Why do you believe in evolution? Do you know what you call a belief in something that you cannot see? Blind faith.

Stella, so this new religion of Evolution fits your style better?

@@elguapo2831Evolution is not in question. Neither is gravity. Or the germ theory of disease. The evidence for evolution is so massive, so clear, that it would be perverse to deny it. Modern medicine relies heavily on our knowledge of evolution.

@@statutesofthelordEvolution is reality. You can see it. The evidence is massive.

Oh hey funny seeing you here did you take a look at the 5 seperate times I linked a paper giving your exact question a pretty concise and undeniable answer? Or did you do what your type of person tends to do, which is close your eyes after reading the first line of the abstract and just imagine it says what you want to hear. @@elguapo2831

captivatint - now THERE'S a new word for you.

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServicescaptivatnik? lol

He certainly has no clue about the dates he bandies about.

Perhaps I ought to have checked my spelling there. Maybe I was just too captivated? 😂

"It is my understanding that I have around 4% Neanderthal DNA, ..." - Maybe. I may have too. It has nothing to do with biological evolution since Neanderthals were humans like us.

"A key aspect of evolution is reproductive success in he face of environmental challenges." - There is no scientifically proven evolution. There is only scientifically proven intraspecific adaptive variation which can't generate evolution. There is also speciation. Speciation neither can generate evolution. Darwinists use the word "evolution" while they in fact are talking of speciation. It seems like the neo-Darwinists have forgotten their "Universal Common Ancestor". Darwinian evolution would've needed mind blowing variety of genes in UCA for producing future changes in the basic anatomical structure of innumerable species during the history of life. The idea of speciation being a road to evolution is ridiculous. Speciation normally happens in some isolated population, when natural selection (elimination!) favors certain genes and eliminates individuals with less profitable genes. This leads to gene loss and one-sidedness in the gene pool of that population. It is useful for a while but may lead to a catastrophe if the living conditions change. If speciation gets far enough, a subspecies appears. A subspecies is as far as the speciation ever can get. It is also the dead end. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for a subspecies to create the path that would lead to evolution i.e. to a new taxonomic genus or new taxonomic family. Why do you think over 90% of world's original species has gone extinct? Answer is speciation.

1. We might still face significant environmental changes (think climate change) 2. Instead of physical evolution, we might be going through a cultural evolution where ideas attached to people are what drive the way we change (take for instance cultural expectations about how many children to have, diets, exercise routines …)

@@abenezer_ Climate change will not affect reproductive success. Darwinian evolution depends on the ability of beneficial genetic mutations out-competing other variants through reproductive efficiency. I don't see this happening unless there is a major step backward in human civilization. In fact, we are at a stage where both advantageous and disadvantageous genetic variations have the potential to persist, as selective pressures have diminished. Cultural evolution, however, is likely to progress, driven by the relentless force of technological innovation that continues to mold our societies.

He mentions this in the video where at least one of those changes are.

Yes and no. That's the original meaning of the word (specifically as a form of group punishment for rebellious legions), but since we no longer use decimation the meaning of the term has changed in common usage.

oh ,i didnt see the first one , i am glad i can listen to this ,,old,, one

@@safsult It is a presentation, you can watch it! Barring a vision impairment.

Link to the higher quality original?

there's about zero guarantee that any virus wouldn't adapt to an antibody

It’s very unlikely a single gene is responsible for some people being less affected by COVID infection. Even if there is a combination of genes that gives one higher resistance to COVID, I don’t know how one could determine what they are. And doing a DNA scan on every person in the world before deciding which vaccines would be of limited value for them seems unworkable.

A perfect proof for evolution ... 🤣

What precisely do you mean by "path of humankind"

why does any phenotype evolve, mutagens and natural selection

All ethnic groups have distinctive features, all because of environmental conditions. Africans are darker than Europeans because of the sun/heat.

@@jameswright... naturally....in the case of Chinese, Japanese what was the environmental condition necessary to create those features?

@@Ai-he1dp Yes! Evolution is largely nature based, certain mutations suit certain conditions better. If you line all the ethnic groups up around the world as they spread you'll struggle to pick a point where you see a chance, it's gradual with changing environments. Inuit people native to parts of America like Alaska look very similar to people living along the cross the top of Siberia. What we would once all call Eskimo are similar all across similar environments but in different climates.

@@jameswright... so those above mentioned were forcibly stuck? forces? to be in very cold climates for tens of thousands years or more like 100s of thousands? then came down to warmer climate?....why would they have chosen that at a time when the human population was so low?

the last universal common ancestor on this planet? it's a safe bet

@@AMC2283 Explain how a first simple cell can randomly create new proteins in groups to build new body parts…..you would be the first to do it. Moor on.

@@edgein8632 you mean basic organic chemistry clown?

​@@edgein8632 You want to learn about random mutations and the scientific age of earth. Not a pseudoscientific one, as I remind you that even Christian scientists are accepting evolution these days because of overwhelming evidence. If you don't believe in evolution, can you tell me how much you did learn this Scientific theory and what are the 3 main types of evidence that you have problems with?

@@ep8569 Education is not your thing obviously. The evolution we all see AND ACCEPT is Darwinian or micro evolution. 100% of the time these sometimes beneficial mutations happen by a loss of information. Mutations degrade a late stage trivial gene that creates a birth defect basically. Polar bears lost pigment, wolves lose genes to become dogs, Darwin’s finches getting smaller beaks….even pit bulls adding muscle by degrading a growth regulation genes are examples of how it works. Never does evolution build anything new. Sit down, the educated people are talking.

by all means, show the calculations that prove your gods did it.

"The biggest evolutionary pressure must be on the immune system" - All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for a subspecies to create the path that would lead to evolution i.e. to a new taxonomic genus or new taxonomic family. A top example of largely accepted pseudoscience is the theory of evolution. While still an unproven theory, it is marketed as a scientific theory and an observable fact.

@@jounisuninen Wrong. The deck of cards analogy would be right if it were not for the fact that new genetic material is created by mutation and by addition to the genome through well understood processes

Triggered 🚨

Gene recombination happens after fertilization when parents' genes are reshuffled. In that way we get intraspecific variation but not evolution. There is no evolution whatsoever because evolution would need a continuous flow of unforeseen new genes. There aren't unforeseen new genes on this planet. Mutations do not produce new genes, they only destroy existing genes. ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.]

​@jounisuninen No, mutations don't destroy existing genes. They change them. Genes can be duplicated. Duplicated genes can have their own mutations and gain a new function while the original genes remains with the original function. Genes can also be deleted which could cause some inhibitor gene function to be lost which could cause such traits as increased encephalization.

If you're gonna call out people for being "apes", you should perhaps look at a mirror and ask yourself why you're generalizing apes and using such negative connotations behind the word. I'll be a gentleman and call you a "tribalist" because, afterall, you're engaging in warfare and dominance.

Australopithecus is a different genus

a two second google search will tell you that swathe is the British spelling of swath, and indeed is both a verb and a noun

@@msbananananner4739 If you listen to the BBC you can hear that it's not a spelling issue. The English have come to confuse those two words. A 'Google search' has no value as an argument.

@@PJinBston if it's an argument you want, feel free to direct it at the dictionary

It's a bit of a semantic point that I feel is not well taken by any audience. Consider first that once an organism reproduces, it does not have any further capacity to contribute to the genetic lineage of its species. All of the "epigenetic" influences that may arise from cultural or environmental factors that would effect future generations do have their effect on future generations rendered upon reproduction. So if someone claims "you have no bearing on evolution after your reproductive age" it still technically holds true in the sense that the effects of your direct contribution to your species *is* over, and for whatever further effect you may have on your offspring and their reproductive habits, or your group as a whole, it still ends for the individual unit upon reproduction.

@@thomabow8949Yes, after reproducing, an organism does not have any 'direct capacity' to contribute to the genetic lineage of its species. This is true. What I was pointing out is reproduction is not where parental influence on our genetic destiny ends. Parental and familial example and influence on their children can have a huge impact on how they approach their reproductive outcomes. It can affect how many children they now choose to have, how they raise them, and their approach to educating them, their approach to mate selection and raising children. You cannot ignore these 'environmental influences' on how our genotype is expressed. It has been long understood that BOTH the genotype and environmental influences determine how our genes are expressed, and there's no doubt the environmental influences I listed can have a huge impact on how individuals succeed at 'socializing' and thus can have a tremendous impact on our reproductive, and thus our 'genetic' success.

@@thomabow8949 it is totally illogical to think humans cannot be influenced by our parents in many crucial ways that affect such genetically significant outcomes as our mate choices, our success in life, and even how many kids we have. These can all have an impact on our reproductive outcomes, and thus our evolution as a species. Yes, these are 'indirect' effects on our genetic outcomes, but certainly no less real than the direct influences.

Yes this must be discussed because affects evolution since earth magnetic waves of earth that we had 100,000 years ago with animals, bugs, viruses with magnetic waves as they were that now disturbed and chemicals in environment that enters all species. Older the mother father reproduce the more chance for broken genes produces more defective offerings thus birth babies before 30 or chance of defective offerings.

Maybe its because they're talking about many very different things.

Odd that such highly educated native speakers can't manage to recognise & correct this; the adverb is dieing.

​@@chrisfreebairn870The adverb has been "dying" even before you grew up to learn English. By yours and OP's reasoning, we shouldn't say: "Stop talking too quick!" since 'quick' is an adverb and should be 'quickly'.

I am 68 years old & live in Australia, where the adverb still lives; and i well understand the vernacular often departs from grammatical correctness; but certain adverbs really do make speech flow better, since leaving off the -ly creates a weird truncation of the flow. And I do indeed run quickly, or fast, never quick. I also take not bring things with, & I lie down, not lay.

@chrisfreebairn870 So why don't you also use gender and grammatical case? Why don't you use the dual? English lost all that, only having remnants here and there. Also, vernacular speech is grammatically correct in its own right. I also don't get the point of 'take with' and 'lie down', if if 'bring with' and 'lay' are supposed to be incorrect?

Lucy was basically a monkey, had very few modern human features.

@@NVIK5 You appear to be confused. Monkeys are an entirely different family of primates and Lucy and her Afarensis relatives had many many hominid traits.

Why would lots of academics be “not happy” with the discovery of other older hominids?

@@mountkeen8701Because it questions where we came from. It challenges the veiw that we not were civilised until 400,000 years ago. But in the Johannesburg discovery, the remains were found in a cave and with them were structures for shelter and cooking and hunting implements.

@@Steve1734 Now you’re introducing subjective terms into your claim. “Civilised” means what precisely? Additionally the Naledi fossils have been dated as 335,000 - 236,000 years old. Not 2.5 million years old.

ATGrain. They are "facts" in that they explain things to the best of our current knowledge. Your mention of Lucy is exactly how science is supposed to work and is not the problem you imagine.

@@SMHman666 I hear you but I’ve heard even more that contradicts this Look up Stephen myers * You’ll hear even more current knowledge regarding this subject of evolution

Yeah our brain shrinked i heard like the brain of wolves is greater than dogs

Our brain actually shrinking because there less environmental pressures on us.

@@supremercommonder Is that true in all instances, though? This could be the start of diversification between the Neurodiverse and Neurotypicals, I've been under constant attack for 50 years for using my brain, and have the impression the NTs are stultifying, because they're taught creed, not how to think.

@@JelMain Interesting your right modern social stresses (jobs,computing,media) could be causing our brains to become more compact shrinking doesn’t mean less intelligent. It could be parts of the brain that was relevant 1000s of years ago are not now so the brain is reducing in those parts.

@@JelMain Also we have way less physical movement and need for survival skills as most things are easily accessible and we have safety. I read also to central heating humans are shedding and losing more hair aswell.

How do you explain continental drift that the plates were once all joined together?

@@monkeybars101Anyone holding such a preposterous opinion has no interest in actually explaining anything.

no it doesn't. The factors that make people smart exist in the same way in every region

Yeah, it’s based mostly on your environment. Your zip code has more correlation to your IQ than your dna does.

Genetic intelligence is universal and does not vary based on environment. Practical intelligence, the kind that people grow into, is the one that is affected by education and family wealth, so IQ tests will vary between different social groups precisely because it measures the environment people grew up in and not their biological baseline. When you have a sexually reproducing species, the design of complicated machinery must be universal, or else random gene recombination would break the mechanism, like mixing blueprints for the engine parts of a Toyota and Porsche. And nothing is more complicated than a brain, ergo brains are universally similar in human race.

@@Talleyhoooo You have it the wrong way round - zip code correlates with intelligence A sportsmen success correlates with income.

@@5BMN What you just said makes no evolutionary sense. There are lots of small genetic variations between population clusters within the same species. There are differences in freqency of genes such as FOXP2, BDNF, COMT, APOE and others linked to brain function. Just the fact that humans have different levels of admixture with archaic species like the neanderthals and denisovans should make you pause. Let me state it again, there are average cognitive differences between human populations, but they are relatively small. These cognitive differences will include personality traits like extroversion, a lot of "known unkowns", meaning we know they exist but we have little understanding.

Which species of hominid are you even talking about whose ancestor you think is unknown?

As primates evolved around 50/55 million years ago and squirrels 40 it be the other way around 😂 But if you actually took time to learn evolution you'd know different lines split at different times, squirrels and apes will share an ancestor but it could be way before each existed. They'd definitely have a common ancestry at the development of the backbone, all life shares ancestry at some stage.

@@jameswright... ok, so what was the creature that evolved into the ape?

@@thunderous-one Monkey's! Apes are a subset of monkeys, tail-less monkeys. Apes are still monkeys as an animal never grows out of its heritage, it just becomes something else on top of that.

@@jameswright... what evidence is there that apes evolved before squirrels?