit phylogenetic tree models?
Sure, a number of the papers cited list many more examples; eg: metazoan animals, turtles, lizards even grasses. From Michael Lynch's paper: "Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees"
Brilliant!
Atheism is also a religion. Scientists are prophets and Darwin is God and you need a lot of faith to believe it to be true.
And not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Eric Metaxes mocking evolutionists about abiogenesis -
Evolutionist: "If we find a puddle on Mars, we just know that fish will be jumping out at any moment."
How can you mock someone who believes evolution with a hypothesis that has nothing to do with it?
Also, if we find any source of water on Mars, that'd be our best guess to find any life form on other planets until we travel further in the Solar System. And no, it wouldn't be a fish
No
Hello vlogger. Science vs Philosophy. I find science more fun. Showing the equivalent bones in mammals really perks me up. Pointing out the philosophy of interpretation of those facts. Ho hum. Thank you.