Evidence for Evolution

[@sheldonkerr5085]

I come here for HW and find a war over evolution being a lie in the comments. Interesting.

[@joselynvidaca5503]

same

[@jesustheillusionist6484]

It just shows how desperate religious people are to salvage a dying religion. They search youtube for any videos related to evolution and just spam their lies and preaching in it as if it's even remotely relevant. They are professional liars, basically.

[@notorious8678]

I grew up as a muslim, I was the only one who could open my eyes and say: Am I really believing something what is written and started 700 years ago😂 Like come one if there was a god, he would let humans know that he is there so that mankind does not freak out about what is true and what does exist!!

[@notorious8678]

Daniel Pedersen 600, 700 I don't give a fuck its just the same

[@jesustheillusionist6484]

@@GabeEXE-fv8yb www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ LMFAO at saying there is no evidence. There are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed research papers with experiments that can be repeated. Stop taking the word of professional liars as fact. Apologists =/= scientists. Can you refute a single research paper?

[@OptimusKleine]

Why is everyone so upset about whether this is good evidence or not? He did not make this video to make an argument. This is purely an educational video for AP Biology students such as myself. He is just letting us know the evidence of evolution for the AP test because they will most likely ask a question about this.

[@victorparedes6044]

Only Good Evidence is Evidence, if it's bad evidence, than any Good Scientist should dismiss it, for the sake of scientific advancement. The invalidity of this evidence has been discovered long ago, but still he claims it's "HUGE" evidence for the theory of evolution. Only true teaching is teaching, if it's untrue, any good teacher should dismiss it. You think education is some game!? You just want to pass the AP test regardless of how much indoctrination it takes. Despite being made into a believer of false evidence and a invalid theory. How does this mean nothing to you?

[@monthapril6441]

It’s upsetting because the title suggests we will be given evidence and then we are given assumptions and theories that aren’t scientific. In fact the opposite. It’s very disappointing.

[@adheeshkadiresan-equallear6088]

Bozeman: *says information in the most clear, informative, and HELPFUL way possible Also Bozeman: "I hope that's helpful" Thanks for the video, as always

[@FSmtrx]

It's impossible to have educational science videos anymore without evolution deniers getting severely butthurt.

[@soojongha6381]

To everyone who denies evolution saying “It’s just a theory, it’s not proven”: Evolution is a Theorem, like the Pythagorean Theorem and Gravity- it has been proven There is a difference between a theory as in a idea, and theory as in a scientific hypothesis that has been tested and proven. (That’s also what this video is about, so maybe you should actually watch it before saying it is wrong)

[@rolo5424]

Micro evolution is true but there is no evidence whatsoever for macro evolution and even Darwin said that. But when Darwin said it he thought more fossils would be found to uphold his theory. Also Darwin had no idea of the complexity of even the simplest of living cells. Even in its simplest form a cell still has irreducible complexity and is harder to make than a nuclear submarine. Science can't do it, but you think brainless molecules can self organise themselves into machines? Which is what a cell is. A cell is a machine with many working parts and it cannot put itself together without the help of something biotic. But there was no biology before life so how did chemicals self organise into the simplest of cells which is still very complex and difficult to make. Science can't do it, but you think a swamp and a bolt of lightening could?

[@landonsmith521]

Billions of years

[@rolo5424]

@@landonsmith521 Billions of years? Is that your reasoning? That time equals bullshit? Time may be on evolutions side but it is not on chemistry's side and chemical processes do not take billions of years.

[@celestialhor1zons]

I mean maybe a deity that people may believe in invented evolution and set things into place and just watched. Like a self-learning AI, that's been done before. just saying could be possible and kind of merging the two ideas.

[@benhoyland6371]

@@rolo5424 So you're saying a lot of things here. Let me break it down into your core arguments. Please correct me if I interpret your core arguments incorrectly. 1. Life is too improbable to come about by chance events of molecules combining with each other. Firstly I'd like to say that this isn't actually relevant to evolution. Evolution only takes into account the diversity of species. To evolve is to change into many different forms. This does require a founding species, but the theory of evolution doesn't comment on where this founding species came from. There are hypotheses that this species could have come from self-assembling RNA molecules that could function both as ribozymes and genetic code, kept safe by a bubble of fat (the phospholipid bilayer that constitutes cell walls). This is essentially hypothesizing about evolution on increasingly smaller scales. I think it's wrong to decide what is true based on a lack of evidence. This is a god-of-the-gaps argument. I assume you're a Christian, so you would say that the bible is enough evidence. But science has repeatedly disproven the bible on many of its accounts. The world is older than 10,000 years. The world is round. Animals were created in groups. It is not reliable when it comes to science at least. 2. There is no evidence for macroevolution. Well I'm glad you accept microevolution at least. Macroevolution is not too difficult to believe if you believe in microevolution. It's essentially microevolution over a longer period of time. If a few differences can come about over a few centuries, can't many come about over millions of years? Even if there wasn't evidence for macroevolution this is believable. You say that Darwin had no evidence for evolution. He died in 1882. The theory of evolution has developed well beyond Darwin's ideas. It's also important for you to define macroevolution. Do you define it as life evolving from common phyla? Or are you talking on a species level? There is evidence for life differentiating from both phyla and species. For example, whales have a clear fossil record showing they share an ancestor to cows, deer, and sheep. Earlier whales have quite developed legs, including ankle boned that are strikingly similar to those of cows, etc. Whales today even have vestigial legs that aren't particularly useful. They are definitely not the best design possible for life. The fact that Darwin knew nothing about living cells means he didn't know about DNA. This is a major source of evidence for evolution by tracking the history of mutations, etc. 3. Irreducible complexity. Science progressively dismantles examples of these arguments. Take the example of the eye. This used to be an example of irreducible complexity, but science has dismantled it. Because even the slightest fraction of an eye, like light-sensitive cells that can detect something above it in an ocean, is a huge survival advantage. Then let natural selection do its thing. It's another god of the gaps argument to assume that because science hasn't yet answered the question, creationism must be true. About a cell being irreducibly complex. It certainly is mind-boggling to think that RNA could evolve to form organelles. You can break it down thought and science is advancing in this field. Bacteria evolve through horizontal gene transfer, omitting genes that other bacteria can pick up. The cell wall could easily come by some fat bubbles. Cells can be seen to evolve from each other. It is likely that mitochondria and chloroplasts came from bacteria for numerous reasons. Archaea could have become the host eukaryotic cell, considering that the cells are similar to many degrees. What is not too clear is how the first cell could have appeared, but science will probably provide answers to that. Edit: animals were created in groups

[@crank8098]

I'm Christian and I loved the science used in this video. Don't hate,tolerate. Like a real Christian. Or like a general non-hating person.

[@TheWormzerjr]

God has no respect for persons. reaperishere.weebly.com

[@ConstructmanPsion]

Come for AP Bio Exam review. Find... ... One more reason not to delve into the KZbin comments section. smh (but the temptation to read is too strong...)

[@rocketsprocketsean565]

How do creationists even find their way onto these videos... never would have found this if I wasn't taking AP Biology. BTW awesome job teaching, Mr. Anderson!

[@rocketsprocketsean565]

Just got to the part of the video where Mr. Anderson compares DNA sequences, and I'm really scratching my head trying figure out how someone could deny this evidence.

[@victorparedes6044]

I found this video, because my AP bio teacher recommended this channel to me, just like you. Unlike you, I don't consider giving false evidence awesome teaching, shame on you Mr. Anderson, I say. Every single organ in every single organism has a purpose, vestigial organs don't have a place in evolution or creation, because they are not helping things be adapted to their environment at all.

[@willshiflet]

I mean I found this video purely out of curiosity of the subject.

[@opaaaalgahawy5475]

@@victorparedes6044 well said

[@sol_ARG]

Out of curiosity, how many of you are here for the VIDEO? No offense meant, but it seems to me that many people here came purely to trumpet their own opinions over others. So who's actually watching the video?

[@landonsmith521]

Lol good for you

[@trollcatgirl]

I came to watch other people argue and laugh because they don't have anything better to do.

[@celestialhor1zons]

I got bio online learning now lol

[@jonahm4739]

i'm here for my ap bio class 😃👍

[@caleb.lindsay]

just watching. arguing after. just kidding!

[@daishin8492]

where are these "evolution is a lie" comments everyone is talking about

[@RM22201]

The comment right after urs

[@painfullyhuman]

80+ creationists disliked his video

[@gregorybrian]

To anti-evolutionists, I have a question for you: Why would a creator make animals with vestigial body parts?

[@jackbaxter2223]

It's his ineffable will, obviously.

[@FalconTheFries]

gregory brian God doesn't make anything in vain.. There are hundreds of body parts function yet to be discovered.. which will includes the so-called vestigial parts

[@gregorybrian]

Discussion with you is useless. You claim the right to say what God means and wants by your observations of the universe yet when you CAN'T explain something, you opt for plunging into the stance that no one knows why God does or does not do something. To retain any credibility, you must stick to one side or another. Otherwise, you are using your own flawed system of thought to argue your point. Check out the definition of "argument from ignorance" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[@FalconTheFries]

History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman said. Spleen prevents from heart disease and pneumonia.. And appendix is actually a store house of beneficial bacteria.. And the list goes on.. There is not even a single part in our body is useless.. 

[@jackbaxter2223]

***** So about all of those people who have their appendix removed and are perfectly fine afterwards? Vestigial doesn't mean a body part without purpose, it means it either has a reduced purpose or it has been adapted for a purpose other than the one it originally had. Such is the case with the appendix, which used to be a second stomach.

[@katherinebrenner7377]

Watching this AP Bio playlist to prepare for midterms!! Thanks so much this is a lifesaver

[@mayliang4322]

Hi Mr. Bozeman, I really love your videos, and they are very helpful for my upcoming ap bio exam, However, have you ever thought of having your videos up for download? So that those that do not have good access to internet at certain moments can watch them whenever they'd like.

[@ryannoe86]

Are there other conclusions to be made by the same observations?

[@jesustheillusionist6484]

Nope.

[@landonsmith521]

Yes, though this one is the most probable explanation until/unless other evidence is provided

[@cassidycarroll6313]

Wait... im confused. He said that all of the red letters in the gene were exons "so they didnt really count"... but i thought introns were the segments that werent coded for?!?!?!

[@avawinters6184]

haha probably a mis-speak

[@cassidyrichard7923]

I want to be able to show my students that DNA comparison thing through the ensembl.org website, but I can't seem to get my settings right so it displays what yours displayed... Help?

[@argumentumadbaculum]

Where can I find the DNa comparison software.

[@Tam_Uno]

10:48 what the tool is that?

[@sakuraflora3]

wait for it wait for it...ah there it is the WAR, the WAR OF EVOLUTION

[@jessicasun521]

you can try downloading freestudio, which lets you download playlists from youtube.

[@litojonny]

i LOVE your DNA telephone game example

[@annadelahunt8630]

Are the red letters introns or exons?

[@RushilKasetty]

+Anna Delahunt It seems to say exons.

[@MB-og3dw]

IDGAF what you believe in, but if you're in here insulting religion or lack of it I have no respect or positive opinion of you or your point

[@danielanderson1931]

So where did he insult religion?

[@MB-og3dw]

@@danielanderson1931 people in the comments section were throwing tantrums about religion/lack thereof, not anderson

[@nnaj9719]

Thanks for the amazing video .. but I need to understand how did make and female for each species come up at the same time ?

[@3219jj]

what website is that?

[@VoltVincentia]

Nothing he said has to do with creationism.

[@JPO1618]

And yet half the Miss USA contestants don't support the teaching of evolution in schools. Who could object to this?

[@lovebeautyjen]

what is the unit of evolution?

[@MagicFanMan]

It's interesting that creationists and this guy both say that DNA is the trump card that proves their theories.

[@Zzzip13Strike]

So true xD

[@Polarcupcheck]

I really hope if I teach biology my class won't be like the time wasters in the comment section. Complex life has only been found on one planet, earth. Variations in species have happened over billions of years. Take that into consideration with the nature of chemical equilibrium, and it all makes a lot more sense.

[@xerxes9587]

for everybody that says evolution doesnt exist take in account the meaning of this word *changes in allele frequencies in a population gene pool you can even do a mini experiment on your own using small organisms and tell me if you dont see any frequencies changes

[@turtlegirl4241]

I think you mixed up introns and exons

[@turtlegirl4241]

at 8:40

[@davidtrotter269]

Mr. Anderson I've been expecting you.

[@arthuroabrantes]

Very helpful videos, seems like the Campbell's biology book

[@bigheadapp]

I like biology. I want to be a biologist. I want to study biological processes.

[@spamsoppl]

What's so 'horrible', exactly ?

[@yonisegal3830]

Hey Paul, I have started watching your videos this year and you are INCREDIBLE and are a GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!!! Pleez could you put the link for the website you used to check the DNA of the Human and platypus and the human and chimp?many thanks ps you rock!!!!!

[@flyingpanda220]

Thank you Mr. Andersen for the amazing videos!

[@LetsBeBereans]

link?

[@vivi_2007]

mr bozeman YOU are the spice of my life, tysm for everything. id pay you everyday. i believe in everything you say

[@MrWholphin]

Johnathan Wells wrote an excellent book about the evidence for evolution: Icons of Evolution. And the follow up Zombie Science.

[@briseboy]

We do have to taqke some care when designating structures as vestigial. Since evolution works in energy-saving ways (the most efficient changes or uses of organs or structures in animals, for instance, must assist in movement for capture or escape, and therefore tend to be subject to selection), structures in this now long period more often have more than one function. Piloerection, has long served birds both in exquisite control of flight maneuverability and in improvinng insulation. It serves mammals in social and defense signaling (to avoid intraspecies violence, it makes the individual seem large, as males in many species choose to avoid dangerous physical dispute), as well as increased insulation. Disputing or fearful humans can detect piloerection in others, and it remains a social signal, when not covered by clothing. But I wanted to emphasize that the vermiform appendix is not really vestigial. it serves a health/symbiont recovery purpose in the gut. We increasingly understand that most organisms have improved and adapted through commensal and mutual benefit through alliance with other organisms. We often say that termites can only live with the digestive bacteria they have in their gut. We also have to have a serviceable ecosystem of gut organisms, efficiently making such advantageous products that we cannot. From mitochondria, which may be regarded as an intracellular symbiont to the various gut and skin prokaryotes that improve our immunity to parasitic organisms, we ARE an ecosystem stripped for efficient motion, and adaptive to quickly-evolving parasitic or predatory tiny organisms. The appendix holds a complement of such friendly familiars, and to recover from the "attacks" of certain species, like Vibrio cholerae, which cause us to so empty our alimentary canal to assist Vibrio in colonizing new places able to invade new hosts, we NEED the stored friends to recolonize us. Both the symbionts and the individual human thus recover. Students will find opportunities to discover this mutually beneficial relationship of structures and cohabitation in possibly every organism they look at.

[@jaxfang]

I believe evolution is not real. If you disagree, please give me one piece of evidence that supports evolution and explain in your own words why it is evidence.

[@scottevanmacfar]

There are a multitude of reasons (i.e. evidence) to accept evolution. Evolution isn't something you believe in. Belief implies acceptance without evidence. Evolution has evidence so it cannot be a belief system. Having said that, lets start with the fact that we have directly observed macro evolution, in real time, with our own eyes. We've seen it happen, so we know it happens. evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

[@jaxfang]

scottevanmacfar Evolution does not have any evidence supporting it (macroevolution) at all, and it is therefore a belief. How is the eye evidence of macroevolution?

[@scottevanmacfar]

Still wrong Garretta. How is the eye any part of this conversation? You do know that irreducible complexity isn't just wrong, it's been proven wrong in court, don't you? That's how bad the science is on your side. We have directly observed macro evolution. You can't deny it, we have watched it happen in real time. You can't deny what we can prove. and direct observation qualifies as proof. Because there is evidence, it can't be a belief. There is mountains of evidence, so......(say it with me).....it's NOT a belief system. It is a logical conclusion based on the overwhelming evidence.

[@scottevanmacfar]

I get it, you don't have reading comprehension. My comment about the eyes was referring to the FACT that we have directly observed macro evolution. As in not read a paper about it, not modeled it on computer, actually witnessed it with our own eyes. Direct observation of what you are trying to tell people can't happen.

[@jaxfang]

Nightlock4411 Typo, which is now changed, but you can't provide evidence can you?

[@sparklecat60]

I don’t think creationists realize that Bible stories are mostly meant to be interpreted metaphorically and as stories of caution from God to warn and advise his people and not to be taken literally. what spiritual or moral lesson would God want to teach us if He just made his prophets yap about natural selection for thousands of pages

[@JackMosel]

Very helpful, thanks. Also the reference to the DNA sequencing was excellent.

[@aidanbarney3899]

He obviously meant that DNA had not been discovered.

[@fretman45]

He is the 2011 Montana Teacher of the Year

[@cyclonus11]

What makes you think they didn't? There's more to an organism than its physical shape. And what about those lineages that DO show drastic changes in physical shape? Are you discounting those examples just because of the Coelacanth? An organism with a body shape that works doesn't need to evolve a new one. So mutations that change it are selected against. They do still have to evolve immunity changes, etc.

[@RichWhiteCyberCPU]

Criticism is not a defense.

[@phils2601]

Food for thought. It is quite surprising I often I hear phrases like "this is the way it was designed...". "This is what it is designed to do...". " It is by no mistake that the water molecule has these specific properties..". "This is the miracle of life..". Quotes directly from reputable academics teaching biology, chemistry, etc, at university. This in its self to be coming from such knowledgeable scientists, is enough to sway my opinion to intelligent design over evolution.

[@phils2601]

Mr Andersen. Great tutorial resources! Thanks very much!

[@jackbaxter2223]

They don't use the word design in the literal sense. It's like how we say something is poisonous if it is harmful without meaning that it is literally a biologically hazardous compound or protein.

[@btkyle0372]

I came to the comment section to see people roast him not debate about evolution and to the people that say evolution is fake reed a book other than the bible then come back

[@ohyeah11000]

Is evilution an excuse for racism? And is racism wrong? Which is the most evolved "race" anyway? Anybody?

[@limede]

Hesa Wanderer It isn't a excuse for racism, and there aren't any races that are more evolved than other. Races are different due to different evolutionary pressures being applied to the same type of organism, in this case humans. Racism isn't intrinsically wrong, but there aren't any reasonable reasons to be racist. So, you could say it is wrong according to the values of modern society.

[@limede]

Hesa Wanderer You are implying other races are inferior, not me. Neither am I saying being racist is ok. Any given action doesn't have a intrinsic value to it, regardless of it being considered bad or good by anyone. Moral nihilism, it's a ethical philosophy; basically I look at morality in a different way you do, but we might and most likely have the same notions of what "is" right and wrong.

[@ohyeah11000]

Limede45 "Any given action doesn't have a intrinsic value to it, regardless of it being considered bad or good by anyone" So our entire life is valueless? If nothing we can do has any value how can we? Do we? "basically I look at morality in a different way you do" So if we look at it in a different way, who is right? How do we know? We each have to decide for ourselves right?

[@limede]

Yes, our life has no meaning. We have no reason to be here. Neither do we, nor anything else. This is empowering, making you able to choose to do whatever you want with your life. It might sound depressing, but to me, it's part of the beauty of life and reality. No one is right, there's no objective morality. What usually is considered right, or correct by society in general, are actions that you would like to happen to you. In my eyes, morality is just "Do to other what you would like others do for you." glorified.

[@ohyeah11000]

Limede45 "Yes, our life has no meaning." So there is no purpose? No value? "No one is right, there's no objective morality" So as long as I don't get caught, any thing I decide to do is fine?

[@akasasinator]

So DNA was only invented after darwin died?

[@soojongha6381]

It was never “invented” but it became found by humans well after Darwin died.

[@maria.primaveraa]

He sounds like Jim from the office

[@addictedsandwich0237]

Anyone else from Blanchet Bio class???...

[@RichWhiteCyberCPU]

Again it doesn't matter what I believe. Its not your decision to force your beliefs on to others. You can't say I have no right to believe the way I do. You also have no right to say that your word is final. I have all the right in the world to interpret anything I want the way I want to. I also have the right to present my case with the same freedom you do. I'm not reinterpreting anything. I am looking at evidence from the position of my world view. The exact same thing your doing.

[@Stvrl0st8]

icon.

[@Noodlz0797]

The mutations come from UV rays, mostly.

[@philanthropicnightmare1206]

Everybody's talking about the angry creationist comments but I can't find one

[@queenbeemoon10]

I got a little confuse at the end but thank you so much!

[@RichWhiteCyberCPU]

So basically you have no idea what your talking about so criticism is your only defense. That's cool, everyone has a faith. Yours is evolution. Based on the fact there is ZERO evidence, it is a faith based position. Therefor you have to criticize those who don't agree. Personally I defend my position with science. Then again, I know what I’m talking about.

[@sebastiancarson914]

Thank you I understand this better than when my teacher taught me

[@RichWhiteCyberCPU]

I never once said I don't respect you. In fact even after you cussed me out I am still treating you with respect. I respect your beliefs, Its you who doesn't respect mine. If I believed the sun was square, came out at night, and was made of ice that wouldn't make it true. Therefor you cant say there is no hell. You can only say you don’t believe in it. That doesn't change its existence. You also can't just ignore scientific discovery’s based on religious views. Remember Darwin believed in God.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Respecting opinions is a bad idea. Scientific discoveries based on superstition is a bit of a stretch. Also, I think Hitler and your devil believe in god and that does not make the belief true. An opinion is like an anus as everyone has one and they all output waste.

[@Beastmma9]

Now I'm a creationist, and I believe that we all have similar bone structure, DNA, ect, because God made it like that. Architects use similar building designs to create different buildings, why wouldn't God do the same?

[@sikhatheist651]

OK, I'll agree to that as long as you agree that god is a poor designer since 99.4 percent of all this creations is now extinct.

[@Beastmma9]

Sony Singh Doesn't prove he's a bad designer. We completely wiped out most of the animals now extinct. But if you're talking about dinosaurs? He destroyed them for a reason, hence the asteroid he sent down

[@nocies6595]

Beastmma9 To anyone that says that god is a bad designer because of everything that died, or who says "god must be terrible because he made all this death and disease" is wrong. God created a perfect world in the beginning and that was what Adam and Eve lived in. The bible says that death entered into the world because of Adam and Eves sin. God didn't ruin the world, man did.

[@egorall]

I'll give you a good reason to not think that. Every living creature on Earth shares the same 4 chemicals that make up the DNA structures. There are 400 possible chemicals that could be used, and if so, the combination of these would make more sense if we were created because it would prevent inter-species transmission of viruses (like the swine-flu, for example). As matter of fact, there are enough combinations of possible combinations that every species on Earth could have it's own combination. You'd think a Creator would at least separate humans from the rest of living creatures if he were truly his special creation. Or, at least plants from animals, but this is not the case. Every creature, whether dandelion, amoeba, human, or fish... all use the same 4 chemicals.

[@Beastmma9]

Eric Gorall That does not prove me wrong, if anything, it proves me more right. God used a very similar bone structure, genetic structure, etc, to create all life on earth, possibly the universe. Why would he waste the time to make every single living organism completely different? There's no reason too. And proof we are his special creation is our brains. Yes, you see animals like parrots and sea otters using parts of nature as tools, but you never saw a mountain lion contract a trap

[@aidanbarney3899]

Genetics is not trying to discover how to make life longer. That might be what you want, but that is not genetics. They manipulate genes and watch how this discrepancy changes the frequency of alleles. Also, back to your comment, a shorter life span is another type of reproduction. Typically they reproduce quickly, having a less chance of predation, and these species tend to survive quite well. Please, I am using these videos to review. Don't spam it with stupid stuff like this.

[@MrJohndl]

Read any of Dawkins' books - or Kenneth Miller, or Eugenie Scott - there are lots of experts to choose from. BTW, I used to debate creationists in a civilized manner, but there isn't any point. Creationists can't/won't change their minds, so now I just call them for what they are - stupid. Why don't you do something constructive, like helping the homeless etc. At least that way you can score some browny points with your invisible man in the sky LOL

[@RichWhiteCyberCPU]

How can it be indoctrination? I got saved 3 months ago. Isn't forcing atheism in the public schools indoctrination to? So your saying its OK for you to indoctrinate people but not me? Don't you think in a free country everyone should be free to make up there own discussion? Or do you think people are stupid and you should be able to make there decisions for them?

[@eggiesoverspinachovertoast8624]

dawg its science

[@NDfan369]

He made a mistake, you are right. Hopefully you figured this out by now!

[@iqbalehsan66]

Immensible amount of knowledge. Awesome

[@louisgomez4844]

You must have came from geese since you get goose bumps.

[@RichWhiteCyberCPU]

I could say the same thing about you. Atheism is a religious belief. You have "faith" that there is no God. Unlike you I respect your faith. However, criticizing my belief does not prove you point and your use of profanity only makes you sound ignorant.

[@vincentvice2786]

Well I've received plenty of validating evidence for micro evolution . But nothing for Macro the search continues.

[@sikhatheist651]

That's because there is NO different between micro and macro. It is a just a word play used by idiots to spread their ignorance. It's like saying that you can walk a mile but you can't walk a thousand miles.

[@vincentvice2786]

I can believe that when someone can show me the connection ,a walk of a thousand miles can be traced it leaves footprints I just want to be shown clear evidence not emotional convictions . So far no one can give me clear guidance.

[@Logic-xn6en]

vincent vice Study genetics.

[@egorall]

I agree with Logic 101. All the mechanisms of Evolution have resources that clearly explain it. The problem is most people are too busy in their daily lives to open a book or take a course that does explain them. Hey.. don't take our word. Go to a genuine text book and look for yourself.

[@lambdaofbacon7118]

Well. How are you defining "macro-evolution"? This is important because if you are expecting a dog to evolve into a tree, that isn't going to happen. But if you expect fish to evolve into amphibians into land animals, then that will. So which are you wanting evidence for?

[@oblivion582x]

English*

[@Dkenair2]

The first minute of this video is what I call conclusion hopping.

[@RichWhiteCyberCPU]

Your right we will not change. We believe in God. We will also not go away. So ether continue to make all atheists look bad or start opening your mind to all the possible aspects of science rather then living in a bubble yelling profanity’s. You are not God, therefor you cannot tell people who can play on the playground. We are free to disprove you like we always do.

[@moses777exodus]

There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan.

[@Zanta100]

"There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA" yes there are found in the fossile record we have dozens "Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA." thats BS "Genes within the DNA of a particular organism" genes contain the DNA there are no genes inside the DNA " code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan." thats also BS we have changhed the DNA of creatures leading to changes in the body plan

[@margauxherant8323]

that's organisms don't really have varying body plans: different bodily phenotypes between organisms are mainly due to gene expression/epigenetics.

[@degew9367]

You don't know what evolution is, do you

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it

[@clayclay136]

Thanks Mr. Anderson

[@AkuaIVLife]

Guys, who cares about science he’s FINEEEE

[@RichWhiteCyberCPU]

BTW, you are bias to. You believe there is no God. that belief clouds your judgment just as much as my belief in God clouds mine. Everyone is bias. If we limit science to only one single bias then we don't get all the different possible conclusions. You cannot know with absolute certainty that there is no God. Just like I cannot prove that there is a God. Therefor it takes both of us looking at the same data to cover all possible conclusions. That's called science.

[@cyclonus11]

Monotremes are mammals...

[@Sameerghulam]

Shout out to Macdaddy

[@MrJohndl]

Please don't take my word for anything - just listen to the experts (scientists). They have the knowledge. Don't listen to your church pastors though - they are idiots. Keep learning. Go to university and do a science course. Read some science books. Good luck.

[@anuragkache7026]

Good Video Very Informational

[@faithhumberd23]

I thought this was Spanish class.

[@RichWhiteCyberCPU]

So you are saying, without knowing anything about me but what I watch on KZbin that I am wrong because of my completely unrelated beliefs? I could say that you are completely uncreditable because of the language you use. Would that be fair? No of course not. You can't completely disregard someones scientific argument based on there spiritual beliefs. It doesn't matter what I believe about how God created everything. That doesn't change the validity of my scientific argument. Science is truth.

[@kevinfeng6700]

I know this is an old ass video, but can we find some intermediate to evolution and creation??? Like how bout God or your gods created life and designed it to evolve?? I feel like completely taking one side and not listening to the other is inconsiderate of many people's beliefs. Or I'm just too pussy to choose a side. I lean more to evolution personally

[@avawinters6184]

we already found an intermittent species, look up tiktallik

[@believervsbeliefs6599]

After your first bit of "evidence" comparing Baleen whale fins and human arms, you state that the similarities "SUGGEST" a common ancestor. Is that what passes for evidence? Suggestions? That seems a bit overstated.

[@believervsbeliefs6599]

+Monando Boy You are exactly right, of course; but, the problem is that they spread their outrageous lie that they do have "evidence". I like to inject some reality into their delusions.

[@HallowingEchos]

+Believer VS Beliefs In science, there is never certainty. It violates the founding principle of scientists; you have to learn when to accept that the universe may not be what you think it is. People rationalized strange plagues and epidemics with witchcraft, which was later proven to be part of the poor hygiene. The point being, scientists have learned to be wary when making statements so their credibility is not questionable later. The similarities remain, in that they have five-boned appendages. Most mammals do, actually. That _suggests_ a common ancestor, but keep in mind that since we do not have first-hand evidence (like an eyewitness report) it could be circumstance, a separate necessity for a different fossil line that developed halfway across the world. Newtonian physics holds true for almost everything. Molecular physics holds true for almost everything. There are exceptions to every rule, and it is for THAT reason that we say "should" instead of "did". Religion claims to know, to circumvent all notion of doubt, to say that they know all ends and that God will lead them into the light. I admire that dedication and faith, but at the same time it has been proven hypocritical and wrong and dubious at almost every turn. Whether or not you believe it, there are facts. This is what has been observed, this is a conclusion that can be drawn, but bear in mind that other conclusions can be drawn that may instead be correct. Evidence in a court of law is provided to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. With faith, there is no reason, and therefore one argument cannot refute the other because they are two separate things. To sum, I'll give you a quote from Wayne June: "A man in a robe, claiming communion with the divine? Madness."

[@believervsbeliefs6599]

+Jacob Millburn Thank you for the thoughtful comment--don't get a lot of those. Quote: "The point being, scientists have learned to be wary when making statements so their credibility is not questionable later." >> Is this how you would describe "scientists" touting AGW? "Wary?" Then why do they call for real scientists--i.e. skeptical/wary--to loose grant money or tenure if they doubt it? Quote: "That suggests a common ancestor." >> 1. If you found a steel hinge in the dirt around your home; and, then, two years later you found a brass hinge on the beach in Maui, while on vacay, would that "suggest" to you that the hinges came from the same factory? >> 2. Point being, it would seem more "scientific" to conclude that if I found two such similarly shaped objects--even separated by time and distance--they must have the same purpose. Further, whatever that purpose is, a metal hinge must represent someone's idea of the optimal way to achieve it. There are hundreds of immutable laws of nature in the Universe; and, if you were an atheist, you would "scientifically" consider this "someone" to be Nature. >> 3. Therefore, in nature, when you want an appendage to perform certain functions, the "Natural Law of Form and Function" tells us it HAS TO have a certain shape. (Just like when you want a fulcrum, there are limits to how it can be shaped.) >> 4.In no instance, would the objective scientific mind jump to: "The whale inherited this from its ancestor the cow." Quote: "[I]t [religion] has been proven hypocritical and wrong and dubious at almost every turn." >> I agree with this statement on a theological level--particularly with regard to Christianity; but, I suspect you are speaking about science. How so? (I know you think you know; let's see if you do.) Quote: "Whether or not you believe it, there are facts." >> Can you identify one of these facts that meets the following criteria: 1. Evolution, through random natural selection, is the only theory that corresponds to the fact. 2. The fact tells us how something happened to support random natural selection; it doesn't just describe what "Is". For example, there is an attempt now to say that "every" fossil is a transitional fossil. However, the fact is that there is no evidence to prove that any fossil had offspring that lived--a glaring prerequisite to be considered "transitional" which those "wary" scientists seemed to have missed.

[@HallowingEchos]

Quote 1.1: Consider blood tests. The HIV test has a fail rate (which I don't know off the top of my head). It can be a false positive or a false negative. Newtonian physics was, for hundreds of years, considered the rulebook of the universe and everything in it up until the discovery of quantum mechanics. Quote 2.1: It wouldn't. One's brass, the other's steel. If they shared EVERYTHING in common, i.e. shape, weight, designs, etchings, brand name, date, then it would suggest that to me. But bear in mind, evolution is change over time. Your sarcastic statement is, to translate, me saying that two similar species (morphologically speaking) had the same parents. Hopping back into the analogy, iron, coal, zinc, and copper all come from the ground. Coal and iron are crossbred, steel is born. That steel is shaped by its environment into a hinge. The same process occurs for zinc and copper into brass into a hinge. They have similar environments, but they are characteristically different from the beginning. It would not be incorrect, however, to say that steel and brass both originated in the ground. Quote 2.2: If you actually watched the video, Mr. Anderson points out that any engineer could design a better and more efficient wings than bats currently have. So... this argument is flawed. The fact that it ISN'T the optimal way to do it is exactly WHY THIS THEORY IS SUPPORTED. Quote 2.3: Pretty sure that isn't a law. Google shows nothing. On a side note, were you an engineer you would know that there are many ways of going about doing something and some methods are appealing for different reasons. For example, if I wanted to buy a car, I may want to buy a Prius because that is economically friendly in the long run. Unfortunately, I'm currently broke so all I can afford is to maintain my dad's old Ford Taurus. Quote 2.4: I assume you have actual scientific documents that back you up on how the whale was descended from the cow? Quote 3.1: Your argument in your second point is flawed. I assume you have parents, and grandparents, and great grandparents, and so on. You aren't the same as any of those. I'll give you a historical fact, and a recent one. The average height of a human male during the 17th and 18th centuries was about 5 foot 5 inches. This has increased to about 5 foot 10 in today's society due to nutritional advances, better healthcare, etc. etc. If we compare nature to technology, then we can assume that nature and technology are based on the same thing: Progress. Nature is constantly ironing out the weak. Technology goes through beta testing, ironing out the bugs. With technology, each iteration of a program is a new "generation" than that before it, with less bugs and more new features to adapt to changing societies. Nature is ironing out the weak organisms, such as the infamous case of the peppered moths in the Industrial Revolution. They adapt to changing environments, but environments are changed by erosion, volcanic activity, glaciers, all of which take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to coalesce into their final form. Society changes in a matter of years. Your arguments are based on seeing things not as they are, but as you want them to be so as to not make sense, which suggests to me that you want to believe. You have no other choice. You use God as a crutch, but you follow no doctrine.

[@believervsbeliefs6599]

+Jacob Millburn Brass vs Steel: 1. Strange that you require exacting duplication before considering that two inorganic items might have a similar origin; yet, diverse living organisms of very dissimilar characteristics, are presumed--not "assumed"--to be from the same order of classification based on their "toes". 2. The wiki article on even-toed ungulates has this "evolution" incite to share: "Modern cetaceans [large marine mammals]...have little in common with other mammals...[i]t stands to reason; however, that they must have evolved from terrestrial mammals." That's all the evidence some people need. 3. Interesting that you bring the whole smelting and refining process into the discussion. Will you allow the same intelligent design for evolution? No, of course not. Better Design: 1. If you want to allow for ID in evolution, then we can talk about the qualifications of the designer. However, if you do, you will have to explain why a current design is "wrong". You talk as if everything else in the Universe is perfect, except for the design of certain organisms. Ever heard of a "perfect" earthquake? Me niether. But, we both believe in them don't we? That is such a rediculous argument: "It's not perfect, so it has to be an 'accident'." It's Not a Law: 1. You're correct. There is no "Natural Law of Form and Function"; but, it makes the point. 2. As a part time structural engineer, I know that if I "want" to cantilever an 8' x 20' balcony off the master bedroom, I am going to need something more substantial than 2' x 4's on 24' centers. You can "want" whatever you can dream of; but, what you actually get has limitations in the real world. Your car example proves my point. (Somehow, you missed that.) 3. Therefore, it is irrational to say: Evolution can devise any type of appendage it wants--so the fact that some are similar "proves" those animals are related. Not! If everything in the Universe is limited by function over form, why would you presume evolution is not? Everything in the Universe has to first work--the design is irrelevant if the form doesn't work, and only certain designs for whale flippers, etc. work. Quote 2.4 "I assume you have actual scientific documents that back you up on how the whale was descended from the cow?" 1. See Brass vs Steel #2, above. I picked "cow" because I like cows. But, it doesn't make it any truer if I say "pig" or "camel". Btw, what are "actual scientific documents". Do you need one for permission to think? Not the Same? 1. Please explain how all of your talk about parentage and height have any relation to evolution? Everyone you talked about are human beings who are the offspring of human beings. Do you think if someone get's sick and looses ten pounds, that is also "proof" of evolution? Boy you guys think everything is "proof of evolution". Quote: "If we compare nature to technology, then we can assume that nature and technology are based on the same thing: Progress." 1. You're kidding, right? If you can't see the fallacies (Plural!) in that sentence, then, for your sake, I am going to assume you are merely repeating what you have heard, and haven't actually thought about it. Suffice it to say, that you are making "technology", which everyone agrees requires lots of ID, analogous with "evolution", which angrily denies the existence of both intelligence and design. Your analogy explodes at that point. As You Want Them To Be: You are confused, aren't you? I'm afraid you have me confused with you--or are you admitting that you think evolution requires ID? That's all you talked about, seems like.

[@spamsoppl]

It's not the grammar you dislike, just don't forget to add 'praise god' in your next comment, ha !

[@anthonymarco2919]

Who here for hw?

[@srushtiparanjpe1191]

Thanks a lot !

[@heymanhmm]

so every species is alive because of random mutations? Even though we need other species for our own survival? Even though as soon as the first mutation occurs the species either doesn't survive or it doesn't multiply. A species having similar DNA isn't evidence that one species came from another it only shows similar features we have with each other. There are many philosophical assumptions with evolution that are not scientific. The Cambrian explosion is also a stumbling block to evolution.

[@scottevanmacfar]

I love it when someone who doesn't understand the science tries to debunk it. No Peter L. none of what you posted is a problem for evolution. Especially the nonsense you are spouting about the Cambrian explosion. It isn't a stumbling block, it is the block upon which evolution is built. Had you bothered to listen to even part of your high school biology class you would know the answers to the questions you think derail evolution. Read up and try again when you better understand the science you are trying to refute.

[@scottevanmacfar]

The average human is born with about 150 genetic mutations that neither prevent survival or reproduction. It would seem you still have a bit to learn about genetic science.

[@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264]

Evolutionism is a religion , nothing more and this is coming from a former ardent evolutionist of ten plus years.

[@Aurora666_yt]

Liar

[@walkergarya]

The Theory of Evolution has NOTHING in common with religion.

[@benryan3171]

ad hominid. evidence still underwhelming.

[@nocies6595]

The whale vestigual structure is wrong :P those arent former rear legs nor are they useless. They connect to muscles that is needed for reproduction :) The human tail bone is the same thing, its used in reproduction

[@egorall]

Err, no. In what way would a whale use a floating set of bone structures that are a pelvic girdle and a femur? One in every 50 whales actually have the femur grow long enough to extend outside the body. If it were needed in reproduction, why isn't it larger and attached to the spine? Dolphins also have this, as do snakes. Fish don't, even very large fish (including ones far larger than dolphins). Also, we know whales and dolphins are mammals and not fish because they don't have gills, they have lungs and have to periodically come up to the surface of the water just to get a fresh gulp of air, just to live. Their limbs are also designed more efficiently for non-water locomotion, unlike fish, which swim with a side-to-side instead of the less-efficient up-and-down motion. And who on Earth told you the human tail bone is used in reproduction? For what possible use is it used for that?

[@BackRowRacing98]

This isn't evidence because I don't feel like believing it! Nice try!!!!!!! ;)

[@CatrinL]

That doesn't even make sense. Your evidence, isn't evidence to disprove his evidence, because it's irrational....

[@BackRowRacing98]

Catrin L I know, I was showing the rationality of creationists. XD

[@Joellllllllll]

he's showing us evidence that supports a particular theory or scientific idea; this doesn't mean the theory or idea itself is hard fact, because its not yet.

[@BackRowRacing98]

Frankie Pie A scientific theory is a pretty solid idea. When an idea becomes a theory, it's considered pretty close to a fact. I think it's safe to say, based on the evidence, evolution looks good as a theory.

[@delapidatedunicorn1802]

This comment gave me cancer.

[@missminipixie54]

Thanks, really helpful!!

[@sammyson3492]

OK.. so let's say there is an Asian man some area around northeast Asia and through the family tree of human being the furthest one would be let's say an African man who lives in Congo. To reverse back to the root of human being, the first human will be just a mixture of these two man maybe much blend in skin color as well. Now, beside skin color, height, or hair style, that primary human whoever that will be would be just like us in terms of how we define human being. If this much human evolution has been taken place from the primary human to modern human beings, then coming from apes to that primary human will take so much longer. Yet it is quite questionable that along that process, there was no other human like beings who branched out that still lives to this day. Just a thought exercise. I think people have right to have their own independent thinking.

[@justaway6901]

In a way, some did. Modern human as we know of today are mostly mixed breeds between those "human like" and homo sapiens. Neanderthals is one example.

[@JackMosel]

One Darwin