Origins: Evolution’s Flawed Thinking

[@deborahplowman8012]

I don’t know about any of this... but the problem that I have with evolution is that it is discussed and written about and taught in schools as if it was proven and it isn’t. That’s why Darwin called it a theory. So to teach it as truth is not ethical. Students need to be told the truth. Textbooks need to say, “You know what we don’t know for sure nobody does but we think it could be this way. We have many unanswered questions still. What ideas do you have?” That’s teaching real science by encouraging students thoughts and scientific theories of their own. Not telling students this is how you should think.

[@ForeverBleedinGreen]

What you're trying to say is that students should be taught to think critically. Instead, they're being told what to think, and how to think it (or do not think outside of THIS box). It's called indoctrination - and it's not teaching... Students should also be informed of the fakes, frauds, and forgeries that make up the larger part of evolutionary theory so they can make an informed decision. Instead, this fabricated evidence gets put into textbooks and taught as fact, even long AFTER that evidence has been proven false. THAT'S how bad it really is...

[@gennymikel4296]

Very true, and when confronted with the frauds and hoaxes, the evil lutionists will end the discussion because like so many other micro minds, they cant handle challenges to the perfect vision.

[@christianadams9114]

I've noticed that many who adhere to Darwin's theory, defend these ideas with the same level of zealousness as theologians are accused of. As has been stated in this thread it's clearly indoctrination which by passes critical thinking and examination. The two major flaws for me is the "Missing Link", as there would need to be around 12 transitional fossils linking Homo Erectus with Homo Sapiens. But the biggest flaw is the idea that reptilian beings morphed slowly into mammalian beings in order for the theory to stand up. This would require a gargantuan fossil record. For which there is none.

[@lizd2943]

@@christianadams9114 There is an extensive fossil record. There is not a required number of transitional fossils.

[@jt2097]

@@lizd2943 I agree with you Liz, evolution should be accepted on faith, there is no need of proof.

[@nneubsfl9278]

What is with the sound issues in most of these videos. Such as the intro and then gaps when you can see they are still talking but there is no sound.

[@jamy_hensley5423]

It happens when they lauch the commercial breaks.

[@chelliz8887]

Thank you, God Bless you both

[@jay2thedub]

15:00 The gens are changing. The position of the gens are changing leading to different traits being represented. That is a change in genetic structure.

[@MrSuperman957]

A change in genetic structure is different from a brand new genetic structure. What he's saying is that the genes are already there. They're just rearranged

[@jounisuninen]

" The position of the gens are changing leading to different traits being represented." That is called adaptive variation. It is based on the existing genes. It is NOT evolution. Evolution theory claims that "All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago." That would need enormous changes in the basic anatomical structures of each species. Gills becoming lungs, fins becoming feet, hands becoming wings etc. Darwin proposed that new species come from the existing species through gradual changes in their basic anatomical structure. This would mean that e.g. fish and humans could have a common ancestor. There is no proof for that, no proof of gradual changes in the basic anatomical structure of any given species. What is most important, there is no genetic mechanism for a "step by step by step" - transformation in basic anatomical structures. Evolution would need qualitatively new and different genes for a species, but such genes do always exist in other species. Species can't transfer their genes to other species.The very idea of "evolution" is so crazy that modern evolutionists present adaptive changes as "evolution".

[@dougsmith6793]

@@jounisuninen [jouni]: "What is most important, there is no genetic mechanism for a "step by step by step" - transformation in basic anatomical structures." Well, yes there is. It's called a "feedback loop", where the output of a filtered system is fed back into the input, so the filter (which, in the evolutionary feedback mechanism, is always the environment) is constantly reinforcing or de-inforcing specific traits depending on the effect those traits have on reproductive success. Research has demonstrated that even a 1% reproductive advantage is enough to result in a genome spreading through a population in just a few generations. Creationists don't process such small numbers as having game-changing consequences -- they seem stuck on the idea that nothing short of a new limb magically appearing can account for speciation. No two organisms in a population are absolutely genetically identical -- IOW, every organism in a population is a "mutant" with respect to every other organism. So, instead of evolution "waiting around" for some rare beneficial mutation to occur in a single organism which somehow then spreads through the population, evolution is actually always operating on a large number of minor variations in a population simultaneously. As a population increases, it also tends to spread out over wider and wider geographical areas, and these varying geographical areas invariably have different environmental filters that will reinforce or de-inforce specific genomes in each local area. So when you say there's "no genetic mechanism for step-by-step" incremental changes, you're really saying that you don't understand the mechanism. If you're going to critique evolution, at least do it fairly and honestly, instead of misrepresenting it -- i.e., creating a typical creationist strawman argument.

[@peterpenny1758]

Great program thank you

[@catmanbluz]

keep up the great work

[@jay2thedub]

12:10 Pure bread animals like dogs are suffering rapid degradation of it's gens because of interbreeding.

[@inthso362]

6:45 "Everything's always changing." Nonsense. Many species are millions of years old. I've seen enough. If you're going too refute something, you outta know that thing inside and out.

[@jounisuninen]

"Many species are millions of years old." That tells of missing evolution. In fact, fossils and "living fossils" prove that life has been immensely more diverse in its beginning than it is now. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics leads our Earth and all universe towards maximal entropy - not towards evolution.

[@inthso362]

@@jounisuninen Yes, entropy. Yet within that larger framework, we see things becoming more complex all the time. Like a cell becoming an embryo.

[@dougsmith6793]

Anderson was actually doing a pretty good job explaining how evolution works until he started mis-characterizing speciation as "getting rid" of features. Evolution does NOT claim that features that result in eventual speciation are always "added" to the genome. The feedback loop that is the mechanism of natural selection can both reinforce or diminish features depending on how any given feature affects reproductive success. So, Anderson's argument here reflects a common misunderstanding of how evolution works -- i.e., it's another [typical creationist] strawman argument. Critique evolution all you wish. But at least do it honestly and fairly, within the context of what evolution actually says, rather than misrepresenting it. This is especially troubling in this context: creationists believe in God, usually the God of the Bible, and that God commands his followers, "Thou shalt not bear false witness!" So these jokers are all-in on God creating the universe, but they aren't all-in on following that same God's commandments? At the very least, they should be consistent.

[@antondejesus2307]

Who says evolution is taken as an "absolute truth"? This video started with the wrong foot. Evolution is a tentative position based on the best available evidence. It's the model that best explains the diversity of life on the planet.

[@patrickderp1044]

if the best available evidence doesnt include any observable testable experiments then its not a tentative claim at all dude. at least with gravity you can drop two things in a vacuum to test, now thats a theory using the best available evidence

[@antondejesus2307]

@@patrickderp1044 So you think evolution was pulled out of a hat? Let me take the responsibility of educating you on the subject, the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming it comes from 4 main sources: the fossil record of change in earlier species, the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms, the geographic distribution of related species and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. You have to be not blind but dead to ignore evolution as a fact "dude".

[@jounisuninen]

"...best explains the diversity of life on the planet." Now you yourself claim that as an absolute truth ... 😃 Well, it isn't the truth. Evolution is fiction because genes do not allow evolution. Evolution would mean new basic anatomical body structures appearing in some step by step -mechanism. That's a fairy tale. There is no such mechanism in the DNA. If Darwin presented his theory today, he would be laughed out from the auditorium. Poor Darwin knew nothing of genetics and neither do the supporters of evolution theory.

[@lizd2943]

So you start right off with a lie. That doesn't really do much for your credibility. Evolution is an observed process. Evolutionary theory is a theory about the diversification of life. It is not "molecules to man." If you want to make a video about evolution, maybe you ought to learn what it is first. Speciation is also an observed process, not an assumption. Common descent was Darwin's conclusion, not assumption. It's sad to see someone throw away his scientific training and accomplishments to promote irrational dogma.

[@criconinvestments7723]

In school I was taught that 1 celled organisms eventually grew into all that we see

[@arthur52353]

And? Do you object and reject the evidence presented? Do you have a competing theory (Scientific overview and falsifiable theory) that You can present and standup to all available evidence?

[@jt2097]

Hey Liz D, creationists accept and believe evolution when it is defined as change over time. It is proven that creatures can adapt to environments by thriving due to certain traits. These traits are built in to existing genetic material, they do not magically appear via mutation. Mutation causes disease, aging and death. It causes the loss or destruction of genetic information and proteins. It never causes new genetic information and proteins. The variety you see in human beings, cats, dogs or anything else today is because those traits were included in the original gene pool and then selected by either natural or manipulated selective breeding. There is no magic mechanism for producing new genetic information to produce new proteins. We are devolving not evolving. You can look up mutation tables on line and you'll see that for a mammal our size and with our mutation rate we have a maximum longevity as a species of approx 30,000 years before extinction. So unless there have been drastic changes in the past (such as the fall) long ages of evolution are ruled out. Also see recent mitochondrial DNA studies which show almost all life appearing simultaneously and recently. An example which we are given as evolution is the adaptation of bacteria to be able to withstand antibiotics. The bacteria are not gaining new characteristics to withstand the attack, what is happening is that all bacteria which can not survive are being killed and leaving only the ones which have already existing resistance to the drugs. This is not the creation of new information, it is the loss of some information which will weaken the bacteria overall, make it less able to survive in other environments and drive it closer to its ultimate extinction.

[@swantreeservicesd1488]

If you won’t to know the truth take a trip cowards

[@emilyt8730]

The idea of evolution is based on life but looking further into the background this idea of evolution must be tied to the beginning where only molecules existed. Also this really isnt the argument at hand, they used simple phrasing to introduce the show more than the actual argument. If you have a problem with the what they are proposing then that makes sense to argue that but the intro really isnt the point that is being made