Another Weak Link in Evolutionary Theory 

That would be helpful! You could probably start by looking up Paul Nelson...

There was a study. Thats all you need to know, and jesus. "A study;" the mantra of apologists world wi,,,,, I mean only in the United States of America.

@@aubreyleonae4108 What is the mantra of whatever it is that you believe?

@@jessebryant9233 FAFO !

@@aubreyleonae4108 Do you not know or are you simply not willing to share?

Irreducible complexity got totally destroyed by biologist Dr. Ken Miller at the Kitzmiller vs.Dover trial in 2005. After that, no creationist will ever be stupid enough to go against the scientific community in a court of law. You can watch Ken Miller shred the argument to bits here. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-haYvHJqIhOw.html

#C 7339.2 brf. Re#276 common.B.Thomas adv. Officiate.39 sect. #R.0

post your absolute strongest point...just 1. if that gets refuted then maybe you dont have a strong point

@@MrCaribKaraoke That’s a terrible standard. All evidence is contextual. Imagine a murder trial. The suspect is known to have hated the victim, his prints were on the murder weapon and he was seen in the area where the crime took place. Any one of those points alone could easily be explained or dismissed, it’s only together that they are meaningful. However, I’ll take your challenge: ERV insertions. These are strands of DNA that come from viruses, so presumably god didn’t design us with them, and they are shared in the branching tree pattern we would expect from genetics and phylogeny. Additionally, because they are insertions, they not only have to exist in the genome, they have to exist IN THE SAME PLACE, since there are millions of potential insertion points, and they match up. The odds against the matching we see would put any standard of impossibility trotted out by creationists to shame.

@@MrSpleenface why do you assume God didnt design us with these? After the fall, sin and disease and therefore viruses definitely were part of the design. That's not a biblical standard And I agree, not a perfect standard but I great standard to begin with. My argument for Gods existence is also based on a crime scene analogy. I use every bit if evidence from dna to the 2nd law of thermodynamics to historical,philosophical to archaeological evidence.

@@MrCaribKaraoke Not going to name just 1 because he doesn't even make any clear points other than that "life doesn't boil down to just one enzyme" thing which A. Where are your sources for that? and B. Why does it even matter? So I'll take time out of my evening that could be spent doing more productive things so that hopefully some impressionable soul doesn't come across this video and think it's reputable. 0:15 - We need a citation for that study 0:17 - "As the enzyme space grows so do the number of functions" - This is just word salad. What functions are you referring to? Do you mean movement of appendages, sight, hearing, smell, respiration etc? Because as far as I know that has nothing to do with the number of types of enzymes, and even if it did, what would that have to do with evolution? 0:21 - "Philosopher of Biology"... That's not a thing. What kind of title even is that? Cite a real biologist to support your claims. 0:33 - Not actually a good analogy... It just doesn't work but carry on. 0:40 - All those words have nuance differences in meaning (Still not a good analogy and not related to the main point) 0:50 - "A strikingly similar thing occurs among the chemicals that make life possible" - Cite a real biologist. How did he find this? What tests did he perform? 0:53 - "Essentially living things don't look like they evolved from a common ancestor using the same basic components on a molecular level" - How did you jump from the chemicals similar to your bad analogy to this? You need to do a lot more work to make a proper connection, one does not logically assert the other. By the way, last I checked every living thing has DNA made up of Adenine Cytosine Thymine and Guanine so... you're flat out wrong on this account. 1:04 - "Instead, many different enzymes are used to accomplish similar functions". What do enzymes have to do with it? Enzymes just facilitate chemical reactions for internal biological processes like digestion, release or removal of hormones or endorphins etc. Not sure why you're treating them as some sort of building block for life. 1:09 - "This is precisely the opposite of what Darwinism predicts" - Darwinism predicts no such thing. Darwinism predicts that random mutations in DNA which cause slight differences in the way an organism grows and develops will yield a slight advantage or disadvantage that will allow that organism to either die or survive and reproduce allowing that random mutation to cascade over time leading to an organism better fit to the environment. 1:10 - "The more we follow the evidence the more it leads elsewhere" - No, the more you follow the evidence, the more random crap you spew out of your mouth trying to convince people you actually know what you're talking about when you really haven't got a clue. Evolution has been scientifically supported time and time again through meticulous experimentation and observation. (Look up the desert mice experiment if you don't believe me) Young earth creationism has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Instead, it just has a bunch of scientifically illiterate Bible literalists on the internet who misunderstand the Bible and spout their nonsense ad nauseam.

@@nightfox6738 i was expecting a lot but the level of nitpicking i see from your "arguments" just screams dunning-kruger. I may have to take some time out of my busy evening to point it all out, but for now let's just stick with the simple point that what is criticized here is not the mechanism of evolution which is real and undisputed as far as micro evolution is concerned, but one specific aspect of general evolutionary theory called universal common descent. Evolutionary theory predicts that as a result of shared ancestry similar features will be preserved across different branches of the evolutionary tree, and that observing such similarities therefore is evidence of common ancestry. The problem is that if you actually look beyond the superficial similarity in function on a conceptual level and compare the underlying mechanism that produces the function on a molecular level (which is what actually is inherited and as such is what evolution operates on), you see that the two enzymatic mechanisms are totally unrelated. If observing actual similarity (both conceptually and systemically) is evidence for universal common descent, then observing systemic dissimilarity where you find conceptual similarity is evidence against evolution. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The rules of the game are not heads i win tails you lose. Let us be fair mibded here and not be stubbornly partisan. I get that you feel cognitive dissonance when the security you find in agreeing with the majority gets shaken by an argument you can't refute, but mature minds do know how to acknowledge when their intellectual adversary makes a good argument, and this is actually a good argument. Even evolutionist scientists will acknowledge that, though perhaps not publicly.

What is "reality"? The magical nonsense known as Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and Darwinian evolutionism-that there is no empirical science to support? Pascal, please.

I though the same thing. Like wth is a "Philosopher of Biology"??? That makes no sense. Sounds like a title that somebody just pulled out of their ass...

@Sage Wow... just... wow. Noone ever said that evolution precludes free will, and I never said I'm "holding him morally responsible". I suspect you're getting caught up in natural selection where random mutations over millions of years produce an organism well-suited to its environment. The advantages or disadvantages given to an organism by these mutations has nothing to do with free will. Free will is not a genetic construct. Its an emergent property of the brain.

If you don't know what a philosopher of biology is, then you are the ignoramus, not the philosopher of biology. Philosophy of science in general (which philosophy of biology is a specialized subfield of) is actually foundational to the whole scientific enterprise. It is because of the philosophy of science that we know how to weigh evidence and how to interpret evidence or even what counts as evidence for that matter. If you were a bit more humble you might actually learn something from listening to someone who is a lot more educated than you, rather than dismissing their expertise because you disagree with their conclusions because of your own ignorance

@@truthmatters7573 So you're saying we should listen to a philosopher about an issue in a rigorous scientific field... Yeah that makes sense. I'd understand if he had two phd's one in philosophy and one in biology, or a phd specifically in philosophy of biology. But he doesn't. He has a phd in philosophy, end of story. So where is the proof of his expertise?

​@@nightfox6738 Well, seems like your ability to do research goes no further than looking up something on (notoriously biased on controversial issues) Wikipedia. I'm not surprised they don't represent him fairly, as that's just par for the course on Wikipedia. "Paul Nelson received his B.A. in philosophy with a minor in evolutionary biology from the University of Pittsburgh, (...) [and a] Ph.D. (1998) in the philosophy of biology and evolutionary theory [from the University of Chicago]". (i can't source this cuz youtube removes comments with URLs, but you should find it if you google the non-interpolated part) Now according to your own criterion demanding he has "a phd specifically in philosophy of biology", it's about time you start taking this fellow more seriously. The fact that you (and other commenters here) immediately dismiss his credentials (clearly stated in the video) and ignorantly malign the credibility of the field of philosophy of biology, simply because this academic disagrees with the current scientific paradigm (which is necessary for scientific progress and therefore essential to science itself), just goes to show how unscientific, uneducated, and unacademic your thinking is. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying these things to dunk on you. I just use a bit harsher language to hopefully impress on you the clear bias and lack of objectivity in your reasoning. Paul Nelson is simply right on this argument, even if you disagree with his conclusion about the viability of evolutionary theory.

*misinformation

@@clintmcbride7830 How so? Or are you just triggered because it challenges your faith?

@@jessebryant9233 no, he's triggered because this video is spreading complete and utter nonsense that will misguide the less scientifically literate.

What common ancestor?

Monkey... POX? 🙃

😭😭

To answer your question, I strongly doubt it. And he's relying on obscure references and big words to prey on the ignorance of his audience and hopefully look authoritative in their eyes. It's a very old but still effective tactic. People like this rarely actually go face to face in a discussion with a real scientist who is deeply knowledgeable on the subject.

​@@fepeerreview3150 And when they do actually go face to face with a real scientist you get this where any person with half a brain can see the evolution denier gets humiliated: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-04XL1Li0dI8.html

What came first, the metabolization or the the need for it? Fact is, you have no empirical science that so much as suggests that what you believe is even possible, let alone true. Seriously, do you even know the difference between science and evolution theory?

@@fepeerreview3150 ALL those who embrace the Neo-Darwinian paradigm are ignorant and simply blindly trust the men in white robes who they see as authoritative. Think I'm wrong? Okay, let's throw down here and now. What is the BEST empirically verifiable scientific evidence for the Darwinian position?

@@nightfox6738 LOL Or, how about this oldie but goodie... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PqHgrUu4ZWg.html

to lie about it

How is that relevant here? Besides, where is your empirical science that suggests such change and/or convergence is even possible? What we actually observe does NOT comport with what you believe.

@@jessebryant9233 Similar environments create selective pressures that lead to similar outcomes. I've seen this happen first hand with evolutionary algorithms. This is expected.

@@theosib And yet, what we actually observe is that nothing novel or fundamentally new is ever generated. Variation within? Sure. Fundamental change into? No evidence to support that notion.

@@jessebryant9233 You should see what we get from evolutionary algorithms. Also useful too.

Not true! Crocodiles have not evolved in millions of years. 🤣😂 So how, they got a pass on evolution while every other creature was forced to "change randomly over time".

@@scillyautomatic 🤣🤣🤣🤣nice joke

@@scillyautomatic they didn't get a pass on evolution. They have remained in the same ecological niche so natural selection would favor minimal changes because they are already fit for where they are in the ecological system. Too many changes to their body plan or behavior would hinder their ability to do what they already do to survive and they wouldn't.... survive. Y'know..... Natural Selection at work 😉

Lol another angry religious person

@@LisaAnn777 Yes indeed, people who believe in evolution are angry religious people

he knows exactly what he is talking about. he realizes that he is lying. and doesnt care. probably because the pay is too good. and its very easy to fool some people. because they dotn care about evidence, only the narrative

i suspect that these people dont even believe in god. they just do it for the money. i mean, lying is a sin in their religion. and yet, all they do is lie.

Absolutely, but please don't conflate creationism with young earth creationism. One of them is a valid religious belief that meshes perfectly fine with observed reality and the scientific knowledge we have today. The other is complete hogwash spouted by Bible literalists. Evolution and real Creationism are not mutually exclusive. The idea is that Evolution is the manner by which God created life on earth. It's perfectly fine if you don't believe in God being an actor that perpetrated evolution, just please understand that there are those of us who do believe that and our belief does not deny evolution. Our only difference is that secular evolutionists believe abiogenesis to have been initiated by random chance, where we believe in a god that did it.

1. Lying how and about what exactly? 2. Why do you believe that lying is immoral?

@@jessebryant9233 1. about everything stated in the video basically, that implies evolution is not real but magic is. all fabricated and made up lies for jesus. 2. i dont. but you probably do. and still continue to lie

A lie we tell ourselves is the hardest to discover

That's not truth. The examples you have for observable changes through time never proved evolution as a fact.

@@entpboss5285 I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but evolution is change over time, so if we can observe those changes over time, that proves evolution is a fact. Nice try Sparky.

@@jmg94j but the changes you see doesn't satisfy the requirements to fill the definition of the word. Also... Evolution studies are intended to prove it... And that's not in the interest of a fair science, so what happens it's that in every case that you could mention about an observable proof there's a lacks of consideration of other possible explanation for what's observed. It's called speculative science... I call it like that. Speculation over speculation, you can make a religion out of this. So it's just a theory. Do your homework ehmmmm you poop

Nope. But what do you believe? Oh, you believe that things such as life popped out of a puddle of chemicals (that you cannot account for the existence of) and magically became all living things on the planet. Or am I wrong about that?

@@jessebryant9233 How not? Puddle and chemicals, you know, are things that exist and for which there are empirical evidence for; so, life coming from chemical puddle is infinitely more likely than it coming from an invisible genie in the sky.

@@jessebryant9233 Also, no, supposing life came from such a puddle, it was the first forms of life, not beings such as elephants - these came about much later through evolution duh

@@MrGodofcar *1st post:* Non-sequitur. And the empirical science suggests no such thing. Your faith is irrational, blind, and profound. *2nd post:* How do you know that? Or is that just what you believe by faith? How do you know that the legend of common ancestry of all living things is even possible, let alone true?

@@jessebryant9233 It definitely follows. Everything is infinitely more possible to have been caused or formed from that which exists than imaginary things like the genie you believe created life through incantation.

The views say 1.2k. Isn't no views zero?

Your Darwinian faith ≠ science. The religion of Darwin cannot be reconciled with empirical science.

Allah Moe that's crazy!

Read more than a basic biology book. The answers are there if you actually want to learn about how and why that happened.

@Joseph Martin why do my beliefs matter? I'm merely telling someone they should read more on a subject if they don't understand part of it or need clarification.

@Joseph Martin depends on what he wants to learn. There should be plenty out there with a quick search. Just remember to stick to reputable sources. Avoid titles like "Philosopher of Biology"

Yes, think about it: why do plants flower or produce fruit? It’s for reproduction, in concert with animals. Considering lots of plants manage to reproduce just fine without flowers today, it doesn’t seem like there would be much pressure to develop them, and if pollinators didn’t exist, even less so.

@@clintmcbride7830 So you don't know. Just say it.