Natural Selection is the Exact Opposite of Evolution

[@kreativekat319]

When I worked in the NICU, we saw a lot of babies with rare genetic syndromes. Often the babies would have the most severe symptoms, requiring surgeries. When the genetics doctors evaluated the families, they realized one parent would have milder symptoms and the grandparent would have even milder symptoms. They all weren’t diagnosed until the latest generation. I realized then we are not evolving-we are actually losing genetic diversity.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

We are not losing genetic diversity. Have you ever talked to an actual biologist.

[@kreativekat319]

@ I am one. You don’t have to be insulting. Why would you even visit this channel? They explain how natural selection IS the process of losing genetic diversity. I just provided another piece of evidence.

[@kreativekat319]

@@vladtheemailer3223 I am one. I have my doctorate from the university of Tennessee. Please be respectful and not insulting. If you listen to the video, they explain that natural selection is the process of losing genetic diversity.

[@ji8044]

@@vladtheemailer3223 Nope, but he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express one night. LOL

[@ji8044]

@@kreativekat319 No you don't have a doctorate in anything related to science. "Patterns of genetic diversity inform us about population history because each major demographic event leaves an imprint on a population's collective genomic diversity. A reduction in population size reduces genetic diversity, and an increase in population size eventually increases diversity." Dr Lynn Jorde, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the University of Utah. "they explain that natural selection is the process of losing genetic diversity." Absolutely no geneticist in the world would agree with that. If it was true then the hundreds of supposed species that Noah took on the supposed Ark would have resulted in tens of species.

[@cyndifalk]

I'd love to see more videos of these two talking about the creation stuff that interests them. For instance, a more thorough discussion of the Rift Lakes in Africa would be fascinating! Maybe a discussion for your members-only section.

[@GodID7]

Dr. Rob Carter is the man. Always a pleasure listening his perspectives and knowledge. God bless.

[@MultipleGrievance]

I'm only an amateur in this conversation about speciation and natural selection. But one thing I have noticed is the materialists who come on to this page to mock it appear to know no next to nothing about these topics. ALL they know is; " We are right, and you are wrong" They don't even try to understand the science.

[@sirsaint88]

Yes, naturalist/materialist/atheist are committed to a philosophy and get very very very upset when their beliefs are cross examined scientifically.

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

They will reference you to study their 'holy text', scientific journals and peer reviewed papers written by their false prophets. I know that sounds harsh and extreme, but it really is a wolf in sheeps clothing. "Oh we are just doing research in the name of scientific knowledge", but they wont research hybridization,, the absolute enemy of speciation

[@MultipleGrievance]

@sirsaint88 Seems like the classical case of having your presuppositions challenged. I recognize it because that's something I used to do. I use to reflexively attack non theists wherever I found them online. Even if I knew very little about the topic, I would say something nondescript. Just like they do here.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

​@MultipleGrievance The TOE isn't going away, and scientists are not starting to reject it. You get mocked for lying and making stuff up.

[@MultipleGrievance]

@vladtheemailer3223 But yes, It is getting increasingly common for experts in the fields to acknowledge that natural selection through random mutation (aka- neodarwinianism) Isn't adequate to describe natural phenomena anymore.

[@lerpracrer]

"Natural selection is not proof of evolution, doesn't really support evolution and is part of the creationist model. Natural selection is not evolution.[...] It has no power. It can't create anything new...Darwin's brainchild was a complete bust." Great interview! A masterclass on very interesting themes from real science. [Thanks from Brazil! God bless!]

[@vladtheemailer3223]

Evolution is proof of evolution. Spewing nonsense won't make it go away.

[@jstube36]

@@lerpracrer Natural Selection is what guides a certain species on the basis of what is necessary for survival of that survival. Certain natural environments and climates do tend to effect the reproduction process.

[@paulanthony7464]

​@vladtheemailer3223 Macro evolution has never been observed, only assumed. When you stand before the one and only Creator ask Him

[@stevelever83]

Their lying for God. You can't get through to them

[@jstube36]

@@paulanthony7464 And who is this " Creator"? Is it Ptah, is it Anu, is it Yahweh? Which load of Ancient Mythology are we to believe? Or maybe it is more reasonable to answer None of the above.

[@H4KnSL4K]

Great interview and well explained! Thanks so much

[@moxadurgin2508]

Thank you from a biologist who is also a returned prodigal daughter!

[@doptagd]

Just heard a BBC news story about 1.2-million-year-old bubbles detected in an antarctic ice core and thought of you guys.

[@DamienMearns]

Take just over half pack of cards - 28 cards. Shuffle and take 14 of those cards. Put them back in the half pack and reshuffle To work through all the combination to re-select those same cards in that same order will take 3.5 X 10^18 tries The universe is only 4.35 X 10^17 seconds old ! There is no chance that life could have been created and evolved by random chance. There is not enough time, not even close to being anywhere near enough time. Random chance can only work for a few dice and card games... but not all of them !

[@JumpingJack-w2l]

Here’s the plan: all creationists assemble and start doing exactly what you just described-with anti-cheat measures in place. In less than 1,000 years, we’ll finally know if Jesus loves YEC.

[@seanpol9863]

Your card analogy misses the point entirely. Evolution isn't about random chance alone-it's a process guided by natural selection. Mutations are random, but natural selection isn't; it favours beneficial traits that help organisms survive and reproduce. Over billions of years, tiny, incremental changes accumulate, producing complexity. As for time, the age of the universe isn't the relevant figure-it's the Earth's 4.5 billion-year history. Life didn't appear fully formed but gradually emerged from simple organic molecules. Experiments like the Miller-Urey one have even shown how basic building blocks of life can form under early Earth-like conditions. Lastly, comparing evolution to shuffling cards is flawed. Evolution isn't trying to "select" a specific sequence like your card analogy implies. It's about adapting to the environment over countless generations, not aiming for a pre-determined outcome. Evolution works because of the vast time scales and the cumulative effect of small changes-not blind luck.

[@DamienMearns]

@@JumpingJack-w2l Here’s the plan: ask a school boy to check the maths

[@JumpingJack-w2l]

@@DamienMearns why? Your card tricks are trivial and prove nothing, but if creationists managed to actually pull this off, it would at least demonstrate they genuinely believe in what they're saying-even if they're ultimately wrong. It could even become a more entertaining attraction, like an AiG theme park, but with more purpose.

[@JumpingJack-w2l]

@@DamienMearns Are you seriously impressed by numbers someone told you prove Jesus? Combinatorics is a field of math that naturally generates huge numbers, but those numbers can vanish the moment you change something in the input data or how it combines. And your number isn’t even that big-Avogadro’s constant, for example, is 10^23, representing the number of atoms in 12 grams of carbon, each capable of reacting simultaneously. So, if you want to impress yourself into believing in Buddha or Vishnu, just use more cards-you can reach any value you want. Aim for the 10^700 range; some creationists seem to find that level impressive enough for their self-deception.

[@jotunthe11thhyman65]

Let's credit Edward Blyth for the idea of natural selection, even if Darwin took the work and added the term.

[@sifundogumede8883]

And he didn't even give him credit for his work in his book . That is what you call a copycat😅

[@juerbert1]

Brilliant conversation !😅 Thank you !

[@TickedOffPriest]

Epigenetics is fascinating.

[@Critter145]

Intelligent Design is the only reasonable conclusion when specified complexity that opposes entropy is observed in any group of atoms that perform a function requiring knowledge of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Nobody would think the Antikythera Mechanism was produced by coral anemones over millions of years because that conclusion is absurd. Nobody should think the totality of organic biology is the result of successive accidental coincidences over unimaginably huge tracts of time, yet we are told that Evolution created life and not a Creator Who exists above Nature. Not to mention the fact that supposed atheists attribute personality to a process which is claimed to be impersonal, unintelligent, and indifferent. The exact opposite is, in fact, the Truth. The Creator is Personal, Beyond Intelligence, and Loving. How else can you explain the obvious influence of Genius and Creativity on Life.

[@FECtetra1918]

Who created God?

[@markgilrosales6366]

@@FECtetra1918 None. And that is a red herring.

[@DavidJohnAr]

@@FECtetra1918 creation requires time as reference - there is a non existence and an existence, those are two discrete states subsequent to each other which is the definition of time. God is outside of time. Therefore your question is meaningless. Back to the drawing board.

[@martinlee465]

Any argument against creation is an argument from pride and haughtiness and supposedly supportive proof is conjecture, but enough for those who think they hide their face from God. They have the God given right to choose but reputation and livelihoods direct this choice and blind many to the obvious. Instead of giving the glory due to God for the Majesty of creation, they lead people into darkness which is the artificial light of men.

[@pianogal853]

Well explained 👍

[@justinstewart3248]

You guys are making great points, but you’re ruining your stance by taking a position of demonizing Darwin. He didn’t have an “agenda” or anything evil in his heart. This wasn’t an attempt to destroy a biblical world view - it was Simon an attempt to explain what we see. He did a great job of it too. Just because he got some things wrong doesn’t mean he was off track.

[@seanpol9863]

"You guys are making great points" I'd be very careful Justin as channels like this one are in the habit of cherry picking facts to fit in with the Bible narrative. And yes, Darwin wasn't trying to undermine religion or push an agenda-he was simply observing nature and trying to explain what he saw, like the diversity of species and their adaptations. He didn't get everything perfect (no one does in science), but his theory of natural selection has stood the test of time because it's supported by mountains of evidence, from fossils to genetics. Demonising Darwin ignores the fact that science is about building on ideas, correcting mistakes, and seeking the truth-not about attacking beliefs. Yes, some scientists might, people like Richard Dawkins or Neil deGrasse Tyson come to mind, but science itself doesn't care about your religion.

[@abhinava5149]

Am i allowed to *believe* that evolution is real and is factual and you guys are making stuff up?

[@philiprobertson1102]

You can believe whatever you want just as these guys do but what does the real science say as opposed to just so stories!

[@henryschmit3340]

Exactly. There is nothing in nature, the fossils etc, that doesn't fit creation... far better.

[@pianogal853]

I understand that even Charles said that if massive amounts of fossil evidence of transient species were not found, his theory would be bust. Here it is.

[@FrugalRoo]

Nothing fits creation but even if it did, how does it make your god the one that is responsible?

[@henryschmit3340]

@FrugalRoo Everything fits creation, and with one universal set of physical laws, the one omnipotent God of the Bible is the best candidate.

[@martinlag1]

It might surpise you to know that many scientists are atheists. Even moreso, biologists are atheists. Biological evolution provides a scientific mechanism for origin of species better than the God theory. This is why scientists tend to be atheistic. This is the reason thatr your claim that biology proves the Bible comes with no evidence and no credibility.

[@Mark-h2s]

​​@@pianogal853what are you talking about? He was talking about intermediates or transitionals, and plenty have been discovered since his time. Part of a scientist's job is to figure out different ways their hypotheses and theories and everything may not work. That's why he mentioned what you talked about, among other things, in his books.

[@Melbournezack117]

Great conversation 👍

[@baraskparas9559]

That's the smart way to go guys. Whatever science demonstrates to be true all you need to reply is that " God made it so " and us evolutionists have nowhere to go. A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general . Whatever naturalists say , whatever we demonstrate or think we know the person of faith can simply reply " that was Gods plan all along " with the Bible written by people who could not understand the details of creation. Way to go !

[@stephenwright4973]

I bought your book, Barask, but I'm already disappointed in your assertion that it "outlines abiogenesis in great detail." One early disappointment was the misapplication of Hess's Law. Let's grant, for the moment, that all of the individual steps from simple chemicals (HCN, H2S, CO2, CH4, etc) to an entire suite of biomolecules are thermodynamically favorable. Isn't it quite a stretch to wave "Hess's Law" and say that the overall process is therefore "inevitable"? Shouldn't kinetic barriers, waiting times, plausible concentrations, side reactions, and intermediate degradations be taken into account?

[@baraskparas9559]

@stephenwright4973 All that statement re Hess' law in the book points out is that there are several ways to synthesise a chemical so that if an intermediate becomes poisonous or unavailable then there is often a more circuitous or direct way to arrive at the same essential product. At home I have produced a poster with pyruvate as a reactant in the synthesis of over 90 chemicals with only one other reactant and a catalyst ( inorganic, organic, ribozyme, physical, acid- base or enzyme ). All I'm saying is that no matter how circuitous a reaction is , it will not be any dearer by way of energy to produce the same products from the same reactants. That is what Hess' law states - the kinetics and anaplerotic reactions are calculable if you use examples , which I didn't here because I was making a general theoretical point.

[@mr.zyplexer6983]

I wonder why he doesn't know that all the current breeds of dogs we have now just didn't appear all of a sudden. Yes, it's obvious the genetics were there but it was breeding of dogs that brought about all the breeds we see today and not natural selection.

[@markgilrosales6366]

It is directed natural selection. You choose the dogs with specific qualities.

[@rizdekd3912]

But saying it's not 'natural' selection presupposes humans aren't natural.

[@peterdamaris7112]

The link doesn't work correctly. When I click submit I get an API error.

[@AighEnoughAlready]

Anyone who thinks the circaseptan biorhythm in every organism just happens to coincide with a Babylonian custom is kidding oneself.

[@seanpol9863]

Ah yes, the "coincidence equals design" argument. The circaseptan biorhythm, a roughly seven-day biological cycle, likely arises from internal and environmental rhythms, not ancient Babylonian customs. It's a bit of an exaggeration (and that's an understatement) to connect biology with ancient calendars when there's no evidence of causation. Just because two things align doesn't mean one caused the other-otherwise, we'd all believe horoscopes. Evolutionary biology doesn't rely on vague numerology; it's built on observable, testable science. Let's not confuse cultural traditions with biological facts.

[@markgilrosales6366]

@@seanpol9863 oh yeah the grand claim of observable and testable. Name one demonstrable evidence of protozoa to human evolution. The circaseptan biorhythm, a roughly seven-day biological cycle, likely arises from internal and environmental rhythms, not ancient Babylonian customs.//// Likely? So you do not know? Rough coincidence? lol.

[@pianogal853]

38:23 Are you meaning grandmother, or mother here? As in the mother's mother while the baby was developing, while her eggs were being formed?

[@MultiTacs]

A finch with a changed beak is still a bird:)

[@JumpingJack-w2l]

And also a dinosaur.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

It sure is, and that statement tells me that you never read anything Darwin wrote.

[@Mark-h2s]

Yep, and those populations of birds evolve. You don't know what evolution is, do you?

[@Mark-h2s]

Wow, scientists didn't know that!

[@JimmyDAal]

It's interesting that you were concerned about personifying natural selection. I have seen time and time again, high profile evolutionists in articles and documentaries doing just that with evolution. They make evolution seem like this independent, intelligent force that made all of these brilliant things. They make no apology for doing it, and in fact I think they encourage this form of thinking. I think it's because in a way it helps to validate the supposed creative force of evolution. Like it's based on something much grander than just plain random chance. It's like they themselves even find it difficult to accept that what they are explaining can be attributed to just dumb luck.

[@seanpol9863]

First of all, no one's claiming evolution is some magical, intelligent force with a master plan-that's your department, mate. Evolution is a natural process driven by non-random selection acting on random variation. High-profile scientists even explain this clearly, but I get how it's easier for you to misinterpret it as "dumb luck" rather than grasp concepts like natural selection or genetic drift. If anything, calling it "dumb luck" is like calling gravity "magic glue." Maybe try understanding the basics before projecting your own need for grand cosmic puppeteers onto science.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

Stop making stuff up.

[@iriemon1796]

People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Creationists believe in evolution too, and use it to explain how we came to have millions of species on the planet from the few thousand an most that would fit on the ark. And they make no apology for doing it, and encourage this form of thinking. They just call it something else because, well, you know, we are way to important to have evolved from lesser species. By the way, was Neaderthal on the ark? I've always wondered about that.

[@seanpol9863]

​@@iriemon1796You're right that creationists often accept a form of evolution, though they call it "microevolution" to distinguish it from the broader evolutionary processes they reject. The problem is they try to fit it into a young Earth framework, which collapses under scientific scrutiny. Evolution over billions of years, supported by genetics, the fossil record, and observable speciation, explains the diversity of life far better than the "few thousand kinds on an ark" theory. And no, Neanderthals weren’t on the ark-they were a distinct group of archaic humans, as proven by their DNA in modern human genomes. Science gives us real answers, not vague guesses wrapped in mythology.

[@Samanthasupernovaa]

“You know what ‘we now know means’” haha that was funny 😂

[@cedricpaige8044]

Professor Dave is gonna have a field day with this one.

[@MultiTacs]

Even with hybridization birds are still birds. Changes in a species don't create new species! A bird is still a bird. Change within a species not change from one species into a different distinct species.

[@JumpingJack-w2l]

The silversword alliance, also known as the tarweeds,[1] refers to an adaptive radiation of around 30 species in the composite or sunflower family, Asteraceae. The group is endemic to Hawaii, and is derived from a single immigrant to the islands. For radiating from a common ancestor at an estimated 5.2±0.8 Ma, the clade is extremely diverse, composed of trees, shrubs, subshrubs, mat-plants, cushion plants, rosette plants, and lianas.[2]

[@vladtheemailer3223]

Yes, birds will always be birds just like they will always be animals. Even if they evolve to look like a cow, they will still be birds. Please take time to learn about evolution.

[@JumpingJack-w2l]

What the heck is 'hybridization' in creationists' world? I suspect it's another yec innovation to gaslight and fool themselves.

[@JohnA-bear]

​@@vladtheemailer3223That doesn't even make sense. Seems like you are trying to stretch a thought into something it is not.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

@JohnA-bear It doesn't make sense because you don't understand how it works. Wolves will always be canines, carnivores, mammals, etc. Nothing escapes its evolutionary heritage. No matter what changes happen to birds, they will always be birds. It's not really that hard to understand. Terms like species and phylum are categories that humans created. They are labels that we assign. Words are not that which they describe.

[@FECtetra1918]

😂😂😂 Please, don’t stop making these. They make me laugh so much.

[@DavidJohnAr]

You have 100+ comments on this channel. Start a family.

[@FECtetra1918]

@ We all laugh at you together. It’s quite satisfying.

[@ibkomododragon8]

At around the 22 minute mark he claims that there are limits to how much things can adapt but I don't really see him provide evidence against that. He makes a comparison to making a tape-measure but this doesn't prove that there are limits on these kinds of things, especially since we know tape measures are made by humans, however organisms as far as we know are not. Really bad comparison if you ask me.

[@23Raind]

Pointing to the different origin of the 2 things compared is not an invalidation of the comparison. A genuine logical error must be pointed out, and indeed the ability of creatures to change has shown limits. Including the inability of natural selection and mutation to create the key steps required for transforming organs into something radically new, or creation of new body types. The belief this happened is based on naturalistic storytelling from fossils, not scientific observations.

[@23Raind]

This is why increasingly biologists doubt neo-darwinism (1/3rd if you ignore the increasing ID group) and push for an extended synthesis (ie the accepted mechanisms of evolution aren't enough, so we are now speculating about several possible mechanisms to rescue the the theory).

[@ibkomododragon8]

@@23Raind Organisms reproduce themselves and show clear change between generations which is completely different to tape measures all of which are created by humans. That is one such error in the comparison. You say that creatures ability to change has shown limits, can you elaborate? Next what statistics do you have to show that scientists are increasingly doubting "neo darwinism" and what are you refering to with "1/3rd if you ignore the increasing ID group"

[@richiejourney1840]

This very same Biologist reviewed a published paper not to long ago, that showed over time, the adaptors in natural settings tend to average out the adaptations (reverting back to the average). That is, they are not showing any form of evolving into something else.

[@John-100]

Yes, some comparative metaphors are not the best fit to express what you want to say so others can understand, but you do understand what he means, so while not a true comparative, it is understandable.

[@mellowfellow14]

The bible teaches that it's a sin to bare false witness. What will you say to God when you've made an entire institution based on lies and likey profiting off it? I'd ask you directly, but you banned my facebook and blocked my emails for refuting your posts with studies (lets see how long this stays up)

[@ji8044]

The speaker here, Dr. Robert Carter, specialized in coral reefs in his education, but he hasn't even worked in that field in 20 years. He has no degrees or work experience in the field of human genetics or paleontology. Almost his entire adult career has been spent as a representative of the Creation Ministries.

[@philiprobertson1102]

@@ji8044 So? Deal with the argument and science which will either be valid or not regardless of what you say about the man’s technical or lack of of formal technical qualifications. After all how often have “experts” been found to be wrong?

[@abhinava5149]

@@philiprobertson1102 in my humble opinion creationism is not real My qualifications : does not matter apparently Your reasoning : That book

[@JumpingJack-w2l]

​@@philiprobertson1102those "experts" that get invited on this channel always wrong (or intentionally deceiving). But good things they are not experts.

[@ji8044]

@@philiprobertson1102 So if you were having a heart attack, would you go to a hospital or a hair salon? If you don't need "experts" the hair salon will be a lot cheaper.

[@DestinyLabMusic]

If you would like to hear some Creation based music exposing the lie of evolution look up Destiny Lab music and songs like Creation is Proof, A New Religion, Who Am I?, Happy Atheist, No Absolutes, Time, Dig, Unseen Zones and many many more!

[@billybridgeforth]

Compelling content, but really hard to hear "Got it!" every other sentence.

[@rizdekd3912]

Why is it compelling content? They claim the mechanism for evolution was built in to life itself and then say Darwin was wrong. That seems to mean Darwin was right and was merely describing a process (some think) God created.

[@pianogal853]

42:07 about Charles, did you see the book Mr. Taylor wrote about him?

[@John75Mulhern]

If God was the engineer then he should be sacked by EVERY single person on the planet

[@philipbuckley759]

I am thankful for these sites promoting creation....

[@someguy-g4r]

There are flat earth channels that are just as scientifically valid. Which is to say not at all.

[@1969cmp]

As an ex-atheist and former materialistic evolutionist, so am I. 🙂

[@pianogal853]

I would say 'for these channels explaining creationism vs Darwinian evolutionism'

[@Mark-h2s]

Promoting creation is fine, lying about science is not.

[@someguy-g4r]

@Mark-h2s they kinda go hand in hand.

[@thehitomiboy7379]

The hybridization of pythons via ball pythons is what made me realise creationist model was correct.

[@FECtetra1918]

😂

[@temporary4384]

No!

[@tylerreed3754]

@@temporary4384😂! Genetics literally works in the opposite direction of what macro evolution would require were it true. It's called genetic entropy and is a fact.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

​@@tylerreed3754No, it isn't. You should actually consult a biologist before claiming that.

[@temporary4384]

@@thehitomiboy7379 creation science hasn't got any evidence that can stand the slightest wiff of

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

The sad thing is if Darwin had realized his comic book drawings and MCU rendition of cellular function was fantasy realm musings he could have went down in history as the greatest science fiction writer of his day. He didn't realize aqauaman would be a far more plausible mutant than a packeacetus mutating/ evolving into a whale. He was self delutioned into believing his fantasy drawings were real and that he understood cellular function. This was his failure. A man who didn't know his limitations.

[@seanpol9863]

Ah yes, Darwin's "comic book drawings" and "MCU cellular fantasy"-clearly the 19th-century scientist should have known the intricacies of molecular biology and genetics a hundred years before they were discovered. And comparing Aquaman to evolution? Bold move, mate. Darwin never claimed to know everything; he based his work on observable evidence, like fossils and species variation. If misunderstanding 19th-century science is your go-to argument, maybe leave the superhero analogies at the door and read an actual biology textbook.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

Why should anyone take that nonsense seriously?

[@iriemon1796]

I'm quite confident that Darwin never claimed a Pakicetus mutated into a whale.

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

@@iriemon1796 he didn't know many of the descriptors we use today thus the cartoon drawings he produced to explain his musings. He also had no clue a living cell had specified information In them which directs specified functionality. He explained his ideas as best he could within the severe limitation of his era

[@ralphreinert]

"He didn't realize aqauaman would be a far more plausible mutant than a packeacetus mutating into a whale." I hope you understand that biological evolution, even the basic concept as described by Darwin, did not involve individual animals transforming into new forms, like an individual pachycetus becoming a dolphin during its lifetime.

[@jameswaterhouse-brown6646]

I don’t think he knows much about dog breeding.

[@fyrerayne8882]

I concur

[@seanpol9863]

You're agreeing with an argument that's basically the equivalent of saying gravity is the opposite of falling? 🤔

[@fyrerayne8882]

@@seanpol9863 faulty analogy

[@juanpabloortega8206]

Haven’t started, let’s see how long they last without saying something stupid. 2:48. Ok so it isn’t stupid, it’s just a fallacy. It’s the begging the question fallacy. “A: God exists and natural selection exists. B: natural selection makes sense for God. C: Therefore natural selection is evidence for God.” Premise A already poses the conclusion “God exists” without giving any evidence for it, so it’s circular. The fact that not only God is included without being evidenced, but also biblical accuracy and a literal account of creation shows his intellectual dishonesty. Replace “God” with evolution and you get the same thing, except there’s tons of evidence for evolution

[@sadimontoya965]

Amazing !! Thank you

[@msd5808]

Each after their own kind

[@Infowarrior08]

What species where adam and eve? They couldn't of been Homo Sapien

[@ji8044]

They were Homo Clay.😁

[@seanpol9863]

No, I think they were Homo Dust (Genesis 2:7).

[@AMC2283]

i don't know--what species does your bible say they were?

[@3grog709]

I love this cannel, It's so entertaining to think about these things. Now heres why you're wrong: 1. Evolution is the product of speciation which is the product of natural selection. When a group of organisms separates from a group and adapt enough, if they are joined back together then they won't be able to reproduce, that's evolution. And we've seen it happen. SO no natural selection is not the opposite, you made that up. 2. Natural selection can handle those things, not the photosynthesis one, i'll give you that one, but that's another debate entirely, but the arms one is perfectly explainable, and bats are proof of that happening. Bats have an extremely similar complexion in their arms as humans do, but they have skin flaps in between larger fingers which makes their wings. This could have happened like we're seeing it happen with flying squirells who now only have the ability to glide short distances, but in time the ones who can glide longer will have better chances of survival, and in a distant future they'll probably get the ability to flap their wings and increase their height, hence, flight. 3. You just made that up, look at the change that the earth ent through and you'll understand how they weren't immediately vapourised. 4. Another just purely blatant lie, natural selection doesn't reduce gene pool, it changes it. You just don't seem to know how dna works, if you knew how meiosis works then you wouldn't even believe that. 5.Earlier animals had less chromosomes, so that's just another lie. Do you know how long it took for singular celled organisms even took to turn into pluricellular organisms? For what you say to be true, all living organisms would have an insanelly large amount of genetic material, just imagine every organisms different genetic material inside just one single celled organism, impossible. Even inside a human, it's impossible, and we know that we all had a common ancestor so saying that we had different origins doesn't work, then again evolution is also a fact and you ignore that and make up your own story. I could keep going but I think the message gets through well enough.

[@NJ-ju8fr]

So we really don’t have to care about extinctions. Extinction doesn’t exist. I am a peppered moth and some day I will return.

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

Science is based on observation and repeatable results, evolution has been demonstrated time and time again to have limitations. Many breeds of dogs, they can still breed with different breeds

[@iwkaoy8758]

You're confusing the word evolution width (Historical evolution) which has a different meaning than the word evolution. Yes wolves Historically evolution inn two pugs, but wolves did ant evolve in two pugs bee cause that's a oxymoron

[@erikt1713]

@@jacobostapowicz8188 Not all science works with experiments in a lab. For example, when studying volcanoes you need to take the eruptions as they occur, each of them unique. People study volcanoes even in the field in Germany, even though in that country no eruption has ever been recorded as they all occurred in prehistoric time. Same with astronomy. You cannot recreate a nova in a lab, and a "small nova" is impossible.

[@ji8044]

Yet they all came from wolves. LOL

[@Trackhawk707]

How about debating an actual biologist like Forrest Valkia? I'm sure a PhD in Coral reefs knows way more about natural selection and evolution than a Biologist /s 😂 Natural Selection is one of the drivers for Evolution. I don't know of any Biologist who says Natural Selection and Evolution are the same thing so it's a straw man argument to begin with.

[@seancapuano2505]

Forrest is awesome. I would love to see him pick apart this video.

[@3grog709]

besides i really think none of thesepeople would actually know what evolution actually is.

[@DavidJohnAr]

Forrest Valkai thinks men can get pregnant. Keep the Ph.D and stick to reddit buddy.

[@zzzzz77771]

Why didn't you listen to him?

[@3grog709]

@@DavidJohnAr And this guy thinks evolution is an unproven "theory".

[@paulgomez381]

the stupidity in the 1st words of this videos really are amazingly unbelievable. god such a good engineer he make sure his creation has the capability to adapt so how the hell 90% of species have ever lived already extinct. it is wether the bible not true or the god of the bible is really a bad engineer

[@danielmandigo636]

Creation and millions [f years don't mix

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

Oh dear. 20 seconds in and I'm cringing. Trying to incorporate evolution into your religion. What we know through evolution does not match your bible. Evolution relies on difficult environments where those that don't make it, die. An all loving god would not use something as brutal as evolution to make changes. Then the statement "if he hadn't most species would already be extinct" ...sigh...99% of all species so far _are_ extinct. Is there really any need for me to go past these first woeful 20 seconds?

[@MultipleGrievance]

No. Evolution exists regardless of whether or not the environment is harsh. It's simple adaptation. All organisms possess the ability. Inhospitable environments CAN trigger an adaptation, but it's not a law that it must.

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

@@MultipleGrievance _"Evolution exists regardless of whether or not the environment is harsh. "_ You totally missed, *or did not understand* the point. The point was about how the different species came to be. The person at the start is invoking evolution directed by god. That is what I was addressing. Try again.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@MarkH-cu9zi “An all loving god would not use something as brutal as evolution to make changes” 😂 Prove that. First, God is not “an ALL loving” God. Maximal Greatness of love is but one of His characteristics. But, YOU here, claim to be smarter than the Maximally Intelligent God. Therefore, proclaiming yourself to be God, explain it all to us oh lord.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@MarkH-cu9zi “99% of species so far are extinct” So much for a meaningful purpose huh?

[@richiejourney1840]

@@MarkH-cu9zi there was no need for you to watch this YT and comment either. You could have just changed the channel and watched something more meaningful to you.

[@IslandUsurper]

Is it just me, or do the chapter titles not match the video?

[@alejandropastorcuesta2543]

You guys just decide to ignore science and years of investigation... In the video you prove you either know nothing about the topic or you actually know but actively decide to mislead people

[@philiprobertson1102]

Well rebut the argument then!!

[@vladtheemailer3223]

​@philiprobertson1102 No need to. They made claims that are rejected outside of their own religious circle.

[@SeattleAllen]

@@vladtheemailer3223 you aren’t making an argument. You see that, right?

[@Infowarrior08]

If we were made in God's image then God is a Neanthertal or even earlier species!

[@thefinalroman]

DNA is a code so someone had to write it. No way around that.

[@seanpol9863]

Ah, yes, because if something looks like a code, it must've had a coder. By that logic, snowflakes must have a cosmic snowflake designer, and the rings in a tree must've been manually drawn, right? DNA isn't a "code" in the same way your computer has one-it's a chemical structure that follows physical and chemical laws. We even know how DNA evolved from simpler molecules through natural processes. RNA, a simpler precursor to DNA, can actually self-replicate and undergo natural selection. No mysterious author needed-just chemistry doing its thing over billions of years. Sorry, no cosmic typist here.

[@rizdekd3912]

Yes and No. If DNA appears to be a code, it appears thus because of what it can do...what it triggers/causes. So the real question is how did it come to be able to do what it does...right? But the same question applies to anything that can do things...including God. How does God have the features/attributes/capabilities (coding) TO be able to create? And if God can just 'have' that coding without explanation then so too could a natural world just 'have' the coding inherent that would ultimately allow for the formation of DNA and ultimately life. And IF God (or something capable of 'coding' things) just exists, then it seems just as likely that if it created a natural world, it may have created it SO THAT it could self organize into natural life that we see around us. That would mean that yes, DNA is coding, but it is coding that was built in to the natural world when it was created (coded) by God. So Darwin may still have accurately surmised that evolution due to natural selection DID happen and that is how natural life diversified throughout the earth all based on and due to a natural world created by God for that purpose. I mean...why ELSE would God create a natural world? An omnipotent God need not create a natural world just so later he can subsequently create life. No natural world is needed for life since most who believe God exists, also believe life exists outside of the natural world...ie in a supernatural In either case, a remarkable capability simply exists without explanation.

[@AMC2283]

your notion that the code in dna is anything but the chemicals of dna is completely totally utterly entirely wrong

[@thefinalroman]

@@AMC2283 chemicals 😆. U clearly know nothing...

[@rizdekd3912]

@@AMC2283 "your notion that the code in dna is anything but the chemicals of dna is completely totally utterly entirely wrong" The 'underlying' code of chemicals in general appear to quite complex and ordered...id not chaotic and random Otherwise, molecular structures that can replicate and mutate cannot have formed naturally....and they appear to have been observed forming in specific lab settings. So those chemicals had the properties to self organize into replicating and mutating/evolving structures.

[@swedee5870]

Great explanation for why animals changed more quickly within their families/kinds further in the past.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

(((^_^;)consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.

[@criticalthinker8007]

A lot of Darwin's research was funded by the church, Darwin was at least for a lot of his life Christian . Evolution does not deny or affirm a ultimate creator. The question is does one actually exist

[@akmurf7429]

"Darwin knew natural selection alone could not explain evolution". But instead of following the observations to their natural conclusion (God Created), he instead "moved the goal posts". Sounds to me like he had a bone to chew with regards to God, through denying the obvious. He was not going to acknowledge God no matter what (deophobia). Unfortunately, Darwin by his Deophobic ideas, gave others a false sense of escape (excuse) from gods judgement. But in reality their sin remains because they deep down know the truth (Joh 9:41).

[@vladtheemailer3223]

Evolution is real and doesn't disprove God. It only disproves your interpretation of the bible.

[@michaelrowell5143]

@@vladtheemailer3223 could you show me evidence of macro evolution without assuming 50% of your conclusion from the start? How can you possibly explain the incredible complexity of your very own body, not to mention your consciousness? What came first, your heart, lungs, blood or blood vessels? What about the extreme complexity of just a single piece within that system?

[@markh1011]

@michaelrowell5143 _" could you show me evidence of macro evolution"_ Macro evolution is the same as micro evolution but on a larger scale. The evidence is the same but the obvious example is fossils. _"How can you possibly explain the incredible complexity of your very own body, not to mention your consciousness?"_ So anytime something is difficult to explain - 'my god done it'. This is a terrible argument. _"What came first, your heart, lungs, blood or blood vessels? "_ You can find answers to this with a small amount of research. I see this all the time on creationist pages. They say "oh yeah well explain " ...as if their disinterest in learning is an argument.

[@michaelrowell5143]

@@markh1011 you do realize the fossil record is quite barren? Also just saying “god did it” is not a terrible argument considering that if an intelligent being did indeed exist, it would be astronomically more likely to create the design and order we see than the “theory” of evolution, along with consciousness. These things we see and take for granted are basically expected in a theists worldview, and doesn’t require the amount of faith an atheist must have. Really I think you need to look at the probabilities. I acknowledge there may be a possibility, no matter how slim that the universe suddenly materialized with the perfect conditions to allow life, and then did create life that is so extraordinary, beautiful, and complex; the issue I have though is that it requires an extraordinary amount of faith to come to this conclusion, while the existence of an intelligent being is the most rational explanation instead of betting on a universal fluke. In the end, we all have to live our lives as if people are rational, and we can truly trust our own mind, which is impossible on the materialistic worldview, which states we have no free will, and our perception of reality is a fleeting illusion.

[@markh1011]

@michaelrowell5143 _"you do realize the fossil record is quite barren?"_ lol no. The Smithsonian alone has 40 million fossils. _"Also just saying “god did it” is not a terrible argument considering that if an intelligent being did indeed exist, "_ I may as well say "saying the magical fairy queen did it is not a bad argument if she actually did!" Yeah it's a bad argument. It's a god of the gaps argument from ignorance.

[@Mark-h2s]

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. This has been known for a long, long time. Another one of those, 'we know more about biology than the world's biologists' videos. This is absurd. Why do you do this? Why don't you just stick to the Bible and preaching and stuff like that? Why do you have to misrepresent science all the time?

[@s.unosson]

That something has been known for a long time, or that most people believe something , is no evidence for anything.

[@Mark-h2s]

@s.unosson yep, true true

[@robertmcclintock8701]

(^^; This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it. Pigments have different rules than light. It took them thousands of years to get all the pigments they have now.

[@Peter_Scheen]

The title of this talk on its own shows that Evolution is not understood. I challenge anybody to give a chapter in this talk that they think is strong, I will address it.

[@NJ-ju8fr]

@@Peter_Scheen the weakest part was where an organism came from nothing

[@Mark-h2s]

@@NJ-ju8fr organisms didn't come from nothing, who said that? Are you referring to abiogenesis? Not synonymous with biological evolution

[@JumpingJack-w2l]

​@@NJ-ju8fryep, your answer clearly shows evolution is not understood by creationists. Even it's scope.

[@NJ-ju8fr]

@@JumpingJack-w2l I will admit I don't understand the scope of evolution. Does it cover anything before single-celled organisms?

[@JumpingJack-w2l]

@@NJ-ju8fr Well, I'm surprised. It's widely agreed that the origin of life is a separate field of research and not part of the theory of evolution, which focuses on how life changes and diversifies over time. The first forms of life were likely much simpler than today's single-celled organisms. Before that, the origin of life field explores how life began; since then, the scope of the theory of evolution takes over.

[@jstube36]

Darwin was spot on with his theory. Which has been proven in abundance to this day. It is now the basis for understanding how life works. How it develops over time. How variations of species descend with modification. Darwin does not deny a possible creator source. But it's quite presumptive to conclude it to be a supernatural deity. Especially since there remains no concrete evidence that any even exist.

[@PureSensation-g5d]

Sorry but you are wrong. Only as recently as 2024 I listened and read from science journals (not creationists) that Darwin’s theory has now been debunked. I can’t remember the names of these science articles but it wouldn’t be hard to find out. Not once has it been proven that one organism can change into another species. There is no proof to be found anywhere but we do know that live matter cannot develop from dead matter. I guess if you don’t believe in creationism or the God of the Bible then you will search for anything to support your view but so far there is nothing to prove your views. I suggest looking at the incredible billions/trillions of varieties of life on this planet, the sheer amazing complexity of life and then reconsider. A tree does not evolve into anything other than trees. A worm does not evolve into a human being and so on and so on. We also know why carbon dating is so incorrect. No we cannot scientifically prove God our creator but our own eyes can see his magnificence everywhere and in everything, just look into DNA. I hope you will look seriously into the proofs of creationism and then come to understand (as much as we feeble humans can) the God of the Bible and finally come to know Jesus Christ our Saviour. He loves and wants a relationship with you. God Bless.

[@MultipleGrievance]

Not only was darwin NOT spot on, even materialists within the scientific community are currently admitting Neodarwinianism is a pisspoor explanation for speciation. Every prediction that man made; From the fossil record, eventually showing evidence of intermediary species to the smallest single cell organism being a simple protoplasm...... have all been proven false.

[@pianogal853]

So, what is your definition of his theory? This whole video explains how new kinds of creatures, plants or fungus can come from nothing. What are you claiming that Charles said would bring about life from non-life? Or plants from Amoeba?

[@jstube36]

@pianogal853 Darwin's Theory has very little to do with how Life started. His conclusions are more about the process of Life. How each Species develops from a parent source. The Theory is based more on what is necessary for the survival of a given life.

[@MultipleGrievance]

@jstube36 You're almost there. Darwin's theory has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. His theory begins with pre existing organisms.

[@redearth8256]

Getting desperate now.

[@wsells]

Natural selection simply selects from existing information. It does not create new information. "New" information selected was already there and put there thru intelligent design by our Creator.

[@burntgod7165]

The only thing creationists need to do (apart from provide evidence for their god thing, of course) is to demonstrate the "stop" mechanism in the gene that halts change.

[@AJavusha7]

God is everywhere 🙏 either Animal are God (We all got God DNA either Animal too and the mind of the god universe eyes of the storm have god in them either falcon

[@kitemanmusic]

Why would photosynthesis happen? Plants require this, so which came first? Also, what about interbreeding, as there were only two humans to start off with? This is causing a problem in the Islamic community.

[@SheridanFalkenberry]

See this article here for the latter question! creation.com/inbreeding-and-origin-of-races

[@rizdekd3912]

"Why would photosynthesis happen? Plants require this, so which came first?" Photosynthesis could happen because light energizes chemical reactions and replicating molecular structures that could make use of that energy may have been selected for ahead of structures that couldn't do it. So that would mean photosynthesis evolved as did usage of other forms of energy utilization.

[@AMC2283]

save the irreducible complexity garbage, evolution isn't an assembly process

[@paulgomez381]

trees are not alive what the heck. this is what they are saying in the video

[@esrefcelikcelik8789]

Human beings ask for meaning and purpose in their lives and existence. No sound human mind would accept his existence as cosmic accident and purposeless nothing.

[@kyledrake9750]

If you require some esoteric cosmic purpose to have a feeling of meaning on a day to day basis, then you are putting your attention on the wrong things. An awareness and acceptance of what is, in the present, can give far greater value than thinking about the big picture of how we got here.

[@FECtetra1918]

It’s never been an accident. Only creationists say that. Purposeless nothing? What does that even mean?

[@richiejourney1840]

@@FECtetra1918”never been an accident” So, you agree it’s intentional.

[@andy91218]

no sound human mind believes in imaginary friends. At least not a mind with an average IQ.

[@esrefcelikcelik8789]

@andy91218 we will get soon the final answers to our essential questions . Have you any hope for your existence?

[@deltaaa_6]

its so funny to watch two guys sit in a room and describe evolution almost perfectly and then say that evolution isnt real

[@charlesmiller6281]

That’s because evolution breaks down into two main components- natural selection or micro evolution that accounts for variation in color, size, fur, etc, and evolution or speciation that results in new species. You’re lumping them both together. Creationism acknowledges the reality of micro evolution and claims this is evidence of design. Because each species was designed with variation built in to adapt to different environments over time. Evolution in terms of accounting for new species however is an utter failure with no supporting evidence. Materialism cannot account for new species. Intelligent design however, no problem. The only logical conclusion is both senses of evolution support intelligent design.

[@deltaaa_6]

@ you know that evolution is not necessarily changing species? even if species didnt change do to evolution, which we have astronomical amounts of proof for, evolution itself does not necessitate changing species. evolution is simply the change in allele frequency in a population over time

[@charlesmiller6281]

@@deltaaa_6 Factually incorrect. The TITLE of Darwin's paper is literally On The Origin Of Species Through Natural Selection. Evolution is therefore used to mean BOTH variation within a species AND ALSO the creation of new species. Or are you such an authority you get to overrule the father of evolution himself?

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

@@charlesmiller6281 _"Materialism cannot account for new species"_ Materialism? So you're just randomly swapping evolution, which _does_ account for new species with materialism. You don't understand the words you are using do you?

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

@@charlesmiller6281 I think deltaaa_6's point was that the definition of evolution isn't "new species"....and it's not, regardless of the title of Darwin's book.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Darwin is so mid-nineteenth century, the world has moved on with the new physics and the quantum vacuum, it is time to return to higher age thinking of humanity evolving from its own unique prototype, not the prototype of a different species. Richard Dawkins will still be toting the old ideology but he is past his due to leave center stage as there is a new kid on the block and it is not tied to or programmed by Darwinism.

[@blank-964]

👍

[@brothercarlos6944]

I would like to see how science can provide an explanation of the different languages other than the Bible. Was it a big bang of languages? also the first written language besides the book of Enoch, which is part of the Bible. Who taught them? Can a human write from birth or is he taught?

[@seanpol9863]

Science explains the origin of languages through gradual evolution, not a sudden "big bang." Early humans developed simple vocalisations to communicate basic needs, which evolved into more complex languages over thousands of years as social groups grew. Written language came much later-around 5,000 years ago-with systems like Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs. These weren't taught by some supernatural force; they were invented and refined by humans over generations to record trade, laws, and stories. Humans also learn to write through social teaching, not instinct, much like learning to speak. We know all this from studying ancient artefacts, linguistics, and even modern experiments in how children acquire language. In fact, human language is estimated to be at least 50,000 to 100,000 years old, emerging with the development of modern Homo sapiens. We can even infer this from archaeological evidence of symbolic behaviour (e.g., cave art, tools, and burial practices), the anatomy of speech-related structures like the hyoid bone, and genetic studies of language-related genes like FOXP2. Incidentally, humans aren't born with the ability to write; it is a learned skill that requires social teaching and practice.

[@jacktbugx1658]

Evaluation no money CREATION CASH COW FOR CHURCHES

[@rodwitzel9260]

Yes , adaptation is part of God's amazing creation and evolution is part of God's wonderful creation plan. No need to limit God in what God can do. ( By the way Darwin was not an atheist but a theist. ) Christ is Saviour and King. PTL

[@krissalkond]

Isn´t possible to find a middle ground? Evolution might be true and god just spinned it on with the intention that life one day would create us. A plan in the making

[@Eatmeat7459]

Can anyone here prove that there is a God Gods?

[@elguapo2831]

When you look at a building, you don't think that it built itself. We have only to see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand to recognize at once the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then is the existence of an intelligent Creator behind human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion "letters the longest "word" yet discovered? But people think it built itself.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

(　ﾟ 3ﾟ) It's intelligently designed that if you master evolution it just makes you a baby doctor.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

┐('～`;)┌ We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

(・・;) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of ''76 by The Alarm.

[@Eatmeat7459]

Can any one prove that there is a God Gods?

[@MuzaffarKrylov]

He said "a million years"... his teaspoon of concentrated sewer, inserted into the gallon of pure, clean water. Keep in mind that half of the world's dry land would have washed into the ocean during that 1 million years... That's what makes me wonder about this channel.

[@RogerTheFirstMate-w6u]

Is this the one debunking DNA ????? 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🥲🥲🥲