Good, but a couple nitpicks. 1) At 3.14 on screen (and read I think a few seconds earlier) it says that all life on Earth has genetic sequences we share. That is ambiguous, and could be taken to refer to the entire genetic sequences of genomes. Better would have been adding "some" to qualify it ("All life on Earth has some genetic sequences we share") 2) And around the same point, there is a grammatical error. It asks, "What could us humans have ...". That should be "we". "What could we humans have ..."
"In everyday speech, people tend to use the word 'theory' to mean an untested hypothesis, or even a guess. But the term 'evolutionary theory' does not refer to any single hypothesis, and it certainly is not guesswork. As used in science, 'theory' refers to the entire body of work on the understanding and application of a field of knowledge. When we refer to evolutionary theory, we are referring to our understanding of the mechanisms that result in biological changes in populations over time, and the use of that understanding to interpret changes and interactions of biological organisms." -Life (the science of biology) Ninth Edition Sadava, Hillis, Heller, Berenbaum
How did the information get into the DNA? How did information get into a memory chip? Is information something physical? Or energy? Or ....... information!
*HUMAN GROUP EVOLVING TO BE AQUATIC HUNTERS* The Bajau people, or Sea Nomads, have engaged in breath-hold diving for thousands of years. Evolution has increased Bajau spleen size, providing an oxygen reservoir for diving, just like in other sea-going mammals like otters, seals and whales. They can stay underwater for 15 minutes, which is even longer than a dolphin can do it for! Most of us humans can only handle less than two. Oh yeah, and the Bajau people are also capable of seeing clearly underwater. They are able to make their pupils smaller and change their lens shape. Seals and dolphins have a similar adaptation. This has been proven in underwater visual testing, the Bajau see twice as well as other humans.
Given in the context of the fundamental ideas of reproductive biology that are not only proven in the lab, but are logically common sense, evolution is the best explanation for the phenomena we see in nature.
there is no reason to think that "creator" would create different life forms with similar structure. dont you think he might've created something so different that its entirely obvious that it couldnt have evolved. like a life form based on bismuth instead of carbon, or feathered flying horse would disprove evolution as well... sadly for you, evolution is only logical explanation for biodiversity we observe. god doesnt explain anything. it only raises questions on vestigial structures while evolution literally explains everything we observe
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence? Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
Is this a joke? These pictures make the wing and hand look so basic, but they have far too many differences to evolve from each other. It is your "theory" so you must know the answers to some simple questions. 1. How many major and minor changes are needed to evolve a human hand from a chimp(or closest relative)? 2. How many changes are needed to change from a wing to a hand? Thanks
They didn’t evolve from each other. Humans and birds just share a common ancestry. Which is why these similarities exist. *how many major and minor changes are needed to evolve a human hand from a chimp* About 6 million years worth of changes. *how many changes are needed to change from a wing to a hand* Not sure. Are there examples of handed birds?
@@PhilipK-xk4by you didn't answer any questions, my friend. I am well aware humans are not direct(or even distant) relatives of birds. You still have to prove your theory by giving the number of beneficial mutations needed to evolve from one stage to the next. Then we know how much time would be needed. If you don't know the answer to these questions, you are just like a person sitting in a pew believing whatever the priest says
@@rocketsurgeon1746 *you didn’t answer any questions* Sure, I did. You just don’t think that the answers are satisfying. *the number of beneficial mutations needed to evolve from one stage to the next* Living things aren’t divided by “stages”. That’s not a classification. If you wanted the number of mutations that divided Grey Tree Frogs from Cope’s Grey Tree Frogs, then the number of mutations required are 1. *Then we know how much time would be needed* But we already know the answer to that. It’s 3.7 billion years. Because that’s how old life is on Earth.
@@PhilipK-xk4by we will try again. How many beneficial mutations are needed from chimps to man? Or paki to whale? Clear concise answers please. Simple question
@@rocketsurgeon1746 *we will try again* You don’t have to. I already gave an answer the first time. *how many beneficial mutations are needed from chimps to man* We don’t evolve from chimpanzees. We just share a common ancestor. Which we separated from 5-6 million years ago. So, 5-6 million years-worth of mutations. Because evolution occurs by reproduction. *paki to whale* Pakicetus is already considered the “first whale”. But the time between Pakicetus and modern species of whales is 50 million years. So, 50 million years-worth of mutations. *Clear concise answers please* That’s as consice as it gets. *Simple questions* Not the right questions, however.
Put it this way. You and I are both in a room with three doors. I claim you got into the room through one of the doors. You say you magically appeared. I can test you walking through each doorway to prove it's possible. You can't demonstrate magically appearing. My view is demonstrable and valid, yours is not. That's the difference between evolutionary theory and your magic man.
A creator is not falsifiable therefore not a valid option. If you want to claim support for a creator then you need scenarios that refute a creator as well.
@@PhilipK635They were all around when Darwin wrote his books, he never used any of them as examples of transition. In fact he admitted the lack of transitional fossils was the strongest evidence against his theory but that future discoveries would provide the missing links. He was wrong, there are actually fewer accepted fossils now since various ones have been discredited. Of those that remain non are undisputed. 😇
@@paulfromcanada5267 Do you dispute Archaeopteryx? Forgive my queries, but I'm attempting to ascertain how deluded you are. There's an entire page of transitional fossils on Wikipedia you should be reading.
Ppl often use this against (abrahamic) religions. But who’s to say that evolution and religion can’t co-exist? I mean when you’re a theist and going out your way to believe in the supernatural, you might as well believe that Adam & Eve came from the sky. Not believing in a God in the first place is a whole another story, you don’t have to use THIS as counter-evidence. The verse that says Adam & Eve came from the sky isn’t meant to be a scientific verse anyway, but just some info for the already believing. And God made us very similar to apes cuz life is a test; if we were completely alien then there’s no freewill, is there? Everyone will have to believe in a God at that point. But the fact that there are theists and atheists shows the freewill & diversity God has put on us.. and it’s arguably more merciful that way if you ask me.
Do you know what the scientific method is? Do you realize it has not once been invoked to verify anything you’re saying in this video? This all amounts to “my best guess is”.
Just because two novels sitting on a desk have the same 26 characters by 2 different authors don't mean they evolved from the same printing press millions of years ago. Roflmao, human embryos have gills? That has been disproven decades ago, just because you take a photo and it looks like something doesn't make it so. Talk about fairytale evidence.
@@jaysmith6863 You only state that you do not believe in two examples of given evidence and from this you conclude that the evidence is a fairy tale. The same ridges appear on multiple species embryos but develop into different structures. Why is this not evidence for evolution?
This wouldn’t explain why we share more similarities with other apes than we do with other mammals. And more with other mammals than we do with other animals.
I think for something to be accepted as scientific knowledge it must be clearly observed. Theory necessarily means that the subject hasn't been observed but it did leave behind a historical remnant, or evidence as we call it. Evidence allows for a forensic analysis, but like with lawyers and juries, all the best evidence can do is maybe render a decision among a jury where the conclusion of guilt is beyond the shadow of a doubt. (Good lawyers are the smartest people.) Courts do not always get it right. Innocent people have been sent to jail in spite of convincing evidence. Evidence can't always be trusted which is why lawyers, and not scientists, run the world. If I am going to believe that slime on a rock turned into Beethoven, I will have to see a lot more than what the evolutionary researchers have put forward.
Scientific theories are the pinnacle of science. There is nothing forca Scientific theory to graduate to. They are based upon an abundance of evidence. Mammals didn't always exist. So where did they come from?
Nicely executed video ... well done on the presentation. The content? Well, honestly you're serving leftovers from old science. Fossils: Paleontologists are those who study fossils, and they no longer cite fossils as evidence for evolution, because fossils consistently show abrupt appearance of species, stasis for long periods of time, then extinction (or the species is still around today, virtually unchanged). As acknowledged by the late Stephen J. Gould, the fossil record is a problem for the slow-change-over-time story required by evolution, and is the reason why he postulated punctuated equilibrium as a way of explaining the fossil evidence. Embryos: You might want to reconsider your terminology in this section: "They look almost the same ..." Seriously? Even in your illustrations (intentionally "enhanced" to emphasize the similarities-a far cry from what actual photos show, and why textbooks generally keep using distorted drawings), I'd say they look as much alike as a Volkswagen looks like a Hummer. Yes, they are all recognizable as embryo drawings, but "almost the same"? Better head to the optometrist. [By the way, I used to buy the biological evolution narrative also, then I dug in and studied the underlying science. It was only then that I came to realize it was untenable, both biologically and probabilistically.]
@@dm964 I'm not sure what is invalid. The fossils we have are still consistent with evolutionary change according to geologic time/ location of those fossils in the record. So, they still support evolution. For example, there are no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian. The fossils we do have are where we would expect to find them with regards to time period. We don't need an entire lineage or line of ancestry. By definition, fossilization is rare so that wouldn't happen anyway (by the way, its is actually rather complete for the transition of whales from land mammals). Then there's the distribution of life on the planet. For example, Australian speciation and the relatedness of Australian species as being closer to each other, and not found elsewhere on the planet. As in, having disembarked form a boat landing on top of Mt. Ararat and then hiked to Australia...LOL. And, DNA relatedness (pretty solid evidence) bears out the phylogenic family tree of life. We use our relatedness to bacteria by making it read our DNA to produce insulin. Our immune systems also distinguish between proteins from closer related species to that of more distantly related ones. So, there are multiple lines of evidence (including fossil) that, when taken together, support evolutionary theory. And, as you bring up embryos, we can trace the evolution of the blowhole in dolphins, for one, through embryonic development. As well as the appearance and loss of features, like the human tail. Embryology is still a valid support for evolutionary theory. Simplification of any topic for appropriate grade levels doesn't mean it's misleading.
theres clear common ancestry between a rock and your brain, both looks about the same have similar density and produce exact the same effect on the environment.
"A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal; so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible for the motions it goes through. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear and punishment and hope of reward after death. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures." -Albert Einstein
Fossils of each and every variety of organism all living at the same time way back when life started would be more evidence of a common creator. As it stands, the fact that all varieties of organisms reproduced, the fact that evidence of certain varieties are only found after certain points in the fossil record, the fact that we out right bred all breeds of dog from wolf ancestors, the fact that the human embryo has useless gill slits for the first few weeks, and the fact that you yourself are not just a clone of your parents, are all just a few examples of all the facts that together point towards common ancestry.
I'm lost. How is this evidence of a common designer? And, more importantly, how would you falsify a common designer. What I mean is that if something indicates a common designer then by definition another scenario would disprove one. I assume your common designer would be intelligent...right? Well, we actually have many anatomic flaws better explained by our bodies being reworked and adapted to differing conditions throughout their evolutionary history.....we have inefficient feet, bad spines, cranial nerves that are extremely inefficient, bad knees, etc. Hardly "intelligent design."
@@fraser_mr2009 No because we understand it's natural mechanism. Then again, evidence for intelligent design cannot be falsified therefore ID isn't science.
It's unreal how stupid This is. There is a massive jump from the Idea that forms have like patterns to the idea that forms all come from each other and were conflated at one point. That is just the attempt to create a new atheistic religion with nothing to back it up.
@@Jalip07If that were true you would easily point out the error. What you did with the avoidant, irrelevant, emotional, one liner is very common when people have pride wrapped around an Idea that they don't have the tools or mental clarity to discuss.
@@PhilipK635 Sure but "Christianity" as people refer to it is not a unified thing. There are many sects of Christians who believe many wrong things. I never said all people who believe in Evolution are Atheists. I'm saying the people who push it and invest in the development of the theory were/are creating an alternate narrative explicitly or implicitly to subvert and assume traditional narrative. Humans live in Narrative's and this was an alternate origin story for Atheists. That doesn't mean people who are Christian can't fall under it and go along with something in a cognitively dissonate way. I think those people are just going along with the times and don't understand the issue though.
@@thecrow4597 What is there to discuss, when you have gone as far as making up your own definition such as calling atheism a religion. At that point, its no longer about what is true, but what you want to be true.
@@Jalip07 Once again all you did was say rhetoric and made zero points. Atheism is a religion. It's a system of belief that has all the components of the main religious beliefs. Unique epistemology, origin narrative, authority structure etc.
@@PhilipK635 Actually, it shows variation, or microevolution. Goo to zoo requires macroevolution. Where people like you make a horrendous mistake is in extending the former to include the latter. I explain it to confused people like you this way. A balloon goes higher the bigger it is, but it isn't possible to make a balloon so big it gets to the moon. This is because there is no atmosphere between Earth and the moon, so the physics of hot air ballooning breaks down at the outer edges of Earth's atmosphere.
Or ....... these discoveries can be evidence that God created different living things using some of the same tools in his tool box. For example : Why can't these discoveries also be pointed to as evidence that God created mammals using a basic design, but coded individual dna for individual species
Take dolphins and sharks. They live in the same environment, have similar behavior (both are predators) and have similar body shapes, with some notable exceptions. A shark's spine bends side to side while a dolphin's spine bends up and down. Why would such similar creatures have completely different spines? The creationist would say "That's just how God designed them!" - Okay, but why? "God's ways are unknowable! If it was important for your salvation, it would be in the Bible. Stop asking questions and just believe!" Where the marine biologist would go "that is an interesting question and has to do with the fact that one is a fish and the other a mammal; we traced dolphins back to when they were land dwelling creatures in deep history, about 500 million years ago, isn't that neat?! Because they are mammals and were land dwelling once, they have all these strange features that sharks don't have because they were fish from the start. So the similarities are because clearly the streamlined body shape is ideal for living in the water (and look at other creatures like seals and even penguins). Evolution selected for that. But the spine bending up/down is something that is 'fixed' and hasn't changed. Apparently that feature does not make a big enough difference in survivability. Or maybe it will still given enough time. That's the neat thing about this, there is always more research to do and we might find answers to questions we don't even know how to ask yet..." Now, if they ever find a newly discovered species dolphin whose spine goes side to side, that would be incredibly interesting. That might mean evolution is wrong and it would require a pretty good explanation. But the point is that the creationist can simply just go "Oh, but God just decided to make this particular species of dolphin different for reasons we will never understand!" FROM REDDIT
@@luish1498 and.......that is an interesting hypothesis ( Dolphins originating from land mammals )with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Question should be asked : what evidence is there that God didn't just create water dwelling mammals so they would play their part in building and sustaining ecosystems.. Why couldn't God have just chosen to create variety .
@@adrianjos04 Dolphins are members of the order Cetacea, which also includes whales and porpoises. The most recent common ancestor of cetaceans is thought to have been a land-dwelling mammal that lived around 50 million years ago. The fossil record and genetic evidence suggest that cetaceans evolved from a group of hoofed mammals called artiodactyls, which includes modern-day hippos, deer, and cows. Specifically, the closest living relatives of cetaceans are the hippos. The transition from land to water likely occurred gradually over millions of years. Early cetaceans likely inhabited coastal areas and gradually adapted to an aquatic lifestyle. This adaptation involved various changes in their anatomy, such as modifications to their limbs, development of a streamlined body shape, and evolution of specialized adaptations for swimming and diving. Over time, these adaptations became more pronounced, leading to the evolution of fully aquatic cetaceans, including dolphins. Dolphins have streamlined bodies, elongated snouts, and powerful tails that enable them to swim efficiently through water. They also have specialized adaptations for living in marine environments, such as a blowhole for breathing at the water's surface and a thick layer of blubber for insulation. The evolutionary transition from land mammals to the highly specialized marine mammals we see today, such as dolphins, is a fascinating example of how species can adapt and diversify in response to changing environmental conditions.
@@adrianjos04 No liar, we have very good fossil and genetic evidence of dolphin's evolution from land mammals. Your denial of this shows you are ignorant or lying. There is NO evidence for your god claims.
Hahahaha when the infant make science hahaha we are all made of carbon atoms ,are my Mother and father the stars in universe 😂 your science is based on emotions ,dont use my science (dna and so on) to proof evulution
