Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misunderstanding the Basics 

"BuT yOu CaNt GeT nEw InFoRmAtIoN fRoM tHe SaMe GeNeSSSSSSSS" Then you ask them to try to define evolution, and things fall apart.

@@subaru4920 then why do they consistently try to claim that absolutely anything that changes in an organisms DNA is not new "information" but instead a "deletion?" Besides, even if it were true that changes in the order of the nucleotides did not constitute new information, arguing that animals had to have been "created" at the origin of life is not arguing against evolution, it's arguing against abiogenesis, which is a completely different topic.

Thank you. I'm gonna use that one.

@@Sciguy95 idk about the whole deletion thing, etc. But to answer your why? Cause creationists are dishonest and lie to make things add up. Either to others, themselves, or most often both

Um..yeah..but... It's still a book lol. 😂

@Toughen Up, Fluffy yeah arranging bones in some imaginary order that you want evolution to happen isn’t evidence

@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 lol nobody is "arranging bones" that's extremely dumb. And yes Darwin was wrong on a few things but that was about 150 years ago and biology has come a long way since then. You guys treat Darwin like the Boogeyman it's funny lol 😆 Your just angry that evolution completely disproves Genesis and the claim that a sky genie made everyone from dirt.

From someone who arranges history and biology to fit a story book...that's kinda laughable

@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 you are right, that is not evolution. Can you correctly describe what evolution is? Or are you required to lie for sky daddy?

​@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264so if you find a skull bone and a leg bone and a vertebral bone, you will put the skull at the end of the leg? Your stupidity is disturbing

He knows that, he's just attempting to steer his followers back to the avenue of intelligent design; "if nature is not capable of selecting traits, then "someone" cough:god:cough must be the explanation!"

Well... a coin sorter was obviously designed.

@@missk1697 So are coins, what's your point? I specifically quoted what I'm addressing to make it clear what my analogy was about. As you already know, analogies are never perfect. Even if a god designed and created nature, that wouldn't change the fact that afterwards natural forces still apply evolutionary selection pressures. Which was my point before you intentionally misunderstood it. I personally don't believe in deism or theistic evolution but I think both are infinitely more believable than intelligent deign for this simple reason.

I would be cautious about using this line of argumentation as it can leave you open to the rejoindre “A coin machine is designed though! You’re proving creationism”. You have to pay excruciating attention to the fact that you’re talking about the mechanism of the sorting rather than how it got to be that way in the first place

​@@vincentheartland2088 I have already got that kind of a response just a few days ago (is this vid trending again or what?) and I wasn't impressed by it then. I don't think I'm obligated to worry about people who don't want to understand how analogies work. If someone is so obstinate, no single argument will change their minds anyway.

Even the hour and a half video felt like half an hour. I love hearing Aron eviscerate the twaddle from the bible thumping pillock.

100%

They way he speaks, it gives me comfort

You're so right, I have no idea why it's true I just know it is and am very grateful for it!

@@thelordjesus1136 I feel so lucky that you use RU-vid to spew your religious bullshit. That way I don't have restrain my dog from eviscerating you, he seems to dislike door-to-door god-botherers. Now don't go away mad, just go away.

He's not even "the pot calling the silverware black"... more like "the pot calling a Buick an orange."

Perhaps you should try using an adblock.

Money well spent, supporting Aron

@@ominous-omnipresent-they youtube premium is better. Skip the ads, support the creator.

@@ominous-omnipresent-they Always puzzles me that people so proudly recommend ad-blockers. RU-vid and their creators offer you content in exchange for ad-views which pay for the service and the content. You use technical tricks to get the content without paying (with money or ad views). That’s immoral. And short-sighed, because if everyone would follow your suggestion, the content you want to watch couldn’t even be created or delivered anymore. If you don’t like the ads, pay for a RU-vid subscription. That’s the right recommendation.

It’s so they can prep on their way in before adding comments.

Never ask atoms to leave. It’s dangerous when they split 🤓

@@dr.floridamanphd Well said, because when they get excited, they tend to release an abundant amount of energy.

Never ask an atom for its opinion. Its always neutral.

Yet another brilliant debunking of absurd creationists Lies and extremely educational in the process. Thank you Aron keep up the good work.

@@thelord3561 A Male created , misogynist monster. Take your bullshit somewhere else!

I evolved a new hot sauce recipe that will outcompete most others in the ecosystem of the grocery store shelves. Gonna have to come up with a cheeky name and send a bottle to everybody's favorite death metal atheist! I will make him a believer and make him tremble before the mighty Scotch Bonnet Lord of Fire... hey that's a pretty good name

I believe that to be true!

@@joefization sign me up for a bottle or two, it sounds great 👍

@@herbiehopkins I'd love to share but this year was the prototype year, probably made only a half gallon of the special scotch bonnet recipe, and a couple gallons of other good recipes but those don't have the same magic. Next year I'll know what to grow to make lots more! I'd be happy to share the recipe if you're interested, I'm not wanting to keep this deliciousness secret

@@joefization scotch bonnet you say? Jamaican me Jerk Face Lava Sauce

Advertising dollars well spent supporting Aron's work! 👍🏼😂

@@Starhawke_Gaming thats right :)

@Buck Rothschild Could be! Its just so funny that I only see them on Aron's channel Must be related to ad buys

wait he thinks Adaptation is what a Winter Fox does? Just.... No.

🤣I would say more them trying to convince you the underpants were actually a hat.... maybe cute dinosaur-patterned ones

Actually it's bloody cold in the desert at night so some hair helps keep the sun off and provides warmth at night. Look at the camels !

Some surfer poser name is what it is lol

@@AntiChrxzt and the concept of seeing _him_ in anything resembling a swimsuit is an image I didn't need in my mind, either, so... thanks for that. 😐

@@MaryAnnNytowl I sincerely apologize. That was not my intention at all.

Can comfirm. Was helping a friend try to get a [redacted]¹ coloration into the Araucana breed of chicken. It was a very long, drawn out process, and I eventually had to stop, because I was having too hard a time keeping the records in order. See, the records had to keep track of who was bred to whom and what colors chicks hatched, as well as whether they had tufts (a specific trait in the Araucana breed that makes them rare, but can also be fatal to the chick in the egg, if they get two of the genes for them), and if there were one tuft or two, and keep track of those parents, to try to avoid the fatal cross, which kills all chicks that get the doubling up of that gene. The Araucana breed already has a higher rate of embryo loss between fertilized egg being stuck under the hen or in the incubator and the end of the first 7 days, anyway, just because of their oddball genetics. But the gene for tufts (which is basically a few feathers that stick straight out from the side of their head, at their ear hole, either on one side or both) makes things much more complicated, yet. One can't breed a bird with 2 tufts with a bird that has any tufts, or you'll lose, if memory serves, 75% of the embryos that start any growth at all, and those that survive to hatch almost inevitably have very bad birth defects and often must be put down immediately to prevent them suffering and dying in great pain. And putting down baby chicks is just heartbreaking to me. I cry. Every single time I have to do it. So, anyway, one has to breed a bird with 2 tufts to a bird with no tufts (which isn't even technically an Araucana, according to the SOP², just an Araucana-based Easter-Egger), but that still must be purebred (but with the attempts to get the feather color changed, this is where we put the ½ [color pattern redacted]¹-feathered[insert breed here]³/½ Araucana-based Easter Egger (non-tufted Araucana) as one parent, to work the feather color pattern into the breed, while diffusing the fatal gene expression to a safe level that doesn't kill all of the chicks! And then you take note of if there were even a hint of [redacted]¹ (the desired color pattern) in their (undesirable color) feathers, or if there were any (undesirable color/pattern) showing up in the one or two rare ones that hatch with [redacted]¹ desirable feathers, and keep track of those chicks' parents, to try to breed them to others that may carry a strong expression of the [redacted]¹ feather gene, too. Oh, and also keep track of those pairs who have and chicks with any [color pattern]¹ in their feathers, because they at least should have a weak expression of the desired color for feathering trait. Oh, and you must always watch to see if the skin color and foot color were correct, or if not, because skin color and feather color is often intertwined, and note which parents could have the undesirable recessive skin or foot color trait, and watch for it in their later chicks when they are paired with other mates, to weed out the ones that do have the wrong foot and skin color genes recessive in their DNA, even if they're throwing the correct color offspring. Well, you can see how complicated just changing a color feather on chickens can be, in a breed where you don't want to lose another trait. And chickens getting their feather color changed isn't that rare a thing that people do. Especially since, if you manage it, you can become pretty darned rich! I mean, not Walton, or Besos, or Musk kind of rich, but extreme comfortable, LOL! But the point is, yes, it's very complicated. And it's a brain ache to keep track of as you're doing the breeding, too! [1] I'm not involved any more, but I'm not sure if they're still working on the project, so I am not giving any hints about what she was working on as far as the feather color/pattern. It would be very unfair to them if I did. [2] SOP = Standards Of Perfection, the very exacting list of things that must be correct on a breed (and even color of chicken) for it to be acceptable as one of that breed, according to the rules. This allows the breed to be entered into shows (much like dog shows, or any other animal show] where they're judged on how much they do match the "perfect" example of that breed. [3] Like with the coloration they were working on, if this were given out, it could directly affect their attempts to be the first with this coloration into the breed they are working with. Were I to give the breed and color pattern of the "donor" breed, someone else could, if really lucky, beat my friends to the punch, so to speak, affecting them and the potential direction of their lives immensely. (Edited to add explanations) (And edited again to add another whole chunk of sentence I totally missed writing... added "makes things much more complicated, yet," to I believe it was Paragraph Three. _~sigh~_ )

As an owner and lover of schnoodles (poodle schnauzer mix) I can confirm this to be accurate.

Thank the darkness indeed

I learnt what a 'wavy Davy' is

As someone who has examined the wiring in several houses, I am not shocked, not figuratively, anyway.

I don't know that Dave is an electrician; only that he worked for an electric company.

@@AronRa That sounds more accurate. You need to get your science right to be licensed.

@@AronRa Makes sense. Electricity companies need people to sweep the floors too. Much like Hovind's claim to gave "taught high school science" doesn't mean that he taught acience *in* a high school.

@@simongiles9749 I thought we used brooms and mops for sweeping floors. Dave doesn't have nearly enough hair to be useful.

And that's just the smart ones. Most of them are too stupid to even acknowledge that selective breeding is a thing much less evolution as a whole.

It because selective breeding is obvious and cant be denied. But genetic drift can be ignored and lied about.

Except his gruff outside keeps being discredited by his animals interrupting his recordings. Too adorable.

@Lord Omacron - too bad they ended up tainting their findings by getting their original breeding pairs from a breeder that already was breeding for their pelts instead of wild foxes. It doesn't necessarily completely discredit the results, but it does damage the findings by introducing biases and tainted data.

While selecting for tamer foxes they also selected for floppy ears. The question is are those genes really connected with each other that they inevitably got passed down together. Or did they just unconciously selected for both traits because floppy ears just appeared less aggressive. I think it is the latter, I think the researchers as the humans they are also looked at cute outwards appearance and selected for both traits. So they got less agressive foxes that also looked a bit "cuter". I don't see an ethical concern with these kinda studies, only with how they keep and treat the animals. We do that all the time with dogs, pigeons and other domesticated animals, so why should this with foxes be a grey zone.

@@maythesciencebewithyou I believe the ethical issue was breeding for pelts that if my memory is correct included particularly cruel slaughtering methods .

I believe they actually sell them as pets now

Good for you, keep working on those critical thinking skills!

It all depends on with what exactly you are indoctrinated as a kid. Most Catholics have accepted Evolution (started by God) as fact. So it's not surprising that you'd see that as ridiculous. Yet at that point, you still were a Catholic who didn't question the core stupidity of that religion. If you had been raised with the belief in Genesis as fact and evolution as bullshit, you might have agreed with him.

All sorts of scientists would love to get a god into their lab and poke it with every instrument they can think of. Alas.... none has been found that could be investigated beyond "thinking really hard about what you feel"...

@@Ugly_German_Truths Ah, but the scientists will have to wait while said God is tried for crimes against humanity!

@@dragonhealer7588 Reminds me of the movie God On Trial. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tD7v9phroGM.html

@@BaronVonQuiply A passably good drama. Ironic that both sides claimed faith in the same God. Humanity still has far to go.

I think part of the problem with creationists, is they look at the very surface of what they think evolution is, read a few Google articles and think they have a decent amount of knowledge, when in reality, they have no idea what so ever just how in depth the theory is and everything thats been tested and seen to further the theory. Not to mention that their definition of a "theory" is a basic thought and nothing else. Lastly, the voice he uses as if he's coddling children is creepy af...

@@exlibrisscientia6741 agreed 100%. Peak dunning keuger.

@Toughen Up, Fluffy oops. Sorry.

Great use of their advertising dollars, supporting the debunking of their own garbage claims. 👍🏼😂

The funny part is that if they know, they're not only fine with it, they think these are the people who need to see the ad the most so they'd be happy supporting Aron's channel.

Isn't any religion just a theory with no evidence to support it, not observable and certainly not testable

lol, if you ever meet up with him again, ask him how he feels about the theory of gravity not being real after tripping and falling xD

@@Callimo lol sure thing lol

@@colinsixhitter3303 yes they make claim after claim after claim but after thousands of years they have no evidence or proof to back up those claims and yet science has been around for centuries and we have a plethora more evidence and proof to back up our claims then they ever will and thats why they always say their proof and evidence is the bible which we all know thats not evidence lol

I wonder how they feel about the theory of music? Just a theory?😳

Not to argue but you'd be surprised how many people take things seriously on faith alone. Very few people actually know the binary code running on their computers or how the local nuclear power plant works but it just does and then they don't ask questions or wonder because they were raised to believe in those things.

It's a very prevalent attitude, used in many more contexts than religion. Try arguing about masks or vaccines sometime.

@@lameduck3105 those things aren't really taken on faith alone though, they demonstrably work. Even if we don't know the details about how they work, there us still imperic validation going on. Faith in God on the other hand, can't be validated, this is the divine hiddenness problem.

@@uninspired3583 Imagine being born into a world where there's computers, television, nuclear power plants etc and you don't understand how any of it works. Then imagine you were born into a christian family and got told that god created the universe (something we still can't prove how actually happened). What would make you dismiss one thing, that works but you don't understand, and then not believe a creation story you were brought up with when science has little answers for that question? If it works, it works. If the universe exists, something must've created it. That line of logic isn't too far for any religious person. I'd also add that most people are gullible and believe whatever a person they are fond of says. Whether that's your parents, teachers, friends, preacher etc. Trust is a value that is inherent to humans due to their social nature. So that sometimes mean taking someone's word as a truthful statement and not doubt everything everyone tells you.

@@lameduck3105 i don't have to imagine, you've described my past. The first thing that caused me to doubt the creation story I was told, was the thought that if I was born to an Islamic, or Hindu family, I would have those beliefs instead. Just because I care about someone doesn't mean they aren't mistaken, if I care about believing true things I need more reliable conditions. According to your argument for the beginning of the universe, I could present a like analogy. Water is heavier than air, so someone powerful must be responsible for making rain fall. Now that we understand the cycles of evaporation and condensation, we don't dance for rain gods. We don't have the ability to investigate universe making the way we can investigate rain making, but that isn't a good enough reason to anthropomorphize a cause.

They always get this analogy wrong g anyway. Natural selection makes it more like infinite Yahtzee, where every time you roll a 6 you put that die aside and keep it.

@@simongiles9749 I'm pretty sure the Creationist view of abiogenesis involves a one-time event in one afternoon.

@@robertmiller9735 Ah yes, I see the mistake I made- I underestimated just how wrong creationists can be.

@@simongiles9749 It seems to be a combination of "thinking in your own terms" (how else could creation happen but suddenly) and ""making the other side sound as stupid as possible".

@Miraak they're cute, but wouldn't make a great pet

Creationists: "It makes no sense that life came from mud" Also creationists: "God made Adam from the dust of the earth (and Eve from his rib)"

@@paulbarclay4114 It depends on what your religion is. If your religion is as a creationist, that is, you absolutely must take a literal interpretation of everything the Bible says, then yes, Science CAN disprove it.

@@paulbarclay4114 Trite bothsiderism. Under harsh critical scrutiny, science thrives. Religion dies.

@@paulbarclay4114 You want to talk about logical fallacies? "many of the greatest scientists in the history of the world were devoutly religious" Association fallacy. Any scientist who ever claimed to have faith in a theory, or that it was "revealed truth" would rightly be denounced as a fraud. "you can never prove that god exists outside of and transcends creation, from the perspective of creation" Meaningless word-salad. White noise. Gibberish. "anyone who uses religion to "disprove" science is just as wrong as anyone who tries to disprove religion with "science."" More bothsiderism. And you're wrong. Holy scriptures like the Bible make claims about the physical world that can be tested and shown to be wrong. If this is the revealed word of God, was God lying? What else was God wrong or lying about? Religious people can't answer these challenges honestly, so they hide behind apologetics, arrogance, special pleading, and world-salad.

@@paulbarclay4114 LOL you've given no logic and explained nothing. But feel free to project your own many flaws on to me.

There is a channel on here called Gruz,he has all kinds of crazy codes for Mario 3. I used to love using a Game Genie.

The Russians are masters at running experiments in parallel. Drives American astronauts crazy.

They weren't breeding the docile foxes to be pets either. The foxes are used for their fur and they wanted a breed that was easier to handle. Except that the domesticated breed ended up with the "wrong" fur colouration and was thus useless for commercial skin-removal purposes.

What's worse is that evolution as an actual concept isn't really very complicated. To get down to the details one might need a 38 minute long video and more, but evolution isn't hard at all to grasp as a concept. These religious people are too stupid to do something as simple as spend 5 minutes educating themselves on the most bare bones of evolution.

Don’t worry. You need to be made of mud to understand them so I guess you never will... from my, part, they make my tooth roots ache with despair.

It would be unfair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

@@jmaniak1 ouch

Stop! STOP! He's already been beaten!

Dave is bringing a Bible to a gunfight...He would've been better off at least bringing a knife.

Oh that would be grand! I may never want to go into the back of a butcher shop and watch a slaughter, but this one I wouldn't want to miss for anything!

@Eastern fence Lizard, shut up and take my money!

You can start by studying the "mice from grain" that seem to happen in Australia from time to time. At least... the mice are found around grain stores.

@Joe Andersen why did you mark your lecture as for kids? Was it an excuse to have the comments turned off?

@Joe Andersen LIAR

The theory of evolution is, IMHO validated most by the simple fact that it would actually be completely impossible to design a genetic reproductive system which does NOT result in constant adaptive change. 1) any biological system involving the use of a genetically based method of information transfer between generations WILL carry a certain level of mutation or change. No chemical process is 100% reliable. 2) genetic change will, to some extent, determine the characteristics of offspring 3) changing characteristics will affect organism's likelihood of reproductive success with a population 4) changing physical environments will also impact which characteristics are best adapted to survival and reproductive success in a population. QED: evolution is not only an observable fact, but is an INEVITABLE fact of biological reality

@Joe Andersen we welcome your demonstration of this claim's truth.

I used his 'Systematic Classification of Life' series combined with: 'Vertebrate Palaeontology' by Michael Benton, 'History of Life' by Richard Cowen, 'Evolution of Earth' by Donald Prothero and Robert Dott ru-vid.com/group/PLgRoK-eyLjomaNEGNHjb1r8YWbUzVIskd

In the Middle Ages there was an art motif of a bush that grew sheep. The theory is that the original European artist misunderstood cotton.

I don't think he will leave his christian blob to read a decent book.

He needs to stop it with the hebrew. He just chose the ones who said the words meant what he wanted. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ges5GxUXAXk.html And I think the word for firmament "reik'a" means emty space.

And love each other very, very much ...

Obviously farm children are not in his classes demographic.

And they lived happily ever after.🤣🤣🤣

yeah, that was fucking savage

Magic isn't just more entertaining it also takes a lot less work. Religious people are outright too lazy to get educated. They're so incredibly lazy that the fact that it's incredibly easy to debunk any given religious claim with hardly any time or effort involved at all they still can't be bothered. Science and Religion are polar opposites, but the fact that people with actual education and expertise can claim any religion is true shows the capacity of the human brain for self delusion. The very existence of something as paradoxical as a religious scientist proves this.

@@immortalfrieza i don't think i completly agree with you. obviously some theists are intelectualy lazy, but in many cases i think it's more psychological effects sutch as fear of the unknown. to them theism is a part of their identity and a the way they interpret the world so just throwing that away likely feels horribly wrong on an instincual level just like you would be hesitant to throw away atheism.

You claim atnheists arent lazy?

Well for many, I think it's just psychologically comforting to not have to admit that we're all here with no particular purpose beyond procreation. No 'divine plan', nor 'meaning of life', nor 'everlasting hereafter'. Looking up at the night sky and realizing just how insignificant we are can be a hard pill to swallow.

@@mikefochtman7164 And, if we were willing to admit that, we'd be far far more advanced as a species because everyone to a man would be working to change that.

But isnt Venus a religion?

@@turkoositerapsidi No, but it is the name of a god IN a specific religion.

@@ilikecookies9796 That is indeed what i was pondering about.

I feel like the moon would be a better example, because I can't see proof of Venus with my naked eye. I can see proof of evolution and watch it happen all around me, though. Honestly evolution is closer to me than the moon, but at least I can see the moon in the sky with my own 2 eyes!

That's a Professor Dave quote, isn't it?

You guys have a struggle there. I heard flat earthers are on the rise... in a country that can’t even see the pole star😳

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2utSDK3zqYA.html

#JESUS FIRST Salvation Is Only Through The Jesus Of The Bible Brother And He Gave All That There Is Life

@@jesuslord6822 one good reason not to: Exodus 21.

@@jesuslord6822 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-SixyZ7DkSjA.html

And yet he chose to spend his time teaching utter bunkum to children 😔

I'm always flabbergasted when I hear about a case like Hoyle's where a person so brilliant in one field can be such a drooling moron when thinking about another. The tornado creating an airliner analogy was Hoyle's, and reveals that he had no clue whatsoever about the incremental stochastic process in which random mutation builds up an enormous reservoir of genetic variation in any large population of animals, which is then acted on by circumstantial selection in a kind of ratcheting system that continuously refines adaptation to the environment. How could a scientifically trained and acclaimed man have avoided the most basic understanding of another field that he had the temerity to criticize? I just don't get it, but fortunately examples of that kind of extreme incongruity are rare.

@Miraak those rants don't negate his brilliance in another field, though. That was the OP's point here.

@Miraak Sure. Brilliant cardiologist, but doesn't know jack about botany. Fine with me. I'm not a plant, and doubt that I have a forsythia growing in my coronary arteries .

@Miraak Good luck, because ( probably) around 99% of them are going to be clueless in some scientific field/fields.

Highly underrated comment.

It's not so funny when you remember that his audience is going to include a lot of home-schooled children who don't have the knowledge to approach these ideas critically.

@@richardfurness7556 here's hoping somebody teaches them critical thinking sooner than later where they'll see the atrocities their uninformed parents teach