Evolution: It's a Thing - Crash Course Biology #20 

I for one love it more than Mewtwo being in sm4sh

Hold on, I'm cooking the popcorn.

DC Francis I ironically just grabbed a literal bag of popcorn.. spooky

Dicease Fletcher Government intervention? No, Illuminati.

Greg Jang I can't get enough. I'd think there'd be more replies to this question by now. Who doesn't like screaming in text?

When did I claim I was an atheist? And what is "evolutionism"? Like I said before, small changes will inevitably add up to big ones. Anyway, this argument is useless, neither of us will be convinced.

***** Lol.

***** What do you mean Atheists? Tonnes of religious folk (myself included) believe in macro evolution. You do realise that the literalist interpretation of christianity is not the only one followed throughout the world and that believers of other faiths also believe in macro evolution. You can obviously speak for yourself but don't go speaking for other people. That's just rude.

Greg. Sym. Okay, we are getting off topic. The point has been made that Cody Cotten isn't self-identifying as an atheist, so let's get back to the interesting stuff. Creationist scientists think that organisms can change but cannot change species. Each species has a certain # of chromosomes, I think humans have 46. An organism in the dog species can "evolve" into 4,567 types of dogs, but never into another species.

ObieMe1 this is where evolution gets interesting. Scientists ran into a big issue with the number of chromosomes humans and apes have. Apes, the cloest living organisms to homo sapiens, have 48 pairs of chromosomes, the ONLY way apes and humans could share such a close ancestor is if there was some possible way a chromosome disappeared (not possible as far as I know), so they predicted they'd find a fusion between two chromosomes in humans, and it was discovered. HUGE evidence for common ancestry.

I wish i lived in a world where peoples fairytale sky wizards and talking animals weren't taken seriously.

I love that this video is called, "Evolution: It's a Thing." Haha!

@Dan C. Hi stupid Had any good talking animal conversations lately?

Dan C. Rejoice because you almost do. You are just a thousand years too late. Had you only been born a little earlier you would have gotten away from all this pesky modern science with its medicine, telecommunications, and the earth is round nonsense. But all is not lost, there are still places where faith rules over reason, I highly recommend Afghanistan for you, some parts of Africa can also be good.

Dan C. If god created the universe, who created god?

Aidan Van Stean beautiful

+A_Wild _Bellossom That's a thing that soothes me a lot. No matter which path our civilization will take, if we end up ignorant or not, nature will not change. The book of life will always be out there, you cannot burn or censor it.

Tysons words are true--HOWEVER, ALL SCIENCE proves a creator. This guy gives a false definition of evolution. Gene distribution is NOT EVOLUTION. Whale evolution shown to be false. Its all crazy. People just want to believe Evolution.

Ba ha ha ha ha ha Science does not prove a creator....It shows you have a fairy tale problem comprehending the truth. We have the fossils we win.

Ed Younica no it doesn't and no ot hasn't

"All generalizations are false... including this one" -Mark twain "Science" has been proven wrong by SCIENCE time and time again. The Bible is literally THE MOST historically accurate and time tested document to have ever existed. The blatant truth is... science is not absolute. any good scientist will tell you that science is based on what we think we know but has been proven wrong and will most likely be proven wrong again at some point in time.

That's not surprising at all. You type with emphasis, as though that's something special or interesting. However, many fundamentalist Christians and southern Conservatives in the US become Biology teachers or get Biology degrees so that they can create that same effect. Some a fundamentalists also become Astrophysicists so that they can claim an Astrophysicist doesn't believe in the Big Bang. Your teacher's situation isn't special or unique. They do that on purpose. It's part of their mission, and they view it as missionary work for their god. There are also some racists who become biologists by getting Zoology degrees, so that they get credit for being a Biologist who believes one race is superior to another. Your teacher isn't actually trying to understand Biology in it's fullest, your Biology teacher is just trying to use their status to convince people. Many of the religious Conservative schools realize they need to fill positions to be accredited, and Biology is one area they need to fill. Some don't hire liberals or people interested in education, and quietly hire only religious people. Some schools that aren't aware of what fundamentalists do will hire people no matter what, for the sake of filling spots to educate kids, and they don't realize that missionaries are infiltrating their schools. Could you imagine someone teaching Physics, without believing in the Scientific Theory of Relativity? It doesn't make sense, right? But ANDREW SCHLAFLY, son of Conservative loon, Phyllis Schlafly (who fought against the Equal Rights Amendment for women), Andrew author of Conservapedia, Andrew fighter of ObamaCare and health care for all, Andrew believer of Noah's Flood even though the pyramids have no water damage, Andrew who was in the same college class as Obama and has a degree... Andrew Schlafly home schools students and assists them in their science classes, but he believes Einstein's Scientific Theory of Relativity is a "liberal hoax". ..... (The reason he believes this is because it's the only way to solve the fact that light has been travelling from some galaxies for longer than 6,000 years to reach Earth, and the Bible requires him to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Since he believes the Bible is true, then he believes that proven-true science is wrong. Instead, he should accept that Einstein's theory has already been proven, and that the Bible is wrong. He can't accept that.) So there's nothing special about your Biology teacher denying the fact that Evolution is true. Just like Andrew Schlafly, your teacher is in denial.

Rationalist Club Wow, I did not know that. I don't live in the US, AND my biology teacher is not a Christian, but what you said is really awesome and now that I think about all the teachers in my school, you're absolutely right. I was just surprised because it's pretty rare to have such an odd bio teacher here, but ok.

Mrinalini Person Well, I considered that you might not live in the US (which is why I was specific about that, since you never know who you're talking to on the internet). I typed that from my phone, so I didn't check your profile to see where you were from. But, I'm at a computer now. So Mumbai, huh? Is your teacher a follower of a specific ancient Indian scholar? (I know that foreign people often combine them together and just call it "Hinduism", but that people follow different scholars, like religious divisions.) It's interesting that this same argument is apparently going on in India. It shouldn't even be an argument. In several Conservative Muslim countries, they're also fighting against any teaching of evolution. Richard Dawkins did an interview with some Muslim students in a classroom (in an Islamic country, but I forgot where). The students said they don't believe it, and they started using old bad arguments that American Christians used to use (but stopped using, because they were bad arguments). I think one of the arguments was "If humans came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" ... Uh, we didn't come from monkeys, we came from Homo Erectus, which is extinct now. But even if they hadn't gone extinct, it would be because they don't just all agree to change together. Some change, others don't. So obviously you realize that evolution happened (and continues to happen). I assume that your Biology teacher is still teaching it, even though they don't believe it? If you want to study it a little further, check out the website "Khan Academy" (they've got lots of free online classes, not just Biology). Khan Academy is a great resource. "Coursera", too.

+Rationalist Club thank you. I'm tired of hearing garbage from people. Seriously, the point of science is to be completely unbiased and to draw theories based on fact. These kinds of people degrade real science.

Jacob P From the fundamentalist religious person's point of view, evolution is "biased", because we weren't there to see the first life form, but their imaginary friend was - depending on which imaginary friend and which book they believe in.

so i'm very certain i'm in that camp of folk who just don't understand evolution so forgive my ignorance and i hope for help in understanding rather than criticism or mockery. ok so with that out of the way my wonder is if populations and not individuals evolve how do non evolving individuals as a collective produce an evolving population if that population is made up of things that don't evolve. how does a group of no's make yes' as a whole? i'd just like to apologize for how dumb i am and appreciate any thoughts on clarifying this up. thank you

@@user-JJJJJJJJJ Mutations occur individually. Natural selection guides the mutations in a population of these individuals. So, a lizard won't give birth to a non-lizard but a population of lizards may change as in the likes of a ring species. As for an analogy, think of the way languages evolve (taken you don't think it came from the tower of babel); populations diverge and small words change in the language which adds up over time, and the isolated groups have different languages that come from the same ancestor language (like Spanish and French both came from Latin), but you do not get a Spanish speaking mother giving birth to an English speaking kid...as for as forming the languages. Hope I helped!

@@user-JJJJJJJJJ recombination When 2 organisms create an offspring, the DNA of those offspring mix and the child becomes different but similar. Then natural selection happens and the offspring with the changed DNA might survive. And it goes on and on. Search more. It's sad how people refuse evolution without knowing anything about it.

@@darklogic6998 thats funny i too thought about this more using language as an analogy. i gather the part that still eludes me is just like you said about how a lizard won't give birth to a non lizard so then at what point and how is it possible that we have all the different species or families we have today? did each like "genre" (apologies for my ignorance on the correct terminology) of creature get a start of their own thus lizards always making more lizards meanwhile canines having their own separate start always making more canines? or does every kind of creature we have today have a single common ancestor? and if they do how did that ancestor (for lack of better example and for sake of simplicity) birth a non lizard (or ya know birth a non whatever that common ancestor was). or did all creatures starting from that common ancestor just slowly go off and do their own things so one group became lizards and this other group became whales and then this other group become plants? am i making sense cuz i feel like i lost myself haha

@@user-JJJJJJJJJ Yes, all animals shared a single common ancestor. I see where you may be mistaken now sorry. As for my language analogy, Spanish "evolved" from Latin just like French. So one population of Latin speakers slowly had words changed to form a population of Spanish speakers ditto with the French-speaking population. A population of hominins slowly had genes changed (in the individuals of the populations) to form modern humans. So, no lizard gives birth to a non-lizard but slowly gradual change in a population of lizards may produce a similar-looking species to lizards that are not quite lizards. This change may continue to the point where they look almost nothing like their ancestor of lizards.

@Josh Noss DEBUNKED... Conclusion The Burdick track contains severe anatomic errors as well as abruptly truncated subsurface algal structures, indicating that it is a carving. The carver probably took a piece of limestone from a local outcrop, turned it upside down, and carved into the "bottom" of the rock. The knowledge that similar tracks were carved in Glen Rose, and lack of in situ documentation for the track, further undermine claims that the track is genuine. Creationists would do well to abandon the Burdick track. NEXT...

Josh Noss copy and paste from your other comment

Josh Noss It can’t be true because evolution is a presupposition... all evidence that doesn’t match must be rejected... like when an evolutionist found soft tissue in a fossil that was supposedly millions of years old & they were attacked as either being sloppy and contaminating the fossil or straight up lying. They said there was no way soft tissue could still remain after millions of years. Then when others found similar results and the evidence became overwhelming, they were like “golly, well I guess soft tissue can last millions of years!” 🤦‍♂️

@@psyberwolf4514 yeah...that's called the nature of science...new evidence is discovered and ideas and theories change...

@Josh Noss I'm not trying to offend you or anything. Believe what you want and all, but there is far far far more indisputable evidence that evolution is a fact. Literally watch the video. I'm not saying God doesn't exist or anything. I'm saying we need to come to terms and evolve our beliefs on what we know today, rather than in the past. We've come along way in the scientific field, open your mind! 🙃

+Leslie Vaughn How did the apology go? "Dear complete idiot, we're terribly sorry for doing our job and attempting to teach your child facts. We apologize for opening the door to a future for your child that includes more than just pumping gas and digging ditches for the rest of his life." Tragic, really.

Leslie, isn't there something to be said in distinguishing facts from the interpretation of facts? We all can see that evolution is a very real and very amazing reality in the world we live. And Hank here did make a distinction between micro and macroevolution. We all see that there are SOOO many examples of microevolution. Yet the degree of the assumptions we are willing to accept in interpreting these examples of microevolution are much more nuanced based upon our entire worldview. For me it is very hard to simply believe that 7 billion people all evolved from one prokaryote. This is surely a Kierkegaard-like "leap of faith" compared to the epigenetics of lizards, thee strengthening of beaks or the breading of dogs.

Matthew Fisher Argument from incredulity. Try learning something about the theory, and maybe these things won't be so hard for you to accept.

My teacher once did that to me! We watch a visor like this nice with lots of pritty pictures!! And no fossils. I told my teacher I thought the video was ridiculous because all it had was artists drawings. I had a 95 in her class and she told me that she would drop me to a B if I said any more "ridiculous statements" like that. So I left the class, and got stopped by my principal in the halls who asked me why I didn't a hall pass. I told him how I disagreed with my teacher on evolution and how she threatened to lower my grade. My principal told me that he beloved in micro evolution and was sad "macrevolution" (which is a fairy take for grow ups) had to be taught in schools. Well the he advised me to make my own decision ad not be afraid of learning every atheist argument I could. Because real truth seekers look at all side equally no just the one we want to he true (unlike atheists who refuse to read the Bible). Then he scolded my texted about trying to lower my grade over my personal

Beliefs and that was that.

Veryde To be fair, it's the same situation with die-hard atheists. They use science as a way of proving that everything in religion is wrong. It's not that science is wrong - far from it - but die-hard atheists and creationists are really just as bad as each other. It's the people who take the middle ground, having their own view but also being open to other ideas, that are not the problems. And there ARE a lot of people like that. Just not on these RU-vid comments, it seems.

Common designer? No? Okay. Chicken for everybody then.

Luke Ario science isn't the same answer they will say Yeah but insert biology experiment here disproves that or insert physics observation here states that that is impossible You just say god did so your wrong no matter the context

Luke Ario I’m agnostic and just mind my own business( agnostic in a shell nut) but that’s not to say I’ll debate somebody

The difference between a die-hard atheist and a die-hard religious person is the atheist backs up their arguments with fact. The religious persons counter is always just a form of denying the fact that the atheist presents.

Jon West, I think the comment section is probably toxic because a lot of trolls like to pretend to be creationists. If I were a creationist, I'd be AVOIDING evolution videos, not watching them. For a creationist who takes the book of Genesis seriously, watching RU-vid videos about evolution would be a waste of time at best, and a sign of weakness at worst.

Agreed 🤝 😂

@@picturepainter and then there's me, a Christian who's only skipping through the videos involving evolution to get the satisfaction of going through the full Biology playlist 😂

@@picturepainter Actually it's very important for everyone to learn about the theory of evolution. I don't say this because I want everyone to believe it, or because I believe it myself. I think it's important because just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean you shouldn't learn about it. Otherwise, you are proving yourself to be ignorant about the topic.

Yes. This has been debated for a bit now. I side with the creationists however that doesn't excuse certain behaviors.

go look up creationism and you will understand his side of the argument... he didn't explain it very well

In one way he is right we did create taxonomica

@@joelmathew1209 There is no evidence for creationism, while evolution is an observable fact.

@@cardemis7637 eh... beg to differ

@@knoxc4248 you can beg to differ all you want. It doesn't change a thing.

Don't underestimate American stupidity. Look at who our president is.

Edwin Luciano better yet look at the final 2 candidates (Hillary and Trump...)

This is because Catholicism is universalism and the Roman catholics were involved in killing christians back in the day. They hold their book to be above The Bible the scriptures the word of God and they also tell you to pray to Mary who was a human woman not a God pray only to the Father in Jesus name. The one and only Tri Une God.

Catholicism does not hold the bible ad its absolute authority so they tend to make up their own beliefs here and there.

@@Pie3.1 What do you mean TRI UNE GOD?

+Pyxl Well when we are told that all life formed from one source for over billions of years, yet we aren't shown even 100 fossil examples of a single species evolving into another, what would you expect? People don't like bullshit.

All fossils are species evolving.

Pyxl Prove it. Otherwise, theory. Good day.

What exactly do you mean by a fossil example of a species evolving into another one.

+Clint R Don't understand evolution? It's easy, just read a good book that's written all about it. Grab the bible, it will answer all your questions as it was written by expert biologists at a time when science thinking was at its zenith. Oops, I made a little mistake here - try Origin of the Species by Darwin, it actually was written to explain how species change. That other book really was not authored for any science understanding.

Jaxolotle R’amen

all heil plankton

Ramen

lol

The real flying spaghetti monster is our "common ancestor"

It's pretty fun down here though (you get to yell at people)

Annabelle Barr but up here we get tea? (might i ask what kind of tea? Does Iced tea count?)

jacob nichols Any kind of tea you like. :)

XD How about any video pertaining to anything political, educational, or entertaining.

I'd like a crumpet flavored with some ad hominem. xD

+Mr. Rich B.O.B The theory of evolustion

+Max Hooper Theory of Hoevolution.

+Max Hooper Darwin 'n' his birds

+Mr. Rich B.O.B Darwin was British

+Max Hooper all scientist have bitches,its a scientific fact

Nah Homework

I just really like anthropology-

also me

TheAlphaShadows Well it's hard to disagree with God's word. I also like people who mold the religion into their own personal thing, but they are probably not really practicing their religion 'correctly'

TheAlphaShadows Well it's not a choice when you are involved in a religion. A person doesn't choose to become Christian over becoming Muslim. They start as an 'atheist' but then are taught or led to believe that a particular religion is RIGHT and the others are WRONG. Then they follow the word of the book that the religion belongs to. That's when interpretations of the book comes into it. This explains the different denominations of Christianity. But no Christian can ever choose to believe that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, or that he wasn't the Son of God. You have to believe these things or else you aren't a Christian. The whole religion is based on that. Possibly I interpreted your misunderstanding incorrectly.

I had a christian friend in middle school, i got them to be an atheist by shutting down and brutally dismantling their arguments and beleifs daily, some times u need to give a little tough love to get them to turn away from their cult

+Hunter Livers fuk u heathan

Jackie Murphy​​ 1. If ypu were a woman i would happily accept ypur offer, except im not gay 2. Yay im a heathen Edit: i hope your pope excommunicates me, my family will not like it but ill be happy

+Martin Kunev Evolution is a flawed "Theory" Even Darwin admitted it had problems. If you look closely at biological systems a lot of them can not function if you take away a single component. Take for instance an eye ball, If you take away 1 single ingredient of all that it takes to make an eye ball function it will not work at all...so how did an eye ball evolve from a single cell creature if it can not work unless all parts are there. The probability of a single protein required in the building blocks of life life being created from random chance is like 1 to the 167th power (I am not sure of the exact number) for 1 single part. So the explanation for 100's of billions of years for evolution to take place in reality it would take 100's of times longer to have made 1 single protein to even start the process of life. Also of you look at just the biological systems of the human body it would seem each system is very complex and for all the complex systems to work together (skeletal, muscular, cardio vascular, nervous and so on) to make us work seems to me to have a specific purpose which suggest a design for then all to work together. If you have a design then you have to have a designer. This planet is also in the perfect location in the universe for all this to support life. Even with the astronomical probabilities of random chance you still have to have the environment to support such a possibility which in it self is an astronomical possibility.

+No Name For some reason my response is missing, so I'll try to re-write it. When Darwin proposed the theory, a lot of questions were yet unanswered. Now we understand genetics and we've made lots of discoveries in peleontology, geology, biology, embryology, etc. With computers we can model evolution very successfully. "ingredients" don't just appear to form an eye, they evolve gradually. It's not true that an eye cannot work unless all parts are there (you can google aphakia). Here are some videos explaining eye evolution: watch?v=h5M8fXCyQ94 watch?v=fzERmg4PU3c Your concern about probability is addressed by the anthropic principle. All of the numbers you cite are totally made up and don't make any sense so there's nothing to be said about them. "seems to me" is not an argument. To some people it seems that women should be punished for being raped by stoning to death. The complexity of life is explained by genetic variation and natural selection. The imperfections of organisms refute any concept of purpose.

Swedish coder evidence we are at the end of the road

Hah, i came here cause my biology teacher doesn't believe in evolution...

Sadly this is reality, she refused to teach us anything about this (instead had us do group presentations) and at the end gave a 2 hour long lecture on how the bible proves that evolution never occurred.. And you know what, most of the class believed in her.

Swedish coder how is it hard to believe there is no evidence proving it true

Anastasia THAT IS WONDERFUL THAT IS GOD! HE SPOKE TO YOU TROUGH YOUR TEACHER! HE'S SHOWING YOU HIS LOVE!

you just disproved evolution. *drops king

You can’t compare a continent and dna.

It’s a joke.

Bee Brooks He's comparing people to DNA though...

Bee Brooks r/woosh

What are you going to CORRELATE if there is no evidence found?

Lovecraft was a coward. We should face reality as it is.

A retired biology teacher watches "crash course biology"?

Keep growing, all the best. :-)

Much better if we are growing spiritually.

+Lei Lei Don't read the comments of a RU-vid video, if you want to learn.

check out " Kent Hovind" he well the truth of evolution

+Rom Mlo He can also tell truth of getting fucked in the ass by the other prisoners every day for ten years

LITERALLY SAME

Lei Lei isn't it sad that you have to deny your heritage or true origins just to get an A on an exam?

ikr

James Henry Smith man WTF XD

Jeffrey Z Okay, What's your best example of evolution.

@Edward The Booble I ended up getting 60/70 on my final 😳✨💆🏻‍♂️

@@danielsaavedra4105 Nice job

@Edward The Booble Not sure it wouldn't help either.

You need a new friend

Extreme Bolt I you were a real friend, you'd put him right.

Johnny--One can KNOW there is a creator. Belief not needed. Why do dogs breeds look so different? In the genetic code of dogs there is a great amount of variation placed in the code. Same with all life forms. Yet the life form remains the same--there can be variation TO A DEGREE in SIZE (Example--height), SHAPE (example--Noses), COLOR (example, skin, hair, eyes etc). With the idea the wolf is the foundation code of dogs, humans SELECTED the TRAITS they wanted (you can see the different SIZES, SHAPES, AND colors of dogs). These TRAITS can be naturally selected also. One thing we KNOW. Dogs are Dogs. What if you found a fossil of a BULLDOG, COLLIE, and a GREAT DANE? You would think that they were different animals--AND you would use it as PROOF FOR EVOLUTION. Of course you would be 100% WRONG.

With a scientific mind then, how do you refute Epicurus: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Damian Zepeda a cartoon is evidence? fking idiots.

jason sneller Whos said the animations were evidence? He's pointing out the evidence now go research, observe. and study it.

+jason sneller How stupid can you be? Making illustrations of fossils is considered evidence, yes. We still have the fossils to back up the illustration. We also have genetics, morphology, behavior, geography, and more to back up the theory of evolution. If you deny the theory of evolution, you are lost and will probably not be convinced anyway. Just leave.

+Damian Zepeda Dude you are so fucking wrong its making me laugh. Hank isn't that handsome. but yea biological evolution is real.

Uh... he’s not that cute.

I always state those two in opposite order and in slightly different terms: dna replication errors occur, and dna is inherited.

and coincidentally how we have both Teacup Poodles, and Great Danes, despite both being bred from wolves.

Hear hear. Do you mind if I ask if there was anything in particular that finally convinced you? Or was it a collection of things over time?

Except it isn't accurate science at all. Real science REQUIRES both OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION. Evolution from one kind to another has neither been observed nor been confirmed by any known experiment. In fact, all observation and experimentation contradict this possibility. All life forms remain as they are. Fish stay fish. Cats stay cats. Monkeys stay monkeys. Humans stay humans. Quite simple really.

Evolutionist never say what it was that first "evolved". They can't explain that. Neither can they explain where everything came from.

Hey look! 2 people who try to prove evolution wrong by proving they don't understand how it works!

+Paladin Luke Oh dear. Oh no. Natural selection failed to get rid of her

+Paladin Luke I'm not sure that has anything to do with religion. That just has to do with not understanding the science.

+Paladin Luke I've been reading Apologia's Exploring Creation with Biology textbook and I swear every other paragraph is, "Darwin was a madman, but we have to talk about him anyway." It's hard to decide whether it's extremely irritating or extremely funny.

Ellis Rongey I actually am using Apologia's anatomy textbook and they use the term "God's magnificent creation" once a page and bash Darwin once every chapter.

shaqpopcorn34 Never said it was

Ask them to define it. Not 1 has actually done it! Not 1! Sad

Correct, no one says that except creationists.

@Ricahrd P'Brien what's the issue?

@Ricahrd P'Brien oh ok yes I agree with that

I know, right?

he is good at his work

No

Matthew you're funny.

no

Or better yet .... If Jebus died for your sins....Why is there still sin? The BuyBull has a talking snake.... it must be true. Lol

100% of people who believe in evolution don't know what they are talking about. Evolution is nothing but a dead religion.

@The Real Donald Trump. Why? It seems to me it's the most logical explanation for our existence, with plenty of evidence to back it up. Why don't you agree with it and what is the theory you think is more likely and why?

Meoweow. Well actually there is not that much evidence that supports evolution. I am a Christian so I believe that God created the universe in six days. Not billions of years.

There are hundreds of different methods to measure the age of the earth, and 90% of them contradict a 4.2 billion year old universe. Evolutionists just pick the ones that support their theory. No evidence has been found to show that information can be added to DNA. All mutations that have been found are a lack of information, not a gain. Also evolution cannot explain how we got here. Or how the big-bang happened, or why man has a moral conscience, or any other thing. If you can answer all of these questions for me that would be great!

David Lango One of the most clear species currently alive that show evolution is something called the lung fish. The lung fish has air-breathing lungs and gills, and fins that can swim but also walk in the marshy areas of ponds. It can breath in both water and land. So you could say the lung fish is half fish and half tetra-pod. (I'm not arguing, I am just answering your question. I personally don't know the answer to why evolution in humans "stopped" but I think it could be because we reached our prime, or perfect, form in the habitats that we currently live in. However, I think that we are still changing whether it physical or psychological.)

David Lango Perhaps if you watch the other videos it this series on evolution you will learn that what you just posted makes no sense and shows your total ignorance of what you are trying to talk about.

tigerwa I think he's just trolling and making a funny little joke, I wouldn't worry about him and if he's not trolling, well... Then unleash the attack of the nerds!!!!!

David Lango troll.. at least I hope so :/

David Lango Evolution is about the diversification of species, not one extant species turning into another extant species. Evolution does not predict the existence of such chimeras. Indeed, were they actually found, they would be very strong evidence against evolution. Evolution hasn't stopped. It is an ongoing, continuous process that CANNOT stop, even if the changes are so small as to be unnoticeable on all but the largest time-scales.

Detonexploder Can I move there?

Jorge Padua lol

Detonexploder Can you tell us where you live? I need to move.

FROP DESAI Netherlands Note the "seems" though. Stats say other things. But everyone I know seems to acknowledge it, or at least understand it.

Detonexploder Ok. Thanks *picks up his phone and calls his mum* MA! WE'RE MOVING TO THE NETHERLANDS!

I hear that god made covid-19 so perfectly.

@Edward The Booble what does Adam and Eve have to do with evolution?... Also even if Adam and Eve weren't real we all still need to be rescued for something at one point in our lives or to always help us.

Made us so perfect he had to drown us all in the flood.

6,000*ish and that dating ain't bout nukes it's about the atmosphere remaining constant

Kate the Great ....I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you're seriously that dense. You can connect the dots, and deduce the answer to those questions that you've posed, with just a very minor understanding of evolution. You don't even have to google them. Procreation - Ability: I'm not even sure if this is a real question. There couldn't have been reproduction, without the ability to do so in the first place. Regardless of the sex drive of a species. Bones or Muscles? - Uneducated question. Since we ALL evolved from cells, which evolved into fish, which led to us - There are a million different branches in which we could have evolved, our strain just so happened to have both bones, and muscle, which would indicate that they evolved at the same time. Eyes would've come first - Their evolution would've continued to progress due to necessity. That's why deep sea fish, have eyes, but not the ability to see, while predatory birds HAVE to have incredible vision, thus they do. Stomach lining, Gastric Fluid - Same as bones and muscles, they're co-dependent on one another, ergo - they would've evolved at the same time. Male or female - literally the same as your procreation question, cant have one without the other. I think you should research a little more, before you try to defend your position with objections like those.

Can of Paint The whole point is that you can't have one without the other. According to the theory of evolution, all of the changes are mutations that are beneficial to the species. The idea is that things come one at a time. Maybe you need to study up on evolution, because you seem to not understand it.

I don't know why i chose to have this argument. Not only were my statements accurate, the video above gives LITERAL, DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES of EVOLUTION. The finches, the whales, all of it. I should've known better than to think someone could be rational, after denying a video of facts that they JUST watched.

I just don't understand your reasoning, yes, evolution is driven on necessity. Which would allow certain features and systems to evolve one at a time. That being said, you can't have a stomach without gastric fluid, or a reproductive species, without the ability to reproduce. Specific things have to evolve different. Like the geckos that grew longer and wider mouths, and an enhanced digestive track for eating grass. You're dense man, like really really dense.

Can of Paint Sure, and I can give you some examples of myths Zeus, Hercules, Shivah, Thor. That doesn't make them true. If you are going to believe everything everyone tells you, I feel sorry for you.

Its ALL BELIEF.

As a Christian, I believe in Micro evolution. It's all around us, and it is proof of an intelligent creator. That's not the issue between Creationists and Atheists. The issue is Macro evolution. (Ex. alligator to bird)

you just don't see that the pyramids will become sand again at some point, which means that if you pick up a single grain of sand, you can realize that the pyramids can come of it. That's all Macro evolution is; continued enough change COMBINED with geographic forces that eventually lead a population of one species to split into two, and boom, once they can't interbreed fully, each can be headed in a different direction. Or do you just think that Australia "looked like a good place" to drop off the Kangaroos after the flood along with all the other marsupials that evolved there? Seriously. You people just don't have critical thinking skills.

You do realize it's not absolute truth right? It isn't even scientific law... therefore, the only way that you could consider it absolute truth is by having faith that this half baked idea is the truth but it just can't be fully supported.

The thing about a grain of sand is that it's just that... a grain of sand. Until an intelligent creator came along nothing came of that grain of sand.

Jessica Gaskill personally I don’t believe In God, but I completely respect your beliefs and religion :)

+pathetic mortal Thing is that evolution is a theory. There will always be a fact to support a theory. In the case of evolution, there are many facts that support that theory. But the reason that a theory is called a theory is because a theory itself is not a fact. Evolution is a guess, and there is so much more evidence against evolution than there is for it.

Clint R not really, and gravity is also a theeory, so maybe people who don't beleive in theories will float away :-D

+pathetic mortal Actually gravity is a law. Oh and it can be directly proven. Drops mic (like that)

+Saqlain Rattansi its called the theory of gravity, and evolution is seen all the time

pathetic mortal Its called the law of gravity buddy. Wow you`re dim. And micro evolution is seen all the time, not macro. I do believe evolution btw but you`re just being stupid

***** What an ignorant, inaccurate comment. Of course, with the PC propaganda presented on the Internet, I'm not surprised. If you so believe in following only factual information, can you please tell me where it says ANYTHING in the Bible about the Earth being the center of the Universe? Get your facts right. Ptolemy first postulated that theory, and Galileo was jailed by the Catholic Church, something that anyone with a molecule of medieval knowledge knows is a warped version of Christianity.

Wow, way to go copying and pasting a Google Search without thinking about it genius, how typical. Joshua 10:13 states that the sun stopped in the center of the sky. If you went outside and saw that the sun was neither rising nor falling, but it was in the sky? what would it be? Centered, am I wrong? You guys are so funny in your desperate attempts to over-analyze every Bible verse, yet accept any new scientific theory as unquestionably true.

Wow, I'm sorry, but you have less of an attention span than I thought. Please explain to me how a verse saying that the sun was in the middle of the sky (from a human's pov) equals geocentrism (by the way, you first said heliocentrism, so way to commit the tu quoque fallacy.). You obviously aren't digging deep to this at all, and you have the same dogma that you are describing in your comment. If you're unwilling to change your beliefs just because you believe that you current ones are and always will be the only correct ones (which your 47 lines or so pretty much sums up) then I find it ironic how you say you are being honest to "yourself" when it's obvious that you simply rely on the Internet for philosophical advice.

Ending the conversation just the way you chose to start it, making a vague statement where you act like I insulted you yet you just did it yourself. I'm sorry your mind couldn't expand to the required minimum for you to rationally argue with me. It appears that you are not only angry, but confused, flustered, and desperate to make yourself seem like less of the "loser" in this argument. But being level-headed as I currently am, I will end this conversation on that note. Good bye.

These replies have become a flame war.

this comment is so underrated/

I wouldn't mind being bored. Minecraft be calling me.

***** ***** god damn, cant make a joke without having people take it literally. BTW Tim Michin is a comedian

Evolution IS real though... :( I'm leaving America as soon as I can.

Lol. It would be really awesome if people were a theory. Society would be all wiggly and fun.

+G Kelly Since both can be directly observed, they are comparable. However, the mechanism behind gravity isn't well understood. The mechanism behind evolution is. Thus I think evolution is a more solid theory. Wait, I spare you a comment by addressing the issue of 'directly observing'. Yes, we see evolution happening in organisms within years. Obviously we can't directly observe evolution over millions of years. However, neither can we observe gravity directly in most cases. We compute the orbits of asteroids by using the theory without actually seeing them most of the time. We detect orbits of planets in other solar systems without seeing them. Btw the orbits around other planets are actually fossilized since the information reaches us with the speed of light. We detect thousands of years old orbits. We don't even know the inner workings of gravity. We just know the maths. I tell you why you accept one theory and not the other: Religion.

Considering the amount of religions out there and how many of those say that following a false religion is wrong (first commandment), is a big part of why I'm atheist. Though believing in evolution may be flawed in some ways it is still more observable and understandable (bacteria) than god making man from mud and women from man's rib and sacrificing the his son of a virgin to die for sins under the rules he created.

+Dropkick ThunderBook That's seems to be the usual relationship between Christians and the bible.

+Gareth Stretton Ask him to explain why: if life was forming over billions of years, why aren't there millions of transitional fossils? Why is 'the missing link' even a thing? Why isn't it so evidently clear that all life evolved from the same source? Just a warning to you Gareth: You're messing with religion here...

+Clint R You seem to disapprove of my appreciation for this series. I did not thank the author in an attempt to upset people. I did enjoy reading your questions though. Perhaps you can conduct this research and share your findings. Your warning seemed like a threat. You clearly feel very strongly about this topic. My advice would be to politely engage people who you wish to convince of your ideas. Be well.

Gareth Stretton I have no intention of trying to convince anyone of what they already know. People will believe what they wish. This is an asinine topic, and I will not take part in it. Good day.

The question Clint posed is an interesting one: "why aren't there millions of transitional fossils?" This prompts the inquisitive mind to wonder a series of questions: what are transitional fossils, where should we expect to find them, how many should we expect to find, how many have we found, and what do they represent? The serious learner should be able find answers to these questions. Each time I've linked to resources here my comment has been removed. So this time I'm responding without them and will simply encourage people to pursue this on their own.

Gareth Stretton I do not wish to convince anyone of anything. People believe what they are going to believe. I just don't understand how a person can be so stupid as to think that everything came from nothing. I get angry when I think of these imbeciles.

Daniel Pedersen the it’s a thing don’t deny it thing

@@dan78789 Understandably. It's really tiring when you have just so much evidence for something, and people willfully ignore it.

Kent Hovind: embarrassment to Christians.

Jason McElroy He's not an embarrassment to enough of them, unfortunately.

+Jason McElroy To the human race actually.

And probably Ken Ham...

ɷɷɷ I Haveeee Watched Thissss Movieeee Leakedd Versionnn Heree : - t.co/SjZpZXw5gt

One does not believe in Newton's laws. It is as factual as 2+2=4. Don't know why people don't see it at such(Sure questions can be answered but as of yet Evolution in general is fact.The details will always be worked on as evidence is discovered and found.)

you are right in saying that evolution does have supporting evidence, it is important for even thoughs who belive in a creator do look at the evidence either way, but to say that it is more concrete than Creationism is a false statment. Both evolution and creationism have tremendious amounts of supporting evidence. But i will also go as far to say that both have a LOT of holes as well. Ive tried to take a good look at both the supporting evidence as well as the nonsuporting evidence for both, and at the end of the day what i can see is that no matter what ou choose to believe it is still going to require Faith for BOTH.

Come on... I think that analogy is a bit over the top, as evolution is something that had to be found through combining and interpreting bits of evidence - that´s still alot different from observing a tree grow. It´s like saying solving a criminal case is the same as watching a football game.

You either accept or deny evolution. There is no belief involved.

You’re comparisons are absurd

Oh and you can't forget the existence of oxygen, by now we should all now that God provides us with life by breathing magic into our lungs! :)

*number of

yeet skeet

keep questioning and you'll be an atheist one day :)

Anarchical Mayhem Thank you, I know where I am. ☺

b

You don't have to be an Atheist to believe in Evolution(or believe in the Evidence that supports it) nor do you have to be one to ask questions(though asking questions may end up getting you there sooner or later if you ask enough)

as a mongoloid myself, I take offence to your comment

oye mate during quarantine?

Yes it is American , mostly Republicans . Help me I live in a republican state

+chris dobbs I know, America has the lowest acceptance rates in, certainly the developed world, I think out of developed countries only Turkey has lower rates.

+Corruptedmilk i live in turkey. Total acceptance is thought to be arround %23-25. Nightmarish. If you think americans are stupid, please come here. You will agree that maybe racism had a point in one year. 5 Years laters you will be a biologist who classify turks as a different species

How can Turks be classed as a different species? That's rediculous. Even the San people in Africa who were one of the latest people's to be redefined as human after being a lost tribe for hundreds of years had the title of human given to them in the 1990's. I feel sorry for you guys as your victims not of science but of political propaganda.

chris dobbs That was.. uhm.. humor.. I dont seriously believe that an ethnicity within homo sapiens is actualy an entirely new species.

for real tho... It sounded convincingly true to me, at the time.

Ramen

Name ONLY one thing that causes you to believe evolution.

The fossil record. For instance, there are 0 rabbit fossils in the cambrian layer

Nathan--1st--The absence of a rabbit fossil is not PROOF. 2.--There are no layers OF TIME (the SO CALLED CAMBRIAN LAYER can be found at ANY DEBT--top of mountain or bottom layer, and anywhere in between.. 3--Fossils are a life form in rock. 4th--Fossil--It CAN't prove a creator or Evolution. It is neutral ground. However, when we find a fossil--the odds are the life form is still around TODAY AND looks the same. Logically this would go against the idea that life forms change. The extinct life forms are claimed to have changed--BUT--NO PROOF.