How we found out evolution is true: John van Wyhe at TEDxNTU

John van Wyhe is a historian of science at the National University of Singapore. He is the Director of Darwin Online and Wallace Online, the author of eight books and lectures and broadcasts around the world.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

[@shawnsimmons1308]

"Odd that many people who embrace the discoveries of science will disagree ONLY when the results conflict with their religion or politics." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

[@thehellyousay]

Shawn Simmons It's not odd. Odd means unusual. Nothing unusual about hypocrisy

[@pleasesubscribe7659]

Shawn Simmons There is no evidence for evolution

[@shawnsimmons1308]

mudu abdi...There is evidence, everywhere, that be repeated, tested, and demonstrated by anyone, anywhere, at any time. You're even sitting on evidence. Your coccyx bone. But, in this modern age of information, if someone doesn't value evidence, then what evidence can one provide?

[@pleasesubscribe7659]

Shawn Simmons There is no evidence for such a hoax apart from parroting It's a myth that there is a vestigial organs, update your science The human coccyx has pretty many functions

[@pleasesubscribe7659]

Shawn Simmons I reject Darwinism because of information

[@fite-4-ever876]

The beauty of this is that it reminds us how science isn't bold individuals pushing their fields forward in great leaps and bounds, it's building on the work of those who came before.

[@claudearmstrong9232]

Fite, then why does your "science" ignore the fact that Darwin renounced his biased lies of evolution? No, current evolution promoters Do Not follow those before them, IF those former leaders changed their mind as deeper facts were discovered. "Is Genesis History" details their lies.

[@fite-4-ever876]

@@claudearmstrong9232 Darwin's own son made it clear that story was false. And even if it was true, the evidence gathered since the. Overwhelming support his theoru

[@claudearmstrong9232]

@@fite-4-ever876 are you to scared to actually allow yourself to go behind the curtain the evolution theory people cover up their real agenda with and discover that they are really just blindly determined to destroy all the honest facts that Hebrew Scripture records? Is blind faith in these liars really that valuable to you?

[@fite-4-ever876]

@@claudearmstrong9232 I don't have faith in anything. I trust things. Things like how a rational scientific process based on observation and experimentation offers a better explanation for the universe than what a bunch of goat herders guessed the deal was 2500+ years ago.

[@claudearmstrong9232]

HaHa! Well, how about this concrete fact that you, and no one else can disprove, Fite - The hard, vetted facts of peer reviewed archeologists that continue uncovering artifacts only recorded in Bible records cannot be dismissed. Do you turn a blind eye to these just because they do not fir with your assumptions?

[@garywalker447]

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

[@numberpirate]

Dunning Kruger effect

[@brontehauptmann4217]

Wanna have an ignorance contest? Evolution Theorists are in the lead and pulling away. Charles Darwin was a Mason and therefore a Luciferian and a liar.

[@garywalker447]

@@brontehauptmann4217 Actually you lose with your starting post. It does not matter what Darwin thought about anything else, the Theory of Evolution has been tested and evolved over the past 160 years and today's version better models what we see in nature. Darwin started the ball rolling with our evolution but that ball as kept rolling. We do not worship Darwin, we do not hold him as the "Holy Man of Evolution". He is respected but his books are NOT "Holy Writ". You have not presented evidence that Darwin was a Mason and it would not matter if you did, Biological Evolution is an observed FACT and the Theory of Evolution is our explanation of that FACT.

[@YMEJake]

You do know that Darwin, in later life, believed that sight could not have been evolved? The age old problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg, gets evolution in trouble as well. Care to explain that and how it was possible? Today we need a hen AND a rooster to produce the egg and to incubate it. Without that body warmth, the cycle ends. Read up on Louis Pasteur and know that the theory of evolution must either disprove Pasteur's theory or conform to it. That is the scientific way. Perhaps you can list the beings that existed without sight and the intermediate stages on the road to full sight including the connection to the brain, the sockets forming for the eyes, and include the eyelids, tears, muscles for movement in concert so the many wonders of sight can be appreciated. Light control, focus and even responding to only a very narrow band of frequencies. How did the body know of the existence of those frequencies and how to change the body to accommodate them. Or do we just believe that because they are here and working, that they were evolved. Just creating the eyeballs is a wondrous miracle, almost like they were created?

[@garywalker447]

@@YMEJake You do know that Darwin, in later life, believed that sight could not have been evolved? The age old problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg, gets evolution in trouble as well. Care to explain that and how it was possible? Today we need a hen AND a rooster to produce the egg and to incubate it. Without that body warmth, the cycle ends. Read up on Louis Pasteur and know that the theory of evolution must either disprove Pasteur's theory or conform to it. That is the scientific way. Perhaps you can list the beings that existed without sight and the intermediate stages on the road to full sight including the connection to the brain, the sockets forming for the eyes, and include the eyelids, tears, muscles for movement in concert so the many wonders of sight can be appreciated. Light control, focus and even responding to only a very narrow band of frequencies. How did the body know of the existence of those frequencies and how to change the body to accommodate them.

[@lrvogt1257]

I am asking that anyone who cares anything about the subject PLEASE learn what it is before criticizing. 90% of the critics clearly don't know what it is so they are arguing against false premises. And PLEASE try to learn the terms like Scientific Method, Scientific Theory, Law, Hypothesis, and Fact. So many pretend they care and base their criticism on mistaken understanding of the process.

[@numbersix9477]

Sadly, I have a $20 bill that says not a single creationist on this thread will follow your suggestion.

[@lrvogt1257]

@@numbersix9477 : They never do. The intentional ignorance is appalling. Occasionally there is a coherent argument but usually it's just a complete ignorance of the subject.

[@billonesty]

You are exactly right. And sadly it is usually those who are most convinced of a hypothesis being true who cannot see the evidence against it.

[@numbersix9477]

@@billonesty Define "scientific theory" for us, Bill.

[@billonesty]

@@numbersix9477 Generally, the word theory means a hypothesis that has stood the test of repeated experimentation without being falsified. Often people use the word incorrectly to mean something that might be but can't be proven. Calling it that puts the idea in the realm of speculation and not science.

[@johnarizona3820]

Anytime a person attempts to prove something with the primary goal of disproving another is misguided and their work is tainted by bias. If an argument cannot stand on it's own without attacking another it's merits will always remain in question.

[@soothingtrax]

Valid point.

[@collinskocmoc8888]

Where is the missing link? Debunks Darwinism (:

[@oskarhenriksen]

@@collinskocmoc8888 Have you tried checking whether or not your own claim has been debunked?

[@collinskocmoc8888]

@@oskarhenriksen It would be in the news! biggest news since news was born. You have a missing link or explain it?

[@oskarhenriksen]

@@collinskocmoc8888 Well, what exactly do you mean by a "missing link"?

[@jdmitchell6559]

"I had roasted dinosaur for dinner last night." "Oh, what did it taste like ?" "Er ... it tasted like chicken..."

[@parheliaa]

Technically today's chickens are evolutionary descendants of the dinosaurs

[@jdmitchell6559]

@@parheliaa Exactly ! As in the well known joke: "Why did the dinosaur cross the road ?"

[@brontehauptmann4217]

According to dino Jack Horner, birds are dinosaurs. This also means that dinosaurs are birds. Since a chicken is a bird and also a dinosaur, a t rex tastes like chicken. Now that's science at work in the kitchen

[@jdmitchell6559]

@@brontehauptmann4217 My father in law was once attacked by a dinosaur. He went down the garden wearing his red slippers and inadvertently entered the territory of a robin (English type). They are fiercely territorial and will attack anything red. My F-i-L beat a hasty retreat and changed his slippers in the kitchen before venturing out again.

[@seriouscat2231]

So science is word games. No wonder I felt silly paying attention to it.

[@ruperterskin2117]

Right on. Thanks for sharing.

[@vince6252]

"unimaginably ancient" This sticks with me. I'm now thinking of life that lived right here, just over times really long ago. Many, many lives. Many eras. Many fights, meals, explorations, matings, deaths, births, lineages.... Unimaginably ancient.

[@masterlee9822]

Fossils are only persevered in the right conditions , most animals don't leave much in the way of fossils. Almost impossible to accuracy determine a species age by using fossils and bones . Youngest and oldest found is a very inaccurate guess. Hope scientist find new explanations and if the theory of evolution is wrong it needs to be ripped down and crushed underfoot and a more accurate one raised up.

[@johnfitzgerald8879]

What we know is in relation to other things of which we are familiar. Intuition is based upon a foundation of the familiar. The magnitudes of many things; geological history; the size, distance to and energy of the sun; the size of the Earth; the size of human population upon it; the microscopic size of an atom; the level of detail and combined scientific knowledge of humanity; are beyond our intuition.

[@masterlee9822]

@@johnfitzgerald8879 Nothing is based upon gravity that keep planets from losing their orbits and positions that has a impact on seasons.

[@johnfitzgerald8879]

@@masterlee9822 " Nothing is based upon gravity that keep planets from losing their orbits and positions that has a impact on seasons." What does that even mean? That the Jupiter doesn't cause winter? I agree with you there. Jupiter doesn't cause winter.

[@hilakummins3104]

@@johnfitzgerald8879 if only kids learned .0001% of what you just wrote in Sunday School, church, even home-schooling; read real books on history or saw popular films like Inherit the Wind. Just imagine what life would be like if more ppl actually learned critical thinking 🤔

[@legalvampire8136]

'It's not always survival of the fittest. Sometimes it's survival of the luckiest'

[@numbersix9477]

Of the three rabbit that were chased by the fox, the fastest two (the fittest) lived. Of the five thousand rabbits that were NOT chased by the fox, five thousand lived - despite their levels of "fitness." It is almost always "survival of the luckiest."

[@mysterymaverick1982]

It's actually survival of the best adapted in evolutionary terms.

[@madams3478]

But over time, survival of the fittest, right? Time being at least hundreds of thousands of years, or more. And we still haven’t talked about “punctuated equilibrium” as developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972! 😊 Gould was the better writer, so he’s the guy we remember. Basically, this is the idea that there are long periods of statis and brief periods of rapid change. And since we’re talking geological time, these periods of “rapid” change might be 10,000 years. But then the period of statis may be ten million years. Nature is interesting, and fun! 🏔 🚴🏽‍♂️ 🏕

[@davevaness4172]

Yes buy thr fitter you are the luckier you are!

[@jamespeace1237]

In better terms. I agree.

[@nicosteffen364]

17:00 "Sweet heart, whats for dinner?" "Dinonsaur!" "Ah come on, how about something new? Its so old fashioned!" "Honey, eat it and be thankfull that it doesnt eat you!"

[@numbersix9477]

@May Ling Easterners!!! In my part of the U.S., dinosaur meat is fried, not baked.

[@elinabalibado5982]

Hahah!! What is the lunch i can do today a reptiles?

[@PortmanRd]

Monster munch.

[@redmatters9318]

Yes a big topic to cover in 15 mins or so. No mean feat. He did well . G'day from Australia 🇦🇺.

[@TheHairyHeathen]

Djavagoodweegend? Just check'n ya really speak stryne?

[@redmatters9318]

@@TheHairyHeathen haveagoodday cobber.WIKIREDSTAR Australia 🇦🇺.

[@swampy6194]

Bloody oath cobber barcoo gumtree mate!

[@brianedwards7142]

I sometimes play a game where I google "giant prehistoric" and fill in the name of an animal. It's surprising what comes up.

[@numbersix9477]

Laws describe relationships. The ideal gas Law, PV = nRT, gives us the relationship between pressure, volume, temperature and number of atoms plus a constant to make make units of measurement line up (of an "ideal" gas). Theories explain laws. Atomic theory EXPLAINS the ideal gas law as well as others.

[@Detson404]

I blame science education. At least when I was in school, they didn’t go a great job explaining how a hypothesis, a theory, and a law relate to one another. That seems to be a common deficiency, at least for folks my age and older.

[@grumpysanta6318]

I'd tweak that a little... scientific theories explain facts. Laws describe them.

[@Ericwvb2]

A law of nature is simply a generalized description of the natural world. I.e., we've never seen the natural world not behave this way (e.g., the laws of thermodynamics).

[@kelliepatrick519]

@@grumpysanta6318 A scientific theory contains ALL the information about the subject, including facts and the laws that describe them. A fact is What it is; a law is How it is, and a Theory is Why it is.

[@warspite908]

I'm upset on how many people say evolution is false just because of an old book. they don't even understand it and yet try to disprove it

[@justgenson]

Nirizius lol

[@brianlenehan9055]

Not because of an old book. Till very very recently everone took creation as a self evident truth and and a deep mystery. I am not religeous but creation is what makes sense to me. I like to discuss the topic and have yet to find a darwinist who knew much about evolution and who got frustrated and upset. Darwinists then accept the theory because it suits them for whatever reason. Too me they are just another cult based on faith.

[@warspite908]

"Faith" Indeed, we use faith, but there are many different meanings for the word. The one most of us use is the one that has a synonym with trust. We trust the evidence that has been presented to us, and we do not trust the teachings of something that we can't even question, as the answer will always be: Because of God.

[@user-xs5fj3ms2l]

Speak for yourself Nirizius. We have rules for every aspect of our lives. Rules for when we wake up, clean ourselves, eat, sleep, work, play and socialize. But for some odd reason. When the Bible is considered or read, no one seems to realize there are rules for how it works. This is why people don't understand it. I'm thankful to know the rules of how the Bible interprets itself so I don't have to make errors in understanding it. I posted this above and will do it again. I've been involved in Biblical Research for 43 years. I have found evolution to be true. However, I would suggest we look at it again. It would appear evolution is going backward. Man did not evolve from apes. Man is evolving into apes.

[@tonymak9213]

Nirizius ..... People say evolution is false NOT because of an old book, but because there is no empirical evidence to prove it. In addition, the whole theory depends on blind chance, and as the speaker says in his last words, " survival of the luckiest.".

[@maclanty5324]

Lecture okay, would of been so grand to see the ilistraytions up close to see what you were discribing

[@Jesse622]

The comment section is a masterpiece for the dangers of indoctrination without any supporting evidence except for a 2000 year old book that very few people completely agree upon.

[@buttonwizard6644]

most of them don't even read their book

[@numbersix9477]

But I won't make it into HEAVEN if I don't allow myself to be indoctrinated, will I?

[@zachtastic625]

Agreed. These clowns live in complete fantasy land. They are so harshly indoctrinated and forced into religion as kids, that they grow up to be complete imbeciles with no sense of logic or reason. Whenever anything makes them feel insecure they blindly deny to preserve their dying archaic worldview.

[@numbersix9477]

@@zachtastic625 Pfff! Clowns are entertaining. Bible literalists are not.

[@zachtastic625]

@@numbersix9477 Good point, they are also smarter.

[@ArroEL922]

At 15:33, John used embryology as part of this presentation to explain why evolution became accepted in the early days of this "theory". And that is true. What John failed to add (and thus left the current viewer with the impression that this line of evidence is valid) is that those pictures were shown to be deceptive by its originator (Ernest Heckel) to promote the evolution "theory" in Germany, and were discredited over 100 years ago. Modern textbooks on evolution do NOT use (those discredited pictures of) embryology as evidence of neo-Darwinian evolution.

[@misterbonzoid5623]

It's not a 'theory'; it's fact.

[@danniebana3602]

@@misterbonzoid5623 true that

[@July41776DedicatedtoTheProposi]

But evolution still explains all life on earth, despite the clumsy and John’s profound lack of knowledge of geology, the key role of stromatolites creating all the oxygen that exists today, and the first animals that evolved from these stromatolites who created every single animal in the air, on the land, and in the oceans, as they all have the same DNA and genes found in stromatolites. John just blew it in his talk.

[@ArroEL922]

@@misterbonzoid5623 Neo-Darwinian evolution is not a scientific theory. Even Darwinian evolution is not a fact. Darwin originally used the word "theory" of evolution in the sense of it being theoretical and not what is considered today as a scientific theory. So just when did Darwin's theoretical theory become a scientific theory? A scientific theory is repeatable, falsifiable, and it makes predictions. None of this is true of neo-Darwinian "theory" of evolution. So it isn't even a scientific theory; it is merely a hypothesis. But after 160 years, it needs to be discarded. And yes, the millions of missing transition fossils that Darwin said (in 1859) will be soon discovered are STILL missing.

[@TheDjcarter1966]

Well he assumes a lot and explains very little as is common when explaining the theory of evolution.

[@boriscuduco4377]

He did not answer this: how we found out evolution is true? He just explained the story of the theory.

[@l.ronalddow5898]

And that, my friend, is the meaning of the title - John van Wyhe is a Historian giving a History lesson. Now, had the title been: _'How we know that Evolution is True'_ then I would expect some evidence (like genomes changing over time.)

[@numbersix9477]

I know exactly how you feel. I don't believe in Charlemagne because my European history teacher never "proved" that Charlemagne ever existed.

[@boriscuduco4377]

@@numbersix9477 That is not my statement.

[@numbersix9477]

@@boriscuduco4377 --- I was going to delete my post but concluded that what I'd said was still relevant, despite being based on a misinterpretation of what you'd said. I do apologize for the original misread.

[@boriscuduco4377]

@@numbersix9477 Ok

[@user-td3ut4tg3v]

We are.... becoming more moral and beautiful healthy and strong and more generous

[@ronbyrd1616]

As a lifelong news buff, I respectfully disagree . At the bottom line, we now have the ability to destroy every living thing on earth 200+ times over.

[@buckcubmandingo6772]

Who has opposable thumbs and found this topic interesting? This guy

[@alainbellemare2168]

racoons in my back yard

[@NoName-uf6rf]

Used mine to like this comment

[@Greenie-43x]

I used one of mine to like the comment, but then I used my other thumb to double-like the comment and something went wrong...

[@kristiandoon8976]

I love logic and reason. Science is begging you to prove it wrong.

[@lareytogba9984]

The world of the scientific world is based on imperialism which is full of so much error. Based that that alone is plenty of reason to have a lot of doubt.

[@kristiandoon8976]

Larey Togba The great thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it ~ Neil Degrasse Tyson

[@louiekilleen3276]

@@lareytogba9984 You need to go back to high-school. It's empiricism, not 'imperialism'. Start there.

[@frankrivera8719]

Lol BS all opinion no hard facts or way to prove it. He literally starts by saying the common concept of evolution is wrong. So he is literally presenting another theory. Oh and this video stopped counting dislikes on comments. Just to show you the support and manipulation of opinion.

[@wernerstapela4616]

Larey Togba: that's the whole point of science. Why not apply the same rigour to religion (or politics, etc.).

[@johnfitzgerald8879]

How does a woolly mammoth hide? He paint's his toenails red and stands in a strawberry patch.

[@trishmurphy1941]

I know…. Have you ever seen a wooly mammoth? No see how well it works. Thanks for the laugh from the past

[@kensanity178]

Yeah, the Russians are called reds because fire engines are red, and they're always Rushin around,

[@ChuckThompsonTTCMedia]

It's amazing how many have no idea the real history of science and where it stems from.

[@numbersix9477]

Thank God we have you to explain it to us. Proceed!

[@ChuckThompsonTTCMedia]

@@numbersix9477 The majority of all the scientific laws were created by those of deeply religious beliefs. Plenty of books out there on that fact. Today, people want to believe in a false religion because it relives you of any moral delemas. Problem being, you lack any real morals. Your religion is resonsible for the most deaths in the past 100 years than all the rest of history combined. Yet those facts don't seem to bother people with your similar beliefs. You buy the falsehoods as facts. So, no reason to believe a reasonable exchange of ideas is even possible here.

[@ChuckThompsonTTCMedia]

@May Ling Well now, isn't that an interesting twist on words. Sure, we can spin it your way. The discovery of many laws, such as gravity, we're put into writings by people of Christian faith. No not all laws. Next, in regards to your question of what religion? The religion of evolution. I have yet to see one example of evolution anywhere. Ever. It's not from failing to look. Every claim has been debunked over and over. It takes a zombie to buy evolution in any form. By the way, do some digging and see if you can continue to claim my lack of scientific knowledge. This should be good.

[@ChuckThompsonTTCMedia]

Which is why so much of their work gets debunked or is poison. (Scientist come in all faiths or no faith at all. Scientists (biologists) are 97%+ atheists, other sciences are composed of 90%+ atheists.) Create, when you sit down and write a paper, you are creating are you not? You create written laws. Those laws were not on the books before. You didn't create the observations, but you created the works showing your observations. Also, please show evidence of your claim, (Scientists (biologists) are 97%+ atheists, other sciences are composed of 90%+ atheists.) I can make statistics say anything I want them to. So where are these numbers coming from? So new medicines are never created in a lab, they are only discovered? A work of art is not a new creation, it is simply work already in existence that was uncovered by someone? Great.

[@ChuckThompsonTTCMedia]

FYI, cre·ate krēˈāt/Submit verb bring (something) into existence. "he created a thirty-acre lake" synonyms: produce, generate, bring into being, make, fabricate, fashion, build, construct; More cause (something) to happen as a result of one's actions. "divorce only created problems for children" synonyms: bring about, give rise to, lead to, result in, cause, breed, generate, engender, produce, make for, promote, foster, sow the seeds of, contribute to "regular socializing creates good team spirit"

[@aylbdrmadison1051]

So basically he is saying that _evolution is quite literally set in stone._

[@nazneentonse6768]

Oh, well said!

[@jimchumley6568]

Aylbdr Madison Believe a lie if you want to.

[@biancadiviney5322]

@Tim Webb It's based on assumption. They assume evolution is true (bc God is imposible to an atheist, so it HAS to be true), and all evidence comes w/ the assumption that evolution is involved.

[@chiefdreambig9178]

@May Ling based on speculation, and speculation that they BELIEVE to be evidence, but still NO PROOF!

[@chiefdreambig9178]

@May Ling Thank you for your comment, but unfortunately, Darwinian Evolution IS taught as a PROVEN TRUE science. Anything you read on the subject always starts off talking about it 'may' be, or 'could' be, or 'is thought to be', but after you get into the article, it will start taking about the situation as if it is real, stable, unshakeable, true and proven science! You said, "When all the evidence points to the same conclusion and nothing refutes it, we recognize it as a scientific theory." With all due respect, there are TONS of laws and evidence that totally refute evolution! For instance, TRUE science says that life can only come from living organisms, and THAT is the ONLY thing that TRUE science has ever seen or observed, or witnessed, and we know this to be true, yet evolution says that there is no God, and we are here, so that proves that life on this earth came from NON-LIVING matter, and THAT is ALL the evidence or proof that they have, and that is NOT true science, so that refutes evolution. Look at the earth as it is today with all of the complexity and everything working together in complete harmony, the trees breathe in CO2 and breathe out O2, we breathe in O2 and breathe out CO2. Common sense tells us that this complex world is the result of Intelligent Design, how else could a chaotic exploded pile of rocks, a planet of total ruin and chaos from a Big Bang, how did this order come out of such choas? That would be even more complex than a tornado blowing through a junk yard and leave a finely tunes 474 jet put together, greased and fueled up with the air conditioners on and working ready for take-off. That is very far fetched isn't it? But that is a lot more feasibly than this earth and life and the impossible complexities of DNA and everything else coming into be BY ACCIDENT, by non-thought, and non-caring nature and a pile of chaotic cooling rocks! Statistics and common sense and TRUE science tells us that complexities of this world and life would be impossible left to itself. TRUE science says that order (especially THIS kind of order) can't possibly come from choas. So does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Decay. EVERYTHING runs down, EVERYTHING decays, and NOTHING goes from a lower state to a higher state UNLESS it is from an outside factor. THESE things totally refute Darwinin evolution. And I haven't even scratched the surface yet about all of the evidence of TRUE science that totally refutes evolution!!! So why do you say that all of the evidence points in favor of evolution and that NOTHING refutes it??? You and I have been spoon fed and brainwashed on the 'attributes' of and the glorious heritage of the 'noble theory of evolution and therefor think that there are no scientific factors pointing in the opposite direction, but that it totlly untrue. I would love for you to give me the GREATEST evidence that you think of to support evolution. Not 10 or 5, but just “1”, and how come it is a proven fact. I really would like to hear your answer, thanks!

[@brianedwards7142]

I don't eat chickens but I have pet hens and I've seen things that totally make me believe they are theropods.

[@watchtowerdragon7098]

My girlfriend works in a pet store. I can't express how much I have learned/ had reinforced about genetic traits, mutations, and natural selection vs human/commercial selection. Everything didn't fall into place perfectly. An uncountable number of living things throught all of time have been born with something different about them. If that difference wasn't advantageous, those lives would starve, not survive predators and/or experience a short life of discomfort and suffering. Nature is not as beautiful as she appears on the surface or at a distance. She is also callous and cruel.

[@Cantstanya]

I quickly read the beginning and end of your statement - had to reread it to see why your girlfriend was callous and cruel. Ha

[@watchtowerdragon7098]

@@Cantstanya 🤣

[@jounisuninen]

And still no new species. Only variations of the existing species.

[@Mermaid2261]

The way he makes it sound its as though none of us has had a class in biology, general science,or chemistry. I have, but I still think our understanding is still........"evolving"! Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.............

[@neilreinhardt556]

DID IT EVER OCCUR TO YOU THAT MANY HAVE NOT?

[@harrietharlow9929]

I am a believer but have no problem accepting evolution. It makes sense to me. I see no contradiction between the two, but I don't regard the Bible as a science textbook, something the fundamentalists cannot fathom. But, then, my father taught me what he knew (since this was the 1950s and 60s, that was much less than we know today). Geology and paleontology are my main interests and evolution clearly is supported by studying the former. Very interesting programme, Thank you for uploading.

[@lawrence1318]

There is a direct contradiction between the bible and evolution. The bible declares Eve to be the mother of all living.

[@climbingtheladder2720]

@@lawrence1318 It does what verse?

[@lawrence1318]

@@climbingtheladder2720 Genesis 3:20.

[@climbingtheladder2720]

@@lawrence1318 I thought you meant a context like all living beings on the planet. Not all humans. But thanks for sharing the verse most people say stuff then don’t have the verse.

[@lushanejones]

@@climbingtheladder2720 There is also the case of the creation days. One may attempt to use the gap theory to say that each of the days were millions or billions of years, but the Bible describes each day "The evening and the morning was the X day." Genesis 1

[@numbersix9477]

In the U.S., there are many, many times as many Christian fundamentalists who boldly claim there is scientific support of the creation model as there are career scientist working in biology related disciplines who have written so much as ONE peer reviewed paper supporting the theory of evolution. Yet I can find, IN ONE PLACE, cites of over 420,000 scientific papers addressing thousands of aspects of the theory of evolution - but can find almost no cites anywhere of peer reviewed scientific papers supporting the creation model. WHY?

[@maylingng4107]

Creationist do not write science articles; they publish only in creationist propaganda journals and in religious literature. The stuff they peddling cannot get past peer-review.

[@allanlee9520]

Thank goodness for these lectures! The ones Christians refuse to watch, unfortunately. I enjoyed this, very informative!

[@GodJesusChristlovesyou_knows_u]

Why do you think so?

[@zachterry4710]

I don’t know what I don’t know. More people should realize this while they are being pompous.

[@zachterry4710]

Imagine what tedtalk will be like in 2119(presuming there will be a 2119) when they talk about the people in 2019 and what they “know”. Will it be similar to how we view the commonly accepted beliefs of the 1600’s?

[@numbersix9477]

@@zachterry4710 --- No, it will not.

[@antimechanistic4631]

That's a good starting point, Zach. That's why we have a built-in drive to understand why things are the way they are. That's not coincidental.

[@punkydoodle9899]

@MAD GRUMPYMAN "All you can really KNOW is that which is EVIDENT!" If you actually knew then you wouldn't need evidence.

[@punkydoodle9899]

@MAD GRUMPYMAN Not true. One can observe and by observing one can know. When one is reduced to reviewing evidence that means that one has to infer and can not know for sure. What we call evidence can be manufactured or misinterpreted. What we call facts can be up for grabs. For this reason lawyers and not scientists, run the world.

[@mtobrien1]

So, he is basically saying that we fail to teach the history of science.

[@rondoclark45]

We do, and he's doing a terrible job of remedying that. Darwin didn't invent the idea of evolution, that's a popular misconception and the presenter here is promoting it. Most naturalists in his day accepted the "transformation of species". Lamarcke's theory, Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, was the most widely accepted explanation. Lamarcke's theory promoted the idea of orthogenesis, that evolution had an end goal, so everyone could assume that end goal was, of course, us. The misconception that Darwin invented the idea comes from Origin of Species itself. Darwin spends a great deal of time on the evidence for evolution. However, Origin was written for the general public NOT other naturalists. Darwin's theory was controversial for two reasons. Common descent, a prediction that we would discover that all life is related, had the consequence that we evolved from "lower forms". (Two generations earlier Linnaeus had already classed humans with the apes in his taxonomic classification system.) And second, Darwin originally attributed no action to a supernatural deity, although he caved on a later edition and added the word "creator" to his closing statement. All said, I would flunk this "science historian" for continuing these misconceptions.

[@numbersix9477]

@@rondoclark45 --- You used a presentation on the history of acceptance of the theory as a basis for attacks on Darwin and van Wyhe. Do you have anything to contribute with regard to the theory itself?

[@rondoclark45]

@@numbersix9477 Where did I attack Darwin??

[@mtobrien1]

ron clark, lamarcke's theory was about traits changing within the lifespan of an individual within a species. That was not the theory of evolution.

[@mtobrien1]

@Michael Brown, it is well known what Lamarcke believed about how species evolved; facts like that don't change. Lamarcke believed that an organism's effort to change created a characteristic change... the leaves are high in the trees, so a giraffe's attempts to reach the leaves creates longer necks in its offspring (as a classic example). That is a fact. Fact. That was his theory. That is not evolution as it is accepted as a theory.

[@walkergarya]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution: "Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community. Although their language and strategy differ, all of these proposals, if passed, would weaken science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences."

[@manofthetombs]

Did they also approve of the overwhelming "science" that said the "VAX" is totally safe & effective?

[@walkergarya]

@@manofthetombs Vaccines are safe and effective. Nothing is tottaly safe or effective but you are far safer with the covid vaccines than you are with the virus.

[@manofthetombs]

@@walkergarya And your proof of that comes from where?

[@walkergarya]

@@manofthetombs Covid death rates and infections droped in line with the rate of vaccinations in populations all over the Earth, not that you will believe that.

[@kasparhauser4472]

Having seen QAnon members, flat-earthers and evolution-deniers on the internet I have lost faith that facts (how overwhelming they might be) will convince any of these. Hopeless cases. Notwithstanding very good and interesting video...

[@numbersix9477]

World wide, flat earth, homeopathy, alchemy and creationism are taught as science at exactly the same universities. Coincidence?

[@Jalip07]

@@numbersix9477 Elaborate?

[@numbersix9477]

@@Jalip07 The flat earth "theory" is taught at zero of planet earth's major universities. Ditto with the other three "theories."

[@Jalip07]

@@numbersix9477 The only reason your comment didn't make sense to me, was because I mistook you for another and thus was not sure if you were being literal lol.

[@numbersix9477]

@@Jalip07 S'ok. Given the scientific illiteracy of the typical creationist, it's impossible to be sarcastic and not sometimes not be mistaken for one.

[@AtamMardes]

"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible." Mark Twain

[@professorx3060]

It's a joke but true 🤣

[@AtamMardes]

@@professorx3060 "It (Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." Mark Twain

[@kennethgee2004]

@@AtamMardes Are you still pushing that false narrative? but then what does what Mark Twain said about the Bible have to do with the validity or veracity of the claim that evolution is true?

[@mpalmer22]

Strange, I found the opposite to be true. I didn't really take Christianity seriously until I read the Bible, now I'm convinced that this is the revelation of God

[@AtamMardes]

@@mpalmer22 *The Bible isn't inspired by a moral God but by selfish, rapacious, sexist, low-intellect barbaric savages.* Numbers 31:17-18, "17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

[@poufter]

I think too many of the commenters here need to give our presenter a break. These are big topics with hard-to-simplify intricacies that he's been given 15 or so minutes to encapsulate. I do the same kind of thing for a living, and when there's a big topic to cover, sometimes one can't be as thorough as one would or could be.

[@Vurbanowicz]

I fully agree. Those who require more proof shouldn't expect it from a 15-minute presentation. They can do their own digging. The proof won't be hard to find.

[@vhawk1951kl]

You mean respect al religions, even the absurd religion scientism? Be kind to him because he is obviously a sincere believer in mister evolution sort of thing eh?

[@pepper419]

Absolutely brilliant follow-up to Charles Darwin. Love you, and thank you. Americans should hear this. They might actually learn something.

[@mickeythompson9537]

Half of Americans are like Carl Sagan... but the much bigger half are like Donald Trump.

[@numbersix9477]

@@mickeythompson9537 With your permission, I'll take the former "like."

[@grabes1980]

Indeed they might. This American certainly *actually* learned something. Now, might I recommend then to citizens of your country a video on the hazards of perpetuating tired, cartoonish, stereotypes? Oh wait, then I’d have to watch yet another video on why generalizing any trait to an entire population requires a strong, verifiable, repeatedly testable and otherwise scientifically-grounded basis of evidence. Oh wait, not just this American, but all Americans. Right? Did I just *actually* learn something?

[@numbersix9477]

@@grabes1980 "Did I just actually learn something?" Not in years, I suspect.

[@bighairyfeet]

We learned not to listen.

[@Andrew-ep4kw]

Perhaps the most accurate version of "survival of the fittest" is "survival of the luckiest, but luck favors the prepared"

[@R3ptile]

and the bold

[@powerdriller4124]

Creatures do not "prepare", they adapt. But if they adapt too much to an environment, that is: if they overspecialized in an environment where they can thrive in thanks to that specialization, then they are in great danger if the conditions change drastically.

[@jm505]

I prefer “survival of the survivors”.

[@badideass]

You either accept Evolution or you don't understand it yet

[@strugglefortruth262]

facts please, this is all subjective

[@badideass]

@@strugglefortruth262 Google scholar evolution all you need to know.

[@Michael_Howard59]

So you just accepted it and don't understand it yet?

[@Michael_Howard59]

@@badideass Google this, "A World-Famous Chemist Tells The Truth: There’s No Scientist Alive Today Who Understands Macroevolution".

[@badideass]

@@Michael_Howard59 no, I understand it, I'm just giving you a very good place to go learn about it... Why do I have to teach you? I can help you at least...

[@Icedcoffee03]

Ever since I started watching podcasts/videos on evolution from experts, I started to really appreciate the plasticity of life and how extraordinary it is that we can figure out where and how we got here as a species.

[@TheHairyHeathen]

Love your user ID. "I am so smart, S-M-R-T" - one of my most favorite lines ever!

[@alanadams5982]

Do you ever think we were created by GOD!? And that's how we got here.

[@warren52nz]

@@alanadams5982 Maybe there's a creator and if so you can call it whatever you like. "God" is a reasonable placeholder but there's no evidence for this thing so "I don't know" is the best answer because that leads to discovery whereas assuming a god did it is a dead end. Why look for the answer if you think you already know?

[@numbersix9477]

@@alanadams5982 Over the centuries, thousands of gods have been posited. Which one specifically is yours and how did you pick him. Most popular in your country? Best benefits package? Scariest threats to non worshipers? Family tradition? Live near place of worship? Best music?

[@danielmoore4024]

Smrt Homer, Are you aware Charles Darwin was autistic? It's because of behaviours like autistic traits why autism is still in the gene pool, there's a particular reason why most of the greatest scientists either are autistic or strongly suspected to of being autistic. Detail oriented, more attracted to objects than people, patten recognition, sequence recognition, narrow interests. Don't all these autism traits sound like behaviours required to make such scientific discoveries?

[@nickkarr2607]

Observation: fossils have similarities Hypothesis : they have a common ancestor Conclusion: they have a common ancestor. Observation: birds look alike Hypothesis: they must have a common ancestor Conclusion: they had a common ancestor I admire that man’s faith

[@AMC2283]

That faith quip you guys use by the hundred isn't a substitute for education

[@TheHairyHeathen]

Wow, what a simple strawman, made by an incredibly simple minded numbskull. I wonder if you really are as simple as you try to make yourself appear, or whether you're just very dishonest?

[@numbersix9477]

You're getting desperate. You want to defend your faith that Genesis 1 and 2 were literal and you can't. So, you represent that a talk about HISTORY by a HISTORIAN didn't contain all of the evidences supporting the theory of evolution. Who did you think that stunt would work on?

[@Dr.IanPlect]

Nick; strawman bs.

[@Dr.IanPlect]

@Philip K No, it's strawman bs.

[@chrish.4686]

People would rather ascribe everything to magic than to do the hard work of teasing truths out b/c the latter is such hard work.

[@seeker9241]

I've a better shorthand:- "Survival of 'that will do'".

[@noneatthistime]

We seen his Cladogram in Biolgy class today. His nodes are on point.

[@therealzilch]

Simply wonderful. I went from a little kid obsessed with dinosaurs, to a minor in paleontology, to a Darwin fan. This was informative, clear, and charming. Bravo. cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott

[@cynthiagaudino9272]

Maybe you should have been obsessed with God.

[@therealzilch]

@@cynthiagaudino9272 Why?

[@josephshackelford7242]

@@therealzilch because science even knows that something can never come from nothing. You have faith that all the complexity in the world just formed, I have faith that there is a creator who created all the complexity.

[@paulgarrett4474]

@@josephshackelford7242 do you think that faith is a reliable path to truth?

[@therealzilch]

@@josephshackelford7242 And that creator came from- where? The problem of something from nothing doesn't go away by just making that something a God.

[@johndehaan2764]

At the end of the lecture all the audience went back to primary school to have a glass of milk and a nice sleep.

[@pudermcgavin4462]

Plastic cot sleep so cold

[@elinabalibado5982]

HAHAHA 😂😂😂

[@Mischief6467]

When he said the world has become much more secular my immediate thought was "Thank god!" I am highly amused by this!

[@debunkerofatheism6874]

Oh, it may seem a good thing now, but wait twenty years and you'll see that it really isn't.

[@kennethbransford820]

@@debunkerofatheism6874 Sad to say I do not think we have 20 years. What is that famous saying . "What can go wrong will go wrong" Soon these nuclear weapons would be unleashed on our world if it were not for divine intervention or Armageddon which is not the end of the world like Hollywood says or even a lot of religions say ( liars ) but is actually the beginning of a restored paradise earth where the dead will be brought back to life or those who never had a chance to now god. Revelation 21:1-4

[@numbersix9477]

@J S --- Are you indirectly referring to the WWII German army belt buckle slogan, "Gott Mit Uns"?

[@kseke25]

Same thought

[@kseke25]

@@kennethbransford820 And all of this will happen in 20 years or less? You realize that is a very short time, right? Another "prophecy" that won't come true? Remember, you said that the dead will rise in about 20 years. Okay.

[@fcc1704]

My kid was told by his teacher the giraffe has long neck because it needs to eat leaves up on the tree. My kid responded why neck? Why not with long tongue or with jumping legs? The teacher then kicked my son out of the class. Now I understand that this is what Darwin's theory actually mean. My son was not the fittest, can not be survived.

[@eddyeldridge7427]

Sounds like a story that absolutely didn't happen.

[@fcc1704]

@@eddyeldridge7427 Sounds like the "UNBELIVING" species is dominating the Earth.

[@bobs182]

Giraffes have long tongues and long legs as well as long necks.

[@woodygilson3465]

@@fcc1704 In a perfect world. Unfortunately, it's the undereducated that are the dominant species today.

[@andrewlowe9264]

I remember when the scientific method required a hypothesis to be observable and repeatable.

[@numbersix9477]

I remember that too. I was in the sixth grade. But as I and my classmates got older and became more and more capable of understanding nuance and complexity, the definitions of the scientific method repeatedly got more and more complex, mora and more nuanced - at each phase, our understandings of science became more complete and nuanced than before.. The same thing happens again and again in science education. First we were taught about the law of gravity. Then we were exposed to special relativity. Then general relativity. Then Einstein's field equations. They taught us that matter was composed of atoms. Then the atoms became intertwined electrons and indivisible nuclei. Next, the nuclei weren't indivisible after all. They consisted of neutrons and protons. Before we knew it, neutrons and protons weren't indivisible at all. Each contained quarks, one up and two down or two up and one down. And there were new forces - the strong and the weak. And that wasn't even the end of it all. ... A science education is a process of learning. Then learning that what we were taught was incomplete followed by refining what we knew. Then again. Then again. Again until we've stopped learning or until we have been taught everything the experts know. It's actually kinda cool!

[@TheHairyHeathen]

@@numbersix9477 - great answer!

[@architecture.w]

@@numbersix9477 Nuance = diffuse.

[@numbersix9477]

@@TheHairyHeathen Thanks!

[@vicdmise]

Like the observations of the originator who laid out the development cycles of finches? And flies? And the laboratory experiments that have tracked thousands of generations of bacteria?

[@justinwmusic]

14:07 It's comforting to know how similar his thoughts on the pros and cons of marriage are to my own :)

[@joshgoodman6534]

@Robert B. tax breaks?

[@martymcmannis8662]

Marriage: a bond between a man woman and a God. A church wedding... I can see a lot of people having problems with marriage. Probably cause no one wants to believe God exists. Which means that no one wants to listen to him... maybe that's why most marriages will fail. That's all on the ones getting Wed.

[@jonathandevereaux298]

Someone agrees with you on KZbin, very comforting 🥴

[@aapesos]

@@martymcmannis8662 I love my wife and god has nothing to do with it.

[@thereaction18]

@@aapesos God is love. God created man in his image, male and female. God has everything to do with it.

[@glennshrom5801]

Pretty good talk about how we know evolution is true. A minor critique about something at the beginning of the talk (around minute 1:23): Quite a number of evolutionists believe that the earth and the animals and plants in it have been created by a supernatural deity. It is not logical to pit one (evolution) against the other (creation by a supernatural god). The process of God's creation was pictured differently prior to the theory of evolution, but the fact of God's creation need not be any different taking evolution into account.

[@miked412]

Evolution does not include how "life" came to be, only how life became more complex through changes carried on by reproduction. Evolution does conflict with most creation stories. A God very well could have set everything in motion at the "Big Bang" or sometime (time is tricky here) before that. Or could have assembled the earliest versions of "life" on earth. The problem with this, is the lacking evidence; thus, faith. Is it possible, sure. Is there quality evidence for it, nope.

[@danbenson7587]

I think the correct question..and most puzzling.. is where the desire to live, the will to survive, springs from. Non existence is scientifically sound than existence. Everything is stacked against life. Yet the existential struggle. What is the provenance of this force?

[@TheHairyHeathen]

In many organisms the imperative to reproduce clearly is stronger than the imperative for individuals to survive. It is fairly obvious then that this stems from the self replicating nature of the gene. Your assertion that _"everything is stacked against life"_ is vague and unsupported. It is self-contradiction for non-existence to have existence, so existence must be obligate.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

You imagine that ALL living things have an intrinsic survival behavior - I would posit that the earliest organisms had no such 'bias' towards survival - behavior was random according to the sequences of compounds that had assembled to build their structure. Hydrophilic, Hydrophobic - just depends. Guess what happened to those organisms that didn't have the have a bias towards survival.

[@danbenson7587]

As a retired mechanical engineer, solid effort is required first to design a product, get it to work, and make it last. This does not happen on its on. There are no serendipities in the process, just the opposite it’s stacked against you. It’s push, push, push uphill. Stop pushing, the product withers, folds, and to the dumpster. In nature evolution is a process in play, but does not account for the “push”. Chance and time are lame explanations when the natural trajectory is the dumpster. Merry Xmas. D

[@TheHairyHeathen]

@@danbenson7587 there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning whereby you are trying to compare manufactured products, often designed with the objective of planned obsolescence in order to increase profit, to living things which take in energy from their surrounding environment, either chemical or electromagnetic (light), to build and maintain their integrity. The impetus or "push" for life is reproductive survival, and you miss that _"chance and time"_ are not the only factors in play, with chance variations being filtered into non-random variants by the struggle for reproductive survival in the current natural environment the organism exists in. In short, the filtering process of natural selection derandomizes chance. Merry Xmas to you and your family as well.

[@danbenson7587]

@@TheHairyHeathen You’ve come back to my point “struggle for reproductive survival” ..... WHY struggle? WHY push? If the answer is “survival”, then WHY survive. The TED speaker spoke of extinct species...extinction IS -universally- the most sensible, attractive, and likely outcome. Life is the Exception ...why? These questions too leaden for the holiday season. I think I’ll watch football or read Chinese Political Economics for Dummies. BTW, engineers don’t design for planned obsolescence. This would imply foreknowledge of the next “mousetrap”. More correctly it’s ‘economic life’ design....when life even specified. Cheers

[@youtubeuser8393]

Hated that he had to rush to round up at the end. Enjoyed the presentation

[@unclepatrick2]

Agree . I love to here him cover this material with more time.

[@dudleyvasausage7879]

i love when everything just comes together and then you have to figure out how to articulate what you are visualizing.

[@rajarsi6438]

And, have you figured it out?

[@mahwahazet4133]

... I know, right? Isn’t God the most creative artist who makes a perfect creation every time....

[@rajarsi6438]

@@mahwahazet4133 You've only got childish medieval fantasies about "creation".

[@rockman4952]

@@georgeorwellsghost3833 One can only cram so many things into a 15 oral presentation. This talk isn't even "The tip of the iceberg." on the topic of evolution, it's more like the Cliff Notes of the Cliff Notes of evolution.

[@greatbriton8425]

@@georgeorwellsghost3833 Agreed. One of the biggest problems is that they confuse creation's programmed genetic variation (where the young are different from the parents not due to mutation but due to sophisticated processes of splicing within the genome) with evolution's mutating genetic variation. Thousands upon thousands of studies look at the programmed genetic variation and natural selection operating on it, like Darwin's finches, as if it was evolution. In fact, mutations are destroying the genome.

[@numbersix9477]

Fear of not being able to live forever generates many nonsensicals sets of conclusions.

[@stevensarwat5189]

3:40 it becomes imbeded in the middel of a rock throgh an unimaginably strong flow of Water, hence the great flood of noah. I love how people can Interpret stuff as to fit their own Personal beliefs, good job guys👍

[@TheHairyHeathen]

Nobody said anything about _"an unimaginably strong flow of Water",_ duh! Do you think strong water flow pushes teeth inside of rocks? Fossils are formed in depositional *_sedimentary_* rock, which only happens in waters calm enough for deposits to settle. You don't find teeth pushed into igneous rocks.

[@bilindalaw-morley161]

Wonderful presentation, introduced me into looking at the subject from a different viewpoint. And it’s terrific when someone is so passionate about their subject

[@jamespeace1237]

You tube Dolores cannon 3 waves its long .but watch it.

[@berniv7375]

Thank you for a very interesting video. Near the end of the video you talked of people eating chicken. My belief is that in order for us to continue to evolve we need to stop eating the flesh of other animals or we are going to become extinct. 🌱

[@charlytaylor1748]

I'm with you, berni

[@davidsmithson865]

Hey, all dogs are dogs!

[@originalprime9798]

Of all the aspects of nature, humans are the only ones who still don't know the reason for their existence.

[@healthdios]

Brings back memories of my elementary school days in the 80's and how I came up to understand how small our human lives are in reality. Even though I was raised a catholic, my cathechist instructor told me no to take my religious teachings literally and I think that helped me and so many other kids my age to cope with the contradictions of my public school education vs church. Now I am in my mid forties and personally, the best way to understand the whole context of his presentation is to accept the continuity of these succession of developments. Evolution doesn't stop, it keeps going. However, the dislikes on this video are from folks who refuse to stick their neck outside the comfort of their religious group. They rather live their short existence in that cocooned state of mind.

[@comanche66100]

Evolution NEVER BEGAN for it to STOP!

[@eddyeldridge7427]

@@comanche66100 You know dogs evolved from wolves, right?

[@comanche66100]

@@eddyeldridge7427 No, I thought they came from crustaceans. Not to be confused with Tostitos.

[@comanche66100]

The bombadier beetle came from the Utanas Grenade family...their fossils have been traced back to the Bronx about 3.6 Million. yearsago.

[@comanche66100]

What a non-sensical rant.

[@JacobPatrick1]

We have created many machines and though the machines may be very different from each other and used for very different purposes most of them share similar parts.

[@TheHairyHeathen]

Exactly. They do not have unique features restricted only to individual ancestral lines, as you have with living things.

[@Geraldster]

And none of these machines came about by chance and random mutations.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 17:39

[@mickelodiansurname9578]

Is it just my imagination or did this guy completely fail to address the point he set out to accomplish at the outset...explaining the average persons acceptence? Is there a part 2 or something?

[@ChrisFineganTunes]

It's your imagination. He didn't say he would explain why the average person acknowledges evolution as factual. He explained the moves through different opinions up to the point at which the scientific community had no option but to agree that all the evidence pointed to the same conclusion. Research in America indicates that only 18% or so of Americans reject evolution outright. (Just shy of half the US population believes it was a process guided by God.) 71% of British people believe in evolution either as a standalone process or as guided by a deity. So the average person, certainly in those societies, acknowledges the truth of evolution even in the face of militant, baseless attacks from the religious fundamentalists.

[@numbersix9477]

It's your imagination. John is a science historian, not a researcher into what polls of British lay people of 150 years ago thought about naturalism (I doubt that there were such polls). There is no indication that John plans a "Part 2, "The History of what lay Brits thought of Darwin's first book, circa 1870 and later"

[@davidhawkins8758]

Not just your imagination, I was looking for something substantial in here but failed to find it

[@evaristogrant4193]

Yes. He failed miserably! Seems to be a recurring thing with the Darwinian Religion!

[@CesarClouds]

@@evaristogrant4193 Calling science religion exposes the weakness of your point.

[@silasjohnson555]

Just as a note: John used the term “prove” when in scientific methodology you can never prove anything, only theory’s and facts.

[@aaronhhill]

While this is true I believe the distinction lies in the difference between the terms "accurate" and "proven." While the scientific method does not necessarily seek to prove something, what it does instead is measure the accuracy of a theory or hypothesis through rigorous testing and validation. As theories are continually improved or modified as more information is gathered, so too does the accuracy of the prediction become greater over time. A theory, then, does not get proven to be correct, but instead simply does not get proven wrong. The argument lies in the semantics. A theory is accurate until it is proven wrong.

[@silasjohnson555]

Hmmm I hadn’t seen thought as deeply about the distinction. I will still believe that it is essential to use proper terminology otherwise one’s language could appear misleading or manipulative

[@walkergarya]

Not quite, we can prove things wrong, like creationism has been.

[@silasjohnson555]

Interesting. How so?

[@aaronhhill]

@@walkergarya Well, that's a bit disingenuous. Creationism has not been "proven" to be wrong. Even the renowned atheist Richard Dawkins will tell you that he is 99.99% sure that creationism is not factual, but that he wouldn't be a good scientist if he didn't allow for that .01% of inaccuracy. Creationism has merely been refuted. And that is the more factually accurate way to express it. It is not proven wrong, it has simply been refuted.

[@SCabralO]

Why can I only like this thing once?

[@vhawk1951kl]

Oh I don't know, take a wild guess, or ask a grownup if you know any.

[@sierraflorez5015]

Good speaker. Easy to understand. Thanks for the video

[@bodyer2120]

A chancer more like.

[@BigBri550]

@Repent and believe in Jesus Christ Thank you for demonstrating yet again the irrelevance of religion when inserted into a discussion for learning.

[@AnubisSolvang]

Someone get this poor man a glass of water!

[@tausifkarim8861]

Do you mean a glass of wotah?

[@DivaEagle77]

This was wonderfully done. Thank you professor

[@garywalker447]

Dr Neil Shubin wanted to find the first fish that could crawl up onto land. Eusthenopteron of 385 million years ago was similar to the later Acanthostega of 365 million years ago but there was too much difference for there not to be an intermediate species so he looked for exposed sedimentary rock of the right type and age and found this in the Canadian Arctic on Ellesmere Island and found the intermediate species that was then named Tiktaalik.

[@davidabbett7011]

Absolutely love it when objective evidence, that has stood up against tested skepticism, is presented is such a clear fashion. Excellently presented.

[@Hfornos]

David, I strongly suggest you do your research. Evolution has already been debunked. What you are being taught is doctrine of a theory that hold no weight scientifically today. to be clear, depends what you call evolution, if it’s the process of natural selection and randomness, please fix form yourself. Unfortunately our schools and lives are indoctrinated and we take it for truth.

[@paulford9120]

@@Hfornos Don't be ridiculous. Evolution is an observed fact. Try reading a few science books.

[@davidabbett7011]

Harry Gonzalez ....... HAHAHAHAHAHA. You are an example of a clearly brainwashed, flat-earther, creationist that believes unprovable text from flawed human beings that created rules for controlling micro societies by a few. Science is fact based research and technologies .... such as this electronic media that allows you to declare this ridiculousness. Or has the internet been debunked as well. You are yet again confusing “truth” with facts.

[@numbersix9477]

@@Hfornos LOL!

[@MrMarcusIndia]

Presumably your Nobel Prize for debunking evolution is about to be announced? Your comment is absolutely typical of its ilk - grand claims with no substantiation - and thus can be ignored without further debate.

[@frankytoad12]

Did someone play this video for convention of mental asylum patients? I can't explain some of these comments, what are you people?

[@quantumrobin4627]

Frank Harrison Yea, religion poisons everything, it makes a virtue out of ignorance.

[@quantumrobin4627]

Steve when you realize you built your whole life on a sham....then just stay in the religion out of pride, good point! That’s the reason there are so many participants in the Clergy Project, it’s got thousands of members who are leaders of their churches that no longer buy bs but can’t leave their jobs, so they stay.

[@quantumrobin4627]

Steve Steve, you are the batshit crazy kook holding a “Jesus lives” cardboard sign, that nobody pays attention to on the street corner. Threatening me with your imaginary friend is not a threat, it only serves to make you look more pathetic, if that’s possible. You need medication, by all accounts your are very sick.

[@quantumrobin4627]

Not Steve Just when I think you couldn’t post a more bizarre comment, you go and surprise me.

[@mentkansley6694]

@@quantumrobin4627 I'm agnostic, but is there a reason religion and science can't coexist?

[@michaelnowak3570]

Because The Simple Believe Every Word

[@elfootman]

The case for the importance of universal education is so clear when you read these millions of uneducated people, and think their vote is worth the same as an educated vote.

[@robharwood3538]

Agreed.

[@cp-tw1qe]

Not if the education is bias or not true to its nature. One thing we must keep in mind is science is a human based knowledge of what "humans" find and formulate to be of scientific nature or must not be possible if no scientific proof can be presented. The human eye and the human ear are so limited on what it see's and hears that to say what we do not see or hear must not be real or apparent is sometimes along the same lines as science. HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE leaves a whole lot to be possible.

[@dontgetmadgetwise4271]

@Panza - An interesting thought. But it does seem to ignore a thing called "science". Almost all science today is not naively discernible by humans. We rely on machines which are subject to all the forces/fields of the universe. Through a sequence of translations/mappings "inhuman" effects are made "human" and observable by us. Building novel machines with novel translators is the art of modern science.

[@psyekl]

@Christopher Panza This is an excellent example of the original comment. While Panza's comment is written well, it is pseudo-intellectualism from someone without the education, experience or knowledge about the most rudimentary basics of the scientific process. The other option is that this individual is suggesting the supernatural or a superstition as viable alternatives, which further strengthens the case for the original comment, and adds credence to my own observation.

[@exptest8267]

It is the other way around. Ignorance you are born with; stupidity you acquire. Ignorance is the lack of information. Stupidity is inability to correctly discern what the information is telling you.

[@helpmereach10ksubswithnovi96]

Who else found this in their recommended?

[@drsuperhero]

Normie it’s curious because I watched it a few years ago.

[@youareright4600]

Sadly yes, among many other false theories being spread on here

[@jimsolinas491]

I did.

[@jonneateh5815]

Yep not to much proof of evolution little on adaption and extinction

[@youareright4600]

Normie Where is the proof in Charles Darwin's plariarised book? Last I checked the origin of species it was all theories

[@vince6252]

14:14 to the punchline: I laughed out rather loudly.

[@nigelsaunders9865]

Why is this basic talk and content with no new perspectives or ideas or personal input from the speaker of any kind in a TED format?

[@b-m605]

because it is promoting the atheist creation myth as if it were a fact. Simple as that, if you want to be heard promote it. They will make it happen

[@flashgorgon188]

@@b-m605 "atheist creation myth" lol if you have evidence that contradicts evolution you should submit it and collect your Nobel prize. .... Oh, you don't have any? I didn't think so.

[@b-m605]

@@flashgorgon188 so you want to play that atheist game of "show me the evidence. That's not evidence!!" not interested. You are welcome to your delusions. The evidence is the same evidence that atheists pretend supports their myth. But magic without a magician is still magic, just less believable.

[@flashgorgon188]

@@b-m605 Oh, you don't have any? I didn't think so.

[@b-m605]

@@flashgorgon188 let me simplify this for you. In a murder trial there is evidence. Both sides work with the evidence there is and make their arguments from it. So if you say there is no evidence for a creator, then there is no evidence for anything. Yours strategy is a rather tiresome Atheist game where they pretend that 1. they are righteous, impartial judges, or judges at all 2. that evidence just speaks for itself 3. They can decide what is and isn't evidence. 4. they pretend they would love to be proven wrong. In your delusions or little game, you always win; It's a silly little game and your willingness to play on and on at it, suggests you are convince you have a lot of time to waste, far more than I have. but carry on show me how smart you are.

[@mohdhafidz6268]

The titles clearly says "how we found out evolution is true".. But somehow many comments down here make it sounds like the title is "how we found out how evolution denies God"...that I found out to be unrelated to the original topic at all..

[@Espectador666]

@May Ling He is irrelevant to all things. If you do not exist, you cannot be relevant.

[@kennethbransford820]

@May Ling You are saying that the most complex thing known to man, your brain is an accident? And to say our existence is of no value or has no value and we are all alone in the universe and Jehovah is not responsible for your existence. Life would have no direction or purpose and no meaning without our designer or maker our heavenly father .

[@kennethbransford820]

@May Ling So you are ok with man kind/ women kind having no regard for our planet earth? How we are causing animals to go extinct, using thermonuclear weapons on our home our nest egg, how man/women kind is exploiting our earth and its resource for the sake of greed, how wars, hate , no genuine fellow feeling for one another, racism, egos, ruining the earth, oceans, air, emotional damage caused by humankind against humankind, weapons,lack of food, corrupted nations and politicians, those killing in the name of god and nations, ect.....

[@kennethbransford820]

@May Ling It is obvious that you are oblivious to the serious harm society is inflicting on one another and our planet .Yes many,many live their lives without a thought as to were we came from and the infliction we cause on our planet and one another as a whole. Not being aware of your surroundings will not excuse you or save you from others who just simply do not care about all the wonderful things they have or possess, including their lives and where it came from.

[@joshadkins9185]

May Ling eloquent responses to such assumptions based on nothing. I applaud your grace in responses. It's funny how a religious zealot would make claims about people destroying the earth. Most history books will reveal the simple truth religion has caused more wars and destruction than any other reason. Oh well.. have a goid day ma'am

[@walkergarya]

Biological Evolution is an observed FACT. The Theory of Evolution is our explanation of that FACT.

[@SpongeBobImagination]

While evolution within species is observable, the broader claims of the Theory of Evolution, such as common ancestry, are interpretations of the data and not equivalent to directly observed facts.

[@walkergarya]

@@SpongeBobImagination Nope. We have more than ample evidence for evolution beyond the level of species.

[@SpongeBobImagination]

@@walkergarya __ I appreciate your viewpoint, but I interpret the evidence as supporting intelligent design and adaptation within species, rather than one species evolving into another.

[@walkergarya]

@@SpongeBobImagination Why would an "intelligent designer" include a defunct gene that in other vertibrates produces egg yolk? Why would an "intelligent designer" not fix a single bit error in the gene that in most mammals produces vitamin C? Sorry but your faith in intelligent design is NOT supported by evidence. Also, your intelligent design concept was exposed to be nothing more than intellectual fraud in the 2005 Dover trial.

[@e.mcguire1538]

Excellent presentation. One of the best summaries I've seen. Thank you.

[@gizmoapangalook121]

He is a moron and a liar

[@Titus-as-the-Roman]

I consider Charles Darwin to be in the top five greatest Scientist ever (at this level it's hard to conclude who's 'Greatest'), he had no sophisticated technology to speak of but yet through careful observation and educated deduction came up with a theory of life that for the most part is still very much relevant today. It blows my mind that even though we have such clear-cut evidence like DNA testing and Radio-Dating there's still people that thinks evolution is bunk ?

[@georgebond7777]

A few things you're probably not aware of. 1. Darwin was no scientist 2 DNA actually proves intelligent design 3 Over 90% of indicators prove a young Universe and 10% show deep time and these (radiometric dating) are based on assumptions that cannot be proven. 4. Evolution was proposed way before Darwin did.

[@Dagalism]

George Bond A few things you are probably not aware of either: 1. Darwin started with a medical study and after a short intermezzo as theologian studied mostly taxonomy, plant physiology and geology, which I would consider quite scientific. 2. quite the contrary, you can see the evolutionary development of the species literally in the DNA. HERVs are a quite good example but there are endless. 3. Ím not aware of a single one. Care to elaborate? Radiometric dating is based on quite reasonable assumptions that can be shown to be ... well, reasonable. 4. not the means of Evolution by natural selection. The evolution part was speculated above before,for example by Lamarck. Don't conflate evolution with theory of evolution.

[@georgebond7777]

Dagalism where have you been mate. So you're saying just by studying science makes you a Scientist. That means I'm a Scientist, a Mathematician, a geologist, a biologist, a Physicist etc. Did you fail logic? DNA proves intelligent design, where did all that information come from? Radiometric dating is inaccurate and based on unprovable assumptions. But yeah I've got a lot of indicators for a young earth. Accepted theories of evolutionary science say our Earth and our solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago. But according to the Bible the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old using the genealogy detailed within the scriptures. So what evidence is there for a young Earth and a young Universe. METHANE - the presence of methane on Titan, a moon of Saturn. Titan has an atmosphere thicker than that of Earth, made up of nitrogen and a long list of organic gases, such as methane, ethane, acetylene, and others. Scientists modelling Titan’s atmosphere have calculated that it should contain no methane but should have been used up in millions of years. Clearly this is contrary to the billions-of-years age for the solar system. OUR SUN - Evolutionists believe the first living cell formed from chemicals on the early Earth about 3.8 billion years ago. At that time in the Sun’s life cycle it would have given off about 30% less light energy than today and the Earth would have been much colder. Earth would likely have looked like a ball of ice instead of how it looks today. Thus life would not be likely to survive or evolve. IO IS TOO HOT - Jupiter is about five times as far from the Sun as Earth is, and has a mass of over 300 Earths. Io has various forms of sulfur across its surface and many volcanoes that are much more active than Earth’s volcanoes. The quantity of heat given off by the volcanoes on Io is much more than on Earth per unit of surface area. The amount of heat that Io gives off, that scientists have observed with infrared telescopes and spacecraft, is about 10 times the amount of heat generated by all known sources of heat, including tidal dissipation. The heat problem remains for the billion-year explanation. COMETS - It has long been known that comets can survive only a limited number of passes near the Sun because they lose some of their material every orbit. Short-period comets would eventually become invisible because they would eventually stop producing a coma-they would have no more material to lose. Estimates of the visible ‘lifetime’ of short-period comets are uncertain but are generally of the order of thousands of years. They could not last millions or billions of years. To suggest comets are reproduced in the imaginary Oort cloud is just that, imagination. With all the space telescopes this Oort cloud has never been observed. ZIRCON CRYSTALS - difussion of Helium in zircon crystals suggests a young earth as demonstrated by the RATE team experiments. DINOSAUR TISSUE - Biomaterial like tissue, blood vessels, blood cells and even DNA found in dinosaur fossils proves a young earth. EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD - for a 4.6 billion year old earth our magnetic field should be non existent. MOON RECEDING - the observed rate of recession of the moon is approximately 4cm per year. Using the evolutionists uniformitarian principle the Earth and moon would have been so close in the past that high tides caused by gravitational forces by the moon would have been destructive to life. So using the invest squared law you find that only 1.2 billion years the moon was touching the Earth, REALLY. Earth's graceful 24-hour rotation rate is one of the traits that makes our planet so friendly to life, allowing most parts of Earth to stay a nice, comfortable temperature as they are bathed in sunlight during the day and darkness at night. It's a known fact that the Earth's rotation slows down by 1.7 milliseconds (1 millisec is 1/1000 sec) every 100 years, this implies that the Earth's rotation was faster in the past. If life originated 3.5 billion years that means the days were shorter due to the faster rotation. The faster rotation coupled with the proximity of the Moon to the Earth would have been prohibiting to any life due to the cyclonic wind speeds on Earth and size tsunami tidal waves. MAGNETIC FIELDS OF OTHER PLANETS - for a solar system of around 5 billion years the planets should have almost no magnetic field left. Dr Russell Humphreys theory of a young creation predicted the magnetic fields of many of the planets which were later verified by a NASA voyager spacecraft. MITOCHONDRIAL EVE - using observed rates of mitochondrion dna the age of the first female was measured at 6,000 years which correlates to the Biblical age indicated in the Holy Bible. GENETIC MUTATION RATES - This is an observed and measured science which suggests that we are accumulating 60-100 gene mutations per generation. There are an estimated 20,000-25,000 human protein-coding genes. In the supposedly 3 million years of human evolution at an average 30 year for each generation that's 10 million gene mutations but there are only 25,000 genes. That means we should have been extinct many times over. CARBON 14 - the remnant carbon 14 in diamonds and coal found in supposed millions of year old rock layers suggests a young earth. Carbon 14 has a half life of roughly 5,700 years and should have no measured carbon after 100,000 years. DNA IN ANCIENT BACTERIA - In 2000, scientists claimed to have “resurrected” bacteria, named Lazarus bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million years old. They were shocked that the bacteria’s DNA was very similar to modern bacterial DNA. If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution, its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates). In addition, the scientists were surprised to find that the DNA was still intact after the supposed 250 million years. DNA normally breaks down quickly, even in ideal conditions. Even evolutionists agree that DNA in bacterial spores (a dormant state) should not last more than a million years. Further evidences for a young earth are; • Very little sediment on the sea floor • Bent Rock layers • Very little salt in the sea • Helium in atmosphere • Helium in the ground • Meteor dust • Buildup of Carbon14 • Human population • Natural plutonium • Sodium in the sea • Sediments in the sea • Erosion of continents • Earth's magnetic field • Oil leaks in earth • Natural gas in earth • Orphan radio halos • Neutrons and strontium • Decay of rock magnetism • Tight bends in rocks • Coral reef growth • Oldest living plants • Human civilizations • River delta growth • Undersea oil seepage • Uranium in sea • Neutrons and lead • Rotation of spiral galaxies • Interstellar gas expansion • C14 in meteorites • Decay of comets • Interplanetary dust removal • Lifetime of meteor showers • Dust on the moon • Slowing of Earth's rotation • Heat loss from earth • Peat bog growth • Multi layer fossils • Hardening of rocks • Decay of Saturn's rings • Potassium in the sea • Leaching of chlorine • Radiogenic lead • Niagara Falls erosion • Stone age burials • Uranium decay • Squashed radiohalos • Young water to sea • Magna to Earth's crust So I guess 90% of methods used give a young earth and only 10% give an old earth.

[@georgebond7777]

Dagalism which theory of evolution do you believe in there's been many over the years. 1: Lamarkian Inheritance 2: Spontaneous Generation 3: Pangenesis 4: Darwin Theory of Evolution 5: Neo Darwin evolution 6: Synthetic Theory 7: Saltation 8. Punctuated Equilibrium evolution 9. Divergent /Convergent Evolution 10: Parallel Evolution 11: Preadaptive Evolution 12. Reductive evolution 13: The Third Way or the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis 14 Recapitulation Theory 15 Self assembly or self organisation/Plasticity 16 Panspermia 17 Undirected Panspermia 18 Necropanspermia 19 Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) 20 Rapid Evolution 21 The Third Way 22 (Insert anything you like here) General theory of evolution or maybe Special theory of evolution or .... go for it. 23 The Theory of Everything?

[@Dagalism]

George Bond Some of those are older versions of the theory, some are just parts of the theory and some are already dismissed for over a century. Some are completely rubbish or not even a theory, some are not part of biology... What do you want to tell me with this list of mostly unrelated terms? „Believe“ I do none of them. I think the current consensus in biology describes the facts best. There are still a lot of details to discover, why not looking for those instead of arguing over the basic principles that are not in question for over the last 60 to 70 years?

[@jacksimpson-rogers1069]

It has been noted that although Edsger Dijkstra says that a proper computer program would be one that like mathematics can sustain proof, a compiler or an operating system is complex enough that an apparent proof would be as difficult to prove as the software it's trying to prove. But to say that Evolution and Natural Selection (even with random causes) are not as proven as what we take for granted as certainty, is a misuse of logic. The ordinary notion of what a fact is, fits anything granted the name "Theory" by scientists.

[@jesuschristislord4538]

So your theory is true by definition of theory?

[@vhawk1951kl]

Help me with this please: Wherein lies the difference-if any, between being persuaded to believe X and finding X to be proved and does the number of those that find X proved have any bearing on whether or not X is, or is not, the case? When you speak of " proof", may one enquire two things of you, first proof to what standard and second proof to whom? Who is to decide what is proved to what standard and to whom?

[@caonexpeguero9984]

Far away and long ago the nose tried to hook with the lungs but it was still at knee level, while one of the lungs was around the buttocks. Luckily we were still living under water at the moment.

[@markkururangi7846]

He reminds me of George McFly haha. Great presentation by the way!

[@tessgrimes6382]

K kill kkkkkkkmk kkk the kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkmkkkkkkkk kkkkkkmkkkkkkkkmkkkkkkmkkmkkkkkmk kkkkkkmkkkkmkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkmkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkmkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkmkkkkkkkk kk Kk the k. Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkmkkkkkkkk loop kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk(kkkkkkkkkkkkk. Love Love ml. You lll Kopp lll (kmkkkkkkkk kkk(like m kkkkkkk k/kk. Kmkkk like to kkkkk a kill kk. (. Kill k is k

[@tessgrimes6382]

Llll

[@tessgrimes6382]

Lol l

[@tessgrimes6382]

L

[@tessgrimes6382]

Mo

[@daleandrews9356]

What a very concise, easy to understand summation of this very complex subject. As a holder of a bachelor's degree in biology(B.S.), I feel qualified to make this statement.

[@TheHairyHeathen]

Dude, a bachelor of science is supposed to be written as *BSc.* If you write (B.S.) people may think you're bullshitting them.

[@Greenie-43x]

Dont worry Dale, he's just joking around. We know what a B.S. is... Have a great day!

[@robertsparling]

It is complex when one delves into it, but the basic concepts can be understood by a reasonably attentive person.

[@taowaycamino4891]

The problem is that this guy(or any qualified scientist) cannot verify or show that the so-called "evidence for evolution" is indeed correct. Therefore there is no evidence that evolution is real.

[@woody4269]

@@taowaycamino4891 🤦‍♂️

[@marcosariel8323]

Vou colocar em português...no livro Full House do Stephen Jay Gould há um gráfico sobre complexidade. Partindo do pressuposto de que maior biomassa, maior aptidão chegamos a conclusão óbvia de que as bactérias, espécie eterna, são as mais aptas...o que vem depois é menos apto... cadê a seleção natural? Se o planeta explodir, as bactérias podem resistir, se formos ao espaço, as bactérias vão junto...

[@sidstovell2177]

Great book: Wonderful Life, the story of the Burgess Shale, by Stephen Jay Gould.

[@D.Will.C.]

Theres a difference between scientific evidence and words that come out of scientist that have nothing to do with the evidence

[@numbersix9477]

You obviously think that your assertion makes both sense and a compelling point. It does neither. Try posting a paragraph instead of a sentence; include examples.

[@michaelbrandt5416]

@@numbersix9477 the same could be said of you. You are quick to provide insults instead of giving proof yourself. All you can do is say that your belief is taught in schools, universities all over the planet. In the past, it was universally belief that blood-letting could cure just about any ailment. That was the medical science of their time taught to be the truth. So it´s not all so called truths that make a right.

[@numbersix9477]

@@michaelbrandt5416 --- Oh, look, I have a stalker!!!!! While we are conversing, what is the number that I asked you for in that other thread, michael?

[@Sleetstorm]

Yep. I think I even saw him sneak in Haekels embryos.

[@johnfarrell6282]

I just can’t wrap my head around the fact that there is some magical mystery “person” we can’t talk to, see or touch telling me I am a bad human being and unless I tell him I believe in him I will go to a place,when I die, where I will experience some kind of perpetual torture.

[@numbersix9477]

He HAD to threaten us. If He hadn't few would have ever worshiped Him.

[@edsalinas9996]

Some will get it, some won't.

[@hermanhelmich]

😂👍🏻

[@KrazyJojo4594]

Well, you can talk to Him. He's always trying to talk to you, you just don't want to talk to Him. Seek earnestly for Him, and He will reveal Himself to you :)

[@markbreck8008]

And what does this have to do with whether or not evolution has been proven? Answer: it doesn't. They are often conflated, but they are not the same thing. I argue from a basis of science, not religion.

[@margaretburnham5683]

I enjoyed this!

[@wayneurquhart7192]

Me too, did you think of any questions you'd like to ask?

[@alainbellemare2168]

most people don t understand that evolution and adaptation are linked , survival of the most adapted , the universe does one thing and one thing only , transform itself

[@grainiac7824]

So why do we have more autism than ever before these days? And more cancer etc. Things are devolving; entropy is the law of the land.

[@alainbellemare2168]

@@grainiac7824 there is a lot more people

[@eurosonly]

Watching this before my parents drag me to church and try to prove me wrong with circular reasoning.

[@numbersix9477]

--- Been there; done that; still have the T-shirt.

[@joesmoke9624]

eurosonly Nothing wrong with Church

[@roems6396]

Joe Smoke There is something wrong with church if it is teaching you to ignore science and shut off your own critical thinking skills.

[@joesmoke9624]

Ro Ems Kind of a sweeping statement. Some serious scientists attend church. A good church can help unit people, an even better church should run it self. Personally, I do not attend church. I like to think my church is inside my head. Good luck

[@roems6396]

Joe Smoke What’s your point? I didn’t say that there weren’t scientists who are religious. I said if it is teaching not to believe In science there is a problem. And there are MANY denomination that preach against science. I would not trust the critical thinking abilities of any scientist who speaks in tongues or believes the earth is 6,000 years old. Skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method. Those people are clearly only scientists in name, or at the most, scientific in a narrow field.

[@NathanDSouza]

In my chewda (Indian mix) jar the smaller grains settle at bottom. The bigger flakes stay on top.

[@TheHairyHeathen]

Good on ya, now I've got the munchies!

[@Vurbanowicz]

I remember reading that Darwin finally published because he didn't want to be scooped by Wallace, and also that he had hesitated to publish because of what could be called social conservatism: he feared the lower classes would be harder to govern if he published a theory that discounted the authority of the Bible. That seems somewhat consistent with his view of women: "better than a dog, anyhow."

[@L.Ron_Dow]

Darwin came to believe that species are mutable while in the midst of a major campaign to edit and publish the scientific results of his voyage on HMS Beagle. *His ideas on evolution were drafted as early as 1842.* In 1844, Darwin's initial ideas on evolution had been sketched out and he prepared a memorandum for his wife requesting for it to be published in the event of his death. But he also asked her to see that it be "enlarged" and developed by an editor before it was published, because in his view the work was not yet ready. Evidence from Darwin's journals and private correspondence suggests that he was determined to *publish a massive, multi-volume work on species.* However, when he finished his long-term work on the Beagle voyage, he became preoccupied with research he was carrying out on invertebrates and particular barnacles - and in 1849 he wrote to Hukker advising him that he regarded this as a fascinating subject he would get through *before moving on to the species theory.* Ill health delayed the work further, pushing the work on species late into the 1850s. In 1858, however, Alfred Wallace hit on a strikingly similar theory, spurring Darwin to action and prompting him to publish *a much shorter account* - this became the *'Origin of Species.'* As we know, he then expanded on his ideas in later books to deal with the Descent of Man etc. Just to be clear, the paragraph above is a mash-up of John Van Wyhe's account of why it took Darwin so long to publish his ideas - JvW was rejecting the idea that Darwin was delaying publishing his ideas for fear of push-back from theologians and the 'believing' public. Darwin was simply a procrastinator who got obsessed with other matters of interest. It must be remembered that in the early C19th, there were many ideas being bandied about to try to explain what had become totally obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain - that Life on Earth is in a constant state of change. In fact one such observer, *Patrick Matthew.* who in 1831 wrote about trees being grown for use in ship-building, had included in the appendix some observations about how plastic species appear to be and after reading 'Origin' complained that Darwin had 'stolen' his ideas. Darwin, expressed ignorance of Matthew's rather obscure work but nevertheless acknowledged his insight in later editions of 'Origin'. The start of the industrial revolution in the UK, creating a need for coal-mining, meant that many more fossils were being unearthed than were being exposed by random erosion. More and more, 'scientific societies' were being formed and at their meetings, it is only natural that these findings would be the topic of conversations - with the result that the obvious Truth of Evolution by Natural Selection would be 'out' very soon - that Diversity *wasn't* created by Extinction followed by Special Creation of very similar species but that Species *'morphed'* by some means. Darwin got lucky and recognized 'Natural Selection' as the key mechanism in what everybody else was starting to acknowledge and was able to express this to the public in a way they could easily understand before anyone else did. Darwin had the foresight and breadth of experience to see its implications for ALL life on Earth, something Matthew didn't have and didn't spend 30 years developing into a full Theory - which is why you've probably never heard of him. Lots more detail Patrick Matthew's 'wiki' page. btw, Wallace could never let go of the idea that the *variation* life-forms experience was not *'guided'* by some interfering busy-body (between watching what people were doing in their bedrooms) - he couldn't prove it (I wonder why not) and so gave up on the idea.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

Yes, I know 'Hukker' is not spelled that way, but YT won't let me spell it correctly.

[@numbersix9477]

You obviously know a number of Darwin's thoughts and motivations. Did you know him personally? Did he confide in you? If so, why did he confide in you?

[@allenjenkins7947]

I disagree with his views on the relative merits of women and dogs.

[@numbersix9477]

@@allenjenkins7947 Darwin has been dead for well over a century. I know of no mechanism whereby you could challenge him on the views that he held when he WAS alive.

[@valor36az]

Great talk McFly

[@billderinbaja3883]

Nice of you to say so Biff Tannen

[@is-be6725]

You got me... I laughed.

[@tenplusten1116]

I’m sure this video will in no way spark any arguments in the comments!

[@woodygilson3465]

The fact that arguments persist points to the need for more videos like this one.

[@incognito7671]

I do feel sad about all the souls that will not make it at the end, but they do have the same chance here that I have. Christianity is not a religion, it is the reality that we all live in every day, whether we believe it to be so or not. All souls belong to God, it's up to each individual to decide what path they want to take. Consider where you came from and where you are going in the end. You decide your own fate.

[@garywalker447]

Nope. That is just more nonsense from your bloody dogma.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

Claims aren’t evidence, amigo.

[@tebogo743]

You can't disprove evolution at this point, you can only improve the understanding, like newtonian gravity and Einstein's general relativity

[@thandasibisi7534]

They simply deny it happens, which is not the same thing as "disprove".

[@erronsears750]

This is not proving evolution theory. This is natural selection. Adaptations that already exist in the DNA, not new DNA being created. The argument of devolution could be made because data is being lost, not gained. You can breed wolves down to yorkies but not yorkies up to wolves.

[@Delfontes]

Ironic that it gave me an ad for a religious college before a talk on evolution. :)

[@Delfontes]

Ricahrd P'Brien That's good to know I guess. If always assumed they taught that the six thousand year old Earth was the center of the universe.

[@bengoins4366]

Because they’re both methods of controlling the masses. “You are an animal and need to be controlled”

[@kedwa30]

Evolution has never contradicted the religious. In fact, Hinduism was teaching 'Evolution' before it was even called Evolution.

[@kennyw871]

"religious college," isn't that an oxymoron?

[@thegreatbehoover788]

@@kedwa30 In the BEGINNING God created... Wow. I guess it DOES CONFLICT.

[@waltsnow1762]

.....science flies you to the Moon.........religion flies you into buildings.........

[@notpulverman9660]

Islam = westernized religions, how? Christians make up like 90% of people who believe in some kind of higher power in America, and yet Muslims STILL commit the vast majority of religious violence?

[@notpulverman9660]

Blame it on culture or "oppression" _(even while Muslims go home to their gated communities, with 250% of the income of white Christians)_ but Christianity is still NO WUERW NEAR the level of violence of Islam. Christian books have the endorsements for violence, yes. But do they cite these endorsements for violence every single time the priest opens his mouth, like in Islam? NO.

[@notpulverman9660]

WESTERN religion serves as a reserve of inspiration to create; and to do beautiful things, and to sacrifice for your family and nation. (Islam encourages sacrifice for Islam, and only in the form of violence, and giving money to fund violence).

[@notpulverman9660]

9/10 engineers and scientists who sent us to the moon were theists, simply because of their culture, and because we as westerners are Christian, Jews, and Pagans, by nature of our histories.

[@notpulverman9660]

Stop bashing religion. Most religious people believe in evolution. They just question it more often, while atheists religiously follow it. For example: m

[@republica7337]

A simple request. Can you fill in those arrows?

[@JesusFace]

Different birds on different islands is a great example of adaptations. Birds only produce other birds, there is no evidence to the contrary.

[@Lou13Cyf3r]

what do u think those adaptations are?!?! "birds produce birds", don't regurgitate Hovind

[@jesuschrististheonlywaytoe4899]

RoAcH812 What do you think those adaptations are since they are surely not prove of macro evolution?

[@JesusFace]

@@jesuschrististheonlywaytoe4899 Proof of intelligent design.

[@youareright4600]

Truth

[@loganascher451]

@@JesusFace literally nothing in this video points to intelegent design

[@adityashah5597]

so calm, clear and interestingly presented. thank you. :)

[@emmadabdelkrim3073]

He never mentioned How they found evolution is True!!!

[@madisont3123]

@@emmadabdelkrim3073 uhhh... that's what the whole thing was. Maybe watch it again or as many times as you need to.

[@hicow6075]

@@emmadabdelkrim3073 Weird how you people have no interest in actually properly understanding and viewing the evidence. It doesn't make it false because you can't comprehend it.

[@ChrisFineganTunes]

imad krimo Multiple fields of study with multiple lines of evidence that all point to the exact same conclusion. Kinda like being in a court room at a murder trial and having DNA evidence, a GSR test, witness testimony, CCTV footage, GPS records and tyre/shoe treads all pointing to the same person. Under those circumstances, some guy saying 'I've got an ancient book that I interpret as saying this man is innocent' doesn't really carry much water.

[@emmadabdelkrim3073]

@@ChrisFineganTunes you can't apply this analogy to justify that evolution is so evident and we ! , the other people just can't aknwoledge the fact that it is Evolution Many scientist criticized evolution and pointed to flaws in its claims These scientist just pointed there May be A Creator behind Nature They were not treated with scientific respect and openmindness No they were Bullied It's more like Evolution is a doctrine And it's a Temple of Atheists Not a scientific theory