Beautiful Bones 

Yeah, the model will surely change but I'm not sure if it'll be in a good or bad way because natural selection isn't a thing for humans anymore.

Friends

Amen!

Yep, even as someone who believes in evolution this was just unnecessary and cringy

Agreed. It's the one thing that makes me hesitate to recommend this for educational settings.

Why? It's no different then looking at a bridge and wondering in amazement at it's development. If your offended by how we came about then perhaps you've been too politically trained to be truly intellectual. No one should be offended by the basic human question of existence.

It is a key question that naturally arises from observation of the human Skelton. There is simply no way this complex of a structure came about by random processes. The answer is God made us.

But it makes perfect sense...

"erosion can make natural arches" So, removing material is analogous to adding complexity?

@@codetech5598 Bad comparison, his point still stands tho.

@@codetech5598 It adds complexity to the structure. The way that evolution works is the same way that we find natural arches, if an arch wasn't randomly in the right condition to stand it it wouldn't survive long enough for us to find it. If life wasn't in the right condition to complexify, we wouldn't be here to study it. And complexifying is definitely a thing that is proven to be able to happen. Look at dog breeds for an example of how far selection can go in complexifying, even over a short period of time.

Natural arches are not designed, watch his video on how arches work: their strength is based on compression. The pattern of compression like he shows with the chain is matter of physics and natural law; i.e. the compressed arch is strengthened to withstand erosion along the path needed to keep it standing. If you study anthropology, you will learn that language is a standard of intelligence. Codes are an even higher level of intelligence. You can't get either of them without thoughtful effort. All life continues its replication of very purposeful functionality by way of the encoded language of DNA. We see and understand the replication of DNA with RNA, and we can even learn some of the code the same way we deciphered an ancient language that is no longer spoken. But, we don't have any working theories about the mechanism of how a cell receives such instruction from this encoded language and becomes this or that kind of cell in a specific location. It's not helpful to look for complexity to answer the question, because the question is about design. So, you need to ask if there is a way to add information into life by chance: Can an extremely complex library of systems (reproductive, protective, energy conversion, and manufacturing) such is needed for the most basic of life forms.. can they arrive by chance? No, you need intelligence. With math theory, you could argue that infinite number of monkeys typing infinitely could reproduce some well known writing. It just doesn't happen in reality, and the earth has not been around long enough for those math theory odds to look respectable. If you really really don't want to believe in a creator, you can force yourself into believing the most absurd theory. As it turns out, there is a very large constituent of people who really really don't want to believe in a creator. The scientific method will point you to a creator if you love and pursue truth.

Jacob Furrow LOL! joke of the millennia.

@@nope12345 There are cavities of empty space in our abdomen.

NONSENSE! There is no proven vestigial structure in the body, every single claimed vestigial part was later found to be usefull

@@oreocarlton3343 some are not really needed today though

i prefer having..

​@@oreocarlton3343 Giraffes have a 5 meter long laryngeal nerve. That's not useful It does, however, make sense if you accept the thing has a fish way back in it's ancestry. A fish has no neck, and as a consequence, the nerve takes a direct route.

Websters dictionary definition suits this situation perfectly. In fact I don't believe any word would be more suitable.

he just put the images on an inverse order respecting to what he was talking about

Abiogenesis would be 'spontaneous.'

Yeah, the spontanuity was ill-phrased

@@casparvoncampenhausen5249 not ill phrased. Go to Websters dictionary and look up the meaning under #1. It's embarrassing to be critical about something that you have misinformed yourselves about.

The inclusion of that question was most probably an attempt to spark a debate and get a few more comments on the video. A decent marketing strategy to have his videos rate higher in the search engine and RU-vid's recommendation algorithm.

He literally only asked a question. 🤔

@@DanMorose Of a very inopportune nature, giving the setting.

@@LizardBoy2211 why is admiring design inappropriate? It's far more inappropriate to claim that asking the question is inappropriate. Why? Because it caps off further thought which is an intellectually corrupt practice. Since it hides truths about nature. What setting would make it inappropriate? The fascist tyranny of RU-vid?

@@ILikeFreedomYo fascist tyranny of RU-vid? You clearly don't know what fascist nor tyranny means

@@LizardBoy2211 your comprehension of sarcasm is what's lacking. I'm saying that would be the only place knowledge is inappropriate while being facetious. You Tube obviously does not fit in that category. Explain to me why it's inappropriate. I would really like to know.

so then you believe in evolution?

Life vs nonliving matter is pretty much like a computer program vs some lines of code. Most people cannot understand how some code could make a running program. Equally life is nothing special. "Life" is just a made up box we use to describe something. Life is not really divided from nonliving matter.

@@simgenx5167 In that case, I'm sure you will have no trouble explaining to us how living things came to be from non-living things.

I recommend reading "the selfish gene" by Dawkins.

In that case, I am sure you will have no trouble explaining to us what "living things" are.

@@simgenx5167 'bacteria, archaea, and eukaryota.' But notice the problem you are having. If I had asked you how crocodiles came to be from non-crocodiles, you would have given me some theory about the evolution of crocodiles, although the same remarks about the impossibility of giving a precise definition would apply in that case as well. But in the question of abiogenesis you cannot do that, because of course you have no idea how the first living things came to be. So you change the subject as quickly as possible to a philosophical question. That's fine, so long as you don't expect us to fail to notice that you were unable to answer the original question. Since you do not know how the first living things came to be, you are not in a position to scoff at anyone who supposes that a clever designer made them. QED

It's intuition because our creator instilled that in our nature. As well as science never making claim to reconcile initial matter.

​@@ILikeFreedomYo "It's intuition because our creator instilled that in our nature." If so, the creator did a pretty bad job at instilling that intutiion, because I find it pretty easy largey be rid of that intuition once I start to understand the real explanation, especially since I know human intutions are really unreliable in general. It's "intuitive" that the earth is flat, that space is not relative, that we don't have a blind spot, etc, but those intuitions are all wrong. Did god make us have those intuitions as well? And the the intuition to infer a creator or intent behind natural occurances is especailly unreliable, it's a type of childish thinking. Children analyze the world largely in terms of looking for intent, they analyze things according to how they understand the role of of those things, not by looking for the material cause of how that thing came to be. If you ask a child why trees exist, the child might say something like "so that bears can scratch their backs on them". They don't ask HOW things came to have the relations they have, rather they infer that those relations are the REASON that thing exists in the first place. And mind you, this is not a bad learning strategy if you're a kid, because kids are supposed to grow up in an environment where lots of things are specially arranged for them, so understanding WHY adults present them with the environment they do is pretty workable as an epistemology. It takes learning more about the world, and about abstract mechanics outside of human intention in order to start being able to analyze a lot of things as they really work. Being able to understand and find explanations for how things work in natural, non-intentional ways is an actual skill that has to be learned, not to mention learning to accept when you simply don't know how something works. If you don't learn those skill, you apply magical thinking to explain things instead, and it's the reason why there is an endless list of magical concepts that we used to have to explain everything from rain, to earthquakes, to disease, to rainbows. And even I can't shake the feeling that everyday objects are somehow ill-intentioned towards me when they don't work as I want them to. I get mad at glitched digital devices, at chords that won't fit electrical outlets, at clothes that sit uncomfortably, as if they had malicous agency against me, even though I know full well that they don't, and that being agry at them only make me more stressed and likely to break something. That is an example of how overactive our tendency to attribute agency is. If you want to understand evolutionary theory, then aside from simple willingness, you need to be capable of at least a certain degree of abstract, naturalistic thinking rather than just inferring agency based on intuition. Otherwhise you'll be stuck, the same way a gambler doesn't understand why they keep loosing money at a slot machine even when it's "intuitive" to them that their luck should turn around eventually. As for the sentence "As well as science never making claim to reconcile initial matter." I genuinely am not sure wha tyou mean by that sentence. Are we suddenly talking about the origin of physical matter itself? To be clear, where matter, or the planet, or the "laws of physics" come from has nothing to do with evolution as a topic in biology. The universe can be fully natural and unintentional, or it can be created by any one of any proposable god for all it matters regarding evolution as a topic.

@@tobiashagstrom4168 wow I did not argue everything true is intuitive like your claiming I did. Of course we have agency. You can disrupt your intuition any time. That's not to say that both good and bad can't come from that method. Childish thinking isn't always bad. Ever heard of being caught in an echo chamber? Old dogs learning new tricks? Kids think outside the box and therefore learn critical thinking a heck of a lot faster then someone who has experienced life a certain way that has never had beliefs contested. Everything kids know is contested so all options are open.

@@tobiashagstrom4168 as to initial matter if no matter can be created or destroyed where did the first piece of uncreated matter come from? Where did initial movement come from if all movement had to come from an initial action? Without reconciliation of those questions you literally cannot substantiate anything you have based your knowledge structure upon. It has everything to do with biology, everything about God's existence, design, ECT. You may think God is laughable but you haven't even put any time into your own knowledge foundation. It's no different then believing the Earth is flat to say biology has nothing to do with design.

It's what we call intellectual corruption. Atheism is should be called lazyism. It's the practice at claiming you've proven lack of existence of a higher power which has never happened with any science claim of which I'm aware. Agnostics at least acknowledge that disproving God is intellectually rigorous.

That's sort of like being "open-minded" to the flat-earth model of geology, the Zeus theory of lightning, or the stork theory of reprodcution. Yes, of course people will be grumpy when they ask a question like that which misrepresents evolution as being "spontaneous", especially since you're asking it in the context of a series of videos mostly discussing deliberate human engineering, it's a way of framing the question. If I had an art class where I talked about patterns and symmetry in the context of human art, and at the end I threw in a question about snow flakes asking if they just "happen to be this shape" or if they were sculted by legions of ice-sculpting invisible pixies, then I would be describing it in such a way as to misrepresent the naturalistic explanation for how crystal formation works, and I would be suggesting additional plausibility towards the design-based explanation, since I've brought the question up in the context of discussing artists who are deliberately designing things. Sorry, I wasn't sure how to break that sentence up. We don't usually invite random-ass people to question scientific theories without providing them with good explanations for why there is a scientific consensus on the matter, or without explaining how these theories are testable. If we constantly invited people to question the theory of relativity, then a lot of those people probably would conclude that the idea of space-time being bent by mass sounds weird and counter-intuitive, yet without taking relativity theory into account, our modern GPS devices wouldn't work. Evolutionary theory is a description of emergent mechanisms by which life forms can change (without supposing any designer), such that we can map that understanding onto the particular relational patterns of real organisms in ways that help predict future discoveries. It provides a way to interpret the genetic, morphological and geo-chronological distribution of traits between different organisms. It's not some hypothetical pipe-dream that we should invite people to just discard as if it was just say-so.

@@tobiashagstrom4168 You have failed to seek to substantiate anything you have said with rigor. Your talking about mythology and pixies as if at no point in time those things have been rigorously processed out by scientific method. You talk about evolution as if it has solved any mystery about initial matter. You talk about processes as if processes cannot be designed. You have a lot more work to do my friend. Getting grumpy about others theories is not scientific it's pure emotion. Process is designed every day. It's lazy to say that process in nature debunks an intelligent designer. It's not random to claim design came from intellectual means. It is random to say evolution has anything to do with initial matter.

@@ILikeFreedomYo they don't have to. it's an analogy. if you don't like it, you'd have to provide examples that break the analogy, which of course should exist since most analogies are imperfect.

​@King crimson Very subpar job he he did there. Must have been new to this.

You sound confident. How many species have you brought to existence? Heck how many inventions have you developed to improve human design?

resonance..