Join this channel to get access to perks: / @aronra If you like what I do, please consider supporting my efforts. PATREON► / aronra PAYPAL► www.paypal.me/AronRa
speciation is not all that is required for macroevolution. it is continuous speciation that results in new genera, families, classes, phyla, kingdoms. this has NOT been observed.
@@HS-zk5nn I don't know all that much about evolution on the whole, so maybe there's a less intuitive but more factual answer than this; but if we know that a species can change over time to become something that isn't compatible with its ancestral form, which is what you're accepting here, and we have apparently millions, or hundreds of millions, or even billions of years of deposited animal remains showing many gradual transitions between forms, what's missing for you to close that gap in your mind? To my eye, we're looking at 1+x=3 and you're saying no one's ever proven that 2 exists.
@HS-zk5nn the emergence of a new Kingdom has been observed. Some typenof plant has been confirmed to have incorporated an external nitrogen digesting microorganism into its organelles, just like previous plants did with chloroplasts and animals did with mitochondria. Please stop being completely ignorant of things that you refuse to accept as reality.
@@HS-zk5nn I'd say it's way more than possible with those two facts I bring up, it's essentially a derived fact that we may never finish proving, like a lot of history we can't verify anymore. Hell from what I understand about the time scale fossils stretch across, it would be 100% impossible for *a* human to observe macroevolution, just like it would be entirely impossible for a human to observe a star system forming. To observe something in science doesn't mean to sit directly in front of it as it happens and watch it from t=0 until it's done.
"People have been observed walking from a house to a car or along a supermarket aisle, but nobody's ever been observed walking a mile. Don't look up the Jakobsweg." - creationists
@@SableagleBad analogy as genes are discreet and they are the ones that determine the variations. Microevolution involves modification/inactivation of existing genes while for macro we need to get new distinct functional genes .
@@jameshall1300 all that he's saying could be explained in terms of that. you have a gene, you mutate it and then x happens. You have to have the gene before you can mutate it, mutation and genetic drift give rise to lions, tigers, house cats etc. how do we get those genes? Answer that and nobody will doubt evolution.
there being no evidence for macro evolution definitely doesn't disprove it but it also doesn't justify macro evolution being shoved down everyone's throat as a Fact.
Right. That was going to be my response. I get seizures, but did not want to give up running. My wife, or one of my kids, fly a drone to keep an eye on me. Eazy-peazy. Christians love science!!!
A Professor once told me that accepting microevolution and not macroevolution was like accepting that a person can put one foot in front of the other but not accepting that they can walk.
My man Aron at it again ❤ Creationists, Microevolution is evolution, adaptation is evolution, speciation is evolution. Evolution can be defined in many ways like descent with modification, or the genetic change in a population over time. What you Creationists need to realize is how much time you are familiar with relative to the vast amount of time that has transpired over the history of the earth (for traditional biological evolution), because when you "adapt" or "micro evolve", you are evolving. Eventually the "small" changes that you see within species changes to a point where if you zoom out you notice that the organism now is vastly different from their ancestors millions of years ago. 1+1=2, 1 is a small number, 2 is a small number... Keep adding on changes each second for millions of years and tell me if the number you see is still an insignificant one. Put your mind into perspective and stop assuming the earth is 6000 years old because a book told you so.
By macro evolution they mean evolution that would contradict the Bible. nothing in the bible says dog's can't be related to wolf's but humans can't be related to any animal or creationism is wrong. That is how there using the word by macro evolution they mean evolution that goes against the Bible micro evolution that doesn't go against the Bible
It's so funny reading this. You're so right, but thinking about how a creationist would react to what you said and how you said it is just so fucking funny. You get zero message across to anyone like that lol
speciation is not all that is required for macroevolution. it is continuous speciation that results in new genera, families, classes, phyla, kingdoms. none of which has been observed. aron obviously is not a scientist
@@fistybaby9489 a new clade can form within a clade and a newer clade within that one and form even newer clades over millions of years. and stuff like that. hence amoeba to a whale. simple.
@fistybaby9489 the other commenter obviously doesn't think a car stops being a c a r because it gets ac. You're both on the same side of this argument.
15+ years later and this is still going, feels so depressing 😅 I went to uni with a Creationist, and his argument against this was the "by the book" Creationist argument of "but they're still of the same kind" He didn't want 2 species of Gorilla, he want a Gorilla and...something else that was once a Gorilla? They wilfully ignore the meanings of words to further their own goals.
they've been using those same arguments for a lot longer than 15 years. I used to argue with creationists back inthe 80's. the same arguments. refutational facts were just much harder to come by back then.. you had to really know the material to really be able to stand up to them. The internet has given us the weapon of ready info we can call up when we need it..
@@NatCo-SupremacistSex and gender aren't the same thing, sorry you don't understand the science (yes scientists study gender, look it up) behind that. 🤡
@@NatCo-SupremacistGender =/= Sex. Ik that's super controversial for some reason, but that's what the scientists that study gender and sex have to say about it. Seriously look it up, it's way more interesting than being a bigot because you learned about chromosomes one time.
@@Rosemy12 sex is physical and a useful term, gender is psychological and not a useful term. Arbitrarily stating they're different means nothing, since only one is useful. It's not controversial, it's not true, regardless what status quo defending scientists may say. Bigotry is actually far more interesting, fulfilling, and spiritually worthwhile when it comes to opposing the psychological abuse of this current regime. While you're at it, stop pretending to support Palestine, when you also support lgbt gender ideology, you know that Palestinians agree with the general sentiment that all Muslims share against homosexuality? The only westerners that Palestine supports are Nazis.
@@drsatan9617that's not a good analogy as genes are discreet and they are the ones that determine the variations. Microevolution involves modification/inactivation of existing genes while for macro we need to get new distinct functional genes .
@@Philalethes101 micro can also be a novel gene, micro just requires that enough novel genes are added to a population that then makes it no longer the same species as the starting one. Blue eyes are a micro change yet they were a novel gene when they first arose.
@@realdragon- there are plenty of other great science communicators, like Forrest Valkai and Gutsick Gibbon (Erica), who don't go around promoting transphobic propaganda
@@davidsmith-uw2cimosquitos and elephants diverged on 2 different evolutionary paths way back when the first vertabates and invertabates evolved. Creationists don't even understand the basics of evolution. So they make ridiculous logical leaps like a mosquito becoming an elephant. It's like trying to explain something to a child.
So strange that they admit “micro evolution” happens but don’t accept “macro evolution” I mean that’s like saying you accept the individual steps in a lego set, but don’t accept the complete model.
From their view, given no understanding of DNA, they think each species has a collection of genes that apparently they all individually carry at all times, and this is their species' entire genetic library for all time (the only change they accept being mutations breaking stuff) so they think of it like a L ego set that didn't come with any propellers so you can never build an airplane with it. I haven't had anyone directly say that, this is what I pieced together from hearing hundreds of them try to explain why evolution has limits they can never define or explain (the L ego thing was coincidental, I didn't see it in your post until after writing) TL:DR They think all dogs have every dog gene ever and can re-create all breeds with two random pups.
that's not a good analogy as genes are discreet and they are the ones that determine the variations. Microevolution involves modification/inactivation of existing genes while for macro we need to get new distinct functional genes .
27 дней назад
I keep asking them about the mechanisms that prevent microevolution from accumulating and reflecting on macroevolution, but they keep changing the subject.
From their view, given no understanding of DNA, they think each species has a collection of genes that apparently they all individually carry always, and this is their species' entire genetic library for all time (the only change they accept being mutations breaking stuff) so they think of it like a L ego set that didn't come with any propellers so you can never build an airplane with it. (the L ego thing was coincidental, I didn't see it in your post until after writing, but found out YT will silently delete a post with that block brand name) TL:DR They think all dogs have every dog gene ever and can re-create all breeds with two random pups.
The discreet nature of genes IS that mechanism. The difference between a bacteria and a human isn't as a result of modifications of bacterial genes (that's microevolution from a molecular perspective) but human genome contain thousands of distinct functional genes that are not present in the bacterial genome. Formation of new functional genes is the indisputable proof of macro evolution and that's what we're waiting for.
I find it absolutely astonishing that people who don't understand the basics of evolution, people who conflate evolution with abiogenesis and even the big bang, think that they are intellectually equipped to totally debunk the theory of evolution.
Probably because there is no evolution without abiogenesis. And, probabilisticly speaking, macroevolution is false and creating life from non-life is false. So, there is that.
Of course it has been observed. Half of Darwin's originally recorded Galapagos finch species have already gone extinct because they've evolved into new ones. Their generations are much shorter than ours ...
@@ronaldnixon8226A fish turning into a monkey is impossible. Of course from a certain genetic perspective all monkeys are fish but I doubt that is what you mean.
@@ronaldnixon8226 We do not need to provide proof to uneducated individuals like yourself. This subject is for the more academically minded and free thinkers. 😜
It always makes me giggle how creationists expect evolution to more or less be like pokemon, while at the same time demonizing it. The funny part is, they can still both believe in their god and accept evolution for what it is. God created the first original "kinds", whatever the fuck that exactly means, but also accept that species have diversified after the fact over thousands of years. At least then they would look at least a little less stupid.
😆 You made me picture a creationist in a lab coat slapping a pokemon poster with one of those old telescoping pointers, screaming "a charizard is still the char 'kind!'"
it's very easy the Bible specifically states that God created animals on a different day then when he created humans. Christians that believe in evolution already have to say that, the story is untrue. if you are a Christian and you believe in scientific findings then more and more of the stories of the Bible get disproven. at what point do you then just say "wait there is a lot of things wrong with the Bible maybe the whole book is wrong"
@@lukeriely4468 Thanks. I'm in the same boat with the telegram bots. Fortunately, I'm not fooled by them, but your post has made me realise that I should highlight it myself aswell.
@@Pooknottin I have reported "it" because they have imitated Aron's account many times. They have spammed this thread multiple times over the last few hours. My cousin reported them, too. Fricken agents of the dark ones 😄 ✌️
@@lukeriely4468 I can't report, only mute. The bots turn up on several of the channels I watch. I did report when I could, but now there's no option. Is there some other way to report? YT tend to be fairly blase about this kind of thing unfortunately.
@Pooknottin Hmmm. I know youtube has removed the "block user" tab and replaced that with a mute user that just shddow bans. Hence, i can not see his posts. But click to their channel, and you can report as spam/scam. It says "this user has no videos" but click "next" and it list options such as "spam" and after that, it asks what they've done. You can type it there and click "send" RU-vid keeps changing thkngs to the extent that your version of RU-vid is different to my version. I locked updates so they can't make changes without me knowing. I click "no" I'd love to hack these bot's IP addy 😄
I’m pretty sure those anti-science types will never be happy until we can visibly show the adaptation to a new high level clade. Even then, they’ll move the goal post. “It’s a different mouse, but it’s still a mouse.”
I often like to use shared endogenous retroviruses as evidence of common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees. Creationists cannot give an explanation for why we find the same erv in the same location with the same inactivation mutation among the species.
Instead of using mobile genetic elements why not use the immobile ones, you know, the actual genes that differentiate between humans and other ape, give a mechanistic explanation for how we got them, a lack of this answer is why they don't entertain ERVs as proof.
Professor Dave made an excellent point in his debate with Kent Hovind. Strawberries have speciated twice in single generations. This is apparently not that absurdly rare in species capable of self reproduction in addition to sexual reproduction(Because sexual reproduction is pre-requisite for most defining of species using the biological species concept). This is because there is a type of mutation called polyplodia where all of the chromosomes in a gamete are duplicated, entirely preventing sexual reproduction with any other individual if that polyploid organism survives. This happens in animals as well, especially those small reptiles or amphibians capable of parthanogenesis. It literally fits the strawman of "You've never seen one species give birth to another species" and creationists still will complain about how "Well they're still the same kind even if they can't take after one another because they look the same and haven't changed enough to be considered different kinds". Banking on their ill-defined "kind" to protect their ignorance. Polyploidy species are kinda the ultimate barrier to reproduction, however. They greatly prevent two species from exchanging genetic information and so they will see large diversification very quickly. It stops being a ring species and starts being a line species. Several generations later you might find that your two basic species forms you started with are entirely different, physically and genetically, unable to reproduce, fitting different niches and are by all conceivable definitions, different species and they will still be the same "kind" according to the creationist. The reason they're the same kind? Well we know their origin so they must be. If we didn't, they might be different kinds. So that begs the question: If we found the origin of all humans and where they diversified from other apes(Which we have, I'd argue) and could demonstrably show that directly to a creationist, would we suddenly be the ape kind? What about beyond that? The monkey kind? The mammal kind? cordate, animal, eukaryote kind? It's just really hard to work on changing people's minds when they will use words that change definitions based on whatever they feel like they need it to be to win.
@@Owen_013 it went about as well as you'd expect. Eric's whole argument centered about "Were we amoeba's in the past? How did we stop being amoeba's cause every amoeba just gives birth to more amoeba's"
@@Nanamowa THe real question that should be answered in order to validate "common ancestry" is this: Can genetic mutations produce what the theory proposes?
I would say lines are very blurry when it comes to what constitutes "Ultimate barrier". For example, there are two related species of fish living in rivers in Mexico and USA. One has two normal sexes, while the other has only females. Those females mate with males of first species - but there is no exchange of genetic material. Contact with sperm is enough to start the development of the egg in what is basically parthenogenesis. All young will be females and carry only their mother's DNA. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_molly
@@FrikInCasualMode Natural selection, yes. This is an observable phenomenon. What must be proven is common ancestry THROUGH genetic mutations that come from natural selection.
I have to say, the mocking voice was perfect. It reminded me of the old school buggs bunny cartoons with the guy saying “which way did he go George, which way did he go?” I loved it. Keep at it, eventually, truth will reach a point of being undeniable.
Good morning from northern Illinois ... lying in bed with my almost 3 year old granddaughter. What a treat to get an AronRa video to watch with her before we leave to enjoy a local double A baseball game
@@mike62mcmanus Wouldn't surprise me if the character of god wanted people to use implements to hit projectiles thrown at them just so they can run around in a large circle. It seems in his nature to make people do pointless things for his entertainment.
I used one 15 years ago to answer multiple choice questions and view ads in exchange for donations to the World Food Programme overnight while I slept and my PC was on anyway hosting a server
You can see it with modern wildlife. The deer populations where i live are surprisingly unique to one another. The deer closer in the city are much smaller compared to their rural cousins. Urban deer are at least two feet shorter and they're not as skittish.
The whole point of lab experiments is to create a specific observation. Since supernovae are observed in nature, that would be unnecessary. The universe IS the lab.
As a kid who was raised in a YEC homeschool situation, I was always super fascinated by science and technology and biology. Thought it was the coolest thing ever. Now as an adult learning about evolution, I just gotta say, it’s pretty damn cool. The ring species thing is pretty awesome. I guess science’s coolness was what did it for me, haha.
My example for "There are no transitional species, there never was a fish moving on land" is the mudskipper that exists TODAY. Lives on the silt in tide areas, has lungs, has stronger bottom flippers on which he can crawl around on the mud. No problem for a fish adapting to live on another part of the environment.
And for the "what use are part wings?" question we have flying squirrels today. Most of us evolved from other apes, but creationists seem to have evolved from see no evil, hear no evil monkeys. (They do speak evil, so not that one.) They spend their time ignoring evidence all around them.
there are also lungfish, a very ancient species. And many types of catfish and labyrinth fish that can move on land for a short time in search of prey and new water pools.
Oh no. Like you can still claim you are superior. I mean it is actually easier as europoid "race" is newer version of humans and have quite new distinct and useful features.
Maybe, but the neo ID politics, and AI ID'd humans in a surveillance, Covax ID'd state overlaps with modern Intelligent Design = Transhumanist Agenda (humans replaced with GM/bionic/cyber/hormone enhanced. artificially designed neo-beings). Humanism and Atheism is completely taken over by ID (Identity) politics and ID (Intelligent Design).
This was a great video, bringing up a lot of points and arguments that I haven't really been able to formulate or find on my own. AronRa, you're great and keep up the awesome work giving such high quality educational videos to us! :D
A question I always ask them is "How many cases of microevolution does it take before it eclipses the effect of one macroevolution?", because by their "micro only!" logic, if you get enough microevolution, it will eventually reach beyond what they would consider macroevolution, which is basically what evolution is anyway: a bunch of micros over a long period of time. They've never been able to provide a viable response to this
Some of them will say that a each "kind" has an essence or prototypical form. So cats can vary from the cat prototype and dogs can vary from the dog prototype, but only to a certain degree. But then they also say all animals descend from those on Noah's ark. It's strange that their heads don't explode from the cognitive dissonance.
@@thebookofclyde1822 genes are discreet and they are the ones that determine the variations. Microevolution involves modification/inactivation of existing genes while for macro we need to get new distinct functional genes .
@@Philalethes101 If you'r claiming that speciation is impossible, what's your justification for that claim? Are you claiming that allelic variation within a population can't lead to significant variation in phenotypic traits within a population? That's clearly not true. Even if it were true, new genes can arise through duplications, insertions, frameshift mutations, inversions and translocatoins.
@@thebookofclyde1822 duplicated genes aren't new genes, insertions create frame-shift mutations which are always bad if I may remember properly, deletions create non-functional genes or if not severe enough modify a gene to make it not as optimized as the original, none of this offer support for new novel gene formation. Speciation is microevolution, it is well tested and settled. Just put more effort in demonstrating formation of new functional novel genes and we won't be having a discussion about speciation, genetic drift and all the other things.
@@Philalethes101 duplicated genes will inevitably mutate and their function can change from that of the original gene. It's well known that point mutations are common and that most are selectively neutral, but that some can be adaptively useful. This is just one way that new genes can arise. But even without duplication a gene can mutate to produce a slightly different protein. Or mutations to regulatory genes can alter the timing of developmental events. Major differences between humans and other apes are down to such alterations. It's a misunderstanding that "new" genes are required for macroevolution to occur.
"Evolution shows you what unintelligent design does. When you allow something that doesn’t know what it’s doing to mold the clay, it doesn’t make anything but a monstrosity. Everything living on this planet is pretty much a monstrosity." Inmendham
@@aemiliadelroba4022 Do you call pathogenic bacteria and parasites beauty in creation? If so the creator itself is monstrous. But as Aron has shown, both micro and macro evolution definitely do occur. If you deny this, can you provide any evidence that the observed facts of evolution are not observed?
@@thebookofclyde1822 beautifully efficient they are tho. A being evolved to the point they only need others to provide nutrition for them is quite fascinating. I think you can even argue that all eukatyotes may evolved into parasites and further into our cells.
Sponsored by Hallow: Prayer & Mediation .... I was slightly caught offguard when I clicked on an Aron Ra video and some small dude with an by far inferior beard started a magic spell invoking Jesus.
I learned from South Park that if you look in the mirror and say Biggy Smalls three times he will appear. I am pleased to report it has the same success rate as prayer did when I was a believer.
Having never been pressured into accepting unsubstantiated claims, I consider myself at liberty to utterly reject creationist claptrap. They have to prove that god did magic, rather than just reciting the "god did magic" claims of ancient goatherders.
I make it a little easier for them. I don't ask for proof. I ask for preponderance of verifiable evidence and consilience. But still nada. Proof is for math and whiskey.
@@stephenolan5539 Their own holy book was made up, and they can't permit contradictory evidence. It's pointless trying to have a sensible discussion with people who must deny the existence of evidence that contradicts their holy book.
@AronRa, my favourite circular group are the circum-polar seagulls. Their reproduction is exactly like the lizards you mentioned. My favourite Paripatric speciation that has happened within our lifetimes is the Hawaiian rock wallaby. It happened from a sibling pair of Aussie rock wallabies, who escaped captivity from a zoo during a hurricane in the 1940s. By the '80s, people thought other people were crazy, reporting seeing "small kangaroos" on that island. Then, it was confirmed. They are now so different in diet, genetic arrangement, size, and even genital arrangements, that they could not possibly mate with the species they came from! It is astonishing. Meanwhile, unlike many foreign species, they are not invasive. They actually are helping spread the seeds of the amazing variety of Native Hawaiian fruits they consume. They would die if they were put back where their great however many grandparents came from, who had specialised in one kind of local food. Thanks for doing this work, Aron. I hope highschool teachers will use your work to get kids interested in reality.
I always appreciate your videos. I was really into all this Creationism malarky in the 2000s, in particular between 2005 and 2010. I watched a lot of your channel then, and others. I've watched your series Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism many times over. I admit my tastes change and I got into different things, plus, well, the almighty algorithm, but whenever one of your videos does pop up I'm sure to watch it! Keep up the good work!
One observed example of macroevolution I remember reading about years ago was a moth in England..one branched off to exist amongst industrial smokestacks and polluted areas, the other staying in rural areas. The industrial area ones became a separate species. We were taught us humans are a branch of the great apes in junior high school....for the, that was the mid '70s...
We observe micro-growth of plants, nobody denies that. Your tomato plant is a tiny bit taller every morning. But no one has observed this MACROgrowth. Nobody has seen an acorn turn into an oak tree. THAT is not observed.
I had to look up how snakes would be able to hunt bats. What I found was mindblowing. These cave snakes are able to slither up into the highest, narrowest exits. There they wait for a flock of bats to fly by, then strike out and hope to snatch a bat from midair.
When I am presented with 'but evolution is just a theory' I always see the available paths to them seeing reason rapidly closing. Will they even understand evolution if you teach them? Is there any point in trying? How many of them actually want to learn the truth?
Believers do not want to "know," they want to "believe" *Aron Rar* They create their own definition and thus understanding so they can spread misinformation as the example Aron cited. But here's the kicker: When we try to correct them, and state the correct definition (In this case "evolution") they then argue that WE are changing the definition to win the argument :) They are the ones guilty of thwarting the original definition, but they then engage in a definition war.
@@lukeriely4468 They create their own definition and thus understanding so they can spread misinformation as the example Aron cited. But here's the kicker: When we try to correct them, and state the correct definition (In this case "evolution") they then argue that WE are changing the definition to win the argument :) They are the ones guilty of thwarting the original definition, but they then engage in a definition war. seems to me like a strawman
You could probably invent faster than light travel, point a super gigantic telescope towards earth from 30 million lightyears away, record all the individual specimen that evolved into all modern apes. And creationists would still find some way to move the goalpost.
I'm in that group from Facebook and I've gone round and round with him myself. Only member that does the 🔶️ by every single one of his responses making it a chore to read. Great video. Glad a member tagged you.
@@CrispinSlitt Cool, well it was easy for me to find a video of Aron warning people about imposters on telegram. So I was able to determine it was a fake before actually engaging the imposter. Glad I checked it out first.
@@AronRa Ah shoot. Thank you for the response. I really want access to it but the website won't allow me to become a member. Is access to it currently not likely ?
@@antreasAnimations I share your frustration. It's been down a long time. We started building the 6th database with a Ukrainian. And since its an all-volunteer operation, there's not a lot else we can do without money.
best impersonation of a creationist ever ;) and if ever you present creationists with undeniable layperson macro evolution like some deformations due to genetics, they'll just call it devil's work
A couple months ago, I got into a debate with somebody online over this. Watching this video made me proud that I used a lot of the same points that you did. And, just like you predicted, the creationist used abiogenesis to try to disprove evolution, even after I argued they weren't the same thing! Even if they were, abiogenesis is a hypothesis at best and is undergoing research. It's sad how willfully ignorant these people choose to be. Thanks for all the work you do Aron!
I can hear the frustrated Christian noises: "buuuut that's still micro evolutionnn" "this means nothiing" "ok but you still have NO proof of something coming from nothing sooo" "ok but who created the first creature that the other ones evolved from huuuh?" (those last two cries are coming from more intelligent Christians, don't be confused by their higher level of understanding of this topic)
Less intelligent, you mean, since origin of life is outside the scope of Evolution. They might as well bring up that they won the lottery last week, that's about as relevant.
The breeder of my mother's poodle initiated the "Deutsche Neufarbenzucht" (german new colour breeding) in postwar Germany He wanted to create new stable colour variations for poodles, that in his time were very limited. For that he had to find out systematically how fur colours are inherited, how they mix etc. But dog breeding is slow, each try takes half a year,. It would have taken many decades to get ANYwhere. So he decided he would test out the rules with mice. There you are down to two months per generation. After a few years he had found the rules, and then applied his knowledge for the poodles. Just an example that you can develop evolutionary rules all by yourself and verify the transferability.
My favorite example of a species evolving right now that we as humans have been watching and observing since the later 1960's to current date is the Walking Catfish. I have discussed this with many creationists and evolution deniers ..whether they confirm macro evolution or not or even micro evolution. There is direct visible recorded and physical and documented evidence of this particular catfish type changing and evolving generations after generations. The changes are beneficial and so blatantly obvious that evolution is completely undeniable. This is a type of catfish that we have been steadily watching it evolve over the last 50 to 60 or whatever years. The last person I discussed this with struggled with that this must be something else because of generations between one and the next... 60 years is not enough .as humans that's barely one generation... I had to correct him that we are not talking about a generation of a human to insert this... But it is the generation of a catfish . A catfish is viable to reproduce within about two years... And they can reproduce approximately once to possibly twice every year at reproductive viability. This means that over the last 60 or so years there are approximately 50 plus generations in the last 60 or so years.. With humans that's only one or two generations or even 3 if you put the generation at every 20 years. Once he understood this he had no choice but to except that evolution on all these areas are in fact a demonstrable fact. He then just switched from a stance of creationism that god created everything as it is...to one that god created certain ones as they are and others just evolved from those..but it's part of gods design..for things to evolve... Except humans.. Humans are the only one that god created completely separate and there is no evolution there.. humans do not evolve. Humans are not as all other animals, humans are not animals. I corrected this as well and showed him evolution in humans. Even recent more modern evolutionary changes that we as humans have today and recent humans of more recent generations are having in comparison to humans even a couple hundred years ago..or a few thousand years ago. Then I brought up the biblical narrative.. I showed him that if god had created all the original species and animals and other life as it was in the beginning..and then it was completed and finished..it says god was done..there was no more creating...from here on forward there was no more creating and evolution was what took place..as per the design...he agreed... I showed him that if by this model ..we see that humans were not around yet.. there are no examples or fossils or anything.. so did god lie and then wait millions upon tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years to then create humans?? So he was not done .he did not finish and did not rest?? He just waited?? Took a break?? And when he decided to create humans after all this time he made humans with so many characteristics that blend end look like they evolved from other life forms that existed before them. He then blocked me..he was trapped and he knew it. This will always be the route creationists will take . Because they will not ever want to accept that humans are just like all other life and it evolved from other life and is going to continue to evolve as all life does. That humans are not unique or special or different..we are just another type of life and animal just like all others are .we are just another different type of species that has evolved. We are not special or set apart. This is ego and pride to think you are . And according to the biblical narrative it says that such people will not go to heaven and receive eternal life.
Thank you so much for this breakdown, Aron. I was one of those who misunderstood adaptation and admit i did not study that academically at all. I studied Psychology as a primary subject. I really enjoy your channel. I look forward to your debate in a few hours on "The Line" live . Cheers 🍻
In my opinion this is one of the best refutations of creationism one could possibly pack into a 30 minute video. Detailed yet concise. Straight to the point. Absolutely brilliantly done.
I read an article were scientists in Japan discovered a bacteria that has evolved the ability to eat plastic. "To date, over 400 species of plastic-eating fungi and bacteria have been identified worldwide. Their presence is proportional to the amount of plastic pollution around them." Obviously since plastic is not found in nature I thought that was a really interesting example of rapid evolution.
Hm. Could stop some creationists in their tracks. Maybe even crack their belief enough to send at least one on a way of reexamining their belief in creationism.
As usual, Aron, an EXCELLENT video. I always thought whenever the creatards question speciation, I would ask "What is a penguin, right now?" It's obviously a bird, but doesn't fly and swims better than some fish. I'm probably wrong, but maybe it's an animal that is transiting between species?
Thanks for taking the time to explain all this, Aron. Good video. Just because a creationist "disappeared" and stopped engaging with you doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean you convinced them; it doesn't mean they are a liar; it doesn't mean they are still creationist. People stop engaging all the time for all sorts of reasons. I have hundreds of open conversations myself. I simply don't have time to argue with every Christian or creationist out there.
