Myths and misconceptions about evolution - Alex Gendler 

Quinton Ayers giraffe knows what's up ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Zack Fury yeah, the sky

ikr

Steve Norris not the trees

lol

😆

mmm giraffe

Nah, its the other way around

9 out of 10 of those girraffe percent are neck.

Humans evolved from apes? Wow. We are apes , you overgrown chimpanzees.

It also starts with an angler fish, which we didn't evolve from either. It's just being playful and reusing drawings they already had

he meant ape because of the huge misconception that we have, that we evolved from apes, when really we just share a common ancestor

a prokaryote microorganism

oh yeah, i feel the same :(

Taxonomy & Evolution being integrated seems to be relatively new; hence the unnecessary distinction of humans not being readily called apes, monkeys, primates nor animals. Same for the unnecessary distinction of apes not being called monkeys. Monkeys are non-hominoid simians, which means "monkey" is relegated to a unscientific term, despite apes being readily colloquially called monkeys due to obvious similarities. So although simian is the scientific term, humans are still essentially monkeys. It's not the same as the term "fish" which has specific colloquial connotations, which means it would be weird to also call terrestrial vertebrates "fish" despite being descendants of fish. Birds now being recognized as dinosaurs, & by extension reptiles isn't as big as a jump as "fish". I speculate this previous unnecessary distinction between Taxonomy & Evolution in naming conventions, etc goes back to Linnaeus & Darwin living in subsequent centuries. Anyway, the interconnection of Taxonomy & Evolution should become more streamlined, even in colloquial use.

🤣

lol

(r ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)r

2:00

Lenny

🤪🤪🤪

;)

+omer shaik anyone who would think a little bit about the life and how it goes would realize that you idot darwin is not a genuise he is an idot just like you but a little brighter me myself realized that before knowing all of this by thinking

Qusay saleem learn to spell

In evolution, when we use the word "fitness" we actually mean "the capability of a creature to pass on its genes". In simulation, we use a "fitness function" which is simply a criteria that determines which genes are passed on. A creature more capable of meeting this criterion is considered more fit. From what is stated in the video, we can say that the fitness function for creatures on earth is generally reproduction. A creature or species capable of producing more offspring is more fit. That alone doesn't completely sum it up, especially when we talk about k vs r species. But that's the basic idea.

AnRTPgA omer shaik​ Qusay saleem​ tbh, if you guys are gonna discuss the topic, do so and don't ponder on grammatical mistakes; there are so many reasons for people's misspellings etc. besides retardation. Just using people's errors in discussion just makes it so boring and blehh. I need discussion :'(

Stephen Waldron really stephen, you are right, and looking back this comment was wrong. but i don't want to try and explain the entire theory of evolution for someone who probably doesn't want to hear it anyway. i have better things to do with my life. that said, Qusay saleem , if you really want a discussion, great. i'd be happy to start a debate. i, like stephen, like a good debate. but if you want to attack me, then you're a waste of my time.

Star Dust thank you

How long did that take u

Thank you stardust for enlightening me 😊

It took me month to reas all

I..... stopped halfway..

+Chad Norton Totally agree, but the thing I didn't really understand is why do want to reproduce ? what's the point of it?

Mother nature has planted desire for sexual reproduction in every living creature, without it the species dies off quickly.

Thank you for replying. I still have a couple of questions thou: Why do we want our species to survive? I mean, I'm a different person than my father or mother. Why did they want to have kids? while other people only wanted to have sex without having children. Also how is homosexuality explainable ? I would really like to know.

I can only answer these questions from my own perspective, I don't (and cannot) speak for everyone on a subject this broad. I'll do my best. 1. Why do we want our species to survive? The survival instinct is built into every creature on the planet that reproduces. When something goes wrong and a species loses it's survival instinct it quickly ceases to exist, lost to the passing of time. Human reproduction historically has happened in many ways for many reasons. Whether it was something horrible like rape, or something wonderful like falling in love. Many if not most humans experience a desire to pass on their DNA by having children. For many humans there wasn't a great deal of thought behind reproduction; it can be as simple as your partner looking extremely appealing one day and "oops" she's pregnant. In other cases it's a very carefully thought-out process of wanting to have children and a family. If you go back 70 years and more there was often a push to have children for working and farming purposes. A couple might have 10 or more children that grew up to work on a family farm or business. Modern technology and farming techniques have made this mostly unnecessary, especially in 1st world countries. 2. How is homosexuality explainable? This is a very difficult question to answer, but first let me explain that I personally have many homosexual family and friends and support and care for them dearly. With that being said, how is homosexuality explainable? There are many theories on the origin of homosexuality. It has been a part of the human experience as long as there have been humans. Some civilizations accepted and or encouraged homosexuality while others shunned and even terminated individuals expressing homosexual tendencies. To this day there has been no final and complete answer to the question. Some people believe that homosexuality is determined in a persons genetics before they are born while others believe it to be a choice made somewhere in the person's psyche, conscious or subconscious mind. While homosexuality itself does not allow for biological reproduction that does not preclude homosexuals from taking part in human reproduction and raising of children. In recent years with the advances made in technology homosexuals have participated in reproduction through artificial insemination. However it is thought that homesexuals may have participated in reproduction through the rearing of children by-way of adoption and surrogacy as long as humans have reproduced. In answering both of these two questions its important to note that reproduction is a secondary concern. Whether we are talking about the commonly accepted practice of man/woman reproduction or of homesxual couples seeking to participate, its more often than not a secondary concern or consequence of the more important factor of coupling in general. Humans are social animals and need each other for survival. Only after two or more humans join together in some form of pair-bonding does the factor of reproduction occur at all. I personally like to believe that love plays the major role. In asking why your mother and father wanted to have kids I would like to assume it was because they loved each other and wanted a part of themselves to live on after their own demise. When we have biological children we are passing on parts of ourselves as well as DNA given to us from our very earliest human ancestors. Part of those ancestors will live on in every new child born from their lineage. Of course throughout history there have been exceptions: products of rape, products of arranged marriage, products of group or state-sponsored birthing programs. I can't speak for every human ever born. For the vast majority of humans I believe it begins with deep affection and/or love of a partner. Whether heterosexual or homosexual a bonded pair in love want to see their partners happy for as long as possible and often this manifests itself in the form of children and family. This is the best I can come up with on so broad a question. I hope you found the answers you were looking for somewhere in there.

Thanks a lot..... I didn't expect that you'll answer me this much. There are still some mysterious things thou hahahahaha. But in general you have given me a great perspective about evolution & life. And again thanks a lot for spending so much time answering my comment. It was really kind of you.

ikr

Looks like a blue sweet potato.

:3 I agree

my family are the creationists...it just makes me sad and annoyed

@@christopherparks2987 My condolences. I'm sure they're very kind and loving people, but it's a tragedy that people can be persuaded by such nonsense.

@@christopherparks2987 mine too, muslims...

@@late8641 Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist? In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"

@@lancevanceGTA I'm muslim too❤ but I don't know why you're upset.. If you feel that Islam isn't right, and want to understand about it, then I have some sources that may help - if you want -: 1. (Dr. eyad qunaibi global channel) channel, it has two playlists that may help, one is about evolution theory and its name is (the journey of certainty), the second is about some Islamic specific teachings, its name is (women in depth) 2. (Sabighat) book, that book simplified some of Islamic evidences 3. The third is: website that you can have online privacy chat, the site's name is: ( alnaba . ws )

The main reason is cause from their very childhood they are being taught that god created the earth and everything on it A prime example being the commenter down below

Evolution is a myth girl wtf everything they said i mean scientists said about evolution is wrong omg 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@lakishalaster5584, I wonder how we got multiple breeds of dogs... Can anyone tell me?

It's okay if they don't believe in the theory of evolution. For all we know, there was a time when we believed atom is the smallest unit of matter, but here we are now with electrons and neutron and protons. It because someone refused to believe atom being tiniest unit. Same goes for the evolution. Who knows one of those critics will invent another better theory to explain origin of life. :))

They can't observe the most obvious truth of life that we are actually evolved apes. Ego and religious indoctrination are to blame for such a sad state of evolved apes thinking they dropped from the sky.

+DracoonianDevil lol, me too.

Same here😂

+DracoonianDevil You took the word right out of my brain.

Lol same

DracoonianDevil well it's the internet

Wow bijna de zelfde naam

ja klopt XD

Lars van der Heijden

Lars van der Heijden I may say: the adaptable enough

Alpha, that's also a good word for it

I’m sure he is Philadelphia Collins.

+George Kyriakou not to mention bacteria are still around.

+George Kyriakou Reason three for the intelligence thing: Evolution has to work with what it's got at any given time. It might take many changes for a given organism to develop higher intelligence, and the initial steps might not be (all that) advantageous, I suppose. Or even all that possible. What would it take for an ant, which has no real brain, to increase its intelligence? Probably a whole lot. Besides, it's probably doing fine with a completely different kind of intelligence than what we can imagine As for epi-genetics: Check out the recent research on rats (or was it mice) indicating that fear of certain things gained during a lifetime actually can be inherited

+George Kyriakou That reinforces my suspcision that there is a hell of a lot we don't know about genetics. That's one reason I am skeptical of the quick lableing of "junk DNA."

Mark Stuber I agree. It costs energy to make and sequence DNA. Wouldn't we think natural selection would weed that out? ...unless the energy cost was negligible. It would be interesting to see a video that would list the relative percent energy consumption of each cellular function, and how much energy is consumed during replication of a DNA strand per unit length.

George Kyriakou it's a single molecule, the cost must be neliglible on macroorganisms's reproductive cells. microorganisms have shorter dna, so they may as well evolve though mutacion.

I agree. When things are oversimplified it's easy to get the impression that species split in one generation and then don't change again until the next clean split. It's way more fluid than that.

Nick S says the one who believes on a flying bearded man in the sky

I know it’s been 3 years, but if you see this, I was wondering if you could plz explain which 'more recent' video you’re referring to, I’m interested in watching it!

@@joylolly4458 oh well, i don't remember the specific video I was talking about, but you can see the difference between this video format (the voice actor, the presentation, how the information is presented, etc) and a more recent one, for example the mosquito one that they uploaded last week just to give an example.

Evolution is a goal a dream a faith that dont need evidence anymore evolutuion represent to people the only alternative to religion who provide an explanation of life origine

Thanks for sharing my post.

Except, this video is not based in fact. It is NOT fact that novelty in organisms arises from "mutations" in the genome. If you look at the animation, it shows giraffes with twisted necks. Have you ever seen a giraffe with a twisted neck, or a zig zagged neck, or the other ones that this video displayed? No, you haven't and I'm sure if you look at the literature from professional giraffe researchers, you wouldn't find a documented case of either example. That is what's called a slight of hand tactic to obscure the true fallacy of the claim. Mutations as innovation has been proven WRONG by scientific experimentation. Ironically that's evolution's own misconception taught as fact. Videos, like this one, slip in the conjecture that novelty comes from mutations. There is no concrete proof that mutations created an elephant from bacteria. What empirical scientific evidence has proven that mutations are a viable mechanism to turn a house fly into a bat? None.. so how is this video informative if what's claimed has been refuted by scientific experiments.. i.e. house fly mutation experiments.. and protein mutation experiments? None of them have produced viable mutants on their way to becoming something greater. they've only produced dead, sick or regular individuals relegated to their own species.

@Open School The Evolution is a fact, Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon (teacher of Lamarck) wrotes about this in 1750's, the idea of Darwin was the Natural Selection.

+Cody Blane It's just a cartoon reusing assets.

Now isn't it odd that we've never found one of those missing links?

English Conquistador we have look at other moninid species

Imposter Nye like?

yes, we have actually.

Lol right here

here but schoology 🙌

Yeah, even if you don’t believe it you have to admit it’s a cool theory

@بن محمد what is?

@بن محمد rip

Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist? In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"

It’s not cool. It’s nonsensical.

Eeeeh, there are better easier to understand explanations for evolution. I think this video would mostly just confuse a creationist.

@@aarOuOn but evolution is adapting..... wtf?

PaperFrogg all i see anyway is people finding ways to explain unobservable ‘facts’, you know it’s not surprising seeing humanity deny the design in everything (from plants to the ground we walk on) when you listen to what the bible says about humanity :)

creationists are idiots they dont have the capacity to understand complex things

@@ujjalshill6442 Not all creationists are idiots. My dad is a Nephrologist and he is really smart. He believes in evolution but he is also Catholic

The myth is actually that we didn't evolve from apes. Not only did we come from apes, but we are also apes. That common ancestor you mention was an ape. We never stopped being that, just as little as we stopped being mammals or animals.

Dan Cameron Nah. We're totally apes, man. That creation myth with us being breathed life into as dolls made of dirt isn't a bit silly, don't you think?

None Asdfghj if we have 95% DNA of apes, it doen’st mean we are from apes

@@sevenkings9166 that always matter in field of evolution and truth of life. It's all about different adaptation and heredity You can't prove that fake and that always matter's I suggest you to make a Logical speech about that topic and present in front of scientists to prove its fake and you will definitely get your answer .

@@sevenkings9166 there are fossils of our ancestors and carbondating methods to determine the age of our race

You shouldn't state that evolution doesn't happen overnight, i.e. short time scales. Because it DOES.

@@Dr.Ian-Plect Yeah, you're right! When I was writing the comment I was thinking of evolution at grand scales of time. I remember watching a video on how lizards with flatter webbed feet got selected in a windy environment in a matter of months. Evolution definitely happens on short time scales, but these new phenotypes are not enough to classify them as new species. Thanks for the correction :)

@@aryanaggarwal2425 Indeed, take care.

@@aryanaggarwal2425 We have literally observed the evolution of new species, which is macroevolution

Yes I thought the same

Male angler fish do not have anglers nor bioluminesen

Yes, because this video is not based in fact. It is NOT fact that novelty in organisms arises from "mutations" in the genome. If you look at the animation, it shows giraffes with twisted necks. Have you ever seen a giraffe with a twisted neck, or a zig zagged neck, or the other ones that this video displayed? No, you haven't and I'm sure if you look at the literature from professional giraffe researchers, you wouldn't find a documented case of either example. That is what's called a slight of hand tactic to obscure the true fallacy of the claim. Mutations as innovation has been proven WRONG by scientific experimentation. Ironically that's evolution's own misconception taught as fact. Videos, like this one, slip in the conjecture that novelty comes from mutations. There is no concrete proof that mutations created an elephant from bacteria. What empirical scientific evidence has proven that mutations are a viable mechanism to turn a house fly into a bat? None.. so how is this video informative if what's claimed has been refuted by scientific experiments.. i.e. house fly mutation experiments.. and protein mutation experiments? None of them have produced viable mutants on their way to becoming something greater. they've only produced dead, sick or regular individuals relegated to their own species.

And I might have found a contradiction as well: if we didn't have much calories for ages, then should we attribute or current craving of calories to some random mutations in the past rather than the fact that a long time ago we didn't get the desired quantity of it?

Their minds are always open...but they are not going to entertain an idea which is not supported by evidence.

These are artificial, arbitrary terms that don't add anything to the original concept and as such they're not particularly helpful, as you might have noticed yourself ; )

+GrayHat4Life If someone says micro evolution is true,but macroevolution is false,they said something along the lines of this... 1+1 = 2 ,but 1+1+1+1+1+1 ≠ 6

One will jump species etc. the other says evolution will only stay between a species. two sides to a coin or two theories to how evolution works. Micro says evolution will only go so far, while macro say evolution can keep going.

+Martis Endrell Only to creationists. Micro-evolution refers to minor changes within species, and Macro-evolution refers to speciation events. In other words, Macro-evolution consists of lots of accumulated micro-evolutionary changes.

zemorph42 Well, just did a quick google search and that comment you made takes the cake of stupid.

Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist? In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"

@Zubu Melepat Well, claims are replied with claims: No he didn't. what about 8-14 videos from this playlist: ru-vid.com/group/PLN2jADncOIAL6oxJm5MreX63b0k5yZpwl

@Zubu Melepat The playlist I put its link lastly is condensed and is from some perspectives, not all of them, if you'd like there is another video from him talks about some other perspective that shows the lack for that nonsense (i.e. Evolution theory)

Do you have a scientific comment on the videos 8-14 from the playlist I put its link? I'd like to know

India?

same

Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist? In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"

That's because it is.

not ppl still replying to a 4 year old comment, fellas i have no memory of this

@@SidneyIam how are you

@@zack-ronald259 don't really know, how are you

@@SidneyIam nice but 2020 is getting kinda bad

yes radiation makes unpredictable mutations thats why its random, without radiation, no evolution is what we currently belive.

Well, we can't say it's completely organized and determined.

It's probably possible to predict all the process that makes this things happen, but it's so complex that it's better to just say it is random.

Uh... radiation doesn't affect evolution my friend.

David Smith Yes it does... **God the scientific illiteracy is just too painful**

Yeah Pokemon's is more like metamorphosis really.

It's important to realize the distinction between mutations and recombination. Genetic mutations _alter_ _the_ _sequence_ _of_ _genes_ in the genome, whereas recombination simply _reconstructs_ _the_ _genome_ from already pre-existing genes. Mutations are the source for genetic variance in which speciation mechanisms can act upon. Recombination, by itself, within a population is not a source for variation that can result in speciation.

J. Miller Well, I wouldn't be so sure about this apparent distinction. Technically, recombination can be a vastly more powerful generator of genetic variance compared to mutation (even as observed in viruses). One should keep in mind that most mutations are thought to come about through straightforward errors in enzymatic activity of just a bunch of few highly conserved DNA-processing enzymes that (by definition) are not built to 'purpose-fail' very often (quite the contrary), WHEREAS recombination (by means of a multi-gene control system) can be finely tuned-up for the sole purpose of generating genetic variance. And it can be cranked up real high. In fact, the vertebrate immune system is virtually built around that source of variance rather than mutations (though mutations also play a role there). Nowadays, when certain peculiarities of evolution are increasingly being ascribed to epigenetic processes as well as such recombination-based processes as horizontal gene transfer for example, one can't be too careful when trying to quantify which diversity-generating mechanism contributed more genetic variance during the whole run of evolution on Earth. And I mean true genetic variation (that may well result in speciation), not just genome-shuffling diversity.

Actually, bird wings evolved because they helped the small dinosaurs that developed them to be aerodynamic. Basically, it's all about repourposing

True, neutral mutations are usually carried on. Natural selection only weeds out harmful mutations.

You would have to understand the evolutionary history of certain traits in order to understand how they evolved. Evolution is not as simple as tiny wing becomes big wing. Theropods already had arms and many of the more derived species already had feathers, which first developed for insulation. With smaller species, it helped their ability to glide and traits were selectively chosen to help its ability to glide and then powered flight. This is highly simplified, but it gets my point across.

Don't tell your parents lies. The story of evolution is believed and promoted as a replacement for God creating everything and wants people to believe that everything created itself. Scientific facts now prove that every different kind of life has a different unique set of proteins and genes that it would be impossible for one kind to ever change into a different kind, since mutations can only destroy information and could never create new instructions. (each kind has its own unique anatomy, such as the 'dog kind', the 'cat kind' or 'man kind. Each kind had to have originated from the top down with a complete DNA and could never live unless it's DNA was complete.

Sorry. The main misconception is that evolution works. Real world science knows nothing of it. It's just a failed theory that was never proven and what's most important, was never able to predict anything. Real science that works, makes predictions.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QEiO5c4pSX0.html - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

Why are you trying to avoid the reality of God who created everything? Nothing could create itself.

@@danminer5343 if you knew evolution in detail, you would know that scientists do not say that everything was created on its own out of nothing, it is a very long process with atoms, cells and evolution. You may say "but the universe is so perfect, there must be someone behind it" or idk, but the univers is mathematical even without a god.

​@@marcusaureliusiv8527 l- Thanks for asking for evidence for everything being created. You said if I knew evolution in detail, but nobody on earth has known anything in detail about what they call "Evolution". I've asked hundreds of evolutionists to explain something in detail about the story of "Evolution" but the common response is that they refuse to believe in a Creator. I've read hundreds of books and papers on this, but never has any evolutionist given any detail on how evolution could be possible or give any evidence showing that it has every occurred. With zero evidence and zero science supporting that story, why should I try to believe it? The fact that everything exists and is very extremely complex proves that everything is the result of a Creator, and there is only evidence of the history has recorded. The word "Evolution" is a word to represent the word "nothing" and believe that everything slowly formed into existing living beings by nothing, even though none of anything could live until after it contained all parts and systems, both male and female in final complete form, being dead all of the time it was supposedly 'evolving'. I cannot accept such total nonsense.

​@@danminer5343 I like how you seem opened to dialogue etc, but first of all i know that many evolutionists hate god without any reaons, and i know it can be hard to speak this topic with them. I myself do not agree with every single details about evolution because in fact we do not have all the proofs. But i saw this argument many times, and i do not think that "The fact that everything exists and is very extremely complex proves that everything is the result of a Creator" is an acceptable proof. The thing is, to me, beliving in wether it is evolution or creation is not "reasonable". The same way you say "nobody on earth has known anything in detail about what they call Evolution", no creationist can proove the biblical events like the arch of noah, Adam living 930 years and then all his sons living for hundreds of years too, all these stories are as much inbelievable than evolution, the only thing that makes you believe in one is faith. You believe in creation because you believe in God, and god is supposed to have inspired the bible, so i have nothing against you believing in this i actually was a christian myself a couples years ago, i will only ask you one thing ; this video was educational, it was meant for people to learn what is the theory or evolution, it never said that religion was false or anything. May god or Allah or YHWH bless you.

@@marcusaureliusiv8527 But the story of evolution just does not make any sense. It is impossible for any molecules to ever come together to form the special long complex molecules required for life. If the impossible happened and one did form after millions of years, then, within a few days it would decay back again to simple molecules. Mutations can occur only after a life from has been created and already contains all of the required parts and systems for it to live. No evolutionist has ever found a way that mutations could build a new part or system because to build a new part or system would require up to millions of new base pairs already in a coded sequence before a new part or system could be built and the parents would have had to have been able to live without it. Natural selection can only eliminate and can only select what already exists. Common ancestry is impossible because no intermediate between different kinds/baramins would have to contain incomplete microsystems that could not function. The history of the global flood on Noah's day is a proven scientific fact. The origin of all of the geological features of the earth cannot be logically explained without the global flood which formed them. Evolutionists cannot explain their origin but only either ignore it or tell crazy ridiculous strawman arguments that are false. Over a hundred cultures around the world has the history of the global flood in their history, including the Chinese that recorded it over 4,l000 years ago in their original language on bone fragments that exist today. The Chinese worshiped the God of the Bible for ca. 2,000 years, His name in their language being Shang Di. I watched that short video and it said NOTHING AT ALL about how any new part or system could originate or how any evolutionary change could be possible. All it said is "evolution did it". Also it lied when it indicated that most scientists believe in it, when in reality it is the scientists who are forming the creation science organizations world wide due to the science they discovered. Never has anybody in the world found a scientific reason to believe in the quackery of evolutionism. It is total nonsense. ] I challenge someone or anyone to try to find a scientific reason to believe such nonsense. I've asked this for decades but evolutionists will never talk about the details in science, but only ignore them.

What's your intake on evolution of humans through apes? Do you believe this?

TL;DR. Although I did read the last paragraph. I guess evolution is more complicated than I thought.

+Gençiletişimci These metaphors are used to make complex concepts more understandable for the average viewer, who's most likely ignorant about this. If someone's stupid enough to actually take this metaphors seriously, well that's another story.

RotatingDisc - bugs?

Whether their necks get shorter or longer, so what? They will everyone of them stay giraffes. Give me some data showing that giraffes are evolving into non giraffes. Some dogs are tall, some short. Some have longer necks, or legs, or backs of whatever. So what? They are still all everyone of them dawgs. You might want to look at some of my other posts under this vid to get a good look at what's outside the box.

ye

@@loricalass4068 ** Right... and that's a great point. This video is not based in fact. It is NOT fact that novelty in organisms arises from "mutations" in the genome. If you look at the animation, it shows giraffes with twisted necks. Have you ever seen a giraffe with a twisted neck, or a zig zagged neck, or any of the other ones that this video displayed? No, you haven't and I'm sure if you look at the literature from professional giraffe researchers, you wouldn't find a documented case of either example. That is what's called a slight of hand tactic to obscure the true fallacy of the claim. Mutations as innovation has been proven WRONG by scientific experimentation. Ironically that's evolution's own misconception taught as fact. Videos, like this one, slip in the conjecture that novelty comes from mutations. There is no concrete proof that mutations created an elephant from bacteria. What empirical scientific evidence has proven that mutations are a viable mechanism to turn a house fly into a bat? None.. so how is this video informative if what's claimed has been refuted by scientific experiments.. i.e. house fly mutation experiments.. and protein mutation experiments? None of them have produced viable mutants on their way to becoming something greater. they've only produced dead, sick or regular individuals relegated to their own species.

@@carlos05231981 Yep.

Which country are you referring to?

+Daniel Argueta Ireland.(Republic)

what? how does not having public representatives and politicians that deny evolution make me or my country racist or islamaphobic? Stop perpetuating the stereotype of the idiot American.

teabing Name one. Name a democratic developed country that has schools and elected representatives who are young Earth creationists? A developed country that voted Atheists one of the least trusty groups. In a WIN/Gallup Poll of "How important is religion to you?" America was the highest ranking English speaking country and higher than all EU countries and any EU country even slightly close had extremely low numbers, almost insignificant, of people who also polled they didn't believe in evolution or thought Atheists were one of the most distrustful groups. America has SEVEN States where a legal citizen may not hold public office without a belief in God. Show me another country that does that. Ireland came second to the US as a developed country where people think religion is important (still less than HALF vs the MAJORITY in US) and their president is a secular humanist who makes no reference to God in his Holiday Address and very publicly supports gay marriage (legal in Ireland) the teaching of creationism in schools (illegal in schools) and has publicly denounced the countries only, ONLY, member of parliment who denies climate change. So as batshit crazy religious developed countries go, US is WAY up there

teabing Also the US ranks 6th in the world for creationist beliefs. But the only country where it is openly taught in schools amd debated by politicians despite a supreme court ruling teaching it in schools was unconstitutional

Ofc

I know how you feel; I feel sick if I eat too much meat with no vegetables or rice to balance the protein out.

in my household for a while we bought soda a lot. it became something we craved. currently we dont buy soda at all anymore, and now we dont as much want to get soda now.

Here's my explanation. The mutation would be random... taking place at a time when there was no real selective pressure on either the short necked or long necked giraffes. Neither neck type proved detrimental in and of itself at the time. We humans are born with abnormalities ourselves that persist through the ages.... an extra toe, an extra finger, and less visible irregularities like having all your organs be on the reverse side of your body (situs inversus). These aren't actively harmful traits. Some of us are taller than others, paler or darker than others in our immediate families. There are variations. I suppose the necks were variants of this sort, that weren't really good or bad at first. Only over time, as the environment changed. The long necked variants might have had more success, and their numbers increased, as more food was available at higher heights and less at lower heights. The survivors went on to breed, and their offspring were more likely to have the same long neck genetics. That's what it essentially boils down to. Is the variation, the mutation, actively harmful to your chances of reproduction? No? Then it's passed on. Now, something might occur in the future where having such a trait becomes slowly more critical to survival, and thus the numbers begin to shift.

Ikr 🤣

You forgot the "if evolution was still real, and humans evolved from monkeys, how are monkeys still here? darwin is satan's child." evolution deniers are so thick-headed lmao 🤣🤣🤣

Macro Evolution is a myth and will remain a theory

Haha, finding these deniers of evolution was the reason I clicked "Newest First"!

@@Bajannubian095 No, macro evolution has also been justified and proven.

?

there is no last slep in evolution humans are still evolving

isn't it more like Survival of the good Enough

Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist? In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"

thank you Julie.

This video explained nothing and was completely against science. Why are you so much against accepting the reality of our God who created us

@@danminer5343 I see many comments like yours, but can you explain why creation is real ? like, give me proofs, not only from the bible like "it is written" etc., give me proofs

Meats are carb rich foods, nutrient dense foods are like broccoli and salad, which are generally craved and liked less than most carb rich foods like bread and meat. There is no problem here.

koofer koo Do you even know what a "carb" is?

Wutsizface I do, I just find it funny that people say stuff in the comments without backing it up, and dont know what they are talking about, so you can do the same thing to shut them up.

koofer koo Not to be rude, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. You said, "Meats are carb rich foods." That is false. Most types of meat don't usually have a significant amount of carbohydrates (or "carbs"). Meat is mostly protein and fat. Maybe you meant to say that meat can have a lot of calories, which is true, depending on the amount of protein and fat in it. Also, depending on the type and quality of the meat, it can be quite nutrient-dense. It may not have the same types of nutrients as certain types of vegetables, but it can contain a wide variety of vitamins and minerals. The OP's comment is quite accurate.

Alright getting the generic reply out of the way, looking back at the video and reading the comment so I can dignify you with a real response carbs was a typo in my comment. I am not ashamed to admit that, but the original comment I was responding to still does not address the fact that in context the video makes perfect sense, the word craving at the time was used to refer to the quite indisputable fact that humans prefer foods with lots of calories. Im not exactly a nutritionists, but I like to think I have a basic understanding of the content at hand.

and it is really about the fitness of alleles, not individual monkeys or lizards

That's technically true, fitness is determined by how many offspring you have, which correlates to being well adapted to an environment.

@@richardblazer8070 True. But we know that mere survival doesn’t add to one’s fitness. Plus, organisms also confront a tradeoff between survival and reproduction. Therefore, I was a bit skeptical about the words used in the video. Thanks for the response!

wow lol

Wrong. The reason nobody explains it is because the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics - "matter cannot be created or destroyed." Of course, evolutionists say that the Big Bang came before thermodynamics... hehe how convenient! Nature does not create matter. Evolution needs matter. Thus evolution cannot happen.

The Big Bang is a theory. It certainly does not have universal consensus amongst secular scientists. In this vid you see a man who used to be an engineer for the space program. He accepted that the Big Bang was a fact until a colleague asked him a rhetorical question about it, namely "You believe in physics, don't you?" Then the obvious was seen. The Big Bang defies physics. This vid is about cosmology, but quite a bit more than that, and explains how so much that is called science, in the realm of origins, is really pseudo science used to promote a certain world view. Take a walk on the wild side. Look outside your box. See if you can use observable scientific data to refute what he says. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NiCec8SiDuI.html

So what is the name of the chimpanzee-like ancestor of humans? If we are not going to call it a chimpanzee what should we call it?

@@vesuvandoppelganger You can call it whatever you want. It's hypothetically referred to as the "chimpanzee-human last common ancestor". But we can't say for sure which specific species is the last common ancestor. Rather there is a small group of species one if which could be that ancestor. So we have a good idea of what this ancestor probably looked like but fossil records are not continuous. They represent snapshots. And even if we identify a species that is definitely a recent common ancestor, that doesn't guarantee we won't later find a fossil of another species that is even more recent.

They say that humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees but wasn't there an ancestor of humans that looked exactly like a chimpanzee?

@@vesuvandoppelganger No, it didn't look "exactly" like a chimpanzee. The split occurred 4 to 5 million years ago. After the split, whatever species started the branch that would eventually give rise to chimpanzees continued to evolve and split into even more species. Chimpanzees as we know them today did not exist five million years ago.

After the split from the common ancestor wasn't there an ancestor of humans that looked like a chimpanzee? If it didn't look like a chimpanzee then what did it look like? How is it possible for humans to not evolve through some kind of chimpanzee-like stage?

Strange, the video I watched ended talking about evolution "creating all of the diversity we see in the natural world". No talk of "single line", no talk of "man as the endpoint".

She explicitly denied that point in the video.

***** A robo quacko-human!

***** Why do you think that I think that humans are the endpoint of evolution? I never said anything of the sort. That said, it's an interesting question whether a species can reach certain social circumstances that prevent further natural evolution, and whether we have reached that point.

The misconception is the cartooned straight line of evolution from bacteria to mankind, as if bacteria all changed into fish and fish all changed into monkeys and monkeys all changed into humans. Your graphic also shows humans as the end of that "line" of evolution. Bacteria are as "evolved" as we are.

as well as the elephant,but elephants are not that important.

oh my gosh, dont just think about that, think about the broad picture😒

Well, I just wanted to emphasise, that the Theory of Evolution is widely accepted by a whole bunch of religious people. :D Just to give you two examples: First we have ven. pp. Pius XII, who wrote in his encyclical "Humani generis" (The Human Race), that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one species might evolve into another - even if that species is man. And then we have st pp. John Paul II, who, referring to that encyclical, said in a message addressed to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that "today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis". I think it's at least unfair to make generalised statements, based on uneducated but audible "creationists" from the United States. :/

Michał Ryszard Balicki I know Catholics accepted evolution and even have an observatorium on the vatican. But there are branches, like 6,000 different ways to "interpret" the bible and we both know catholics are not the main religious power on the United States.

Georgie Pineda: Indeed, they aren't… And that's a shame, that many nonbelievers base their opinion about Christians entirely on those countless inconsistent Protestant denominations in the US. :(

Georgie Pineda But dont atheists and other non believers bash christians into the ground on Christian videos? Funny part is there isnt a lot of triggered christians. Trust me i dont see any

@@animystic7931 havent you heard of fossils'n shyt?

Our closest ape ancestor are Bonobos, actually.