because the best argument of darwinian evolution are insults and fear to ridicule.

uhhh few problems maybe stop drinking the koolaid for starters 1. darwin got evolution wrong by a lot, noone follows his models today he was just the first one to get shit started properly 2. evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains these facts 3. this video is misleading never go into a youtube video thinking you will understand anything I suggest going to a university, taking a class (they are usually free) or calling a professor up when they have free time and ask them questions

@@Xarai , evolution as an organism generates mutations and changes, yes, but as an organism that has enough mutation to change into another species, like a frog to a fish at a DNA level has never been observed, modern theories of evolution just assume a lot, but a lot, to the level of calling these assumptions "facts". but don't worry we are the minority here.

@@TheSebastianML the law of monophyly says that you cant outgrow your ancestry. your strawman of a frog to a fish would disprove evolution. so like I thought you drank the koolaid like you were dying of thirst

You, and all the people that denies evolution (a scientific fact) are... not idiots... but delusional.

The more we understand about the complexity of genetics, the harder it is to accept that evolution as a theory is possible.

​@@jesseyoung9654It's the inverse actually. Genetics has only ever strengthened evolution.

Our human nature doesn't change lol why is so hard for some to understand this 😂​@@thejabberwocky2819

@@thejabberwocky2819 Which model of evolution did genetics strengthen? Not all models agree with universal common ancestry like Darwin originally pre-supposed.

@@tahabennett7388 you made a valid point. it's true not all models agree with universal common ancestry. but you will be surprised to know that the overwhelming majority of genetic evidence supports the theory of universal common ancestry. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has been expanded and refined, but the core idea of common descent remains strongly supported by genetic evidence.

You appear not to have the faintest idea what you’re talking about. What’s that like?

Technically true, but not a great argument. People like you are why we creationists are laughed at in the face of science. SMH.

@@mcmanustony - Sorry we forgot to reject all biology and medicine after hearing your infinite wisdom, apologies. What would the world be without idiots?

depends on who you talk to. it’s commonly accepted as indirect evidence and implication for atheism and naturalistic origin

@@backbeatben Where did I say anything about atheism? And no it doesn't depend on who you ask. Well OK, the people who group abiogenesis in with evolution, don't know what they are talking about. So yeah, in that sense it depends on whether you ask a person with scientific knowledge or not . Because abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.

@@backbeatben when you make someone's argument for them and tell them what they believe than you are making a Straw Man fallacy. Additionally it is best to ask the most expert scientist what a formal theory states; not just a lot of people. Evolution makes no claims other than "animals change over time". If an athiest uses evolution theory so be it. Many people believe in God and evolution so it is not exclusive. If an athiest also uses abiogenesis as a second argument that doesn't mean that they are the same theory; they are just approaching the discussion from multiple angles. If an athiest also uses mass disease and famine as evidence against the God claim that doesn't mean that suffering is part of evolution now does it? If evolution does in fact preclude God that is not evidence for athiesm but evidence against God. Attempting to disprove evolution does not prove god. The doubt is still on the original claim even if disputes are thrown out.

@@righty-o3585 correct, thanks for confirming my statement lol

evolution needed to begin somewhere, and you cant get to evolution without a sensible beginning. Its like having a car and then say well where did that car originate and how did it get there. It needed a beginning and no naturalistic explanation explains it

"It's relatives that remained were quite different"! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Yet you assume that the ASSUMED "HOMOLOGOUS TRAITS" were ANCESTRALLY relevant because of your BIAS...not necessarily because they could have evolved as such from one another. You ASSUME BY FAITH they were.

Want to take a guess at the odds of creating a single protein spontaneously from non life?

@@jaysmith6863 The MYTHOLOGY of naturalism perpetuates the LIES of BUILDING life from non-life and increased functional information via the ACCIDENT OF THE GAPS FALLACY! They merely pretend like silly children that these things happen "naturally" while the actual UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE proves it CAN'T! Did you read the papers by Dr. Douglas Axe or his book? Regardless, it is EASY to show the statistical analysis of the likelihood of an average protein made with 200 amino acids. Make sure you account for the UNLIKELIHOOD of not just the amino acid, but also the chiraltiy! Only a NONTHINKER pretends it is possible for DNA CODE to self-create and self-assemble into cells ACCIDENTALLY! How ridiculous!🙄🤣🤣🤣

@@jaysmith6863 I wasn't arguing about abiogenesis. Also, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it automatically didn't happen.

@@trilobite3120 Your right it is possible however astronomically improbable to randomly make a single useful protein. Then you realize how many proteins are in a simple species, and there isn't enough time in the universe even by evolutionary accounts.

I know? Creationist be like "oh there is X animal that science doesn't completely understand how it evolved" but the fact that there is tons upon tons of animals that can be proved unequivocally to change gradually over time poses a problem orders of magnitude bigger to their "theory" than whatever evolution has to deal with. At least science is honest when it comes to not understanding something.

​@@heikkiaho6605They are completely conclusive. What are you even taking about?

​@marcossidoruk8033 Hmmm, horse, elephant, dogs, etc. may have gradually changed, but NEVER into a different species. Look at dogs, we've taken basically a wolf and now we have Shitzu's. No cats, though, still a dog.

@@steve-wf3rm Demonstrably false. Two animals are considered to be of different species if they cannot reproduce with eachother, the process of two group of animals changing over time to the point they can no longer reproduce with eachother is called speciation and it has been observed to happen by humans. So you are objectively wrong. What many evolution deniers do as a consequence of this is saying that "an animal of one *kind* cannot change into an animal of another *kind*" the definition of "kind" being kept intentionally ambiguous such that it always coincides with whatever change cannot possibly be observed to happen during the span of human civilization. I shouldn't even need to tell you why this kind of argument is completely fallacious, the word "kind" is being kept as a moving goalpost, whatever is observed by scientists the definition will be changed accordingly by deniers so that a change of kind will never be observed. Speaking about the span of human civilization, humans have only existed for about 60.000 years, writing being about 3000 years old while the earth is 4 billion years old and life is believed by scientists to be almost as old as the earth itself. I don't think you comprehend how ridiculously different those timescales are, this is relevant because a critical component of the theory of evolution is that animals change gradually over time. If someone told you that they observed a bacteria change into a house cat in the span of 10.000 years that would not be evidence for the theory of evolution, that would be evidence against it because that is not a gradual change in the geological timeline and thus it couldn't be possibly explained by natural selection.

@marcossidoruk8033 You have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution is scientifically impossible, period. Living organisms can not come from non-living matter. The fossil record disproves evolution. Our own eye is proof that evolution is impossible. It's just your faith, a type of religion, so to speak for individuals who can not conceive intelligent design.

There is a mountain of evidence. Faith is not involved: this is just a tired old slogan

It takes tons of ignorance not to believe in the truth of evolution.

​@@mcmanustonywhere is this mountain of evidence it's all based on homology and explaining the fossils as evolution being true

@@killerbee6484 The evidence is in fossil collections, in lab experiments, in 250,000 peer reviewed research papers in a dozen and more branches of science over the course of 160 years- of which you've read and understood not a single one. Have you ever opened a book on evolution written by a biologist. If so can you cite it. If not, why the hell are you commenting on a vast subject of which you know precisely nothing?

I was thinking the same. Too many temperature shifts happened. Even oxygen wasn't abundant in the beginning

Evolution is still DEAD

@@lordsiomai Well put! still, if man evolved from APE, why do apes still exist thousands of years later? Should they have not evolved to human by now?

Nobody is arguing that speciation doesn't happen. That's why the environmental 'evolution' is left alone. Also, that's not accounting for the fact that we actually don't know what 'prehistoric' environments would have looked like anyway, as we have no way of testing that, it's just more theories (and our modern models are made presupposing evolution, making it a circular argument). The fact is, evolutions entire basis of life coming from non-life is impossible. And it's entire basis of one KIND of animal turning into another KIND of animal is also not scientific. Neither of these things have ever been observed and can't be recreated, therefore they're not science. There doesn't need to be any more explanation than that, the entire basis for it is impossible. Any example anyone can give of 'evolution' is really just speciation. E.g. Darwin and his finches/turtles. Still a finch. Still a turtle. Just adapted to their environment, nobody is arguing that that doesn't happen. Also, radiometric dating presupposes that the atmosphere has always had a steady state of isotopes, where we know for a fact that can't be possible, so it's unreliable. We can only date something using carbon's half-life if we know how much carbon was in the atmosphere when that creature died. The carbon in the atmosphere is still changing TODAY, we have no clue what it would have looked like thousands of years ago. But, we do know there was significantly more oxygen in the atmosphere considering the fossil records shows gigantic fossilized bugs... thus, there were most likely different levels of carbon in the atmosphere at different times too. It's a bad theory.

I had not heard of the Greek guy.

@@way2jaded1 Neither had I.... I did what the KZfaq poster did not and that is a couple of minutes of research.

Testing

​@@way2jaded1 Miletus was a Greek city in Asia Minor. Atomic theory first appeared in Asia Minor, by the way.. Probably a philosopher from Miletus wrote something about it. I never heard of one , by the way, and I am Greek. So just maybe there were a few lines in another philosopher's book or something...First mentioning of Evolution that I know WITHIN a species was by Saint Basil in his speech about Creation (exaimeron, in Greek). He didn't exactly use the term, but he described a procedure of change WITHIN a species, as a capability that was given to us by God, of course... PS Best known Milesian philosopher was Ekateos.

Old news.

@Dhruva Punde Its because Darwinism goes hand in hadn with todays Secular mindset of the western culture, both Darwinism and Secular as we know it today where born around the French Revolution and its ideologies which Western Civilization uses today.

inspiredme7030 ***whoever study Natural Sciences knows about it, if you really whants to study this branch of science, you will have the answer otherwise just ignore it.***

It's a religion.

​​@@AngelRamirez-zv6qpthen how you think we existed?

@@AngelRamirez-zv6qp umm "foolish" XD

im SURREEE you can tell us why without resorting to personal attacks. Make a video. I'm sure he'll respond!

​@@Pyr0Ben Thats not a bad idea.

@@deaconofbiology6249well it’s been a month now so where is it?

​@@sydn2698 Working on a few vids now. A response to this one is further down the pipeline. First vid on Stephen Meyer will be up tomorrow. Vids will be spaced out every three weeks due to Postdoc time commitments and figuring out how to work vid editing software.

You know what's cuter? Thinking you've outresearched that straw man. That's cute indeed.

If you cannot provide observable evidence of a fish eventually walking on land, I will not trust your faith in Darwin

How? Where is the research where this has been established?

@@danielmartinsson899 if you follow the community many scientists want to replace his theory. Some good articles to read that show the objectionable evidence against it are from the human evolution magazine, 2018 volume 33, Stoeckle &Thaler. The largest DNA study, that shows both animal and human life likely arose at the same time. Which also aligns with the fossil record of Cambrian Explosion. As well as no inter genetic relationship among species. Then a other study that is still on going. The largest evolutionary study on Bacteria. Since Bacteria generations happen 6-7 days what better organism to study the idea of Darwins origin of species. We are up to generation 100k+ in studying the bacteria. What they have found is, yes they adapt to their environment like all life does on this planet. However there are limitations to this adaptation. Because they are still considered e coli bacteria after generations of change, they didn't morph into another type of bacteria or something different. These studies don't are not widely advertised because they go against the status quo. If it doesn't fit the narrative, they are typically swept under the rug.

​@@jaysmith6863 How many of those scientists are biologists?

@@jaysmith6863 Sorry, you think there were humans during the Cambrian? Fish weren't even a thing yet.

@@matteomastrodomenico1231 The geological column is a myth, only exists on paper.

He did see 4:20-4:28

@@cherryannjoseph3671 how many of those are mathematicians?

Darwin didnt come up with alot of this.. it was foisted upon him by what "science community" cousin Galton was far richer and wanted to make black people into monkeys and purge them from polite society (Eugenics) -science believes the big bang (miracle) but have trouble with Father God & his son.. (Miracle)

Your argument presupposes the veracity of evolution. You say we know the pebble was on top of the mountain at some point, and now we know it's down at the bottom. This is begging the question, we actually DON'T know that the pebble was ever at the top of the mountain. Darwinism tries to prove that given the pebble exists at the bottom of the mountain, it must have gotten there by natural means and not by some kind of intelligent force putting it there. Name a single (one) system of coding and decoding that exists on Earth besides DNA that was not designed by an intelligence.

I didn't even read it once I saw how many words you put you really have to put a lot of explanation into your thoughts and that proves that it's b*******

@@user-ie4xv9bu3o I admit that my comments are not written for those with short attention spans.

​@@throckmortensnivel2850 I as a Christian have no reason to deny evolution. The whole thing still would make sense since it's more likely that the whole 1 day = 1000 years is a metaphore since back then 1000 was Seen as a lot. Theologically speaking, God exists outside of time, thus what for him is one day can even be billions of years and I'm not gonna tell God how he should create humanity. TL:DR : I think we christians should let God cook no matter what way he should/would. It doesn't matter wether or not he did it through evolution. If I was him, I think I WOULD make it organized and make it make sense.

@@dominikdurkovsky8318 Honestly, I think the creation science types lack faith. They want science to back there beliefs because they really don't believe it themselves. As far as the time thing, there is even a bible verse that says to God one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day, which I take to mean that time means nothing to God, which makes sense in that if you are indeed eternal, after a while, time would fail to register. What would God do for all those eternities? Perhaps God created the universe in a fit of boredom.

Are you a complete idiot? or were just taught by idiots? Do cars reproduce and give birth to baby cars?

Do you actually believe that anyone thinks that the brain, the liver, left and right hands just randomly emerged from nothing and combined into a human being one day? You can't be serious. The problem with most creationists is that they come up with such ridiculous ideas and somehow use them to argue with actual theories which say absolutely nothing like that. It's like I'd say that creationists are stupid because God could not have created the world in just 24 hours. Do you see my point?

Nature first created a programming language?

@@Mr.BVogel The basic formula in biology is DNA > protein > trait. So the formation of new traits occurs not by random replacement of individual amino acids in DNA chains (against this, there are powerful biological defense mechanisms that reduce the probability of such mutations by several orders of magnitude), but by exchanging entire sections of homologous chromosomes during conjugation in the prophase of the first division of meiosis. For more information, you can read "Chromosomal crossover" on the Internet. This is the main, but not the only mechanism of variability. This is exactly why there are TWO sexes in nature, male and female. Even in plants. Sorry, LGBT + (no). The ability to variability is a key property of life on Earth, a key mechanism for survival in the long term. Yes, there are hermaphrodites, for example, some parasites, for which finding an individual of the opposite sex is an extremely difficult task, but this is an exception to the general rule.

Oh please, it is 'theories'

​@@dougsmith6793 Yes, I know.

True.

Funny how evolution by natural selection does not have that problem. This video is made by paid liars.

KZfaq is satanic and satanic beings are literally filled with parasitical wyrms, possible fallen angels, that really hate God.

any of my comments that has a link to any of LSS's videos are simply hidden by KZfaq's algorithms(so no one can see them. not even me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Hopefully it is trying to stifle this tripe this hogwash

@@Walleyedwosaik care to deal with the contents of the video with science instead of rhetoric?

Repost by Dobermann 89 You do not see changes. You presume the changes you have no way to prove that any of those fish gave birth to another. You are making assumptions.

​@@mohamedlaarabi7148 Considering that one fish disappears after a new similar fish appears, it's really not much of an assumption.

​@@mohamedlaarabi7148 Evolution says that there is very little change in offspring. One species doesn't give birth to another.

​@@matteomastrodomenico1231 provide evidence, record it, upload it on youtube or it's all fairy tale To see and observe is to believe

They don’t. This video is a joke….ignorant lying creationists doing what ignorant lying creationists do. Jackson wheat has uploaded well informed rebuttals of the nonsense posted here.

Not evolution, just Darwin's theory of it

@@lordsiomai nope

I wouldn't necessarily say it categorically disproves evolution, but it casts a lot of doubt of it. Why is anyone who questions evolution immediately called a lying creationist, especially when there are serious concerns with the idea of Darwinian evolution? There is a conversation that needs to be had.

@@Lauren-se5bu many who “question evolution” are not interested in answers. Like Meyer, Wells, Axe…..they are religiously motivated to deny the reality of evolution. The Cambrian poses no issue to the theory of evolution.

Got nothing but respect for you. You're doing a great service to society.

Give me strength. A Christian University? What that when it's at home?

Does someone from those PhDs know the basics of evolutionary biology and genetics? Perhaps they could explain to you why everything stated in this video is dumb.

Why? It's dishonest rubbish.

You do not see changes. You presume the changes you have no way to prove that any of those fish gave birth to another. You are making assumptions.

I fear that you are beating your head against the brick wall of your own blind incomprehension. Your comment makes no sense to anyone, who retains a smidgen of common sense. Sometimes it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open it, and leave no doubt whatsoever. I admire your blind faith though!

@@Dobermann89-dr2rc bruh

@@flixtocicgaming3576 Got a bridge I would like to sell you

Dobermann 89 You did not disprove anything that lollie7141 wrote, you presumed they were no changes during the Cambrian period.

maybe we can say 'we don't know'? in science thats an option right

The question is fallacious. The assumption of evolution is that there is a materialistic explanation for all of history. If it is the case that all we can know and study is what is before us such that it is verifiable and predictive, then it is what it is.

It was revolutionary back then and Wallace came up with too. It is not present theory but was correct enough for that time. Present theory is better and this video was made to people about it.

that is the creationist method. identify some niche with questionable data, or something not known, and propose that one thing as disproving the entire theory. of course what is known fully supports evolution.

@@billjohnson9472 Exactly, you have to evaluate the total balance of evidence, not just look at one problem point, even if it seems to be a very serious one. Dismissing all of the other, non-problematic evidence is also a serious problem! Another good example of this is the fossil record. It is in spectacular, stunning concordance with the sum of scientific knowledge and expectations, but creationists like to focus on a few supposedly problematic fossils, as if that dismisses all the thousands of unproblematic ones.

@@HuckleberryHim I would be interested in an actual articulation of a creationist theory in detail, and how it explains the various types of observed evidence. To my knowledge none have published such a text.

Your desperate attempt to discredit the simple facts of this video by simply trying to state that some animals “that” “existed” (when nobody knows for sure) which never fossilized is funny. 😂😂 like dude your really gonna think someone who understands objective reality is just gonna let that one slide you re-ta-rd

You’re the definition of a sore loser, just take the L and go home quit trying to convince people otherwise of the truth. 😂😂 :/ so sad for you.

Desperate attempt how? Crazy that learned people as yourself would believe something as silly as macro evolution. Slapping millions of years to soften the lie and make people blind to it. You willing to debate?

@Mattand There's a huge difference between the macroevolution where a specie supposed to evolve into a completely different specie, and between the microevolution where a single specie is only adopting to the environment, but doesn't change its fundamental nature as a specie.

@Mattand Not sure how lions and tigers are related, but the main problem is that we still have access to the most primitive of species, which may have various races, but haven't developed into anything more advanced until this day, what makes the macroevolution very unlikely. However, if we take your example with the relation between apes and humans, it's very probable that we share a common humanoid-ancestor, who was still capable of development when the apes were formed.

@Mattand I would agree if you mean that the animal-species which we have today are incapable of development, and all those species share some common features, what suggests that they're related by some common ancestor which was still capable of development when those species were formed, so the only question remains, what kind of ancestor are we talking about.

@Mattand I thought you meant that those animal-species which we have today didn't evolve from each other, but from some proto-specie, which was capable of development, but have gone extinct, otherwise you would be suggesting that those animal-species which we have today are indeed capable of development.

@Mattand I've no issue with various animals and humans sharing common features, and thus a common ancestor, but just wonder what common ancestor/proto-specie you're talking about, since we can still find a whole spectrum of more and less complex species which have remained in their primitive form until this day, what means that their lineage in general is not capable of developing into anything else, hopefully you see the problem.

Take it as read that creationists lie by quote mining- it saves time.

The source seems to be: Gould, S. J. 1980. Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6: 119-130.

Lying is endemic in these videos. Why do you think it is cool to lie like they do?

It's literally a quote in his publication from 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging" Your dogmatic approach to a mere theory lacking evidence is showing😅​@@mcmanustony

​@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yvIt's literally a quote in his publication from 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging" Your dogmatic approach to a mere theory lacking evidence is showing😅​

Interesting, exactly which new proteins evolved with dogs?

@@LongStoryShortVideos before we go further, I want you to understand that evolution is *Descent with Modifications* and thus every new gene or protein or trait or whatever is always a modification of what's already there. Anyway.... Here's an example. Quote: "More surprising were genes for digesting starch. Dogs had four to 30 copies of the gene for amylase, a protein that starts the breakdown of starch in the intestine. Wolves have only two copies, one on each chromosome" *Diet shaped Dog domestication* www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/01/diet-shaped-dog-domestication

Dogs didn't come from wolves. Wolves and the different breeds of dogs were created separately from each other.

@@vesuvandoppelganger citations please.... Thanks 👍

It's simply obvious. Do you really think that if you start out with a group of wolves you will eventually get a Chihuahua or any other breed of dog? Why would that happen? Where is the new genetic information going to come from that will turn a wolf into a certain breed of dog?

Actually no there’s not a shred of evidence for the evolution religion. It was retarded back when chuckles Darwin popularized that stupid joke of a “theory” and it’s even dumber today.

Bullshit. There's not one example of a species giving birth to a new species, especially in quantities capable of continuing the new species. Subspecies are NOT new species, they're adaptations of the same species.

@@OneTruePhreak Yeah I'm not denying that

Be great to hear some of that corroborating evidence, which do you think is the best? Something that shows how the first life began? Something that shows how incredibly complex a simple cell actually is. Something that explains how something so complex as a mitochondrion could 'evolve' before being ingested by a less complex simple cell? Something that explains how a cell could replicate before DNA/RNA (the code to allow the replication) was made. Something that shows how a simple cell could 'evolve' to perform an incredibly complex system of chemical reactions such as 'The Krebs Cycle'. Something that shows how protein machines can simply form out of nothing, each of them having incredibly complicated motor like functions. Something that explains metamorphosis, a process that is impossible to have 'evolved' in stages. Or maybe something that explains not only the Cambrian explosion, but also the other '9' similar explosions of life, where millions of fully formed creatures spontaneously appeared out of nowhere in the fossil record. This includes millions fish, reptiles, birds and mammals without any trace of evolution, no common ancestors or predecessors of any type! Dawkins et al, will never answer the above questions, they ignore them, because they totally debunk evolution! At best, evolution only explains how creatures change over time, but those changes mean that a bird is still a bird, in the same way that we are changing and regardless of how much we change we will still be humans. There is no evidence at all of one species turning into another. All the nonsense about vestigial limbs etc is BS, those so called vestigial hip bones etc are bones necessary for the anchor of muscles to perform sexual functions etc. We've been brain washed since we were kids, and 99% of people only know what they were taught at school during dinosaur lessons and most of it is a lie! Type the hominid name Denisovans into google and an image will appear of a cutesy ape looking thing, but the truth is, it's made up, a fantasy creation by lying evolutionists to try and fool everyone into believing evolution, it has to be made up, because they only fossil remains they have found is a single finger bone and a coupe of teeth! The same goes for almost every hominids you see in the totally false evolution line up from common ancestor to human. They have created full sized semi human looking hominids form just a few fragments of bone. The only skeleton they have is Lucy, which has been proven to be some type of monkey. A simple cell is not simple, proteins are not simple, life cannot have started on its own and evolution is not the answer, it will always be just a theory, which in the true sense of the word, is nothing more than a hypothesis.

But...what if all of that evidence is 100% equivocal to that of ID? Then it comes down to mechanism. The only way to determine if Evolution effectively explains the data (unequivocally) is to demonstrate the naturalistic mechanisms. If those mechanisms cannot be demonstrated, then Evolution should be demoted at least...scrapped at most. We certainly should not be as confident in Evolution as we currently are.

yet both can be observed in short lived, high reproductive bacteria and viruses. By yourself too if you are so inclined.

@@bulkinggod3872 There’s no way random mutation natural selection is adequate to do the job yes we seen mutations do small things curly hair dogs short dogs anti-resistant bacteria to antibiotics but that’s all it does mathematicians do the calculations they said it’s so improbable that it did not happen anywhere else in the universe but go ahead believe it believe they found the mechanism and then I will believe a 90 pound weakling bench press the entire earth

@@MMAGUY13 yes but death and birth are also factors. Im sure you have met (or yourself) people that don't look like their parents, and that is only one generation.

​​@@bulkinggod3872but they are still humans lol

@@purelyrandom1230 yes and little by little it changes the same way you grew up little by little. Unnoticeable unless you take a larger timeframe.

Why are all life symmetrical?

"if it's so difficult for scientists to prove what they want to believe..." he's already wrong. that's not what scientists do. they literally look for ways to disprove their hypothesis.

That's not even true. No claimed transitional fossil is provably phylogenetically related to any extant organism.

@@sliglusamelius8578 if you have evidence refuting evolution from paleontology bring it on. Science doesn't deal with proof it deals in evidence. You don't have any evidence. We do. We win.

@@mcmanustony You are making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you. You don't have it. There is no provably phylogenetic linkage of all extant fauna back to a common ancestor, let alone single-celled organisms. Prove it, the burden is yours, not mine..

@@mcmanustony Off the top of my head, some icons of evolution that were proved false: Vestigial organs such as human yolk sacs and appendixes and tail bones (😂) Bad design such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Neanderthals being a different species from H sapiens. Domestic dogs being descended from gray wolves. Peppered moth narrative. Eugenics. (that's a very bad claim from YOUR side, own it). Pakicetus being a transitional fossil. Piltdown and Nebraska Man. Pathetic bunch of lies..

@@mcmanustony That is false. There is no proof of the concept of the phylogenetic linkage of all extant fauna back to a common ancestor. The burden of proof is on you..

Where’s your evidence fir that claim?

@@peteconrad2077 Ther hasn't been nearly enough time. See... Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory...

@@TheStarflight41 that’s another claim. Got any evidence? We know you haven’t but worth asking.

There's only one model with one specific definition.

You're right except Darwinian Evolution isn't the most popular. Modern Synthesis is. Darwin believed something like that you had little floating miniature organs and when you lost an arm your children would grow with a smaller arm. He had no clue about genetics or heritance. But we still respect him because he layed the foundation for what we have now

@@andrewenderfrost8161 ??? That is not what darwin said at all, he proposed that traits that improved a species’ chance at survival would be found in their descendants

@@andrewenderfrost8161 Do you even know what evolution is?

@Abdullah There's only one theory with one definition, changes in alleles frequencies over generations in populations. You don't know what evolution is.

But both are contained in the same theory the origins of life.

@@shadowknightgladstay4856 no the origins of species not the origins of life , no body even knows how life started on earth

@@user-fq1kd7xo1n Then that makes it even easier to discredit. Life and conciousness are even greater mysteries with evolution as the model, But they are considered incorrectly the same in evolution theory, Evolution says life started from many chemical reactions before bacteria. it is actually.... the same argument to them.

​@@jsbaldo5556 this is like discrediting all computer peograming because nobody agrees wwere thw first computer was actually prosuced.

@@spinosaurusstriker Eh that's a red haring, doesn't play well with the argument at all.

macro evolution happens XD sorry bud (btw no such thing as macro and micro they are both just evolution)

@@Xarai it doesn't really happen though.

I hope you realize other often better early hominin fossils exist. They also demonstrate arms shorter than or similar in length to the legs and hips, femur angles, and knee joints consistent with bipedalism. If Lucy is anything like her close relatives then the reconstruction is more or less accurate. The pelvis as found was in an anatomically impossible position. The reworking was necessary to restore the bone to it’s original form.

@@Xarai there's no such thing as evolution it's made up and you believe in it , if evolution is true everything formed from molten rock not Lucy or whatever some guy in a lab coat tells you, your faith is in man and man will not save you

@@JROCK100ification evolution is a biological science. Rocks arent biological

you got it: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/otFhmqeclt2rmIU.html

@@LongStoryShortVideos bro I already watched your video before you even send me the link I recognized your voice. Im huge fan of your work and style.

@@LongStoryShortVideos bro keep making videos ignore these evolutionist coz they mock others believe but once we moke their video they get really mad.

@@LongStoryShortVideos When it comes to *Common Ancestry* , it's difficult to know how much of it *Intelligent Design* Proponents accept since there's no consensus among them. Now you argue that using Homology as evidence of Common Ancestry is circular reasoning..... however you employed that same *"circular reasoning"* when comparing different humans. It seems to me that ID Proponents will only dispute that *Homology is evidence of common ancestry* when discussing organisms they don't accept are related (Humans and Bats), but would happily entertain the argument when discussing organisms they accept are related (Tiger ane Lion). I just wanted to when exactly is using Homology as evidence of common ancestry acceptable, and when it becomes fallacious....... Because it'll be pretty entertaining to see how ID Proponents will classify extinct organisms like *Trilobites* without invoking the same argument they're arguing against.

​@@Call_Me_Emo1 Similarity between siblings etc. is not circular because we are not using it as evidence, sorry thought that was obvious, we know they're brothers already and then can reason from there. The evidence they're related is that brothers tend to have the same mom or dad. Homology, when defined in terms of common ancestry can never then be used as evidence for common ancestry, that's the definition of circular reasoning. It goes for any topic as well. You can say X because X, that's incoherent. This is what the NCSE says as well, homology isn't really evidence at all, the evidence is supposedly drawn from DNA etc. (but as explained there are problems there as well).

who, which book?

@@deepsilence003 On The Origins of Species. He literally says the answers in the following sentences.

@@ClarenceThompkins What about the problems arised after DNA was discovered?

@@deepsilence003 would you be willing to share because I haven't heard of any

@@deepsilence003what “problems”? Genetics has overwhelmingly shown that Darwin was essentially correct

Listen again starting at 5:50. Think about it. Natural selection was not at work during the formation of the first self-replicating organism. The simplest self-replicating cell requires a minimum of 531,000 base pairs. Why would random accidental chemical collisions continue stacking more than 2 or 3 base pairs? Remember, this is undirected chaos. It does not maintain partially successful attempts as though it has a pattern or goal in mind. What if on the 10,000th stack, it suddenly includes a hetero-chiral molecule. It has to start completely all over again. Then if it gets that right (which is impossible) it must wait for the bi-layer, semipermeable, gate-keeping membrane to come along and enclose it to protect it. And it can't wait. Time is its enemy. Such a fragile molecule would not last 10 minutes if unprotected. And - o yeah - it must be immediately provided with thousands of ATP synthase machines (equally impossible) to provide energy, and a waste disposal system, tRNA to copy DNA data and transfer it to Ribosomes so they can make proteins. And perhaps the hardest of all, the DNA data must become possessed by an information system comparable to Microsoft Windows, to coordinate the incredibly complex machinery necessary for that first cell to reproduce. Oh, did I say reproduce? Think metaphase, anaphase, and telephase just to get the cell to reproduce. Think about an information system accidentally coming along and possessing the genomic data, and directing to start an explosion of cells that can build deer antlers every year, or a sonar system in dolphins, or radar in bats, kidneys, pituitary glands, feathered wings, sexual reproduction with its attendant incredibly complex hormones, etc. ad infinitum. The point is that even if you give Evolutionists an almost infinitely complex cell to begin with (trashing the Law of Biogenesis) it can not multiply complexity, energy state and organization (trashing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by some kind of anti-entropic magic) to cause intra-species evolution. The takeaway is it is totally unreasonable to believe all of this could happen by chance. And this is where it gets scary. If it did not happen by chance, the only other game in town is Intelligent Design. And that requires an Intelligent Designer (Who, considering the incredible complexity and fine-tuning of His creation is practically omniscient). And what if He created it perfect in every way, only to have it hacked into by one of His very own created beings causing chaos, death, pain, suffering, and all that stuff? What if The Creator was so benevolent that He offered the blood of His own Son as an atonement for those who had fallen under the power and ways of the evil hacker. What if He wrote a Book explaining all of this. What if He said in that Book, "All who come to Me, I will in no wise cast out." What if He said that He "so loved the world that whosoever believes Him would never perish, but have eternal life." I humbly submit to you that these five "what ifs" are indeed true. I humbly submit to you that macro-evolution is a dead-end religion, designed to lead you away from the Creator. I humbly beg you to talk to Him about it and be reconciled to Him. Rob

@@robertecarpenter You could have left this comment sooner. I had to figure out on my own (and it wasn't easy, this channel is pretty disingenuous in its aims) that this whole thing is just bait for people who want to believe in god without losing the privilege of feeling like they're smarter than other people, but aren't dumb enough to do that with the standard narrative. It doesn't actually matter whether there are gaps in scientists' understanding of abiogenesis and/or the mechanisms behind mutation; you're not even creating gaps big enough for god to fit in, you're just creating gaps big enough for you to *pretend* god fits. Even if it were proven completely physically infeasible for life to exist naturally, anyone claiming to know anything particular about the nature of the divine would be lying out their ass, and that's *always* what this is: just another way for people to justify their highly specific dogma by manufacturing holes all over anything that doesn't fit in with their idea of the world. You clearly don't have the maturity to say those dreaded words: "I don't know and I can't know and anything that looks like a source of knowledge on this is actively terrible with a probability that rounds up to 100% and should be completely distrusted." Those only words which can ever be honest about this. But that's not what you're here for, that's not what anybody's here for. They either got here by accident or because KZfaq thought it would work as engagement bait for them (they were right in my case) or because they're just like you, ravenously searching the world for whatever shallow excuse you can find to shun the views of the unfaithful as naive and unlearned.

@@robertecarpenter Side note, it's not too hard to think that you're just repeating a pile of stuff you heard in some book or blog or something. Something that breaks the second law of thermodynamics? You'd have to have something constantly putting energy into the system from externally, which doesn't make sense, right? There'd have to just be some kinda big glowing orb in space beaming down energy constantly, how absurd. Ugh, at least the video itself had what it took to make the blatant factual errors obvious only to someone with more education than me. You have no imagination for how things could be, as if the first self-replicating organism must have been extraordinarily complex - no, surely it was much simpler than the simplest known organism; maybe we will find it someday, but probably not. Someday somebody will figure out how to bring the whole thing down from unreasonable odds to astronomical odds and if it happens during your lifetime you'll move on to something else as if this all never happened, or deny it fervently by some technicality you believe to be a slam dunk. But as rough as it is, and trust me I know it is, there is no magic, only that which is yet to be understood and that which is lost to time.

The takeaway is that evolution has problems. And maybe don’t believe everything from authority.

@@tylerwinter512 Well, that's certainly the intended takeaway.

But wrong.

@@peteconrad2077 Back up your statement.

@@shaunmeyer8822 hard to know where to start as it’s all lies. But let’s start with the Cambrian fossils. The Cambrian change actuality took place over tens of millions of years. It wasn’t sudden. And many of the Cambrian forms were similar to Precambrian structures. It’s just that Precambrian structures were much less prone to fossilisation because they were soft bodied. The development of skeletons increased the likelihood of fossilisation and also made many new complex forms possible. If you look at the Cambrian explosion critically then there’s no mystery. Then let’s look at their probability claims. Utter garbage again. These calculations are well known and were calculated with pure undirected random probability which isn’t relevant because natural selection makes it a non random process. The difference will change the calculation by many orders of magnitude. One of the most compelling arguments against creationism is the degree to which its proponents have to lie to promote it.

@@peteconrad2077 Did you even do research before saying their calculations are garbage(did you even watch the video)? EVOLUTION IS 100% BASED ON RANDOM MUTATIONS. natural selection just filters the good ones from the bad ones.

@@shaunmeyer8822 would it kill you to open a fucking book?

Correct, mutations are not entirely random. It is an outdated idea that doesn't make a lot of sense. Creationists try to use concepts that have been disproved by scientists to disprove science...lolol

With the human and giraffe examples you cite above, you're not really talking about evolution. At the end of both those sequences, you still have humans and giraffes. You've just depleted the gene pool of "tall" genes, and now you have short humans and short giraffes. They're not a new species. Same idea with the land/sea question - if you have an amphibious creature that starts living more on land, it will likely breed out the aquatic traits. In that case, you've depleted the gene pool, not added new traits.

Under his theory all life forms arose from one single cell bacterium ancestor. Again, that is “all” life forms from mushrooms, grass, bananas to humans. Yes, his theory propositions that all species of life that ever lived arose from this single celled organism that arose from random acts of nature. However, under this naturalistic framework it also necessitates that this first life form arose randomly. Good luck in finding any neo-darwinist who believes otherwise. It’s like a religious person stating the story of Noah placing animals on the arc never mentions a miracle having occurred. That would be true but clearly it necessitates a miracle. Lastly, you seem to be out of loop with the standard thought which goes even further. According to the standard model, all life not only arose from the same bacterium organism which was the product of random acts of nature, it too is result of our entire universe arising from an random act. Now consider that. The Big Bang states that the entire universe came into existence from nothing. For you to object to Darwin not explaining the origin, but instead change shows that you are simply repeating talking points that mis the greater implications of the standard origins models.

@Reformed Hillbillies That's irrelevant to my OP. Why do you deny something you know nothing about?

@Reformed Hillbillies Yes. Your first reply proves you know nothing about evolution.

@Reformed Hillbillies Biodiversity.

@Reformed Hillbillies That's not a refutation.

@Reformed Hillbillies You proclaiming something is definitely not. You at least need an argument.

@BrighterThanGold that doesn't debunk evolution. Evolution does not depend on how well tissue fossilises. The fact that you never find t-rex skeletons with sloth skeletons or stegosaurus skeletons does help verify evolution.

@Ise River Please explain which fossils agree with evolution. The entire fossil record flies in the face of macro evolution.

@@Ethan-mv2un macro and micro evolution are the same thing. And all fossils agree with evolution, because all fossils transition. You'll never find a t-rex skeleton with a mammoth skeleton.

@@iseriver3982 dude, you just keep making these statements but have no idea what you're saying. 1. They are not the same. Micro evolution can be explained as variation and adaptation to an environment. Macro is the dramatic change of an organism to another type of organism. 2. Fossils do not transition, please reference an example? There are huge gaps and distinct differences between fossils from different time periods, with no real links to explain a gradual change. 3. I have no idea why you're talking about mammoths and Tyrannosaurus.

@@Ethan-mv2un you have no idea because you aren't as smart as you like to think you are. You will never find t-rex fossils with mammoth fossils because mammoths evolved after the T-Rex went extinct. We have many transitional fossils showing the evolution of t-rex and mammoths. But you ignore those. And macro and micro evolution are the same thing. You can't have one without the other, it's two ends of the same spectrum.

Because it’s full of shit. Anti science creationist nonsense

Read the comment section and you know why. But I feel you!

But wrong.

@Mattand or we share common designer.

It is right.

@@peteconrad2077 yeah what ever buddy

@@muaath. can you offer any evidence that it isn’t?

@@peteconrad2077 i mean I could but unfortunately its not in English you should do your own research I’m pretty sure you’ll find a lot of interesting stuff And you should check out a movie called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed it is not evidence i think its a good movie to watch and its related to the subject

What’s the punishment for apostasy? You god is pretty thin skinned too.

Charles Bickel, you wrote, "What’s the punishment for apostasy? You god is pretty thin skinned too." Haven't you read? My God is longsuffering. Dan

@@BibleResearchTools your god doesnt exist sooo i think you are the one suffering for so long

Xarai wrote, "@Bible Research Tools your god doesnt exist sooo i think you are the one suffering for so long" Who brainwashed you, kid? Dan

@@Xarai your evolution isn't even real, because according to scientists liquid water, right atmosphere, right distance from the sun, life giving cycles etc. Were all responsible for supporting life here on earth, but can you tell me brother, because if wee HUMANS AND EARTHLY ANIMALS AND EARTHLY LIFE needs all these conditions to survive and evolve then in other planets there must be other species and other form of life which find atmosphere of that planet suitable, BUT...... the PROBLEM is that even planets most similar to earth don't have life as we HUMAN BEINGS, if there may be some tiny living creatures, then why aren't they EVOLVING??

Upon further investigation, ie: the long replies to pin comment, it seems fine. Please correct me and ill see it in my notifs if im wrong.

Pickle Rick i got your comment in a notification, it seems to have been removed either by the creator or youtube, either way i saw it, thanks for the clarification.

​@@DeXyferoit's just propaganda sponsored by the Discovery Institute

Not quite, revisit the genetic makeup of the KhoiSan people, and reboot your understanding of the Out Of Africa theory, then you can say “Ooh, Genetic Drift!” 😂

​@@roberttormey4312 No, it's still evolution. Your woo isn't replacing it.

From a middle brownish starting point you can easily reach all colors. That's how.

klhcc, you wrote, "If 'intelligent design' is to be taken seriously, give us some convincing evidence for the existence of 'intelligent designer(s)'. If the response is "it's invisible" or "it doesn't manifest in reality", you shouldn't accept it either. Until a viable alternative is presented, you'll have to forgive unbelievers for accepting a well-established, real-world Theory about how life on earth continues to work." There are only two possibilities for the existence of complex life forms, klhcc: 1) an intelligent creator, or 2) magic. Pick one. Dan

@@BibleResearchTools "an intelligent creator, or 2) magic" - I see what you did there - very good. It might help to know what you mean by 'life'. How do you define it? As far as I know, we don't have a clear definition as there are such a vast range of possibilities which come from observing nature. Can the perspective of 'intelligent design' help clarify this at all?

itsasin1969, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Fool." Clever. Are you in grade school? ================== itsasin1969, you listed what you believe are lines of evidence for evolution: "Comparative anatomy embryology and development Fossil record DNA comparison, Species distribution Evolution observed today Predictive power of evolution, nested hierarchies of traits.' None of those can be scientifically classified as evidence specific to evolution. You must first rely on faith that evolution actually occurred. Further, the fossil record falsifies evolution with disparity before diversity, and abrupt appearance followed by stasis; and there is not a single unquestionable transitional line to be found anywhere on earth. If that is not enough strikes against evolution, the so-called index fossils are all of marine origin, which indicates they were deposited by one or more global floods. ================= itsasin1969, you wrote, "Here is 11 min of one of the best evidence for evolution I have ever seen. Spend 11 min and take it all in. You are free to believe whatever your want. But remember, just because you don't understand something,, doesn't mean expert scientific consensus can't. Or that your lack of understanding would be evidence against evolution or have any impact on the outcome of scientific consensus." One must have a vivid imagination to believe in whale evolution, especially as imagined by Gingrich and Thewissen. This is an old video of Gingerich on the Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus. His part in the segment begins about the 13:55 mark: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y6lkerZe17SrfWw.htmlm28s These are short videos of Hans Thewissen on the Ambulocetus: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iZqXoMh6nrqqe3U.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q8mTl8ifmNidaHU.html If anything, make note of the creative artwork in the museum exhibits that seem to be intentionally designed to deceive. ================= itsasin1969, you wrote, "Also if you are not up to speed on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District? If not you have no business opening your mouth on this subject. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ba6KraqJ07-wZX0.html&ab_channel=ChristopherHitchslap" Yes, I am up to speed on the Dover "science" show, in which a federal "judge" determined what is and what is not science (while copy/pasting arguments from the ACLU briefs.) LOL! I must admit, that is funny, but it has nothing to do with science. I was always taught that the scientific method determined what is and what is not science. Perhaps I am "old-school." If I were you, I would drop the "Dover" argument. It makes you look like a fool. BTW, your link didn't work., and you posted this multiple times. Repeating the same nonsense over and over again makes you look desperate. Dan

klhcc, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools "an intelligent creator, or 2) magic" - I see what you did there - very good. It might help to know what you mean by 'life'. How do you define it?" No one can adequately define it, but we know it when we see it. ============= klhcc, you wrote, "As far as I know, we don't have a clear definition as there are such a vast range of possibilities which come from observing nature. Can the perspective of 'intelligent design' help clarify this at all?" I am a creationist, not an ID'er; but I am aware that there is no way that the vast quantities of coordinated, symbiotic information found in even the simplest of organisms could have assembled itself by pure chance. Even Gould and Dawkins were aware of that limitation when they introduced (or, rather, "smuggled") intelligent design into their examples of "cumulative selection" (under the pretense that they were demonstrating evolution.) Dan

@@BibleResearchTools Re defining life, "we know it when we see it". Maybe once you realise the inadequacy of that answer, you'll start to appreciate that the scientific method is our best route to understanding the workings of the cosmos.

Well it does

And dishonest

Yes it's a shame

Seems to point to intelligent design. If the creator of the video believes it, he did a really good job of hiding his bias.

Seems to be trying not to waist his time trying to force you to believe things but show you the problems in certain beliefs

I think you’re missing the broader point of the video, which to me is “why is it not okay to question the theories that are taught and defended as if they were laws”? For example. Sauropod dinosaurs. How could something like that exist? On plants? We’re talking caloric needs in the hundreds of thousands a day. The only reason Blue whales can do it is because of their efficiency, they can eat almost 500,000 calories in one mouthful of Krill. Something that walks around carrying dozens of thousands of tons of weight chewing on plants?!? That’s preposterous and absurd even more so when you consider that nothing but bone fragments of these proposed giants have ever been found and that literally every skeleton in the museums millions visit a year are simply artistic representations of what they should look like based on our “best guess”. What about megalodon? They base its size estimates on teeth that have been found by assuming it’s tooth-body size ratio is comparable to a great white. Ever see a hammerheads teeth? That size extrapolation method Ain’t exactly gonna work here with a giant hammerhead shark… Evolutionary biology and Paleontology get away with so much unscientific BS because they adhere to the rules of the founders from over 100 years ago. The dinosaur race of the late 1800’s was basically two frauds trying to outdo each other for what were essentially carnival side shows. Claiming to have found the next giant bone that belonged to some monstrosity of the ancient past. Were they all? Probably not, but it was a Victorian dick measuring contest played out via newspapers and magazines.

@@joshuapatrick682 Sauropods didn’t move very much, they lived in densely forested regions, and there is a long portion of the book of job in which a very similar creature is described and called behemoth.

@@joshuapatrick682 Man I dont think evolution is plausible either but theres more than just fragments to go by in the case of the sauropods. After all one was even mentioned in the Bible. That's neither here nor there though. I think with the megalodon the estimated size may be exaggerated a little but something that could carry a tooth like that similar to the make of a great white's probably existed at the relative given proportion and could easily sustain itself.

Over 150,000,000 humans were born in 2021 with many mutations, that's far more than any supposedly "neanderthals" that ever existed throughout time. Why haven't humans evolved into another species??

@rs72098 That's perfectly in line with evolution, the problem is that you have no idea what evolution is.

I don't think so. I also don't think having questions about the theory indicate a rejection of it.

@RDE Lutherie I was merely being charitable. Apologetics are not about the truth, they are about defending the faith

@RDE Lutherie I never deleted it. Permaybe haps the owner of this channels is trying to fuck with us with shadow deletion of comments. That would fit the mold of the dishonest piece of shit that runs this channel.

Confirmed. That comment you said I deleted is still visible when I am logged in but not when I am logged out.

@RDE Lutherie Yeah, that's not what happened. I don't have anything to prove here though. I never deleted it and it is visible in Firefox but not Edge. I never ever logged in to my youtube account in Edge so that is not what happened. I could uoload an screen cap but I just don't care enough to. If you think I'm lying about something as stupid as this then you are even more ridiculous than the shithead who runs this channel.

@RDE Lutherie Well if you use Firefox, then you should know that is clears the cache every time you close it. Cached pages was useful in a time when everyone was on dial up and didn't want to wait 16 years for a page to load. The only point of dispute I had with you was your contention that I deleted my comment. I told you I didn't. FYI, youtube uploaders have the ability to mask comments in such a way that the person who made them can still see them but no one else can. It's is called on some places shadow banning. I have a problem with the person who made this video. But my problem with YOU is that instead of acknowledging that my comments are being fucked with, you made a claim that I don't understand page caching in an era where it is utterly obsolete.

The odds of a given ticket winning the lottery jackpot are very different than there being a winner.

You are the fact checker, don’t be lazy, go read the works and form your own conclusion.

Do you know how books work?

Yes. Do you?

@@vesuvandoppelganger Sure I do. Have you read any by any actual evolutionary biologists? Geneticists? We have a ton of redundant genes in our genome- fossil genes which are disabled by mutation. Were they designed by a genius? ERVs- clear evidence of common descent....genius?

1. Humans and chimpanzees were separately created. 2. Humans and chimpanzees have a large number of ERVs in the same corresponding locations in both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome. 3. When a retrovirus inserts itself into the genome it lands in a random location. 4. The probability that retroviruses would land that way is basically 0. 5. Therefore, ERVs are not from viruses. I suppose that you are referring to pseudogenes. A pseudogene is merely a sequence of nucleotide bases that has a high percentage match with the sequence of nucleotide bases of a gene. That's it. It is fallacious to call such a sequence a 'broken gene' or 'disabled by mutation' or a 'redundant gene' or a 'fossil gene'. Were they designed by a genius? As more is understood it will become clear that that is the case.

@@vesuvandoppelganger Good grief....this is pitiful. Reality contradicts my myth- therefore reality is wrong. Grow up....

You don't even know what the theory says.

@@matteomastrodomenico1231 I completely explained it. If you disagree then tell me why. If you cannot tell me why then your opinion is baseless.

@@harryrussell154 Well, first of all, you describe the process as starting with lifeless matter, which is incorrect. Evolution starts with the first life fully formed. Then you describe the matfer turning into an animal, which, again, is wrong, there are several steps between the first life and an animal. Then you also assume every organ must appear all at once, which we know for sure it's wrong, since many organisms don't have all the organs we have. Also, the processes within our body are mostly automatic chemical reactions, you don't need any consciousness to do that stuff.

So you’ve just shown that you don’t actually understand the theory.

They don't have one... and never will.

@@TheStarflight41 but we do. It’s added every time a pierce if code gets over duplicated. The surprising thing, given the rate at which that happens is that it’s so small.

Where does 1+1=2 come from? The "information" in DNA doesn't have to come from somewhere.

How does something with gills , evolve into something with lungs ? What are the intermediary steps ? Or does a fish with gills, that can only live in water, give birth to a fish with lungs ? How does that baby survive ?

​@@Admin-hr1xc Take a look at the mudskipper, to start.

Well the earth is round, and while climate does change AGW is a hoax. The problem the Cambrian Explosion presents for Darwin’s TOE, and all the saltations in the fossil record, is that it challenges the gradualist process Darwin described. This isn’t LSS’s problem, it was Darwin writing in Origin of the Species who said unequivocally that saltations, i.e. rapid evolution, would mean his theory was wrong. The fossil record tells a story of stasis and saltations but not of gradualism.

​@@roberttormey4312 We already know that, it's still evolution.

Nah, not even they're that evil. Might be the Discovery Institute, PragerU for even bigger morons

"oh they must have to be paid by some christian group. Theirs no way!" 😂 lol you guys are pathetic. 🤣🤣

The Ancient Fiction Section in the Library.

😂

we've literally observed evolution...

@@SorenPenrose Small adaptations are not the same thing as evolution. If I paint my car a different color, that doesn't turn it into an SUV.

@@rs72098 and why can't small changes add up? It's odd that you accept how evolution happens but reject that it happened...

@@SorenPenrose oh don’t you know you can add small changes to each generation and then some how after millions of years it’s exactly the same, makes sense right?

@@TmanRock9 That seems to be the creationist argument

Unsurprisingly, full of lies.

​@@peteconrad2077says the fish walking to land believer

@@purelyrandom1230 I don’t believe that. It’s a demonstrable fact.

@@peteconrad2077 where can we observe it?

@@purelyrandom1230 in the genome. There are artefacts in your genome that cannot have arisen other than by common ancestry with other species. These are, for example, mutations that were acquired by a long ago ancestor of ours that sit silently in our genomes…and the genomes of all chimpanzees. It’s absolutely conclusive.