Charles Darwin's theory of evolution explained | A-Z of ISMs Episode 4 - BBC Ideas

[@horrorhabit8421]

Darwinism isn't bad, but I think the greatest idea anyone ever had was Einstein's idea that gravity and inertia are identical.

[@dariusnoname12]

Well one point to add. That Darwin's theory of evolution was correct, but that doesn't mean that phrasing and other things weren't added. For example Darwin claimed that natural selection was main driving force, which in fact we know that genetic drift is. There are many things that were added, so to those people who claimed that Darwin's view of some things was wrong, I have to agree and I will say that we fixed those parts. Also, weird how people search for videos of evolution to comment that creationism or god exists. Why would you do that?

[@you457wx7]

They want to help you, you're like poor ignorant lost sheep, species evolve with only minor changes to their DNA and humans don't with major DNA changes, slow gradual transition would give us billions if not trillions of missing links (animals in different transitional stages), also there would be no reason for all similar species to go extinct. There are so many things wrong with this theory you have to wonder if many of you aren't evolving into apes.

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

Dammit. My comments keep getting deleted because KZbin has a shitty algorithm in place.

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

Evolution is essentially just population genetics. The reason why it is easier to see in other animals than in humans is because they are in genetically isolated groups in the wild and we have spread to every country on earth. There's also no selective pressures from the environment causing us to have to adapt. Regarding transitions, there are thousands of transitional fossils and the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to the strictest definition of the word. All life on earth is a transitional form; all plants and all animals. Regarding missing links, so many fossils have been found that the only real missing links are in scorpion species. There's nothing missing from the human lineage except for Pan prior, but it's irrelevant because we already have Pierolapithecus catalaunicus and Sahelanthropus tchadensis. There are no things wrong with the Theory of Evolution. There is no refutation for it in existence, but if one is ever demonstrated then it will come from scientists and not idiots.

[@dariusnoname12]

@@you457wx7 About minor changes. Ignoring all evidence we have that clearly you don't accept. Let's talk about what we do have. For example there are species of lizards that 40± years ago were inserted into different environment. They became new species(lizards of pod mashu±). Look at insects, look at ants for example(army ants if I remember correctly). They constantly evolve towards new species. They change so much that their "original" species wage war onto them. You also can look at experiments of e.coli. That clearly shows organisms can evolve and it isn't random process. Not only that, but we have quite good hypothesis for DNA origins. For example most popular hypothesis is DNA from RNA(given their similar characteristics and dependencies on one another). We know that RNA can spontaneously arise in environment that was primordial earth. Not only that but you have no viable alternative. So basically you have nothing, while evolution is explanation of all evidence that we have.

[@you457wx7]

@@dariusnoname12 The bible mentions adaption, if minor mutations in species help them to evolve over time then major mutations in humans would cause them to evolve rapidly, we are all species in your mind, so humans are proof this theory is a joke, sorry.

[@basilrasool]

Good channal

[@jasonvillatoro1446]

Would this be adaptation

[@richardblazer8070]

Just so you know I’m banging my head against the wall after I read that.

[@Boss-wr2it]

@@richardblazer8070 why the hell are u doing dat

[@CloroxBleach-hv4ns]

@@Boss-wr2it he belives that given a billion years his head will have adapted to the point that he is made of steel. 😀

[@ameeen501]

One of the most brilliant minds of human history. Chrles Darwin's theory of evolution changed everything in human understanding of the world. Chrles Darwin's theory put an end to any kind of religious dogmatism and their Explanation about the creation of the world.

[@attaullahkhan4424]

5

[@savemotherearth7198]

Increase in tongue length to reach out to pray at a further distance or modification of the beak to better eat food are evolution, but transition from apes to humans is full on genetic makeover.

[@ancient_technique]

kinda

[@WhatIKnw]

Not really all though it can seem that way because earth is much older than we think and if humans are a apex predator than we will always survive over time becoming smarter adapting you go from using your wrist ttocwalking up right to getting to other areas of the world and no longer needing as much hair or even could a deficit form change of diet which caused all the hair to go down over time the genetics will also choose based on how to have the best mate so if your genes e decided this would be best then your body will develop less hair in order to find a mate.

[@DTK5689]

Here is a list of quotes from respected leaders who doubted the evolution narrative in biology, zoology, paleontology, anthropology, philosophy, a museum curator, current & former atheists and Darwin himself. “I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin of Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” ― Sir Julian Huxley, Head of UNESCO, evolutionist Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” ― Sir Arthur Keith. (1959). Note: he wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species. "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." ― Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA. in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by NJ Mitchell, "Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes", Roydon publications, UK, 1983, title page.) "Darwinian science inevitably will, and should have, legal, political and moral consequences." ― L. Tiger, an anthropologist at Rutgers (as presented in Scientific American, October 1995, pg. 181). "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” ― Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984. "...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." ― Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Quoted from "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.) "...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." ― Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, (Personal letter to L. Sunderland.) "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." ― David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974. "...not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." ― Dr. Greg Kirby in an address given at a meeting of the Biology Teachers Association of South Australia in 1976. Dr. Kirby was the Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University and was giving the case for evolution.) "A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." ― Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” ― Galileo Galilei “Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn’t even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It in a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science” -― Dr. Karl Popper, leading philosopher of science "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." ― Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

[@NathanRW]

Maybe I'll make a list of quotes from ex-theists about why their theistic views were wrong... would that make you then think that theism is wrong? lol

[@djengo77]

@@NathanRW "Maybe I'll make a list of quotes from ex-theists about why their theistic views were wrong... would that make you then think that theism is wrong? lol" LOL Oh, yeah..."maybe." It's been 6 months since you posted that. How's your list coming along? Let's see what you have so far.

[@DTK5689]

@@akele02 And in 1930's Germany and beyond, one could have a plethora of scientists say that eugenics was a good idea. Unfortunately for many being indoctrinated in the scientific community, such as yourself, appeals to authority and popularity reign over science. It's called "scientism" and it is a religion, not science. Maybe, if you believe harder, it will be true?

[@DTK5689]

@@akele02 No, you missed the point. Modern day Scientism dismisses dissenting views and disciplines others to have the same opinion. They label this 'science' and if you oppose, then you are a 'science denier'. "99% of climate scientist believe in man-made climate change".or "Science supports covid vaccines are safe and effective". Scientism < science.

[@DTK5689]

@@akele02 Let's not forget the popular science that states that gender is fluid. Scientism, not science.

[@viciousdiablo4198]

my theory--is that all humans beings and all animals come from 1 single organism

[@powerofroses1670]

how can u say that?? god is real. now i work for 2 retail companies here in america. its just a theory. kinda like saying i believe in aliens but they never visited planet earth

[@ancient_technique]

@@powerofroses1670 it’s believable is it not ? how can you say god is real?

[@jayvee3494]

humans beings are animals. we’re great apes!

[@daffavirwandy7694]

That's why there's Netflix adaptation.

[@djbobo4148]

First the Chicken Egg or the Chicken? ... A simple example, imagine such a comparison: each day of Your life is one life of the chicken generation. In the morning, the chicken hatch from the egg, grow up, lay egg, dies. The next day, descendant of chicken grow up, lay the egg, die, etc. every morning a new generation. You and I also change everyday, but we don't see it. Suppose you live for 10,000 days = 10,000 generations of chickens. From day one there are ancestors of the chickens and day 10,000 are present chickens. On what day / generation ancesors became present chickens? Its like to ask when You become a man and stopped being a child? Let's say on 18th birthday, day 6500. But on day 6499, 6480 e tc, we are not much different from the biological point of view

[@arindamhansda5493]

I can't tell if the people in these comments are trolls or ignorants.

[@uhhok7183]

i dont really dont care at this point

[@dylang813]

ok

[@NazriB]

I find this theory hard to believe because I know people whose organizational behaviour remains the same. They have the similar bad habits after so many years without the slightest instinct to adapt or even react to positive manner

[@jasonjennings8465]

Please go educate yourself over what evolution is... Someone not wanting to change their ways has nothing to do with biological evolution. Evolution takes place at the genetic level during reproduction.

[@djengo77]

"I find this theory hard to believe" It's not actually a theory, though. Rather, it's nonsense. In order for Darwinism (or, what Darwinists call "the theory of evolution") to be a theory, it would need to be either true or false. But, in reality, since Darwinism is nonsense, and since nonsense is neither true nor false, Darwinism fails to be either true or false. Thus, Darwinism fails to be a theory. So, the fact of the matter is that not only is it hard to believe Darwinism, but it is simply altogether impossible to believe Darwinism--so-called "the theory of evolution"--since it is impossible to believe nonsense. Even the Darwinists, themselves, do not--because they cannot--believe the nonsense they call "the theory of evolution".

[@tm_fang8615]

@@djengo77 🤣

[@amided3816]

@@djengo77 genius

[@bsrgamer9007]

OMG

[@kuntakinte1416]

Evolution or not, WHO MADE THEM. "answered no atheist scientist ever in his life"

[@jasonjennings8465]

What? Your comment made no sense.

[@kuntakinte1416]

@@jasonjennings8465 i fixed it

[@eddyeldridge7427]

@@kuntakinte1416 Well, for starters, you're assuming a "who."

[@richardblazer8070]

Abiogenesis

[@mlt7320]

Useless

[@Vic500_]

Oui

[@mielife510]

. ....

[@ve-ekko2339]

bruh

[@planetneptune9489]

the way he looks it's obvious that Darwin had monky ancestors.

[@RandomPerson-wr9ng]

Apes not monkeys

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@RandomPerson-wr9ng Yes they are, they are a subset of catarrhini.

[@reshadsahand6654]

and yet the funniest ISM that human tries to find some evidence for.

[@elliecalderon9613]

Antivaxxers

[@arthurbluntzworth5503]

It’s just a theory

[@jasonjennings8465]

It's an observed fact that is explained by a valid theory...

[@IssyFishyy]

@@jasonjennings8465 Observable fact? As far as i'm concerned, there has never been an instance of speciation.

[@jasonjennings8465]

@@IssyFishyy are you on drugs? The E. Coli experiment alone showed several speciation events taking place. Furthermore, you apparently don't know the differences between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution...

[@jasonjennings8465]

@@IssyFishyy how did you inherit your parents genetics if evolution was not taking place? Or, how is the genetic mutation of the LCT genes that allow lactose tolerance being spread through our species if evolution is not actually taking place?

[@IssyFishyy]

@@jasonjennings8465 The Lenski Experiment actually showed otherwise on the contrary. Here's another example: Fruitflies, generations for fruit flies are much quicker, and biologists like to experiment on them, yet they have shown no speciation whatsoever. The thing is, YOU confuse the fact of evoluton. Because for one thing, you have no idea what the model is. You're confusing evoluton with natural selection. Inheritance is far different model from speciation.

[@MEHAZ]

Introduction O man! You should be aware that there are certain phrases which are commonly used and imply unbelief. The believers also use them, but without realizing their implications. We shall explain three of the most important of them. The First: "Causes create this." The Second: "It forms itself; it comes into existence and later ceases to exist." The Third: "It is natural; Nature necessitates and creates it." Indeed, since beings exist and this cannot be denied, and since each being comes into existence in a wise and artistic fashion, and since each is not outside time but is being continuously renewed, then, O falsifier of the truth, you are bound to say either that the causes in the world create beings, for example, this animal; that is to say, it comes into existence through the coming together of causes, or that it forms itself, or that its coming into existence is a requirement and necessary effect of Nature, or that it is created through the power of One All-Powerful and All-Glorious. Since reason can find no way apart from these four, if the first three are definitely proved to be impossible, invalid and absurd, the way of Divine Unity, which is the fourth way, will necessarily and self-evidently and without doubt or suspicion, be proved true. THE FIRST WAY This to imagine that the formation and existence of things, creatures, occurs through the coming together of the causes in the universe. We shall mention only three of its numerous impossibilities. First Impossibility Imagine there is a pharmacy in which there are hundreds of jars and phials filled with quite different substances. A living potion and a living remedy are required from those medicaments. So we go to the pharmacy and see that they are to be found there in abundance, yet in great variety. We examine each of the potions and see that the ingredients have been taken in varying but precise amounts from each of the jars and phials, one ounce from this, three from that, seven from the next, and so on. If one ounce too much or too little had been taken, the potion would not have been living and would not have displayed its special quality. Next, we study the living remedy. Again, the ingredients have been taken from the jars in a particular measure so that if even the most minute amount too much or too little had been taken, the remedy would have lost its special property. Now, although the jars number more than fifty, the ingredients have been taken from each according to measures and amounts that are all different. Is it in any way possible or probable that the phials and jars should have been knocked over by a strange coincidence or sudden gust of wind and that only the precise, though different, amounts that had been taken from each of them should have been spilt, and then arranged themselves and come together to form the remedy? Is there anything more superstitious, impossible and absurd than this? If an ass could speak, it would say: "I cannot accept this idea!", and would gallop off! Similarly, each living being may be likened to the living potion in the comparison, and each plant to a living remedy. For they are composed of matter that has been taken in most precise measure from truly numerous and truly various substances. If these are attributed to causes and the elements and it is claimed, "Causes created these," it is unreasonable, impossible and absurd a hundred times over, just as it was to claim that the potion in the pharmacy came into existence through the phials being knocked over; by accident. In Short: The vital substances in this vast pharmacy of the universe, which are measured on the scales of Divine Determining and Decree of the All-Wise and Pre-Eternal One, can only come into existence through a boundless wisdom, infinite knowledge and all-encompassing will. The unfortunate person who declares that they are the work of blind, deaf and innumerable elements and causes and natures, which stream like floods; and the foolish, delirious person who claims that that wondrous remedy poured itself out when the phials were knocked over and formed itself, are certainly unreasonable and nonsensical. Indeed, such denial and unbelief is a senseless absurdity. THE SECOND WAY This is expressed by the phrase "It forms itself." It too involves many impossibilities and is absurd and impossible in many aspects. We shall explain three examples of these impossibilities. First Impossibility O you obstinate denier! Your egotism has made you so stupid that somehow you decide to accept a hundred impossibilities all at once. For you yourself are a being and not some simple substance that is inanimate and unchanging. You are like an extremely well-ordered machine that is constantly being renewed and a wonderful palace that is undergoing continuous change. Particles are working unceasingly in your body. Your body has a connection and mutual relations with the universe, in particular with regard to sustenance and the perpetuation of the species, and the particles that work within it are careful not to spoil that relationship nor to break the connection. In this cautious manner they set about their work, as though taking the whole universe into account. Seeing your relationships within it, they take up their positions accordingly. And you benefit with your external and inner senses in accordance with the wonderful positions that they take. If you do not accept that the particles in your body are tiny officials in motion in accordance with the law of the Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One, or that they are an army, or the nibs of the pen of Divine Determining, with each particle as the nib of a pen, or that they are points inscribed by the pen of Power with each particle being a point, then in every particle working in your eye there would have to be an eye such as could see every limb and part of your body as well as the entire universe, with which you are connected. In addition to this, you would have to ascribe to each particle an intelligence equivalent to that of a hundred geniuses, sufficient to know and recognize all your past and your future, and your forbears and descendants, the origins of all the elements of your being, and the sources of all your sustenance. To attribute the knowledge and consciousness of a thousand Plato's to a single particle of one such as you who does not possess even a particle's worth of intelligence in matters of this kind is a crazy superstition a thousand times over! THE THIRD WAY "Nature necessitates it; Nature makes it." This statement contains many impossibilities. We shall mention three of them by way of examples. First Impossibility If the art and creativity, which are discerning and wise, to be seen in beings and particularly in animate beings are not attributed to the pen of Divine Determining and Power of the Pre-Eternal Sun, and instead are attributed to Nature and force, which are blind, deaf and unthinking, it becomes necessary that Nature either should have present in everything machines and printing-presses for their creation, or should include in everything power and wisdom enough to create and administer the universe. The reason for this is as follows: The sun's manifestations and reflections appear in all small fragments of glass and droplets on the face of the earth. If those miniature, reflected imaginary suns are not ascribed to the sun in the sky, it is necessary to accept the external existence of an actual sun in every tiny fragment of glass smaller than a match-head, which possesses the sun's qualities and which, though small in size, bears profound meaning; and therefore to accept actual suns to the number of pieces of glass. In exactly the same way, if beings and animate creatures are not attributed directly to the manifestation of the Pre-Eternal Sun's Names, it becomes neciessary to accept that in each being, and especially animate beings, there lies a nature, a force, or quite simply a god that will sustain an infinite power and will, and knowledge and wisdom. Such an idea is the most absurd and superstitious of all the impossibilities in the universe. It demonstrates that a man who attributes the art of the Creator of the universe to imaginary, insignificant, unconscious Nature is without a doubt less conscious of the truth than an animal. Risale-i Nur Collection 174 - Bediüzzaman Said