Bill Nye Explains Darwin's Theory of Evolution 

The thing about scientists is that they are the same nerds who love to make stupid jokes as they were in high school. It's just that now they have better toys.

+Jacob Julien Sounds about right.

All as it should be.

+Jacob Julien And you were expecting a monotonous drill like from Michio Kaku? The suit and tie is loose with real talk. I wouldn't have it any other way. 😏

***** I shall. Title sounds interesting. All I've seen from Michio just seems, droll.

brian cox is pretty cool !

+Davy Boy Literally? Get 'em a coat! Quick! :P

+Davy Boy ITS SCIENCE GUYS NOT DUDES

+Davy Boy Throw Michio Kaku into the mix and you have a Holy Trinity. : )

Benjamin Mefford

Mendel actually used the scientific method and produced results we still use all the time today. Darwin? Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero. . Research reveals that the beaks grow back and forth in size depending on climate variations. The evidence that finches or Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but finches , G.I. turtles et al? Zero again. . But if you can provide data that they "evolved" from something else, please do so. Not theories presented as evidence, now, but scientific data. . Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genes. It never creates new DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates new DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations. . Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad." . Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column. . The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor trilobites are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland. . Take a look. Notice the brown, somewhat egg shaped, fossil on a grayish background in the middle, 2nd row. That is an ocean floor dwelling, extinct, trilobite. www.bing.com/images/search?q=Marine+Fossils+On+Mountains&FORM=RESTAB ) Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved those vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils onto the tops of mountains over millions of years, completely intact. There is no ev-i-dence for that idea. It's just another theory presented a as fact, that defies common sense and the laws of physics. Millions of purported years of mass movement and erosion would have left those huge stretches of intact fossil beds as nothing but broken up rubble in such a - completely unverified and unverifiable - trek from the ocean depths to mountain tops. . Yet some claim, "Well, if there are whale fossils in the Sahara, and Nautilus fosssils in the Grand Canyon, etc. that shows an ocean was present." When was the last time anyone saw fossils form in the oceans? Oceans don't create fossils! Fossils are created when life forms are rapidly buried with water and sediment. That way no animals can eat them, natural forces can't erode them, and the chemistry of fossilization can begin . The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth. The fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 75% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. The one by the Aborigines of Austrailia is virtually identical to what the Bible reports. . So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minimal changes that leave them basically what they were before. . You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evoutionism when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information, in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. . And, if you've got any actual data to show any mutation ever caused Lifeform A to turn into Lifeform B, do include it. It is easy to present unverifiable theories about what happened in the untestable, ancient, past. . We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any Lifeform A to turn into a Lifeform B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But fish are staying fish, birds and are staying birds, flowers are staying flowers, mold is staying mold, trees are staying trees, monkeys are staying monkeys, bacteria are staying bacteria, etc., no matter how much they change. In the real world. . What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense. . The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many. . Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: "Look! Fossil A has some similarities to Fossil B! We'll use big words to sound impressive about that, like 'similar homology.' We have exactly zero evidence Fossil A even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less that it turned into B, C, D etc. But we are going to tell you, as gawd's truth scientific fact, that we know all about what happened to its evidenceless, unverifiable descendants. We'll call that science." . This leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years. . "Missing links" is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious! . Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them in every defense in evolutionary literature. . Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not - who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind. . Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory. . You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him too. Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.

You wrote all that claiming evolution is a fallacy, but ended with a fallacy yourself. Bravo dude.

As charles darwin was dying on his death bed he said im paraphrasing " evolution is bullshit" 🥴

Who wrote the scientific book called "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Somebody told that a Nazi wrote but I'm not sure. Anybody know?

@@setalight7290 Darwin is not an atheist.People usually use his theory of atheism purpose.Poor him.He just wanted to understand the world around him

God damn bill, showe some respect!

Even geologists call them rocks. I can collect minerals by going to a goddam CVS.

There's like 3 even

+Hercules Rockefeller Well, I've met a lot of people who are literally dirt, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this possibility.

"It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe." - Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

+Hercules Rockefeller Narnia?

@@jollyjester3923 lol use small minded individuals. Just believe anything. First everyone believed Jesus now Darwin. Who's next. Give it 50 years.

+Mistaa Spaakles Then evolution is the reason charizard has wings he can't use to fly

+Caine Kiewit didn't they fix that with current gen?

Funnily enough some people actually believe thats what darwin thought

+Peglay You mean Destin?

We can't prove NOR disprove God scientifically. I think he's there and I have reasons but I can't prove it to other people. :^]

CajBaj the White I don't necessarily think there is no god. That's not what my comment was supposed to mean though I can see how it could be read that way. I just meant that creationism is stupid. If God exists, he used evolution, the Big Bang, and 13.7 billion years to get us here.

BlakeMcTavishe That's absolutely right!

BlakeMcTavishe I didn't realize my comment sounded like an argument until now sorry haha

CajBaj the White It's all good.

@SHAOLIN FANTASTIC I do. What do you wanna know?

Yes, Tyson is so very full of himself yet speaks only in pop culture Cliff notes.

?Bill Nye......well, enough said.

But yet,they are. Who do you consider to be an expert?

+CajBaj the White I could list a few better ones, even though I love these guys. So I will. You have The Escapist, LastWeek Tonight, Lindybeige, Screen Junkies, Jeremy Jahns, Cracked, The Great War and, of course, Christians Against Dinosaurs, if just for the sheer comedic value. Obviously, they're not in order.

+CajBaj the White PBS Space Time, Vsauce, MinutePhysics, Versitasium

***** Moody​ lol I watch 90% of those, love Lindybeige and MinutePhysics in particular

CajBaj the White Just in case some friend on youtube misses those awesome channels :) cheers!

Moody :)

Then actually listen to the 1 hour podcast on there website startalkradio.net

+Gavin Dixon oh say word!!! thanks so much bro 👌👍

+RhondaH People already had hypothesis about the origin of the diversity of life by that time; Jean-Baptisite "Huge asshole" Lamarck.

***** Lamarck was way off in his thinking and did no experiments.

Scientists are as competitive as race car drivers.

Better than Donald Trump

+Enderfreaksgames I used to wonder that too. Apparently DNA evidence suggests a single common ancestor for all life.

Vampyricon I dont know why but it seems that your comment was marked as spam it seem perfectly rational and makes sense so i have no clue why i cant restore it. thanks though i hadnt thought of that.

Malcherath that would be the case with aliens.

We have. It's called selective breeding.

***** thanks for replying dude

That's outside the bounds of evolution

Ok! Species compete. But how do they originate?

+solvo tumble I don't see how a galaxy colliding with ours would impact our perception of the universe, since it has nothing to do with it. When two galaxies collide, they don't change the laws of physics or perceptions ... also, the empty space between the stars is so large, that when they collide, they don't even affect most of the solar systems in those galaxies. What do you mean by your first question? When a species moves to another environment it changes it and we could never know how.

CeaoS Well with the first question I was emphasizing the premise of biology on various planets as we do not fully understand the differences in environment on other planets, so the diversity in human species can be big or small in the genotype or the phenotype or both. ( I know I just answered my own question)

and I was asking what would the estimated differences be if humans colonized close to the center of the milky way galaxy. (so I didn't answer my own question)

Eco Bear heck yeah! ( my good man) I even turned my Siri voice into a British guy

"How did those fishes know that they had those spots, that they looked like eyes and that those spots would frighten predators away?" They didn't. That's not how evolution works. Fish with those spots had a greater survival rate than the same fish without them, so the spotted fish reproduce and create more spotted fish, while those without slowly died off. That one particular type of spot in that one particular place was a random and beneficial mutation.

That’s because engineers have an appreciation for design . He probably thinks you are some abstract weed smoking dope and he would be right.

No offence.

Secular science will always change to fit their narrative. It's pretty shifty.

lmao THIS!!

+junior25760. You are being a bit silly, there is a link you can listen to the whole show, see SHOWE MORE in the description.

I used to have a collection of cockroaches. My favorites were the big madagascan hissing ones. It wasn't a big variety really, just a large amount

you know who is cooler ! JESUS ! that can stop a storm at the sea in one word ! nature obeys GOD ! go learn about him , he is the best scientist , philosopher, engeneer, artist all in ONE ! lol ! I know nothing about GOD AND JESUS ! go learn and read the bible! u will be amazed!

Pina Gara I love u no homo

The idea behind this is LUCA or Last Universal Common Ancestor. Since there is only one genetic code shared by all life, all life is presumed to be related to a single ancestor. Of course there is no accounting for how that code came to be. As stated in a recent paper "(the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10-13)." www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791 Creation is a far more viable theory than evolution.

I don't think he knows what he's talking about.

Absolutely! :)

jon doe *"Creation is a far more viable theory than evolution."* Lol no

Pepe! At The Disco Really? You don't think so? Science has shown time and time again that random mutation - natural selection is incapable of producing the diversity of life we see. Time and time again science has shown there is no workable theory of abiogenesis. Science can't account for life in the first place. You believe the science? then you doubt evolution. Just the way it is. If you believe IN scientism, you believe evolution. It's not the same as science.

+Nicholas Blake As has been pointed out, Hydrogen is one of the most common elements in the universe. Oxygen is not that rare, either. Together they combine to make, I think, off the top of my unreliable head, the single most common compound in the universe: H2O. A quick search turned up Hydrogen and Oxygen as first and third most common elements in the universe, and confirmed H2O is the most common compound. In short, it's kind of like trying to find dust on your floor. What's remarkable is that they found _liquid_ water on Mars. Ice is one thing, but actual water? It's a good sign for colonization efforts, and for finding life.

+Nicholas Blake I'm pretty sure that the "theory" of comets bringing water to Earth and making up most of its oceans has been debunked.

+CeaoS really? what is the best theory out there for origin of water on planets then?

Nicholas Blake source: news.discovery.com/space/asteroids-meteors-meteorites/earths-water-didnt-come-from-comets-like-rosettas-141210.htm So I'm guessing asteroids? Or I misinterpreted the information and water just didn't come from comets that are in the Kuiper belt ...

Atheist :well, I've got some link to websites full of drawings and bones I don't comprehend to prove evolution.

You mean the religion of Darwinism

@@shawesomeshclll8112 Are you able to back up your claims with empirical evidence? Storytelling is not evidence.

+LightfeatherxX *Kudos!*

"Based on the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE and on the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES, it is much more LOGICAL to conclude that our DESIGN OF LIFE is the work of a CREATOR GOD or an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER rather then just the result of RANDOM chance and the mere passage of time." How did you come to this conclusion? Can we see your math? What numbers did you crunch?

@@eddyeldridge7427 can you use math to explain random?

@@dougehlen8854 Hes the one making the claim. And, as always, he never backs it up with real evidence, nor even responds well to criticism. He's only interested in preaching to the choir.

I don't think you know what those words mean

Your belief in a god is not like the fact of evolution.

Define "survive" without competitive implications.

evolution is not biology.

its a religion

+Sam The Kangaroo Harris The podcasts are about an hour on the Startalk website or Soundcloud

Thanks for clarifying man! Whats the startalk website?

www.startalkradio.net

Thanks man

+Summers Time Entertainment Anti-scientific theocrat...

+pick206 when are people gonna learn that it takes a while for the views to catch up when a video is uploaded.

don't do stupid, not even once. Its worse than meth

don't do ignorance and research these subjects your self physically.

i read your comment as chromosomal fusion was evidence for creation, my bad. I had my telomeres all in a bunch

AIDS came from the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), which was carried over to humans who ate chimpanzees in the 1800s.