It just shows how desperate religious people are to salvage a dying religion. They search youtube for any videos related to evolution and just spam their lies and preaching in it as if it's even remotely relevant. They are professional liars, basically.
I grew up as a muslim, I was the only one who could open my eyes and say: Am I really believing something what is written and started 700 years ago😂 Like come one if there was a god, he would let humans know that he is there so that mankind does not freak out about what is true and what does exist!!
@@GabeEXE-fv8yb www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ LMFAO at saying there is no evidence. There are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed research papers with experiments that can be repeated. Stop taking the word of professional liars as fact. Apologists =/= scientists. Can you refute a single research paper?
Why is everyone so upset about whether this is good evidence or not? He did not make this video to make an argument. This is purely an educational video for AP Biology students such as myself. He is just letting us know the evidence of evolution for the AP test because they will most likely ask a question about this.
Only Good Evidence is Evidence, if it's bad evidence, than any Good Scientist should dismiss it, for the sake of scientific advancement. The invalidity of this evidence has been discovered long ago, but still he claims it's "HUGE" evidence for the theory of evolution. Only true teaching is teaching, if it's untrue, any good teacher should dismiss it. You think education is some game!? You just want to pass the AP test regardless of how much indoctrination it takes. Despite being made into a believer of false evidence and a invalid theory. How does this mean nothing to you?
It’s upsetting because the title suggests we will be given evidence and then we are given assumptions and theories that aren’t scientific. In fact the opposite. It’s very disappointing.
Bozeman: *says information in the most clear, informative, and HELPFUL way possible Also Bozeman: "I hope that's helpful" Thanks for the video, as always
Come for AP Bio Exam review. Find... ... One more reason not to delve into the UA-cam comments section. smh (but the temptation to read is too strong...)
To everyone who denies evolution saying “It’s just a theory, it’s not proven”: Evolution is a Theorem, like the Pythagorean Theorem and Gravity- it has been proven There is a difference between a theory as in a idea, and theory as in a scientific hypothesis that has been tested and proven. (That’s also what this video is about, so maybe you should actually watch it before saying it is wrong)
Micro evolution is true but there is no evidence whatsoever for macro evolution and even Darwin said that. But when Darwin said it he thought more fossils would be found to uphold his theory. Also Darwin had no idea of the complexity of even the simplest of living cells. Even in its simplest form a cell still has irreducible complexity and is harder to make than a nuclear submarine. Science can't do it, but you think brainless molecules can self organise themselves into machines? Which is what a cell is. A cell is a machine with many working parts and it cannot put itself together without the help of something biotic. But there was no biology before life so how did chemicals self organise into the simplest of cells which is still very complex and difficult to make. Science can't do it, but you think a swamp and a bolt of lightening could?
@@landonsmith521 Billions of years? Is that your reasoning? That time equals bullshit? Time may be on evolutions side but it is not on chemistry's side and chemical processes do not take billions of years.
I mean maybe a deity that people may believe in invented evolution and set things into place and just watched. Like a self-learning AI, that's been done before. just saying could be possible and kind of merging the two ideas.
@@rolo5424 So you're saying a lot of things here. Let me break it down into your core arguments. Please correct me if I interpret your core arguments incorrectly. 1. Life is too improbable to come about by chance events of molecules combining with each other. Firstly I'd like to say that this isn't actually relevant to evolution. Evolution only takes into account the diversity of species. To evolve is to change into many different forms. This does require a founding species, but the theory of evolution doesn't comment on where this founding species came from. There are hypotheses that this species could have come from self-assembling RNA molecules that could function both as ribozymes and genetic code, kept safe by a bubble of fat (the phospholipid bilayer that constitutes cell walls). This is essentially hypothesizing about evolution on increasingly smaller scales. I think it's wrong to decide what is true based on a lack of evidence. This is a god-of-the-gaps argument. I assume you're a Christian, so you would say that the bible is enough evidence. But science has repeatedly disproven the bible on many of its accounts. The world is older than 10,000 years. The world is round. Animals were created in groups. It is not reliable when it comes to science at least. 2. There is no evidence for macroevolution. Well I'm glad you accept microevolution at least. Macroevolution is not too difficult to believe if you believe in microevolution. It's essentially microevolution over a longer period of time. If a few differences can come about over a few centuries, can't many come about over millions of years? Even if there wasn't evidence for macroevolution this is believable. You say that Darwin had no evidence for evolution. He died in 1882. The theory of evolution has developed well beyond Darwin's ideas. It's also important for you to define macroevolution. Do you define it as life evolving from common phyla? Or are you talking on a species level? There is evidence for life differentiating from both phyla and species. For example, whales have a clear fossil record showing they share an ancestor to cows, deer, and sheep. Earlier whales have quite developed legs, including ankle boned that are strikingly similar to those of cows, etc. Whales today even have vestigial legs that aren't particularly useful. They are definitely not the best design possible for life. The fact that Darwin knew nothing about living cells means he didn't know about DNA. This is a major source of evidence for evolution by tracking the history of mutations, etc. 3. Irreducible complexity. Science progressively dismantles examples of these arguments. Take the example of the eye. This used to be an example of irreducible complexity, but science has dismantled it. Because even the slightest fraction of an eye, like light-sensitive cells that can detect something above it in an ocean, is a huge survival advantage. Then let natural selection do its thing. It's another god of the gaps argument to assume that because science hasn't yet answered the question, creationism must be true. About a cell being irreducibly complex. It certainly is mind-boggling to think that RNA could evolve to form organelles. You can break it down thought and science is advancing in this field. Bacteria evolve through horizontal gene transfer, omitting genes that other bacteria can pick up. The cell wall could easily come by some fat bubbles. Cells can be seen to evolve from each other. It is likely that mitochondria and chloroplasts came from bacteria for numerous reasons. Archaea could have become the host eukaryotic cell, considering that the cells are similar to many degrees. What is not too clear is how the first cell could have appeared, but science will probably provide answers to that. Edit: animals were created in groups
How do creationists even find their way onto these videos... never would have found this if I wasn't taking AP Biology. BTW awesome job teaching, Mr. Anderson!
Just got to the part of the video where Mr. Anderson compares DNA sequences, and I'm really scratching my head trying figure out how someone could deny this evidence.
I found this video, because my AP bio teacher recommended this channel to me, just like you. Unlike you, I don't consider giving false evidence awesome teaching, shame on you Mr. Anderson, I say. Every single organ in every single organism has a purpose, vestigial organs don't have a place in evolution or creation, because they are not helping things be adapted to their environment at all.
Out of curiosity, how many of you are here for the VIDEO? No offense meant, but it seems to me that many people here came purely to trumpet their own opinions over others. So who's actually watching the video?
gregory brian God doesn't make anything in vain.. There are hundreds of body parts function yet to be discovered.. which will includes the so-called vestigial parts
Discussion with you is useless. You claim the right to say what God means and wants by your observations of the universe yet when you CAN'T explain something, you opt for plunging into the stance that no one knows why God does or does not do something. To retain any credibility, you must stick to one side or another. Otherwise, you are using your own flawed system of thought to argue your point. Check out the definition of "argument from ignorance" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman said. Spleen prevents from heart disease and pneumonia.. And appendix is actually a store house of beneficial bacteria.. And the list goes on.. There is not even a single part in our body is useless..
***** So about all of those people who have their appendix removed and are perfectly fine afterwards? Vestigial doesn't mean a body part without purpose, it means it either has a reduced purpose or it has been adapted for a purpose other than the one it originally had. Such is the case with the appendix, which used to be a second stomach.
Hi Mr. Bozeman, I really love your videos, and they are very helpful for my upcoming ap bio exam, However, have you ever thought of having your videos up for download? So that those that do not have good access to internet at certain moments can watch them whenever they'd like.
I want to be able to show my students that DNA comparison thing through the ensembl.org website, but I can't seem to get my settings right so it displays what yours displayed... Help?
Wait... im confused. He said that all of the red letters in the gene were exons "so they didnt really count"... but i thought introns were the segments that werent coded for?!?!?!
I really hope if I teach biology my class won't be like the time wasters in the comment section. Complex life has only been found on one planet, earth. Variations in species have happened over billions of years. Take that into consideration with the nature of chemical equilibrium, and it all makes a lot more sense.
for everybody that says evolution doesnt exist take in account the meaning of this word *changes in allele frequencies in a population gene pool you can even do a mini experiment on your own using small organisms and tell me if you dont see any frequencies changes
We do have to taqke some care when designating structures as vestigial. Since evolution works in energy-saving ways (the most efficient changes or uses of organs or structures in animals, for instance, must assist in movement for capture or escape, and therefore tend to be subject to selection), structures in this now long period more often have more than one function. Piloerection, has long served birds both in exquisite control of flight maneuverability and in improvinng insulation. It serves mammals in social and defense signaling (to avoid intraspecies violence, it makes the individual seem large, as males in many species choose to avoid dangerous physical dispute), as well as increased insulation. Disputing or fearful humans can detect piloerection in others, and it remains a social signal, when not covered by clothing. But I wanted to emphasize that the vermiform appendix is not really vestigial. it serves a health/symbiont recovery purpose in the gut. We increasingly understand that most organisms have improved and adapted through commensal and mutual benefit through alliance with other organisms. We often say that termites can only live with the digestive bacteria they have in their gut. We also have to have a serviceable ecosystem of gut organisms, efficiently making such advantageous products that we cannot. From mitochondria, which may be regarded as an intracellular symbiont to the various gut and skin prokaryotes that improve our immunity to parasitic organisms, we ARE an ecosystem stripped for efficient motion, and adaptive to quickly-evolving parasitic or predatory tiny organisms. The appendix holds a complement of such friendly familiars, and to recover from the "attacks" of certain species, like Vibrio cholerae, which cause us to so empty our alimentary canal to assist Vibrio in colonizing new places able to invade new hosts, we NEED the stored friends to recolonize us. Both the symbionts and the individual human thus recover. Students will find opportunities to discover this mutually beneficial relationship of structures and cohabitation in possibly every organism they look at.
Hey Paul, I have started watching your videos this year and you are INCREDIBLE and are a GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!!! Pleez could you put the link for the website you used to check the DNA of the Human and platypus and the human and chimp?many thanks ps you rock!!!!!
Food for thought. It is quite surprising I often I hear phrases like "this is the way it was designed...". "This is what it is designed to do...". " It is by no mistake that the water molecule has these specific properties..". "This is the miracle of life..". Quotes directly from reputable academics teaching biology, chemistry, etc, at university. This in its self to be coming from such knowledgeable scientists, is enough to sway my opinion to intelligent design over evolution.
They don't use the word design in the literal sense. It's like how we say something is poisonous if it is harmful without meaning that it is literally a biologically hazardous compound or protein.
I believe evolution is not real. If you disagree, please give me one piece of evidence that supports evolution and explain in your own words why it is evidence.
There are a multitude of reasons (i.e. evidence) to accept evolution. Evolution isn't something you believe in. Belief implies acceptance without evidence. Evolution has evidence so it cannot be a belief system. Having said that, lets start with the fact that we have directly observed macro evolution, in real time, with our own eyes. We've seen it happen, so we know it happens. evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html
scottevanmacfar Evolution does not have any evidence supporting it (macroevolution) at all, and it is therefore a belief. How is the eye evidence of macroevolution?
Still wrong Garretta. How is the eye any part of this conversation? You do know that irreducible complexity isn't just wrong, it's been proven wrong in court, don't you? That's how bad the science is on your side. We have directly observed macro evolution. You can't deny it, we have watched it happen in real time. You can't deny what we can prove. and direct observation qualifies as proof. Because there is evidence, it can't be a belief. There is mountains of evidence, so......(say it with me).....it's NOT a belief system. It is a logical conclusion based on the overwhelming evidence.
I get it, you don't have reading comprehension. My comment about the eyes was referring to the FACT that we have directly observed macro evolution. As in not read a paper about it, not modeled it on computer, actually witnessed it with our own eyes. Direct observation of what you are trying to tell people can't happen.
I don’t think creationists realize that Bible stories are mostly meant to be interpreted metaphorically and as stories of caution from God to warn and advise his people and not to be taken literally. what spiritual or moral lesson would God want to teach us if He just made his prophets yap about natural selection for thousands of pages
I came to the comment section to see people roast him not debate about evolution and to the people that say evolution is fake reed a book other than the bible then come back
Hesa Wanderer It isn't a excuse for racism, and there aren't any races that are more evolved than other. Races are different due to different evolutionary pressures being applied to the same type of organism, in this case humans. Racism isn't intrinsically wrong, but there aren't any reasonable reasons to be racist. So, you could say it is wrong according to the values of modern society.
Hesa Wanderer You are implying other races are inferior, not me. Neither am I saying being racist is ok. Any given action doesn't have a intrinsic value to it, regardless of it being considered bad or good by anyone. Moral nihilism, it's a ethical philosophy; basically I look at morality in a different way you do, but we might and most likely have the same notions of what "is" right and wrong.
Limede45 "Any given action doesn't have a intrinsic value to it, regardless of it being considered bad or good by anyone" So our entire life is valueless? If nothing we can do has any value how can we? Do we? "basically I look at morality in a different way you do" So if we look at it in a different way, who is right? How do we know? We each have to decide for ourselves right?
Yes, our life has no meaning. We have no reason to be here. Neither do we, nor anything else. This is empowering, making you able to choose to do whatever you want with your life. It might sound depressing, but to me, it's part of the beauty of life and reality. No one is right, there's no objective morality. What usually is considered right, or correct by society in general, are actions that you would like to happen to you. In my eyes, morality is just "Do to other what you would like others do for you." glorified.
Limede45 "Yes, our life has no meaning." So there is no purpose? No value? "No one is right, there's no objective morality" So as long as I don't get caught, any thing I decide to do is fine?
Now I'm a creationist, and I believe that we all have similar bone structure, DNA, ect, because God made it like that. Architects use similar building designs to create different buildings, why wouldn't God do the same?
Sony Singh Doesn't prove he's a bad designer. We completely wiped out most of the animals now extinct. But if you're talking about dinosaurs? He destroyed them for a reason, hence the asteroid he sent down
Beastmma9 To anyone that says that god is a bad designer because of everything that died, or who says "god must be terrible because he made all this death and disease" is wrong. God created a perfect world in the beginning and that was what Adam and Eve lived in. The bible says that death entered into the world because of Adam and Eves sin. God didn't ruin the world, man did.
I'll give you a good reason to not think that. Every living creature on Earth shares the same 4 chemicals that make up the DNA structures. There are 400 possible chemicals that could be used, and if so, the combination of these would make more sense if we were created because it would prevent inter-species transmission of viruses (like the swine-flu, for example). As matter of fact, there are enough combinations of possible combinations that every species on Earth could have it's own combination. You'd think a Creator would at least separate humans from the rest of living creatures if he were truly his special creation. Or, at least plants from animals, but this is not the case. Every creature, whether dandelion, amoeba, human, or fish... all use the same 4 chemicals.
Eric Gorall That does not prove me wrong, if anything, it proves me more right. God used a very similar bone structure, genetic structure, etc, to create all life on earth, possibly the universe. Why would he waste the time to make every single living organism completely different? There's no reason too. And proof we are his special creation is our brains. Yes, you see animals like parrots and sea otters using parts of nature as tools, but you never saw a mountain lion contract a trap
Again it doesn't matter what I believe. Its not your decision to force your beliefs on to others. You can't say I have no right to believe the way I do. You also have no right to say that your word is final. I have all the right in the world to interpret anything I want the way I want to. I also have the right to present my case with the same freedom you do. I'm not reinterpreting anything. I am looking at evidence from the position of my world view. The exact same thing your doing.
I never once said I don't respect you. In fact even after you cussed me out I am still treating you with respect. I respect your beliefs, Its you who doesn't respect mine. If I believed the sun was square, came out at night, and was made of ice that wouldn't make it true. Therefor you cant say there is no hell. You can only say you don’t believe in it. That doesn't change its existence. You also can't just ignore scientific discovery’s based on religious views. Remember Darwin believed in God.
Respecting opinions is a bad idea. Scientific discoveries based on superstition is a bit of a stretch. Also, I think Hitler and your devil believe in god and that does not make the belief true. An opinion is like an anus as everyone has one and they all output waste.
Read any of Dawkins' books - or Kenneth Miller, or Eugenie Scott - there are lots of experts to choose from. BTW, I used to debate creationists in a civilized manner, but there isn't any point. Creationists can't/won't change their minds, so now I just call them for what they are - stupid. Why don't you do something constructive, like helping the homeless etc. At least that way you can score some browny points with your invisible man in the sky LOL
So basically you have no idea what your talking about so criticism is your only defense. That's cool, everyone has a faith. Yours is evolution. Based on the fact there is ZERO evidence, it is a faith based position. Therefor you have to criticize those who don't agree. Personally I defend my position with science. Then again, I know what I’m talking about.
What makes you think they didn't? There's more to an organism than its physical shape. And what about those lineages that DO show drastic changes in physical shape? Are you discounting those examples just because of the Coelacanth? An organism with a body shape that works doesn't need to evolve a new one. So mutations that change it are selected against. They do still have to evolve immunity changes, etc.
Genetics is not trying to discover how to make life longer. That might be what you want, but that is not genetics. They manipulate genes and watch how this discrepancy changes the frequency of alleles. Also, back to your comment, a shorter life span is another type of reproduction. Typically they reproduce quickly, having a less chance of predation, and these species tend to survive quite well. Please, I am using these videos to review. Don't spam it with stupid stuff like this.
Your right we will not change. We believe in God. We will also not go away. So ether continue to make all atheists look bad or start opening your mind to all the possible aspects of science rather then living in a bubble yelling profanity’s. You are not God, therefor you cannot tell people who can play on the playground. We are free to disprove you like we always do.
Please don't take my word for anything - just listen to the experts (scientists). They have the knowledge. Don't listen to your church pastors though - they are idiots. Keep learning. Go to university and do a science course. Read some science books. Good luck.
How can it be indoctrination? I got saved 3 months ago. Isn't forcing atheism in the public schools indoctrination to? So your saying its OK for you to indoctrinate people but not me? Don't you think in a free country everyone should be free to make up there own discussion? Or do you think people are stupid and you should be able to make there decisions for them?
I could say the same thing about you. Atheism is a religious belief. You have "faith" that there is no God. Unlike you I respect your faith. However, criticizing my belief does not prove you point and your use of profanity only makes you sound ignorant.
BTW, you are bias to. You believe there is no God. that belief clouds your judgment just as much as my belief in God clouds mine. Everyone is bias. If we limit science to only one single bias then we don't get all the different possible conclusions. You cannot know with absolute certainty that there is no God. Just like I cannot prove that there is a God. Therefor it takes both of us looking at the same data to cover all possible conclusions. That's called science.
OK.. so let's say there is an Asian man some area around northeast Asia and through the family tree of human being the furthest one would be let's say an African man who lives in Congo. To reverse back to the root of human being, the first human will be just a mixture of these two man maybe much blend in skin color as well. Now, beside skin color, height, or hair style, that primary human whoever that will be would be just like us in terms of how we define human being. If this much human evolution has been taken place from the primary human to modern human beings, then coming from apes to that primary human will take so much longer. Yet it is quite questionable that along that process, there was no other human like beings who branched out that still lives to this day. Just a thought exercise. I think people have right to have their own independent thinking.
he's showing us evidence that supports a particular theory or scientific idea; this doesn't mean the theory or idea itself is hard fact, because its not yet.
Frankie Pie A scientific theory is a pretty solid idea. When an idea becomes a theory, it's considered pretty close to a fact. I think it's safe to say, based on the evidence, evolution looks good as a theory.
So all over the world civilizations sprung up about 5000 years ago, and these peoples evolved to be civilized at the same time? Yeah right, people have always been civilized and it just took breeding to make enough people to form the civilizations that we find all over the world. The saharah desert, great barrier reef, Niagara falls all dated by growth rates show about the same age. Everything proves to be young. 6000 years ago adam and eve, and 1000 years later enough people to form cities.
That's because there is NO different between micro and macro. It is a just a word play used by idiots to spread their ignorance. It's like saying that you can walk a mile but you can't walk a thousand miles.
I can believe that when someone can show me the connection ,a walk of a thousand miles can be traced it leaves footprints I just want to be shown clear evidence not emotional convictions . So far no one can give me clear guidance.
I agree with Logic 101. All the mechanisms of Evolution have resources that clearly explain it. The problem is most people are too busy in their daily lives to open a book or take a course that does explain them. Hey.. don't take our word. Go to a genuine text book and look for yourself.
Well. How are you defining "macro-evolution"? This is important because if you are expecting a dog to evolve into a tree, that isn't going to happen. But if you expect fish to evolve into amphibians into land animals, then that will. So which are you wanting evidence for?
There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan.
"There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA" yes there are found in the fossile record we have dozens "Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA." thats BS "Genes within the DNA of a particular organism" genes contain the DNA there are no genes inside the DNA " code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan." thats also BS we have changhed the DNA of creatures leading to changes in the body plan
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I come here for HW and find a war over evolution being a lie in the comments. Interesting.
same
It just shows how desperate religious people are to salvage a dying religion. They search youtube for any videos related to evolution and just spam their lies and preaching in it as if it's even remotely relevant. They are professional liars, basically.
I grew up as a muslim, I was the only one who could open my eyes and say: Am I really believing something what is written and started 700 years ago😂 Like come one if there was a god, he would let humans know that he is there so that mankind does not freak out about what is true and what does exist!!
Daniel Pedersen 600, 700 I don't give a fuck its just the same
@@GabeEXE-fv8yb
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
LMFAO at saying there is no evidence. There are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed research papers with experiments that can be repeated. Stop taking the word of professional liars as fact. Apologists =/= scientists. Can you refute a single research paper?
Why is everyone so upset about whether this is good evidence or not? He did not make this video to make an argument. This is purely an educational video for AP Biology students such as myself. He is just letting us know the evidence of evolution for the AP test because they will most likely ask a question about this.
Only Good Evidence is Evidence, if it's bad evidence, than any Good Scientist should dismiss it, for the sake of scientific advancement. The invalidity of this evidence has been discovered long ago, but still he claims it's "HUGE" evidence for the theory of evolution. Only true teaching is teaching, if it's untrue, any good teacher should dismiss it. You think education is some game!? You just want to pass the AP test regardless of how much indoctrination it takes. Despite being made into a believer of false evidence and a invalid theory. How does this mean nothing to you?
It’s upsetting because the title suggests we will be given evidence and then we are given assumptions and theories that aren’t scientific. In fact the opposite. It’s very disappointing.
Bozeman: *says information in the most clear, informative, and HELPFUL way possible
Also Bozeman: "I hope that's helpful"
Thanks for the video, as always
It's impossible to have educational science videos anymore without evolution deniers getting severely butthurt.
Come for AP Bio Exam review.
Find...
... One more reason not to delve into the UA-cam comments section. smh
(but the temptation to read is too strong...)
To everyone who denies evolution saying “It’s just a theory, it’s not proven”:
Evolution is a Theorem, like the Pythagorean Theorem and Gravity- it has been proven
There is a difference between a theory as in a idea, and theory as in a scientific hypothesis that has been tested and proven.
(That’s also what this video is about, so maybe you should actually watch it before saying it is wrong)
Micro evolution is true but there is no evidence whatsoever for macro evolution and even Darwin said that. But when Darwin said it he thought more fossils would be found to uphold his theory. Also Darwin had no idea of the complexity of even the simplest of living cells. Even in its simplest form a cell still has irreducible complexity and is harder to make than a nuclear submarine. Science can't do it, but you think brainless molecules can self organise themselves into machines? Which is what a cell is. A cell is a machine with many working parts and it cannot put itself together without the help of something biotic. But there was no biology before life so how did chemicals self organise into the simplest of cells which is still very complex and difficult to make. Science can't do it, but you think a swamp and a bolt of lightening could?
Billions of years
@@landonsmith521 Billions of years? Is that your reasoning? That time equals bullshit? Time may be on evolutions side but it is not on chemistry's side and chemical processes do not take billions of years.
I mean maybe a deity that people may believe in invented evolution and set things into place and just watched. Like a self-learning AI, that's been done before. just saying could be possible and kind of merging the two ideas.
@@rolo5424 So you're saying a lot of things here. Let me break it down into your core arguments. Please correct me if I interpret your core arguments incorrectly.
1. Life is too improbable to come about by chance events of molecules combining with each other.
Firstly I'd like to say that this isn't actually relevant to evolution. Evolution only takes into account the diversity of species. To evolve is to change into many different forms. This does require a founding species, but the theory of evolution doesn't comment on where this founding species came from. There are hypotheses that this species could have come from self-assembling RNA molecules that could function both as ribozymes and genetic code, kept safe by a bubble of fat (the phospholipid bilayer that constitutes cell walls). This is essentially hypothesizing about evolution on increasingly smaller scales.
I think it's wrong to decide what is true based on a lack of evidence. This is a god-of-the-gaps argument. I assume you're a Christian, so you would say that the bible is enough evidence. But science has repeatedly disproven the bible on many of its accounts. The world is older than 10,000 years. The world is round. Animals were created in groups. It is not reliable when it comes to science at least.
2. There is no evidence for macroevolution.
Well I'm glad you accept microevolution at least. Macroevolution is not too difficult to believe if you believe in microevolution. It's essentially microevolution over a longer period of time. If a few differences can come about over a few centuries, can't many come about over millions of years? Even if there wasn't evidence for macroevolution this is believable. You say that Darwin had no evidence for evolution. He died in 1882. The theory of evolution has developed well beyond Darwin's ideas.
It's also important for you to define macroevolution. Do you define it as life evolving from common phyla? Or are you talking on a species level? There is evidence for life differentiating from both phyla and species. For example, whales have a clear fossil record showing they share an ancestor to cows, deer, and sheep. Earlier whales have quite developed legs, including ankle boned that are strikingly similar to those of cows, etc. Whales today even have vestigial legs that aren't particularly useful. They are definitely not the best design possible for life.
The fact that Darwin knew nothing about living cells means he didn't know about DNA. This is a major source of evidence for evolution by tracking the history of mutations, etc.
3. Irreducible complexity.
Science progressively dismantles examples of these arguments. Take the example of the eye. This used to be an example of irreducible complexity, but science has dismantled it. Because even the slightest fraction of an eye, like light-sensitive cells that can detect something above it in an ocean, is a huge survival advantage. Then let natural selection do its thing. It's another god of the gaps argument to assume that because science hasn't yet answered the question, creationism must be true.
About a cell being irreducibly complex. It certainly is mind-boggling to think that RNA could evolve to form organelles. You can break it down thought and science is advancing in this field. Bacteria evolve through horizontal gene transfer, omitting genes that other bacteria can pick up. The cell wall could easily come by some fat bubbles. Cells can be seen to evolve from each other. It is likely that mitochondria and chloroplasts came from bacteria for numerous reasons. Archaea could have become the host eukaryotic cell, considering that the cells are similar to many degrees. What is not too clear is how the first cell could have appeared, but science will probably provide answers to that.
Edit: animals were created in groups
I'm Christian and I loved the science used in this video.
Don't hate,tolerate. Like a real Christian. Or like a general non-hating person.
God has no respect for persons. reaperishere.weebly.com
How do creationists even find their way onto these videos... never would have found this if I wasn't taking AP Biology. BTW awesome job teaching, Mr. Anderson!
Just got to the part of the video where Mr. Anderson compares DNA sequences, and I'm really scratching my head trying figure out how someone could deny this evidence.
I found this video, because my AP bio teacher recommended this channel to me, just like you. Unlike you, I don't consider giving false evidence awesome teaching, shame on you Mr. Anderson, I say. Every single organ in every single organism has a purpose, vestigial organs don't have a place in evolution or creation, because they are not helping things be adapted to their environment at all.
I mean I found this video purely out of curiosity of the subject.
@@victorparedes6044 well said
Out of curiosity, how many of you are here for the VIDEO?
No offense meant, but it seems to me that many people here came purely to trumpet their own opinions over others.
So who's actually watching the video?
Lol good for you
I came to watch other people argue and laugh because they don't have anything better to do.
I got bio online learning now lol
i'm here for my ap bio class 😃👍
just watching. arguing after. just kidding!
80+ creationists disliked his video
where are these "evolution is a lie" comments everyone is talking about
The comment right after urs
To anti-evolutionists, I have a question for you: Why would a creator make animals with vestigial body parts?
It's his ineffable will, obviously.
gregory brian God doesn't make anything in vain.. There are hundreds of body parts function yet to be discovered.. which will includes the so-called vestigial parts
Discussion with you is useless. You claim the right to say what God means and wants by your observations of the universe yet when you CAN'T explain something, you opt for plunging into the stance that no one knows why God does or does not do something. To retain any credibility, you must stick to one side or another. Otherwise, you are using your own flawed system of thought to argue your point. Check out the definition of "argument from ignorance" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman said.
Spleen prevents from heart disease and pneumonia.. And appendix is actually a store house of beneficial bacteria.. And the list goes on.. There is not even a single part in our body is useless..
***** So about all of those people who have their appendix removed and are perfectly fine afterwards?
Vestigial doesn't mean a body part without purpose, it means it either has a reduced purpose or it has been adapted for a purpose other than the one it originally had. Such is the case with the appendix, which used to be a second stomach.
Watching this AP Bio playlist to prepare for midterms!! Thanks so much this is a lifesaver
i LOVE your DNA telephone game example
wait for it wait for it...ah there it is the WAR, the WAR OF EVOLUTION
Hi Mr. Bozeman, I really love your videos, and they are very helpful for my upcoming ap bio exam, However, have you ever thought of having your videos up for download? So that those that do not have good access to internet at certain moments can watch them whenever they'd like.
Very helpful videos, seems like the Campbell's biology book
IDGAF what you believe in, but if you're in here insulting religion or lack of it I have no respect or positive opinion of you or your point
So where did he insult religion?
@@danielanderson1931 people in the comments section were throwing tantrums about religion/lack thereof, not anderson
Thank you Mr. Andersen for the amazing videos!
Mr. Anderson I've been expecting you.
Very helpful, thanks. Also the reference to the DNA sequencing was excellent.
It's interesting that creationists and this guy both say that DNA is the trump card that proves their theories.
So true xD
Nothing he said has to do with creationism.
mr bozeman YOU are the spice of my life, tysm for everything. id pay you everyday. i believe in everything you say
I want to be able to show my students that DNA comparison thing through the ensembl.org website, but I can't seem to get my settings right so it displays what yours displayed... Help?
you can try downloading freestudio, which lets you download playlists from youtube.
Are there other conclusions to be made by the same observations?
Nope.
Yes, though this one is the most probable explanation until/unless other evidence is provided
10:48 what the tool is that?
And yet half the Miss USA contestants don't support the teaching of evolution in schools. Who could object to this?
Wait... im confused. He said that all of the red letters in the gene were exons "so they didnt really count"... but i thought introns were the segments that werent coded for?!?!?!
haha probably a mis-speak
Johnathan Wells wrote an excellent book about the evidence for evolution: Icons of Evolution. And the follow up Zombie Science.
I really hope if I teach biology my class won't be like the time wasters in the comment section. Complex life has only been found on one planet, earth. Variations in species have happened over billions of years. Take that into consideration with the nature of chemical equilibrium, and it all makes a lot more sense.
Where can I find the DNa comparison software.
for everybody that says evolution doesnt exist take in account the meaning of this word
*changes in allele frequencies in a population gene pool
you can even do a mini experiment on your own using small organisms and tell me if you dont see any frequencies changes
Thanks for the amazing video .. but I need to understand how did make and female for each species come up at the same time ?
I like biology. I want to be a biologist. I want to study biological processes.
We do have to taqke some care when designating structures as vestigial. Since evolution works in energy-saving ways (the most efficient changes or uses of organs or structures in animals, for instance, must assist in movement for capture or escape, and therefore tend to be subject to selection), structures in this now long period more often have more than one function.
Piloerection, has long served birds both in exquisite control of flight maneuverability and in improvinng insulation. It serves mammals in social and defense signaling (to avoid intraspecies violence, it makes the individual seem large, as males in many species choose to avoid dangerous physical dispute), as well as increased insulation.
Disputing or fearful humans can detect piloerection in others, and it remains a social signal, when not covered by clothing.
But I wanted to emphasize that the vermiform appendix is not really vestigial. it serves a health/symbiont recovery purpose in the gut. We increasingly understand that most organisms have improved and adapted through commensal and mutual benefit through alliance with other organisms.
We often say that termites can only live with the digestive bacteria they have in their gut. We also have to have a serviceable ecosystem of gut organisms, efficiently making such advantageous products that we cannot.
From mitochondria, which may be regarded as an intracellular symbiont to the various gut and skin prokaryotes that improve our immunity to parasitic organisms, we ARE an ecosystem stripped for efficient motion, and adaptive to quickly-evolving parasitic or predatory tiny organisms.
The appendix holds a complement of such friendly familiars, and to recover from the "attacks" of certain species, like Vibrio cholerae, which cause us to so empty our alimentary canal to assist Vibrio in colonizing new places able to invade new hosts, we NEED the stored friends to recolonize us. Both the symbionts and the individual human thus recover.
Students will find opportunities to discover this mutually beneficial relationship of structures and cohabitation in possibly every organism they look at.
what website is that?
what is the unit of evolution?
Hey Paul, I have started watching your videos this year and you are INCREDIBLE and are a GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pleez could you put the link for the website you used to check the DNA of the Human and platypus and the human and chimp?many thanks ps you rock!!!!!
Are the red letters introns or exons?
+Anna Delahunt It seems to say exons.
Thank you I understand this better than when my teacher taught me
I got a little confuse at the end but thank you so much!
He is the 2011 Montana Teacher of the Year
Immensible amount of knowledge. Awesome
link?
Food for thought. It is quite surprising I often I hear phrases like "this is the way it was designed...". "This is what it is designed to do...". " It is by no mistake that the water molecule has these specific properties..". "This is the miracle of life..". Quotes directly from reputable academics teaching biology, chemistry, etc, at university. This in its self to be coming from such knowledgeable scientists, is enough to sway my opinion to intelligent design over evolution.
Mr Andersen. Great tutorial resources! Thanks very much!
They don't use the word design in the literal sense. It's like how we say something is poisonous if it is harmful without meaning that it is literally a biologically hazardous compound or protein.
What's so 'horrible', exactly ?
I believe evolution is not real. If you disagree, please give me one piece of evidence that supports evolution and explain in your own words why it is evidence.
There are a multitude of reasons (i.e. evidence) to accept evolution. Evolution isn't something you believe in. Belief implies acceptance without evidence. Evolution has evidence so it cannot be a belief system.
Having said that, lets start with the fact that we have directly observed macro evolution, in real time, with our own eyes. We've seen it happen, so we know it happens.
evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html
scottevanmacfar
Evolution does not have any evidence supporting it (macroevolution) at all, and it is therefore a belief.
How is the eye evidence of macroevolution?
Still wrong Garretta. How is the eye any part of this conversation? You do know that irreducible complexity isn't just wrong, it's been proven wrong in court, don't you? That's how bad the science is on your side.
We have directly observed macro evolution. You can't deny it, we have watched it happen in real time. You can't deny what we can prove. and direct observation qualifies as proof.
Because there is evidence, it can't be a belief. There is mountains of evidence, so......(say it with me).....it's NOT a belief system.
It is a logical conclusion based on the overwhelming evidence.
I get it, you don't have reading comprehension.
My comment about the eyes was referring to the FACT that we have directly observed macro evolution. As in not read a paper about it, not modeled it on computer, actually witnessed it with our own eyes. Direct observation of what you are trying to tell people can't happen.
Nightlock4411 Typo, which is now changed, but you can't provide evidence can you?
Good Video Very Informational
I don’t think creationists realize that Bible stories are mostly meant to be interpreted metaphorically and as stories of caution from God to warn and advise his people and not to be taken literally. what spiritual or moral lesson would God want to teach us if He just made his prophets yap about natural selection for thousands of pages
He sounds like Jim from the office
Thanks Mr. Anderson
icon.
Criticism is not a defense.
I came to the comment section to see people roast him not debate about evolution and to the people that say evolution is fake reed a book other than the bible then come back
I think you mixed up introns and exons
at 8:40
He obviously meant that DNA had not been discovered.
Watched all of it
You must have came from geese since you get goose bumps.
Is evilution an excuse for racism? And is racism wrong? Which is the most evolved "race" anyway?
Anybody?
Hesa Wanderer It isn't a excuse for racism, and there aren't any races that are more evolved than other.
Races are different due to different evolutionary pressures being applied to the same type of organism, in this case humans.
Racism isn't intrinsically wrong, but there aren't any reasonable reasons to be racist. So, you could say it is wrong according to the values of modern society.
Hesa Wanderer You are implying other races are inferior, not me. Neither am I saying being racist is ok. Any given action doesn't have a intrinsic value to it, regardless of it being considered bad or good by anyone. Moral nihilism, it's a ethical philosophy; basically I look at morality in a different way you do, but we might and most likely have the same notions of what "is" right and wrong.
Limede45
"Any given action doesn't have a intrinsic value to it, regardless of it being considered bad or good by anyone"
So our entire life is valueless?
If nothing we can do has any value how can we? Do we?
"basically I look at morality in a different way you do"
So if we look at it in a different way, who is right? How do we know? We each have to decide for ourselves right?
Yes, our life has no meaning.
We have no reason to be here. Neither do we, nor anything else. This is empowering, making you able to choose to do whatever you want with your life. It might sound depressing, but to me, it's part of the beauty of life and reality.
No one is right, there's no objective morality. What usually is considered right, or correct by society in general, are actions that you would like to happen to you. In my eyes, morality is just "Do to other what you would like others do for you." glorified.
Limede45
"Yes, our life has no meaning."
So there is no purpose? No value?
"No one is right, there's no objective morality"
So as long as I don't get caught, any thing I decide to do is fine?
Thanks a lot !
The mutations come from UV rays, mostly.
Anyone else from Blanchet Bio class???...
Now I'm a creationist, and I believe that we all have similar bone structure, DNA, ect, because God made it like that. Architects use similar building designs to create different buildings, why wouldn't God do the same?
OK, I'll agree to that as long as you agree that god is a poor designer since 99.4 percent of all this creations is now extinct.
Sony Singh Doesn't prove he's a bad designer. We completely wiped out most of the animals now extinct. But if you're talking about dinosaurs? He destroyed them for a reason, hence the asteroid he sent down
Beastmma9 To anyone that says that god is a bad designer because of everything that died, or who says "god must be terrible because he made all this death and disease" is wrong. God created a perfect world in the beginning and that was what Adam and Eve lived in. The bible says that death entered into the world because of Adam and Eves sin. God didn't ruin the world, man did.
I'll give you a good reason to not think that. Every living creature on Earth shares the same 4 chemicals that make up the DNA structures. There are 400 possible chemicals that could be used, and if so, the combination of these would make more sense if we were created because it would prevent inter-species transmission of viruses (like the swine-flu, for example). As matter of fact, there are enough combinations of possible combinations that every species on Earth could have it's own combination. You'd think a Creator would at least separate humans from the rest of living creatures if he were truly his special creation. Or, at least plants from animals, but this is not the case. Every creature, whether dandelion, amoeba, human, or fish... all use the same 4 chemicals.
Eric Gorall That does not prove me wrong, if anything, it proves me more right. God used a very similar bone structure, genetic structure, etc, to create all life on earth, possibly the universe. Why would he waste the time to make every single living organism completely different? There's no reason too. And proof we are his special creation is our brains. Yes, you see animals like parrots and sea otters using parts of nature as tools, but you never saw a mountain lion contract a trap
Again it doesn't matter what I believe. Its not your decision to force your beliefs on to others. You can't say I have no right to believe the way I do. You also have no right to say that your word is final. I have all the right in the world to interpret anything I want the way I want to. I also have the right to present my case with the same freedom you do. I'm not reinterpreting anything. I am looking at evidence from the position of my world view. The exact same thing your doing.
Thanks, really helpful!!
I never once said I don't respect you. In fact even after you cussed me out I am still treating you with respect. I respect your beliefs, Its you who doesn't respect mine. If I believed the sun was square, came out at night, and was made of ice that wouldn't make it true. Therefor you cant say there is no hell. You can only say you don’t believe in it. That doesn't change its existence. You also can't just ignore scientific discovery’s based on religious views. Remember Darwin believed in God.
Respecting opinions is a bad idea. Scientific discoveries based on superstition is a bit of a stretch. Also, I think Hitler and your devil believe in god and that does not make the belief true.
An opinion is like an anus as everyone has one and they all output waste.
Read any of Dawkins' books - or Kenneth Miller, or Eugenie Scott - there are lots of experts to choose from. BTW, I used to debate creationists in a civilized manner, but there isn't any point. Creationists can't/won't change their minds, so now I just call them for what they are - stupid. Why don't you do something constructive, like helping the homeless etc. At least that way you can score some browny points with your invisible man in the sky LOL
The first minute of this video is what I call conclusion hopping.
Guys, who cares about science he’s FINEEEE
So DNA was only invented after darwin died?
It was never “invented” but it became found by humans well after Darwin died.
He made a mistake, you are right. Hopefully you figured this out by now!
Shout out to Macdaddy
So basically you have no idea what your talking about so criticism is your only defense. That's cool, everyone has a faith. Yours is evolution. Based on the fact there is ZERO evidence, it is a faith based position. Therefor you have to criticize those who don't agree. Personally I defend my position with science. Then again, I know what I’m talking about.
What makes you think they didn't? There's more to an organism than its physical shape. And what about those lineages that DO show drastic changes in physical shape? Are you discounting those examples just because of the Coelacanth? An organism with a body shape that works doesn't need to evolve a new one. So mutations that change it are selected against. They do still have to evolve immunity changes, etc.
Everybody's talking about the angry creationist comments but I can't find one
Genetics is not trying to discover how to make life longer. That might be what you want, but that is not genetics. They manipulate genes and watch how this discrepancy changes the frequency of alleles. Also, back to your comment, a shorter life span is another type of reproduction. Typically they reproduce quickly, having a less chance of predation, and these species tend to survive quite well. Please, I am using these videos to review. Don't spam it with stupid stuff like this.
English*
Your right we will not change. We believe in God. We will also not go away. So ether continue to make all atheists look bad or start opening your mind to all the possible aspects of science rather then living in a bubble yelling profanity’s. You are not God, therefor you cannot tell people who can play on the playground. We are free to disprove you like we always do.
Please don't take my word for anything - just listen to the experts (scientists). They have the knowledge. Don't listen to your church pastors though - they are idiots. Keep learning. Go to university and do a science course. Read some science books. Good luck.
Monotremes are mammals...
How can it be indoctrination? I got saved 3 months ago. Isn't forcing atheism in the public schools indoctrination to? So your saying its OK for you to indoctrinate people but not me? Don't you think in a free country everyone should be free to make up there own discussion? Or do you think people are stupid and you should be able to make there decisions for them?
dawg its science
I could say the same thing about you. Atheism is a religious belief. You have "faith" that there is no God. Unlike you I respect your faith. However, criticizing my belief does not prove you point and your use of profanity only makes you sound ignorant.
I LOVE HOMEWORKS .. -_-
Who here for hw?
Thanku!
It's not the grammar you dislike, just don't forget to add 'praise god' in your next comment, ha !
I thought this was Spanish class.
BTW, you are bias to. You believe there is no God. that belief clouds your judgment just as much as my belief in God clouds mine. Everyone is bias. If we limit science to only one single bias then we don't get all the different possible conclusions. You cannot know with absolute certainty that there is no God. Just like I cannot prove that there is a God. Therefor it takes both of us looking at the same data to cover all possible conclusions. That's called science.
One Darwin
OK.. so let's say there is an Asian man some area around northeast Asia and through the family tree of human being the furthest one would be let's say an African man who lives in Congo. To reverse back to the root of human being, the first human will be just a mixture of these two man maybe much blend in skin color as well.
Now, beside skin color, height, or hair style, that primary human whoever that will be would be just like us in terms of how we define human being. If this much human evolution has been taken place from the primary human to modern human beings, then coming from apes to that primary human will take so much longer. Yet it is quite questionable that along that process, there was no other human like beings who branched out that still lives to this day. Just a thought exercise. I think people have right to have their own independent thinking.
In a way, some did. Modern human as we know of today are mostly mixed breeds between those "human like" and homo sapiens. Neanderthals is one example.
Evolutionism is a religion , nothing more and this is coming from a former ardent evolutionist of ten plus years.
Liar
The Theory of Evolution has NOTHING in common with religion.
This isn't evidence because I don't feel like believing it! Nice try!!!!!!! ;)
That doesn't even make sense. Your evidence, isn't evidence to disprove his evidence, because it's irrational....
Catrin L I know, I was showing the rationality of creationists. XD
he's showing us evidence that supports a particular theory or scientific idea; this doesn't mean the theory or idea itself is hard fact, because its not yet.
Frankie Pie A scientific theory is a pretty solid idea. When an idea becomes a theory, it's considered pretty close to a fact. I think it's safe to say, based on the evidence, evolution looks good as a theory.
This comment gave me cancer.
ad hominid. evidence still underwhelming.
Troll harder.
So all over the world civilizations sprung up about 5000 years ago, and these peoples evolved to be civilized at the same time? Yeah right, people have always been civilized and it just took breeding to make enough people to form the civilizations that we find all over the world. The saharah desert, great barrier reef, Niagara falls all dated by growth rates show about the same age. Everything proves to be young. 6000 years ago adam and eve, and 1000 years later enough people to form cities.
Well I've received plenty of validating evidence for micro evolution . But nothing for Macro the search continues.
That's because there is NO different between micro and macro. It is a just a word play used by idiots to spread their ignorance. It's like saying that you can walk a mile but you can't walk a thousand miles.
I can believe that when someone can show me the connection ,a walk of a thousand miles can be traced it leaves footprints I just want to be shown clear evidence not emotional convictions . So far no one can give me clear guidance.
vincent vice Study genetics.
I agree with Logic 101. All the mechanisms of Evolution have resources that clearly explain it. The problem is most people are too busy in their daily lives to open a book or take a course that does explain them. Hey.. don't take our word. Go to a genuine text book and look for yourself.
Well. How are you defining "macro-evolution"? This is important because if you are expecting a dog to evolve into a tree, that isn't going to happen. But if you expect fish to evolve into amphibians into land animals, then that will.
So which are you wanting evidence for?
There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan.
"There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA"
yes there are found in the fossile record we have dozens
"Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA."
thats BS
"Genes within the DNA of a particular organism"
genes contain the DNA
there are no genes inside the DNA
" code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan."
thats also BS
we have changhed the DNA of creatures leading to changes in the body plan
that's organisms don't really have varying body plans: different bodily phenotypes between organisms are mainly due to gene expression/epigenetics.
You don't know what evolution is, do you
Le don't play :)