Always learning never coming to the knowledge of the TRUTH.

Amen

To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.. Psalm 14:1

How telling that scientific textbooks don't contain lists of insults to throw at creationists.

@@joshuakohlmann9731 well, they arent scientific textbooks. they are fantasies.

So true.The natural man has come up with such stupidity throughout history to try and get rid of the God they hate.In other words,a natural man can be made to believe anything but the truth.It takes the power of God to change a man from a God hater,to A GOD LOVER!

True...The cell is immensely complex and transitional animals (links missing because they are mythical) have not been found....

@@alantasman8273 are you claiming “transitional” fossil have not been discovered?

@@CaptainFantastic222 are you claiming there are transitional fossils?

@@chloemartel9927 Yes, in fact you can go to certain natural science muesems and see them yourself

How was spontaneous generation disproved?

@@Jewonastick Spontaneous generation is outdated. it's the old hypothesis that life randomly generates on decaying organic material. They used to think that's what maggots were. It was disproved by Pasteur. Sadly, this guy still completely missed the boat because abiogenesis is the slow formation of life over time from its basic components, not the refuted hypothesis from hundreds of years ago.

He was simply wrong, this is a false dichotomy. That's not what Abiogenesis is lol.

Indeed, you can't prove a bigfoot does not exist by pointing to the absence of evidence. Spontaneous generation might be possible under very specific circumstances.

@@Jewonastick Rather, it has never been demonstrated, even in a lab setting. I think scientists have been able to create 1 amino acid in a lab setting... which is a fundamental building block... but the remaining 19 are still a work in progress.

@@Bomtombadi1 to the contrary, I've had many successful conversations. :) You don't have to change someone's mind, just expand it. The Spirit brings to repentance, not us. I was an atheist in college, truthful testimony by the faithful led me to a place where the Spirit's leading took me out of error. If you feel parroting to be effective, so be it. I devised these same arguments, myself, from the knowledge I gained in my education. Others will, too.

@@noneyabidness9644 exactly. Keep planting seeds of logic and reason and water them with love. At the end of the day, the love is what matters and we are called to do anyway.

This explains why Christian Colleges find that their science majors are more likely to believe in young earth than religion majors that never watch AiG videos and assume evolution is a robust theory

@@Bomtombadi1 I went to a public college. And yes, I did devise them. Creation science is real science. It is just that simple. When an atheist, like I was, can come to the same conclusion, based on the same evidence as creationists, then that is the reasonable interpretation of the facts.

@@Bomtombadi1 and I could sense your spirit was infirmed from the first comment you made. Bitter and combative. I'll pray for you.

Their craziness is the result of cognitive dissonance resulting from science exposing their dogma for the myth that it is. They are having difficulty grasping that their house of cards crafted over 150 years is infested with error.

The more information that comes out, the more we find out that we have been lied to for years. Evolution is nothing but a big lie.

What makes creationists crazy are the facts.

That's why Jesus said he is the truth because all other "truths" simply fade away.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am lthe way, and mthe truth, and nthe life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

If it's more intuitive, to use the guy's card dealing analogy, imagine you accidentally rub the paint off of one of the cards - that would mean that whatever decks you make that come from that card might now be blank, and that fold might be bred into, making a whole new deck with all blank cards. It's a weird analogy that obviously doesn't work with dealing cards in real life, but the idea is that you're breeding the cards? Again, its a weird analogy.

He is right about not technically introducing anything new - its just more combinations of adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine. Sorry for replying to my own reply, but im the kind of person that always wants to add more onto their point that was already made 😅

Mutations do not become natural selection of a species. Order doesn't come from chaos.

satan has created many false religions to confuse Gods creation.

where did he publish this? I'd like to add it to my collection of evidence against evolution

Also, consider that Darwin lived during the Victorian era, a time of ambivalence about imperialism. We in the United States were not at all ambivalent about imperialism: we staged a revolutionary war. But the upper class of British society were to some degree had mixed feelings about the subject, some notion of oppression as well as opportunities afforded their colonies. Darwins ideas about upper races, and lower races had its appeal: survival of the fittest sounded good, given that you assumed yourself to be the fittest. Darwin said this in a letter to one of his colleagues: "I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316; cited in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, by Gertrude Himmelfarb (London, Chatto and Windus, 1959), p. 343. That evolution is racist isn’t hidden; it’s in the title of Darwins book on evolution: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or _the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”_ Some people insist the word “race“ is taken out of context, but, in light of Darwins correspondence with others, there is no doubt concerning the meaning of the word. Evolution is racist. It occurs to me. This is part of the reason the “elite class” in the United States and elsewhere, believe in evolution.

This guy really put something on the old social media and got picket up by the algorithm

This ‘quote’ has been debunked many times over. It is from Elizabeth, Lady Hope who claimed to have a deathbed conversation with Darwin. Members of the Darwin family who were there during her visit denounced her claims as false and without merit.

That is a good point. However, I believe what is most important is how one explores their ideas. I further believe that many people put more into the word. Science ! Than what is really there. According to Websters, science merely means knowledge .But that is mans knowledge which cannot hold a candle to the knowledge of an Almighty God . For example: Take two scientists that are studying the universe. One believes in an Almighty God and the other does not. The one that does Believes in God will put his findings under the lens of the Bible. Where as the non believing scientists will develope a theory that he just cannot explain. He then may do 1 of 2 things. He will either become so frustrated that he cannot explain or prove his theories and spend the rest of his life time trying. 2 he will surrender and say. An Almighty Creator is the only thing that I can prove . So it is very important what mindset is applied before one test their ideas. Now I don't know about you. But I would rather consider myself a hand made creation of an Almighty God versus being the product of an Ape! How about you?

@@kenlucero3651 thanks for the reply. To me science is a method where ideas are put forward that can and should be both questioned and tested. This is why I like evolution because it is an amazing set of ideas that thousands of people have added their ideas to. Questions force scientists to rethink and revisit their ideas.

@@michaelatkinson4815 I also am grateful for your reply ! If I may say, I am really enjoying this conversation and again you have made a very good point. As I said. The mindset that one applies to their study is crucial. For example: Darwin did not conduct his studies as a means to learn the origins of man. I believe that He conducted his studies as a means to refute the Bible. This became a dangerous a concept in which the most evilist one uses to deceive people and tear them away from God which is his chief goal. I further believe that an evolutionist begins his study from the bottom up meaning with his finite knowledge of ideas he has at that time. Where as a creationist begins his study from the top down meaning with the knowledge he has of an Almighty God at the time he began his study . I realize this may be a difficult concept to grasp . Now as a Christian I have studied God in my church Bible study and I have found that our human ways are totally opposite of Gods. For example: Some people believe that Archeology proves the Bible, where as I believe the Bible proves Archeology ! So you see it is all about the mindset. And as humans I believe our minds are finite where as Gods is infinite. We have impossibilities where as God does not. I also believe that Jesus IS God in the flesh and He is inviting you to spend eternity with Him. For the alternative to that is condemnation in the pit of hell for all eternity. And as Catholics are taught to believe in a Purgatory that doesn't exist. So I I ask you. Where you like to spend eternity?

The purpose of science and the scientific method is never to find the truth rather to find error. Science is ever questioning, ever testing and always challenging the orthodoxy. Those who say “the science is settled” usually political zealots and not true to the fundamental purpose of science.

@@g.alistar7798 Well I must give credit where credit is due. That was very eloquently and professionally put. If I were a covetousness person I would wish that I made that I made that comment ! Good job.

You’re trying to pretend that huge masses of people are identical. This is false.

gender, not sex

@@jackjones7620They are working on it, called transitioning. But even after transitioning, trans people know they are not the opposite sex.

@@jan_777 of course they know they are the opposite sex. however, they KNOW they are the opposite gender. you are dodging the person replying’s point though. there is a difference between gender and sex, one is strictly biological, and the other is strictly social.

@@jackjones7620 I know. but I prefer to say gender because to me, the other word is a cuss word.

Hey, don't bring in facts here! You know AIG hates them

Drift isn't a source of variation. Reply to discuss.

What do you think these things have to do with causing new information that changes one kind of organism into another? They work within the boundaries of organisms, and can cause harm or be fairly neutral.

Mutations involve loss of information

@@valeriegoldstein3483 "Mutations involve loss of information" - not necessarily, sometimes the original phenotype is retained whilst an additional one is added

That’s not what mainstream science claims or believes… we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang. You’ve expressed nothing but an argument from ignorance

...this is exactly what i hear musl/m apologists saying...

No credible scientist believes that the big bang came from nothing and was caused by nothing. They just do not understand it yet.

@@Butchman2000 and? They can be right about things. Just because they’re religion is false doesn’t mean they can’t see the clearly obvious conclusion that intelligent design is necessary for life to exist.

it wasn't an explosion. What is nothing? and what would be the middle of it? What is 'line(d) up perfectly"? what moves and works together so perfectly? everything is as vague as you can get. Btw, arguments from incredulity are about as bad an argument as you can have.

I am an atheist, I don't feel anything taking over - If you personally have an issue with these things, then that is because of your brain chemistry.. You might have a faulty brain.. Like many other people..

I once was a doubter. Back around 1993. I told God just what I was but at the same time prayed every day for months using Jeremiah 33.3 KJV as part of my prayer. Also told him I would go where ever he required regardless of friends or family including my wife. Well that never turned out good but my answer from God changed my life forever. He led me to the right church to be able to understand the bible including the prophecy of Daniel and Revelation. Life has never been the same as I know where this is all going. One more thing to happen worldwide and then the end of time will come rushing. Like it will only be a few years more or so after this ww event takes place. No I do not know the day or hour. Who does say they do are a liar. However this ww event will separate the wheat from the Tares. A big shaking coming in all churches. I have about 20 million more who will agree with me.

@@razark9 Thank you for proving my point. All people are evil. Christians are no exception, but they are forgiven of their evil nature and their sins are Passed over by the grace of God through the sacrifice of the Savior. The only difference is we believe what God says and we do not doubt him. Christians are not cut off from God. Unbelievers are cut off from God by their own choice. Unless they humble themselves and utterly yield to God and seek His mercy and His forgiveness, there is no way they can overcome the separation from God. And cut off from God an unbeliever will never comprehend the anything pertaining to God or how He works.

@@glennbrooks3449 everyone doubts or does not trust God before they are redeemed by God. God calls people to Him, not the other way around. We respond or refuse God's calling. You weren't hardened in your heart to God's calling, otherwise you wouldn't have been digging for truth. If you were, you would not have been seeking God's help, you wouldn't have been talking to God. The kind of doubt I'm referring to above is when a person is being called by God, when God is opening their eyes to His truth. If a person refuses to believe and trust God once they recognize He is calling them, their heart will harden against Him. God is long suffering beyond anything we can imagine, but if one refuses God, if a person hardens his heart and refuses to trust God, then the things of God become vague and unintelligible to him. The truths of God become nonsense to the person who refuses God. That doesn't mean that God can't knock you to your senses, but those are called trials and you don't want that to be the way He calls you. But hardship is one avenue that does bring some people to their knees before God Almighty begging for redemption. The fact that this world is in for a cataclysmic reckoning has little to do with an individual's salvation. Maintaining your faith in God if you live to see this cataclysmic time is another story. There are thousand upon thousands of Christians living through unimaginable tribulation this very day and they have been living in terror for centuries. Today Christians are hunted and slaughtered for their faith in God in many parts of the world. This has been going on since the beginning of the church. Will it get worse in the end? Yes that is absolutely clear. But millions of Christians have lived in tribulation and died because of their belief in salvation through Jesus Christ's sacrifice. What you are focused on has always been happening to believers.

Sin is always the issue ie greed, pride, self, jealousy, turning away from, or denying Christ, taking God out of the picture for their own deceitful acheivement and ...PRIDE!

Concise? Straight up lie you mean!

Are you saying Catholics are not born again?

@@ngabacletus9677 No, I'm just saying my mom and I were not.

Asking respectfully: Why aren't Catholic churches bible-based?

@@Makai77 ah ok, I get that 🤝

@@tropicalcocktails4104 I think it it depends on the individual church. There are "protestant" churches that are Bible based too.

Do you want to ask an atheist any questions?

@@nosirrahonline1225 They will happily ask you a million questions. What they won't do is answer any.

Although the pace is better then the usual race to cram in as much crap as possible in the allotted time, they still do not have arguments that make ANY sense and which as usual fail to include any credible science. .

@@nosirrahonline1225 what questions do you want to be asked

@@Moist._Robot if you do it's because Satan deceives you. revelation 12:9

Also that it never will happen

​@@YeshuaYaakov Thats funny, macro evolutions never happening... hilarious Guess that means one of two things, in the beginning of life, every species that ever existed and will exist was there but then several hundreds if not thousands died off. That or some species suddenly and inexplicably appeared in the world... wonder which it is?

@@nebulous-draco1711 god created one common ancestor for each species and in that common ancestor varieties branch off that's why we have horses and zebras

@@YeshuaYaakov can you clear up what that means for me? My brain is drawing two possible outcomes for that statement, that "God" created one of every species and everything spawned from there or "God" created one true species and everything spawned from there over time. For the first one, that makes no sense as the "All mutations are bad" claim from the video would mean that everything that exists today would be in such a horribly degraded state that they would cease to function, that and it would be impossible for that one ancestor to procreate without going the bacteria route and just cloning itself. The second is a bit more believable, because there had to be a root origin for life, the first cell, but I doubt your "God" would just pop a cell or two in the ocean and call it a day would he?

@Nebulous-Draco I said that God would not have created the modern day horse we see today but its ancestor and its ancestor would have created all the variations we see today horse zebra donkey ect

Lol

Good thing no one says the second thing

Common ancestors. Why do you think a frog has a very similar body to humans.

Likewise if man was once clay it’s seen as a fairytale and oh wait it still is a fairytale

@@gertrudebaggins6996 make me wiser... explain me?

You need to read Contested Bones. Then you won't be as ignorant. All those bones you call "dinosaur" have pathology. Did you know that? Nope. You didn't. So digging up Andre the Giant, and claiming all humans were 8 feet tall and 600 pounds, is shameful logic.

@@ludwigkirchner08 so you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? If you say yes to that, then nothing else you say on this topic deserves respect.

@@amark350 You didn't address what I wrote, genius.

@@ludwigkirchner08 Your fear to answer the question speaks enough to settle if for me... you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old so nothing more to say. Do you believe the Earth is flat? In short, why would I investigate "your evidence" if my mind is already made up. That's like a flat Earther asking me to "review all his evidence"... as if it would somehow change my mind. why would I do it? Or someone that has a bunch of evidence on UFO abduction. Why waste the time?

From a "logical" standpoint - if we believe that God can create the universe and everything in it... it isn't that big of a mental leap to believe he could create some things to be older than others. If we, as humans, can produce art, clothing, or media that appears to be older than they actually are - surely God could produce rocks that seem, by all modern testing methods, older than they are.

@@globalcoupledances Flying foxes are not actually foxes. They’re bats.

Trying to teach a dog to fly annoys the dog.

@@arongladden8282 There are none so blind as he who will not see. How ironic.

@@arongladden8282 I am absolutely talking about you.

@@arongladden8282 Sure thing.

@Aron Gladden LOL What??? Ok aron, what was Forrest wrong about in his video? Just give me one thing he is wrong about. Look, just because you don't understand what evolution is, doesn't make it wrong.

@Aron Gladden Give me an example then of something that would not qualify as evidence when it comes to Forrest's video? You then make a blind observation that you understand evolution better than me, when you don't have any gauge to my knowledge on the subject at all. Why do you do that? It seems like you don't have an argument at all and you are full of straw man points that are completely useless. "He is wrong because I say he is wrong" is a terrible debate strategy. Get back to me when you actually have something of substance to say.

Yes, the deck of cards analagy is very helpful, especially the Tarot deck. Originally added as a triumphant (trump) suit to traditional cards, they were then much much later attributed (aptly for the purposes here) to divination, the practice of seeking knowledge of the future or the unknown through supernatural means! Or, in other words, adding or replacing plausibility with numinousity. AiG proposes the ideological prime creation of the kingdom of heaven and the earth. While nothing can be substantiated or proven upon the first, it can and has been regarding the earth. If the earth was without form and void, it would have to have been previously with form and sound, but then deteriorated. There would also have been no waters, and certainly no deep. Our planetary system is a solar system, not a terranus system. Night and day exists because our planetary axial rotation exists. And so on, and so forth. Whilst the proposal for any God exists, it exists only through mankind. The ideological man, The explanatory man, The fearful man, And the scripted man.

@@rickallen9167 Tarot cards are a satanic practice

In Europe and in other parts of the world, the major Christian churches, Protestants as well as the conservative Catholic Church, have no problem with the theory of evolution since decades. Seems to be mainly a problem in the US-America.

The same intelligence is behind all creatures. A kind is a category like "family" or "order" that we use to group similar animals today.

What's an ERV? What are you considering "vastly different"?

I was thinking the same thing. Not as detailed as you, but, he ignores Downs Syndrome. Which is the result of an extra added chromosome to someones DNA. While not good, it shows that "Cards" can be added to a deck. And he doesn't deal with the fact that, in a given population, an animal or plant from 1 species can successfully mate with an animal or plant from another species. Thus adding cards to a given deck. And mutations happen. So, while on it's face [pun intended] the card analogy is compelling, I don't think it works in the natural world. Clearly, it doesn't because I think dog DNA from Wolves alone, doesn't have all the variations we see today. Unless wolves are like DNA master class with every possible combination built within. There's no way a wolf pack would ever naturally have a Pug, Lab, or Great Dane looking dog in the mix. Those must have been natural mutations, changes to what was to create what is. Now, was God part of that? Or did God create the system that allowed for that. I think that's a better question.

"Nebulous-Draco" - You wrote, "Thanks for coming to my TEDTalk." LOL! In your next TEDTalk you should also discuss the occurrence of gene duplication mutations, which even adds sections of genetic material that were not even there before, which then down the line further mutations do their thing and the new genetic material can end up being used by the organisms. And, of course, there are things like transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous retroviruses, all of which give very strong evidence for common ancestry, and which contradicts the "baraminology" concept of some kind of "mutations limit" between "kinds" ("baramin" - which literally has no scientific definition at all; indeed, creationists can't even agree among themselves what these supposed "baramin" are - except of course they all agree that humans constitute a "baramin" because of Adam and Eve in the creation myth in Genesis).

@@jamesvaughn7389 The very bizarre aspect of the young earth creationist "baraminology" concept is that young earth creationists (well, the young earth creationist who use the argument; because not all young earth creationists agree with it) end with the evolution of millions and millions of species populating the planet WITHIN THE LAST 4,350 YEARS. So "baraminology" entails superfast hyperdrive rate of evolution a million times faster than anything ever proposed by evolutionary biologists or paleontologists. Young earth creationists choke on a gnat, and swallow a camel. What a joke.

@@steveg1961 Right. Well, as an aexample of how little this person knows about DNA. Do a little research into Barbara McClintock and transposable DNA. It's a concept that DNA can transpose itself to create new mutations within the DNA chain. Simply put, DNA can mutate itself to create something that wasn't there prior. Now, I ask, is that God? Or is that God acting through natural methods and devices?

The fact of the matter is, every mutation creates a LOSS of viable genetic information. The overall DNA of plants, animals, and humans has been gradually degrading since scientists have been able to accurately measure, quantify, and identify the DNA of all living entities. Oh, and make sure you have some cookies with your milk.

Did you miss the part where he says that Darwin did not know about natural selection and then out himself as a liar by saying Darwin talks about natural selection? How about that analogy with the cards that implies your mom am dad gave you their entire genome? That was horrifically wrong as well. It denies mutation is even possible.

@@n0etic_f0x Did you miss the part where he said that the card analogy is just a flawed illustration, or the admittedly short and unsatisfactory part in the end where he addressed mutations, or did you mishear the part where he said that Darwin didn't know about *genetics*, which lead him to expect too much of natural selection, which he clearly knew about because he himself came up with the concept? I have the impression you came here only to burn straw men.

@@siquod I agree with you that this person did misunderstand the creator of this video, but please don’t be rude to people. If we want others to come to Christ we can’t be insulting them. It doesn’t represent Him well.

@@HoldToChrist Was I rude? I rebuked them, sure, but I don't think anything I wrote was insulting. But maybe I let show my annoyance with the intellectual dishonesty of someone who wants to claim intellectual high ground too much? I'll consider. Thanks for the feedback.

@@HoldToChrist I happen to think it's more rude to accuse someone of being a liar than accusing someone of presenting a strawman fallacy. After all, to be a liar requires the intend to deceive, to present a strawman fallacy can be explained from mere incompetence without the intend to deceive.

A debate between Calvin and someone like Forrest Valkai would be absolutely hilarious

There's plenty out there

He says it's "unobservable" but it's a not true. You can observe the evolution of bacteria in minutes. There are KZfaq videos already about that.

@@sonus89you can observe *microevolution* of bacteria and the evolution of traits that scientists consider “analogous to macro evolutionary processes.” But your bacteria remained bacteria at the end of the study didn’t they? So he’s right speciation of entirely new taxonomic groups has never been observed which is clearly his argument in the video.

@@fitforlife3168what happens though if let’s say a dog mates with another animal species, wouldn’t that increase the available gene pool? I’m just speculating, but, for example, can a bird egg be fertilized by dog or fish sperm into some kind of new animal species? I think the answer must be no or scientists would have already done it. Anyway, just curious.

@@norbertjendruschj9121 I understand that creationism is not a religion, but when preachers "demand" that we who profess Him also believe it, it is difficult to bring the two together.

Jesus believed in Adam and Eve. Matthew 19. And Jesus was called the Son of Man (Ben-Adam). Sin entered mankind thru Adam, literally. Romans 5:12-21. Jesus is the new Adam, literally redeeming the human race, being the perfect sacrifice and the firstfruits of the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:16-23 So Jesus believed in the account of Genesis literally, Jesus literally believed that He would die for the sins of many. And Jesus atoning for the sins of mankind is only possible in there was a literal Eden and literal Fall. No Fall, then why is Jesus necessary? No forbidden fruit, then why is creation corrupted? And if creation is corrupted by means other than man’s sin, then why does God hold us accountable for our evolutionary nature (horniness, violence, racism- we’re just animals after all)? So I believe in the Bible and do not believe that mankind evolved from any other creatures. I believe that Adam literally sinned and thus brought death, and Jesus literally defeated death and thus brings life. That is what the gospel is all about. If its not true, then Jesus Himself was a liar, and why would you follow a man who either lied, or was delusionally false about human history and God’s existence/plan. Jesus also literally believed in Noah (Matthew 24) and Jonah (Luke 11). So Jesus believes that the entirety of the Bible is true, given how He references the vast majority of the Torah and Prophets. Praying for you, that your ur faith would grow, that the Lord would clarify certain things to you, confirm things for you, and that the Lord would guide you into the fullness of understanding He wants to bestow on you! Be strong, my sibling in Christ, continue to ask, seek, and knock!! You are loved!

​@@lequsejones5384almost like you are in a cult

​@@tuckerchisholm1005jesus was a first century, middle eastern cult leader. Nothing more. 😅

​@@lequsejones5384 that's what I belive. The super preachy fundamentalist types only exist in the USA and most Christians around the world belive God made things through evolution. Understanding both would strengthen a person's faith and not the other way around. I recommend checking out channels like InspiringPhilosophy and Biologos.

Don't waste your time - he is simply lying about genetic mutations. They are in fact well demonstrated. He is just another Christian grifter preaching to the choir.

@@altkanzleramthor4176 But isnt the poisonous lie of Evolutionism simply a Fairytale for Atheists?

The things you've mentioned don't require a 'belief' because they are provable theories You can't prove me anything on evolution

Remember the part where he just insulted AIG the whole time and never showed any examples of what he and apparently you believe in? Remember when he said there were thousands of examples of evidence for that thing you call evolution? Then proceeded to show none? Wild.

The guy was just malding all throughout the video though. All of his objections are basically definitions and adhom and unicorns?

@Aron Gladden Check out the evolutionary history of the Covid 19 pandemic. A number of new strains have evolved since 2019 (That's less than a million years :-)). The mutations involved were not beneficial for us but they sure gave the virus many new leases of life. So you are quite wrong. We have seen many "Beneficial" Covid 19 mutations since 2019. Vaccination has saved billions of lives and our modern world would not be possible without them. They work via the natural selection of beneficial mutations to DNA. Perhaps you don't know about "Endogenous retroviral markers". :-) Those markers and the genetic molecular clock are how we know that chimps are our closest relatives and that our common ancestor species lived some 6,000,000 years ago. As for "all scientific evidence" you don't seem to know about the evidence in Geological strata, tree rings, ice cores, radiocarbon dating, Uranium decay dating, the fossil record, and the correlations of all that with the Milancovitch Cycles. Have you been skipping your homework assignments? Evolutionists know all this and so do many Creationists but they don't let on.

@Aron Gladden The DNA of all of the many covid strains has been fully sequenced. Is it really your view that the DNA of later variants can be found in the DNA of earlier ones? If you are right about that then we could prove it by downloading the DNA files and get ourselves Nobel Prizes! You up for that? I note that you don't deride the significance of the cross-correlation seen between the various dating methods and their correlation with the Milankovitch cycles. Does that mean you don't know about these things. Same goes for the history of smallpox, Polio, and many other nasty diseases that are held in check by vaccination.

They don’t mention those as they want to believe in fairy tales.

​@@kimsoares3271 Have you ever looked at a painting or a building and was able to recognize who the maker was? Would you think they made themselves too? Of course not. Remember a fairytale about a 🐸 turning into a 🤴 from a kiss? Another one is where a 🐸 turnes into a 🤴 from "Time"

​@@elguapo2831 they are not living beings darling

@@gozerofgozmis4181 Who.

@@elguapo2831 bro has no understanding of evolution XDD

I would kindly disagree with you, as you see he says that there are limits to genetics, you Can't have a human who can run faster than a cheetah , plus all genetic mutations are always bad , now you can tell me why then whe have tall people or short people, my answer is that their height and color where predetermined when there where born and genetic mutations don't play any role in the shape of the organism, and all of them are deadly, but in the end I respect your opinion I'm not a god after all to tell you what you should believe

@@MosaMan-ik6ei that’s a valid point. While mutations aren’t always bad. Take giraffes for example. Their genes at some point mutated to give a longer neck. Once it flourished because if its advantage it reproduced to make more. We also use mutations in plants to give larger yields. Some mutations are destructive while others are beneficial. That is what is conveyed in the theory of evolution. Just because it is random doesn’t mean it’s bad. With that said, I definitely learned a different perspective from this video and your response and would love to continue this. The reason I watch these videos is to challenge my beliefs, not to validate them. I always find flaws in my beliefs and am constantly working to refine them. More input helps me in this journey. I remain open minded to either side and can be convinced, I just haven’t found irrefutable proof for either case.

But where are th fossils short necked giraffe

@@solomon6823 I believe somewhere in Northern China some were found in an expedition. They’re the prehistoric version of the modern day giraffe we have now. Sometimes referred to as “Giraffoids”.

@@BenDover-mw6ic makes sense

Let's guess here.. a small joke on a gumbal wrapper is as deep as you are comfortable going. You have ZERO background in any biology.

I am a Christian, I will tell you the problem I have with a lot of Christians. They will look at a banana and see how it’s similarly shaped to our hands and say “this was intellectually designed to fit in my hand”. Then they will look at a skeleton and be shows the same bones in different species and go “this is not evidence of anything. It doesn’t matter that our hands and monkey hands have the same structure, that’s not a common ancestor that’s just a designer using copy and paste.

@@johnschwalb you didn't explain what is inherently wrong with that. It is deductive reasoning. BTW, I don't know of anyone who says the fact that a banana can fit in his hand is proof of a creator.

Living in ignore-ance 🙊🙉🙈

It taught me beware of grifters selling you something.

It teaches beware of group think which can delude the consensus of people to believe blatant lies.

Many have seen the messiah and rise from the dead he is Yahweh and he has more documents about him then anyone in human history cause he is the way the truth and the life Yahweh 3 in 1 eternal God

@@schofrenzy3444 And many claim to have seen Bigfoot.

Incorrect information but yes is was packed with information, just it wasn't correct.

@@charlestownsend9280 "Incorrect information but yes is was packed with information, just it wasn't correct." What exactly are you asserting is incorrect?

@@elkhuntr2816 I posted a long comment an hour or two ago (so if you want to see a full breakdown of some of his errors it's near the top of the comments when organised by newest) but in brief he starts out with a misleading statement that deliberately incorrectly combines evolution and abiogenesis, the fact that no modern day evolution is based off of Darwin (just like how no psychology is based off of Freud), the card analogy is flawed because it completely ignores mutations, there is tons of evidence outside of natural selection that proves evolution, including observations, fossils, DNA, experiments, geology, etc, and that disproving evolution doesn't in turn prove someone else, it does nothing to actually prove his own claims. I only got around 10 minutes in and couldn't take any more misinformation, some of which is clearly deliberate (like ignoring mutations and confusing evolution with abiogenesis).

@@charlestownsend9280 The card analogy has nothing to do with mutations, only natural selection based on the existing gene pool. This would be "micro evolution" or more accurately, adaptation which no one disputes. This can be observed and documented as Darwin did. This is exactly how reproduction was designed to work. But dogs will always produce dogs, no change to a new type has ever been observed. So that only leaves us with mutations as the creative engine. In order for macro evolution to work, mutations would have to add new, never before existing information or code purely based on coding errors. We know this doesn't work. Mutations can only eliminate or corrupt existing information. It never creates vastly different highly complex and coordinated information necessary to create completely new body plans.

@@elkhuntr2816 yes and that's why the card analogy doesn't work because it completely misses a key component of evolution and natural selection, every offspring has several mutations, so the idea that it's always the same genes/cards is completely false. Micro and macro evolution are the same thing, they're the same process, one is just on a larger scale, the only ones who distinguish between the two are creationists. You can't have micro evolution without have macro evolution because the build up of micro evolution would cause macro evolution. Evolution is adaptation, it's the process of adaptation, what you are describing is evolution. Yes dogs will always produce dogs, because whatever species a dog evolves into with be both a dog and whatever new species they evolve into, just as birds are still dinosaurs and humans are still apes. But give a dogs enough time and their population will eventually change, this aspect of evolution is an observed fact, species evolving into new species has been observed in reptiles, birds, insects, bacteria, etc. Mutations do sometimes add new information, for example in humans you can have mutations that add whole new chromosomes. No mutations don't create new body parts, that's not how evolution works, dogs won't suddenly be born with wings or something, it's a slow progression of changes Norma in existing body parts, like for example the evolution of wings was a very slow change from arms to arms with long feathers, mainly used to keep eggs warm this was a positive trait so it was carried on and slowly the hands elongated which meant larger wings (some birds even still have claws), which meant they were better at keeping eggs warm, then eventually they could glide, this was also a positive trait, so that was passed on through the population and slowly became wings that could fly. So mutations do create complex information but over long periods of time. But the idea that mutations only remove information is something I've only ever heard creationists say, and it's because that's not the case. Not to mention that one single mutation can make a large difference, for example in humans single mutations have led to immunity from specific diseases, better oxygen intake, almost indisputable bones, increased muscle mass, the ability to survive in freezing cold water for long periods of time and in one case the ability to safely conduct electrical currents. So yeah single mutations can make huge changes, and that just in humans over the last century (and the ones that were documented).

How is it good news? You want to have someone watching over you all the time and telling you what to do? Sounds like bad news to me.

It's AnswersInGenesis, that's what they do for a living.

Newton knew nothing about gravity waves and Higgs field and still the theory of gravity created by him had enormous validity.

He was a founder of "The Glutton Club" whose sole purpose was to consume species of animals unknown to people of the time. His description of the animals was rather from a foodie perspective, which obviously has nothing to do with zoology or biology. In fact, many scientific experiments were carried out in attempt to support Darwin's claims, but ended up proving that he was wrong. The best example that comes to my mind is the Russian scientist who tried to make a hybrid of human/ chimpanzee by injecting human sperm in chimpanzees, and women with chimpanzee sperm. The experiment was redone many times but always ended with failure.

@@mikolajtrzeciecki1188 yes Newton is widely acknowledged as the greatest scientist who has ever lived, and 70% of his writings were christian theology, his faith heavily influenced his works

@@user-rb3tk5th2i So perhaps you should also stop discounting Darwin for his lack of knowledge about mitochondria and about DNA

​@@user-rb3tk5th2i he wasent a "christian" .....he had his own ideas of God and not use the bible as surce of his fate

God will make things anew upon the second coming, but things will continue to degrade in the meanwhile

@@thehtehteotheithe thats pseudoscientific

@@DM-qj7eh so you disagree that mutations occur at a stable rate in each new generation(approx 80 per generation in humans), and that each mutation is a loss of information and thus of utility, resulting in an overall degradation of the species over the course of many generations? and, further, you disagree with how extrapolation of this trend forward in time shows that life will eventually reach a point where it cannot sustain itself because of cascading errors?

Yes, an excellent series regarding the genetics of man and his dispersion after the flood.

@@razark9 What is AIG saying that is not scientifically accurate. Be specific.

God speaks to you? Or do you mean that old book written by humans?

@@mehallica666 Probably the latter. In the end it's always the latter.

@@mehallica666i’d actually like to know what you atheists think of this video 🤔

@@yogun1922 It's creationist propaganda. They tell you want you want to hear, allowing you to wallow in your own confirmation bias. God forbid you break free from the shackles of indoctrination, for these grifters will have no business model. Don't fall for the lies. It's in their best interests, not your own, to keep you trapped in the cult.

@@yogun1922 let me help you. This video is FULL of lies and concepts taken out of context. Look up the following: Mycoplasma laboratorium. Evolution happening right in front of our own eyes.

No, you've been spreading lies, to defend a lie. Those who are pretending they can see the Emperor's new clothes because everyone around them is saying they can see the clothes, are the theists pretending they have an experience of a supernatural being, because they believe everyone around them is experiencing a supernatural being - you are suffering from, and contributing to, a mass delusion. The thing is about methodological naturalism, is that it relies upon evidence occurring in nature to demonstrate a high degree of certainty in it's explanations of nature, whereas theism relies on faith - the excuse you use when you have no evidence. You've been brainwashed, and now you are abusing children, brainwashing them into believing they are the pawns of invisible supernatural agencies, when you have absolutely no evidence of this.

It's a real worry that they let nincompoops like you teach children.

@@Bomtombadi1 How droll, what you have just posted leaves anyone that reads it dumber as a result.

♦️Only dummies or idiots will believe in evolution! Because they reason or think like apes.

@@Bomtombadi1 when was the last time you saw a liberal comedian? They all became bitter monologuist with daddy issuess. 😖

@@Bomtombadi1 ♦️I believe in Creation, only when it is based on the Word of God. ♦️NB: Jehovah created all things and He made them perfectly. Whatever God made does not need any improvement from man. ♦️Whenever Man tries to improve what God made, he destroys the authenticity of that thing.

@@phoebemulube4451 very sad how so many were sucked into believing an injection could "improve" the human genome with UNKNOWN ingredients. THEY always knew what they were doing.

It's terrible explanation. And the fact he is using 'kind' to explain anything makes this really really stupid.

@@FilipCordas You DO realize you just affirmed everything he says about not allowing deceptive evolutionists to pressure you and conflate micro with macro evolution. Using words like "terrible" and "stupid" to describe a well thought out and factual description of true evolution with modern DNA discoveries that discredit Darwin, is just...terribly stupid on your part.

@@jamesbon1 No micro and micro evolution is the same thing just like micro and macro economy is studying the sam thing from two different angles. So then please tell me what does he mean when he says 'kind'? How can you tell if a living organism belongs to one cind or the other? Using words you don't know the meaning of is what makes it stupid.

@@FilipCordas You need to edit your first sentence. re-read it. He means canines are a "kind" and can evolve into different kinds of canines, but they can't sprout a fish tail or wings, as evolutionists believe. It's simply not in their DNA. Micro evolution is the former, macro is the latter. Yes, both are forms of evolution, but the former is observable, while the latter is belief and a long shot considering all we know about DNA today.

@@jamesbon1 So you don't know what a Kind is as well, so a kind evolves into other kind of canines? But again that still isn't a definition of what is a 'kind'? There are no forms of evolution just change in allele frequency over time. And no a member of canines can't ever sprout a fish tail because they are not fish what ever that maybe. But what has happened is a member of the carnovora has accumulated alleles to become a seal you know how evolution actually works not made up nonsense you people say it is out of compleat lack of knowledge on the subject.

It's funny how everybody else here "knows more" than the ones who actually study it.

He’s explaining things in a way that people like you, without a scientific PhD and decades of research experience, can understand. There are many highly respected mathematicians, physicists, biologists, chemists and engineers just like him. Learn something new.

Thank you for being the voice of reason, I missed normal people so much

you're confusing having a religious faith with accepting something as scientific fact when it does have gaps and real science is always changing, so a decade from now we could have an entirely new theory.

@@Seashellsbytheseashore21 Not confused, just making a comparison. Religion claims to have the answer, while Science seeks to question. Science doesn't like faith. Religion doesn't like doubt.

A mutation can also persist if it does not support or enhance anything. It just should not have a strong debilitating effect at that time and situation.

A new card would be a new piece of genetic code that produces a useful and effective feature, that harmonises with the rest of the organism to contribute to its survival. Mutations have been shown to fail miserably at this monumental task. They cannot even build a single unique new protein, nevermind a cell. If you don't think this is so, please put forward a link to the research that has demonstrated mutations generating new 'cards'

Please, list all of the helpful genetic mutations we've documented that could possibly lead to an animal changing species below. Remember, we would need billions of them, and those billions would need to happen exactly the same... billions of times. And those billions of mutations would need to be followed by billions more that continue in the same positive direction as the first billion. While you're at it, list the hundreds of millions of transitional creatures we've found that would be clearly present if macro evolution actually occurred.

If you would have finished the video he speaks on that

@Keith Ellis You clearly didn't even watch the whole video. Un believable

​@@quantitativediseasing9988except what s/he's saying is true, not made up

I'm afraid I don't understand how duplicating and recombining in different locations can create new functions and therefore prove that we all had a common ancestor. Just because a cow has five legs instead of four that does not mean that the cow is evolving into something else, it just means that the cow has developed a bad mutation. Duplication and recombination of genes in different areas does not make something new. It only replicates and recombines what is already there regardless of where in the body that takes place. I will be saying a prayer for you tonight in hope that I can call you my family in Christ Jesus. :) May God bless you and keep you always in His love.

​@@Grace-iq7mp It does make something new. If we take the word "bell" and slightly change it, it becones "belt". If we slightly change it again, it becomes "bent". If change it again, it becomes "dent". This is similar to how evolution works. Small mutations can build up to make whole different things. Except it doesn't happen in single things, it happens in species, and some things, like if it became "belk" aren't succesful because they don't work

@@Quartz512_ The main point is that this never happens in nature, only in the imagination of evolutionists. I'm always amazed that there are seemingly intelligent people who actually believe the Darwin fairy tales. It's almost laughable, but very sad so many can be misled.

​@@Quartz512_we dont have a problem with micro-evolution, as thats basically reshuffling of genes. Like the Galapagos finches, their beaks might vary because their genes got selected, but if you bring those birds back or add bird into the population they can still create generation that have different beaks. Its not as simple as words becoming entirely different, because the more accurate analogy to macro-evolution is "dog" word becoming "ape" which is way improbable, and considering you have to start from non-life its even more impossible. Ask any organic chem or bio students and they will tell you even a medium protein is insanely hard to make without help of organic (aka life) materials like enzyme etc. This is like the universe scrabble suddenly making a short journal paper, and the journal paper suddenly get reshuffled into a novel book (because remember, intermediate steps generation will die or be infertile) and the novel suddenly turn into encyclopedia, and encyclopedia suddenly turn into a bookshelf full of books.

what truth?

@nemephill that there is a creator. That natural selection exists but doesn't expand species, it subtracts and limits variations.

It's a terrible analogy.... Is a deck of cards a self replicating organic structure?

@@Jewonastick No, it's not a self replicating organic structure, but it does correctly show that only existing information can be chosen from. Take any creature you want, and we can know the limitations of what can never happen, based off of the existing information in it's DNA. Start with two dogs, and you can accurately predict that no matter how many millions, billions or trillions of years worth of breeding and natural selection you choose to allow, wings and flight will never become a possibility because there is no information for those to be chosen from and no way for it to be produced!

Its completely wrong. His explanation is that the cards hold abilities themself, which they dont. The combination of cards do and you arent limited in the number of cards you can have. Imagine if you had a deck of unlimited different cards with the 26 letters from a to z. Though you are limited to 26 letters you can arrange every information that you want with them. Computers only work with 1 and 0 and you can create any number of informations with those. Likewise DNA works with just 4 bases but can create any information out of them that are biologically possible. And since all life shares the same 4 bases all life has the same potential. A dogs DNA has the same bases as a bird to use his dog with wings analogy. So if the bases get rearanged in a perfect way a dogs front legs could deform into wings. Of course this wont happen from one gen to the next. Evolution assumes that these changes take a lot of generations of gradual change.

@@SangerZonvolt Plus evolution would never cause a dog to grow wings as in order for those wings to be beneficial for that creature the rest would also need to change through evolutionary processes. Dogs for instance don't live in trees, leaping from branch to branch.... So a mutation that would be the beginning of something that could grow out to become wings would not be beneficial

@@Jewonastick Its very unlikely, borderline impossible for dogs to evolve directly into something flying. That´s also not what evolution clamis. What I meant is that the potential is there in the four bases that are represent in the DNA of a dog. If a dog would learn to fly it would go over several steps. A simplified example: Let´s say there are wild dogs to get human intervention out of the equation. Those are hunting for other animals. However due to changes in the enviroment plants are growing smaller and smaller. This means it is getting harder for large dogs to stay hidden and it also means that the herbivores would likely become smaller since they also cant hide anymore if they are too big and have less plants to eat. This leads to the dogs having less prey. This favors smaller dogs that need less energy. This would likely happen in a lot of dog families at the same time. At some point a family of dogs has one dog that is a good climber. Maybe he has longer claws, or his paws are formed in a certain way. Anyway that dog now has a higher survival chance because he can get to food thats in the trees, for example new born birds in nests or other animals that are stuck there. He has a bigger survival chance and passes that gene on, meaning his decendents have a higher base chance of survival. This treat now becomes dominant in a certain sub pool of dogs because they live in an area where ground based prey is geting less and less viable. So there is a pressure to evolve into climbers. Now among those climbers there are some dogs that got better at navigating the trees by jumping from tree to tree. These changes involve longer fingers to better grab stuff and jumping from branch tobranch. At one point a dog has a mutation that makes the skin around his paws and legs really floppy. Normally that would be a bad thing since it hinders movement and isnt enough to fly. However in certain circumstances they advantages can outweight the disadvantages. For example they could use the flaps to catch bugs. Or maybe they help with heat regulation. There is a number of potential benefits given the right circumstances. Anyway they turn out to be beneficial and so get breed more and more by natural selection. At some point they become big enough that the dogs can glide with them, or it just breaks their fall by working like a parachute, meaning a higher base survival chance. Again, what is beneficial and what is not can change with the circumstances. Now you have gliding dogs. From there the jump to flying isnt that far anymore. This is how you can end up with something like bats, a flying mammal. The most recuring argument against evolution is that people dont comprehend that the changes arent drastic. They are gradual. Often the mutations inital benefit has nothing to do with the ability it later evolves into. Wings never came into existence as wings, they had some other advantage in the early stages and only became wings when they were already developed enough to switch over to that position. This takes an extreme amount of generations, which is why its hard to observe in our timeframe in large animals. It is however very well documented in life forms that have a shorter lifespan like bacteria and flies, which can have hundreds or thousand of generations in a scientists lifetime. There are bacterial experiments into evolution spanning literal decades.

Fallen man is desperate to hold on to anything that keeps him from the knowledge of God.

@@PhilipK635 The One you're avoiding with sophistry.

@@PhilipK635 Yes. Odin would definitely be step up from Darwin.

Explain rocks evolving to DNA

@@rodangus4489 Hyper-religious man is desperate to hold on to anything that keeps him away from the knowledge of scientific fact and evolution.

If there's an irony on this page, it is that nearly everyone here asserts the emperor has fine clothes. It is the commenters that are the sycophants expressing their wisdom and insight.

Don't waste time, they are idiots.

A mutated HbC gene is still an HbC gene. No new gene has ever been observed coming into existence. And when referring to genetics, thousands of years is almost nothing. The average protein is over 700 specifically sequenced amino acids. The hemoglobin protein is smaller. If you filled a trillion universes with random hemoglobin sized proteins, probability dictates that not one of them would be hemoglobin. You don’t have to take my word for it, and you shouldn’t, you can do the math yourself. The HbC mutation you mentioned is caused by a single nucleotide out of over 1500 in that particular gene. A person’s genome could be otherwise flawless, yet a single wrong nucleotide out of millions can kill him. The reason you will never observe a new gene coming into existence is the laws of probability will not allow it.

You are again perverting the truth by attributing, for instance, "genes" being formed that resist HIV, with the natural restoration of the divinely created immune system to detect and reject virus attack. Your evidence is false and corrupted. We do not, however, have the need to react any more strongly against such falsehoods. The wise will know it and you are paving your own way to eternal damnation.

@@sybrandvankwawegen2554 brrr! spooky! 😱

No, cause that is a false anology.

ok and why?@@Jewonastick

It's really easy when you're preaching to the choir, and no one is there to ask questions.

Aside from the blatant lies.

Yeah he's good, he hosted Creation Magazine Live with Richard whatshisname for many years before coming to AIG.

@@billy9144 haha yeah ok troll. Truth hurts huh?

I initially read your comment as, "This guy is a very, very good pretender," which would have been more accurate. I don't know what you mean by "genuine delivery". If you deliberately deceive people in your delivery, is your delivery "genuine"?

If the mutation is large enough to create a new organ (as opposed to a small change), the animal will die in development just as pregnancies end in miscarriages. When evolutionary scientists do mutation experiments they can easily generate mutations in fruit flies, but the babies die.

Do you know of any proof that you can cite, that new gene information emerges?

Exactly and genetic mutations add up over time.

Your worldview essentially says the following. If I had a software that made random bits of code with 1s and 0s, over millions of years, I would eventually make a software that would make the genetic code of humans.

@@TheSpacePlaceYT Your argument lacks two crucial things: 1 I have thousends of the same Code 2 The few of the Code that have some 1s and 0s different, most probably die. This means even if some of Codes get defective, they just die or those random 1s and 0s make the Code a bit better witch then proliferates and makes the alterations more commen in the huge Code community

Nah you’re wrong

@@caininabel1529 Which thing?

​@@caininabel1529n Lalalalala my god is stronger than your thinky thing! Gotchya! 🤡

A common ancestor they can't prove. Just like if you look up what a horse evolved from it ends abruptly. They can never show more than the creature itself and never prove the horse not being a horse. Just as this video explains natural selection/adaptations.

Funny thing is he says natural selection is not evolution. And - he's right. It's not. And I don't think any evolutionists ever said that.

@@maninhat77 Evolutionist always give natural selection as evidence for evolution...that was the entire premise of Darwin.

there is no direct observational of macro-evolution.

@@HS-zk5nn There can't be, by definition. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a larger time scale.

@@joshuakohlmann9731 that has no direct observational evidence. thus cant be proven by science by definition

Just look up Forrest Valkai Reacteria here on KZfaq..... And then come back to delete your comment.

Define _"real science"?_

What are you going to use to support this claim. Do, you have evidence to support the mythical common ancestor? What examples of organisms of today can you use to support dinosaur to to bird or land animal to whale, or even ape like to ape and ape man? Your lean, extra lean,, on evidence.

@@rtmcdge Yes there is plenty evidence both in the fossil record and the human genome that supports the existence of a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. This would be the Sahelanthropus tchadensis which lived about 7 million years ago. As far as land animal to whale, Cetaceans have a common ancestor with modern-day artiodactyls such as the cow, the pig, the camel, the giraffe and the hippopotamus. There is again ample evidence in the extant genome and the fossil record.

@@wadenovin2479 No, there isn't. If there was there'd be a whole lot less people who reject evolution. There has probably never been a speculation that has been so accepted but is so still rejected by other scientists. All of what you are claiming is only unsubstantiated speculation. Hundreds of millions of years, STILL NOT SUPPORTED WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. But, there is other evidence disputing this. "Newly Published Analysis Refutes Claims that Sahelant" hropus tchadensis Was Human Ancestor...These claims have led to much disagreement in the paleoanthropology community. Brigitte Senut, of the Natural History Museum in Paris, called Toumai “the skull of a female gorilla,” and co-wrote in Nature, along with Milford H. Wolpoff, Martin Pickford, and John Hawks, that “Sahelanthropus was an ape,” not bipedal, and that many features “link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.” This debate has continued.More Discovered than Reported It turns out that there was more of Sahelanthropus discovered than was initially reported. At the end of 2020, nearly two decades after the fossil was first reported, the debate was seemingly settled when the femur of Sahelanthropus was finally described. The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study: The leg bone suggests that Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the earliest species generally regarded as an early human, or hominin, didnʼt walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps. As the technical paper put it: A partial left femur (TM 266-01-063) was recovered in July 2001 at Toros-Menalla, Chad, at the same fossiliferous location as the late Miocene holotype of Sahelanthropus tchadensis (the cranium TM 266-01-060-1). … The results of our preliminary functional analysis suggest the TM 266 femoral shaft belongs to an individual that was not habitually bipedal, something that should be taken into account when considering the relationships of S. tchadensis. … In terms of size and shape, the external morphology of the shaft is closer to that of the common chimpanzee than to modern humans, gorillas, or orangutans. … Likewise, the cross-sectional morphology of the TM 266 distal shaft is most similar to that of Pan [chimpanzees]. … Given the results of the comparative analyses in the previous section, the overall morphology of TM 266 appears to be closer to that of common chimpanzees than to that of habitually bipedal modern humans. … Given the broader comparative context of the morphology of the TM 266 femur, there is no compelling evidence that it belongs to a habitual biped, something that would strengthen the case for S. tchadensis being a hominin." Source: evolutionnews.org/2021/02/newly-published-analysis-refutes-claims-that-sahelanthropus-tchadensis-was-human-ancestor/ Come on, if you are going to make claims, at least do some research. I'll point out this. "The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study: So, now, you see, there is much more to the story that you seem not to be aware of. And your claims of "much more", for this, "Cetaceans have a common ancestor with modern-day artiodactyls such as the cow, the pig, the camel, the giraffe and the hippopotamus. There is again ample evidence in the extant genome and the fossil record." is grossly overstated. The evolutionists have not come into an consensus as to what mythical land animal that was the ancestor of the whale. And all the while, this is contradicted each time it is seen that only whales give birth to baby whales. So, all you have is misinformation and unsubstantiated speculation to rest your beliefs on. NOT SCIENCE.

@@wadenovin2479 "Articles by Brunet and colleagues in the journal Nature called it “the earliest known hominid ancestor,” or more cautiously proposed it as “close to the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.” Although Brunet’s technical paper at the time admitted that “There is not yet sufficient information to infer reliably whether Sahelanthropus was a habitual biped,” he and his team proposed that “such an inference would not be unreasonable given the skull’s other basicranial and facial similarities to later fossil hominids that were clearly bipedal.” To this day, the Smithsonian Institution calls it “one of the oldest known species in the human family tree.” These claims have led to much disagreement in the paleoanthropology community. Brigitte Senut, of the Natural History Museum in Paris, called Toumai “the skull of a female gorilla,” and co-wrote in Nature, along with Milford H. Wolpoff, Martin Pickford, and John Hawks, that “Sahelanthropus was an ape,” not bipedal, and that many features “link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.” This debate has continued. More Discovered than Reported It turns out that there was more of Sahelanthropus discovered than was initially reported. At the end of 2020, nearly two decades after the fossil was first reported, the debate was seemingly settled when the femur of Sahelanthropus was finally described. The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study: The leg bone suggests that Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the earliest species generally regarded as an early human, or hominin, didnʼt walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps. As the technical paper put it: A partial left femur (TM 266-01-063) was recovered in July 2001 at Toros-Menalla, Chad, at the same fossiliferous location as the late Miocene holotype of Sahelanthropus tchadensis (the cranium TM 266-01-060-1). … The results of our preliminary functional analysis suggest the TM 266 femoral shaft belongs to an individual that was not habitually bipedal, something that should be taken into account when considering the relationships of S. tchadensis. … In terms of size and shape, the external morphology of the shaft is closer to that of the common chimpanzee than to modern humans, gorillas, or orangutans. … Likewise, the cross-sectional morphology of the TM 266 distal shaft is most similar to that of Pan [chimpanzees]. … Given the results of the comparative analyses in the previous section, the overall morphology of TM 266 appears to be closer to that of common chimpanzees than to that of habitually bipedal modern humans. … Given the broader comparative context of the morphology of the TM 266 femur, there is no compelling evidence that it belongs to a habitual biped, something that would strengthen the case for S. tchadensis being a hominin. Since “the bone is curved, not straight, typical of apes like chimps,” New Scientist quoted the lead author Roberto Macchiarelli as saying, “There are a lot of indicators which deeply discourage bipedal gait.” Madelaine Böhme at the University of Tübingen in Germany said: “I saw the pictures 10 or 12 years ago, and it was clear to me that itʼs more similar to a chimp than to any other hominin.” Phys.org put the implications bluntly: Sahelanthropus “was not a hominin, and thus was not the earliest known human ancestor.” This evidence forced the researchers to suggest that if Sahelanthropus were a human ancestor then that would mean bipedality is no longer a necessary qualification for status as a hominid - an unorthodox view that would cause great complications for the primate tree. As the recent article in the Journal of Human Evolution concluded: Based on our analyses, the TM 266 partial femur lacks any feature consistent with regular bouts of terrestrial bipedal travel; instead, its gross morphology suggests a derived Pan-like bauplan. Thus, if there is compelling evidence that S. tchadensis is a stem hominin, then bipedalism can no longer be seen as a requirement for inclusion in the hominin clade. Did Rivals Stonewall Publication? New Scientist told one last part of this story that is potentially disturbing, most especially for those who think that the scientific community is always objective. First, New Scientist commented on the circumstances under which it took nearly 20 years for the femur - which apparently contradicts Brunet’s initial view that Sahalenthropus was a bipedal human ancestor - to be described: The researchers found a femur, or thigh bone, along with two ulnas, or forearm bones, that would help clarify the matter, but they published nothing about them for almost two decades, prompting criticism from colleagues. Brunet didnʼt respond to a request for comment from New Scientist. Why did it take so long for the femur to be described? As New Scientist explained, after the femur was discovered in 2004 it was brought to the University of Poitiers. Collaborators wanted to study the femur, but the two lead authors of the present study, Macchiarelli and Aude Bergeret-Medina, opted not to do this “until this could be checked with Brunet and his team.” What happened next was quite strange: Later, Bergeret-Medina was unable to find the femur. Neither she nor Macchiarelli ever saw it again. However, when Brunetʼs team didnʼt describe the femur, she and Macchiarelli prepared a study using her photos and measurements. Source: evolutionnews.org/2021/02/newly-published-analysis-refutes-claims-that-sahelanthropus-tchadensis-was-human-ancestor/ And the rest of your post is just as unsubstantiated.

@@rtmcdge "If there was [evidence] there'd be a whole lot less people who reject evolution. " But there already AREN'T many people who reject evolution. Putting aside your fallacious reasoning there (that the number of people who reject evolution is a metric for its soundness), your premise is wrong, as it implies there are a large number of people who reject it. The only people who reject it are fundamental christians and muslims. The majority of the world (including virtually 100% of biologists and other natural scientists) already doesn't reject it. And even still, as the first reply pointed out, we have tons of fossil evidence of human evolution ALONE, not to mention the countless other species of plants, animals, fungi, etc. And fossil evidence isn't even the be-all-and-end-all of evidence, as fossilization is hit and miss, so we're actually quite fortunate to have found what we have. More than that, we have incredibly detailed molecular genetic evidence of phylogenetic relationships, in the exact same way as we have DNA evidence of certain people being present at certain crime scenes (unless you'd just like to dismiss all of that as well). So when you ask 'what examples of organisms of today can you use to support your...ape like to ape and ape man' evolution, and the commenter gives a RECENT example -- i.e. a discovery from a few years ago, which, like all scientific papers of import, will be hotly debated for years -- and you simply use the controversy around that SINGLE example to dismiss the entirety of the evidence....is absurd. What about Homo habilis, the earliest known hominin? Or Homo erectus? Or all of the Australopithecus spp.? Sure, it's possible Sahelanthropus tchadensis specifically has been incorrectly classified (the analyses of the coming years will determine that; although, importantly, you have not shown that it IS, you have simply shown that there is not unanimous agreement about it), but those other examples like H. habilis are solidly established for decades. What is your rationale for insisting these AREN'T hominins and hominids?

Not exactly, because sometimes the 1 can be eaten or otherwise destroyed by one eating monsters thus ending the additive process.

@@tristanmiltenburg1084Give that 1 millions and millions of years, and he might just pull through.

@@Janice_Lippincott time is always the hero of the story and micro evolution has yet to have a certainty of link between macro evolution even with time. It’s a simplistic theory that works of paper but doesn’t provide a full explanation for complex development when considering the nature of some changes. Like wings for example, is more complicated than simply evolving wings because you also need to evolve the supporting structures for wings, hollow bones, diets that are practical for eating smaller lighter meals and the enzymes to support it. The struggle is whether or not even with the time line we have it’s not obvious that much complex change can come from the hypothesis simplistic origins.

@@tristanmiltenburg1084 Time is important in evolution, but not the main focus. Natural selection, genetic variation, and environmental factors drive evolution. Microevolution and macroevolution are connected, with small changes leading to larger outcomes over time. Evolution is supported by evidence and explains the diversity of life on Earth through mechanisms like natural selection and genetic drift. Complex structures like wings evolve gradually through intermediate stages, with supporting structures and adaptations evolving alongside them. Evolution is a slow process, with small changes accumulating over generations. The fossil record and genetic evidence show the gradual development of complex traits.

@@Janice_Lippincott not entirely true. It shows similarities as possible paths of gradual changes. He have record and likely connections to form the theory of micro evolution convincingly. But the significant changes on a macro scale involves huge gaps in the record with a possible connection theorized from the similarities we have available. It’s the difference between having the necessary stages to be certain of a connection and the best guess we have available with what we have. Take the connection between wolves and whales for example. We see some connections between skeletal structures to form the hypothesis, but not enough for an actual confirmation and the hypothesis is derived from large spaces of unknown information rather than a cohesive chain. This is like the difference between seeing a ford model T and tracing the evolution to a ford focus, vs finding the origin of a chassis and making the hypothesis it is what lead to the first airplane.