Evidence for Evolution 

same

It just shows how desperate religious people are to salvage a dying religion. They search youtube for any videos related to evolution and just spam their lies and preaching in it as if it's even remotely relevant. They are professional liars, basically.

I grew up as a muslim, I was the only one who could open my eyes and say: Am I really believing something what is written and started 700 years ago😂 Like come one if there was a god, he would let humans know that he is there so that mankind does not freak out about what is true and what does exist!!

Daniel Pedersen 600, 700 I don't give a fuck its just the same

@@GabeEXE-fv8yb www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ LMFAO at saying there is no evidence. There are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed research papers with experiments that can be repeated. Stop taking the word of professional liars as fact. Apologists =/= scientists. Can you refute a single research paper?

Only Good Evidence is Evidence, if it's bad evidence, than any Good Scientist should dismiss it, for the sake of scientific advancement. The invalidity of this evidence has been discovered long ago, but still he claims it's "HUGE" evidence for the theory of evolution. Only true teaching is teaching, if it's untrue, any good teacher should dismiss it. You think education is some game!? You just want to pass the AP test regardless of how much indoctrination it takes. Despite being made into a believer of false evidence and a invalid theory. How does this mean nothing to you?

It’s upsetting because the title suggests we will be given evidence and then we are given assumptions and theories that aren’t scientific. In fact the opposite. It’s very disappointing.

God has no respect for persons. reaperishere.weebly.com

Micro evolution is true but there is no evidence whatsoever for macro evolution and even Darwin said that. But when Darwin said it he thought more fossils would be found to uphold his theory. Also Darwin had no idea of the complexity of even the simplest of living cells. Even in its simplest form a cell still has irreducible complexity and is harder to make than a nuclear submarine. Science can't do it, but you think brainless molecules can self organise themselves into machines? Which is what a cell is. A cell is a machine with many working parts and it cannot put itself together without the help of something biotic. But there was no biology before life so how did chemicals self organise into the simplest of cells which is still very complex and difficult to make. Science can't do it, but you think a swamp and a bolt of lightening could?

Billions of years

@@landonsmith521 Billions of years? Is that your reasoning? That time equals bullshit? Time may be on evolutions side but it is not on chemistry's side and chemical processes do not take billions of years.

I mean maybe a deity that people may believe in invented evolution and set things into place and just watched. Like a self-learning AI, that's been done before. just saying could be possible and kind of merging the two ideas.

@@rolo5424 So you're saying a lot of things here. Let me break it down into your core arguments. Please correct me if I interpret your core arguments incorrectly. 1. Life is too improbable to come about by chance events of molecules combining with each other. Firstly I'd like to say that this isn't actually relevant to evolution. Evolution only takes into account the diversity of species. To evolve is to change into many different forms. This does require a founding species, but the theory of evolution doesn't comment on where this founding species came from. There are hypotheses that this species could have come from self-assembling RNA molecules that could function both as ribozymes and genetic code, kept safe by a bubble of fat (the phospholipid bilayer that constitutes cell walls). This is essentially hypothesizing about evolution on increasingly smaller scales. I think it's wrong to decide what is true based on a lack of evidence. This is a god-of-the-gaps argument. I assume you're a Christian, so you would say that the bible is enough evidence. But science has repeatedly disproven the bible on many of its accounts. The world is older than 10,000 years. The world is round. Animals were created in groups. It is not reliable when it comes to science at least. 2. There is no evidence for macroevolution. Well I'm glad you accept microevolution at least. Macroevolution is not too difficult to believe if you believe in microevolution. It's essentially microevolution over a longer period of time. If a few differences can come about over a few centuries, can't many come about over millions of years? Even if there wasn't evidence for macroevolution this is believable. You say that Darwin had no evidence for evolution. He died in 1882. The theory of evolution has developed well beyond Darwin's ideas. It's also important for you to define macroevolution. Do you define it as life evolving from common phyla? Or are you talking on a species level? There is evidence for life differentiating from both phyla and species. For example, whales have a clear fossil record showing they share an ancestor to cows, deer, and sheep. Earlier whales have quite developed legs, including ankle boned that are strikingly similar to those of cows, etc. Whales today even have vestigial legs that aren't particularly useful. They are definitely not the best design possible for life. The fact that Darwin knew nothing about living cells means he didn't know about DNA. This is a major source of evidence for evolution by tracking the history of mutations, etc. 3. Irreducible complexity. Science progressively dismantles examples of these arguments. Take the example of the eye. This used to be an example of irreducible complexity, but science has dismantled it. Because even the slightest fraction of an eye, like light-sensitive cells that can detect something above it in an ocean, is a huge survival advantage. Then let natural selection do its thing. It's another god of the gaps argument to assume that because science hasn't yet answered the question, creationism must be true. About a cell being irreducibly complex. It certainly is mind-boggling to think that RNA could evolve to form organelles. You can break it down thought and science is advancing in this field. Bacteria evolve through horizontal gene transfer, omitting genes that other bacteria can pick up. The cell wall could easily come by some fat bubbles. Cells can be seen to evolve from each other. It is likely that mitochondria and chloroplasts came from bacteria for numerous reasons. Archaea could have become the host eukaryotic cell, considering that the cells are similar to many degrees. What is not too clear is how the first cell could have appeared, but science will probably provide answers to that. Edit: animals were created in groups

Just got to the part of the video where Mr. Anderson compares DNA sequences, and I'm really scratching my head trying figure out how someone could deny this evidence.

I found this video, because my AP bio teacher recommended this channel to me, just like you. Unlike you, I don't consider giving false evidence awesome teaching, shame on you Mr. Anderson, I say. Every single organ in every single organism has a purpose, vestigial organs don't have a place in evolution or creation, because they are not helping things be adapted to their environment at all.

I mean I found this video purely out of curiosity of the subject.

@@victorparedes6044 well said

Lol good for you

I came to watch other people argue and laugh because they don't have anything better to do.

I got bio online learning now lol

i'm here for my ap bio class 😃👍

just watching. arguing after. just kidding!

The comment right after urs

It's his ineffable will, obviously.

gregory brian God doesn't make anything in vain.. There are hundreds of body parts function yet to be discovered.. which will includes the so-called vestigial parts

Discussion with you is useless. You claim the right to say what God means and wants by your observations of the universe yet when you CAN'T explain something, you opt for plunging into the stance that no one knows why God does or does not do something. To retain any credibility, you must stick to one side or another. Otherwise, you are using your own flawed system of thought to argue your point. Check out the definition of "argument from ignorance" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman said. Spleen prevents from heart disease and pneumonia.. And appendix is actually a store house of beneficial bacteria.. And the list goes on.. There is not even a single part in our body is useless.. 

***** So about all of those people who have their appendix removed and are perfectly fine afterwards? Vestigial doesn't mean a body part without purpose, it means it either has a reduced purpose or it has been adapted for a purpose other than the one it originally had. Such is the case with the appendix, which used to be a second stomach.

+Anna Delahunt It seems to say exons.

haha probably a mis-speak

Nope.

Yes, though this one is the most probable explanation until/unless other evidence is provided

So true xD

So where did he insult religion?

@@danielanderson1931 people in the comments section were throwing tantrums about religion/lack thereof, not anderson

at 8:40

Hesa Wanderer It isn't a excuse for racism, and there aren't any races that are more evolved than other. Races are different due to different evolutionary pressures being applied to the same type of organism, in this case humans. Racism isn't intrinsically wrong, but there aren't any reasonable reasons to be racist. So, you could say it is wrong according to the values of modern society.

Hesa Wanderer You are implying other races are inferior, not me. Neither am I saying being racist is ok. Any given action doesn't have a intrinsic value to it, regardless of it being considered bad or good by anyone. Moral nihilism, it's a ethical philosophy; basically I look at morality in a different way you do, but we might and most likely have the same notions of what "is" right and wrong.

Limede45 "Any given action doesn't have a intrinsic value to it, regardless of it being considered bad or good by anyone" So our entire life is valueless? If nothing we can do has any value how can we? Do we? "basically I look at morality in a different way you do" So if we look at it in a different way, who is right? How do we know? We each have to decide for ourselves right?

Yes, our life has no meaning. We have no reason to be here. Neither do we, nor anything else. This is empowering, making you able to choose to do whatever you want with your life. It might sound depressing, but to me, it's part of the beauty of life and reality. No one is right, there's no objective morality. What usually is considered right, or correct by society in general, are actions that you would like to happen to you. In my eyes, morality is just "Do to other what you would like others do for you." glorified.

Limede45 "Yes, our life has no meaning." So there is no purpose? No value? "No one is right, there's no objective morality" So as long as I don't get caught, any thing I decide to do is fine?

Mr Andersen. Great tutorial resources! Thanks very much!

They don't use the word design in the literal sense. It's like how we say something is poisonous if it is harmful without meaning that it is literally a biologically hazardous compound or protein.

It was never “invented” but it became found by humans well after Darwin died.

Respecting opinions is a bad idea. Scientific discoveries based on superstition is a bit of a stretch. Also, I think Hitler and your devil believe in god and that does not make the belief true. An opinion is like an anus as everyone has one and they all output waste.

"There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA" yes there are found in the fossile record we have dozens "Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA." thats BS "Genes within the DNA of a particular organism" genes contain the DNA there are no genes inside the DNA " code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan." thats also BS we have changhed the DNA of creatures leading to changes in the body plan

that's organisms don't really have varying body plans: different bodily phenotypes between organisms are mainly due to gene expression/epigenetics.

You don't know what evolution is, do you

There are a multitude of reasons (i.e. evidence) to accept evolution. Evolution isn't something you believe in. Belief implies acceptance without evidence. Evolution has evidence so it cannot be a belief system. Having said that, lets start with the fact that we have directly observed macro evolution, in real time, with our own eyes. We've seen it happen, so we know it happens. evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

scottevanmacfar Evolution does not have any evidence supporting it (macroevolution) at all, and it is therefore a belief. How is the eye evidence of macroevolution?

Still wrong Garretta. How is the eye any part of this conversation? You do know that irreducible complexity isn't just wrong, it's been proven wrong in court, don't you? That's how bad the science is on your side. We have directly observed macro evolution. You can't deny it, we have watched it happen in real time. You can't deny what we can prove. and direct observation qualifies as proof. Because there is evidence, it can't be a belief. There is mountains of evidence, so......(say it with me).....it's NOT a belief system. It is a logical conclusion based on the overwhelming evidence.

I get it, you don't have reading comprehension. My comment about the eyes was referring to the FACT that we have directly observed macro evolution. As in not read a paper about it, not modeled it on computer, actually witnessed it with our own eyes. Direct observation of what you are trying to tell people can't happen.

Nightlock4411 Typo, which is now changed, but you can't provide evidence can you?

That's because there is NO different between micro and macro. It is a just a word play used by idiots to spread their ignorance. It's like saying that you can walk a mile but you can't walk a thousand miles.

I can believe that when someone can show me the connection ,a walk of a thousand miles can be traced it leaves footprints I just want to be shown clear evidence not emotional convictions . So far no one can give me clear guidance.

vincent vice Study genetics.

I agree with Logic 101. All the mechanisms of Evolution have resources that clearly explain it. The problem is most people are too busy in their daily lives to open a book or take a course that does explain them. Hey.. don't take our word. Go to a genuine text book and look for yourself.

Well. How are you defining "macro-evolution"? This is important because if you are expecting a dog to evolve into a tree, that isn't going to happen. But if you expect fish to evolve into amphibians into land animals, then that will. So which are you wanting evidence for?

dawg its science

+Believer VS Beliefs Well, religion also doesn't have concrete proof that they are right as far as I'm aware. If there is, I'd love to see it, but as far as suggestion goes, evolutionists are the same as religion in that there is only suggestion.

+Monando Boy You are exactly right, of course; but, the problem is that they spread their outrageous lie that they do have "evidence". I like to inject some reality into their delusions.

+Believer VS Beliefs In science, there is never certainty. It violates the founding principle of scientists; you have to learn when to accept that the universe may not be what you think it is. People rationalized strange plagues and epidemics with witchcraft, which was later proven to be part of the poor hygiene. The point being, scientists have learned to be wary when making statements so their credibility is not questionable later. The similarities remain, in that they have five-boned appendages. Most mammals do, actually. That _suggests_ a common ancestor, but keep in mind that since we do not have first-hand evidence (like an eyewitness report) it could be circumstance, a separate necessity for a different fossil line that developed halfway across the world. Newtonian physics holds true for almost everything. Molecular physics holds true for almost everything. There are exceptions to every rule, and it is for THAT reason that we say "should" instead of "did". Religion claims to know, to circumvent all notion of doubt, to say that they know all ends and that God will lead them into the light. I admire that dedication and faith, but at the same time it has been proven hypocritical and wrong and dubious at almost every turn. Whether or not you believe it, there are facts. This is what has been observed, this is a conclusion that can be drawn, but bear in mind that other conclusions can be drawn that may instead be correct. Evidence in a court of law is provided to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. With faith, there is no reason, and therefore one argument cannot refute the other because they are two separate things. To sum, I'll give you a quote from Wayne June: "A man in a robe, claiming communion with the divine? Madness."

+Jacob Millburn Thank you for the thoughtful comment--don't get a lot of those. Quote: "The point being, scientists have learned to be wary when making statements so their credibility is not questionable later." >> Is this how you would describe "scientists" touting AGW? "Wary?" Then why do they call for real scientists--i.e. skeptical/wary--to loose grant money or tenure if they doubt it? Quote: "That suggests a common ancestor." >> 1. If you found a steel hinge in the dirt around your home; and, then, two years later you found a brass hinge on the beach in Maui, while on vacay, would that "suggest" to you that the hinges came from the same factory? >> 2. Point being, it would seem more "scientific" to conclude that if I found two such similarly shaped objects--even separated by time and distance--they must have the same purpose. Further, whatever that purpose is, a metal hinge must represent someone's idea of the optimal way to achieve it. There are hundreds of immutable laws of nature in the Universe; and, if you were an atheist, you would "scientifically" consider this "someone" to be Nature. >> 3. Therefore, in nature, when you want an appendage to perform certain functions, the "Natural Law of Form and Function" tells us it HAS TO have a certain shape. (Just like when you want a fulcrum, there are limits to how it can be shaped.) >> 4.In no instance, would the objective scientific mind jump to: "The whale inherited this from its ancestor the cow." Quote: "[I]t [religion] has been proven hypocritical and wrong and dubious at almost every turn." >> I agree with this statement on a theological level--particularly with regard to Christianity; but, I suspect you are speaking about science. How so? (I know you think you know; let's see if you do.) Quote: "Whether or not you believe it, there are facts." >> Can you identify one of these facts that meets the following criteria: 1. Evolution, through random natural selection, is the only theory that corresponds to the fact. 2. The fact tells us how something happened to support random natural selection; it doesn't just describe what "Is". For example, there is an attempt now to say that "every" fossil is a transitional fossil. However, the fact is that there is no evidence to prove that any fossil had offspring that lived--a glaring prerequisite to be considered "transitional" which those "wary" scientists seemed to have missed.

Quote 1.1: Consider blood tests. The HIV test has a fail rate (which I don't know off the top of my head). It can be a false positive or a false negative. Newtonian physics was, for hundreds of years, considered the rulebook of the universe and everything in it up until the discovery of quantum mechanics. Quote 2.1: It wouldn't. One's brass, the other's steel. If they shared EVERYTHING in common, i.e. shape, weight, designs, etchings, brand name, date, then it would suggest that to me. But bear in mind, evolution is change over time. Your sarcastic statement is, to translate, me saying that two similar species (morphologically speaking) had the same parents. Hopping back into the analogy, iron, coal, zinc, and copper all come from the ground. Coal and iron are crossbred, steel is born. That steel is shaped by its environment into a hinge. The same process occurs for zinc and copper into brass into a hinge. They have similar environments, but they are characteristically different from the beginning. It would not be incorrect, however, to say that steel and brass both originated in the ground. Quote 2.2: If you actually watched the video, Mr. Anderson points out that any engineer could design a better and more efficient wings than bats currently have. So... this argument is flawed. The fact that it ISN'T the optimal way to do it is exactly WHY THIS THEORY IS SUPPORTED. Quote 2.3: Pretty sure that isn't a law. Google shows nothing. On a side note, were you an engineer you would know that there are many ways of going about doing something and some methods are appealing for different reasons. For example, if I wanted to buy a car, I may want to buy a Prius because that is economically friendly in the long run. Unfortunately, I'm currently broke so all I can afford is to maintain my dad's old Ford Taurus. Quote 2.4: I assume you have actual scientific documents that back you up on how the whale was descended from the cow? Quote 3.1: Your argument in your second point is flawed. I assume you have parents, and grandparents, and great grandparents, and so on. You aren't the same as any of those. I'll give you a historical fact, and a recent one. The average height of a human male during the 17th and 18th centuries was about 5 foot 5 inches. This has increased to about 5 foot 10 in today's society due to nutritional advances, better healthcare, etc. etc. If we compare nature to technology, then we can assume that nature and technology are based on the same thing: Progress. Nature is constantly ironing out the weak. Technology goes through beta testing, ironing out the bugs. With technology, each iteration of a program is a new "generation" than that before it, with less bugs and more new features to adapt to changing societies. Nature is ironing out the weak organisms, such as the infamous case of the peppered moths in the Industrial Revolution. They adapt to changing environments, but environments are changed by erosion, volcanic activity, glaciers, all of which take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to coalesce into their final form. Society changes in a matter of years. Your arguments are based on seeing things not as they are, but as you want them to be so as to not make sense, which suggests to me that you want to believe. You have no other choice. You use God as a crutch, but you follow no doctrine.

In a way, some did. Modern human as we know of today are mostly mixed breeds between those "human like" and homo sapiens. Neanderthals is one example.

OK, I'll agree to that as long as you agree that god is a poor designer since 99.4 percent of all this creations is now extinct.

Sony Singh Doesn't prove he's a bad designer. We completely wiped out most of the animals now extinct. But if you're talking about dinosaurs? He destroyed them for a reason, hence the asteroid he sent down

Beastmma9 To anyone that says that god is a bad designer because of everything that died, or who says "god must be terrible because he made all this death and disease" is wrong. God created a perfect world in the beginning and that was what Adam and Eve lived in. The bible says that death entered into the world because of Adam and Eves sin. God didn't ruin the world, man did.

I'll give you a good reason to not think that. Every living creature on Earth shares the same 4 chemicals that make up the DNA structures. There are 400 possible chemicals that could be used, and if so, the combination of these would make more sense if we were created because it would prevent inter-species transmission of viruses (like the swine-flu, for example). As matter of fact, there are enough combinations of possible combinations that every species on Earth could have it's own combination. You'd think a Creator would at least separate humans from the rest of living creatures if he were truly his special creation. Or, at least plants from animals, but this is not the case. Every creature, whether dandelion, amoeba, human, or fish... all use the same 4 chemicals.

Eric Gorall That does not prove me wrong, if anything, it proves me more right. God used a very similar bone structure, genetic structure, etc, to create all life on earth, possibly the universe. Why would he waste the time to make every single living organism completely different? There's no reason too. And proof we are his special creation is our brains. Yes, you see animals like parrots and sea otters using parts of nature as tools, but you never saw a mountain lion contract a trap

I love it when someone who doesn't understand the science tries to debunk it. No Peter L. none of what you posted is a problem for evolution. Especially the nonsense you are spouting about the Cambrian explosion. It isn't a stumbling block, it is the block upon which evolution is built. Had you bothered to listen to even part of your high school biology class you would know the answers to the questions you think derail evolution. Read up and try again when you better understand the science you are trying to refute.

The average human is born with about 150 genetic mutations that neither prevent survival or reproduction. It would seem you still have a bit to learn about genetic science.