Evidence of Evolution:

[@dwang663]

People whose bio teachers sent them here ⬇️

[@xx_xolotus_xx6239]

*Cough* Me

[@lemons637]

whose*

[@PipimiOden]

me

[@zoom4145]

No i wanst

[@kazu4652]

Facts

[@marito166]

Intro: 0:00 Biogeography: 2:55 Fossils: 5:11 Homologies: 6:04 DNA: 7:04

[@kurowa_]

you saved my life

[@julianmarcer1892]

I love you

[@georgereichardt5473]

tysm 🥲

[@brook2660]

thank youu

[@wowie2162]

ya boy such a g always says "and i hope that's helpful" at the end of every video, yes it is mr. andersen we love you

[@kirillkondrachov4864]

I gotta thank you. You saved me in physics, microbiology/physiology and now evolution. Bless your soul. Also on a side note, did you evolve from Hank Green?

[@Sunsetdriver85]

Kirill Kondrachov lol I know, he looks like him!

[@caribaez5711]

Noooo they don’t look same but maybe cousins

[@terra_727]

Don't you mean: "Did you share a common ancestor with Hank Green?"

[@ritmaha]

u meAn you came from RoCks? and don't use 'Bless' as it contradicts ur beliEfs. Get it right troll.

[@Crazytesseract]

When he doesn't believe in the existence of a soul, how can you bless him??? He is the soul, not his body. And he does not know it

[@haydenvc616]

Okay. This is an educational video. Not a video for argument. I watched this video to LEARN for a HOMEWORK assignment. Does the professor care if you believe in god or evolution or whatever. No. So if you'll excuse me, I have some homework to do.

[@genevieve3589]

@@acandoattitude3140 don't disrespect our king. at least he doesn't fill his video unnecessary jokes like crashcourse guy.

[@philpickett4044]

same here doing homework gotta big test coming up this guy is helpful

[@evelynR1312]

Gen Evieve did you just get mad at a KZbin channel for having comedy?

[@Poecstasy]

The fact you replied to this just adds to the list of arguments. If you are here to learn and do homework, why are you in the comment section?

[@Lazarus-p8l]

Why is the purpose of education if you only care about doing school assignments instead of understanding and knowing your lessons.

[@wesleydurham2430]

No argumentative stuff here... I just really like the way this man says pigeon.

[@SupremeOverkill]

So you like that he says pigeon in the most normal way anyone could say it

[@coleyang4825]

You just taught me more in 13 minutes than my biology teacher could ever teach me in a lifetime. Thank you and keep up the good work!

[@ilovefunfilms]

Yes you tell a big lie and people will believe more than a small lie :) ... Watch Kent Hovind creation Seminar for real science evidence and proof of common designer

[@aaaaaa-hh8cq]

​@@ilovefunfilms😂 live your sad life. when thousands of scientists are telling lies, but you, a nobody, someone who doesn't understand sh*t about anything, with zero knowledge of anything, is telling the truth.

[@ScienceisStupid-f3r]

@@ilovefunfilms Evolution is a bunch of worthless crap in my opinion. God Rules!

[@alanw505]

The layperson science denier comments on here are funny. They are why the other developed countries in the world laugh at us.

[@JoeLackey]

The "co-discovery" between Darwin and Wallace reminds me of Leibniz and Newton in regards to calculus.

[@methembethomastshuma9587]

pippin n jordan

[@aieo471]

Jimmy and Jackson

[@myaadams3339]

Makes learning actually interesting and really helps in class

[@Paradigm2012Shift]

★ “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in a Letter to Asa Gray June 18, 1857) ★

[@MG-hi1ej]

Nothing's changed in that regard: Anthropologist S. L. Washburn put it this way: “Everything in evolution is very, very speculative.” As scientist Chandra Wickramasinghe said: “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution, it was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.” “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”-In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117 W. R. Thompson in his foreword to the centennial edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species stated: “A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.” Dr. Karl Popper comments: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” “The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life. No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.” -- Order: In Life, by Edmund Samuel, p. 120 Invertebrate zoologist Harold Coffin states: “Obviously much adaptation has occurred, but has this adaptive change actually caused evolutionary progression from one major category to another? The evidence from science does not support this kind of change.” Professor of natural science John Moore says: “There is absolutely no experimental evidence for any change of one animal form into another animal form; or for that matter, any change of one plant form into another plant form. The only evidence of change that can be classed properly as the result of sound scientific method is the evidence of genetic variation WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of animals, or WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of plants.” After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”

[@chrispycreme6413]

Why can't evolution and science go hand in hand? Everyone here is either totally against science. or totally atheist. What if... we just took a look at the evidence, and said that evolution exists... however... who started the evolution going?

[@MelvinArthurMurray]

This was out together very well.Good job

[@ilovefunfilms]

Jesus life love ministries .. really? There was no death before sin. Learn real science

[@ilovefunfilms]

@@blackatheist7369 yup it's ok. You have a right to do what you want by the life that you are living. But deep down try and be honest and know you just don't like to be told what to do

[@ilovefunfilms]

@@blackatheist7369 what you idolize in life and what moves you is what you serve.

[@ozowen]

@@ilovefunfilms there absolutely was death before humans evolved.

[@atheistslayer8486]

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone-the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone

[@1949rickray]

So, you beLIEve god did it all? So say the creatards and godlodytes.

[@spitfire6378]

So you believe the universe came from nothing says evolutionatard.

[@deanisaacs1256]

Kidd Zaff so you believe god came from where exactly?

[@Rowbust]

Dean Isaacs Your dumb x'D

[@fuckthisshiat]

Kidd Zaff lol you're so fucking stupid, no one claims the universe came from nothing XD

[@spitfire6378]

aaronq so tell me where did the universe come from?

[@TupacMakaveli1996]

1) geo biography 2) fossils 3) homology 4) dna

[@Fwhiskey]

For starters I thought it was a great video. Explains evolution in understandable terms. I'm surprised at how many trolls commented on this video. I hope you're trolls anyway... otherwise you're deluded and clearly incorrect in face of the mass amount of evidence.

[@Alaina420ful]

WHAT evidence?

[@Alaina420ful]

That's wonderfull for you. You might enjoy Chuck Missler on the Sciences of the Bible. One thing I notice is that people who deny God don't want to have personal accountability.

[@Fwhiskey]

Alaina Reilly I'm not a Biologist. This isn't something I'm qualified to teach people. If you want to learn about the evidence I suggest you do some reading to understand what evolution is about. I suggest "talkorigins" it's an awesome website. Also I'm not sure what makes you think I deny God? there are plenty of people out there who believe in a god (whatever religion it may be) and still believe in Evolution.

[@SmokeRiderSessions]

@@Fwhiskey so which one of your ancestors do you believe was an ape? Or do you find that question disrespectful? I know for a fact not one of my ancestors is an ape. You should know that as well.

[@janeking8065]

@@SmokeRiderSessions Found the forceful creationist! Humans and chimpanzees are related because they are in the same genus of primates. Chimpanzees are apes.

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

Just clarifying. A change of environment is needed to produce radical changes. Many species stay static for millions of years.

[@THESMARTERMAN555]

Its just not possible. With the amount of time evolutionist believe some creatures are, land masses were not even close to where they are now, extinction events, extreme weather changes, yet the animal is unchanged for 10's of millions of years.

[@gino14]

"All those pigeons are all birds." You fail to understand the simple concept of tiny changes accumulating into large changes to the point where the original version and the new one are too detached to be grouped again. Look at society. It's evolved to become completely different from its original form. We don't line up with Muskets anymore, do we? Our idea of "Glorious Battle" is 100% different from our idea 200 years ago.

[@THESMARTERMAN555]

These things are not comparable.

[@hyunjinpark5086]

Reminder: this channel is "Bozeman Science," not "Bozeman Theology." If someone doesn't know what Science is, follow this link: The Scientific Method

[@hunteregans70]

I like how a lot of people say "There is no Evidence for evolution" while believing in god

[@axeljensen5419]

I like how a lot of people say "There is no Evidence for God" while believing in Evolution.

[@jacksonpage1580]

But there's evidence of Evolution, meanwhile there's no evidence of God? Reversing the words doesn't create a counterargument.

[@izzyk9-]

Hunter Egans there is evidence. evolution does happen. just not on a macro scale. God created a plethora of species and they diversified (like the finches) but He created man complex and unique as a separate masterpeice

[@alejandroespejo3270]

Hunter Egans look around. there is aa lot of evidence for God. Can science explain miracles?

[@zakkwylde1516]

Alejandro Espejo Uhhhh, please don't pass on your genes for the sake of the human race

[@Bulova93]

Also on a side note, were those different finches Darwin found on the islands different species as a result of the natural selection? Like would it be possible to bring different island finches together and have them breed? They could only be considered a different species if the finches were unable to breed with those on the other island.

[@jordie00bogart]

An inability to breed could also be caused by geological barriers and thus could be technically another species. But generally, we tend to go by the ability to successfully breed under natural conditions.

[@wj8003]

Ate the bat? We all know what happened...

[@ozenozkul1940]

Why I cannot share web page? Thanks,

[@badoodles]

hi just a question. if all come from one common ancestor which was a single celled organism, so dna of all living organism has similarities with that ancient organism that lived 3 billion years ago. as ive read the oldest dna found is 416million years ago, so how scientist were able to conclude that we all evolve from that ancient organism that lived 3 billion year ago if scientist did not have that dna?

[@ankitmehrotraTheHitchhiker]

+homer guerrero Do you know human share 50% of their DNA with a banana .

[@danielmonteiro2161]

there are 3 proofs, geological, chemical and molecular

[@Armando7654]

@@ankitmehrotraTheHitchhiker "share" is metaphysical misapplication not science

[@Uenbg]

as a reminder: Machines are always designed (and made). A design always requires a designer. And you can't design if you're not intelligent. This is the normal usage of the english language, but there are those out there who are trying to change the normal use of language in order to spread confusion and teach false logic. You must attempt to resist and hold on to the normal simple usage of language. My playlist "Can your educational system always be trusted?" may be of assistance there.

[@scarlettq81820]

Couldn't have said it better than me

[@hayatona9395]

Anyone else having to watch this because school is canceled due to corona virus?

[@Four_doors]

4WeirdW Yeah texas schools are shut down

[@connorm4071]

@@Four_doors Same goes for Maryland

[@skankhunt-zw6gg]

Wow, that pointed portion on our ears is really cool and worth example to notice

[@InDaName]

Read Icon of Evolution by Jonathan Wells a molecular biologist. All I see is evidence for micro evolution but no evidence of macro evolution. This pigeon experiment makes my point. Plus the chart that shows the so-called evolution of the horse has been debunked along with Haekel's embryo. If Homology is defined in terms of common ancestry then Homology can't be used for evidence for common ancestry because it would be circular reasoning. Read Icon of Evolution by Jonathan Wells a molecular biologist.

[@robotczar]

This is just wrong. We can see tons of evidence for evolution, whether you make up micro and macro labels or not. This is not an open question in science. That bus left in the 19th century, the evidence is overwhelming and it is not worth arguing about them.

[@aussiekidschannel]

Couldn't agree more mate, but no Evolutionist wants to hear it, so they don't. Sad ignorance really..

[@CatfishCameras]

It would not be circular reasoning, as our ancestral past does not rely on our current homology. Our DNA has changed from our ancestors to our current species. We will probably stop evolving now due to medicine and the lack of real-world predators. That in itself is enough evidence.

[@thehumanfly5790]

Are you suggesting a small change within a short time period of time, isn't going to escalate into a bigger change within a much much longer period of time?

[@lorilynne571]

This video was really helpful. My class didn't have enough time to go into Evolution much, so this was great for me to get to know more about the topic.

[@randaram999]

I do not Understand why creationists won't admit why evolution is true plz answer Creationists

[@axeljensen5419]

For one there is more evidence against Darwin's theory than for it, another thing is almost every biology textbook uses outdated and discredited experiments and sources. I agree that there are Creationists that may not always divest fully into the evidence for Darwinism, but on the same note there are many Darwinian-Evolutionists that reject the evidence set against his theory.

[@axeljensen5419]

***** The same as your evidence for evolution, only perceived differently. Also, just a hint of LOGIC. that word may scare you, but logic is considered evidence.

[@zachary939]

Axel Jensen That's not evidence. That's a statement declaring that there is evidence. What exactly do you mean? What evidence are you referring to? How exactly do you think logic discredits evolution?

[@axeljensen5419]

zachary939 If you find a watch on the ground, how did it get there?

[@zachary939]

God damn I hate that one. It's a watch. Somebody dropped it. A watch is not a living creature. It doesn't have DNA to pass on. It's not a part of evolution. You don't think evolution is true? Fine then. What's your theory? How did all this come about?

[@sabitadevi1946]

You make biology easy for me thanks alot

[@Patrick65879]

Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”

[@gino14]

Most scientists really don't bother with the distinction, since the definition of Species in the first place has become somewhat subjective. "A group of organisms having many characteristics in common" - Yourscience Dictionary At what point does a population "microevolve" to the point where they stop "having many characteristics in common?" I could ask two different scientists, and they'd probably give me different answers, because "many characteristics in common" is hyper subjective.

[@lamb8343]

Hmm, so if I’m getting this correctly if my mother has one genotype for a really long neck and my father has the other. There’s a chance I can become a giraffe? Or do I have to marry another long necked individual and have my children fight over just out of reach apples until only the strongest and longest neck survives?! But what if they marry a normie? How long does that set me back; if hypothetically I wanted to see the efforts of my human-giraffe hybrid nation?

[@nym1001]

that's pokemon evolution.

[@paulmillbank3617]

Yes, you have it wrong, clearly.

[@Mark-Wilson]

my dude this is not how it works.. bro what sso hard to understand your poouplation evovles thed escedantss and the descadnets and the enxt andthe enxt slowly fill the entire gene pool and chang ethe entire population sometimes this change cna be affected by naturals election which is absed on if you can get your geens tos urvive to the enxt generation the ones who had their genes succesfully enter the enxt one and survive is probably affected by lots of factors like anturals elections gene drift and others tuff but anturals election can work kinda lieka rtififical slection or intelligent sleection ig euss but isntead the creature survives to pass on its genes

[@MaverickBboy911]

That makes perfectly reasonable sense and I thank you for your response. i still wonder why though that the previous evolutions of man aren't still in existence, for example, the theory of evolution suggests that all life came from single celled eukaryotic organisms which evolved to new cells which became animals, but yet even though the original cells evolved, they still exist today along with all of it's other progressive evolutionary states. So if this is the case, why aren't the original

[@SmokeRiderSessions]

Evolution from one kind of species to another is nonsense. I know not one of my ancestors is an ape. I hope you do know that as well.

[@spitama1234]

Thank you for the video :)

[@MCHRQRD]

No discussion just condescension. Engage the material or don't start a conversation.

[@mmmmlemons]

I can't believe people still doubt evolution.

[@pipsch12]

1. Nobody is denying the existence of god. Biology only states that you don't need god. 2. I think you agree with me that science and religion both try to know things. To say "you know" means that you can support your knowledge. You have to give reasons. Everything is credulity. I don't think you wanna be called credulous. This is why we have science. Science is a system that leads to knowledge-inevitably. Man is wrong, but the system of science does still work cause mistakes eventually show up

[@axeljensen5419]

Evolution is true based on these facts: 1. A small Horse eventually became a bigger horse. 2. Some birds in the Galapagos islands have different kinds of beaks. 3. The bones in your arms are laid out like the bones in a whale arm. 4. There are 3 kinds of turtles on the Galapagos islands. 5. Pigeons can breed into slightly weirder pigeons.

[@zachary939]

Axel Jensen no. Those are examples of evolution's work, and the first observations that lead to the theory. The fossil record, DNA tracing, observed processes, and correct predictions based on the principles are the proof.

[@axeljensen5419]

zachary939 there is no proof, just evidence, don't use words you don't understand

[@zachary939]

The proof is in the correct predictions based on the principles and observed processes part. We have literally watched organisms evolve. Mostly in bacteria under lab conditions, but there are a couple of examples of complex, multicellular organisms showing all the signs of evolving exactly as we would expect. Add that to the massive piles of evidence found in the fossil records, DNA tracing, related physical and behavioral characteristics in family lines, and the reality quickly becomes apparent. Not to mention the mountains of evidence that point directly away from the idea of an Earth that was created all at once less than a few billion of years ago. And the most damning thing of all, the fact that each and every branch of science independently came up with the very same answers to those questions. Everyone involved in any field of science will tell you the same thing. The Universe is billions of years old, the Earth is a very few billion years younger than that, life began about a billion years after that, and the processes of evolution through natural selection lead to the present state of life as we know it. The fact that the only people arguing against it are the devoutly religious should tell you something. Perhaps the devoutly religious are less than impartial? And as I tell everyone in these discussions... None of that means that God doesn't exist. But if he does, it's obvious the his works are accomplished using the laws of physics, and the processes of evolution. I personally don't see why you guys don't see it. I see the evidence of God far clearer in the majesty of the Big Bang and the eloquence of Evolution through Deep Time than in the idea that he just wished everything into existence six odd thousand years age. Why would God be a hurry? Those desert nomads thousands of years ago tried their damndest to explain it, but they were not in possession of the facts. They got it wrong.

[@moknows4996]

Axel Jensen go google Californian salamanders and educate yourself a little. There is living, OBSERVABLE proof for evolution RIGHT NOW, TODAY... its all there for you if you have the mental capacity to comprehend simple science. Hit me back when you've learned what the hell it is your talking shit about

[@axelgrace]

Mo Knows Oh my God there is so much evidence for the diversity of life. You aren't showing me a salamander that has evolved from an amoeba. Species have never and will never change class or order. Hit me back with a real argument instead of baseless assertions you draw conclusions from.

[@thisismypointe]

Well, logically, one cannot go from one genus to another instantaneously. I can, however, link you to interesting info of the evolution through the accumulated slight changes within an order/family. For example, the transition from Homo habilis to Homo erectus to Homo heidelbergensis. It's not possible to go from a cat to a dog, but can slowly make a transition from a common ancestor into a different class/order/family/genus/species.

[@raymondstheawesome]

Just curious: how many of y'all came here just to argue and not even watch the video? I'm one of them.

[@aussiekidschannel]

Haha I honestly came here to find someone new to debate, no ones is answering my questions lol..

[@mexicanwootwoot]

lol i came here to study for bio 2 exam next week

[@reeders2010]

justin harris lol same

[@thunderbird1779]

i have to do notes on this vid

[@jeffmckeown9639]

Raymond S. The most honest statement on the internet.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

"Useless" mutations might hitch a ride in individuals with advantageous mutations so to speak, but having useless body parts as you put it would very likely be a disadvantage, using more energy to build and maintain them etc. So individuals with these body parts will probably have a harder time surviving and reproducing than individuals that are more "streamlined".

[@prasannakrishna4093]

The problem with the evidences presented in this video is that these are not evidences at all. He(the person in the video) talked about pigeons and variations in pigeons and after saying that he jumped into the conclusion that if given millions of years evolution took place. All scientists who believe in evolution do the same thing they talk about micro evolution and asks us to believe we came from rocks and dirt. In the pigeons example the different pigeons with different variation is still a bird not a dog. The DNA is similar yes it is God used same DNA code to make life on earth but the DNA code has its boundaries, a rock can never turn into a rat. Evolution is an idea for the people who don't want God to be God because they don't want to be under some one. Evolution teaches the fittest one wins the race.That is the idea made Hitler to think all other races are inferior and his aryan race should triumph and he killed many. Joseph stalin,pol pot and many tyrants religion is Evolution.Origin of species is their Bible, Darwin is their prophet. My God, the God of the heaven and earth is righteous. He never did anything wrong and never will. Jesus Christ the king of all the earth is going to come to the city near you, every shall see the glory of the coming king riding on the clouds. Repent and believe and be baptized in Christ and his Holy Spirit.

[@prasannakrishna4093]

According to Bible God did not used the theory of evolution. Man was created in the image of God. We lost that image. We still trying to blur the image of man by saying we came from a rock or a soup. Our lives are valuable. Jesus Christ died for our sins. If we repent and believe and turn to God be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit and we follow Christ to be transformed into the image of Christ.

[@mcgregorli2166]

+Prasanna krishna wtf

[@brandonbooker3775]

+Prasanna krishna I wish people like you would take the time to understand evolution before making idiotic comments like this.

[@produde24]

The things that you don't understand is that only living things evolve, therefore like you said rocks do not evolve, however things that reproduce can pass on their dna to their off-spring, this gives a chance for mutations to occur causing adaptations within a population.

[@evelynR1312]

brandon booker I understand evolution fairly well and can say without a doubt I believe every word he said so please stop be a dogmatic, closed-minded, ignorant hater of anyone who has a different opinion or belief than yours.

[@SurrealStrawberry]

Well it's pretty much common sense if you think about it. Evolution still happens today (such as bacteria with immunity to antibiotics becoming selected for these traits and reproducing, which causes antibiotic-resistant bacteria), so why would we think that the evidence for evolution is a lie? Natural selection is so obviously rational and mutations DO occur, so why would evolution not be possible?

[@OkenAndMosh]

I agree with this video for it is based on evidence.

[@davidmike9389]

Yeah, I especially liked the part where he showed how those pigeons turned into pigeons. And since pigeons turn into pigeons, it makes since they could turn into penguins, or goats, or pine trees too. (Let's see if you get the sarcasm.)

[@OkenAndMosh]

david mike I think there has been a misunderstanding, that is not what the video is trying to explain.

[@davidmike9389]

OkenAndMosh I don’t know… At 2:45: “so that’s a great piece of evidence. That if we could [create different pigeons from one kind of pigeon] in just hundreds of years using artificial selection, surely we could do this in nature using millions of years.” If you’re saying that he never meant to imply that pigeons change into other kinds of animals “using millions of years”, then he sure picked a funny title for his video. I thought another great piece of evidence was when he said that the fact whales, and birds, and humans all have bones proves we have common origins (6:30). I don’t know… My Ford, and Toyota, and lawn mower, and refrigerator, and the closet doors etc. all have nuts and bolts; but, I’m pretty sure they didn’t have to come from the same piece of steel. I don’t remember science being this stupid. But, what are you going to do? When you have to explain a stupid theory, you’re going to have to say some stupid things.

[@OkenAndMosh]

david mike There is really no need for facetiousness, personally I thought the pigeon part was a great piece of evidence, what's not to get? And your Ford, Toyota, and lawn mower are man-made machines and do not evolve.

[@davidmike9389]

OkenAndMosh Why not "facetiousness"? The whole video is supposed to be a joke isn't it? Isn't it? I hope it is, but maybe you're right; maybe he is serious. One word: "Yikes." If you had ever seen an early version of a Japanese pick-up--the ones with three wheels--you'd know that mine certainly has "evolved". Just like wolves have evolved into poodles. Heck, even Mitsubishi has evolved from Japanese fighter planes to family sedans...but that took intelligent design. Get it?

[@ozowen]

Speciation events have been observed- google "observed speciation". No longer missing links: Apidium Aegyptopithecus Proconsul Pierolapithecus Sahelanthropus tchadensis Ardipithecus Sahelanthropus Ardipithecus ramidus Ardipithecus kadabba Kenyanthropus platyops Australopithecus Arafensis Australopithecus garhi Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus deyiremeda Australopithecus sediba Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus bahrelghazali Paranthropus aethiopicus Paranthropus boisei Paranthropus robustus Orrorin tugenensis Homo gautengensis Homo rudolfensis Homo ergaster Homo naledi Homo tsaichangensis Homo sp. Altai Homo floresiensis Homo habilis Homo heidelbergensis Homo erectus Denisova hominin Homo neanderthalensis Homo rhodesiensis

[@tokyopp]

where is the evidence for change in kinds? all of that evidence is called adaptation, people assumed and believe in evolution calling the people who believe in God blind faith, you are using blind faith here as well. i am not here to argue about god vs evolution, i am here to debate or listen to someone who can clarify this question, change in kinds from fish to reptiles or something of that sort.

[@myoldvan119]

There is no such scientific term as "kinds". That's just a term creationists use. What there really is are approximately 8 classifications of taxonomy in the living hierarchy that life evolves through over hundreds of thousands of years through the process of natural selection.

[@issamoe5064]

myoldvan119 you're a joke, you expect people to listen to this nonsense with no evidence....no fossils that show animals half fish/half land creature..nothing of the sort...and random mutation suggests we should be seeing people with 5 arms or random limbs but loe and behold, we see nothing of the sort...so again please bring some evidence or be quiet

[@myoldvan119]

you didnt understand a word I said did you? lol

[@nmarbletoe8210]

If by "kind" you mean "species" then there is much evidence of change in kind. From fish to reptiles, there is tiktaalik: tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

[@issamoe5064]

N Marbletoe like.....??? really loking forward to a reply

[@pinkkcandiee12]

From my high school to my university biology

[@sullivanisgone]

I only came her cause my teacher made me😣🔫

[@ZarZar57]

Kellen McNeill omg, same

[@legendofrayquazagaming5125]

Me too, except my mother made me.

[@badideass]

Listen to your teacher... Don't let religious dogma prevent you from having a decent education

[@sethtedder3173]

Don't let secular dogma prevent you from looking at all angles to determine the truth! I came here to investigate differing opinions and evaluate their evidence, true science. The evolutionary establishment doesn't want you to investigate they want you to blindly accept.

[@badideass]

what exactly is Secular dogma??? lmao

[@squintgoob]

There are problems with the horse evolution model. there have been fossils of both found in the same layer and the size of them doesn't mean it grew to modern size. there is big size differences in modern horses today. DNA is actually an amazingly complex system; how can it have arrived by natural processes? and then how did the system evolve that was able to interpret it in time to replicate it to pass it on before it died?

[@Judicial78]

"DNA is actually an amazingly complex system; how can it have arrived by natural processes?" It's called Chemical Evolution, aka Abiogenesis. The chemistry is explainable.

[@JoaoPauloYUTB]

The human brain is a great random mutation I gess shlt just happens xD

[@mcgregorli2166]

+JoaoPauloYUTB not random selected (naturally)

[@JoaoPauloYUTB]

You can select all the random stuff you want, their are still random. Mutations (accidents of dna replication) are kind of random, at least no evolutionist therory that i know claims otherwise. please correct me if I'm wrong

[@JoaoPauloYUTB]

hope your username doesn't accurately describe you

[@Mark-Wilson]

you're dumb its nto a random mutation it evovled froma simple very simple nervous system and they slowly got selected by anturals elections the traits that survived to the enxt generation lived and got ana dvantag e and the yslowly diversified into many types of roganisms who have brains and ones that do not obviously split way before enrvous systems evene xistsed

[@Mark-Wilson]

@@JoaoPauloYUTB so wat? its the non random selection of random mutation

[@sethlachem6611]

Adaptation is the most accurate explanation for this video. I know you guys know about climate change every single place on earth and the adaptation of animal to that climate. And I see in this video is just a same animals no changing of kind.

[@thetruepure2]

+seth lachem You are very ignorant. No insult intended, just blunt honesty. "Kind" has literally no meaning among scientists. The nomenclature of zoology is pretty complicated. Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Species In that order, life as we know it is categorized, with species being the most specific and kingdom being the least specific. Notice that "kind" is not among the list. If I told you the animal behind cage one was in the kingdom "Animalia", you would have a huge array of life forms to choose from. Maybe it's a dolphin, or maybe its an octopus. Perhaps it's a cheetah, or maybe even a T-rex! Now Imagine I told you that behind the cage is in the family "felidae". You could narrow the results down quite considerably. Maybe a housecat, or a lion. Perhaps a tiger or a leopard. Maybe a serval or a bobcat. Now imagine I narrow it even further to the genus "panthera" You have the choices of Lion, Tiger, Leopard, Jaguar and leopard. I can narrow it down even further to species level. Let's say the species is tiger. Could be bengal tiger, or maybe siberian tiger. Maybe it's the Javan tiger. So you see there is no clear line drawn among animals, and "kind" is less than meaningless in the classification system. The "kind" you speak of, from the bible, could be interpreted to mean species, family, genus, order, phylum, or even kingdom. You and many other creationists most likely mean it to represent "family". The cat family. The dog family. The whale family. The ant family. The list goes on. The only reason you prefer this interpretation is that you realize there is no physically possible way for 14 of every species of the millions of species on this planet of animal to fit on an ark that is only 500 feet long. Here is the kicker. Evolution is nothing more than adaptation. The words are truly synonyms. Evolution between species can take place in a couple of thousand years among macroscopic animals. Evolution between "order" or "class" will take longer. In short, the only thing that stops us from observing "changes in kind" as you so lovingly refer to it, is time. Luckily there is such a thing as the fossil record. In the fossil record we see the changes over the hundreds of millions of years.

[@sethlachem6611]

+thetruepure2 Honestly I honestly like your explanation. but I only believe that evolution happen to animal only when human still not exist yet and that's my opinion (it's just my opinion no need to comment that). I love when people share their knowledge and believe. Freedom of speech.

[@tommyg.6542]

Give me a single example in the fossil record where we can observe changes of class.

[@scottevanmacfar]

Genesis 2:18-19 teaches that man was created before animals.

[@scottevanmacfar]

Tommy G, do realize that if "Class" is the definition of "Kind" then Humans and chimps are already the same kind?

[@stuartmain7201]

So the model that best fits this evidence is the biblical model where life was created 'according to its kind' (family). Therefore what we have is an orchard of trees, not just one single tree of life. Cattle breed cattle (bovine), cats breed cats (feline) dogs breed dogs (canine) birds breed birds (avian) etc etc. There is no evidence (apart from extrapolated imagination of evolutionists) that one kind of animal has evolved into another. There is tremendous variety within each kind as they adapt to their respective environments, but they remain locked into their genome of origin.. The horse example is a poor one. We have all the various sizes of horses living contemporansously today, just like we have different sizes of dogs or humans. You can stretch them into an imaginary line of size variation over imaginary time, but this is not science. If you take out all the imagination, and extrapolation, you are left with the biblical model of origins with adaptation.

[@stuartmain7201]

Isaiah Nields That's a good biblical name you have.

[@anngee88888]

+Stuart Main Ever hear of fossils?

[@stuartmain7201]

Ann Gee Yes, maybe you would like to tell me about them?

[@scottevanmacfar]

Ever hear of DNA? Ever hear of all the times we directly observed evolution? Ever hear of all the transitional species we have identified? Ever hear of science?

[@Armando7654]

​@@scottevanmacfar you didn't observe anything. You're mistaking thinking for observation. awareness for sight

[@niklaswikstrom78]

You mean to say that you creationists (not sure why you put quotation marks around yourself there) always try to cram science into some type of explanation that can be made to conform to some part of The Bible myths. Evolution is proven again and again and again and has withstood any challenges to its veracity and it is one of the most solidly proven scientific theories. The only reason many christians don't like it is because they would rather have been created in God's image than evolved.

[@MrHusseinKabil]

you call this evidence??? you call this facts????

[@ZarZar57]

Hussein Qabil Yes

[@MG-hi1ej]

As scientist Chandra Wickramasinghe said: “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution, it was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.” Anthropologist S. L. Washburn put it this way: “Everything in evolution is very, very speculative.” “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”-In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117 W. R. Thompson in his foreword to the centennial edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species stated: “A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.” Dr. Karl Popper comments: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Invertebrate zoologist Harold Coffin states: “Obviously much adaptation has occurred, but has this adaptive change actually caused evolutionary progression from one major category to another? The evidence from science does not support this kind of change.” Professor of natural science John Moore says: “There is absolutely no experimental evidence for any change of one animal form into another animal form; or for that matter, any change of one plant form into another plant form. The only evidence of change that can be classed properly as the result of sound scientific method is the evidence of genetic variation WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of animals, or WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of plants.”

[@johnandelin5693]

A long exposition on microevolution and homology... no scientific evidence whatsoever presented to suggest that all life shares common descent.

[@evelynR1312]

Ricahrd P'Brien so you’re telling me that because a bird can have more or less spots a cow became a whale 30 million years ago

[@johnandelin5693]

@Ricahrd P'Brien DNA homology is PHILOSOPHICAL evidence. It rests on the assumption that a designing intelligence would not implement homologous DNA sequences in homologous species.

[@jordanhenley9686]

in your wisdom Jesus you have created DNA. who is like you Jesus who has ever done what you have done. has any human ever created such a complex system like DNA . you alone God created life you can not hide your beauty from us your fingerprints are all over the place. your light shines though the darkness of evil . you are to good to me Jesus.

[@scottevanmacfar]

Is that the same Jesus that promised to return before the last apostle died?

[@scottevanmacfar]

Oh, FYI humans have created life in the lab. You should look it up.

[@jordanhenley9686]

+scottevanmacfar Was the life created from scratch?

[@scottevanmacfar]

Yes, it was.

[@jordanhenley9686]

+scottevanmacfar I am sorry I forgot to define what I meant. By "scratch" I meant "nothing".Was the life made from nothing?

[@jurgensamoilov9030]

will do

[@kizahstehl1381]

It's still a pigeon ,, no proof

[@thehumanfly5790]

"Hey atheists! If god isn't real, how is it still a pigeon! Lol. Checkmate atheists!"

[@thehumanfly5790]

Mo Knows I'm proof?

[@moknows4996]

The Human Fly meow

[@axeljensen5419]

Mo Knows lol

[@jonathanbarber1870]

Kizah Stehl This is analogous to, but even worse than, the "microevolution not macroevolution" argument I see plaguing internet forums. Also, Fly, Mo's just being obnoxious while contributing absolutely nothing, so don't even worry. Dumb people are capable of being mean too.

[@mr.croninsvideos5202]

RIP Lonesome George

[@PlanetRockJesus]

This narrator makes so many assumptions that this video is laughable. Not one bit of evidence for evolution was given.

[@chainezo]

says someone with jesus in his name no evidence for jesus was ever found outside of the bible

[@squintgoob]

Chainezo Deathhunter As friendly advice to you, it only makes you appear very uneducated if you make statements like that. there is no question among historians that Jesus actually lived. the argument is whether or not he was who he said he was.

[@chainezo]

squintgoob i mean the biblical jesus i could just name my child jesus and then shout all around the world jesus lives

[@squintgoob]

Chainezo Deathhunter I mean the biblical Jesus also. I don't mean they found some random guy named Jesus. there are very few, if any, historians that would suggest that the Jesus that is talked about in the bible never walked the earth. only that the miracles and certain events do not have the proof needed but the fact that he was a real human being is not up for debate

[@PlanetRockJesus]

That's why we date our calendar from the time of Jesus. If evolution happened, there would be evidence all around us. The THEORY of evolution is put forth by those who WANT it to be true, because they don't WANT to believe God. So, they invent something that will hopefully mask their lack of faith. Show me, from the evidence, how the anal fin cartilage of a fish became the full-blown pelvis of a lizard.

[@thisismypointe]

Yes there is. Have you yet to open a biology text?

[@Denverslopes]

Above me ^ is the video below me👇is WW3 Haha.

[@jothePianoMaster13]

Charles Darwin on his deathbed said that he was wrong and God is real. Along with most athiests on their deathbed. How many stories are there about athiests on there deathbed saying they were wrong? Millions. Why is this? Because its easier to go through life to believe there's no God, but deep down, no matter how hard anyone tries to deny it, everyone knows God is real. And most everyone confesses on their deathbed because they have nothing else to lose. Life is already over so now they realize

[@meirosetiger]

Prove it. Using reliable sources.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

Yes, species are evolving continually, but a human lifespan wouldn't be enough to see any significant change. You're talking like everything has just "stopped" evolving, simply based on the fact that you are unable to see it with your own eyes.

[@ILoveGodsWord413]

You still have not shown 1 example from 1 kind of animal changing to another kind. The pigeon went from a pigeon to a pigeon. The tortoise went from being a tortoise to a tortoise. The horse example first you must realize that you cannot prove those bones had any children. secondly it is still the same kind of animal. Oh and cars cannot eat bats.

[@MG-hi1ej]

As The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”

[@MCHRQRD]

You don't see that there have to be more instinctions than extinctions in order to increase the diversity of the animal kingdom. The diversity is so huge that species should be evolving continually and significantly. It's not just invisible DNA mutations. There should be new limb development and modes of transportation. Why wouldn't 1500 generations of microscopically observed fruit flies develop one constructive mutation in the last 150 years? Random mutations are destructive.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

Well it is obvious from what you've just posted that you don't understand. So I think you need to engage the material. I wasn't trying to be funny or rude, it just looks like you haven't fully understood the theory of evolution through natural selection

[@Uenbg]

if you really want to know more about the tail bone, junk DNA and the appendix, it's covered in my "Debunking" playlist. Many other so-called proofs of evolution are discussed there as well with some helpful visualizations of what is actually going on inside a living cell, DNA and mutations, as well as mutation repair systems. Animations of real observable biomolecular machines which will hopefully increase your knowledge or serve as helpful reminders when you're talking about these subjects.

[@atheistslayer8486]

Stalactites do not take millions of years! Lead-zinc mine at Mt Isa Late 1987 at level 5 workings in the lead-zinc mine at Mt Isa, in north-western Queensland, Australia. At that time, the mine itself was only about 55 years old, which therefore is the absolute maximum age for all these stalactites. See more on Creation.com

[@danielleon7661]

Science is never absolute. Unlike creationists, we don't cherry pick what to "believe" in (science isn't based on faith, but facts). Science grows by building on itself and being objective. All you're doing is taking what one scientist said and using it to tear down tons of evidence without providing evidence of your own. Evolution isn't like in Pokemon, you don't go from organism to the next like that. Evolution is defined as the changes in allele frequencies over time. This leads to speciation when you include a mechanism by which these alleles change: natural selection. Let me go through how vertebrates have evolved: Skipping forward to chordates, such as amphioxus and lancelots, we see that all chordates share five characters: five pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, a post-anal muscularized tail, a notochord, and a single hollow dorsal nerve cord. As these lineages all split due to populations splitting and having different selective pressures, we get more derived vertebrates. How? Look up what a whole genome duplication is. There is a gene called a HOX gene, which is highly conserved and plays a pivotal role in embryological development and as it has been duplicated various times throughout vertebrate history, it has led to the sudden explosion in diversity such as limbs. Since HOX genes are there to provide their original functions, you now have an extra one that is free to take on a new function. Now as the notochord becomes obsolete in vertebrates, we see it in early stages of embryological development (proving it was once coded for by our DNA, but new DNA codes for it to be replaced by a bony spinal column) before it is encased by the neural plate ectoderm and ossified into the spinal column in bony fish. Going back a little before bony fish, early jawless fishes evolved, they had a dermal armor exoskeleton, that as they use the muscles around their first gill arch (gill arches are derived from the ancestral pharyngeal slits, now encompassed by cartilage bars) to move their mouth as they suction feed. Natural selection favored the fishes that were better able to control their buccal volume and also the ones with the dermal projections out the mouth until eventually, a separate lineage of fish with jaws and proto-teeth evolved. Both of these types of fish lived for millions of years before an extinction event killed off the jawless fishes (placoderms). This is just the tip of the iceberg for vertebrates. Evolution only works on what is already there. It isn't magical Digimon or Pokemon evolution.

[@sethtedder3173]

If evolution only works on what is already there, answer this. Where did matter originate from?

[@Armando7654]

Science IS absolute. You've been brainwashed by anti-realists such as Khun

[@THESMARTERMAN555]

@@Armando7654 No one is arguing about science. The point is there is a lot of over reaching in science to keep a certain narrative. Every decade, evolutionist keep pushing back the time it took animals to evolve, couple 100 million years at a time. Eventually evolution is going to take longer than how old the earth is. No one is saying the work these people do are not important, but also confirming that their hypothesis was not correct is also important. But how many scientist disprove their hypothesis but never release the information because it would go against the narrative.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

Are you intentionally disregarding the experiments done on bacteria, for example the Lenski experiments on e. coli? In those experiments we can clearly see that the different populations of bacteria evolve independently and in some cases reach the same result, for example several populations evolved into using a different food source than the "normal" e. coli populations. So they are indeed evolving.

[@MaverickBboy911]

That actually does make sense, thank you

[@benakres]

Its nothing but that, have you ever heard of Neanderthals. They also shared a common ancestor with humans, only more recently. They were a separate species to humans but they were part of the same genus. We think (based on the fossil record) that their extinction only occuerd around 30000 years ago. There are other species too who were around during human history, if you want to find them search for a timeline of the Hominid genus.

[@jurgensamoilov9030]

not saying every video is false but some are

[@jimmyrivera2702]

Great work! What software do you use to illustrate this material?

[@MaverickBboy911]

I have a question that I've been wondering about for a while, I am a occultist, I also know that evolution is real to, I will not deny that, but based on observation i wonder about two things... 1) if humans evolved from monkeys and had different stages of development, such as Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, Homo Habilis. Then why is it that only Humans and apes exist, why don't the latter three not exist anymore? aren't they a seperate species? Why did they just go extinct, or stop evolving and

[@srikarbala246]

hey that new sound whenever you like something in youtube is weird huh?

[@WarriorOfWriters]

yep and there are; the appendix, wisdom teeth. Whales have leg bones they don't use, ostriches and emus have wings but can't fly

[@classicalliberalarts]

Variations of a pigeon being produced from a pigeon do not prove any "origin of species". How

[@Ledinosour673]

eventually the variations in the genes of the pidgeons will make it so they're no longer able to interbreed

[@asimshah773]

ii cou'nt understand what have u said in the end

[@juanvera411]

i count smart ass

[@TheMickeymental]

What is evolution-biology and how does it differ from just plain old everyday biology?

[@mrburke4194]

No, no, it's just a specific branch of biology.

[@thisismypointe]

What do you mean kind to kind?

[@xiiixiiih.16]

What if a snail or a slug is a greatwail on land before it medimorphicly transforms for the ocean

[@ILoveGodsWord413]

a dog is a kind of animal. a cat is also a kind. these two types of animals are different kinds. All forms of dogs such as wolfs, poodles, ect are all the same kind of animal. likewise tigers, lions, cats are all another kind. A kind is something that can reproduce more of itself. Corn and crows are different kinds because they cannot reproduce.

[@Weathergirl96]

How do you know that what you are saying is true?

[@gimoosh4362]

he looks like if someone turned a sims character into a man named DANIEL and then turned him into a sad bird that wants a cookie hyped it up on melatonin and then gave it glasses

[@jonatanmendoza6768]

Anyone disappointed with with the 2013 exam opposite of what I prepared for

[@red-hn5iy]

I remember having to watch this is biology and was so bored I almost died

[@gus3311]

im watching this rn in biology lmaooo

[@Mark-Wilson]

bro how will you get a job if you're bore dof everything .

[@Bulova93]

I'm somewhat agnostic on the theory of evolution. The observation of finches and tortoises show good evidence for small scale evolution within a population. The fossil record of the horses is interesting but couldn't it be that some of those "pre-modern" horses are just other species that went extinct? The DNA evidence I guess seems to be the most compelling, but just because organisms have genetic similarities does this necessarily mean they evolved from a common ancestor? The other thing I find puzzling is that all the biodiversity apparently resulted from mutations. Especially if we believe the bacteria, mammal, plant, etc all ultimately arose from that common ancestor. Also would the 4 billion old timespan of the earth provide sufficient time for all these changes to occur (assuming they were via random mutations)? While it is true that we obtain more and more fossils over the years and discover similarities in genetics, does this necessarily allow us to conclude that we all simply descended from one common ancestor? Some additional light on these matters would be helpful

[@jesustheillusionist6484]

You can't be agnostic about a scientific theory. Agnostic means we have no knowledge, and that's false. We have TONS of knowledge. talkorigins.com/comdesc

[@Bulova93]

Agnostic doesn't mean we have no knowledge it means that we are not positively affirming or disaffirming a truth claim. But the term agnostic is usually used in regards to God, so I guess the word I should have used is undecided. Evolution is a scientific theory but is not one that can be tested as nicely in real time. Most of the evidence we have for evolution are discoveries of structural/genetic/functional similarities between organisms which suggest Common Descent. The only aspect of evolution we can observe in real time is microevolutionary change; the large scale macroevolutionary changes that are hypothesized aren't however as clear. And the idea that all the biodiversity and speciation arose from a single progenitor organism via billions of years of random mutations is very hard to conceive.

[@jurgensamoilov9030]

i do not find your playlists a reliable source of information as you have some false information.

[@index9087]

Such as?

[@andrewwalden7180]

I got a question some christian said something about this subject... He said that mutations are speciation and or adaptation. Those are separate from evolution. Like evolution is a total change in kind of animal. Like chicken to T-Rex. Yet we cannot observe this. Or test this. And according to the scientific theory things must be testible and observable. And he said evolution isn't but, but adaptation and speciation is. SO help me out guys. Whats the truth?

[@andrewwalden7180]

Sure. Speciation is real. And so is adaptation. But, a total change in a mind of animal. We don't have evidence for that. We just say it's because of millions of years. But thats not observable. We can't watch them change into another kind of animal.

[@cadillacwayne]

The salamanders that can't mate cannot mate because they are different species. Not because they are infertile.

[@TheUserUndefined]

Not as far as we know, right? Or is that certain (besides goosebumps)?

[@moknows4996]

Great vid, nice format, clear, concise and dumb-downed just enough for even the non-evolving creationist deniers to understand!

[@alkhafajiN]

Very well explained..thanks

[@firebreathdragon2835]

Very informative. good work

[@tannermortimer683]

It was a 5 year journey not 3... Just trying to help. thanks for your videos.