Answering bad arguments for evolution: homology.

My buddy Jackson Wheat did a review of my video about homology, and it’s a pretty impressive video. It’s wrong about a lot in my opinion, but it is instructive. If you haven’t seen I want to encourage you to go ahead and watch it.
My Video on Homology: • Evidence for Evolution...
Jackson Wheat's Response: • Misunderstanding Homol...
More info on nested hierarchies & cladistics:
“Matzke, Cladistics, and Missing Ancestors” Stephen C. Meyer, Chapter 4 of Debating Darwin’s Doubt. Pgs 42-70 (2015)
“The Fossil Record and Universal Common Ancestry” Gunter Bechly & Stephen C. Meyer, pgs 331-361, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Phlosophical, and Theological Critique (2017)
“The Tree of Life” Johnathan Wells, pgs 23-48 Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution (2017)
evolutionnews.org/2018/07/bio...
Important information about platypuses: • KZbin The P P Platy...
hate mail: [e-mail]

[@nesslig2025]

@Long Story Short Hello, here is where you are still wrong and got even more wrong: docs.google.com/document/d/1Hs8gp4ZCISUvMEtvktYgnc4dehNXvfOe_hoLlPfIugM/edit?usp=sharing (I have to link it to a googledoc as it is too long to be copy pasted in the comment section)

[@MarkC88]

I wish I had read this before posting my comment! puts mine to shame.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks Nesslig, some genuinely fair points but I'm afraid we're largely talking past each other. If you and Jackson can ease up on the name calling and accusations maybe we can have a reasonable dialogue, but we're not going to get anywhere with this sort of thing.

[@nesslig2025]

@@LongStoryShortVideos What "names" did I call you? At what point did either me or Jackson call you "names"?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

@@nesslig2025 Do you really not know? You, Jackson and other commentators frequently pull the creationist card and all the caricatures and tropes associated with that (as if I've ever said anything about that or ever appealed to any religious document or belief). And you're also very quick on the "misleading" "misrepresenting" and "quote mining" labels - these claims are all spurious as far as I'm concerned and mere emotional insults. They generate more heat than light, as they say. You also claim that I'm not listening and cutting Jackson off (when I specifically link to his video and encourage everyone to watch it). In this doc you interestingly try to psychoanalyze me as well as ruminate about my motivations and attribute other fallacies to me. Just a quick scan and I'm noticing many things we would agree on (but you seem to think we disagree), but also substantial problems with it (where you completely misunderstand my point), I'm happy to have a polite conversation but not if this is what you have in mind. I want to discuss the facts of the matter rather than the sociology involved.

[@nesslig2025]

@@LongStoryShortVideos I cannot say for other commentators [obviously]. But neither Jackson nor I have called YOU a creationist. When Jackson stated at 9:28 *"This is really rich coming from creationists, yes creationists, look up the Discovery Institute's wedge document "* it was in reference to...well...the Discovery Institute (as your video was firstly published by them). If you say you are not a creationist yourself, I will take your word for this, but I cannot do the same thing for the Discovery Institute. *See point #14* You did make misleading arguments, you also made several misrepresentation and you made quite a few quote mines and fallacies. None of these are "name calling" nor do they necessarily imply malicious intent on your part. They are criticisms, don't take it personally. You cut Jackson off right before he could explain the points he made. Like when you said at 2:25 that you weren't sure how you incorrectly framed Berra's analogy...right after you gut him off before he explained how you did framed it incorrectly. And this isn't the only instance of something like this happened. Just because you linked the video in the description, that doesn't automatically absolve your video from any wrong doings such as these. I never questioned your own motives. I did say that I suspect you are "possessed by Morton's demon", which is a reference to "conformation bias", however confirmation bias is not a "motive". Besides, I also said my opinion on that not important, as it is just my opinion. What is important is the fact that your video contains numerous errors and misrepresentations. And that's what I focused on for the entire response. I am also happy to discuss the facts, but not when you take everything as a personal attack like this.

[@digitaleasyaadacube2149]

Hows this chanel not getting millions of views? And how am I only just seeing it this year? 🤔🤔That buggles me. I love the content. Great work man.

[@yohas79]

because Satan the god of these times is trying really hard to hide genuine scientific knowledge to keep the general population ignorant and so easier to manipulate

[@matteomastrodomenico1231]

​@@yohas79...or maybe there just isn't any evidence and you're being a victim

[@yohas79]

@@matteomastrodomenico1231 there is evidence you’re just being deceived by Satan i do have genuine scientific knowledge do you?

[@spamm0145]

@@matteomastrodomenico1231 Or KZbins algorithm is specifically coded to push the official narrative and steer opposing channels into the shadows. There is tons of evidence for creation and if you actually put your presuppositions aside and evaluated the evidence with an open mind, who knows, you may realise that the information within all living organisms screams intelligent input based on a well founded observation that information always emanates from a mind. The information in DNA is the most complex ever discovered, it can be read in multiple directions, utilizes encryption, and bizarrely for a process that supposedly relies on random mutations has a sophisticated error correction system. It also has the claim of the worlds most compact data storage method and if this data were written into books they would stretch to the moon and back 500 times. Despite all of this the consensus is it created itself over millions of years, ignoring the absolute fact, information, especially purposeful complexly arranged information, is only known to come from a mind. What sort of mind is required for information that is so complex it cannot be arranged in the method DNA utilises using todays supercomputers? Evolution requires a special pleading for a mechanism that has never been observed, that purposeful complexly arranged information comes into existence without intelligent input. Ponder on this, have you ever contemplated that matter without a mind and therefore incapable of understanding mathematics, supposedly over the course of time, using unguided, random mutational processes without intent constructs a complex brain that is capable of understanding the abstract concept of numbers, utterly preposterous!

[@user-lc3ts1ps2e]

The only things that get millions of views are the biggest lies of the media

[@Agrclark]

Top job LSS. It's strange how the negative commentators below have such confidence, yet a leading proponent of evolution - Gerd Muller - is honest about the theory's difficulties “current evolutionary theory…largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior…actually arise in evolution”. Whilst I appreciate Gerd's honesty, I am surprised to see an open admission that Neo Darwinism ( they hate that term), fails to explain the very thing they claim it explains. As for the commentators below, we may be witnessing an unrelated theory being confirmed; that of Dunning Kruger.

[@JessicaSunlight]

While some people use mental words aggressively, most people use mental aggression in words in self-defense, and they do so because they feel threatened. Therefore, the very fact that so many materialists feel threatened clearly demonstrates that they have not attained the peace of mind that can only be attained through an inner knowing. This inner knowing must be based on the rock of Truth, namely personal ability to discern between many lies of this world and something based on reality. The simple fact is that so many people on earth, be they Christians or non-Christians, religious people or scientific materialists, have not yet reached a level of maturity where they dare to acknowledge that they have the ability to know truth within their hearts. Until this ability is activated, the person will always feel a deep, inner sense of insecurity. Because person finds it difficult to live with this insecurity, it must find ways to cope with the situation. If it does not know or acknowledge the potential to put on personal ability to know Truth and be engaged in seeking constant higher understanding, that person cannot truly overcome the insecurity by building the only true sense of security. Therefore, the person is left to seek to build its sense of security by using the things of this world. The "ideologies" that floating around Earth. The person will often accept a particular belief system and elevate it to the status of an absolute or unquestionable truth ( I finally found THE belief system above all others!). The person feels that as long as it belongs to this belief system, and as long as the belief system is not challenged by anything, the person can feel secure. Obviously, this sense of security is a house built on sand, but many people are not willing to acknowledge this fact. They will, in an attempt to avoid dealing with their insecurity, keep following the way that seems right onto a human. Therefore, you currently have many people who spend all of their energy in an attempt to defend a particular belief system, be it religious or materialistic. In reality, it would require much less effort for people to adopt an inner approach, always stay true to seeking deeper understanding, never make anything infallible in your mind and follow the true, inner path to a deeper understanding about Life via gradually learning to discern truth from a lie. This would also overcome the many conflicts between groups of people who are all trying to defend an incomplete and relative belief system instead of seeking for a higher understanding that could heal their personal schisms and their outer conflicts with other people who hold different views.

[@Freddy18w]

Very insightful. Wisdom even. WTG!!!

[@waliul280]

All they can do is rant by saying creationist this, creationist that followed by cheap mockery with no productive counter response to the arguments.

[@Greenie-43x]

What's K-Bell on here for? 10:06 I don't think Veronica Mars would've fallen for Darwinism. She can smell a conspiracy from a lightyear away. Thanks for all the presentations! I love the information and my kiddo likes the style of your videos. Keep up the great work! I just recently subscribed. .

[@nesslig2025]

@Long Story Short I made a comment with a link to a google doc that includes my response. I suspect it may have been marked as spam (as I cannot see it when using a sock account). Would you mind checking it and fixing if necessary, such that the response is visible to anyone?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

It's showing up for me, maybe there's just a delay, I don't delete any comments.

[@nesslig2025]

@@LongStoryShortVideos I meant that it may have been marked as spam by the automatic system of youtube. I am not saying that you manually deleted it. When it is marked as spam, only the owner of the channel and the commenter can still view it, but it is not visible to other viewers (hence why I used a sock account to check if it is visible to other accounts but it wasn't for me). However, it appears that it is visible to others as I got a comment from a different person on that reply. So it appears there wasn't an issue.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

@@nesslig2025 hmm, yeah it wasn't under the spam or pending review section, but it's not showing up for me now either. Not sure what's going on, sorry!

[@nesslig2025]

@@LongStoryShortVideos Could you make a pinned comment and put the link there?

[@Freddy18w]

Yeah...haters are gonna hate hate hate. But I love this guy!

[@KT-ht2xj]

Whose voice it is? Who is talking behind the microphone? Just want to know😊

[@nickpuencho]

Dont stop making these, i hope u arw taking advantage of other platforms like tiktok or odysee

[@rizkomao649]

Thank you for your efort. Good luck.

[@AbrarManzoor]

subscribed brother to gain some brain cells that had get lost with Arguments of Evolutionists.

[@cadespaulding3837]

my rebuttal for the claim at 3:43 is simply ecological niche.

[@krakykrake8162]

Edit: to clarify upfront: i'm open to alternative explanations for the appearance of design. So keep reading ;) How did the intelligent designer do it? Is there only one or a group of designers? Why are they hidden? Did the new designs just appeared in new life forms out of thin air (popping in to existence) or is the new designed implemented in the process of embryogenesis? I would like to see your point of views explanation. I'm open to it. Just attacking (even if rightfully so) doesn't provide any explanatory power. Also, beware of false dichotomy. I would really like to know more about what ID sees as the mechanisms of creation. How does the creator(s) work?

[@mousasaab2652]

We simply don’t know

[@Agaporis12]

As to how life was designed, I’d say that our knowledge would be insufficient to understand any adequate answer. So at this point there’s no reason to ask that particular question. That is we can’t produce life or even most organic chemicals in labs much less imagine how they might have come to be on prebiotic earth. This is some next-level shit. For a more detailed response read God’s answer to Job. Revelations and mythological accounts suggest that there was more than one designer for things however one designer created the other designers. Read the beginning of the Silmarilion. Aside from those stories we don’t have much information on any designer so occoms razor would suggest we should speculate only one designer until we have evidence for more. Hidden? Well I find the term hidden to be misleading as if God were hiding behind a tree. What we mean is why do we not perceive Him? Well that’s not much of a question unless you believe God is omnipresent which He is so let’s go with that. If God made the universe, then He is not inherently spacial, temporal or material. Hence we cannot detect Him by our physical senses. You have an unseen part to you which can sense Him but… how to put this. The ability to percieve God is clouded by selfish desire. Try to eliminate selfish desires and you’ll quickly see how hard that is. Selfish desire causes us ti focus on things beneath us and which we can control which is the world of becoming. God is being, not becoming, and so not something we can bring ourselves to perceive simply because we have no interest in perceiving Him. We focus on what we can understand and manipulate, not on what is beyond understanding and which cannot be controlled. If you could move away from this, as many have. You would begin to percieve God. But the answer to why you don’t percieve him now is that an ingrained habit of selfishness inherited from generations of sinful ancestors prevents you from even desiring to see. Yet you might argue, I don’t desire to see the sun, but it forces itself on me. Well God is omnipresent, so seeing Him is like a fish feeling wet. Technically the fish does feel wet, but it sees that as nothing and feeling dry or whatever else as something. Consequently it is very easy to dismiss God as the normal sort of thing and to focus on everything that is not Him. However, since you are far more intelligent than the fish you are capable of refocusing your attention to percieve Him. Why doesn’t He force Himself on our consciousness? Do you really think God, the paragon of love, would enter a room without knocking? Yes, He does sometimes but only for special emergencies. As to His knocking, you get that constantly, but you automatically dismiss it as being beneath notice. Also, if you’d ever had a mystical experience of God, you’d understand it’s very easy to dismiss it as imaginary or a hallucination. It wouldn’t do God much good to appear to most people. And the truth is, it’s not just God you don’t notice, it’s a whole spiritual world which you’ve been living in your whole life, full of demons, monsters, and angels, but since it has no spacial dimension and everyone there outranks you, it passes beneath your notice and you frequently mistake any effect it has on you for a dream or idea or emotion. Crying at the sight of beauty for instance is not directly from the beauty itself but from how the beauty reminds us of God and tears are our reaction to being reminded of the father from whom we are estranged. But we easily dismiss those tears as being meaningless. As to how new designs come to be, we’d have to rely on evidence for that, and the fossil evidence so far is inconclusive on that point.

[@ambrosianapier7545]

These are theological questions and I think ID limits itself to the purely scientific it’s not attempting to be a religion or uncover Gods nature/personality. The fact of the matter is there is only two options either life formed by chance or it did not. The evidence shows strongly that it did not happen by chance, nor by step by step mutations

[@kathleennorton2228]

Jeremiah 10:12 KJV - He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

[@thewetcoast]

Science does not make truth claims. It can only hypothesize based on repeatable observations, with an understanding that future repeatable observations may either solidify or undermine the current hypothesis. Putting your faith in such a process (and defending it) is dubious at best.

[@owenduck]

Mainstream science preaches likes its the gospel mate. Even when they are verifiable wrong.

[@strb3305]

Yes, and the only source that can be repeatedly tested and observed is the Bible

[@sabhishek9289]

​@@strb3305 Christianity is the catalyst for all the natural sciences.

[@strb3305]

@@sabhishek9289 yeah two hundred years ago when life expectancy was literally half what it is now, in the modern age Christianity has taken a complete anti science stance

[@sabhishek9289]

@@strb3305 I only understood this part of your comment: "in the modern age Christianity has taken a complete anti science stance" No, Christianity didn't take the anti science stance in the modern age. How I would put it is that Certain Christian scientists who take Genesis account as an historical hypothesis (I'm not commenting whether they were right or wrong about interpreting the Genesis accounts) are against the presumptuous pseudoscience around old earth and macroevolution (that is pro naturalism) for both scientific and biblical reasons.

[@haroonrahman3480]

I loved this so much

[@MarkC88]

You are confusing the definition of homology with the phenomenon of homologous structures. This is explained in detail in the ncse source you show in the video. Did Richard Owen group together all vertebrates because he assumed common ancestry or did he group them because he recognised a pattern of similarities? He and plenty of creationists before him recognised the phenomenon of homology and were able to see the pattern it makes. It is this pattern that is talked about as evidence for common ancestry. Yes, I know today we often talk about homology by defining it as inherited structures. The modern definition confusingly replaced the old one. Your confusion would be understandable if you didn't keep showing sources that explain this. You just showed a textbook that explains the two different usages of the word "homology" and explains which one is being used when. Is your argument that textbooks don't make it clear enough to you therefore its a circular argument? I'll assume maybe some don't make it clear enough, but you've shown plenty of examples yourself where this is clearly pointed out. If you'd like to "take back" the term homology to mean "traits that are similar in ways that appear to be modifications of the same thing" and use the term synapomorphy to mean inherited traits then yeh I think that seems reasonable. At that point do you at least concede that the argument is not circular? (when the correct definitions of the words are properly understood).

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks for the comment Mark, I don't think the confusion lies with me though. I agree with the distinction the NCSE makes, homology isn't evidence for evolution (common ancestry), it is a conclusion that springs forth from it. In order to prove common ancestry they point to external evidence, which is addressed in the original video next. They make a correct distinction, but the evidence they point to next does not prove what they claim.

[@MarkC88]

@@LongStoryShortVideos I appreciate the reply. Which definition of homology are you referring to that "isn't evidence for evolution"? If you mean the modern definition: “similar traits that are the result of common ancestry” then I agree with you. It's not evidence of common ancestry, that would be circular reasoning. This is the definition the NCSE is talking about when they say it's "not evidence for common ancestry". This is why I find it confusing that you seem to think this definition is being deceptively used as evidence when you're clearly aware of explanations telling you that it's not being used as evidence for common ancestry. Homology under the modern definition can be used to test for degrees of relatedness, not whether or not evolution happens at all. Under this definition evolution is already assumed to be an established fact, as mainstream science considers it to be (as far as anything in science can be established as fact). It can be used as evidence that humans and chimps are more closely related than humans and fish. It can't be used as evidence whether or not any of those animals have at least some degree of relatedness as at least some degree of relation is assumed already. Important to note, however, this does not mean that common ancestry was just assumed from the start. What this means is scientists are building hypotheses off what they consider to already be well established through other lines of evidence (in this case one of those lines of evidence is what is confusingly referred to as homology, but is not the same homology that I've just been talking about). This is pretty common in science and it lends support to the original hypotheses that are built on because if they weren't true then you shouldn't expect consistent results from hypotheses built on assuming them to be true. I'm guessing these other lines of evidence you intend to address are going to be independent from the other kind of homology (the one that actually IS used as evidence for common ancestry). While I probably disagree with your reasons for dismissing those other lines of evidence I won't be presumptuous so for the sake of discussion I'll consider them dismissed. I maintain that this other definition of homology stands on its own as evidence for common ancestry. The other definition I'm talking about is the original definition. The original definition of homology that was used when Owen coined it, and the one that Darwin was using: "similar traits that appear to be modifications of the same thing, despite sometimes having different uses" does not assume evolution to be an established fact. It's an observation that has been made long before common descent had been proposed. Grouping together organisms based on shared homologies (original definition) produces consistent and useful trees. I think most creationists would agree that a detailed analysis of homologous characters of fancy bird/fish breeds produced by humans could yield a somewhat accurate representation of their lineage. Not accounting of course for hybridisation etc. Under this original definition of homology, synapomorphy (a characteristic present in an ancestral species and shared exclusively, in more or less modified form, by its evolutionary descendants) and homoplasy (a character shared by a set of species but not present in their common ancestor) are not distinguished from one another. The hypothesis proposed is that homology (original definition) is either due to common ancestry or by a chance convergence of the mechanisms of descent giving the same result more than once. Because such a convergence becomes more and more improbable the more characteristics are involved then by analysing a large number of these characteristics across various organisms and constructing a phylogenetic tree that minimises these supposedly unlikely convergences then you ought to get a good representation of the organisms' lineages. To test this without making any assumptions about common ancestry you need only to group organisms together based on their shared similarities in the way Linnaeus did. This constructs a nested hierarchy without any assumptions that it's due to common ancestry. If the hypothesis we previously mentioned is true then we should not find any implied relationships that can't be explained by either common ancestry, chance convergence or insufficient data to produce a reliable tree... tbc I think my comment is too long to be allowed in one comment, I hope you excuse this 'spam'.

[@MarkC88]

​@@LongStoryShortVideos ...Continued from my other post... Keeping within what most creationists would call a 'kind' I suspect you would agree that this hypothesis holds true. You might agree that the relationship of all dogs as determined by this method, without any assumptions of common ancestry, can all be explained by common ancestry or some amount of reasonable chance convergence. It remains a falsifiable hypothesis because there are possible outcomes that could defy those explanations. If you bred dogs in two independent lineages to have the same novel coat (one that is not present in any ancestors) you may reasonably attribute this to the mechanisms of random mutations and selection pressures converging on the same result by chance. However, if you found a dog with a marsupial pouch, you would know that can't be reasonably attributed to mechanisms of random mutations and selection pressure converging on the same result by chance and you would strongly suspect this 'dog' did not have ancestors that were dogs. Further still if this marsupial 'dog' had the feathered wings of a bird you would know that those features could not have possibly been inherited from a common ancestor because none of its ancestors could have had those features. Two significantly complex homologous (original definition) traits can't reasonably occur independently by chance convergence (I would assume we might disagree where that line is drawn and to be fair it's not easy to say for sure). If this occurred and couldn't be chalked up to insufficient data then the hypothesis would be falsified. Even outside of 'kinds' you might recognise the prediction that if you found an organism that shared a majority of homologous features with a modern bird then you would reasonably predict it lays eggs even if you didn't know anything about its reproductive system. This prediction is made based on the same hypothesis. If an apparently modern bird was found that didn't lay eggs and didn't have a reproductive system that was in some way a derivative of modern birds' or their ancestors then the hypothesis could be falsified. I think perhaps the objection you might raise here is that you believe this hypothesis has in fact been falsified. By a mosaic form such as a platypus, or by the inconsistencies we do find when drawing these patterns based on various traits. While I agree that a mosaic form absolutely would falsify the hypothesis, I totally disagree that a platypus actually is a mosaic form in this sense and the traits you might think are homologous (original definition) are only superficially similar. Meaning that they appear homologous if you only account for their outer shape or their general functions, but when you include a wider array of characteristics they no longer share such similarities. What similarities they do share once again comes back to a reasonable chance convergence. At this point you might say, "well you just draw the lines wherever you like so such a situation can never arise". The reason I would disagree with this is because we don't discern homoplasy from synapomorphy ad hoc. We use multiple criteria (such as morphologies or genetics) to construct the most parsimonious trees of likely relatedness and when an apparently homologous trait appears independently on separate branches we conclude this is most likely homoplasy. If you feel that these trees have been manipulated to hide inexplicable homoplasy then you need to explain how without resorting to cherry picking. Another example is how we conclude that bat wings and bird wings are homoplasious traits. The fact they both have wings means they share a homologous (original definition) trait, but is it homoplasious? Constructing a phylogenetic tree of maximum parsimony using the majority of characteristics for example feathers/lack of, bone morphology, lung morphology, genetics etc firmly puts birds and bats as distantly related and not sharing an ancestor that had wings. The only remaining apparent homologous (original definition) traits relating to the wings are therefore deemed the homoplasious traits. The extent of these shared traits is pretty much "limbs that flap to provide lift", and can be reasonably explained within the hypothesis. What you really need to falsify this hypothesis is a complex trait that appears to be homologous (original definition) in isolation from other traits but is picked out as homoplasious by trees that are constructed with a wider range of traits. For example if the platypus actually had a bill that was structurally, genetically and developmentally the same as a ducks bill then these traits would be difficult to explain as they would be identified as homoplasious when put on trees constructed from an array of other traits and they are too complex and similar to have arisen twice by chance. As it happens this is not the case and it just ends up another superficial similarity. Other inconsistencies with phylogenetic trees are generally explained by the unavoidable imperfections in the methods used to create these trees. The trees represent the maximum likelihood according to the data use. Convergence, reversals, horizontal gene transfer are all mechanisms that we can observe happening even on the micro scale accepted by most creationists and they all add a certain level of 'noise' to the trees. This doesn't mean we're unable to evaluate how accurate the trees are likely to be, it just means we have to be sure to consider as much data as we can and take into account its reliability. I do really appreciate it if you took the time to read this whole thing. I still find your representation of the mainstream science to be inaccurate and suspiciously misleading but I genuinely hope I'm wrong. I really am trying to understand your point of view while communicating my own. Oh and lastly, for your next videos on the other lines of evidence when you use the creationist arguments that have been used time and again please please attempt to thoroughly address the rebuttals that I'm sure you're well aware of (and no, I don't mean just repeat the relevant parts of Johnathan Wells's 'Inherit the spin' article) . Otherwise the inevitable response video from @Jackson Wheat will be forced to be a repeat of videos I've already seen a bunch of times!

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Hey Mark, really appreciate the thoughtful reply - I've quickly read through it and will try to respond more thoroughly when I get a chance to read it again more carefully. Very briefly though, you're probably right that my comments on the duckbilled platypus, the characters listed are more superficial and not exactly in the category we're talking about. Good on you. And for your last point, I don't know what "inherit the spin is" but I did genuinely try to research the best rebuttals and feature them along with their sources (ie: talk origins & the NCSE). I really want to include the best of both sides; however, I'm afraid my inclusion of them were grossly misunderstood by folks like Jackson & Nesslig. They're rather quick to accuse me of being misleading and quote mining and call names but in reality I think they just misunderstood my point. I don't know, maybe I'm just bad at communicating :)

[@AlienPsyTing1]

Electric eel

[@CesarClouds]

In your description you cite three sources, one by a non-scientist and two by scientists. Not one has ever produced original scientific work against evolution, their info is derivative from which they try to build *arguments* against established science. Not how it works. They either need to produce original scientific work or at least cite original work of others against evolution.

[@yaverjavid]

either you debunk the argument, or you are just proving that you don't know anything and are deciving yourself just like other scientists

[@CesarClouds]

​@yaverjavid I already did. In science you cannot defeat an established theory with non-scientific work by non-scientist. You'll need original scientific work by scientists. The content of the video would fail a high school science test.

[@yaverjavid]

@@CesarClouds where did you brought these arguments from. like do you have any kind of any magic tree that tells you these. nothing in science is established, as per my knowledge only math proofs are established there is always a possibility of error in observation and inference what is meant by debunking, is that you list what is wrong in it, at a time most of the people thought earth was revolving around Sun does this mean at the time I was not allowed to question this belief. there is nothing established in evolution, evolution just one thing : there are two things that a similar things, it necessitates an evolutionary relationship but it could very easily be interpreted in a different way, that they have a common designer both theories are equal, in fact real world evidence Denise evolution all other arguments of evolution are the manifestation of this argument just with scientific wording.

[@CesarClouds]

@@yaverjavid I'm not bringing an argument, I stated a fact. You confused the word established with proof.

[@yaverjavid]

@@CesarClouds I don't care either you mention what is wrong in this video or every Sane person what assume that you don't know anything & you are just trying to propaganda

[@OssoryOverSeas]

This is the best rebuttal on the internet.

[@RationalMind]

Wow, I’m actually disappointed. You didn’t respond to any of the substance of Jackson’s video. In most cases, you simply included a clip of him disagreeing with you, and then cut away before he got to the actual explanation of why you were wrong. You then simply reiterated your original points and acted as though his video was lacking in arguments, just nitpicks like “two studies gave wacky trees, not one!” I genuinely thought a little better of you, but I really can’t see how you could have made this video without knowing full well how misleading you’re being, so I have no choice but to chalk it up to dishonesty.

[@RationalMind]

Also: are you serious? You think the platypus is some kind of mosaic form on the same level as a hypothetical shark with octopus tentacles?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Ok, to what specifically did I not respond? You're going to have to give some more specifics if you want your criticism to stick. I went through his video point by point and answered every substantive one: regarding cladistics and nested hierarchies (I gave 3 substantial problems there); his contention that the sources I provided refuted my claims (they don't); that definitions change (I agreed, definitions are malleable, but logical fallacies aren't); his nitpick of the tense of my grammar (a meaningless critique, the papers agreed with me and he didn't answer them, he just hand waved them away and I also provided a more recent example); and Jackson made claims that were flatly false and I corrected him; not to mention his misleading conspiracy-theory-esque ending.

[@RationalMind]

Long Story Short Most notably, you cut out about 6 minutes of Jackson explaining why there can be some disagreements in phylogenetic trees, and this is still perfectly consistent with common descent, and then going through each of the papers you cited and showing that you misrepresented or oversimplified them. Don’t worry, a response video is in the works that will explain in great detail how poor this video of yours was. I don’t want to spoil too much of it for you.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

@@RationalMind A mammal that has the bill of a duck, body and fur of an otter, webbed feet and eggs of a bird, venom of a reptile, electrolocation of a fish, etc. etc. etc. You explain how this isn't a "mosaic". You and Jackson merely assert there aren't any without proof. The topic of autapomorphies having to evolve, be lost and re-evolve separately over and over again is a well known problem in cladistics. Animals who aren't supposed to have certain characters yet, but do. You can further look at every example of "convergent evolution" in areas such as flight, echolocation, sight etc. etc. etc. these are all characters that don't neatly fit in the nested hierarchies and need ad hoc explanations to hand wave away. This is a bad argument.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

@@RationalMind Ok cool, let me know when it's ready and I'll take a look. Thanks!

[@Caffin8tor]

"Ancestors appearing millions of years after their supposed descendants" this kind of statement exposes your misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not require that ancestor species die out or that they undergo any significant evolutionary change. Sharks and alligators have changed very little for a very long time but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be a descendant that changed significantly. This is a variation of the "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" argument that's tossed around so casually.

[@A_Stereotypical_Heretic]

I think people use that argument because Darwin teaches us survival of the fittest, or in other words, weaker or inferior specimens tend to die off from natural selection. Whether it be single celled organisms or multicellular animals. Then we are told that inferior species can coexist with their superior iterations as well. So I think reconciling those two polar opposites is difficult for a lot of folks. I also think speciation plays a role in the minds of many. It's hard to find that boundary where one can no longer breed with the other.

[@johnglad5]

Do you realize what you just said. Organisms change or stay the same. That is absurdity.

[@dougied3449]

The hypothesis of evolution with no real proof is taught as fact and not as1 of many theories.

[@dougied3449]

@L Ron Cupboard wow harsh language! The use of foul words is a sign of knowing one is wrong or is of lower iq. Proven fact. I think you might be both. The positive is you can get welfare and assistance for having a low iq.

[@matteomastrodomenico1231]

Because there simply aren't any oyher theories. Evolution is the best guess.

[@johnglad5]

​@@matteomastrodomenico1231Evolution is the best guess? By what 3 to 4% of the population. The Code of Life on dna screams intelligent design. Just sayin

[@danieldeluca4936]

I absolutely LOVE your videos! Yes, I ama a Young Earth Creationist, but it is laughable how Darwinists fail to recognize the existence of IDers who don't necessarily accept the Biblical account.

[@walkergarya]

When you admit to being a Young Earth Creationist you are saying "I am a fool".

[@danieldeluca4936]

@@walkergarya Ad hominem. You fail to refute the point that I made and simply attack the individual who made the claim.

[@danieldeluca4936]

​@@walkergarya What I am saying is that I know that there is convincing evidence for a Creator, and that there is also convincing evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and there is convincing evidence that the Scriptures are inspired by the Creator, and that there is profound convincing evidence that the flood of Noah occurred just as it is spelled out in the Scriptures that were inspired by this Creator. What say you?

[@walkergarya]

@@danieldeluca4936 What I am saying is that I know that there is convincing evidence for a Creator, and that there is also convincing evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and there is convincing evidence that the Scriptures are inspired by the Creator, and that there is profound convincing evidence that the flood of Noah occurred just as it is spelled out in the Scriptures that were inspired by this Creator. What say you?

[@walkergarya]

@@danieldeluca4936 Sorry but no. What is convincing to you has absolutely no credibility to me. You have stories from a book written anonymously with no good evidence for any of the major stories. I do not believe anything from your bible.

[@dfragman1672]

Finally someone speaking some truth

[@JessicaSunlight]

🌼“False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views..." - Charles Darwin 🌼"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" - Charles Darwin Atheists are a typical example of a group of people who have elevated materialism to the status of infallibility. What they have actually done is that they have taken science - which is a completely open-ended activity, designed to forever expand human knowledge - and they have used it to create a mental box that they have defined as the ultimate box. In other words, they sincerely believe that they can fit the universe - including matter of God - into their mental box. The irony is that in doing this, they have done the exact same thing that was done by medieval Catholics who had used Christianity to create a mental box in which they thought they could fit the entire universe. Scientists are well aware that the universe refused to fit into the Catholic box, but they are completely unwilling to see that the universe is just as unwilling to fit into their own mental box. What causes this blindness? The ego’s need for security! Once people have defined a mental box and elevated it to the status of infallibility, they are unwilling to reconsider the basic beliefs that define the walls of the box. For if they were to do this, the ego fears it would lose its sense of security. Thus, people accept that there are certain premises that are **beyond questioning**, and this inevitably causes them to go into a state of spiritual and intellectual pride. They now believe that they actually know everything that is important about the universe and that any idea that questions their beliefs is either of the devil or is unscientific. There are certain questions that these people refuse to ask, and this sets limits for the progress of human knowledge. Modern scientists see clearly how medieval Catholic doctrines set limits for human knowledge, but they fail to see that materialism is doing the exact same thing in the modern world. The problem is that when people create a mental box that they refuse to expand, they create a closed system. By the way, when I say that modern scientists refuse to expand their mental box, I know some will say that science is continually expanding. Yet the reality is that materialistic scientists are expanding their box only within certain parameters, namely the unquestionable doctrines of materialism. Thus, they refuse to consider certain questions that point beyond materialism, even though many scientific discoveries, from Einstein forward, have pointed to the need to look beyond the material universe for the causes of material phenomena. If you look at history, you will see that it is precisely when someone dares to question what the “establishment” defines as unquestionable, that human knowledge takes a revolutionary step forward. In other words, materialism is open to evolutionary growth but not to revolutionary growth. This is again caused by the ego’s need for security which makes people unwilling to question the foundations for their sense of being in control. Freedom is a choice and it begins in the mind. ♥

[@matteomastrodomenico1231]

So when someone questions darwinism is good, but when someone questions the idea that everything was designed it's bad?

[@JessicaSunlight]

​@@matteomastrodomenico1231 You can question it, its just the data points that natural mindless process is not how it happened, so at this point its not not a matter of discussion which one is correct - we have concrete data that says it did not happen nor happens via mindless random unconscious process. The debate part is over - you either in alignment with this scientific discovery or you are in denial and still dreaming of "natural process" which is fine but it has nothing to do with science any more - its just defending your belief system of what you want world to be instead of what science tells us it is. So now the question becomes how consciousness, energy, design, mind play a role in this process. Some - especially Christians of course will use this to promote their thought system as to be true and correct - which is the sad irony of a delusional fanatic, same as being a materialist. But that's not as a problem because Christians at list are not fighting idea that there is purposes and design in the universe at list. And they are open to some reality of spiritual side of life mean while materialism is a complete delusional world view.

[@johnglad5]

​@@matteomastrodomenico1231All questions should be put on the table. Denial of the answers, the logical conclusions, is bad. Dr. Meyer talks of ID and the logical conclusion. Peace and blessings

[@matteomastrodomenico1231]

@@johnglad5 Meyer makes up stuff and lies.

[@johnglad5]

@@matteomastrodomenico1231 I am not familiar with his making stuff up or his lies. My point is ID is a logical conclusion, accepted by many, and by me. Do you think the code of life written on dna happened by chance under natural conditions?

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

I like your voice 👌

[@robynb522]

Funny and informative

[@fndrr42]

Dude these are awesome!

[@hawkrochester297]

Savage😭

[@lenroystewart2904]

Good vid

[@jeffposey386]

Fail.

[@johnhess3886]

Good videos.

[@Bigrich104]

Referring to the other guy's use of an AIG video a "smear" was uncalled for.

[@MLeoM]

But the real question is.... How do you sleep at night with all these knowledge and intelligence in your head?

[@CesarClouds]

Another thing wrong with this video is the title. Homology is not an argument, it's evidence for evolution since it's a scientific theory. You would literally fail college undergrad science test.

[@johnglad5]

Yes, it is sad in this day and age that you would fail a test using correct answers, truth

[@CesarClouds]

@@johnglad5 No, you would fail with incorrect answers.

[@johnglad5]

@@CesarClouds lol

[@CesarClouds]

@@johnglad5 I don't understand.

[@Freddy18w]

Cambrian Explosion....resolve that...Darwin couldnt and neither can you haters. Just humble yourself & follow that data.

[@dwilliams1888]

How did all of it just happen with all the information required and be so workable? Saying bang it just happened is not proof of it. There are other explanations that are also probably more plausible and believable.

[@CesarSecondary]

It's been resolved.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Long Story Short, For the record, if I was of a suspicious nature, I might think you were trying to smear young earth creationists with your comments at the 10:00 minute mark. Dan

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Sorry, no offense meant.

[@BibleResearchTools]

No offense taken. Keep up the good work! Dan

[@peteconrad2077]

The nonsense in this video abounds. The sweeping claim that a designer would use the same structures. It’s nonsense and we can demonstrate it by citing examples of real design. A helicopter and a car have no common structure because they’re fir different purposes. A submarine and a toaster have no common stricture because they’re fir different purposes. Designers use a structure specifically tailored to purpose. Evolution uses common structure forms for entirely different purposes. Flight, running, swimming etc. Funny that you use the platypus when any knowledge would lead you to understand this undermines you argument. The only animal you find that bucks your trend is one from an environment that was evolutionarily isolated for longer than any other land mass. So we’d expect divergence and as you rightly show, we find it. Let me know if you want me to continue to pull your pants down about the rest of this video.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Helicopters and cars don't have seats? Steering mechanisms? Spark plugs, engines, wiring, windows....

[@peteconrad2077]

@@LongStoryShortVideos they seats and windows are different and the rest are not even related.But the point is the form is different. We’re not taking about a few similar components, it’s either the underlying structure is the same. It isn’t.

[@alfonstabz9741]

@@peteconrad2077 the designer of cars and helicopters engineers are not dumb people they used the same principle in natures design. Suitability and efficiency is the bases of design meaning a designer must make sure that the machine car/helicopter can operate its intended purpose and accommodate the machines operator driver/pilot. Like birds functions are created in coordinated way.

[@peteconrad2077]

@@alfonstabz9741 no. A designer would not use the same structure of joints for land mobility and air and water. The compromise is too great. Yet this is exactly what we see in all vertebrates. The idea that a designer compromised his designs that way is ridiculous. If he is a designer, he’s a poor one.

[@alfonstabz9741]

@@peteconrad2077 birds are amazing design....

[@hailgiratinathetruegod7564]

The rating of this response video Fact checking and use of Sources: 1/10 Intellectuell honesty: 0/10 Use of puns: 7/10

[@strb3305]

Ahhh yes, but all those arguments for creationism are completely sound and reasonable

[@kingmango4054]

Exactly it’s hilarious when people try to disapprove a whole branch of science.

[@johnglad5]

​@@kingmango4054Cladistics is not science, it may be a field of study but please do not make the mistake of confusing it with science.

[@johnglad5]

Ahhhh, sarcasm. I'm sure some creationists ideas are wacko but most are not. Most of the breakthroughs in science were by creationists, Christians.

[@strb3305]

@@johnglad5 come back a year later, say something retarded, leave. Honestly respect

[@kingmango4054]

@@johnglad5 yeah, but that was earlier on when being seen as a non-religious gets you ostracized or worse.

[@jacobteasdale2517]

To anyone who's actually watched his video it's clear you're leaving out half if not more of his quick eat and not even acknowledging them which shows that you will not even acknowledge something that you cannot disprove in this video which is dishonest and misleading.

[@jacobteasdale2517]

Also that you don't show his entire critique on multiple occasions again comes across as you cherry picking what you show