This needs to be pointed out. Lamarckism is not considered completely debunked. It was at one point in time but with a rise in the understanding of genetics Lamarckism now has some ideas that are used because there is evidence of epigenetic inheritence where the genes that are active might to some extent be inherited based on the environment and epigenetic activation is altered based on the environment within an individuals life time.
Incorrect. People who are unfamiliar with epigenetics tend to conflate it with Lamarckism, but they are not related whatsoever. Epigenetic mechanisms simply change how DNA is read and transcribed into mRNA, and they are mostly reversible. Only certain modifications are preserved, provided that they occur in the germline cells. This is hence not a significant cause for biodiversity.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 We are early into our understanding of epigenetic inheritence we do not know everything in a definitive manner so you cannot claim that it does not cause significant biodiversity. however it is something debated in the field, but no one is claiming that lamarckism itself will replace Neo-Darwinism. What I am pointing out is that some of the concepts in lamarckism might enter the field of evolution and genetics for specific situations.
@@butchilassomething3384 We aren't early in our understanding of epigenetic inheritance, it's quite well documented at this point with most examples coming from plants or certain animal groups like Nematodes. It's extremely rare in mammals though with only a few specific cases, so it's not really relevant to human evolution or biodiversity as a whole. I'd argue epigenetic inheritance is an exception to the rule that happens to line up with Lamarck's theory, rather than being evidence of it :)
@@tomh6010 can you explain why Lamarckism is wrong? Also I think he's right we are too arrogant to think we know enough. For all we know we might find some fossils or something.
@@shroomer8294no duh that’s primarily a Christian channel, things are going to get biased. A lot of apologetic Christian and atheist channels are like that. But this channel in particular has nothing to do with belief of religion, not going against or defending it so ofc its not biased.
It had a lot of holes in it, and didn't quite get a good grasp of how natural selection works, but the previous evolutionary model was Creationism, so by comparison, the scientists that proposed Lamarckism looked like bloody geniuses.
Appreciate the fact the way you said religious leaders struggled with Darwinism, indicating an internal conflict between religious beliefs and science. While some obviously simply rejected Evolution without examining it, many more wanted to reconcile the spiritual and the physical but needed time to come to that reconciliation. Your phrasing is much more generous than I've often seen. And you reminded viewers that even the scientific community needed some time to cone to agreement in it.
Absolutely crucial point about Lamarckism! The evolving landscape of genetic understanding, especially epigenetics, brings new dimensions to the discussion. It's inspiring how science embraces evolving theories. Kudos to the presenter for fostering an open-minded dialogue without bias. Evolution, a captivating journey where ideas evolve just like the species they explain. Keep the insightful content coming!
Exactly what I was going to say! Epigenetics has been kinda blowing my mind. I got a genetics degree in 1984, so I was used to Lamarck = debunked. But now that I’m back in grad school (for psychology), I’ve been learning more about the current state of research in epigenetics. It feels a LOT more like Lamarck than I would previously have thought possible. Basically, things are more complex than we thought! Also, it’s possible that our longer generations (in terms of the age people are when they have their first child, which in the US, where I live, is steadily rising) meant there is more time for things to happen that “turn on” characteristics epigenetically, which means there is a greater chance that they would therefore be inherited. It’s confusing and way more complex than I was taught.
Well, I’ve heard that the relationship between Lamarckism and epigenetics is actually not that cut and dry. Like yeah there’s definitely shades of similarity but it’s one of those “well yes but actually no” kind of things
Didn’t even realize you’re a new channel because the quality of your videos and content is so great. Keep them coming 👍 informational and educational. Glad to be a subscriber!
It's important to note that the first item described, Creationism, is not a scientific theory like the other four because it makes no testable claims and cannot be falsified. For that reason, it really is in a league of its own.
Definitely in a league of our own, but though it can't be a scientific theory that the matter in the universe was created by intelligence, we still believe that the events described in the Bible can be found in certain scientific discoveries. Such as most fossils are found in water sediments . Sediment caused by Erosion. This we believe could be evidence of a global flood. And note we don't just think this way because of our respective faiths but because there are some things in science that Evolution can't make complete sense of, scientifically. And we think it's easier to believe something outside of scientific boundaries coming into existence from nothing and creating the natural laws we are affected by, makes more sense than the laws of science, or "something coming from nothing" which also is bound by the laws of science, creating randomly everything we see. But even though there are so many opinions on the past and the argument is important, we I believe should focus on the present and future and how we treat others.
wrong, creationism is the only scientific theory in this list, the rest teach the opposite of science and are therefore not scientific science says in the second law of thermodynamics that everything falls apart over time, the evolution theories featured in the video tell us the opposite; that over time everything is getting better and stronger, this isn't even compatible with the beliefs that dragons (dinosaurs) once roamed the earth science tells us in the law of conservation of angular momentum that angular momentum is conserved when there is zero net torque applied to a system, where the system is the object or objects that are rotating - the evolution theory tells us the opposite of science yet again, they say before the big bang exploded all of the matter of the universe was in one infinitely dense point which was spinning. it's almost as if God purposely set up the universe in a manner where some planets and stars spin clockwise and others counter-clockwise just to make the big bang theory look stupid, He can afterall see infinitely into the future as He is not limited by time
That was my thought, then I noticed that Paint Guy specifically titled the video without saying "scientific". I don't know if there was a requirement to teach about creationism from the Diocese. Creationism was only seriously taught in theology class. I remember the science teachers always made fun of creationism in high school, which was always a good break from the dogma.
To be clear though, Jehovah’s witnesses and Mormons are not Christians. Or at least they are not Trinitarians (the majority of Christians). Also thank you for not misrepresenting Creationism. It gets bad mouthed a lot, and it makes me happy to see someone just spit the facts without unnecessary bias or insults.
@@TheDeathLowthus The paint explainer copied redeemed zoomer to the point where it is pretty much no different. Either this RU-vid copied paint explainer or redeemed zoomer
Most of these are not origin of life theories. For example, neo-darwinism (modern theory of evolution), Lamarckism, and old school Darwinism does not make any claims about the origin of life. Only about the way already living populations change. For a scientific explanation of the origin of life, you would need to look at abiogenisis which is an entirely different subject and isn't a full theory yet, just a series of hypotheses. Additionally, while creationism does make a claim regarding the origin of life, no variety of creationism, young, old or otherwise qualifies as a theory. It doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.
I love that he went through several views of creationism and not just young earth creationism, which seems to be the only view people think about when it creationism is mentioned. This makes it difficult when I share my religious beliefs. Thank you for sharing old earth creationism. Also interesting that now 70% of Christians hold this same belief.
When you realize Darwinism isn’t a sufficient answer for the beginning as it explains the survival of the fittest rather than the arrival of the fittest.
I don't understand why creationist disagree about evolution. I mean, couldn't one just assume that God just perceive time differently? To him, it could of been 7 days but to us it would of been millions of years.
That is what Islamic creationists believe, In islam we exclusively only have a problem with humans coming from animals. That's it, Animals to animals, 13.7 Billion year old universe, big bang, big crunch, dinosaurs and the such are completely compatible and we don't see any problem with them, just the animal to human part.
I believe I've seem some Christians who believe in evolution make this point, the bases being that the bible makes the claim that God is eternal and so experiences time differently (1 Peter 3:8). The problem is that if Christians believe that the bible was made by God as a way to relate to mankind, it would be expected that He would express a passage of time in ways that we would understand it, not the way that He would. Also in the bible, in terms of dates and passage of time in other areas, the language is very clear, if it means a week, it will probably say that it's a week.
@TheDeathLowthus The Paint Explainer copied Redeemed Zoomer (a Christian channel who began to use this exact format and thumbnail bout 10 months ago) to the point where it is pretty much no different. Either this RU-vidr copied Paint Explainer or Redeemed Zoomer.
Love this video I would like to point out that (to the best of my understanding) there is a LOT of complexity to our current understanding of evolution (neo-darwinism) which makes broad/general statements of it to be almost always at least a little bit inaccurate a.k.a. take this as a good intro but not the whole story :)
Merlin's exploration of evolutionary theories is a captivating journey, from the religious narratives of creationism to Lamarckism and the groundbreaking Darwinism. The narrative culminates in Neo-Darwinism, a synthesis of genetic variability, mutations, and natural selection. In just nine minutes, Merlin unravels the intricate tapestry of ideas that have shaped our understanding of life's evolution, leaving us in awe of the grand dance of existence.
Fixism is only briefly explained in the video, it refers to the idea that the earth has basically stayed the same throughout the course of it's lifespan.
Exploring the tapestry of evolutionary theories, from creationism's divine narratives to the once-prominent Lamarckism and the enduring Darwinism, the journey unravels the diverse perspectives that have shaped our understanding of life's origins. It's a captivating odyssey through religious beliefs, scientific revolutions, and the continuous quest to decode the mysteries of existence.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is not Catholic, he is Anglican. The man in the image at 1:20, shown alongside the pope is Justin Welby who is not a Catholic. You also need to check you pronunciation of "Anglican" at 1:10. Also, the man shown at 2:04 is Anjem Choudary, who is too nasty/fringe even for most Wahaabi/Salafis, who are a fringe in and of themselves.
I mean technically the Church of England was part of the Catholic Church & the office of Archbishop of Canterbury was formerly Catholic but still. I think the guy definitely got confused somehow.
the hindu perspective of creationism is so true: we are all substance and matter from the cosmos, and matter is never created or destroyed, only transformed
Your grammar is actually on point here. The only thing you did wrong was forget a c in "masterpiece," not capitalize your "I" when talking about yourself, spell forget an n in "channel" and misspell English.
@@TheDeathLowthus yeah im also familiar with that channel, that doesn't mean I don't also find value in this channel and want them to coexist. Bro you went and copied that to like every comment 😂 are you slow or something this is such a non issue, honestly get the fuck over it and yourself.
I enjoy your videos man i just noticed them poping up in my recommendations and it turns out you just started this channel, you go through the topics quickly and thoroughly and I wouldn't be surprised if this is a million subscriber channel in the near future, keep up the work
Whatever you believe, you should always keep your mind open to new ideas. Be ready to have your perspectives broadened, especially when presented with differing ideas or new evidence. Don't let your beliefs, religious or otherwise, keep you living in ignorance and denial, to the point where you are incapable of critical thinking, or re-evaluation. If your beliefs are set in stone, and you will argue and even fight with people who think different... That's definitely not a good thing. I'm not saying all religious people are like this, but a lot seem to get very offended or even defensive against other ideas, and it often feels like they're being willfully ignorant. To the point where if their belief was PROVEN false, they would still argue.
Really great content, I'm glad YT recommended this to me. I predict you'll have 100k subscribers before this year ends if you keep this up. Please make more.
@@TheDeathLowthus Looking through all of this guy's videos, "every theory of evolution" doesn't seem to be a topic he has covered. Paint guy isn't copying him, he is simply using the same format. and the paint explainer didn't even make this format, it was redeemed zoomer. If using the same format is considered copying, both paint guy and the paint explainer are copying redeemed zoomer.
Only creationism seem to deal with “Origin of Life”, the others are only about the further development of life after it SOMEHOW already came about. I was missing Chemical Evolution, Panspermia etc. that actually try to explain life from scratch.
@@BradleyDantzer-x4m Panspermia is the (pretty broken) idea that other physically existing (not supernatural) life forms planted life on Earth, while Chemical evolution is a spontaneous procedure, caused solely the physical/chemical rules, that could create larger formations that were already capable of some kind of Darwinian evolution.
@@BradleyDantzer-x4m It is not crucial, though, because the things “others believe in” do not affect the actual reality, the same way as actual reality does not affect what people believe in:)
@idegteke Knowing what others believe can also strengthen your beliefs or help you realize that one of your beliefs was wrong. I would say belief is a huge importance in life
Creationism, spanning various religious beliefs, engages with the evolving landscape of evolutionary theories. From literal interpretations to nuanced views, the interplay between faith and science adds depth to the discourse. As scientific understanding progresses, theories like Lamarckism give way to Darwinism, emphasizing genetic factors. In this intricate journey, humanity navigates the complex relationship between creation, evolution, and the pursuit of knowledge.
All of the theories from catastrophism onward do not address the origin of life but rather how life developed to it's current state. The primordial soup theory is an example of an origin of life theory from an atheistic paradigm . All this to say, the video is improperly named
he made a huge mistake at the end tho... not mentionning epigenetics is kind of mind blowing, on one hand it's a good video about History, but by failing to accurately explain where we are at now, this video could actually mislead people.
wrong, creationism is the only scientific theory in this list, the rest teach the opposite of science and are therefore not scientific science says in the second law of thermodynamics that everything falls apart over time, the evolution theories featured in the video tell us the opposite; that over time everything is getting better and stronger, this isn't even compatible with the beliefs that dragons (dinosaurs) once roamed the earth science tells us in the law of conservation of angular momentum that angular momentum is conserved when there is zero net torque applied to a system, where the system is the object or objects that are rotating - the evolution theory tells us the opposite of science yet again, they say before the big bang exploded all of the matter of the universe was in one infinitely dense point which was spinning. it's almost as if God purposely set up the universe in a manner where some planets and stars spin clockwise and others counter-clockwise just to make the big bang theory look stupid, He can afterall see infinitely into the future as He is not limited by time
@@non-international_socialistsecond law of thermodynamics applies to isolated emvoierments The earth is no such emvoierment as it receives energy in the form of photons from the sun
@@non-international_socialistevolution doesn't have a mind of its own As specified in this video it is random mutations The only thing keeping it on a track of sustainability is natural selection,in which,if an individual doesn't survive until it reproduces,or becomes infertile by any reason, it cannot spread its offspring. Now ofc bad mutations that bring disadvantages would make it less likely for an individual to reproduce,while neutral ones that have no negative effect,or positive ones would be spread. Don't straw man evolution man
1. The theory of evolution existed since antiquity, but there was no single book or proponent. There were various proposals by various natural philosophers and nearly all ideas connected with evolution had been considered, the inheritance of traits from both parents, random change, hybridisation between species and the origin of life in water, possibly the sea or similar. All ideas except one: the survival of the fittest or evolution by natural selection as is often called, which was Darwin's contribution. 2. What one means by God as the source of life/the universe is not as broadly put. Aristotle asked that if by a god we mean an immortal being, what may be said to be immortal? He proposed that the universe and Reason existed always. He referred to this idea in his Physics and Metaphysics, sometimes referring to it as God. It would be difficult to argue that Reason or causality is not essential for the existence of the universe or of life, while still qualifying as God by Aristotle's definition.
His last video has almost a million views, y'all keep crying about him copying (which is straight up false, and totally stupid, not really grounded in reality) and watch this man succeed from the sidelines. There are so many other creators that actually steal content, that actually are evil, that you COULD focus your time on if you actually cared about this.
