Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Natural Selection

[@sprouts]

To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Sprouts/ . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.

[@pyeitme508]

Meh 😑

[@sprouts]

@@pyeitme508 artists got to eat.

[@samuelguzman5348]

There's an apparent contradiction in your statements. Concerning the "real life" example of the moths, at 3:58 you said that the darker ones were "less prevalent", which you then at 4:38 attributed to "random genetic mutations" as per the Darwinian evolutionary presumption. How can that possibly be, if the dark moth was already in existence as attested by your previous statement? The "problem" of the chicken and the egg only becomes a "problem" within evolutionary biology. It's not a problem for us creationists, who believe that God created the chicken, a variation within the "bird" kind, with the "seed" within itself (in wisely designed complex reproduction systems) so it could "be fruitful and multiply".. yet the chicken still needs the rooster to fertilize her eggs in order to produce chicks... Hard for me to simply believe that this was a "process" of "random" chance and mutations.. God bless.

[@smgdfcmfah]

@@samuelguzman5348 You're missing the fact that just because one moth is more successful and become more prevalent, it doesn't mean the other kind will necessarily vanish completely. In many cases a new evolutionary line will completely replace the old one by simply out performing it, but in others it will become a new sub-species where the original version still exists but may not be quite as common as the new, more successful one. This is the case with the moths where the white ones were more common until the environment changed extremely quickly and the black ones were suddenly more successful. This reversed again in an even shorter period when human's reversed the environmental damage. I won't spend one moment arguing your faith with you, but I will say that you can believe in God and still believe in evolution.

[@alive_twicedead_once34]

Life only comes from life.

[@Galastel]

Darwin's ideas weren't actually formed in a vacuum. Breeding of certain traits has always been part of farming, and in Darwin's time pigeon breeding in particular was a fad among the rich - they'd breed pigeons with extra-long necks, or extra-fluffy feathers or whatnot. The leap Darwin made was that the same process could happen naturally, without a human breeder's intervention.

[@1wun1]

All humans could see this process in nature too, and the unmistakable resemblance between humans and other primates. Darwin went farther with the speciation and common ancestry ideas.

[@immortallegend648]

Darwin also theorized that Africans were less evolved than their white counterparts. I personally reject the whole premise of evolution opposed to natural design.

[@pmsteamrailroading]

Also about this time other branches of science noticed the world could not be only 6000 years old. The ideas of evolution had been presented before, but 6000 years would not have been enough time. When people understood how old the world really was, evolution became accepted. (Except in some parts of the US)

[@MarkUKInsects]

Quite right! and Darwin's 1st chapter was "Variation under domestication".

[@grahamrogers3345]

Common descent of all living things is not supported by anything presented here.

[@traildoggy]

You need a sensitive content warning. I had to cover my rabbit's eyes during one of those scenes. 🐰 🙈🙉🙊 😎

[@sprouts]

Oh no!

[@ashketchumismystudent780]

🤣🤣

[@teiuq]

You managed to condense the history of the theory the concept and an interesting example including human interference that sticks into 5 minutes! The visualization was just wonderful and i paused several times to enjoy the drawings that made me smirk. Thank you Sprouts!

[@sprouts]

Thank you ❤️

[@IBTU]

Love the artwork for these videos

[@sprouts]

Glad you like them! :)

[@TitularHeroine]

The answer to the chicken/egg problem is egg. Ancient reptiles (such as, ya know, dinosaurs) evolved far earlier than chickens. Nice questions to get that sweet viewer interaction!

[@ravi.k.t]

It should be dinosaur/egg problem

[@lhart99]

Genetics is definitely complex, but I feel the concepts of genetics such as natural selection can be easily understood by someone like me. Biochemistry, physics, and other highly abstract sciences just go right over my head.

[@spongebombepicpants1073]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKqkhXhviNmVgZo

[@SNEHDENCARDOSO]

After the man returned home after 5 years his wife had found other natural selection

[@BoredLoserAlpha]

This video and the Dark triad video just explains realism in humans. We are still animals.

[@creativityking4649]

True 🙃

[@Pygmygerbil88]

These drawings are super hilarious😂😂😂welldone.

[@pyeitme508]

Welp Charles Darwin did think of the Survival of the Fittest theory stuff🤣😂

[@IBTU]

What have you done expect be a troll😂

[@pyeitme508]

​@@IBTU it's except 🙄

[@IBTU]

@@pyeitme508🎉 here is a congratulations on figuring something out

[@MarkUKInsects]

He is nearly correct, look at Larmark

[@TheBlockyDeer]

This is what I wish I had in my 7th grade textbook instead of A VIDEO FOR 2ND GRADERS

[@abdullahrizwan592]

Good job explaining Darwin's theory in such a concise matter!

[@Gantros]

This episode should have a follow up on how natural selection and survival of the fittest were perverted into the ideology of Social Darwinism.

[@lionellion4621]

Wasn’t the whole species fixation thing, a Greek idea and not a biblical one? Like I’ve noticed a lot of the beliefs held by the early Roman Catholic Church, were Greek in origin.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

The Catholic Church ⭕⛪ has its own de facto scripture, so...

[@baraskparas9559]

Darwinian natural selection occurs at a cellular and molecular level. 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 using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP.

[@KARAIsaku]

Natural selection occurs of course. However, random mutations that are believed to provide genetic material for evolution, are a huge problem for the theory, since they are either harmful or just neutral (don't do anything). Genetic illnesses and cancer are prominent examples of harmful mutations.

[@KARAIsaku]

Expliquez s'il vous plait, ce que vous voulez dire.

[@thehowlingjoker]

We have seen beneficial mutations occur, including de-novo material.

[@s.unosson]

@@thehowlingjoker I'd like to know a couple of examples of those mutations.

[@indiankid8601]

​@@KARAIsaku not 100% mutations are harmful. I gave you an example above too. In fact the black moth mutation actually proved to be useful

[@UN1VERS3S]

Fyi. Charles Darwin believes in a creator. He proposed a theory on how it was created.

[@Technicalworld-e8y]

Hey, You explained in a very interested and lucid way👍

[@sprouts]

Glad you think so!

[@sarkkoa]

this is an excellent example of Negative Gentile Social Engineering... Facts...

[@vijyadasongrienchai5973]

Super cute characters! Love them very much.♥

[@sprouts]

Thanks! 🐰

[@PUM_Productions]

The Movie "Idiocrocy" shows how in modern sense this can be a big problem with humans. The super smart people go on to invent, stay busy and have little to no kids, but the dumb, good looking chads have a bunch of kids soon outpacing the smart ones. We still have our monkey brains and in blind test men and women still like looks over ability/smart.

[@HrabiaVulpes]

An interesting article I read as a kid claimed that perhaps humans originally had only dark hair and dark eyes, new colours (like in your rabbit example) emerged when there was deficit of reproductive partners in population. Article theorized that so many men died hunting, blondes had a greater chance of having kids due to being more distinct in a crowd of brunettes.

[@indiankid8601]

Humans still have dark hairs and dark eyes. What isolated island do you live in? 😂.

[@QuintonMalgas-d8u]

I think it makes sense to say the chicken came first because I've learnt that the protein that forms egg shells (chorion ) can only be produced by hens(chicken)

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

You heard wrong, there are many such proteins among all birds performing the same function. The protein specific to chickens is called ovocleidin-17, and it does enhance aspects of the shell formation, such as faster production. But the proteins prior were already adequate at this function, there is no conundrum at all. The egg came first.

[@fabianmckenna8197]

Dinosaur eggs...........

[@goodbye6490]

Well that would depend on if we are talking about the chicken and the egg or the chicken and the chicken egg

[@eksbocks9438]

Humans are in a unique situation. Where resources aren't as scare. We have defied the Laws of Nature with intelligence, societal organization, and use of tools. So, the priority shifts from Survival of the Individual. To survival of civilization. Something nature can't do. But human society can. -And throughout human history: Some civilizations have endured. While others didn't. The difference is what they actually did against real-world issues.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

No, evolution has always been changes in populations, not individuals. Civilisations ending and reforming have nothing to do with evolutionary processes. Certainly, our technologies and geographical distribution have slowed down the evolution of the human population, but we're still evolving under Nature's laws.

[@orenbartal8504]

While that is true in some ways, humans still evolve via natural selection and survival of the fittest - humans with genetic traits that makes them more resistant to disease/sickness will likely live longer and reproduce more than others. Modern medicine definitely "leveled the playing field" somewhat though, so it probably slowed the natural selection of the human species.

[@medooazmi]

Mutation is so low you cant know it happened even in 50 generations, so the changeablity is so unnoticeable

[@13thravenpurple94]

Great work Thank you

[@spongebombepicpants1073]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKqkhXhviNmVgZo

[@petersmythe6462]

Note that this does not mean "survival of the strongest." For example, it is perfectly possible for an animal to exist which is larger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more heavily armed than a bear. However, it would most likely also need more food, reproduce more slowly, have more existential crises, and injure itself in accidents more often than a bear. Evidently, the trade off doesn't always favor bigger number = more fit.

[@indiankid8601]

Your perfect animal is not fit then. 🤷🏼‍♂️. Survival of fittest is always true in nature. "Your" definition of "fit" is wrong here. Fit in evolution means the one who is best able to survive in environment it lives. When meteor fell from sky, dinosaurs died but cockroaches survived. Because cockroaches were best able to survive in environment that was created after that disaster.

[@waad6027]

0:10 The drawing or representation here is wrong.. This is a symbol of the Eye of Horus or the one-eyed Antichrist or the Beast, and he will claim divinity and many will follow him thinking that he is the true God, and he is the greatest sedition of the three monotheistic religions, and is not a symbol of the true God.. But according to what I see the general orientation of the media, I think This error is intentional.

[@sprouts]

👀

[@indiankid8601]

Darwin was a Christian by the way. He said "God is ultimate lawgiver".

[@chibha96]

I like this topic explanation and illustration.

[@izzyzle]

3:00 ??????? and the sound in the background ???? 😂😂😂

[@greenwaybikexploring]

what is the chicken-egg problem? Eggs developed before birds; eggs existed long before a bird commonly known as a chicken. Fish, sharks, amphibians, crustaceans, reptiles, are all examples of taxonomic categories of creatures that existed before birds and used eggs to reproduce. Eggs developed as an evolutionary function for reproduction long before birds evolved. Also, whatever ancestry exists by which the bird commonly known as chicken came about, the eggs of birds were already developed as a reproduction function long before the birds and long before the chicken. There's no problem.

[@profesormarcelo1]

Guau ! Genial CHEERS ARGENTINA TEACHER MARCELO GRACIAS .❤

[@jeremynikijuluwstanevil7551]

I saw what you draw in the rabbit comic panel

[@CarrieYildiz]

There is a scene not appropriate for children. See minute 2:59

[@MarkUKInsects]

"Survival of The Fittest" is often attributed to Charles Darwin, bus it was Herbert Spencer who first used the phase. Also Charles Darwin dinn't "invent" evolution, That was Lamark and others. Darwin's and Wallace's theory defined the process, (still brilliant).

[@joshuasbecreative8444]

Awesome videos

[@sprouts]

Thanks!

[@re-route1232]

Every colour has its own variation, but that does not nullify the entity of other colours.

[@GameplayTubeYT]

Egg is the 1st coz the early life on earth are aquatic animals and they lay eggs later they evolve as a land animals ang become chicken overtime

[@udayareddy4023]

Nature provides Positive pressure to blackmoths❤

[@doubleb222able]

So... where is the mutation? All I heard was moths with particular coloring survived and passed their genetic traits. They existed before and didn't spontaneously manifest.

[@KARAIsaku]

I agree. Natural selection occurs of course. However, random mutations that are believed to provide genetic material for evolution, are a huge problem for the theory, since they are either harmful or just neutral (don't do anything). Genetic illnesses and cancer are prominent examples of harmful mutations.

[@indiankid8601]

The original moths were either black or white. The opposite colour was created by mutation. 🤷🏼‍♂️. Duh.

[@indiankid8601]

​​​@@KARAIsaku Can you prove every mutation is harmful?. Just like mutated black moth actually survived better than the white moth🤷🏼‍♂️

[@indiankid8601]

​@@KARAIsakuAnd again mutations are random. Whether they would prove to be harmful or good will be decided by nature. Example sickle cell trait a harmful mutation, in sickle cell trait your RBC becomes sickled and is unable to carry oxygen properly and you are exhausted and anemic. But in Africa where malaria was endemic, the number of the people carrying sickle cell trait actually increased. Why? Because malaria protozoa is unable to infect sickled RBCs. So people who had normal RBC couldn't survive malaria but those who had sickle cell trait survived malaria easily. Hence a harmful mutation became actually fit in environment of malaria 😮😮. When modern cure for malaria was introduced in later half of 20th century, we again saw population of sickle cell trait people declining because now they didn't have any malaria survival advantage. 🤷🏼‍♂️. Everyone was getting medicine

[@indiankid8601]

​@@KARAIsakuAnd again mutations are random. Whether they would prove to be harmful or good will be decided by nature. Example sickle cell trait a harmful mutation, in sickle cell trait your RBC becomes sickled and is unable to carry oxygen properly and you are exhausted and anemic. But in Africa where malaria was endemic, the number of the people carrying sickle cell trait actually increased. Why? Because malaria protozoa is unable to infect sickled RBCs. So people who had normal RBC couldn't survive malaria but those who had sickle cell trait survived malaria easily. Hence a harmful mutation became actually fit in environment of malaria 😮😮. When modern cure for malaria was introduced in later half of 20th century, we again saw population of sickle cell trait people declining because now they didn't have any malaria survival advantage. 🤷🏼‍♂️. Everyone was getting medicine

[@fmx1]

0:13 anyone know WHY he took that ”expedition”?? why dont we all talk about the REASON??

[@stephenmason5682]

Well, what was his reason?

[@armandolima823]

​@@stephenmason5682 Taking God out of the picture, because proud free thinkers like himself couldn't cope with the fact there is a God that establishes rules for humankind's own good. He, and many other "thinkers" of their day, like Marx and Nietzsche, despized the influence of religion and God in society ( as if corrupt religions could ever be true spokesmen for God... ). Evolution was their answer to that. But as what they observed ( animals don't change into something other than what they are ) would not fit their narrative, the answer to that became time. "Well, you know, we don't see them mutating and evolving because this happened through billions of years." Obviously, this could never be proven or disproven, and so voila', they conceived the perfect and most convenient alibi to get rid of religion and God. This "billion of years" narrative goes on today. "The grand canyon was formed through billions of years", and yet the eruption of mount st Helens last century caused the same type of canyons, with it's defined layers, in just one afternoon. "The dinosaurs have million of years" and yet soft tissue was found in several specimens ( found by meanwhile cast out and discredited archaeologysts ) Because the desire to remove God from society increased exponentially in the "science" world, and "scientists" now became prostitutes to whatever agenda is paying them. Every ludicrous and insane theory is considered, but to consider an intelligent being created this perfectly designed world, now that's just unscientific...

[@stephenmason5682]

@@armandolima823 A simple question asking what was the reason, and you spew out all this nonsense? Fact of god?

[@meatchips4936]

​@@armandolima823 I mean yes, the fact that a invisible man in the sky who also made cancer and some of the saddest species every known to exist is unscientific

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

this is the Fantasy Island version - Charles D came from a long line of atheist speculators about evolution. His grandfather Erasmus wrote a famous early evolution book, 'Zoonomia'. Charles had read this book, and worked hard alongside the atheist-evolutionist biologist named Grant at Edinburgh University (when he should have been studying medicine, as his father wished). He flunked medicine but carried on his atheistic studies his whole life. 'Survival of the fittest' is a pseudo-explanation. Neither Darwin or any other evolutionish has ever successfully defined 'fitness' in anything other than terms of 'survival', so 'Survival of the fittest' really means 'Survival of the survivors', which does not sound like an explanation of anything to me.

[@luskarian]

The real quote is "Survival of the one most adaptable to change," which does admittedly flow back into circular reasoning. But fittest is an intentionally biased word coined and used by social darwinists, I agree.

[@indiankid8601]

Survival of fittest means fit in that particular environment. I don't know what you don't understand here. Environment keeps changing the parameters of fit keeps changing too For example in triassic era dinosaurs ruled the earth as they were biggest strongest etc. That is fittest. But when meteor fell, there was dearth of oxygen and food for thousands of years. And their own size became a bane for them. Little creatures needed less of these so they became fittest for survival and hence lived.

[@indiankid8601]

​@@luskarian no it doesn't mean that. It means survival of one who is best to survive in that particular situation. What you said is grossly wrong. Adaptations cannot be transferred in progeny. Adaptations are only phenotypic changes not genetic changes. A bodybuilder's son is not born a bodybuilder. Adaptations cannot never lead to evolution

[@indiankid8601]

Also Darwin was a Christian by the way. He said "God is ultimate lawgiver". You can Google his exact words

[@tylertheultimatebadass87]

I never liked the term "Survival of the fittest" I think "Survival of the adequate" is more appropriate

[@lowbrowrodeo]

Survival of the most adaptive actually

[@indiankid8601]

Nope. Think. Survival of the fittest. The moth is not adapting here. Both were born as they were. One survived one couldn't. Survival of adaptive would be correct if they could adapt to change colours after birth. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@shakirahmad8564]

But I didn't understand how evolution challenges the idea that we at the initial stage were created by creator....

[@orenbartal8504]

Because the bible says that god created man, not god created apes that evolved into men - or more percisely, god created the single cell organisms that evolved into every living creature we see today.

[@indiankid8601]

It contradicts bible and Qur'an. According to islam we were created from mud by creator. But as per evidences we evolved from our ancestral creatures. So

[@shakirahmad8564]

@@orenbartal8504 n it's still called a theory

[@augusto1126]

​@@shakirahmad8564but is not a "theory" lol

[@UrsusPolaris01]

The chicken and egg problem is a problem of definition. Of course eggs are older than chickens, when you do not mean a chicken egg. But if you mean a chicken egg you need to specify, is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken or an egg that has the genetics of a chicken?

[@smgdfcmfah]

The first chicken came from an egg that was laid by an animal that was not a true chicken, just like the first homo sapiens was born of a creature that was not quite a homo sapiens.

[@UrsusPolaris01]

@@smgdfcmfah But was it a chicken egg?

[@smgdfcmfah]

@@UrsusPolaris01 It WAS a chicken egg, but it was NOT a chicken's egg.

[@UrsusPolaris01]

@@smgdfcmfah Thank you, for sharing your wisdom in capitals.

[@smgdfcmfah]

@@UrsusPolaris01 You're WELCOME!

[@Ozzyman200]

All this time and money and still creationists can't find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix. Anyone? Anyone at all?

[@Uk.Cinema]

What do you mean by egg and hen riddle?.

[@sprouts]

🐰

[@imaneka4498]

He's takin' abt who was first created, an egg or a hen.

[@tschorsch]

A riddle that's not a riddle because the question makes no sense in the light of evolution.

[@smgdfcmfah]

@@tschorsch Sure it does. Did the first chicken hatch from an egg that was laid by and animal that was not a chicken, or was the first chicken born of a species that game live birth but in turned had an evolutionary mutation within itself the egg laying ability? The correct answer (imho) is logically the first option (as we believe all birds evolved from egg laying dinosaurs), but we have no real proof as of yet.

[@FrazerKirkman]

How do people who do not believe in evolution explain what happened with the peppered moths?

[@rogercroft3218]

A single creator. Cthulhu?

[@Goku-db2gt]

I actually want to see the videos because of the attractive illustrations. Great contents, though 🎉

[@SanguiniCore]

4:35 R A C I S M

[@augusto1126]

?

[@Kirapitch]

awww i love the art so much

[@sprouts]

Thanks

[@atlas_uraeus]

So I’m not pulling baddies cuz I’m not “the fittest”?

[@Krish_Ketchum]

Yeah, it seems I'm not the fittest as well but I go to gym and can bench 110😢

[@RavenTwoSix.]

Pretty sure the phrase “survival of the fittest” was coined in business schools to justify monopolistic economic practices. In other words a simplistic buzz phrase used by half wit MBA’s who can’t find their ass with both hands and a map. I don’t think Darwin ever used the phrase in any of his works.

[@Bluefoot65]

It is more luck than fittest

[@arspsychologia4401]

There is a difference between natural selection and the idea of macroevolution: it's the difference between refining an initial design through trimming off edges and believing that the process of trimming bits off can yield tons of new information to the point that something becomes an entirely different thing. You didn't need to add in a pointless and rude jab against creationists at the beginning.

[@indiankid8601]

This video is about natural selection not macroevolution or even evolution. Natural selection alone cannot lead to evolution. Natural selection is only a driving force or ingredient for evolution. The second part that is macroevolution is explained by evidences of evolution. There is difference between knowing mechanism of an action and evidence that that action was committed..

[@indiankid8601]

And I can give you multiple evidences that something became entirely different thing. Or how new species were formed from ancestral ones.

[@arspsychologia4401]

@@indiankid8601 How did refinement add genetic material?

[@arspsychologia4401]

@@indiankid8601 Natural selection is refinement. Mutation cannot explain certain permutations, such as the mechanics of flight, which requires numerous genetic sequences to function properly and in tandem, each of which would be useless or even detrimental by itself, such as hollow bones, overdeveloped musculature in only certain areas, and the mechanisms of interlocking feathers that are designed to withstand the forces and movements of flight. A drift over time (again driven by mutation and refinement through natural selection) cannot explain things that need to be fully functional, all by themselves, and all at the same time, in order to work.

[@indiankid8601]

@@arspsychologia4401 Why it can't? Initially development of flight was just associated with gliding like penguins or low level flights like peacock or just a chicken. These birds do not have proper flight and their body is intermediate between excellent flyers like hawks and eagles and straight up flightless creatures. Best example of evolution of flight is fossil of bird called archeopteryx. It had features of both reptiles and birds. Reptiles (it had teeth in its beak, flat sternum bone, bony tail and claws on its wings) and Birds (it had feathers, beak, winged tail, separate tibia and fibula). The complicated mechanism of flight evolved from running and jumping to escape predators to low height flight and full flagged flight.

[@bestuan]

i wonder how the differences between the birds-of-paradise of new guinea can be explained by natural selection, i think that the mutations arent random

[@chrisclark784]

Essentially there really weren't many natural predators to the birds of paradise, so they never evolved traits necessary to use against predators, and developed bizarre plumage and weird mating habits. They did an experiment with Arctic Foxes. They took offspring and bred the aggressive foxes with aggressive foxes, and docile foxes with docile foxes. After many generations they found, the aggressive foxes became more aggressive, and the physical characteristics became more aggressive. The docile foxes on the other hand became more docile, and they developed less aggressive features, such as curly tails and floppy ears, there was no need for aggression so aggressive traits went away. Same with Birds of Paradise, except one happened naturally.

[@bestuan]

@@chrisclark784 with or without natural predators this diversity in morphology and behavior shouldn't exist, bright colors and energetic dances indicate the health of an individual and so they might develop crazy colors and dances but I don't see why one population would develop long head feathers while another chooses a blue smiley face on a cape, natural selection and sexual selection doesn't explain it

[@goodandzloi]

I wish everybody could live.

[@Crimsonlee2XX]

That’s not how life works

[@krishnantampi5665]

Chicken and egg? It's organic evolution that's all good drawing best wishes😊

[@little1133]

The egg came first because animals before chickens had eggs

[@davidmontoya6672]

But who had the egg?😂

[@escuelasestelares]

Observe how Darwin’s theory was framed into a human trait such as competitiveness (which reminds me about your last video on free market, monopoly, etc.) If concerned with the truth, we can observe an obvious bias due to conditioning. If our upbringing teaches about separation of species rather than interdependence, then the obvious “knowledge” of “random” mutation becomes the answer. Anything we don’t know is “random.” There is a proper balance in the Universe which maintains an equilibrium among species except when the human mind interferes. That is because humans have an “agenda,” most of the time- Perhaps the “free market” agenda or the monopoly agenda, etc. which obviously brings the idea of “survival of the fittest.” In your question of who is first, the chicken or the egg? The answers depends largely in your belief system. If you believe that linear time is the truth, you will look for who is the “first” (chicken or egg) and come up with many other beliefs to “prove” who is right and who is wrong. If you believe in circular, cyclical time, as in many Eastern religions and Mayans, then “first” does not come into the picture, as in a closed circle of time, there is no “first” but things just “appear” in a repetitive eternal fashion and “first” is merely a point of reference. ( Nietzche “Eternal return.”) Enjoyed the video. Thank you!

[@RoxRock4ever]

I personally have never seen a conflict between religion and evolution. I think that evolution and other natural processes were the method by which God created the world, and the description of the creation in Genesis actually matches up pretty well.

[@sprouts]

Interesting

[@StatiCRjm]

God looks on the heart, man looks at appearance. You're not being biblically accurate

[@RoxRock4ever]

@StatiCRjm how so? The translation of "Days" for the creation we already know would be better written as "Periods," meaning times of indeterminate length. The order of creation described matches what scientists agree on, meaning the formation of the world, then the land being divided from the sea, then the appearance of the heavenly bodies (easily matches when the Earth's atmosphere would finally be clear enough to see the Sun/Moon/Stars), followed by the creation of plant life then Animal life and finally culminating in Man who was "created from the dust." Now if I were Moses who was watching all this and saw the process of single cell organisms being made into man, I too would probably say it was dust. Don't presume to know my faith. What I have said above is merely my own conjecture and ultimately whether I'm right or wrong has zero bearing on my belief in Christ as the Savior of the World.

[@G.A.C_Preserve]

Never? You're lucky

[@G.A.C_Preserve]

@@RoxRock4ever and you're just another ignorant

[@nicolaschavezEcuador]

alguien sabe como puedo encontrar el video en Español?

[@PedroPortelareis]

We just need to add that, for humans, the culture and ideas spread is even more important than the genes.

[@smgdfcmfah]

Except it's not. The fact that genes are spread regardless of how inferior they are is a product of our society and will likely be our eventual demise. Our species is getting weaker and weaker in many ways. In the human world, the less successful a human is the more likely they are to procreate (or procreate more often).

[@PedroPortelareis]

@@smgdfcmfah 3000 years ago we were much worse in overall terms. In this time period the gene revolution was very small but the civilizational revolution was huge.

[@smgdfcmfah]

@@PedroPortelareis Exactly. Now the earth is overpopulated and we're struggling to find a balance with nature without destroying it. The sharing of information, food and wealth is ultimately a negative thing as there is never a balance. People starve in part of the world because the local ecology can't support them, so we feed them from another part of the world where there is an abundance. Worse is the fact that technology is shared at such a rate that few people know how anything works - and NO one knows how everything works. 3,000 years ago a person could leave his city, move out into the countryside and live pretty much the same way he did before because he knew how to build a shelter, a fire, hunt, farm etc. Even if he wasn't an expert at all of it, he'd learn as he went. Today most city people wouldn't last a week in the wilderness, but more importantly, if part of the machine breaks down, they have no clue how ANYTHING works. This is unsustainable, to say the least.

[@haru64377]

Genes are everything

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

Those are also affected by natural selection...

[@MobbingQueen-ty3bh]

Darwin simply told us “ don’t worry too much , there’s nothing much you can do “? ???

[@pyeitme508]

Maybe that applies to some other planets

[@Sarcastrich]

What about of making a Carl Jung's video? :)

[@lancecoleman7440]

what's changed since the theory of evolution has been the theory of evolution? when's it gonna change? you know, evolve itself? i'm witnessing...

[@TmanRock9]

It’s changed quite a bit over its 150 year run time. More mechanisms have been found and genetics have been discovered.

[@ANDROLOMA]

It's always the substandard intellects who protest the most against evolution. Such adamant denial is itself revealing. Darwin was onto something deniers can't fathom.

[@likeitasuwantidc]

Bro I searched natural selection for year 9, not kids and drawing

[@ok-hb6hh]

Evolution makes perfect

[@MarkUKInsects]

No. if so you wouldn't have extinctions. Good example is the Irish Deer.

[@meatchips4936]

No not really, evolution isn't a conscious choice

[@MarkUKInsects]

@@meatchips4936 Mostly! There are 1000s of dumb evolution examples,The human spine, Nerve for the larynx going down the neck, into the chest, then back up the neck, especially silly for the giraffe. You could argue sexual selection is a conscious choice?

[@TmanRock9]

@@MarkUKInsects evolution doesn’t state that extinction won’t occur.

[@indiankid8601]

​@@MarkUKInsects extinction is literally proof of survival of fittest. 🤷🏼‍♂️. Those who are unfit they get extinct. Duh. Religion actually cannot explain extinction. If God created other species to serve humans, why 99% of species that ever lived on earth are extinct? God did 99% mistakes? Or did God make 99% useless creations without purpose?

[@praveenpakianthan363]

Of course chicken came first from a dinosaur egg.

[@haru64377]

Did anyone feels good when you know what is the true meaning of this?

[@danielbloom2470]

Why did they have to discriminate against the black moths like that?

[@johncoldwell7835]

They are still finches

[@johncoldwell7835]

@PhilipK-xk4by maybe you can get one of your hairy friends to join the discussion then?

[@grimsobad8545]

So basically improvise adapt

[@shreyas3319]

CHARLES DARWIN!!!!!

[@jerehaw]

This video series helped me understand the origins and relevance of Natural Selection in a broader sense. I think there is more to the discussion than I saw in this video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/n17Pgn57iJ2jgLM

[@glennllewellyn7369]

Nice...but it doesn’t explain my crazy sister. ...actually it does...

[@RodneyYone]

YUP!!!! ACTUALLY,, I'M THINKING THAT THAT'S DEFINITELY, COULD'VE EXPLAINED,,OL TRUMPER!!!

[@CruEinstein]

Por poco! Pero sigo....

[@raufkhadra907]

hes right when he said all animals come from one creator :) how was the earth formed with no creator.

[@DenisK21]

How was the earth formed with ANY creator?

[@raufkhadra907]

how do you think the world was created@@DenisK21

[@raufkhadra907]

if u think big bang, so i had a stone and a window i was bored so i threw the stone at the window and it formed an iphone 6 than many years later it evolved to a iphone 14. so does that sound right?

[@DenisK21]

@@raufkhadra907 No, it sounds deliberately wrong in every possible way. Now put that tangential straw man back where you found it and actually answer my question.

[@raufkhadra907]

@@DenisK21 listen son, your just angry because thats how you sound when you explain big bang and evolution 🤣 your supposed to tell me how my example and your theories are different and why you dont believe how my phone appeared

[@xyeB]

I don’t think it works up to date…

[@MikePuorro]

...And we all know which humans breed the most...

[@Karonclip]

That's why i can't find a white girl

[@haru64377]

This life is sucks and very fucking bad

[@raufkhadra907]

0:56 what is this guy on🤣

[@MDNT3M]

What about types of eugenics programs or influences ..,. . Not so natural

[@mariansava2375]

Thing is that we know pretty much nothing and are just speculations :)

[@AMC2283]

aka it's against your religion

[@thebrightestawblack9993]

we now have unatural selection as we can see in a few type of dog, especially pub, with no physical abilities to survive on its own, ithink ?

[@muhemmdmostafa4029]

Thanks for your question, How can we solve the chicken and the egg problem?!!!!!..... There is no way to solve this problem through experimentation because physical life is of a variable nature, meaning that what is constant in it is change. Therefore, all experimental results are tentative and not conclusive, and it is a purely relative practical matter. There is no way to solve the problem except through the intervention of the abstract mind or what is called (necessary science). So, he is the source of judgment on physics, not the other way around Based on the above, we decide the following: We say that the logical, demonstrative mind has three sections The first is that a thing is judged by the rule of certainty and definiteness. Its name is its definition > Wajib: which is something that is established in itself or cannot be excluded. The second > He judges a matter with certainty and certainty as well Its name and definition > Impossible: which is something that is absent or cannot be proven Third > He judges a thing or a matter as being or not being confirmed Whether before confirmation or absence, its name and definition Permissible: It is something that is possible to exist or not The proof is as follows: Start with a declarative question The chicken and the egg fall under which section of rational judgment?!!!! I'll give you the answer right now, for short They fall under the third category, which is permissible or possible We said that what is the definition of the possible is the acceptance of both confirmation and non-existence. Note: the predominance of confirmation and non-existence in the case of the possible, regardless of the ratio, because we are in this position. It suffices for us to define it and to summarize it as well Continuing where we have reached in the research?..... That is, we said that they are both rationally possible _Explanation of the proof This leads to the race of nothingness and the rights of nothingness over it, according to their definition Ok, the question here What made their existence more likely than their non-existence?!!!! If we say about themselves, this role is necessary What is the role: something stops on itself at one or more levels This necessity leads to two questions _How can someone who accepts nothingness when he is non-existent be able to create himself?!!! The one who has no ability to pray has no ability _How can one who accepts existence have his existence depend on himself?!!! Both questions are from the second category of rational judgment, which is impossible Therefore, we say that both the chicken and the egg must have been created by something, and it does not matter who was found before the important other Who created one of them first or created

[@ozowen]

Observation sorts it out. There were eggs before there were birds. Bird evolution is clear in fossil record and in genomes and indeed in taxonomy. So, the issue is resolved. The egg was first. Birds came later. Chickens came even later again.

[@muhemmdmostafa4029]

@@ozowen The question here: Who found the egg?!!!!!.... There are two possibilities. The first is that she created herself by herself Or something else create it First: If it had created itself by itself, this would follow from it The meeting of the two opposites is impossible, because in the state of nothingness it had power....How can it be correct in the mind to describe the non-existent with power?!!!... This is mentally impossible If I find something else... Who is he?!!... Let's look for him Thank you

[@ozowen]

@@muhemmdmostafa4029 No, sorry. There is nothing in that lot that is difficult. There was no created creature. The creatures that came before the ones who could lay eggs were simpler creatures. I'm not sure you quite understand how this works. We have creatures on Earth- in fact the majority of creatures on Earth are simple ones. They don't lay eggs. they don't have sex. They self clone. However, some of that lot can also merge with others to do something like sexual reproduction. Indeed, there are many creatures on Earth right now that can reproduce asexually, but have the choice also to reproduce sexually. None of this is impossible- it happens right now.

[@muhemmdmostafa4029]

@@ozowen _Your Saying(No sorry. Thank you, sir. I would like to draw your attention to a matter which is, In this context, I am not interested in knowing how creatures came to be. What matters most to me is who created them?!!!..... _ Your statement (We have creatures on Earth - in fact the majority of creatures on Earth are simple creatures. They do not lay eggs. They do not have sex. There are many creatures on Earth today that can reproduce asexually, but they also have the option to reproduce sexually) Notice that you re-explain how creatures are found, and I do not care about knowing their reality at this stage of theoretical thinking, even if the method is cloning or something else. It is nothing more than the fact that our knowledge of how to unite is nothing more than, What is the method of reproduction? You would like to notice that there are four existential ratios in existence, which are: 1_ The proportion of the event, i.e. the occurrence outside the mind 2_ The ratio of mind, that is, mental thinking about the fact that creatures exist 3_ Pronunciation ratio, that is, its expression using the language in which it is spoken 4_ The ratio of the number, that is, writing about it in books.... The focus of my talk is about the existence of creatures, where did they come from?!!!... In the first place the mind always asks this question Who created these materials that are the elements of created things?!!!. Then we move to the second place, which is the search for knowledge of its facts through experimental science. The question here Is the meaning I want to convey to you clear?!!!... Sir, do you understand what I want to ask you in terms of knowledge?!!!!.... Thank you

[@ozowen]

@@muhemmdmostafa4029 "What matters most to me is who created them" OK, so you are wanting to talk about a deity. I am talking about the science and only the science If you want to twist the subject to a different one to that which you proposed of which came fist, the hen or the egg? Not interested. Have fun.

[@samdumaquis2033]

Interesting

[@sprouts]

Ikr!

[@LakshStar-w4g]

Chicken is same as egg just like a baby is same as man. It just grows up and change its body.

[@98nfp]

*watching*

[@okskiiii]

great

[@xyeB]

Guess it was patched

[@kritikamalrava1]

It was egg came first

[@sprouts]

🐔💭

[@tschorsch]

It depends on the question. The question is too vague.

[@hagnat]

today's episode of Sprouts features a special guest... Donald Thump

[@markyoder9819]

The example of the speckled moth really illustrates changes in population since the genes for dark or light colorations in the moths were already there in the species. The population swings back. How, because the genetic traits allowed for that fluency in the population.

[@ozowen]

Yes, it demonstrates natural Selection. Do you have a point?

[@goodbye6490]

Can you say “how, because the genetic traits allowed for for that fluency in the population” with proper grammar