Evidence for evolution | Biology | Khan Academy 

they probably uses pen draw tablets,i guess,cos you literally can't write anything with a mouse

Edward I love that this is totally besides the point! Lol

His mouse writing evolved

it's called insane-practicing

First thing i thought when he started writing. I have trouble making straight lines myself :')

Easy to listen ! Glad i found this channel

Yes, it's a pleasure to listen to him.

@@alphabeta1337 Judging that your profile picture is a picture of flat earth. It's obvious you're not very smart

Where's the science?

@sonder: The video is for any person. And anybody can make comments about it.

I didn't see any actual evidence he just explained the theory

It's impactful how disparate the theory is in terms of evidence as it is with the rhetoric. The rhetoric is that it is an established fact. The evidence level is really at the level of massive inference. Imagine attaching the label of science (which should mean that your brain is adding everything up correctly) and evidence, and then making a video like this. This is truly beyond the pale.

This is so funny

Yes it was too funny 😂😆

Lmao!!!! Hahahaha haha mologous

Yeah evolution is laughable

Your religion is more of a joke.

For that virus are great! It had been witnessed evolution acting on virus since they reproduce so fast they evolve fast (a big problem for finding the efficient cure, they can become immune to meds quickly or becoming dangerous to other animals, like humans). But I see what you meant, I would like to see animals and humans changing too.

well bacteria in general evolve fairly quickly, largely because of our own doing...

you should see time lapses on youtube also naked science made a masterpiece of 40 min on human origins

the only direct evidence is that it macro evolution was applied on viruses, or single celled organisms, to assume it works on multi cell organisms is anti science, as most mutations in humans are cancer, also with fruitflies they failed, so its cut and apste science and missapplication deception to say one animal turns into another as the 1st 2 sections of this video are speculation. in theory if ti was a million times faster nothing would change ot it would just be like the x-men which is science fiction.

Yes they evolve quickly reproduce quickly but hey they are still bacteria lol

Alan Kelch, but they are still not PROVEN, and still have many holes in their story.

Alan There are two sciences: quantum physics and classical physics. Classical physics is based on quantum physics. Without quarks constantly bursting forth and spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light called protons and neutrons, then "solidity" or classical physics would not exist. These words come from the book "The Quantum World" written by the physicist Kenneth Ford. Also an excellent quantum physics book is "Hands of Light" written by the physicist Barbara Brennan. There is nothing anywhere that is not real or natural, yet the paradox is that everything is an image because nothing is solid. Even plastic is constantly bursting forth as quarks. God's mind is imagery. We are images, which are fact supported reliable accounts and well substantiated explanations in these books.

Theres a difference between description and cause. What evolutionary theory does is find descriptions (evidence for speciation) and then extrapolates it to say that this means all species are the result of evolution

Correct. And the beauty is, if one theory comes along and debunks a pre-existing theory, we discard the old theory with impunity!

@@motorheadbanger90 As we should. Science is not a religion.

Tikimatuka you literally just said the same thing two times

@@jahinashkar7971 no

Microbilology is the study of the biology of microscopic organisms. The microscopic level includes aroms and molecules. Molecular biology is the study of Molecular organisms. So, molecular biology is microbiology, but microbiology is not molecular biology.

Yes that is a form of natural selection however it is not sufficient in proving the total evolution of a kind or species these lizards your describing did not evolve into a bird or a cat, as evolutionists dictate, your response will likely be "well because it takes millions of years" if that is the case then it is not observable, rather it is faith. And no theory should be made a premise or foundation for other claims as if the foundation is not steady nothing above is.

Well I'm watching this out of curiousity

Brother, nothing in this video proved darwinian evolution.

@@treydevercelly7518 also i found out i will be taking Chemistry next year because im taking it for a elective i don't need a 4th science but i do also we are talking about this in physical science right now so ignore my comment from 6 months ago this is from April/May back in the spring i was i think 16 when i said this well i am 17 now so prove my point tell me it doesn't deal with Darwinian Evolution.

I think Genghis is coming back

Best proof ever. Lol.

@@derpedlerp1237 u just dont get it do u?

@@kinesonc what?

🧢

Yes that is a form of natural selection however it is not sufficient in proving the total evolution of a kind or species these lizards your describing did not evolve into a bird or a cat, as evolutionists dictate, your response will likely be "well because it takes millions of years" if that is the case then it is not observable, rather it is faith. And no theory should be made a premise or foundation for other claims as if the foundation is not steady nothing above is.

Yep, there are lots of them. There is a list of transitional fossils on Wikipedia.

@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 surely you could link them then

@@imsavor Link what? Are you referring to a link to the article I mentioned or a link scientists find between the fossils they found?

@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 yeah, like site some sources so he/we can see

@@imsavor But I've already told you: type in "list of transitional fossils Wikipedia".

“Orgasmisms” ?

A single celled organism doesn't have to evolve to a multicellular one for it to be considered more complex. Just a simple change would make it comparably more complex.

@@gavin_hill There is a gene in a population of monkeys called TRIM5-CypA. This is a combination of TRIM5 and CypA. The new hybrid genome has a purpose completely irrelevent to the other genomes. New gene, new purpose, new information.

@@terra_727 Well, based on your comment alone, it's not new information, it's just information rearranged. Not sure that that makes any difference to your argument, but just saying.

​@mpersand The DNA code is proven to be dynamic - through mutation, it can increase, decrease, and be rearranged. All of this creates new genetic information.

Agree but the other elements that make mutation are not proven scientifically as far as I know

In one common mode of speciation ("allopatric" speciation), two populations of the same species are split apart geographically. Small changes accumulate in both populations, causing them to be more and more different from each other. Eventually, the differences are great enough that the two populations cannot interbreed when they do get together

Engmazzouz Also mutations have been proven. Im not completely sure what your question about mutations is but feel free to ask and i think i can help

AHappyPumpkin thanks for the reply

The horses example show different genuses of Equiidae, that is already evolution from one species to another.

What ever dog you breed you’ll get another dog.. not a cat or a insect or anything else

@@WascallyWabbits Yes, but you may get a different breed of dog.

@@siddharthnandi3995 exactly, it’s still a dog, the breed may have changed but the Kind didnt

@@WascallyWabbits Define kind.

@@siddharthnandi3995 there’s different kinds of animals, by kinds o mean dogs cats birds whales insects, the kind doesn’t change in dog breeding the type of dog just does

Haeckel's drawings were embellished to the point of falsity, that is undeniable. But the principle that he was attempting to illustrate is genuine.

@@InformationIsTheEdge it is not. They start out very different, look somewhat similar at one point and then different again. His whole theory was a fraud.

@ A great deal of observations and tests have taken place since Haeckel and all of them agree with Darwin's idea. In fact there is not one test, experiment or observation that contradicts evolution. All the facts are on the side of evolution.

@@InformationIsTheEdge can you give me one example of experimental data that demonstrates a macro evolutionary change?

@ Cetaceans and their fossil record aren't really an experiment. More observations and measurements.

No, it couldn't, because it is a known fact that homologous structures indicate common ancestry since the more closely related two species are, the more anatomical similarities there are, and the more recent of a common ancestor they have. It is not like works of art or literature because they are not biological organisms that can pass down traits to descendant populations.

your comment right here shows how little you know about this, yet still try to credit a fiction creator

So a creator intentionally made it to look like evolution happened?

Interesting theory JC. Appreciate the thought. As you can see from the other replies, it is very simple. All you need to do is accept that evolution is true and you will see that everything points to evolution being true. It's very simple relig... I mean science. As it was stated in a reply, "it is a known fact that homologous structures indicate common ancestry...". We know this is true because evolution is true, therefore proving that evolution is true. It's very simple if you just stop and don't think about it.

Why your creator crated leukemia, infectious diseases, and birth defects?

but when you find many different fossils from different times with gradually bigger skulls .... doesnt make you think?

silversurfer there aren’t any skulls found that seem to have grown ‘gradually’, also upon further thinking you would naturally question the technique of dating

Christiaan Bell the human skull is much different that it was centuries ago

I dont think you understand how fossils work

to to to

😂

When determining if something is an ancestor there is an entire list scientists must go through full of predicts that must be true. You are simplifying this way too much.

Nothing about that is circular. In fact, it is a diligent and complicated process.

That literally makes no sense.

Dna dictates your ancestry and you can never grow out of it. China took 250000 dna samples from people all over China to prove there was a Chinese sample that Chinese did not have African dna markers. And they failed in this attempt. everyone has African DNA markers.

@@MrCountrycuz this point if your doesn't prove anything as it shows growth of man from a single person . Why you just negate the other option. Thinking that what you assume is the only option

Your argument its because it's a theory that so much has been stacked on, we have gone too far to consider it as an incorrect over esteemed theory, this is a cognitive bias, irrationality and neglect of the scientific method. A theory cannot be the foundation for all work. Especially if the following results coming from it are declared absolute conclusions.

It's just you. Us scientists can actually tell the difference between faunal remains. We have various ways in which to do this.

jordie00bogart can you let me in on the secret?

If you live in or around London Ontario, I'd gladly show you the basics. I have a huge collection of faunal and fossils with which to teach.

jordie00bogart if you stopped at London maybe I could have taken a look, im from the U.K.

Ah.. I see. I'm from Canada.. lol! It's a fake London here. Though, it was modelled after the real London, even with street names and the 'Thames rive..' lol

It’s not that we don’t believe evolution I do for example but don’t believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. We evolve overtime and adapt to our environments. But it’s not the same as evolution mutations (Darwin’s theory) which is ridiculous odds that it could even happen.

@@lefronzzedong4871 it doesn't have ridiculous odds, give it enough time and the mutations can and have created more diverse life. Evidence for the theory of Evolution through natural selection is given in the video

And, by the way, the theory of Evolution and Evolution are the same thing, and are use interchangably in biology.

Jarrett Ludolph The problem is did you have a growing number of mathematicians and biologist actually leaving Darwins theory of evolution, it doesn’t add up to them. Math has a big factor in assisting the truth and I’m sorry to say but the math does not correlate with evolution it just doesn’t the odds are too astronomically against evolution happening. Even with time it just doesn’t add up at all The chances of earth aligning perfectly with the sun so we don’t burn to death or freeze to death by space is 1x10(98)

@@lefronzzedong4871 explain to me, in detail, how the math doesn't add up

We can't know for sure, but of all the creatures we have found, both in the fossil record and living today, less than 99.9% of all organisms have survived to this day. The overwhelmingly vast majority of all species that ever lived have died in the past.

​@@tuejtn9734 Or other types of exctinction events.

Tue jtn an overwhelming percentage of life was ocean based. What killed them were super volcanoes that dumped too much carbon dioxide and other gases into the water, making life less capable of surviving.

Just like we have different type of birds frogs ect..There were different types of humans in the past also...Human beings today are more concerned with preserving endangered animal species than preserving endangered human species

@ Sexual Tyrannosaurs Can you clarify? Do you mean other humanoids that are alive today? Because there are none. Do you mean learning the history of prehistoric humanoids?

There are? They are called vestigial structures or homologous structures, and transition between species skeletons are one of their evolutionary evidences

@@gmaccc2420 If he would only google things he would know that we humans have many of such structures.

@@innerdescent8210 exactly and plus too if he wanted to or if anyone else wanted to look these things up they should watch or read about blue whales, they have some of the most damning evidence and plenty of transitional skeletons/species such as basilosours

@@gmaccc2420 Science seeks the evidence so the truth may be revealed. Religion denies the facts so that the truth remains concealed.

Creationists

@@alphabeta1337 "If Evolution were true, then life would not exist in the first place." That's a very odd claim. How can you prove it?

@@Ozzyman200 you tellin me you can just take an item and wait for something to happen?? No cuz everything is created by something (someone) in this world

@@twinesniper8247 I don't think I said that. What's that got to do with evolution? You're making a huge claim there- how could you check if it's true?

@@Ozzyman200 thing is, there is no real evidence in exact science for evolution besides theories and stories.

@@samimed23 That's a huge claim. Can you back it up?

Now many believe evolution, BUT they also believe it was started by god

@@velvethamster9809 Fair point

I want to see an actual process of this happening, one organism mutating to something else. (For example, ape to human). Give me one observable evidence of Darwin’s evolution, not adaptation and speciation.

@@Erickdelgado3645 All viruses mutate to adapt to their environment

@@craigfowler7098 I know but they still are viruses not something else.

Even if those forms existed, you because you are so stuborn would be like "okay, their has to be forms between form 1.5 and 2, and 1 and 1.5." I could debunk you but it would be exhausting.

So, you are telling me, that we have to find fossil remains of every generation of animals on this earth if evolution is real....

@@gavin_hill Why is it unreasonable to assume that they reproduced? You don't need to have actual proof that prehistoric animals reproduced. It's a reasonable conclusion based on evidence provided, such as the closest living things to said prehistoric organisms also reproducing. Secondly, we know animals such as the Great White Shark reproduce, but do fossil specimens of that species also have reproduced? According to you, that's unreasonable. Thirdly, we actually have found irrefutable evidence of some species reproducing. There is a specimen of a species of Ichthyosaur that actually died while giving birth. Yeah. Now, that's direct evidence that particular (at the very least) individual reproduced, but as I stated before, we have indirect evidence that animals reproduced. Oh, also, there is evidence to suggest to suggest that offspring survived into adulthood. Juvenile organisms are usually smaller in relation, so if we find a much bigger individual, it's reasonable to assume that individual survived into adulthood. Also, there is a particular set of bones that fuse when an animal is in adulthood, suggesting that animal also survived into adulthood. You don't need direct evidence for everything, indirect evidence is just as valid as direct evidence if the conclusion is reasonable. There actually is evidence for evolution based on fossils. Have you heard of transitional forms? If you don't believe in them, disprove every single one of them. Naww, man. You don't have any evidence that "God" existed either. Yes, emotional appeals will definitely make me believe in God more...not.

@@gavin_hill When people talk about "God's grace" to convince them into their religion, it's an emotional appeal. It tugs at your emotions. I am most effectively tugged by logical appeals. Yes, you are right, there is no direct evidence that most individuals that fossilize (most, not all) did not reproduce, but why is it unreasonable to conclude that they didn't. You're basing your claims off of the fact that indirect evidence doesn't exist. Due to this, concluding that that individual reproduced is more reasonable than concluding that they didn't. Speculative evidence and indirect evidence are not the same thing. Indirect evidence makes a conclusion just as valid as direct evidence as long as the logic and reasoning behind the conclusion is valid itself. Speculation is based upon ideas, but aren't fully accepted, but could be a possibility. Most (disregarding ones we do have direct evidence of reproduction) species reproducing is based upon indirect evidence. All organisms reproduce today, whether it be sexually or asexually, so why is it unreasonable to assume extinct species reproduced. Heck, even recently extinct species, like the dodo and the tasmanian tiger, have evidence, even empirical evidence that they reproduced. Now, why is it unreasonable to conclude the species of a fossilized individual reproduced. Again, you don't need direct evidence to prove everything. I know this is a bit off topic, but fossils prove more than just the fact that an animal lived and died. We can tell the lifestyle and appearance of an animal based on fossils, if the remains uncovered are complete enough to do so and/or there are more complete specimens of relatives of that individual's species to compare it to. For example, we were able to conclude a reasonable hunting style for Allosaurus, a genera of theropod dinosaur. The animal's jaw muscles were weak, weaker than a lion (that's saying something as Allosaurus was 7 times more massive than a lion). But, the skull itself could withstand a force 15x as great as its bite. This suggests that Allosaurus used its head like an axe. Driving the top jaw into its prey. Or Carcharodontosaurus, another theropod dinosaur, we were able to tell its hunting style too. The skull of Carcharodontosaurus was weak, unable to hold onto struggling prey and its teeth was thin, to weak to bite easily through bone. But its teeth were sharp with deadly serrations. Leading scientists to conclude that the animal probably used its skull and teeth to slash deep into the prey, and let it die of blood loss. There is actually a lot more things I could mention, but that would be too much. Extinction of an animal is not linked to lack of reproduction. Extinction is more likely due to environmental, or outside, causes. Again, it is not unreasonable to assume that a species of extinct animal reproduced. I'm giving you evidence to support my claim but you keep ignoring them just to fulfill your agenda. If an animal was dead, it must have been alive to begin with, which means another individual, or pair of individuals, gave birth to that individual. Fossilization is a rare process, and finding just a single individual's fossilized remains is already enough to conclude that species survived, reproduced, and thrived. Okay, look, let's take the animal Archaeopteryx. It has features of both dinosaurs and birds. Why is it unreasonable to assume that it is a transitional form? Its not speculation and blind faith, its conclusions based on evidence given. You know what is blind faith though? Believing in God. Prove God exists. Actually prove he exists. Not any of that "design points to a designer" crap. God isn't real. He never created anything. Oh, and to answer the question. Why do I need to depend on someone to give me answers when I can conclude a statement based on evidence given?

@@gavin_hill I determine what is true by what is proven true. I don't need some supernatural being that nobody can prove to tell me what is true or not. We aren't really agreeing on the fossil idea, are we? Your main point was that we cannot tell anything more about an animal's fossilized remains than that it lived and died. Which is not true at all. You don't do the same rigorous testing that scientists do when examining a specimen. The only way for your stance to be valid is if you actually examined the specimen yourself and actually coming up with a valid conclusion that conforms with the scientific method. There are no beliefs when examining a fossilized specimen. Oh, it has sharp teeth better suited for cutting flesh, that must be a carnivore. Is that a belief? Is believing a certain species a carnivore a belief, even though we find BITE MARKS on the prey item made by the predator? Or is it all about cherry picking information that doesn't fit with your agenda. Which is the real blind faith here? I use the phrase "God's grace" as a general term used to describe something "great" God does that pulls on your emotions. Like how you say "God gave us the breath of life." That conforms with the term. You are using emotions instead of reason to tug me into your religion. I don't fall for that. I don't think you know how this works. It isn't true until disproven, it is false until proven. If the former was a major part in human reasoning, there would be a major problem with our thinking. Imagine if I stated that mermaids exist. And you had a job of disproving it. According to your logic, saying prove it isn't valid. You would have to find something that proves that mermaids don't exist. Which is virtually impossible. According to your logic once again, mermaids are real, because you failed to disprove their existence. Now do you see how flawed your logic is? The same logic that dictates that unicorns, mermaids, etc. are not real is just as valid when you apply that logic to God. It is false until proven, with absolute certainly, which has never happened on the topic of the existence of God.

Then explain why there are tiny hand bones in whales.

??

in the direct evidence section macro evolution was only applied to single celled organisms, it faile to prove it happens to multi cells or that one animal turns to another as the rest was just assumptions. i appreciate his honesty though.

false sets etc. Ah, it seems you are an anti Semite. Well, the Carpenter from Nazareth is called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah in the Bible. Let's see Whom you are coming up against, below. But first.... Let's see how pseudo science is being used to convince you that you are nothing but a fish update who sprang from some antiscientific primal pond type scenario, and who certainly doesn't have a Heavenly Father Who...loves...you. Then let's look at some real science, a bit outside the box. . We have been told that life came from inorganic matter. Now, science must have observable data to be valid and must not ignore the actual data. The actual data, per the LAW of Biogenesis? Life always comes only from life and life of the same kind. Theories are fine if they don't defy the actual evidence. Even in labs, with intelligent design and high tech equipment, life has never been created. The best they can do is take a living cell and alter it with genetic engineering, or get some of the components of the cell, not all of them at all. . The needed proteins and other components of a cell are not only not all there, they are not arranged as they need to be arranged - in statistically impossible ways if random chance had put them together. No one has even gotten close to creating life. It should be easy. Just take a simple cell or any life form that has died. There you have all the components of life. So why can't anyone do a Dr. Frankenstein on any of them? (And kindly don't say that evolution doesn't "do" abiogenesis. Look. It's in evolution writings and documentaries, and all over the net and YT.) . We have also been told as gawd's truth scientific fact that a 3 foot high ape type creature, an Australopithecus, Lucy, was your great, great etc. granny. Based on? Some minor similarities, namely "similar homology" namely the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. The fact that she was pretty much like any other ol' Australopithecus was irrelevant to them. Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy. . Since evolutionists are always disagreeing with one another on everything, now some of them say, No, it wasn't Lucy but some other such creature. Some creature with no evidence it existed. Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. . Now how do they know Lucy et al even had a single descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less one that could cross the impossible genus barrier and turn into you? Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. . Guess for how long any "transitions" are missing between you and Lucy or some other transition du jour? Oh, for just 2 to 5 million Darwin years! The rocks say no transitions exist. The evo spin, their Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy, tells you, again as gawd's truth scientific fact, that they are just "missing." . We've also been told that we came via a fish, Tiktaalik. The story goes that this...fish...was found in just the right place for a "transition". Problem is, it's 100% nothing but a...fish. See Wiki describing it as "an extinct species of lobe finned fish." Google the fossil of Tiktaalik, which is mostly missing. Do those tiny fin fragments look like they could be said to be turning into legs - without the presuming omniscience logical fallacy? Yet we see all sorts of fanciful art work of Tik with long, muscular "evolving" legs, bending as the fish transits, supposedly, to land. The real evidence? . In countless billions of fossils and in living examples, all we ever see are 100% fish and 100% tetrapods/four legged animals. (No, mud skippers and "walking" catfish are not transitions. They are using their 100% fins in an unusual way, similar to a flying fish which is no way turning into a bird.) . Evolutionists are constantly picking up fossils like Tiktaalik from the ground and telling you, for up to over a 100 million Darwin years, what happened to their invisible and evidenceless countless billions of "descendants." Never ask them how to tell a missing link from a non existent link. And then they accuse Christians of being into "magical thinking." . You are not a fish update. You are infinitely more than that. Here is some actual, observable and documented evidence, to help you see that: Now in the Bible we are told of a Man Who believed in Adam and Eve and Noah as being actual, historical figures. The Bible says He did miracles and told others to do things like raise the dead and heal the sick. It also describes His death and burial. Is there any actual scientific data to support those stories? . See secular news reports about Val Thomas, dead for 17 hours but now alive and normal after prayers from her family and her Church. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sPHycsIdB1Y.html . . See Medical Marvel Beyond Chance, from a secular source, with a pediatrician giving his report. this one attesting to a dying child's healing which cannot be explained by modern medicine, and came after a relative laid hands on her and prayed for her. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xyko-56NCSw.html The DNA in every cell in her body was changed. . See CBN's short vid with Dean Braxton. You'll hear his critical care doctor, rated the best patient care doctor in Washington state, saying "It is a miracle...a miracle..." that Braxton is alive, has no brain damage and is normal in every way. Why? He had no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours! His family believed in divine healing and they and others were praying for him. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-c3Zjt8r-hNA.html . Also see CBN Dr. Chauncey Crandall Raises A Man From The Dead. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-s-7ZkleLu1w.html Part 1. This video is a bit faded but has the most complete information on this story. . Get Dr. Richard Casdorph's book The Miracles. There he gives medical documentation for miracles, mostly, but not all, from Kathryn Kuhlman's healing services. Casdorph came to Kuhlman's meetings to debunk her but turned into a supporter, as did other doctors. You can see him and other doctors in some of her healing services on YT. (She is now deceased.) Delores Winder is one of the cases documented in his book. You can watch her amazing story on YT with Sid Roth. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CfdG5czaUX0.html. . The book The Audacity of Prayer by Don Nordin lists medically documented miracles. . On Andrew Wommack's vids you can see doctors talking about "miracles" too. Check out the YT vid with the ophthalmologist who says Yes, Ronald Coyne could see out of an empty eye socket after a faith healer prayed for him. You can see him doing demos. At the end of the book Don't Limit God you see a medical statement by a doctor saying that his patient used to have M.S. and diabetes but is now cured. . Bruce Van Natta was in a horrific accident where he lost about 80% of his small intestine. Someone he didn't even know was told to get on a plane and lay hands on him and pray for him. His small intestines grew back competely and you can see his doctors testifying to that. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fYwFqeHBA28.html . Here we see many witnesses reporting donated food being miraculously multiplied for people who lived in a dump in Juarez. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gwsuYYIJ3Rg.html . Do you think that Someone Who can raise the dead and heal people of deadly "incurable" diseases, Someone Who can create body parts and food out of nothing, needed "evolution" to make life forms? No, He created them fully formed and fully functional in 6 days just as Genesis, a Book He always supported, tells you. Then there is the Shroud of Turin. If you don't know, the Shroud is a linen burial shroud with the faint image of a crucified man on it. If you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample was invalid due to contamination. . ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XTtDhvk_aw4.html . The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which even reveals the bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud. . In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into possession of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals. . The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: The Shroud image was not painted on, and they have no clue how it got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology. . About the Shroud I say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, maybe it's a duck." . Maybe that Man on the Shroud is your very Best Friend and Savior. I pray you will find that out. You're going to need a miracle some day friend. They are out there in abundance for those who humbly seek them from their Creator, the One Who made all that DNA out there, and Who said, "Whoever comes to Me I will no way cast out."

Same bro same

Lol hi Trina I just checked my inbox found your comment

Hello fellow biology students

Our common ancestors are referred to by geneticists as Y-chromosome Adam, and Mitochondrial Eve. Using the pedigree method, geneticists have determined that both lived around the same time, around 6000 years ago.

@kaushik pechetti I cited a genetic study done, which has estimated that our descent from our first ancestors started only 6000 years ago. The way they calculate the evolution timeline is based on the presupposition that it’s true (it’s like me proving the bible, by using the bible)

@kaushik pechetti linked it already

@@treydevercelly7518 Where is your citation of this study lol it better have some peer reviews as well.

Nobody questions the scientific process, and your example is also not.. the scientific process. God bless you

@@treydevercelly7518 you obviously didn’t read my comment, because I didn’t say anything about an example of scientific process. I said it was made POSSIBLE because of the scientific method. And thank you have good day too

@@tumsfestival8027 Oops my fault, “which are all made possible..” 😂 no harm meant, I just missed a couple words. Thank you for correcting me

This comment is so indirectly toxic and irrelevant, I don't see your point at all.

I find it difficult to believe that there is people like you walking among us. The human brain far exceeds anything any human can make. Good luck in believing Laurence Krause's theory of something out of nothing. Just like that piece of glass that's fed data onto the cloud, has an architect.... So do you! It astonishing how blind people go through life trying to explain away the core of our existence. Good luck buddy. Hope you make it.

Adaptation IS evolution.

@@javathon3194 Give it another listen. The entire thing is based on things looking like things.

@@soulheal539 You give it another listen lol he was simply trying to break it down in an elementary sense for a wider ranged audience to comprehend what is being proposed.

@@soulheal539 You should read more, if you think the undeniable evidence for Evolution lies ONLY in fossils... Genetics has removed any question today. Only the details are being hashed out now.

@@brianmi40 Actually, genetics and dna research proved evolution is a total load of bull ^^. But good luck to you friend.

@@soulheal539 Yeah, good luck with that. Try SPEAKING to some ACTUAL GENETICISTS. LOL, IDIOTS. FUN FACT: there are more scientists named simply "STEVE" that accept evolutionary theory, than ALL THE DENIERS PUT TOGETHER. LOL, IDIOTS.

Whitney Washington I no longer agree with my comment.

Whitney Washington Hey, I can admit where I'm wrong!

@@sageseraph5035 what made you disagree with yourself?

@@sageseraph5035 Thanks. You noticed your mistakes. Because the biological evolution is a fact, not a belief stuff.

There is not a creator though. Maybe there is but nothing to do with biology.

No, you are clearly showing that you do not know what you are talking about. 1. In biology there is no "kind". The word has NO meaning. 2. Macroevolution is the Evolution beyond species level and has been demonstrated. Humans and chimps carry the same set of pseudogenes, we share 12 ERV markers in the same places in our genomes and we have the fossil record of transitional species between our common ancestor and modern humans. 3. Much of our DNA is involved with maintaining cellular function and as both plants and animals are eukariotic organisms, it follows that the regulation of the cellular function are similar. 4. Creationism has NO explanatory ability in biology.

Sorry you have no right to talk if you want to spread false facts. Most of our assumptions are based on traits of an animal, its specialised diet and its DNA content.

@@kayp329 as opposed to fiction, which the creationist view is based on.

It's not wired All organisms on earth are linked by each other .....dues to decent from a common ancestor

No, but both of those clay objects came out of clay, which is more of what evolution is saying

You took evolution way out of context. Evolution isn't a straight line, it has many branches. Yes, you can use this to demonstrate evolution. If you take the clay (common ancestor), change them (adaptations), and make them a totally new clay figure (speciation), that's evolution.

viraj gupta maybe because it has too many assumptions and too little real evidence...

@@olegunnar1559 ❤️

@@olegunnar1559 no

@@olegunnar1559 if only you were smart enough to find evidence on the very same website you are commenting on but oh well

@@rw10yearsago42 well, the problem is... it’s only assumptions...

Hi

They reposted it, because they deleted it.

Yeah, no discussion. Very scientific! 🤣

Have you ever looked at evidence for creation? Both have arguments and “evidence”. Just looking at one sides evidence doesn’t give you much to go off of. If you look at a Christian world view, the reason for why we all have similar bone structures is because we have a reliable structure, one that works perfectly for our purpose. The fossil record is there from Noah’s flood. There’s a lot more to look at for their evidence, I just can’t remember the other half of it right now. Both sides of the argument have biologist and people who can give reasons for their argument.

@@gryffin8063 don't try. Jeff is a scientist and thus no discussion.

@@pavaomarusic6051 just because your a scientist doesn’t mean you know everything there is to know about everything. Even a genius can be wrong. We’re human and we have our flaws. Him being a scientist proves nothing, it would be a faulty appeal to authority fallacy to say such a thing. Knowing both sides of the argument is the only way to truly know what’s right. You can’t just look at one side and say the other makes no sense without knowing where they come from. Christians have evidence to prove their claims just as much as evolutionist do. There is evidence in science for both claims. The only thing I’m saying is you should know your opponent before believing you’ve won the argument.

@@gryffin8063 I agree. The point I was making is that Jeff thinks science dosen't allow for discussion. I also find mocking people to be more motivating instead of rational calm talk.

What do you mean?

yet all evidence shows otherwise

Well, that's what the Bible says so...

@@Zanta100 no, furry

@@franzliszt8957 And means nothing when that same book says that bats are birds,, whales are fish,, and donkeys can talk. And its ok to own other human beings. You need to make a choice on whether you choose reason or superstition.

He didn't admit is was fraudulent and nobody ever proved such. They were drawn before we had ultrasound, so obviously they weren't as accurate as today.

did u even watch the video

@@karinaharvey658 that was a year ago..

Evolution is the very foundation that the entire field of biology stands on. Without evolution, the entire field of biology crumbles.

No idiot. Just molecular biology and DNA analysis prove common ancestry beyond ANY doubt.

@@torotanaka3788''similarity" proves "common ancestry" beyond any doubt? Interesting.

@@tezuttley It is not just the similarity in DNA but it is the DIFFERENCES that are the real overwhelming proof of common ancestry. Of course, it appears that you have no idea what I am talking about.

@@torotanaka3788 too bad a good airsoft company shares the name "tanaka" with a little idiot

@@nig_card why are their mutations if God created humans?

that what poeple dont get about evolution every stage is a different specie in different times.... but they are related to each other

yes we have genetic evidence that evolution exists lol

@@silversurfer6360 Define 'specie'. If 2 'species' can have fertile offsprings, than those 2 are one specie. Fact that all species have DNA , doesn't mean those are all related.

@@karinaharvey658 Yeah, change happens.

@@matijabandic the definition of specie is not " 2 things who cant reproduce " some can but the offspring are sterile and some cant at all , the dna similarities is what make us understand the history of a specie

And just because you share similar traits with your parents, doesn't mean you came from them. It just means the pixies who popped you into existence wanted you to be similar to the people who they chose to raise you.

eddy eldridge what the

@@eddyeldridge7427 that is a very stupid comparison, unless if you can bring a dog who can produce humans babies, or a whale who can produce puppies.

"that is a very stupid comparison, unless if you can bring a dog who can produce humans babies, or a whale who can produce puppies." If I could produce such a thing, that would be evidence AGAINST evolution.

there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution ...... because its small changes over time , its the number of changes that matter not how big they are

Tony Mak I take it you didnt actually watch the video?

Tony Mak do people still believe there is a god in the 21st century?

Did I watch the whole video, you mean ALL his "evidence" in 13 minutes ? Well yes of course, hence my comment. Do people still believe in God ? I suppose so, as well as intelligent design, but most of all, anyone who can think for himself can see that Darwins theory is a crock, therefore there must be another way. For life to have come about by itself, as Darwin postulated, the chances are so close to zero it doesn't bear thinking about, so yes, creation is much more likely.

Almost everything you said was wrong. Terrific.

I believe in the Bible literally, and I will give you just a few, scientific, reasons why. The evidences for the Bible are too numerous to mention and include areas such as archaeology, history, fulfilled prophecies and, yes, science. Let's start with DNA. All DNA is always just a copy of a copy of a copy and so on. Yes, it can be altered to some extent, but no new strands of DNA are ever created and, further, no one has any data to show how any DNA got here. This matches the Bible which says creation has halted. And btw, fish don't have DNA instructions for legs, and lizards don't have DNA instructions for feathers, wings etc. Since no new DNA is ever created, where would they get it from? Cite your data, if any. Another example of how creation has been halted is seen when you look at the taxonomic groupings of animals and plants, ascending from species to class, to order, to phylum, to kingdom. No plants or animals ever go higher than the creation of a new species, no matter what Darwin, or evolutionary peer reviews, claim happened in the invisible and unverifiable past. That stasis matches what the Bible says, also, about creation having been halted. Plants and animals stay in their "kinds" i.e. families. But if you can give an example to the contrary, by all means do so. The Bible talks about a Great Flood. There are countless billions of fossils all over the planet. Now, fossils are created when life forms are suddenly buried with water, then rapidly covered with sediment. To give you an idea of their vast numbers, consider that there are billions of fossils of just one kind of ocean dwelling nautiloid, alone, in the Grand Canyon alone. And, speaking of ocean dwelling creatures, 95% of all fossils on land are marine. Now how did all that ocean water get everywhere? Hmmmm.... There never was any Geologic Column, or any Cambrian, Jurassic, Triassic etc. periods. Those are all fictional. Real science uses real data. The real data shows the fossils are jumbled or, you could say, awash. For just one of countless examples, you can find giant sharks next to dino bones in America. So called lowest level Cambrian, deep sea, fossils are found at every level on the planet from Canada to New Zealand. When I say every level, that includes the hills of mid America, for instance, and most mountain tops in the world. . If you think there was a Geologic Column, link close up photos of one showing the lowest level Cambrian fossils at the bottom, and asecending layers of fossils matching the GC charts. Close ups now, not some distant photos of mountains ranges or rock piles they CLAIM have GCs in them. . If we demonstrate there is no GC, we are then are told "plate tectonics" moved the fossils around. Plate tectonics are just theories piled on hypotheses that are heaped on speculation to fit the evolutionary narrative. But we have some real data! Common sense and universal experience, and scientific research, let us know what erosion does. Now some of those deep sea life creatures' fossils, like trilobites, are supposed to have gone extinct two hundred MILLION years ago. Yet, around the planet, we see that their fossils are not uncommonly found in mint condition. Google "Trilobites on mountains." . And we're also supposed to buy it that dino bones lasted 75 million or so years? That narrative is still promoted even though they keep finding more and more soft tissues in dinosaur bones all the time, along with things like blood cells. There always is some unverifiable "reason" given for why such things lasted, of course. Forensic science - which makes it clear those materials could not survive more than a few thousand years - and common sense are ignored. . Art works, and historical accounts, around the world, which show dinos, sometimes with people, are also ignored or else the false claim is made, with no justification at all, that they must be fake. Yes, Noah would have taken dinos on the Ark. Juveniles, no doubt. They all started out in eggs about the size of a football. . The Bible says people lived for hundreds of years in Old Testament times. We cannot prove that. But we can prove that in the ancient past dinos did! Again, they started out small, but got to be gigantic. Now lizards keep growing as long as they live. Obviously there was a different eco system back then that allowed the dinos, unlike modern day lizards, to keep on growing for hundreds of years. (And giant-ism, btw, was no way confined to just dinos. There used to be rhinos as big as houses, for example.) Would not that more favorable, pre Flood, eco system have allowed for longer lives in humans, too? . Irreducible complexity is also evidence of the truth of the Bible which claims instant creation of all life forms. I will give you my favorite example, though all life is irreducibly complex. . Google a picture of the bacterial flagellum and its motor and whip. Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. So, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answers, how is mindless "evolution" going to make it happen? . Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to work together? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now. Some claim a simpler life form evolved into the b.f., but once again there is zero data to support any such claim. . Again, irreducible complexity, which indicates incredible intelligence, not to mention unimaginable power, is seen at every level in life forms. The Bible presents a picture of life forms created instantly, fully complete and fully functional. That's what irreducible complexity in living examples, and the fossil record, reveal.

Perish Microevolution and Microevolution are one in the same for the same reason inches and feet are. They measure differently but measure the same type of things.

@@darthnox72 no

Lmao micro macro evolution is the same thing it's like saying water can exist but seas can't exist, also microbiology is evidence for macroevolution

the beginning of the video is macrobiology and the end is microbiology. did u even watch the video? macrobiology is the phenotype or how genes are expressed physically with the human eye like skull structure changing, microbiology is the study of how and why skull shapes changed and how they better fit their environment

Boring

Trivial

There are cars with more and cars with fewer wheels. Just saying. And what does that have to do with evolution? Do you believe that cares are alive? Do they procreate and have offspring with small changes?

If Eve was created by GOD from Adam's rib, was Eve's DNA the same as Adam's DNA...?

@@netelsg no otherwise Eve would be Adam 2.0

David : If Eve was created from Adam's rib which contained y chromosome, then Eve must have y chromosome too. Whether Eve was a female or not, this Genesis 2 account is false and fake.

@@netelsg the genesis acount is not a scientific acount, why do you bring a religious argument?

ah yes we know that baby horses have more fingers and lose them when they grow up .

But what evidence is there for a creator?

Hm Grraarrpffrzz Common structure suggests a common creator. I would imagine quite a few parts fit a Honda Civic and a Honda Accord. Why? Same Maker. Microbiology? The same creator used the same stuff.

_"Common structure suggests a common creator"_ So according to your logic, if I find two trees that look roughly similar, that proves that magic and miracles and deities exist?

Hm Grraarrpffrzz Believing in the God of the Bible is not my point(althoughI do). My point is that commonality doesn’t prove evolution.

Well, you said something entirely different. First you said that common structures support the supposed existence of a deity. Then you say that common structures do not support the theory of evolution. Those are entirely different arguments. As an analogy: _"That it's cold proves that you are at the South Pole."_ _"That it's cold does not prove that you are at the North Pole."_ See? Those are entirely different claims. So: you do not believe that common structures support the supposed existence of a deity. You do believe that common structures do not support the theory of evolution. Is that correct?

Humans ARE self replicating robots. How many times does this question need to be answered?

What if we find an idiot that poses the same stupid question on every evolution video he finds? Would that be evidence for a created universe?

Evolution doesn't refute designer, as it itself is a designer. Yes, the robot is evidence for both design and evolution.

Sounds like “mission impossible “. Good luck... :-)

@@olegunnar1559 Is that because there isn't any empirically verifiable evidence for evolution? .. I've always assumed it's a pretty sound scientific theory.

@@bonnie43uk It is. Atavisms, endogene retro viruses, analogy and homology, "bad design", ringspecies fossils, phylogenetic findings, atrificial breading, and so on and so on... You wil find papers on all of these topics on websites like talkorigin. org or anywhere else in the internet.

@@Molluskenkoenig this guy will not accept anything. Thanks though, i will look into that list.

@@bonnie43uk No worries mate.

it doesnt bones are complex and show a lot of flaws design shows by being simple and effective

@@Zanta100 exactly?...🤔😂

yeah that is not a great example by itself. And bone structures do not need to point to a creator. If we look in more closely at related animals our bones are the same they're just shaped slightly different. But Our bones change too otherwise there would be few facial differences. And it would take time.. but I'm sure we can grow more bones, look at deer. A few species will keep their antlers year-round but others grow a set every year simply to butt heads for a month. Same with goats, beetles, sheep, seals, giraffe, cattle, chameleons etc. Crocodiles & alligators species can also be characterized by the varying number of scutes & the various shapes of the scutes. Also some pigs have no tusks while others have tusks/teeth even turning to face upward . In babirusa pigs the tusks don't even come out of their mouth anymore they pop out on the snout

No, it doesn't. The point is that the differences have precisely the appearance only selection could have produced.

@@altonware1993 thats a stupid opinion

They have too much changes between each other to where that can't be possible. If you want to refute radiometric dating, be my guest.

you can guess how old an animal was by looking at his theet etc scientist does that when they see at fossils . they would know if it was a baby or a full grown adult .

They aren't. We have many many ways in which to discern age of a specimen. From unfused bones, to teeth wear, to growth lines, etc. Additionally, the differences between horse's ancestors and anatomically modern horses is too large for them to have been young versions of modern horses.

if they were babies they would have more bones/ and their skull bones wouldn’t be fused

1) It explains the diversity of species accurately. 2) Everything we can measure or perceive or verify in experiments verifies the theory of evolution. 3) There is no other even remotely rational alternative known.

fossils prove that things changes over time , that is already enough . because if you dont accept that you must accept multiple creations from god just randomly appearing over time . also tell me why whale need fingers in her fins ?

@kaushik pechetti Humans are animals with immaterial minds and spirits

People tend to miss the evidence for evolution, when they're looking for evidence of an evolutionary process that doesn't exist. Example: evolution doesn't say a cat should give birth to a dog, or a monkey to a man, so you won't find evidence for it.

If Eve was created by GOD from Adam's rib, was Eve's DNA the same as Adam's DNA...?

@@netelsg yeah then

Misan : What's your opinion.

@@netelsg i believe they had the same dna and due to micro-evolution the dna sequences changed and hence we have variations in humans as for animals they were created differently

From organic chemicals 4 billion years ago.

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

how do you know this? scientists said this?how scientists know this?

ok,so how the first creature comes according to abiogenesis?

Dunno, I didn't study this part of biology. However if you want evidence that we do share a common ancestor with other living species, I have those.

He's probably using a drawing tablet.

I'm going to make you "superhuman" also. Just hold SHIFT in MS Windows Paint when drawing a line. Don't abuse your superhuman powers...

Yeah but at 5:48 all the animals are horse-like, this doesn’t prove macro evolution

@@masterjoseph4681 if you watch the whole video there is clear evidence of macro evolution in the shared traits in structures between vastly different species

@@masterjoseph4681 is it also not obvious to you that what you call micro evolution would cause speciation over the span of thousands of years??

@@faizyabalam4623 how is that dishonest the evidence is clear

@@masterjoseph4681 merrychippus literally had paws which evolved into hooves and their genome would not be compatible. that's is the definition of speciation!

race isn't used much outside of plants but it depends on the species concept.

Race is different from species, if race was a species then black people and white people cant make babies

@Where Is Adam interspecies?

You can start with the book that started it all. "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin.

Hey i believe in god and science i am not a freak

Runny, the only reason you are here is in the hope that your daft comments might impact a student. FFTFO

i appreciate his honesty the direct evidence of macro evolution is only on single celled organisms, the rest is speculation just like to suspect speciation (in the multicell)

biological evolution....

@Generation X except we literally recreated it in labs

@Generation X small and bigger

@Generation X " There is no test for evolution or observation" but there is we literally observe it and test it in labs " If evolution isn't true then neither are the forced interpretations of fossils or genetics true." but these interepations fit only with the evolutionary model

@Fenera Taye prove it

yeah all the similarities matching up and supposing the same thing doesn't exactly prove we're all related by itself. But if we include more information such as the fossil record, overwritten genes, vestigial organs, or even biogeography then we're not relying on just similarities.

I'd like you to explain your comment, it confuses me greatly.

@@slingslang2934 fossil records have gaps. Some species interpreted by fossils never even existed. Stasis is a huge issue for the phd biologist, vestigial organs were debunked, retroviruses debunked, junk dna, debunked, etc. garbage.

@@motorheadbanger90 it’s simple. Evolutionist look at similarities between species and conclude we are related. You are similar to fish, so they conclude you are a fish. I’m suggesting just because you are similar to fish does not indicate you are related. Life is simply modular by design - similar to software. Similar but not related.

@@Programm4r The fossil record has very small gaps. You don't just see things like dinosaurs, trees or tetrapods appearing out of nowhere. And there's about a dozen vestigial organs I myself am aware of how about try looking some up.

You are not refering to an individual Horse right?

@@Jalip07 all the horses. They literally all look very similar, on top of that there’s different breeds of horses should would cause the structures of the horses to be slightly different.

@@gryffin8063 Different breeds is also a tiny form of Evolution. If you are wondering about Horses thousands of years old, then looking at the superficial is not enough (and for knowledgeable people, they can actually very different. A Leopard and a Jaguar looks identical to most people but not always to someone who studies the field).

@@Jalip07 They’re the same animal. Looking at the skeletons you can see that they’re the same. The differences is the decay over the course of a few thousand years.

@@gryffin8063 Alright, and what exactly makes you say they are the same animal? Tons of people would be unable to tell a Donkey, Zebra and Horse skeleton apart, and Horses and Donkeys are so genetically far apart that their offspring are sterile. What field do you work actively within where you can see that there is no difference or change between these animals? Remember, respect what one doesn't know, and never ever make absolute claims that are outside ones field of knowledge. If the objective is to seek truth, then that would not be it.

Duke - SWT Mate You look like your parents because you're related to your parents. Animals share skeletal arrangements because they are related to one another.

I could argue that we are descendants from robots because we both are made of atoms...

Duke - SWT Mate you could argue all you want, but is there any evidence supporting we descended from robots? Theres some pretty good dna evidence that is only explained by common ancestry such as Endogenous retroviruses and human chromosome 2. Humans have 46 chromosomes, whereas chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan have 48. This major karyotypic difference was caused by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes to form human chromosome 2 and subsequent inactivation of one of the two original centromeres (Yunis and Prakash 1982). www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC187548/

combine homologous structures with the fossil rcord and you get evolution

We look to natural explanations, not voodoo god magic, so this proves common ancestory. Also, embryology implies common descent based on the fact that we have structures as embryos that we don't have when born that other creatures did have. This video doesn't go in depth into homology