Thanks for your support in this endeavor! Some people will say 'just leave it alone,' but this is important and MUST be addressed.

Do you really need an "unbelieving worldview" to understand that thick white fur would be beneficial in an arctic environment while short brown fur would be more beneficial in a warmer environment?

@@lizd2943 Great comment. They don't need to deny that better animals for an environment survive to point out it doesn't create new body parts.

@@icrscience What are other examples of this fairly rapid adaptation in a species besides the two kinds of fish that are mentioned? Thank you

​@@lizd29435:58 White hair blends in with the environment polar live in. Now can you work out why grizzly bears are not white. .

That in no way shows advance of scientific thought by those who refute evolution. Your statement just shows how scientifically illiterate you are.

Right. When you make a wrong turn you need to go back to that place and then go in the right direction from there.

We know that not all mutations happen at the same time. This just shows how little you actually know about the topic.

Nathan. Your reply doesn't answer anything. The point is no mutation has a positive effect on any creature. They all result in a lot of information. You need new information to change from one kind of animal to another. You cannot evolve one part of your anatomy over millions of years. Everything appears together so the animal or human can successfully operate in its environment. The fossil record shows all animals perfectly formed. Not one is a part monkey part man etc. Everything evolution offers up as proof has been proved fraudulent deliberately or wishful thinking but not correct. This is why the Cambrian explosion was invented. It is you who appear to know little about the topic.

​@@nathancook2852 Not all mutations happen at the same time...but many biological systems need to be in place at the same time for an organism to be able to function. Irreducible complexity has never been successfully refuted.

@@nathancook2852 "We know that not all mutations happen at the same time." - That's exactly the reason why mutations can't generate evolution 😂

Plenty of beneficial mutations have been documented over the years. Jellyfish have muscles and a nervous system but no brain, lungs, or heart. What does "perfectly formed" even mean? How would you determine if any organism is "perfect"?@@johnmonk9297

I do not think that evolutionists use the word "design"; it is just misleading.

@@cynic150 You would be surprised. "Nature has designed this or that so, that..."

​@@northstar2621 Evolution is a godless religion unless you take the nature as its god. Indeed everything in nature tells of planning. Even the evolution's high-priest Richard Dawkins has admitted that he must force himself to believe in no planning while everything in nature witnesses for planning. You know, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..." But atheists have their own logic of course.

Creations like to play this game where they misquote scientists or simply make things up they think helps their position. Your statement is a prime example of this.

@@nathancook2852 Whenever you read an evolutionist weave an individual entity, with cognitive prerogatives into their narrations, remove it. Then you will see that they really have very little to communicate.

You do realize, that many, many Christians know evolution is a fact, right? Also, NS is only a very small part of the evidence for evolution. We have hundreds of transition fossils, there is evidence among embryos, homologous and vestigial structures, and on and on... we could no nothing about the process of NS and still have mountains of evidence to support evolution.

"research" - ha ha ha.

I think it is better to use 'Evolution' as it is used in the Neo-darwinian synthesis. So called 'micro-evolution' should be avoided as this is merely variation within a kind, in fact, 'natural variation. When we use their terms, we buy into their concepts. Best to avoid.

@@dagwould In biological evolution there are only small changes. Many small changes add up to make large changes, like inches make miles. If you want to avboid understandng our concepts, you need t avoid using our terms. Use twisted terms like secular science and histrical science instead of science. This undermines science. This is why creatinismis considered a pseudoscience.

​@@dagwould There is no "macro evolution" or "micro evolution". There is no evolution whatsoever, only intraspecies adaptation. The slow unlimited "step by step by step" -evolution was based on Darwin's lively imagination. It has no known genetic mechanism behind and Darwin of course had never even heard of genes. In the sexual process, species produce gene recombination but that happens in the existing genome. No new genes appear to bring about evolution. That means only variations of that particular species can appear. That is not evolution, because (Darwinian) evolution would mean totally new species gradually appearing by changes in the body plan. Mutations creating new genes is a fairy tale that's never been empirically proved. A species can produce only variations of itself. Its body plan is constructed in the ovum, not in the genes that do the recombination. So the species’ body plan is always the same as its parents’. Only limited superficial changes are possible like stumped wings, different coloring, a little shorter or longer legs, different peaks, longer or shorter fur etc. due to the gene recombination. If the body plan could change in the gene recombination, we could never know what kind of a body a descendant has in birth! ”A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory How many times has evolution been successfully tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method? Answer: zero times. Evolution theory has been tested innumerable times, but every empirical evidence has proved that evolution does not happen. Tens of thousands of generations have been used, using fruit flies and bacteria. No evolution ever. Fossils neither give evidence for evolution, except in evolutionists' imagination. There is not a single scientifically proven chain of transitional fossilized forms. The gaps are huge.

@@dagwould No need to "buy into" our concepts. They stand up to scrutiny quite nicely entirely on their own.

Then you didn't pay attention very well in school... That seems to be a common theme on these threads.

You make very good points, well stated, thanks!

Oldest fossil with a thumb had been found. Earliest primate. Handy for climbing in trees. Indeed all primates have a thumb. Humans have inherited that thumb

The environment is the framework where the amazing variety of organisms live. It needs to have been created at the same time

Hi BRILLIANT REASONING SKILLS! Did you voice these scathingly obvious flaws of Evolution when it was taught as truth in school? Shalom to us only in Christ Yeshua returning soon to reign over His Creation from Jerusalem forever.

Indeed. Let's consider the claimed bat evolution from a mouse-like wingless creature. First it would've grown minuscule wings, then bigger and bigger wings during millions of years. While not yet getting big enough to make flying possible, wings would've become more and more harmful in food searching. So why should the wings have evolved in the first place? Creation of a ready-made bat makes more sense.

Glad you found us!

Darwin was no maniac. He was also not stupid. Just another man who hates God like the majority.

And yet the Earth is provably old and Evolution provably happened.

@@StudentDad-mc3pu I guess you are convinced by speculation, extrapolation and assumptions based on preconceived ideas. Science is about observation and experimentation and we can do neither when investigating the origins of the universe.

@@lespearl50 Well that's not true at all. There are countless experiments and observations we can and do make that shed light on the origins of the universe. What do you think the JW telescope is doing, or the CERN accelerator? However conflating Evolution, which is the nature of this discussion, and Universal origins is a false comparison. Natural selection is an observable process of nature.

I know evolutionist like to separate out the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the process of what you call evolution, so I’ll grant you the point, even though I see them as inextricably related. You still have no evidence that the process we observe is anything other than adaptation. What we see is genetically preloaded organisms tracking and adapting to their environment. We have never observed biological changes from one “kind” to another. Fish may adapt but they are still fish, birds may adapt but they are still birds, reptiles may adapt but they are still reptiles. This is what we observe. Everything else is pure speculation and story telling. And I haven’t even started on the origin of life.

@@lespearl50 It's not about 'like' - evolution and the origin of the universe are two completely different things. They are simply not related. You conflate them because either one contradicts the myths of Genesis - which is a myth, not true, not accurate, in no way possible, not science.

Incorrect, unthinking (nonconcious, aconcious?) selections are made all the time. I don't like the word "unconscious" because you make MANY unconscious decisions with your unconscious mind. From the frequency of your breathing at you medulla oblongata to a Floridian slip or an active directed dream, unconscious does NOT mean lack of thought. As to the fact that aside from God there's no explanation for consciousness or unconscious thought; yes, that's true.

There is not a single scientific evidence for evolution.

Who used natural selection and evolution, without a doubt.

@@StudentDad-mc3pu yes, prove it without unprovable mathematical equations or your worldview FAIRYTALES! Changing the meaning of the word theory does make it anything less than a FAIRYTALE!!

No substitute for actually knowing stuff instead of just wishing it were so.

"The fish changing so rapidly speaks to this ..." Fish have variations bringing about different fish, but they have always been fish and will always stay fish.

Agreed. It might also be helpful to make playlists of series.

Evolution requires that everything still be a part of its parent clades.

@@lizd2943 Evolution would need endless amount of new and different genes, but such genes are always in some other species genome ... No evolution.

***WHY NOT, IF GOD WANTS ???***

​@@adelinomorte7421And who are you, or I, or anyone, to decide what God want?! I can't decide what you want and you can't decide what I want. Who are we to decide what God want?!

If you add up enough adaptations over a long period of time, the current animal will no longer resemble the original animal. It has become a new species.

Disproving evolution is so easy, ICR doesn’t have to, at least in their own minds.

You didn't understand anything?

The word species is not used as defined, but as a political tool to advance someone:s career or give an excuse for imminent domain. Example, all bears in the wild can and do reproduce with one another despite being called not only different species but at times different orders. Thus with an absurdly large denominator, a claim of 99 % is stated.

Aren't you nitpicking period of course that's true same is true for all dogs. Some of those dogs won't be the fittest just like the polar bear has to be white your explanation is informative but it proves that you're not being objective

@@JRRodriguez-nu7po Indeed - bears are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of speciation i.e. devolution. Speciation happens through gene loss not through qualitatively new genes that evolution would need to work.

What difference?? A soul lost or saved.

@@smgibv4393 you are absolutely right

The truth matters. It matters if God created living organisms, or if God didn't create living organisms. Evolution is ok to study if you approach it understanding that is a purely naturalistic explanation, in that sense it's a possible alternative to design. It's never been demonstrated to occur, however, and it has numerous assumptions that must be accepted. So it's a hypothetical explanation...and as such, it should be open to critique. Evolution should be scrutinized and criticized since you cannot demonstrate it's great claims...primarily the claim of common descent. Evolution could be a good teaching point about a theoretical explanation as opposed to a Theory.

@sbgtrading - evolution doesn't need assumptions. It has evidence, of common descent from LUCA

@@globalcoupledances Yes, there are common coding regions in DNA. That does support common descent. But, that is equivocal evidence, it is also predicted by the design axiom. And, DNA also has orphan genes, coding that is not common between organisms. So that is not predicted by common descent. However, orphan genes are predicted by the design axiom. The only advantage Evolution has over design, is that Evolution is thoroughly naturalistic in its requirements. And, if you're a dogmatic naturalist, then you will certainly popularize Evolution.

***Darwin DID NOT said such thing***

@@adelinomorte7421Better not. He'd make himself even bigger fool.

Good channel but I never subscribe any channel.

Couldn't that argument be used against anyone with x:xx amount of time outside of the present? Doesn't name calling merely exposes your lack of knowledge, and the insecurity of your faith?

A good christian questions atleast 2 things and GOD dont mind he made us to wonder and question We wonder why babies suffer and wonder why GOD has any mercy on us gives us so many chances Evo and big bangs aint even a remote second place and its the only second place

So neither of you understood the topic.

@@lizd2943 What part do you imagine I don't understand?

Well first of all that science doesn't prove theories. @@angietorok8389

How did you determine it was mathematically impossible? Show your work.

It is not presented that way at all. I suspect that you are simply projecting your own biases.

Yes! We have articles on our website at icr.org.

***there are not such thing like rapid adaptation***

The rooster, think about it

@@JRRodriguez-nu7po Great! I never came to think of that. Roosters do not come from an egg. 🙃

@@jounisuninen I'm making a bit of a joke. Adam was created first, then the woman. BTW God never gave the first woman a proper name, and Adam did not name her until after the fall for an important reason. What God actually called mankind in gen 1:27, zakhar, means "the best" and is so translated in almost the entire rest of the Hebrew Bible. God called female: "the one violently penetrated", translated stabbed elsewhere.

Another error near the end is thinking that today's creatures were designed in the same way that they were Redesigned after the floor and will be re-re-designed in the future when the lion will eat grass like the ox. Thorns, just like the pre-programmed death clock of most animals (not all such as the common red sea urgent), the clock which was reset to a maximum of 120 years after the flood. We're NOT studying organisms as designed originally, but Redesigned (tweaked, whatever word you choose). Again, constructive criticism from a fellow YEC. BTW, I ceased believing in macroevolution while an agnostic and remained an agnostic with NO idea of how things got here for a year and a half before becoming a Christian. I can legitimately say it was the science that drove me to reject macroevolution. I was a creationist over a year before believing in any sort of deity.

***Steven, Darwin was a good believer in God, what the bible says is absolutely correct, science works only to explains how God creates.***

@@adelinomorte7421 Newton on the Solar System: "Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - General Scholium to the Principia

In think it is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. To be exact, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that in an ISOLATED SYSTEM the entropy will always increase. All dedicated evolutionists take this formulation as an evidence for the dead matter being capable of self-organizing here on Earth. Why? Because the Earth is not an isolated system but a closed system, or even an open system (energy and matter move in and out). This again would mean that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't function on Earth. Not true, however ... To prove thermodynamics works on Earth, you can make a simple test by putting a cup of hot coffee on a table and observe whether it starts getting hotter or cooler. I bet for the latter choice. The hot coffee immediately starts ceding warmth to the room, thus striving towards the maximal entropy as fast as it can. Entropy is unavoidable in the universe, because the universe itself is an isolated system and Earth is part of it.

Charles Darwin was an undergraduate with no degree in natural sciences.

Wrong, people in Hell lie very often.

Oh, so you have been there to witness that, interesting!@@JRRodriguez-nu7po

@@kenwebster5053 Neither have you to say he has not. I at least know Someone who has been to Hell, and back.

"Neither have you" & yet I do not accuse without proof. "I at least know Someone who has been to Hell, and back." So do I. Your making assumptions in your high and mighty arrogance. In fact, you write of things you don't know. You don't know that he is in hell & you don't know if he or anyone there are lying. In fact you don't even know what he lied about in life, for it is not a lie to state what you think, but a truthful expression of your thoughts. He proposed a theory. It's called a theory because it is not proven. A theory is a model that appears to fit the known physical evidence at the time. But it is unproved & therefore not considered a fact, but a practical working model. It is part of the scientific method which is an iterative process attempting to get closer & closer to truth. We have for example Newtonian physics which works extremely accurately for things like engineering, but is limited to the macro scale, velocities & gravitation which pervade human physical experience on Earth. However, it does not work well at quantum scales nor at velocities approaching light speed. It is a practical tool, but it isn't an absolute truth everywhere. However, it is so accurate within the above stated limitations, it is referred to as Newtons laws of motion, rather than "theory" . Generally laws are considered fact but educated people understand the definitions & limitations of these scientific terms & tools, they understand what a theory is & know it is not universally proven fact. Why you do not understand this is a mystery. @@JRRodriguez-nu7po

@@JRRodriguez-nu7po You know this how??????????????

What are you talking about? This is very simple! Species evolve together, one adaptation gives an advantage to one species for a time until a new adaptation by a competitor balances it. Why do you think Australia for example has some of the most poisonous animals in the world? Poisonous to us who have moved there and are not adapted to live there!!

***DID YOU SOLVE THIS OBVIOUS PROBLEM?***

@@adelinomorte7421 Creation is the logical solution but atheists can' accept creation because it would be against their own religion of Almighty Happenstance.

You're quite welcome. And thank you!

Think of it as if there we many ways to measure things, and each thing that needs a measurement, may need one technique or another. If for instance you had a dead body that needed an estimation of the time of death, you would use observations of the temperature and other conditions for the presence of Flys that lay eggs on dead bodies. Rates of decomposition can be observed and studied and understood, to make more accurate estimates. Uranium series dating works on a the principle of decay rates of radioactive isotopes, and it helps with the estimated ages of certain things on earth. Now within our lifetimes, we can estimate the age of certain trees in temperate zones that have growing seasons, and growth rings. We can verify when granddad planted a Walnut tree, because we know he planted it when he wanted shade on a certain window in 1910 or something like that, and we can count the growth rings to determine that was correct. Problems occur when the person performing a test, doesn't know which technology will work for the proper conditions. There are quite a lot of different methods to help narrow down estimates of age, from short periods of time, which can tell periods of hours or days, all the way to periods of millions of years.

John Lennox and many other creationists have often disproved evolution to Dawkins. While evolution is Dawkins' religion, in which he has blind faith, it isn't surprising that no evidence can convince him. Atheism came to science with some few atheistic researchers, notably Charles Darwin. Before that, science was made by God-believing scientists who in fact created the modern science. Natural sciences started declining with Darwin and his followers. It was the monk Gregor Mendel who became the "Father of modern Genetics", not Darwin. Perhaps that's the reason why neo-Darwinists still do not really understand the limits of genetic variation.

There is no amount of evidence that will prove God real. God could do all the miracles and magic tricks we require, and... "Slide of hand is all that was." "Mere special effects!" "I just was hallucinating." "Wow what a crazy dream!" The stars could one day spell out "I am God and I am real" and it'd get blamed on light bending, atmospheric manipulation, cloud seeding, freakin' laser beams, conspiracy....

@@f.k.b.16 which is probably what you would say if the stars spelled out Allahu Akbar. 🐨

@@CR-yd4qe Great point! Its a double edge sword no doubt. For me personally I started off diving head first in to evolution and saying "If there was a god I'd say, I hate you god." But now I am here and being a sceptic at heart, I've done my homework about the others... and if the stars said "God is most great!" (aka Allahu Akbar) I would be just as excited.

@@f.k.b.16 I to hated “him” but realised after years that it was stupid to despise something that wasn’t there, 🐨

No new genes will be made. It started with the nr 1 couple that had the total package. Adaption actually is Devolution. They loose genes. E.g. teckel dogs wont evolve to wolves (or whatever the 1st dog was) but wolves could devolve into those useless dogs. From what I understood. Nice questions. God bless from the Netherlands.

@@smgibv4393 thanks for your response, it's really helpful. And thats even opens up another problem which is, if devolution is possible then at some point in time, or due to an environmental or natural factor living organisms might be forced to devolved

@@markchiedozie840 Genes are made all the time by duplication, which can then be subject to further mutation. There's not set path evolution has to take.

The Polar bear is exactly the same as the Alaskan Brown Bear except a mutation (genetic error) occurred that dropped the genes for pigment in the hair. there is no mechanism whereby any new information may be coded into an organism anymore than an inert object can be made living.

I just gave one example of how it can. @@marktapley7571

Sorry, but adaptation has nothing to do with evolution. The very idea of evolution is so crazy that modern evolutionists try to cover it by presenting intraspecies' adaptations as "evolution". People should understand that evolution in the Darwinian sense would need mind blowing changes in the basic anatomical structure (body plan) of any given organism. However, in the empirical tests even slightest changes in the body plan have been impossible to produce, although scientists have had tens of thousands of generations of test organisms in use during the last 100 years. The Hox genes controlling the embryo development in gastrulation are unbribable. They have invalidated all scientific experiments to produce new body plan to the test organisms. Fossils neither show any evidence of gradual transformation of basic anatomical structures between species. The slow "step by step by step" -evolution is an unproven hypothesis without any genetic mechanism to implement it. An eager evolutionist once claimed that "you CAN see and observe evolution in microorganisms and other fast growing, rapidly replicating organisms." But the fact is we can't - and that's the whole point! All those test bacteria, other micro-organisms and fruit flies have never ever shown any sign of evolution. They get different intraspecies variations, but during the century of evolutionary studies they have NEVER produced a new species with a new body plan that would've started a path to new taxonomic genus, family, order or class.

Mutations change genes and create new genes through duplication all the time. Nature doesn't need to have a brain. Environmental pressures favor certain traits over others.

No they did not. Adaptive variation is not evolution. Evolution is Darwin's invention produced by his lively imagination.

They are still fish.

That 'tail' is genetic error, not an evolution vestige. Each generation of humans have bigger amount of harmful mutations than the preceding generations. That's why we proceed towards extinction just like over 90% of earth's species have already done. That's called universal entropy.

No, it's called creationists not understanding genetics. Selection acts to eliminate harmful mutations. Extinction occurs when environments change too quickly for populations to adjust. @@jounisuninen

Not true however ... There is natural selection (rather natural elimination) which generates speciation. Speciation however can't generate evolution. In fact it generates devolution. Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the population. Natural selection however delivers nothing, it just eliminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners (the less fit are dead or become too rare) which means that on population level everybody's genome gets specialized i.e. impoverished. This is far reaching adaptation, not evolution. It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the highly specialized population suffers and goes extinct. We can observe that natural selection (elimination) creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. 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 any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution.

Adaptation occurs within a species' own genome only. Since no new genes appear, adaptation has its limits. This means no new species can emerge, only subspecies with impoverished genomes.

@jounisuninen Wrong! New genes are generated by four main mechanisms, which have been examined: DNA-based duplication, retroposition, de novo origination, and exon/domain shuffling.

"You create alternative moves. Evaluate each one " Evolution theory does not know planning and evolution does not use planning. God instead knows and uses planning.

It doesn't need to. @@jounisuninen

Yes, “scientists” automatically rule out the possibility of any supernatural event, so natural events are all that they can conclude, even if they completely contradict the rules/laws of “science” itself. Example-life arising from non-life science says it’s impossible. “Scientists” say it’s possible but just not discovered how…yet.