What is the Evidence for Evolution? 

I went to a Christian school as well ...that is why I am an atheist today. Your teacher sounds like some of my former teachers.

Lol. I love it.

You should write one of your papers on why young earth creationists don't accept evolution. It certainly keeps them on their toes.

I'm really sorry to hear you aren't getting a proper education, but you seem smart I too didn't receive a proper education but the internet is a vast body of knowledge and you can self teach the things you cant learn at school

@@richardgregory3684 If the stars aren't set in the firmament, why don't they all fall down and crush us? If the firmament isn't a crystal sphere, what keeps the water above it from pouring down and drowning us? ... I believe in the firmament because it keeps me safe and because Genesis says it's there. You should too.

+Adam Boyd It reminds me of a scene in _Johnny Dangerously_ where a young prosecutor goes to the corrupt DA with evidence against the mobster who is bribing him to keep him out of jail: *Prosecutor* Sir, I have got conclusive evidence: Notarized depositions, tire prints, blood samples. I've got eyewitness accounts, murder weapons, fingerprints... *DA* Hold it. Hold it, kid. It's flimsy. It's not enough. It'll never hold up in a court of law.

+Adam Boyd It is about the quantity of data but the quality or the meaning of the data. Three separate lines of data sounds impressive until you realize it's built on assumption, bias and imagination. At least the whale thing.

Tetra Xiphos So scientists imagined the existence of back legs on whales? And imagined the genetic similarities? And imagined fossils into the ground? Funny because when I hear the word imaginary, a giant magical man in the sky would come to mind before I would ever think of something like whale feet. And when I hear the word bias, I think people indoctrinated as children by their parents into religious doctrine. It is no coincidence that those who ignore the evidence for evolution also happen to be raised in a religious setting.

Adam Boyd Whales are descended from animals that lived on land!? That's insane! A guy was swallowed by a whale and lived inside it for three days and three nights? Yeah. Why not?

+Adam Boyd _"...back legs on whales?"_ Back legs where? Did you check this claim? _"...genetic similarities?"_ Lots of things have genetic similarity. Do you know how similar your DNA is to a banana? _"...fossils into the ground?"_ Of course not. They didn't imagine fossils, they imagined the implications of those fossils. They assumed things based on what they think happened not what they observed. _"Funny because when I hear the word..."_ Now you are speaking on your particular bias. _"...something like whale feet."_ ...is wholly ridiculous. The whale does not have feet. It's a marine animal. What use for feet would it have? _"...those who ignore.. evidence for evolution (are) raised in a religious setting."_ That is not an empirical observation. Lots of people with religious(?) backgrounds believe in the kind of evolution sold by Darwin. Some scientists that use Evolutionary concepts in their explanations and hold this view believe in a god. I realize that it's standard for atheistic evolutionist types to presume low intelligence or malicious intent on those that disagree with them. What I don't understand is why, after invoking intelligence as a primary discerning factor, they don't use their own to help settle the matter.

How does that creationist dude create so many alt account ? Did he have an access to illegal phone number generator ?

​@@b4li7 maybe he's a serial killer. 👀🤔

​@@Lexi2019AURORA 🤣 you 📌🔨 it.

my condolences. your teacher sent you to the wrong place. it's just a bunch of self made biologists that like to make up big names with phony explanations they never have any evidence to show the public but that doesnt bother them. A better alternative would be something like robotics, programming or arduinos hobbyist kits to learn C ++ programming language statistics, physics, chemistry, computer science, those are the REAL sciences

@Doc Reasonable yeah, to all student referred to this site. dont bother wasting your time. go learn something useful like programming unless you want to learn made up phrases like "the Acheulian Hand Axe " like "hyoid bone " like "variant of the FOXP2 gene " and we must NOT forget the "Denisovans " and "bonobos " atheists also have the inside track to the christian faith that even CHRISTIANS never had! they are experts on the bible and according to these people we all cram into a building and pretend like we're talking to the invisible man

Good day Stephany Ayala, Congrats, the uploader gives a good basic overview of the topic. I also recommend this video series for more details: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AXQP_R-yiuw.html as classification of all life and subclades.

There are people on this website, Mark Dunham being one of them, that continually accuse others of lying. Those who do so without corroborating evidence reveal themselves to be the liars.

same dude

They also are the most dangerous animal in all of Africa. So they have a great PR department...

They're vegetarian, but trust me, they wouldn't let a carcass go to waste. I've been to Africa and seen Hippo's feed on a buffalo carcass.

Sounds like they're a bunch of hippocrites. XD Sorry, I just couldn't let this opportunity pass by...

***** I see what you did there...

What's your point?

*The peak of irony: the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge is using an impersonating, girlish account "maylingng"*

@@maylingng4107 *I'm really sorry if Newton and all other greatest scientists made u mad, Andrew. Why do u use this impersonating account btw?*

@@voisierberlaimont The greatest scientists? You know nothing about science or scientists, Oscar.

@@maylingng4107 *As I said, I'm really sorry if Newton and all other greatest scientists made u mad, Andrew. Why do u use this impersonating account btw?*

@@voisierberlaimont Why would Newton bother me? Newton was a brilliant physicist, and besides, he has been dead for almost 300 years. You Oscar, however, are just an imbecile and a royal pain in the rear.

It's better to avoid controversy

Let your teacher know that if you watch these on our website, there are no ads! www.statedclearly.com/videos/ Also, ask for extra credit for giving your teacher this tip ;)

@@StatedClearly haha you don't need to if your school chromebook has ad-blocker lololol

(S)-Riley Dunn LLLLL

Same here

That's the ticket. If you can't refute what someone says, then attack them personally. Makes perfect sense. In an effort to offset creationist propaganda, Mr. Wilks has posted factual information he backs with scientific studies, not like the empty claims of anti evolutionists. He has on several occasions invited creationists to try to refute what he writes and none have ever done so. Since they have no evidence to offer, it is much easier for them to attack him personally. As Mr. Wilks has often said, "Truth is determined by EVIDENCE". All that creationists have ever demonstrated is that they have no evidence to support the creation story or to seriously challenge evolution. Lies, distortions and personal attacks is their style.

@@linglingzeng2857 robux

@@linglingzeng2857 I would never personally attack you even though your name sounds like a bunch of forks and spoons that dropped to the ground

@@markdunham9949 Thank you for that. You make it unnecessary for me to comment on your substandard intellect.

@@michaelgray9059 No, I did not know that, and neither do you. Neither Dr. Jeanson nor anyone else has ever provided evidence supporting creation mythology. Moreover, creationist website "Statements of Faith" automatically reject any evidence that contradicts a biblical account. There is no sense trying to communicate with those who have rejected reason.

Over generations, any genetic mutation that helped sea mammals catch more seafood, avoid predators and have more offspring, was likely to be passed on at reproduction. Beneficial mutations can accumulate.

Yet there are species today which exist between land and the ocean are there not. Some have remained that way for millions of years - such as reptiles. In so much as their environment has not altered such that they needed to remain in one environment or the other = there is no "incentive" for them to evolve any further.

***** Grande Pirulla!

No, that's not what he is saying at all actually. What he is saying is that even though this video (and thereby the animations that go along with it), must have taken a lot of hard work to make. However if at least some people come away from this video understanding and accepting the overwhelming evidence for evolution (the topic of this video), then their (the video's creators) hard work will have paid off.

Guzman..that was my first thought also. Too funny.

Guzman 1611 "So I love you enough to get you saved and to see you in heaven." --- If I don't qualify for Heaven, what does God intend to do to me?

Canal do Pirula Você por aqui? hahaha

@Oscar Hero Considering it was debunked over 60 years ago, and since I don't want to rewatch the video and I didn't see that part of the museum, I'm going to guess no. A quick Google search would answer your question though.

@Oscar Hero I highly doubt that. The scientific community has openly debunked it.

@Oscar Hero You seem to be deliberately trying to smear scientists and science museums to further your own anti-science agenda. The Piltdown Man was declared a hoax in 1953, yet it's only in the last few years that we've discovered how exactly Dawson produced his forgery. Any museums that display replicas of the Piltdown Man have accompanying signage which state exactly what it is: NOT legitimate science, but a forgery produced by fraudulent means. It is displayed as a warning that the story of the Piltdown Man, while historically significant for its negative impact on the scientific community and the public, is in fact false and any claims to the contrary should be disregarded.

@Oscar Hero Just because a few scientists have falsified evidence doesn't mean we should write off evolution as a whole. Try to see beyond your myopic religious beliefs and learn some real science.

@Oscar Hero Also, Lucy wasn't a hoax.

DNA scarring occurs when small blocks of DNA units are accidentally deleted or, in other cases, inserted. Insertions and deletions are created by cuts in the DNA followed by reattachment at the cut sites. Like actual scars they have a particular location and profile. Humans and chimps share literally THOUSANDS of such random, accidental scars. Humans share many such scars with all the other primates. The idea that this could have happened by pure coincidence is impossible. It is irrelevant if some of these scars are detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. That this could have originally happened IN EACH SPECIES INDEPENDENTLY is statistically impossible.

Inference based upon actual evidence = "facts"....... You can not say the same however for any supposed alternative which of course presupposes validity - also known as *ASSUMPTION* - based upon ancient claims originating from people of shall we say "questionable validity and understanding." So at least the concept of evolution has tangible evidence behind it whereas those who attack evolution = do not...... p.s. - you also invoke the stereotypical straw man argumentation so often used by said individuals who attack evolution. You demand "empirical evidence" - itself reflecting a subjective implication - in a manner to set up a false analogy. The evidence is there and hence your argument therefore is one of incredulity towards the same. Yet as noted you have no tangible basis to call that evidence into question as you have nothing to offer as an alternative - at least not openly. Incredulity for its' own sake is not a very compelling counterpoint.

Give us just one example of *"other inferences that are not in line with evolution"?* ....oh wait, there are none, at least none that can be taken seriously. We can provide a great deal of evidence to support the concept of common ancestry....what evidence can you provide for these "other inferences" you refer to? That is always the problem when an argument is premised upon nothing more than personal incredulity but I suspect that there is more to your objection than you have articulated. You did not mention a common creator but otherwise you are speaking like a creationist. Is a belief in a creator at the root of your objection? Is that the "other inferences" you speak of?

We do not talk about mere similarities when it comes to the topic. We also talk about how DNA heritage works and how it is readable like why whales have hoof feet and hoof astragalus ankle bones and their specific hoof heridity gene info used for flippers in contrast to seals with their caniformia adapted clawpaw feet to sealflippers and sealion flippers in contrast to penguins and auk birds with their birdwings to flippers. This also includes still readable backlimb genes, not only the leg bones, but leg fiber and leg muscle genes, toe genes etc. This is also the reason why all those named animals lack any designer for under water breathing organs (no created underwater respiratory systems) as in nature you do not have a fiddlefuddle God to put into the animals specific organs as outside elements to puzzle an animal into being, animals can only use the ancestral heritage info. So have land animals with landlungs only the info to adapt to the water with the lung organ to breathe. This is why gradually a local optimum is reached. This is also the reason you do not have whales or any sea mammal before the ancestral broodstock gradually adapted to the water. This is why in all old burials of the entire world you are never going to find even a single whale in all old mesozoic or paleozoic marine or landside burials of all countries of the entire world. You need to understand that magic creation or bioengineering is able to breach the restrictions by evolution, while we do not see those breaching design signals. We also do not see the order of any creation ideas of religions in nature. We do not see for example that birds of the air are created alongside fish and whales of the sea. We observe that 12,000 modern beakbird species adapted after teethbird broodstocks established in the jurassic era of the past from dinosaurs. We do not find 1 single birdbone or feather or nest or birdegg in all older paleozoic burials before archosaurs had dinosaurs as adaptations and before dinos had teeth birds as further subadaptations. Then gradually in the burials the first birds appear and we dig them up. This is not addressed by critics of evolution at all. Neither are saurian teeth genes, saurian claw genes and saurian scale gene bases in birds and DNA scars of birds to be damaged by diseases crocodiles and alligators were damaged with. As crocodiles are also archosaur variations. This means today we read in crocodile scars of DNA damaging viral diseases which are identical to bird DNA damages as both ancestors must have had the same sicknesses damaging their great-great-great...grandparents before dinosaurs did exist. This is something antievolution people also do never address. They just find excuses "well god made viral scars just look like diseases in the locations to fool us all" this is not how the world works. Realit is not all the time to be persecuted or deceitful where you could play a victim card and call it a day.

Uhhh because if younger species didn’t evolve from older, older went extinct and younger magically appeared. But you’re probably ok with magic.

You were born with about seventy mutations in your own genome. How many of those are "harmful"?

@@DenisK21no idea.

@@paulfromcanada5267 The answer is; if you're still alive, NONE of them.

@@DenisK21oky doky if you say so. Copy & Paste: The average human may not have wolverine claws, telekinesis, or superhuman strength, but they will possess a wide range of mutations in their genome that make them unique. Most mutations are harmless; however, some mutations can cause serious harm to the affected organism.

@@paulfromcanada5267 Copy & Paste from the same source website: When we think of mutants and mutations, perhaps our initial thoughts lead us to images of theatrical monsters made from laboratory mishaps. Slime green fluorescing creatures made from the accidental mixing of buckets of radioactive goo, may be the very picture of mutants in our minds. Yet, these images are largely just the stereotypes that we arrive at from the films, literature, and culture we've consumed over the years. In reality, mutations are rarely so dramatic. Mutations are also not always harmful, in fact, some are distinctly beneficial.

And why is DNA shaped like pasta?

Why is the blood colored like tomato sauce?

Maybe the Christian God is real and He made planets shaped like meatballs in order to test our faith? This theory needs serious work. :(

Gay Jesus Physics. It explains meatball formation too.

So the book of Jude not only "predicts" there will be people who doubt Jesus, it actually claims they are a sign that Jesus is returning soon? Isn't that exactly the kind of thing you would expect from a religion that wants to claim exclusive validity and scare people away from believing anything else? How is that different from other major religions?

you said there are 3 but only statedv2?????

Galaxy Husky did you other to click "read more"...

Stated Clearly 😂😂😂 where did they come from and where did O2 come a rock

Galaxy Husky because it's a lie they make up stupid things and how about if what they found were dinosaurs that haven't been found orbits just Clay that a man child made

Thank you for providing the confirming evidence.

Observations you are unable to address incl. the photos are not allowed to be "fantasies" by reality. And you are also not any decider of what is real. Reality does this job for you. This video contains DNA heritage record comparison. DNA was not even discovered in the time Darwin was alive. No clue why you try to insult a man that is dead for about 150 years.

​@@Angelmouhe's the one that said he shuddered many times during his lifetime, wondering if he had devoted his whole life to a fairy tale.... That's what he said.... Do you deny that?

​@h7ds8pm1o So I looked up if you were bearing false witness. And no surprise you did as the context reveals _A letter from Darwin to the geologist Charles Lyell, from 23 November 1859. Darwin expressed how much it means to him that he has Lyell’s support: “I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting doctrine of modification in your new Edition. Nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely:-to have maintained, in the position of a master, one side of a question for 30 years & then deliberately give it up, is a fact, to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for thinking of the many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often & often a cold shudder has run through me & I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth like you & Hooker can be wholly wrong; & therefore I feel that I may rest in peace.”_ so... Creationists and their sayings and feelings will always been revealed to be lies. It is literally like the cartoon prince of lies character that never ceases to deliver.

Already covered this one..... feelings morals next stand with science to help him feel better about himself and his low-grade hypothesis that he had been shuddering over his whole life...

You really need to call up the Francis Crick institute and see if there's anyone there maybe in a therapy department that can help you.....

And let us never forget the elusive Crockaduck.

+OnceUponAtimeThereWasAyoutubeUserWithAlongName 1992 If you cannot observe it, it is not empirical science. Sorry.

+Joe Richmond Have you ever gone to space and seen that the Earth is round? I can't imagine you would believe it otherwise.

I do not believe the Earth is flat. That is a false accusation. But no, I have not been anywhere to observe that it is round.

So you've traveled around its entire circumference, then? I admit I'm a little jealous, I've always wanted to travel the world. Not to prove that it's actually round, of course, because I understand that such theories can be demonstrated by indirect evidence, and I can accept a thing as being true when that indirect evidence weighs overwhelmingly in its favor, rather than having to directly observe every feature and every event in the universe before I can self-righteously decree that it is credible and worthy of "empirical science." Just for the experience. See new things, try the food, and all that.

That's the ticket. If you can't refute what someone says, then attack them personally. Makes perfect sense.

dude got thousand likes for thousand coments

Creationists are getting a smack down by Randall Wilks lmaooooooo.

There is no assumption nor assertion. Macro evolution is speciation which has been observable in American Goatsbeard flowers since the 1950s.

Ring species prove Macro-evolution.

You seem to be highly confused. The term MACROevolution refers to speciation by the mechanism of micro evolution. Meaning equus to horse species, donkey species and 3 zebra species is an example of macro evolution (speciation) over many generations of small microevolutionary changes. Same goes for 1 ape broodstock into chimps and humans and bonobos. The term macroevolution does not refer to a fantasy idea in some creationists minds that donkeys could morph into their own cousins like horses or into dogs. Nor does macroevolution refer a chimp would swippswapp into a human or a human into a bonobo as all of those fantasy demands of swippswappery creationists imagine would directly violate the laws of evolution like laws of monophyly. In evolution a lifeform can only be a further adaptation of what the ancestral broodstock already was in a hierachical matter that a lifeform is never able to just completely losing. This is the reason why all 12,000 bird species from tiny hummingbird species to giant ostriches are still birds and also STILL dinosaurs and also still lobe finned fish and also STILL eukaryote cell clusters. This is also the reason humans are not only still apes today, despite of being humans, they are also still primates, mammals, synapsidian, amniotes and also lobe finned fish, despite the fact that laypeople do not see the gene and anatomical fishyness in humans anymore, biologists still do. ;-)

This is a statement that does not make any sense *"The assumption or assertion is that similar features imply or demand macro-evolution."* Who exactly is asserting such a confused notion? I always urge people who want to join a science discussion about evolution to learn the basics first. Start with how evolution is properly defined, then look up the definitions of the words "microevolution" and "macroevolution". While you are at it, learn the proper definition of a scientific theory and pay particular attention to how science uses the word "theory" differently than how it is used in everyday parlance. Once you know and understand these definitions, you will understand that both microevolution and macroevolution result from the exact same process with scale being the only difference. This newfound understanding will also allow you to see why suggesting that there is some imaginary relationship between the similar features of different species and whatever bogus definition you have for macroevolution, exposes your lack of science education. *"Are other explanations possible?"* How about start with understanding what science actually teaches us before looking for alternatives.

Evolution verified for religious crybabies: DNA scarring occurs when small blocks of DNA units are accidentally deleted or, in other cases, inserted. Insertions and deletions are created by cuts in the DNA followed by reattachment at the cut sites. Like actual scars they have a particular location and profile. Humans and chimps share literally THOUSANDS of such random, accidental scars. Humans share many such scars with all the other primates. The idea that this could have happened by pure coincidence is impossible. It is irrelevant if some of these scars are detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. That this could have originally happened IN EACH SPECIES INDEPENDENTLY is statistically impossible. @user-mk9qy4yd5t

Q: Why did the creatard jump off the building? A: He thought gravity was "just a theory"

​@@happilysecular1833 Ето, доказ да људи који су склони насиљу - верују у Еволуцију. Да није насиља, заиста. Насиља над здравим разумом, те теорије не би ни било након доказа да је лажна. Еволуција - и јесте - насиље. Насиље над свима нама. Највеће насиље над онима који јој поклоне своје драгоцено, заиста, поверење. Покушај да умириш свој ум. Разбистри своје емоције. Пронађи срећу. Не био ти ја икад - судија шта ћеш чинити, него сам ти.

@@veselisaonichar8875 You sound like you’re talking about yourself in third person. Religious countries are the most violent and creationism is violence against common sense just like the belief that the earth is flat. In case my previous joke flew over your head or the translation failed, I was saying that the THEORY of evolution is just as proven as the THEORIES of gravity, DNA, atoms, microorganisms and dinosaurs. You’re just crying because science isn’t playing along with your childish religious fantasies.

+Abraxos, funny you should ask! I just wrote an article last month that we are currently turning into an animation. statedclearly.blogspot.com/2016/05/what-is-rna-world-hypothesis.html?m=1

All living things are made of proteins

That depends on how you define life. Virions are only made of RNA but they replicate, evolve, and display a variety of behaviors. It's worth noting, however, that they have to infect a cell and use its protein in order to replicate.

Virus are living organisms. Your article is nothing new, and has been concluded to be unrealistic. I'll point this out later.

Abraxos Viruses aren't living organisms

Kind of annoying, I’d say.

So true, so true

Like Randall calm the fuck down

@@tadstrange1465 He still comments to this day lmao

@@saskia4313 He do be speaking facts tho

Yes, if humans lived primarily in water over millions of years we will be adapted to water, and no it’s not because the genome somehow changes because your in water, but because of natural selection. We have direct evidence of this happening in whales.

What drives such individuals to exist in water......... = that is your question. A person can spend their lives working around water and not have an impetus for evolutionary change because = they can still go back to land if they want. So being in water alone offers no incentive to adapt. If however something occurred with the environment so as to cause humans to abandon living on land then after a time it is possible that generations of people raised in an aquatic environment might begin to evolve in certain ways given that environmental stimulus. Moral: there are people today whose ancestors spend much of their lives in the ocean being divers who rely upon obtaining their food by harvesting the ocean floor. Consequently study has shown whereby they compared to "dry land people" have developed larger than normal spleens so that their bloodstream can retain more oxygen = allowing them to hold their breaths longer than normal - which facilitates their ability to work under water for longer periods of time. That = is an example of an evolutionary adaptation as a consequence of environment. So such change is not "purposeful" in so much as it was sought out. It rather reflects that somewhere along the line people were born with oversized spleens ----> which allowed them to survive in their environment better ------> which means they were more successful and able to reproduce -----> leading to more children being born with larger spleens = until they now represent the status quo among that population. Evolution is not about "changing into something else." It is about = changes which occur for some reason which prove beneficial in some manner. With enough such changes then over time = new species can potentially arise within a compatible environment.

The Bajau people have long lived on the waters of Southeast Asia, where they've evolved into sea-dwelling beings with bodies like no other humans on planet Earth. And they've evolved internal organs and body capabilities unlike our own.

No, changes are hereditary, their descendants will be a different species

No, that one human will not change one bit. Evolution isn't about individuals, it's about populations. Have a population of humans in a waterborne environment, and generations later, you'll find the latest generation of that population has adapted to that environment.

Can’t talk scientifically to conclude your religious superstitions, that faith quip you guys use by the thousands is no substitute for education.

Similar structures alone indeed may not be sufficient to determine common ancestry. Entire identical sequences of DNA, however, is the clincher. Shared genes means shared genetic ancestry. Period. If you have a problem with this, then you'll have to find some pretty darn good evidence that everything we ever knew about genetics is wrong. Gooooooood luck with that. "Vestigial organs are observed to be structures that have degraded in their functionality, like in these whales." Yes, that is verbatim what "vestigial organs" means. .........And? Who ever said gills changed into lungs? Lungs originated as adaptations of outpocketings of the esophagus, while gill structures were repurposed into jaw and ears structures. And you're going to have to cite some evidence indicating the impossibility of limbs adapting into an alteration of limbs and whatnot. Oh boy, the good ol' "loss/gain of genetic information", based on a ludicrously arbitrary and undefined standard. "comparatively minuscule amount of transitional forms" is not how you say "literally every fossil we've ever found is a transitional form". Before you attempt to refute this point, go look up what the term "transitional form" even means. If bacteria produced something that wasn't a further genetic variety of bacteria, and dogs and cats and finches likewise, it would DEBUNK the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is descent with inherited modification, not a complete shift in taxonomy. That's it. Dogs, for example, are STILL a genetic variety of wolves, canines, carnivora, mammals, synapids, tetrapods, vertebrates, animals, and eukaryotes. Your fetus (like those of literally every single land vertebrate) developed gill structures that were then repurposed into jaw and ear structures. Genetic holdover from gill-bearing ancestors, or God reaching into your mom's womb to play a pointless prenatal prank?

All living organisms (and all those who are extinct) have similar genetic alignments, simply because they all evolved from a common ancestor. Vestigial organs are organs, tissues or cells in a body which are no more functional the way they were in their ancestral form of the trait. It is authentication of evolution and hence, were helpful in explaining adaptation. Such a structure can arise due to gene mutation which causes a change in the proteins. Genetic mutations can be harmful, beneficial and (most of them neutral. The beneficial mutations enhance the organism's ability to survive and flourish. The fossil record are (millions of fossils unearthed) represent snapshots in time only, since fossilization is very rare and requires specific circumstances. Every species that ever lived and that lives today is a transitional form -- meaning that it is in transition. Each generation of every species is different from the predecessor generation of the species at the molecular level. As you are different from your parents. There is nothing preprogrammed! For each generation, slight errors are made in the copying of the genome, thus evolution occurs at the molecular level in populations and not in individuals. "Observable science only" is a ridiculous and fake nonsense by YOU and fellow creationists. Most of the science is not observable. Have you seen an electron? or have you seen a far away galaxy in the universe (for example, a galaxy named HD1 has been crowned the new farthest object in the cosmos. Located some 13.5 billion light-years away). Most of the science is detected by other means than observation. Speaking of observation...... have you observed your god, biblical creation, heaven or hell? So then, according to you, they do not exist, is that not right? No cats do not stay cats, and dogs do not stay dogs. Can you name a single excavation where dogs and cat remains were found that were more than 10 million years old? Given the fact that life existed on this planet for about 3.5 billion years, where did the dogs and cats come from? And each animal appears in a specific geological period, and there are no samples before that appearance; where did these animals descent from? Or is your god busy and pulling a new creation every couple of years? You polluted the comment section with a pile of worn-out trash crammed into your brain by the dishonest clergy of your religion. Try to get an education, or at least read one science book!

Ok, let's break this down. First of all, the fact that certain plants and animals have similar structures is not at all "scientific proof" that they evolved from one another. Vestigial organs are observed to be structures that have degraded in their functionality, like in these whales. Natural selection can only "choose" from a gene pool that already exists. It has NEVER been observed to create new genetic information, such as would be required to change gills into lungs, fins into arms and legs, or scales into feathers, no matter HOW much time you want to imagine. Likewise, genetic mutations are a degradation of genetic information in living things, not the creation of new genetic material. The fact that the fossil record is massively deficient of supposed transitional forms has even been admitted by some evolutionists who care to be honest. The comparatively minuscule amount of supposed "transitional forms" presented can just as easily be described as animals with structures specifically designed to function in adjacent environments. Observable science has shown that although adaptation occurs as a process that has been pre-programmed into the DNA of living things, there are clearcut limitations, and that bacteria have ALWAYS been bacteria, dogs have ALWAYS been dogs, cats have ALWAYS been cats and Darwin's finches have ALWAYS been finches.

@@biglongfish9253 You fail to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence FOR biological evolution and the obvious impossibility that your phony god/creator cannot do anything. Your arguments about "randomness" fail as well because you ignore natural selection.

it's cool and all, but an objective curriculum would also involve what the bible says also.

⁠@@bvbxiong5791maybe in the context of comparative religions, but not in science. Unfortunately following the scientific method does not lead to concluding the Earth is 6000 years old or that we were made by god. Would be cool in a comparative religions setting, and discuss similarities and differences with other origin myths.

@@bvbxiong5791 are you really so dumb to think that biblical bronze age superstitions have any relevance in this video?

​@@bvbxiong5791What objective curriculum could possibly be added by the Bible on the subject of evolution? The Bible is part of religious teachings, not science. Bible vs evolution is not a true dichotomy nor are the two mutually exclusive. Would you also ask that evolution be taught along side religious studies? I presume you wouldn't, and for good reason.

@@bvbxiong5791 you're misunderstanding the definition of "objective"

What about pineapple on pizzas?🙂

By the way, just so you know, evolution is not science. Just because it is taught in the subject of science doesn't mean it's science. For if you do believe that evolution is science, you are saying that one who does not believe in evolution does not trust science.

@@levibutinroblox477 Bwahahahahaha!!!!! Roblox is a game platform that allows children to create and be anything they can imagine. That makes it entirely appropriate for creationists for whom pretense is a way of life. They make endless assertions for which no evidence exists, yet pretend they are somehow superior to others. What you fail to understand is that *TRUTH is determined by EVIDENCE,* not by what anyone says and not by words in an old book. The rules of evidence are this: *If you don't have any...YOU LOSE!*

@@levibutinroblox477 One of the great things about religions is that, since they are all fabricated nonsense, their proponents feel entitled to fabricate whatever additional nonsense they feel is warranted. Since facts are an anathema to you, the incongruity of your claims about science sailed right over your head. Of course, your religion entities you to do so and pretense is what Roblox is all about. In the REAL world, the following is what REAL scientists have to say:

*The American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution:* *"Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community. Although their language and strategy differ, all of these proposals, if passed, would weaken science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences."* Creationists, who are often scientifically illiterate, often make the claim that evolution is not really science. The AAAS, in essence, is saying they lie.

Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.

Giving yourself phony likes doesn’t make up for a lack of citations, Oscar.

@@maylingng4107 *I'm really sorry if Newton and all other greatest scientists made u mad, Andrew.*

@@voisierberlaimont Oly dogs get mad. But humans like you, lie a lot.

"genesis of interdependent and symbiotic relationships. " Is by selection from former parasitic or rival relationships. No big deal. "Why is that? Crickets." Nope, it is a very old hat in evolution research like flower petals and insects as example. Darwin himself even predicted a moth with giant proboscis fitting to an extreme flower calyx that was found shortly after predicted. You have just no clue about even old research. "The properties of random, undirected processes are well known. Creativity and reliability are not among them." You ignore the non random selection pressure part like always when you start to lie about the topic on purpose, like where you did lie by omission about the teethbird intermediates in-between the beakbirds and theropod dinosaurs or in this video with the beach/shore colony living whale intermediates wobbling on land before the offshore adaptations to the open sea, where you did try to sell the idea we would not have a gradual fossil record as observation. LOL

No that is fantasy. The hoof artiodactyl ancestors like Pakicitidea did not look like modern bluewhales on 4 stompy legs. The modern look did not exist in the past.

Well, Tony, most people lacking cognitive ability are at least smart enough not to advertise the fact. You, on the other hand, flaunt your ignorance for the world to see. What happened to you? Fetal alcohol syndrome? Dropped on your head as a child? Most likely you are the product of a long family history of incestuous relationships.

Prove it.... Crickian!!! Seen any aliens lately?

@@user-oh7ds8pm1o Do you number your sock puppets?

Im here cuz of a quarter test I have in 30 mins lol

@Akki Sci channel Lol I got a 82% which is an A (idk how). I'm gonna have to study more because I had to guess in some of the questions

@Dillon Sudduth ?

@Dillon Sudduth no I'm just confused on what u meant

@Dillon Sudduth o ok gn

Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.

Never heard of AronRa but yes, scientists laugh at cults like Christianity, islam and any other cult that deny scientific facts such as evolution or the earth being round.

@@humankinglobetard3000 AronRa is a science communicator. The original poster "voisierberlaimont" is another of over 35+ sockpuppet account of the trolluser Gustave Larsen/Oscar/atheism_.../David/SusieBrundy etc. AronRa taught him once the terminology of felidae and feline in 1 comment section he did not care about. I usually highly recommend AronRa's Systematic classification of life series, as it gives a very good overview of most major intermediate forms (hundreds) from the single cell eukaryotes to humans at the end of the series. Creationists run away from that as most reasons how organs reshaped, what selection factors were involved and what side lineages branched off at specific time periods from the former ancestry are presented in clear terms.

*When the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "maylingng"/"docreasonable"/"ergonomover"/"angelmou" insisted that ostriches have no wings, I realized that he is an evolutionist.*

@@voisierberlaimont Piss off, Oscar!

Alright a new thread. Maybe this time someone won’t be able to ask you how many organic molecules can react before your gods have to get involved.

@@AMC2283I’m having a blast. 😇. All very informative. If you start looking closely at the claims of evolution it’s quite encouraging to faith as it becomes more and more apparent that life as it is could not happen naturally.

@@paulfromcanada5267 Your problem is that evolution is backed by EVIDENCE, not by what you or anyone says. On the other hand, there are thousands of religions that make claims with no evidence whatsoever. What you or anyone believes exists in the human mind. Go ahead and prove those beliefs are not simply delusions.

The old 'I don't understand physics therefore supernatural magic is the only answer' hogwash. Also, evolution is NOT about the origin of ife. Why don't you chattle understand that? It's very simple. @@paulfromcanada5267

@@RandallWilksevolution is backed by the interpretation of the evidence, so is theism. Same evidence, different interpretations. For example; creatures share some similarities with humans. Could be evidence of common ancestry, or a common creator. 😇 1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential. 2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God. 3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God. 4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God. 5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God. The existence of God (or more generally, the existence of deities) is a subject of debate in theology, philosophy of religion and popular culture.[1] A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God or deities can be categorized as logical, empirical, metaphysical, subjective or scientific. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God or deities involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being or existence) and the theory of value (since some definitions of God include "perfection"). The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God or deities began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that today would be categorized as cosmological. Other arguments for the existence of God or deities have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Thomas Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); René Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God or deities is logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin argued for a sensus divinitatis, which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence.

Appearantly every creationist can disprove evolution, yet none of them had won a Nobel Prize. Hmmm 🤔

Thank you Joely for revealing your double digit IQ. We won't waste time with the likes of you.

Did anyone hear about the evolutionist who who disproved the existence of God?... Didn't think so

@@akoskormendi9711 so, nothing is disproven until someone wins the Nobel Prize? That's just about the stupidest thing I've heard. Definitely the stupidest thing I've heard today

@@SupremeOverkill No evolutionist wants to disprove God, and you can't disprove something that cannot be proven in the first place m. Disprove there is a microscopic tea pot between the orbit of Saturn and Uranus. Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy, you need to provide evidence for youd assertion first, so it can be debunked. Until then, dismissed.

Blobfish are the exception; they were created. ;-)

+Drank Yeah, that was the night he gave you shit for brains.

LimeGrass619 to not get stalked by big fish because who want to eat pink slime( I'm looking to you McDonalds)

Just googled 'how did the blobfish evolve', it's even uglier than the fish.

No, they're RELATED to whales. Did you even WATCH the video?!? get rect, dude!

Tell us what you are doing here every minute of every day of your miserable failed life? Tell us what motivates you to be here 24/7/365 for two decades?

13 likes in 1 hour??🤔🧐 Did Susie help you artificially upvote your comment?

Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.

@@Lexi2019AURORAThis clown thinks phony likes make up for a complete lack of citations.

*Exceptionally beautiful from the b-allet dancer Eldridge aka "mayling"/"lexaurora"/"happilysecular"/"flandiddlyandersFRS" as it can be seen in my beautiful v4de0:* _Ostriches do not gave wings according to ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA_

Online April 23, 2024 - the cycle begins anew as the sockpuppets are forced to "recycle"......

Phony likes don’t make up for your lack of citations.

@@happilysecular1833 *Sorry that Kelvin made u mad, Andrew, but he and all other greatest scientists of this planet were too smart to buy Aronra's doctrine.*

If AronRa is a chrisian creationist you are absolutely correct.

Why do humans and chimps share over 200 ERV markers in the same locations in both genomes? Why do antibiotics need to kept up do date with micro organisms if they don’t evolve? How do you explain ring species? Where can I find a single example of a non-transitional fossil? Why does DNA show that some species are more distantly related than others?

More like they won't handle reality. Some happily admit they won't even believe in math and logic like 2+2=4 when the bible would say otherwise: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ysecinv367w.html

Where did the worm come from

@@chrishunt3674 where did the homosexual come from

@Winston Grettum watch the video.

@@chrishunt3674 from cells

Getting people to fall for a nonsensical 3,500 year old origins story? Indeed it was a "good trick"!

Stop talking to yourself, Oscar

@Yuan-Xi _Louise_ is feminine, _Louis_ is masculine. Note the the city St. Louis, as well as the u.s. state Louisiana were named for the French King. Note: much of the U.S. west of the Mississippi River was originally claimed by France but was purchased by the U.S. by president Thomas Jefferson.

It's telling that you don't give a source for EITHER of those quotes, and that you proceed to abruptly claim that evolution "hinders" medical discovery... somehow.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution: "Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community. Although their language and strategy differ, all of these proposals, if passed, would weaken science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences."

Why do you run away from breakthroughs in cytology we just talked before with the organelle cell complexity thanks to evolution you were not educated enough in them by confusing them with cells without those organelles? What you do here with book quotes of the preacher charlatan Demski quotemining other people is yet again void of meaning? The first quote is a critic about Kirschner being annoyed that his coleagues seem to ignore valuable tools for evolutionary base to make their research just easier. So unlike creationists who say all of science is an evil cooptation meaning all people would be part of a conspiratorial swarm mind - people in fields just use the tools they want to use without any career losing. So all this mean persecution talk of christian creationists is with this quote disproven. Are you now shocked about this revelation? Do you say sorry for having those conspiratorial thoughts or Dembski or the other anti-science preachers? Of course not as they want to dwell in their sinister ways. ;-) So that you can use the Dembski lies to ignore dozens of breakthroughts be it neozoan population dynamics, parasite evolution and all adaptation types and mathematical models of mutations of germs. It is the same nonsense Meyer tries when he quotemines a critic of people to be too much gene focussed in the last 20 years and to demand a new focus where he quotemines the context that people should not always read the DNA heridity record of all lifeforms but go out into the fields and stuff. Also in context: _Dr. Skell's field of work does not actually deal directly with anything biological, he is an inappropriate authority to appeal to, and Skell's assertion about evolutionary medicine is unsupported._ Ignoring the evolution dynamics of viruses for example is meaningless. This means evolution reveals medical discovery pathways. You are really desperate Paul(most likely not your real name).

@@walkergaryaThe theory of evolution is not standing up to scrutiny. It’s not based on evidence but a certain interpretation of the evidence. As we learn more about the complexity of so called simple life it’s become more and more evident that the theory just doesn’t work.

@@paulfromcanada5267 Whose scrutiny? YOUR scrutiny? The scrutiny of "scientists" who insist a global flood that somehow missed China actually happened? The scrutiny of whoever you're quote-mining this week? The scrutiny of the brilliant Nobel Prize winner Michael McDoesn'tExist?

Yeah, you gotta watch that Satan, facts are his secret weapon.

+Randall Wilks lol

"SATAN" and "DEMONS" are smart people. but watch out! We use fact bullets that can't be blocked! Well, they can be, with dumb arguement shields, but you'll usually just attract MORE "DEMONS" to the fight. And usually the"DEMONS" win because facts don't lie.

Satan isn't physical being , so that's not right

Nope your just but hurt because, we just found prof for evolution and not your holy book

Lana May what u said 😭

Lana, saaame

John Smith Nick Fuentes is right we need to stop all immigration bases af

@John Smith Funny you should mention "prof/teacher/scam artist". Your Kent Hovind sold fake cancer cures to unwitting victims, also convicted on two counts of mail fraud, along with criminal contempt, income tax evasion, failure to pay property taxes. Kent Hovind is almost as fake as your "John Smith" troll account. Cheers! 🙂 🤗 🤩

@John Smith can you stop trolling already

@@AI_Alien_Intelligence how does that make sence earth is a lonely planet of 8 billion people whales are from earth

@@AI_Alien_Intelligence how does that make sence?

Other animals simply evolved the ability to close their nostrils. 🤷‍♂️

The prehistoric marine reptiles (excluding sea turtles) also sorta have "blowholes" similar to the basilosaurids, maybe if they never went extinct, they will evolve similarly to cetaceans? Idk.

No one is forcing you to accept anything. This is a free society where you can remain as ignorant and as obtuse concerning this topic as you choose to. If you want to ignore the mountains of evidence that all points in the direction of evolution have at it, no one cares. But if you want to advance the notion of some invisible entity with magical super powers having a hand in biodiversity, excuse the adults in the room for not taking you seriously. There is no Easter bunny....those are little round rabbit turds, not chocolate, it's best not to eat them. By the same reasoning, there is no invisible creator designing living things from a common blueprint only to watch an almost total percentage of those designs go extinct. What a silly idea.

There are more than a hundred science societies, each composed of hundreds (some of thousands) of PhD biologists. Can you list any one of these that agrees with the trash you just posted (intelligent design)? But you claim to know better and more than all of these million+ biologists?

Evolution verified for religious crybabies: DNA scarring occurs when small blocks of DNA units are accidentally deleted or, in other cases, inserted. Insertions and deletions are created by cuts in the DNA followed by reattachment at the cut sites. Like actual scars they have a particular location and profile. Humans and chimps share literally THOUSANDS of such random, accidental scars. Humans share many such scars with all the other primates. The idea that this could have happened by pure coincidence is impossible. It is irrelevant if some of these scars are detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. That this could have originally happened IN EACH SPECIES INDEPENDENTLY is statistically impossible.

"So I just want to make sure I understand correctly...all of this is based on the interpretations made based on observations?" Humans do not have the interpreation freedom you wish they would have. This is a false faith you hold encouraged by humans but not by reality itself. It is the same nonsense like a kindergarten teacher says the kids they can imagine how the world is by how they want...so that Earth could look like a glass of marmelade or a cube or a pink giraffe. Reality does not allow the naive idea that you can just have some personal opinion on the matter how the planet looks nor about lifeform origin. "And because there are astonishing similarities observed" We do not talk about mere similarites you could handwave by some human ideas. We talk about exact organ and tissue repurposement with exact names directly readable from the allele frequencies even with copyerrors and scars by viral damages in the exact locations. A very mundane example: Birds and crocodiles share more scars in the genome at the same places than with other groups of animals because of the archosaurian heritage from the earlier perm time period (also crossmatching genetic clocks). This is also the reason you do not find any crocodiles nor birds in all paleozoic layers before their archorsaurian broodstock ancestry were well established to have birds and crocodiles as later variations. Otherwise you can show "haha a permian feather or a cambrian croco scale!" what you can't. "it 100% establishes the theory as fact that all living creatures are similar in blueprint but have slight changes in design based on functions etc." Lifeforms are born by their parents, they ain't designed. Design is an activity that did not exist in the time period of the distant past before thinking organs were ALREADY well established to perform the first time the activity design. This means the very origin of the design activity lies in the much younger ages not in any of all the older ones. In the distant past there was no design and to think otherwise is a denial and not any legit opinion by how history and the order of history works. "and that means obviously all creatures had to have come from two specific ones because the blueprint used shows all living creatures evolved from a single creature and not that there is a basic design varying between species?" Different types of speciation aka allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric speciation are observed in nature and also in laboratory EVEN TODAY. Species do neither just appear by speaking magical spells into thin air and then "poof" they would be there, nor does any biodesigner use some disessembled bodyparts like some jigsaw puzzles to assemble them into a living breathing wolf that jumps around for example. Again: Lifeforms come from their respective parents. "So the argument for the theory of evolution which could never be replicated scientifically" We replicate breeding laws and heridity mechanism ALL the time. You have bread on your breakfast table as grassplant variation because of evolution of grass with 8x more nutrient info gain into rye and wheaten and barley - not because you did pray to a deity as 1 example and swoop you have a slice of bread appearing on your dish. You try your very best to misportrait the topic for a complete false sense of security (like non existing interpretation realms which were never there) which is not allowed by the cold and merciless reality. "is based on similarities in observation and not scientific studies scrutinised in a laboratory?" Evolution theory is always scrutinized in lab - but it did withstand the test of time with more and more uncovering of DETAILS of evolution - like what exact genes mutated for turtle shells, parasites to adapt and bacteria to bypass hosts or how info gain to more nutrient complexity takes place or which duplications happened and what type of organ function changed or ain't in use anymore. Today millions of secrets were revealed even the shape of bug reproductive organs. Like the lung organ as variation of the swimmbladder gullet bag base to store oxygen with SOX mutations and more readable from the lung organ swimmbladder base. Also the artifacts of the past exactly where we predict them with millions of correct prophecies. Like with whales where they still have backlimb toe genes, backlimb fiber genes, backlimb muscle genes, backlimb legbone genes - but offswitched and partially broken, while sometimes like in a dolphin they can grow back partially - exactly like whiskergenes with dolphins growing whiskers and so on. "It is a weak argument and cannot be stated as fact or proof because observations are subject to interpretation and interpretations are fluid" No. Humans have no fantasy freedom when it comes to facts. As personal hopes of humans are not allowed when it comes to cold technical overviews if you don't want to become dishonest. "...so I understand it as follows... a group of people look at something, see similarities and interpret the meaning of the similarities in a certain way when all they can prove consistently is that there are similarities" Which is crossconfirmed by the fossil intermediate forms you completely ignore but there is a huge problem you ignore anyway... ;-) "...and what if someone comes with a different interpretation?" There are different interpretations about a lot of details. For example it was unclear how turtles got their shells as the fossil record did show BOTH pathways. Either first the shell protection formed by scale merge and then the rips enlongated beneath the merged scales or vice versa. By the anatomy and the fossil record findings it was unclear how turtles got the shells, because there Both ways were found in older burials (before any modern land or back to the water adapted turtles were established as broodstocks.) The funny thing is teams of independent Geneticists analyzed the regulatory gene cascades what genes re and deregulated the ripcage and it turned out that first the rips expanded then the shell protection happened. It turned out the flattened rip-enlongating and burrowing reptiles are the ancestral form of actual turtles and the transitional forms which were found also in the fossil record, anyway. BUT there were ALSO cousin reptiles that just looked like turtles (they were basically fake turtle look a like) for the laypeople's eyes, while they weren't real turtles by tiny detail differences in the anatomy. There the scales first merged shelllike and then the rips broadened they have a slightly different ripcage anatomy, while those were NOT the ancestor of any modern day surviving turtles as the genetic heritage record revealed, those turtle look alikes went extinct with the time of the dinosaurs. I give you here a prob you ain't aware of: "Will it be entertained or shunned?" All is tested. We also tested the idea of design signals. You seem to be completely unaware of the matter that we could read Design / Creation in the DNA like "this is a human hand designed to be a human hand" *IF it would be there* . BUT that is simply not what we *ACTUALLY* observe and read in the DNA itself, repeatably. Hands of humans for example are not "designed" like by blueprint or out from scratch - All of that would be readable aka Del/ Gli /Xtj + / - regulation deformations & organ recycling. Translated into proper english it means: Lobe finned fish fin MINUS 2 digits PLUS Finger enlargements = "paw" MINUS the webs PLUS Thumb opposable = Human Hand in this steporder readable. Containing recycling the former ancestral hierachy incl. unnecessary digits deactivated of the lobe fin base. This is why humans are to exact 0% ray finned fish - but to 100% very specific 7 digit lobe finned fish descendants with deregulated digit parts. RIGHT NOW. Not for example 17 or 22 digit lobe finned fish deformations in that exact recycling-repurposement order. That is why we as humans are today even still very specific DEFORMATIONS of highly specific digit lobe finned fish GENETICALLY by how the activation order read, but absolute not ray finned fish sub-sub...variations nor specific 20 digit lobe finned fish as cousins etc. This direct and repeatable observation for all human beings makes ABSOLUTE no sense outside of Evolution. It makes absolute no sense to observe facts like that without being very VERY specific digit lobe finned fish deformatory descendants WHATSOEVER.

part 2 "So here are the facts given and my interpretation of it: 1.There are anatomical similarities between species 2. There are DNA similarities between species" Point 2 reveals that you do not understand why DNA similarity is a phrase you do not understand and think you have a vague free field for false ideas in your mind. DNA does not allow you to think in ways you want to think. Like someone thinks that the term "earthball" allows people to think the earth could be a small football to kick around because the term "ball" lets freedom to uneducated people to imagine the size to be small. DNA does not allow antievolution talk to have even air to breath at all. "3. There are embriotic development similarities at the early stages of conception and somewhere very clear and obvious differences begin to show..." Also 4. There are scars by specific viral diseases in the exact hierachical location order of a family tree. 5. There are silenced and broken DNA parts where we know the exact names and the function that sometimes switch back on again like teethgenes of birds, whisker or backlimb genes in whales but usually do not snap back etc. 6. There are no modern species in the old fossil burials neither in ALL marine nor landside ones of the entire world. So do you never have 1 single bird bone or 1 single mammal bone in paleozoic burial ages. 7. We could read Design signals if they would be there, but there aren't any. 8. The activity to design can't exist in time periods before complex thinking organ architecture did develop. etc. You also need to be more concrete and specific. You want to talk very vague so that you think you can't get attacked, while reality does not care how careful and vague you may talk. Reality cuts through the soul with precission so to speak. "Your interpretation is that clearly they evolved from some vommon ancestor Mine is that clearly there is a blueprint used so clearly there is design and clearly there are bound to be major similarities and major differences due to minor variations." There is no design otherwise we could observe that. "Can we state as fact that creatures evolved and changed so drastically? No we can't it is absurd yo claim that as fact." You are not a decider of what is absurd. Whales for example are still hoof mammals, despite of additionally being adapted to the water lifestyle in modern days with intermediate semi-aquatic forms living beach colony lifestyles wobbling on beaches like modern seals before adapting further to the sea with bigger size and sea birthing. This is why none of the 200 species of whales today existed in all old marine burials where ichthyosaurs etc. were found. Whales also lack designed organs like underwater breathing organs they only have landlung adaptations from their mammal ancestry. "Can we state as fact that there are forms of an evolutionary principle taking place in nature, yes because it can be consistently observed in micro evolution." All of evolution is always microevolution incl. apes to humans and chimps. The speed of evolution is always gradual and slow and not macrojumps. You will never have a pair of wolf in the woods all of a sudden giving birth to a sighthound dog puppy with aerodynamic bodyshape to outrun the wolf mother. It needed hundreds of generations of gradual increase of bodyshape aerodynamics for that. "Can we state as fact that there is a clear design to animals." No. Design is not allowed by reality to be even a legit opinion in those topics. It is also not mean humans stealing you this belief. Reality itself does not allow this to be on the table as idea. "Yes you would be a fool to disagree." You are a fool when you think your feelings could trump the cold and merciless reality. "Will I force my interpretation on anyone? No " Reality does not care about human interpretations. A person can stomp all day his foot to the ground and say "the Earth is a pyramid" it will never turn into a pyramid. "Are you forcing yours onto those who disagree with you? Yes." No. Some people are just honest and rub under your nose that there is no opinion freedom in those cold matters of facts. The constitution grants people belief freedom but reality does not allow freedom that the believes match with reality. "Funny how it works isn't it?" It is not funny that you think your Ego could just decide that your opinions would have reality deciding value. Yet it can't. See how funny that is? No one laughs.

god: *doesn't exist* humans: *take god seriously* god: am I not a joke to you?

No religious book says earth was created 4000 years ago, that's just stupid

Beverage Fissure 6000

Potato Baby he made a joke, people found it funny, which means it served its purpose. What was the purpose of your comment? Seems like you didn’t think ahead of the red rage 😂

Killermemes. exe imagine being so stupid that you believe it takes intelligence to make artificial intelligence and yet you don’t believe it took intelligence to make biological intelligence even though you know biological intelligence is far mate advanced!

+Joshua Warner Respect belief? My grandmother believed that little men lived down by the river. I respect evidence and evolution has millions of pieces of evidence backing it. Show me one piece of evidence from the natural world that supports creationism? Live with your wishes if you want but I'd rather reality.

Bruh that aint a prediction. The people that wrote and advocated their book along with others were ridiculed for the foolishness they spoke about. It aint a prediction that you will be laughed and jeered at for speaking nonsense. The way they wrote it was their way of coping with being laughed at. All you have done is taken up their burden.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

"Fulfilling bible prophecy" LOL - "Mockers and stalkers!!!" Of course haha! Oh geez, you don't believe in prophecy for real do you? No offense, you might want to brush up on reality. 'Credible sources' Try them... o.O

My respect is based on if you are using those beliefs to vote and change laws or education policy. "fulfilling Biblical prophecy" - How does this "prophecy" have weight when it was inevitable that there would be different religions with multiple sects, and humans routinely ridicule other humans for almost anything? That's no more a prophecy than saying "somewhere on earth it will rain in the next 10 years." I might care if the bible had an exact description of something in science or mentioned me by full name, weight, height, date, skin color, facial features, etc, and then said exactly the words that I used 2000 years before I said it (assuming it's not generic, everyday speak) along with proof that it hasn't been modified since (because a common tactic of many so-called prophecies is to lie and claim something was said in the past when in reality it was made up by a person who already knows the present).

The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming, from multiple scences. Your denial of this shows you are only interested in your dogma, not reality.

"speculative" There is nothing speculative about reading the genetic heritage record. "and does not present irrefutable evidence" Then try to refute the total lack of all modern blowhole whales in all old paleozoic and mesozoic burials of all countries of the entire world in presenting 1 whale skeleton in those burials as just 1 example. "but yes the earth can be flat if enough of this type of evidence is presented" Flateatherism can only work by denial of repeatable observations like the curvature photos and video footage like of weather satellites etc. Like creationism/antievolution can only work in denial of repeatable observations like the denial of the ape info base genes in humans like Notch2nl or Arhgap11 as 1 example or the hoof astragalus bone anatomy and hoof mammal DNA heritage in whales.

Mental gymnastics is the best you've got?

@@user-tu1co9xl1k The user walkergarya is still not Andrew. And the evidence is in the video you did not watch at all. And no we already had 1000x that mere handwavable similarity is not the evidence it is exact organ repurposement readable in the DNA incl. the exact names of the mutations as heritage record like in whales the astragalus hoof anklebone anatomy the hooffingers to flippers in contrast to seal/pinniped flippers from canineform paws in contrast to birdwing to flippers in penguins etc. and the silenced omac&tomac readable scent smelling genes for the nose to blowhole migration now not expressed as the whale nostrils are not in front of the face for landscents to be smelled as 1 example. This is something you can't ever address by their very names as all your feelings are revealed to be falsely imprinted to human fantasies detached from facts such as genetics and the heritage record readable there. As you can't address any gene heritage names like in the bird example with the feathers from the SHH and BMP saurian scale to rachis and double rachis anatomy you are in denial like a person is in denial of globe photos.

@@user-tu1co9xl1k You are a waste of my time. If you want to believe creationist garbage, go ahead, you are beyond my help. Wallow in your ignorance like a pig in it's own shit.

Faith is the excuse people use to believe something without evidence. "Skeptics said for centuries, said "The bible we have now has been corrupted through the centuries.". In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and proved otherwise." This in no way demonstrates the supernatural origin of the bible. "They said, "There's no way Israel can become a nation again as God promised in preparation for the end times.". Israel became a nation again in 1948." What happened in Israel in 1948 has nothing to do with the bible prophecy you mention.

" Jesus Christ said of Himself." Actually what a real person named Yeshua/Yehosua REALLY said in his life is long forgotten and vanished into oblivion. When you quote scribbles fabricated by humans dozens of years AFTER Yeshua/Yehosua was even alive like the John scribbles on paper it means literally nothing. Truth is also established by evidence. That water is drinkable for example is such a mundane truth or that rivers flow downstream. Screaming for an everlasting life is you being greedy and dwelling in self centrism. The thinking a fictional person would grant you your greed wishes is void of sense as well, and it also has nothing to do with any of the topics beneath this video.

How did the authors of the Gospels know what Jesus said when he was alone or in a private conversation with no witnesses? The whole thing was invented decades if not centuries later.

The hilarious aspect of the words you just copied and pasted is in the fact that these words were first spoken by John Wesley ...a cleric and theologian wandering the British countryside circa 1770ish. The implications of which bible lobotomized nitwits never seem to fully comprehend so let me help you out: The one true path to heaven was revealed to Christians almost 18 centuries after the alleged death of Christ. I don't know what to say to someone who is adhering to a central tenet that is so laughably inconsistent with documented history.

​@@SusieBundy-cw4oy Susan Larsen just said: 'Jesus is indeed the Truth and the son of devil'... OMG!!! Would not wanna be U on Judgement Day, Lardarse... or any other day

Ali 22 then please explain how sin fits in this concept. Assuming you're referring to christianity.

sin comes from man as he pursuit perfection, as men trying to achieve perfection each one for his own self they come across unparalleled ways, so some of them commits sin as trying to force their way on behalf of others or on behalf of their own righteousness.

Still doesn't explain how sin came to be, and perhaps most importantly: Why did God create the concept of sin in the first place. Second, you're not at all describing sin from Christianity. What you're describing, although very vague, is somewhat akin to indoctrination or forced dogma. That is not sin as described in the Bible. So, you're not talking about the Christian god at all. Christianity is incompatible with evolution. So you're actually trying to speak for the existence of an unknown god, am I right? A deistic perspective?

yes, you are right, i haven't read the bible, yet.

I strongly recommend reading it. Reading the Bible throroughly is the leading cause of atheism.

Yes, informative, but is it true?

Savanna Addison theres a difference between a theory and theorized fact. Gravity is considered a theorized fact for example. Evolution doesnt disprove the existence of a god but it seems to have disproved that a god made every creature. If a god exists, then he set up evolution

Savanna Addison theres flaws in the theory of evolution as well and scientists acknowledge them but they don't disprove evolution. They just question our understanding of how some creatures evolved

+Elias Montoya if you can conclude that God created everything, why would he create things to go through the long stressful process of evolution? Why wouldn't he just create everything the way it should be? In Genesis 1:31 it says "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day." Everything was "Very good." Why would it be called very good if there was still so much to be done? Evolution is imperfect. God is perfect. Evolution involves death. God didn't want death on the earth. You can do the math. :)

Ardipethicus Ramidus, Niels Bohr has never been my go-to when it comes to matters of Theology. The Bible - the original source - is where I go. If you are such a Theologian, try telling me why that statement Niels said is true. By the way, I'm not telling God what to do, I'm telling people about information of God that is already recorded in the Bible. Theology is what I've studied most, so if you have any questions relating to the subject of theology, I would love to answer them.

Sweet! Unfortunately though he's still in mankind rising and Kurtzgetsatz.

@BUL3L3NG NOOOOOOO WHY? 😭

He was back already 2times today and was already moderated again. 1x he was using insult slurs against about 10 users and now he seems back with another doubleaccount in trying to insult lgbtq+ people. In the past he did also try to mock people of color with dubious black clothing comparisons and impersonating women with misogynist intend, beside impersonating other users and putting dirt on long deceased people. His former fake account "Wheelchair amputee" was also most likely a try to insult disabled people or to provoke mockery. The criminal energy remains off the chart as the vaste majority of his posts are violations against the user agreement of the webpage he agreed on numerous times each time he creates an account.

How does the despicable imbecile not get a lifetime ban??

​@@Triple-Lobotomy-Big-Brain-3 Why didn't you get properly educated in science? 🤭

Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.

*The peak of irony: the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge is using an impersonating, girlish account "maylingng"*

Thanks for you report from Moronville (voting 100% for Drumpf).

Barnaby ap Robert I'm just saying how ridiculous evolution is.

Evolution is proved by every single one of the BILLIONS of fossils found all over the world and all DNA.

This is not your everyday stupid, this is advanced stupid That is in no way what evolution states

Axl K Prz yes it does.

Since when are observations incl. photos of them presented any "fairytale"? There is no belief needed for scientific toolsets.

@@user-tu1co9xl1kAh okay it is just another trolling account of you where you still confuse different people and you still run away from vestigial wings showing evidence of bird evolution ;-) And your sockpuppets denied DNA and the double helix and alleles and so on,

@@user-tu1co9xl1k Your denial of observations by name like the vestigial wing of ostrich evidence for bird evolution shows again how void of sense your trolling remains and your remaining sockpuppets will also be moderated for bearing false witness. As I'm also still not Andrew. ;-)

Yeah, the creationist fairy tales are pretty funny.

Really? I have long been of the opinion that it hasn't advanced since about 450 BCE!

Truth doesn't have to progress,only conjecture...

Same

yep, that is me as well!

I'm 55 and I still haven't lost that childish desire to know everything in the world. I know I can't but I can try.

23

@Mister Fukable Too bad you're lying. The fossil record is spilling over with transitional forms (whales, horses, humans....)

It's against your religion?

ok. disprove it

Science works to expand human knowledge. There are still gaps in modern human knowledge, but religions sprang from primitive human imaginations as their knowledge was all gaps.

You must enjoy being humiliated 24/7/367, right?

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *Why do u try to project ur severe problems on somebody else, Andrew? Look, theists l-augh at u all day long and they have good reasons.*

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *I mean u r the adult who insisted that ostriches have no wings and that's the peak of rtrdtion.*

​@@atheism-themoststupidrel Why do you allow us to constantly humiliate you?

Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.

ForumLight Well, Evolution is actually the BASIS of biology. No matter if YOU think it is anti-science, basically EVERYONE that actually works with science (97,5%), accepts it as one of the strongest explanations in the history of science.

That would be cool :3 any evidence of it?

***** no evidence, just a cool thought.

Science makes determinations only when there is sufficient evidence to do so. There are hypotheses as to how life began, but none rise to the status of a theory. Science has no problem saying 'We don't know'. That is a much more honest answer than pretending that one does know.

The modern belief of the Catholic Church is that evolution (as well as the Big Bang), do not contradict the Bible, and that God is still responsible for the laws of the universe which allow these things to occur.

Pretty much lol.

@Gaurav Mishra the fossil record refuted 5m 4s ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rX9dKwIb1-A.html

SteadFast nEasy Well, well, well.

@Steadfast nEasy. LOL! Do you realize that that video is speaking of million of years? How do you fit the bible's generations on that time span? I will now explain some of the video's inaccuracies: 1 The Cambrian "explosion" took millions of years. 2 It looked like a sudden explosion because: a) At the time there was no previous fossil evidence. That evidence has been found. b) There is a record bias because soft animals don't fossilize easily. 3 Most earth fossil record is devoid of complex organism because it took life billions of years to change the planet's chemical environment. Complex life requires oxygen. 4 The fossil record is fragmentary because fosilization is a rare phenomenon. 5 That "Scientific dissent from Darwinism" comes from the Discovery Institute! I bet those pseudo scientists will gladly accept your donation to "the cause of God".

@GN LOL!!! right back at ya!!! No, the video is refuting millions of years. Citation on your "found" evidence. NOTHING fossilizes easily. That's why it took a sudden catastrophic worldwide event for the depositing of these fossils. That is also why you can call it a rare phenomenom. There is nothing in the "Scientific dissent from Darwin" that YOU can point out to be wrong.

In 2001, Craig Venter made headlines for sequencing the human genome. In 2003, he started mapping the ocean's biodiversity. And now he's created the first synthetic lifeforms -- microorganisms that can produce alternative fuels.

😮🤗😮😯😲😲😲😲WOW!!!!!🤗🤗.....that is impressive

So you're basically admitting there is no god?

@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703Why are you pretending to think that after all the stalking and cloning you’ve done to her, Oscar?

@@maylingng4107don't be too hard on him, he works at the Crick Stop Mini Mart for less than minimum wage

What is asserted in this video is based on evidence. Your creationism is based on fairy tales.

Don't forget Darwin's shuddering fantasy....​@@walkergarya

Creatard, you are a liar and a fool. You mock science with the very tools built with science. You are a hypocrite and loser.@@user-oh7ds8pm1o

"every bit of this is conjecture" Since when is evidence conjecture? Because you want to deny it?

@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Confusing honest people again with yourself, where you use different colored user sockpuppets is your problem. As you deep down know you remain dishonest and that your sins of bearing false witness are not lifted from your shoulders, till you apologize to real humans you try to hurt (God or Jesus is not going to make your sins undone) only apologizing to real people like here in the comment section and showing repent is going to work. First is to actually understand that there is more than 1 person. LOL

This is a video of a whole series of videos - here is part 2 of it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-G4VINRUe_o4.html What is unclear to you? If you need more infos MAYBE you should read a book of that topic.

just go through the comments, you'll get more knowledge about evolution than you learned in your entire life

This is just one of a whole series of short, explanatory videos from Stated Clearly. Check out others at www.statedclearly.com/videos/ I would also recommend the 3 part "Your Inner Fish" series as a good place to start for those seeking a better explanation of evolution. www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/your-inner-fish-series Most RU-vid videos, such as this one, of necessity skip over much evolutionary history due to time constraints, leaving the impression of few evolutionary steps. There is however, a series of short videos of about 10 minutes each, the Systematic Classification of Life series, explaining evolution using taxonomic branches to trace evolutionary relationships. I recommend viewing at least some of the videos, if only to get an idea of the vast numbers of evolutionary changes that have taken place. Here is a link to the series playlist. ru-vid.com/group/PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW

Why do humans and chimps share over 200 ERV markers in the same locations in both genomes? Why have there been three new variations of American Goatsbeard flowers if macro evolution doesn’t happen? Why do antibiotics need to kept up do date with micro organisms if they don’t evolve? How do you explain ring species? Where can I find a single example of a non-transitional fossil? Why does DNA show that some species are more distantly related than others?

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-14jEhdqa5Z4.html

All this evidence doesn't falsify creationionism. One designer therefore similarities.

The real question is why is evolution the answer to these similarities. I dont understand. Ho does this falsify creationism?

​@@mmmM-bl6jk Well, explaining how all life forms can be traced to one, the first. If you follow other equally strong evidence in other fields (physics, chemistry) you realize that the first way of life is a rare but natural process, which occurs in the first earth oceans, here and probably in many other places. Then, you go further, to the origins of the earth, the stars, the galaxy, the universe ... and suddenly you realize, I don't need a god to explain any of this, in the same way I don't need Zeus to explain lighting. , or Poseidon the waves, or Cupid love, or God my existence. God have been almost always there, is simply the easy answer to a question for lazy people, a tale to live happily in the ignorance. Now, i must say that the idea of an intelligence 1000 years more evolve can sound as god to all of us. Science is not about the non existence of god, is about all the possibilities and God is one, but there is not evidence to backed up. My english is not very good, y hope that the text is not a grammatical disaster.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Rav8sfuJFYc.html explain this.

Not even close.

Wrong!

No one is flustered lol. Your god is just as much mythology as odin and zeus

Evolution verified for religious crybabies: DNA scarring occurs when small blocks of DNA units are accidentally deleted or, in other cases, inserted. Insertions and deletions are created by cuts in the DNA followed by reattachment at the cut sites. Like actual scars they have a particular location and profile. Humans and chimps share literally THOUSANDS of such random, accidental scars. Humans share many such scars with all the other primates. The idea that this could have happened by pure coincidence is impossible. It is irrelevant if some of these scars are detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. That this could have originally happened IN EACH SPECIES INDEPENDENTLY is statistically impossible.

So, it is your argument that God produced thousands of broken genes and put them not only into us, his crowning achievement, into our fellow primates as well? Makes sense to me....😊😊 😮😮😮 On second thought, no it doesn't.

There’s evidence of common ancestors, none for your god.

"for example one creator, " The activitiy _to create_ originated AFTER life such as bacteria already existed. This means that creation capabilities are younger in history than life is old. You need to learn how history and the order of events work.

Actually, there are _thousands_ of creation stories, each of which claiming the existence of a quite different 'creator' entity. Primitive peoples could be very _creative_ in that respect.

+NC Polar Coincidence? I think not lol.

NC Polar And that is awesome! People are waking up!

Schools are modern churches. People are told about evolution and stuff, their faith in science is hardened, so we get atheists. Some of them are fundamentalists, like those who bless gods and explode everything, but fundamental atheists don't kill people... by exploding themselves in the name of God. Ofc atheists kill people, they just do it differently. Atheists are same people as christians or muslims. They just do things differently. It's funny to see how atheists replicate things that are done by other "believers". Classic priests convince people that there are God, that Earth is created by a thing that is like us with human type of mind. Teachers tell us that quantum physics is very important to us. I don't try to argue on the line "science vs God", I just stay outside of this line and find it funny.

+Abstract Russian Schools aren't modern churches, you don't need faith in science, that's why it's science. Science requires evidence to prove theories, I don't think you understand lol

They are similar. Everything needs faith. Science is my faith. I just try to be more than just believer in science. All people believe in something and the way how they believe is very similar, they just believe in different things. And the process of education is very similar to what churches were doing hundreds years ago. Why I even thinking about it? Because we are living in the world when it is harder to say that your faith is wrong. Everything seems so clear and noncontradictory, so we forget that the world is just a chaos that we will never understand until we die (and still will not understand). Remember the movie Matrix. We are not living in matrix (but who knows?) we create our own matrix and live within it. And the things from what our matrix is made is other's thoughts that we learned during the life.

These are facts confirmed by the DNA.

No there is no interpretation freedom. We do not talk about something humans have a voice or vote in to say "hahaha I'm able to handwave something away and just imagine in my human mind conicidental similarities and handwaving powers I hold". We talk about exact organ repurposement like hoof feet with hoof astragalus ankle bones to flippers in whales in contrast to pawfeet to flipper adaptations in seals and sealions as caniform landlife to sea variations in that lineage versus birdwings to penguin flippers in the bird land to water adaptation lineage etc. We talk about the observable total lack of all 80+ blowhole whale species known today in every single old mesozoic burial and all paleozoic burials of all countries of the ENTIRE world incl. all old marine and landside deposits. Do you have a cambrian dolphin or bluewhale or a jurassic one found? No, because back the day they were not yet adapted from hoof brood stocks to the water lifestyle. Or do you think that half migrated nose whales like janjucetus and Dorudon exactly in burials before even the first fully blowhole species first appeared ain't observable facts? Or do you think that the readable DNA heridity record ain't the observation humans must nod to? Can you explain why whales still have the olfactory genes to smell scents, but not expressed as the noses are not in front of their faces as they are migrated for surfacing the water purpose? I mean why is scent smelling gene info for the nose like omacs and tomac in whale DNA if not by the hoof ancestry which had the noses in front of their faces? You need to understand that humans do not have denial voices without becoming dishonest with a whole variety of observations. Like a human is unable to belief the Earth is flat or cubeshapes or pyramidshape without active denial of curvature observations and actual globe photos by satellites etc. Only when you think "I interpret everything as conspiracy! Such as all photos are faked by a sinister cabbal...Then I have artificially created a huge enough bubble in which I can deny those parts of reality I do not like and think a cube-Earthshape is wonderful!" Humans do such things indeed.

Yes but nothing said here is a fact but is taught to be fact but how is it fact when it's called the Evolution theory. It's a theory bc we cannot observe thousands to millions of years only interpret what we think happend. Many creatures have similar components but that doesn't mean any type of correlation. Whose to say these creatures aren't just designed that way? Every creature is tuned for their environment (unless they're man made or domesticated)

@@smokedobbs6121 Again we do NOT talk about mere similarities or interpetation space you wish would be there. You also confuse the daily day theory term with the scientific theory term. Like you would confuse the bark of a dog with the bark of a tree. The term theory is in the english language a homonym with opposite meanings. In science it does NOT come from the act to theorize about something. It comes from written summary on paper (modell written down) of known natural laws like the genetic law of independent assortment or the law of monophyly and selection types in nature summarized in Evolution theory. Like you would confuse the practice of driving a car with the theory written on paper how to drive a car. People confuse this all the time, because they have a very bad school education in scientific topics. In schools you learn bogus like first comes a hypothesis or assertion then a theory and then a scientific law. This is NOT how it works. In science first comes the hypothesis/speculation about something, then specific laws are uncovered during research and then the summarization of the revealed laws as framework together on paper is finalized and checked (all the time) and this is then called a scientific theory/model as a toolset with the highest certainty of knowledge about a field. This is why all the time research tries to disproof a theory to win nobel prizes. Like germ theory of disease is the highest form of knowledge about various infections such as bacterial, viral and fungi infections and what medical treatments like vaccinations, antibiotics or anti-fugicides work best for what family or species of germs. Always challenged by new research.

Yeah, genetic analysis proves that.

"were designed that way," Design is a younger activity that did not exist in a distant past time period before lifeforms evolved a certain amount of neuronal complexity to perform the act of designing much later in younger periods of time. "another theory!" Nope, the denial of the young age of the design activity is not another theory it is just not wanting that history has a very certain order of origins after another. Like someone wishes that tanks would be older than horses so that he can imagine that Julius ceasar did drive in a tank into the battlefields of the roman empire and did not ride on horse back. Only that thinking in that type of way does not fly with the evidence, but tries to ignore the very order of historical developments and origins. Like tanks thousands of years AFTER horses were tamed. "maybe God used the same building blocks for some animals!" Animals are not assembled like blocks or pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I'm not sure why people think they can have such absurd denial of giving birth opinions. Animals are born by their parents, which were born by their parents (the grandparents) and so on. The past is not open for fantasy believes in denial of that. Over generations copy errors happen - this means that for example equus broodstocks developed the donkey species variation and the horse species variation and the 3 zebra species over 700,000 generations. As we can read it by genetic clocks in the DNA of the speciated variations. So did the ape broodstock have chimps and humans and bonobos as variations in roughly 375,000 generations. We can read that in the DNA as heridity record as well.

The problem with ascribing the complexity found in living organisms to some imaginary, invisible omnipotent designer is that in order to do so, you simply ignore all of what makes it a really silly idea. Skipping past the fact that your God is both imaginary and invisible, which should put him in the same conversation as the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, there is the issue of extinction. It is estimated that over 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct and that all currently extant species, save a very small fraction of a percentage point will go extinct as well. How can you possibly reconcile this reality with the words "intelligent designer"? Why would a designer continually design living things that will in time no longer exist? Our best estimates are that as many as 4 billion species of plants and animals have lived at some time in the past on this planet. Does it make any sense at all that this imaginary designer went back to the drawing board 4 billion times?

Bwahahahahaha!!!! "MAYBE"????? What kind of reasoning is that? TRUTH is not what you want it to be. TRUTH is determined by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says and not by words in an old book. Science is a search for truth and it does so by following evidence to a conclusion which is initially PROVISIONAL _(a hypothesis)._ As further evidence accumulates in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence. Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science.

Theory means 'factual explanation'. Your design fantasy is just that... a fantasy.

All Gods are imaginary.

Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.

Stop lying, thanks.

1. Similarity between species is evidence of common ancestry NOT a common designer. Why would your common designer (god) include in our genome a broken gene that in other mammals produces vitamin C? Either delete it or fix it. 2. Intelligent Design was proven to be nothing more than intellectual fraud with NO evidence. 3. Even without a complete explanation for origin of life, we already have far more evidence for this process than there is for magical creation. 4. Your claim that macroevolution is an unproven hypothesis is shown to be a lie by the multitude of observed speciation events documented in the scienific literature.

Macro evolution is speciation, which has been observed and testable for decades.

The problem with "common sense" is that it's not very common.

@@happilysecular1833 OK, I will look up speciation, thanks.

This video here is about ALREADY existing life diversification by well known heridity laws. Like how Equus had speciated variations such as the species of horse or the 3 zebra species (Grevy, Steppe and mountain with different chromosome numbers) or the wildass/donkey species adapted to desert mountain terrain. The topic sheds a HUGE light upon how 1 ape broodstock with many thousands of mating pairs had bonobos, chimpanzees and humans as 3 ape variations. So that people understand how ape variations work. This video here is about hoof mammals adapting to the water lifestyle as whales with the hoof feet to whale flippers and the nose to blowhole migration in opposition of the bird to water adaptation as penguins with birdwing to penguin flippers or the canine to the water lifestyle called pinnipeds with pawfeet to seal flipper adaptation. Your question is about origin of the very first cells (without any cellcore and cellorganelles) from already existing already selfreplicating ribocyte ancestral structures. Basic understanding: Lifeforms are still entirely compound of nonliving material. You have neither a magical lifeforce nor some ingredient that would be fundamentally different to nonlivng structures. The term life refers to a set of processes like reproduction, metabolism, food absorption etc. Similar how the term fire or flame refers to a process of burnable compounds in burning reactions (active). So is the origin of life research about how autocatalysis and acid replicators came to be to developed metabolism and to maintain those traits. When you write something: "with all the ingredients and perfect lab conditions can't do it." We do not talk about this topic to be a piece assemble challenge like you would have some dozens of puzzlepieces to glue or stick them as a lifeform together as this is NOT how first life originated. It is a false image. You seem to have a false task/challenge image in your mind when you try to approach the topic and how to solve it. You can't just have the image in your mind that you would be a puzzle piece assembler or a watchmaker or some sort of engineer to fiddle parts laying well sorted next to eachother around nor in a broader sense to be a cook that throws some ingredients into a pot either. You look what acid structures exist like in outerspace or in vulcanic ponds or in hydrothermal vents and so on how those acid structures interact due to laws of physics and chemisty and what conditions allow the structures all by themselves to diversify and to maintain a type of autonome unit. Such as micelles and which acids are able to get caught within the micelle fatbubbles and survive or gain complexity with a long chart you write about hundreds of interlocking of complexity observations where humans have no imagination freedom when it comes to it. Basically like you can also do a chart about needles, cubes or dendritic complexity gain in snowflakes from simplistic water droplets and mindlessly write the gain of complexity in nature down without any human imagination or faith freedom - like a robot to collect the data. Then you look what mechanical parts split fatbubbles, burst them or let maintain them and so on also with another chart you just mindlessly collect data. When you have hundred steps as overview you have a good base to understand how primitive acid replicators work, how they "survive" and so on. This is what the origin of life research is doing. This is long before any DNA becames a reductasis of those earlier RNA structures with the methyluracil (thymine) from the uracil base and so on.

Nobody knows yet, especially not theists. They're not even close. Scientists are not far off though. 😊🖖

The proper definition of evolution is as follows: *"Evolution is any change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."* As you can see, this definition, which is used by all of science clearly implies that there must be something already living to evolve from. This begs the question why you would pose this challenge in the comments of a video about evolution when is it irrelevant to the topic? Are you unaware that evolution does not address life origins? Most people who have some science education understand that the leading life origins hypothesis in Abiogenesis has a great deal of evidence supporting it but is as yet still considered by science to be inconclusive. It appears as if you were not aware of this position held by science either.

Does one need to know how the planet formed in order to understand plate tectonics?

@@DenisK21 two different things.

Nice projection.

The desperation skyrockets when dead researchers are confused with holy people. Especially when creationists are unable to debunk the evidence the researchers presented. So where does the user-oh/David (incl. his sockpuppets) here show the Geospiza Darwin finches or the barnacle research of Darwin to be flawed? The user can't show that. As the observable evidence is unshakable by his ill-mannered behavior. He just tries to attack dead people, who were more honest at the time they were alive than the user is ever going to be in his lifetime where he is proud to be a sinner (also without any salvation). Without lying - the user doesn't get attention. Without bearing of false witness the user can't think about himself as infallible deity detached from mere fallible mortals. Without lying about science he can't pretend that he would be immortal.

You Crickians are the attacker -mockers..... Crickians just can't accept it.... your superstitious belief system is debunked.....

@@Lexi2019AURORA don't be too hard on him, he works at the Crick Stop Mini Mart for less than minimum wage

Making unreasonable demands doesn't refute anything, it just makes you a prick.

​@@DenisK21unreasonable demand.... The single-celled flying spaghetti monster started it all....

@@user-oh7ds8pm1o Get lost, you cancer.

The 80+ species of whales evolved from a hoof artidactyl. For whales the transitional and also mosaic (uncle) forms were _Pakicetus; Nalacetus; Ichthyolestes; Ambulocetus; Gandakasia; Himalayacetus; Andrewsiphius; Attockicetus; Dalanistes; Kutchicetus; Remingtonocetus; Babiacetus; Carolinacetus; Georgiacetus; Natchitochia; Pappocetus; Pontobasileus; Makaracetus; Aegyptocetus; Artiocetus; Crenatocetus; Dhedacetus; Gaviacetus; Indocetus; Maiacetus: Peregocetus; Protocetus; Qaisracetus; Takracetus; Togocetus; Ancalecetus; Chrysocetus; Cynthiacetus; Dorudon; Masracetus; Ocucajea; Pontogeneus; Saghacetus; Stromerius; Supayacetus; Zygorhiza; Basilosaurus; Basiloterus; Eocetus; Platyosphys; Janjucetus; Mammalodon and several more_ incl. semi aquatic (not fully aquatic) shore and beach colony living on beach wobbling whale intermediate with shrunken still visible hindlimbs and tiny backfeet toes (they lived similar to wobbling seals sunbathing at beach colonies) with half migrated noses to the top of the head by their respective names.

@@user-oh7ds8pm1o "The single-celled flying spaghetti monster started it all" Nope the domain of single celled eukaryotes are not FSMs. They are something you can observe under any microscope today. I hope your thinking organ was not attacked by Naegleria.

In a three-way tie for post of the month.

There is no god. We are an evolved species of ape.

You can personally believe that a deity invented evolutionary processes as people can also be convinced a deity caused the strong or weak nuclear interaction to exist or gravity. This is however a subjective faith projected onto the topic. It is not needed for the tools to be used or to work out.

'Close the door and pray to your father who is unseen.' (Matthew 6:5-8). So if he's unseen, HOW ARE WE IN HIS IMAGE, BILLY BOB? Cue banjo music...

Than why aren’t we invisible too?

do you actually take yourself seriously?

You're the one that believes in aliens and it's your side led by one of the greats Francis Crick that concludes such​@@AMC2283

@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703you actually think this floundering weirdo believes in anything you do?

Pay attention, P0S. Einstein wrote, "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him." He also stated, "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

Already been addressed, little one. Try again?

Static State theory....run from the quote, coward​@@DocReasonable

Mt. Improbable is a term for adaptation optima. Evolution does not breach to the top in a step sometimes the top adaptation is not reachable at all. For example hoofmammals with their landlung breathing organs adapted to whales to live 24hours/7 days a week in the water environment. But they were incapable of evolving underwater organs to breathe in water itself. This is a top of a mountain unable to reach without so called DESIGN like a BIOENGINEER creating an underwater breathing organ into a whale or in religious ideas a god to make a miracle to let a whale breathe there. This is why climbing Mt improbable only works through gradual adaptations over adaptation over adaptation. This is why the human lense eye as organ had cup eye ancestry with the blind spot as handicap in our eyes and some downsides, while a designed eye organ would have no remains of the adaptational climbing tour from the cupeye. You most likely know this David, Oscar, Banjo or whatever you call yourself. Meaning you know why there are no design signals or any signs of Jesus etc. in nature for real. This makes you very angry and annoyed, especially against people who are just friendly reminders to be honest with observations. You on the other hand do not care if other people do not commit to sin (like bearing false witness against scientists) as you decided that you go "all in" when it comes to sinning. ;-)

No anger here..... Just using atheist / evolutionist speak 2 Mock the mockers...... And you are one of the mockers Doc.... You are Doc very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very unreasonable aren't you?

@@user-oh7ds8pm1o I'm not doc. I explained you the term you did not understand. And there is still no mocking. Reality is not mocking you. Honest people pointing out that you do not care about observations are also no mocking. You are blinded by hate towards honesty and people who do not share your sinning of bearing of false witness.

You sound so bible-ly when you say "best false witness"..... The only thing you bear is a single celled un-evolved brain...

@@biglongfish9253Observations like the lack of design signals such as underwater breathing mammals or reptiles or water fowls etc. in contrast to merely water adapted landlung variations are not any "games". Nor is this about any human incl. me nor you, simply because reality does not change by pretend or willpower of any human being. You can't understand that, as you never want to be honest with yourself that your "I" is not a deity. Regardless how many times you try to paly an actual game called pretend game. I assume you have this from your father or grandfather, who were most likely children in mind pretending all the time they were authoritative figures, while they were just phony people. Or you had some hallucination like hearing voices in your mind and confusing shizophrenic episodes with talking with Jesus or so. Writing 1000s of comments under dozens of fake names are symptoms of a severe personal issue.

Every generation of every species is an intermediary species. Obviously you do not understand that evolution occurs in populations (not in individuals) at the molecular level. Over thousands of generations the small molecular changes add up to a significant changes and a new species is recognized.

@@maylingng4107 oh, I understand that this is what is believe to be true, I just don't understand how those two nostrils in the picture would gradually make their way up to the top without it entailing a massive structural overhaul of the entire species. You can't change one thing without changing the rest of the body. And those changes don't happen lightly. I understand the idea of small changes accruing over time, but I don't understand how that ties in with most species existing today having remained anatomically unchanged for hundreds of thousand of years. Humans have looked the same for 300,000 years. Let's take a million years then: how radical a change can occur in a million years? Not very. And Purgatorius existed 65 million years before humans. I don't see how you can go from what looks like a squirrel to a human in 65 million years given all that. If someone could please finally explain that to me, that would be great.

@@yuriynekrasov1995 No species alive in any period remains anatomically the same Each generation of every species is different at the molecular level from the previous generation. Evolution (emergence of new species) have been observed in nature and duplicated in the laboratory. Purgatorius is the ancestor from which all primates. IT BECAME EXTINCT MORE than 40 million years ago, succeeded (evolved into) by all the 500 or so primates. Humans definitely do not look the same or identical to humans living 200,000 Years ago.

@@yuriynekrasov1995 Doctor Banjo you ain't a talking orang utan anymore?!

There is no signature or any evidence for any creator. Define that evidence and how do we test that evidence? Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.

Truly spoken like someone that doesn't know thermodynamics.

Not recognizing the avatar, I burst out laughing when I read this mindless crap...then I looked at the user name. So you've returned to have your clueless disingenuous drivel slapped around again. Tell us genius: What is the "law of abiogenesis"? Considering that you just made it up, you can use your own words to describe it for those of us who have actually sat in a science class and have never heard of it.

@@gcmgome prove me wrong Science genius

@@gcmgome At the time when Louis Pasteur, was in the process of proving spontaneous generation to be as stupid as a flat earth, Huxley was forced to rename his position, he had to bring it out of the ridiculous, so he termed it. “ abiogenesis”. 🤣🤣 To justify his newly coined word and justify his position Huxley wrote this absurdly “unscientific” piece of puerile crap. “when the Earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancey, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter”.’ (Biogenesis and Abiogenesis, in Huxley, Thomas, Critiques and addresses, Macmillan, London, UK, 1873 So there you have it mr science denier the birth of the word abiogenesis.

We had those topics numerous times you just ignored as you do not want that your feelings are revealed to be void of any actual meaning when it comes to all of those topics. Example: Spontaneous generation was debunked by abiogenesis and how ribocytes work mechanistically. That you think the term abiogenesis would be just some new name for spontaneous cell from thin air poofing-into-being WITHOUT the acid precursors does show that you, the user behind the name "paddingtonbear", decided by your free choice to deny what topics are even about and what terms even mean to begin with. This is like you would fully on purpose confuse mountains with an anthill. This is why you do not understand how evolution is not about a human assembling from jigsaw puzzle pieces like a lung organ of a human and a liver and arms and legs and the stomach to be glued together by pure happenstances, but that it is how EXACTLY ape adaptations work by named ape info gene mutations to human look. Like the ape snout and muzzle face flattening and skull enlargement by their gene names. You are just really REALLY annoyed that your believes are logically impossible with thoughtorgan lacking thinkers (angels, god/s, souls) and that you can't have magic and miracles in this world. It reminds you that humans incl. me and you are finite and come to be and cease to be.

Sadly, he is the product of a long series of incestuous relationships.

Reality