What is Evolution?

[@StatedClearly]

Here's the link to the natural selection video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZoSmm5t_bZuaqLcsi=2004Lu4YGpVirjj2

[@hulias3107]

If you sort comments by "newest first" on this video, you WILL lose brain cells. This is a warning.

[@softbunnie_x]

Thanks for the warning ☠️

[@preetikachandna1292]

R u sure??? Cause I don't feel anything

[@aleksanderkjrnemenger8686]

i lost some

[@BeccasBracelets.j]

💀💀💀

[@pre-jordanbasketballfan7429]

I found a comment I made, 6 years ago when I was an evolution denying, young Earth creationist and now as an atheist that thread was the cringest thing I have ever read.

[@weTa04]

I’m not even watching this for biology class. I just love learning about biology and evolution.

[@MrGreen-fi5sg]

You are a fool.

[@againsthumanity681]

Me to 🙃

[@henrineumann]

Same

[@hannukoistinen5329]

Forget "evolution", because there is not evolution!! Just devolution. Proof: you are getting older!!

[@Joshua-nn9le]

I'll tell you what evolution is, it's a myth that can't be backed. Evolution has NO evidence whatsoever to back it up, so. Let's see the transitional forms, can you name them and show them? There should be transitional forms everywhere. So far no one has come up with anything. So I'll ask again, WHERE - ARE - THE - TRANSITIONAL FORMS?

[@cdm444]

hello, fellow biology students...

[@tyrel5013]

Got my evolution test in 2 hours :/

[@morganredman1745]

@@tyrel5013 Hopefully you did well on it! lol

[@frankiestein7092]

I'm here from RE

[@frankiestein7092]

@@tyrel5013 Did it go ok?

[@tyrel5013]

@@frankiestein7092 got a 39%😎😤

[@ServantsofChristJesus]

I did not believe in God I hated his ways. But God changed me! I was addicted to alcohol, obscene, to pornography. This world today is full of adultery. Children hate parents, the younger generation no longer follows God. But do you know that God still loves us? Two years ago, I was so depressed. After the New Year's party, I got tired of this world. Then God came to me. God showed me that he was real. When we're all not even thinking about him, he's still waiting. I cried so much that I cry even now. This generation is really rejecting God. And there is a judgment coming. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all. Do you know that hell is real? God made us in his image but we use our functions to hate things, steal, lie, gossip! That's why we don't know God. But he is so near that if you seek him, you will find him just as he promised! The love of God cannot measure with ours. He gave us all. He sent his son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for my sin. And Jesus rose again! So you who are reading can be saved and become children of God! Jesus is the only way to be saved. Repent and believe him. God is giving us today to repent and return to him. He sent his son so we can live. We can be forgiven and begin everything clean through Jesus. We can even become a new creation and live with Jesus forever. Ask God to forgive you and reveal yourself. I know he will because I know he is real and he is with me. Heaven rejoices when a sinner returns to him. After giving my life completely to Jesus, all my addictions disappeared and I am living a new life. Now this world is nothing to me. Money, success, popularity ... are just lies that the devil uses to make our mind lose consciousness and turn against God. God can take care of that if you seek his kingdom. That's not important. This is not religion. It's all about Jesus. It is if you know God and love him. That's very true. Jesus will come soon and everything that rebels against him will be judged. He still loves you. He wants you to come back. We have to change our lives! Thank you for reading.

[@lucianmacandrew1001]

Seems like a victim of the 12-step-program-sect.

[@KushLeon-vp8nw]

Were you drunk after the new year party?

[@MinecraftGamer2021]

Why is there 18k comments about religious comments and like 2 religious ones

[@armytbchaine6515]

Look at the most recent comments

[@sponge6171]

Johnson Jackson Agreed. KZbin comments are just toxic and unreliable. I've been learning that I should be more in a position of just listening to every view, as long as they are being presented with kindness and a genuine open desire for truth, rather than getting tempted and baited into anger and argument and forcing myself into a narrow-minded spot just because I want to win. Truth > pride. Truth is love.

[@armytbchaine6515]

@@sponge6171 Oh wow. That actually helped me a lot. Thank you

[@sponge6171]

@@armytbchaine6515 Anytime :)

[@WTG194]

@@sponge6171 powerful words! most people just want to fight and defend their hard line views from both side of the tracks

[@lvezone]

that means whoever we end up dating, we'll be related to them. oh sweet home alabama

[@akankshagupta4138]

Is that yoongi in your prfile pic

[@lvezone]

@@akankshagupta4138 no, it's jaemin from nct

[@junhoes7547]

@@lvezone nana 💔

[@lvezone]

@@junhoes7547 yeahh

[@tyrel5013]

Hey cousin

[@DenisK21]

Evolution: nature's way of repeatedly saying "it's not a bug, it's a feature" and hoping it sticks.

[@RandallWilks]

Evolution is an ongoing and continuous series of natural experiments where what works gets perpetuated and those that don't, perish.

[@CND_TTH]

LMAOOO

[@johnramboexe]

facts

[@jimfoard5671]

Evolution: Darwin's way of repeatedly saying "it's not a bug, it's a feature" and hoping it sticks.And it has always been a lie.

[@danielvernon9952]

Does anyone know how to install minecraft mods?

[@MechanicsStudents]

How is that relevant here?? XD

[@danielvernon9952]

if you're not gonna tell me how to install minecraft mods please don't watse my time.

[@danielvernon9952]

if you're not gonna tell me how to install minecraft mods please don't watse my time.

[@danielvernon9952]

if you're not gonna tell me how to install minecraft mods please don't watse my time.

[@danielvernon9952]

if you're not gonna tell me how to install minecraft mods please don't watse my time.

[@agaming-de7bc]

Who has to watch this for science class on google classroom while at home?😁 Pretty good vid tbh..

[@agaming-de7bc]

@Jamie B np :D

[@ashishshah3657]

😇😇

[@somedude7997]

Yup

[@isiahwoodard]

Me

[@eros8127]

Relateble

[@erasmith3511]

I thought I was studying biology but by reading comments in the section below I feel as if I was one of the viewers of war between religious and scientific people.. Well for me God is my soul and science is my teacher

[@yoyogorilla1]

Era Smith good

[@erasmith3511]

Thank u Jack postma

[@halogen5580]

Vimal Sehgal for fuck sake look around you idiot the world doesnt care about your feelings if you die your conscious bo longer exist just like before you were born this is the real world wake up you say that your god love you even tho you have never met him before fuck for all we know god might be a something more than someone

[@majordendrocopos]

Vimal Sehgal How are the book sales going? I won’t be buying it. To say that the theory of evolution “is atheistic and anti soul, not science at all, based on blind faith irrationality and dogma only” is one of the silliest and most inaccurate things I have ever read. Your baseless claims show your lack of knowledge.

[@jesrielalsonado3767]

@@halogen5580 WHo knows? what if you are wrong? Anyways, we'all eventually find what will happen to us. God bless you brother.

[@12345INACTION]

Hi! Who else got forced to watch this... but then actually enjoyed the video?💀😂

[@prestonraeder]

Shut uo

[@Abi-hz2rx]

12345 IN ACTION yep forced to because of science class

[@santiagoesser1655]

science class damn

[@kp_sellout7775]

didnt like it just got forced to watch it >:(

[@peg8130]

i hate online school stfu

[@theashunsensation]

for you people who do not accept evolution (not necessarily religious people because you can still be religious and believe in evolution) why do you go even go on these videos? Do you specifically go on this just to tell people on how its wrong without evidence or why we should believe you? This is coming from a former intelligent design supporter. I used to go on these videos with an open mind and debating people on this matter on the comment section too BUT supported with evidence. I would seek the knowledge of why people believe certain things and if I don't believe in the same things as other people do I would argue with them without bias or close-mindedness. If their belief wins out using the current evidence then I will change my belief. Pure simple. And so I did because my beliefs are not static , but I always seek answers to things. This is the scientific way to think. Its not you believing in something and trying to cherry pick for evidence you like that may support it.

[@alexdavies7683]

How to start an argument on KZbin: 1. Write a comment. 2. Wait...

[@allanfloyd8103]

Ur wrong, dumbass! (j/k, couldn't resist!)

[@alexdavies7683]

Allan Floyd I know right.

[@andrewgambrel7174]

Alex Davies You 2 are the dumbest fucks on youtube!!

[@allanfloyd8103]

Andrew Gambrel Only because your Mom isn't on KZbin yet.

[@allanfloyd8103]

Andrew Gambrel Her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard...?

[@kimberlycurtis5055]

Evolution is not random. The mutations that lead to variation may be random, but evolution is not.

[@ryanjustin6784]

Thanks that’s a question on the assignment

[@Daniel-yy3fl]

Sorry to burst ur bubble but evolution is impossible its js a theory with no proof

[@mattgriffin2545]

He should cover that in the natural selection video

[@WyreForestBiker]

its amazing how few people understand such a simple and obvious process even at this very basic level ... An excellent series of videos 👍

[@zachtastic625]

@@combinedeffects4799 Damn bro, are you like 12 years old, ranting and raving at science like a lunatic? "best your hoax theory can accomplish are explaining minor variations of the same kind. The rest is atheist imagination in overdrive ." Yet you believe in the bible and intelligent design, things that have zero supporting evidence, over the most substantiated theory in the history of science. Evolution is science not atheism. You either understand it, or you're an ignorant buffoon. Pretty obvious what the case is here. "you can’t make micro into macro" This is a 5 year old level of argument, long refuted by actual experts in the subject and based on a straw man. There is no such thing as a "kind" in biology. Spew less lies, please. "believing that the impossible will become the inevitable" Then prove it is impossible. Oh wait, idiotic creationists like you don't do the whole proof thing. You just state whatever fantasy is comforting to you and use it as a basic to deny any science and knowledge that conflicts. You are a pathetic peasant that just repeats what professional liars say. Try looking at both sides instead of regurgitating old debunked propaganda. "you are supporting a hoax theory that is allowed to survive because anyone who opposes it in academia and tries to be honest is threatened and persecuted" Show me on the doll where evolution hurt you. You are ranting like a 3rd grader who just learned basic addition and subtraction arguing against calculus. You need knowledge and understanding before discussing science. That's just the simple fact, and you don't have anything other than fantasy as an explanation, while evolution has millions of research papers, fossils and experiments that support it. ID has zilch, but thanks for playing, "Who wants to be moron." Literally every argument you made was ad hominem. I've never seen a more pretentious, pathetic rant in my life. Oh look, you're a far right Trumper, no shock, a science denier and faux outrager who wants to be the victim in every situation yet can't even refute a SINGLE piece of evidence supporting evolution. Typical Christian conservative LIAR.

[@MrGreen-fi5sg]

It's horseshit.

[@TheDarkPanther0]

@@MrGreen-fi5sg Like you?? because evolution is a real thing how do you think a caterpillar turns into a butterfly? Evolution

[@WyreForestBiker]

@@TheDarkPanther0 Actually the metamorphosis of a caterpillar is NOT an example of evolution. it's a totally different process .

[@WyreForestBiker]

@@MrGreen-fi5sg Horseshit ?, so you deny evolution happens? do you also deny the earth is spherical or that germs exist? because it really is the same level of ignorance.

[@ThePimV]

There is no debate between Creationism and Evolution. Just like there is no debate between the flat earth society and people who accept the earth is round.

[@joerichmond5499]

You are right. Creation is correct, while evolutionism is false. There is no debate.

[@Alice-May]

Joe, stop screaming you're magically right.

[@ThePimV]

Joe Richmond Just like the earth is flat and Santa exist... ;)

[@blaster-zy7xx]

...and the earth is hollow and the sun revolves around the earth and stars fall from the sky.

[@HuntingHorn]

which creation? torrah, new testament, hindu, islam etc theres no evidence for any of those but there is evidence for evolution and evolution doesnt disprove a god it shows that a god is unnecessary for the diversity of life

[@othertestchannelbeta]

Almost 40% scientists believe in a higher power, yet the percentage of scientists who accept is above evolution 97% (the general public is 61%) so it's not a matter evidence conflicting with faith or believe. The evidence of evolution describes a physical process in nature that requires reproduction, heritable variation, and natural selection. We can observe these processes taking place in the lab. It's both a theory and an observable fact.

[@SuperScouser2009]

Were are you getting your figures from? I question 40% of scientists believe in a higher power.

[@SuperScouser2009]

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe in a higher power like a god.

[@funnybot152]

Howard San www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ it's actually 51% who believe in a God/higher power according to this survey, and secondly, please don't be one of those.

[@SuperScouser2009]

This is from November 5, 2009. this pole is bogus. For a start its American and America is apparently a deeply religious country. These fugues are outdated, based in America and probably wrong in the first instance anyway. Your statement is flawed in a major way, how about posting some accurate and relevant figures that reflect what you implied.

[@SuperScouser2009]

funnybot152 "please don't be one of those." Im the person that questions other peoples figures and judging from your sources I was right to lol. Whats the point if your figures are outdated and irrelevant. Is America the science epicenter of the world lol, No and not even close.

[@maple1255]

Very well and clearly explained, the speaker has a good steady calm voice, well enunciated ☺

[@ufuksertoglu7534]

Science and Divinity cannot be separated Its the opposite, world-leaders always used science to influence world-folk and since ever highest leading staff also arrogate to change divinity, all for selfish benefit So is Darwin a Project of world-leading Freemasons Reality is not based on theories. We are here to find out what is already given, not to add speculations - this is science. Any subjective attempts are based on bad intentions. Human has created nothing, so cannot know and must only learn. Sent Prophets revealed "reality" and last holy book Koran explains lifes before humans, evolution and all creation. Koran expains embroyonal development of baby, long before doctors had no tools to find out this; and many more truth. If you are prejudiced, you will not seek, but act inbetween your and others limitedness. Those who ain´t seek divine way, won´t face matter of salvation, as not agreed truth that came from of a direction their ego haven´t awaited at life

[@alexikamran7039]

yeah he made for narration

[@GabeAdventures]

thats crazy but did i ask?

[@MONKIMAJOR]

@@GabeAdventures nope I dont remember asking either

[@GabeAdventures]

@@MONKIMAJOR i dont remember asking u to ask me if i asked u

[@RandallWilks]

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

[@jimfoard5671]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution is worthless. Most of the members are rabid atheists and their anti-religious motives affect their world view. Trying to reason with an evolutionist is not like talking to a brick wall. It's like talking to a brick wall with graffiti on it and then expecting to get an intelligent reply back. You are using the apriori presumption of evolution as proof for evolution, which is a philosophical error. A priori 1: Involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; not supported by fact: "an a priori judgment" A priori 2: Based on hypothesis or theory rather than experiment. Darwin did not document one single fact in his Origin of Speciess or his Descent of Man of a genuine evolutionary transition taking place. That actually sums up the entirety of Darwin's Origin of Species and his Descent of Man as well as most arguments of evolutionists. Evolutionists have hijacked science in the name of atheism because of their initial rejection of Revelation. Darwin's Origin and his Descent are mere philosophic diatribes against God's role in the creation of the universe and against His providential rule and ordering of events both in the physical realm of non living systems and in the macro-molecular biological realm of living species; it is not on a par with genuine scientific treatises such as Newton's Principia Mathematica , Boyle's empirical gas law that describes the relationship between pressure and volume of a confined gas, Faraday's laws of electrolysis, Pasteur "renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation, and pasteurization, the last of which was named after him. His research in chemistry led to remarkable breakthroughs in the understanding of the causes and preventions of diseases, which laid down the foundations of hygiene, public health and much of modern medicine" (Wikipedia), Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Erik Acharius (1757-1819), Swedish botanist[1] who studied lichens Gary Ackers (1939-2011), American biophysicist who worked on thermodynamics of macromolecules. Gilbert Smithson Adair (1896-1979), British protein chemist who identified cooperative binding of oxygen binding haemoglobin. Arthur Adams (1820-1878), English physician and naturalist[2] who classified crustaceans and molluscs Michel Adanson (1727-1806), French naturalist[3] who studied the plants and animals of Senegal Julius Adler (born 1930), American biochemist and geneticist known for work on chemotaxis. Monique Adolphe (1932-2022), French cell biologist, pioneer of cell culture Edgar Douglas Adrian (1st Baron Adrian) (1889-1977), British electrophysiologist, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1932) for research on neurons. When you compare Darwin's ramblings in his Origin to the works of these other, genuine scientists it's almost ludicrous that he has been lifted to the status of a philosopher-sage by his slack jawed, gullible band of followers. Your belief in evolution is motivated more by a prejudice against the sovereignty of God, and a rebellion against His Lordship in your life, as it is written in Psalm Two, 1"Why do the nations conspire[a] and the peoples plot in vain? 2 The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, 3 “Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.” Jesus is Lord over Darwin.

[@Jrpyify]

I came just to look at the comments. Not disappointed

[@calebf3655]

*Grabs popcorn*

[@cameronscott9248]

The comments, even on videos like these, are vastly entertaining aye. The internet never fails me

[@punt0023]

@Cantrell K, LOL.

[@rivvy2138]

@Cantrell K lmao I'm gay but nah...ion want him.

[@lopkobor6916]

@@cameronscott9248 I recommend the videos that debunk flat-earthers. The newest comments over there are great.

[@AdamKnappdoesthings]

If evolution is real, then how come there's no transitional species between Pikachu and Raichu? CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!

[@lambdaofbacon7118]

Damn. You got us. Time to pack it up.

[@blaster-pz9cz]

If creationism is real, then how come we have transitions AT ALL? Why is the highest form of life in the Precambrian just a trilobite? Why no rabbits, monkeys, horses, foxes, mice, cats, dogs, squirrels in the entire Cambrian period? Why? Becuase they had not EVOLVED yet. CHECKMATE CREATARD.

[@blaster-pz9cz]

Clue phone cretard: There is no transition between Pikachu and Raichu becuase, like your religion, they are fictitious. There ARE however transitions between terrestrial mammals and whales.

[@thesciencekid7664]

Adam Knapp There may be, pokemon is not real life, I hope you know its diffrent

[@AdamKnappdoesthings]

The reason those fossils aren't found in the Cambrian is because the thunderstone hadn't been discovered yet.

[@SL33PIN_]

When two badgers get together and you know... "fall in love".

[@sarahbales7676]

Kitsune lol

[@jaydentarshis]

this person is definitely around 7 because they are saying what the video clearly said because sex is soooooooooooooo hilarious and apparently everyone needs to know about it.

[@miri8851]

Snorkel And you’re clearly 9 because you don’t find sex funny.

[@quackhead1895]

SEX IS SO FUNNY AND EPIC

[@SA1236]

@@quackhead1895 ummm

[@lizziesims2993]

who here is watching this for home learning during lockdown? im pleased im looking at evolution at home instead of school cos i have my old friend google around XD

[@softbunnie_x]

Baha, same

[@RandallWilks]

Evolution is NEVER about "one animal turning into another" as creationists love to characterize it. Offspring will always differ slightly from their parents genetically. Errors (mutations) always occur during cell division because replication is an imperfect process. Evolution takes place within populations as mutations are subjected to the natural selection process and survivors pass their genes to successive generations via the gene pool. When segments of a population become genetically isolated from each other their separate gene pools diversify due to mutations that are now unique to different gene pools. As those differing mutations accumulate, chance interbreeding between the now separate gene pools become increasingly problematical and speciation has occurred. It is no more possible to determine the exact point where speciation occurred, any more than it is possible to determine the point on the electromagnetic spectrum where red turns to orange. This is why it is so ludicrous for creationists to claim that there should be fossils of one species in the process of becoming another. When speciation occurs, the two populations will initially be quite similar genetically and physiologically. Mutations unique to each population are continuous and lead to greater and greater differences between them. There is no point at which mutations stop. Many species with recent common ancestors can still interbreed but offspring are quite often sterile. For example, horses, donkeys and zebras can all interbreed and offspring are usually, but not always sterile. Dromedary (one hump) and Bactrian (two hump) camels can produce fertile hybrids of superior size and strength.Such hybrids are thought to be one factor in diversification of species. On the larger scale, evolution results in incremental alterations to what is already there. As an analogy, imagine a robot gardener dragging a hose around various obstacles it encounters until it runs out of hose. Now an intelligent gardener could simply retrace his steps and take a different path. The robot gardener (evolution) cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, it can only (figuratively) add more hose. We see this throughout nature. One example being the Panda's "thumb". Now the Panda is a bear with a bear's paw. Their diet is bamboo leaves which they spend many hours per day stripping from their stalks and eating. A thumb would be quite useful in that activity, but evolution cannot rewind to produce one. Instead, it has taken "a piece of hose' (a wrist bone) and enlarged it to act as a stand in for a thumb. That is not an elegant solution and not a perfect one, but it gets the job done. Evolution is does not produce perfect solutions, but tweaks here and there to "get the job done". In much the same way, the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in fish (yes fish have one). The larynx serves multiple functions, including control of respiration, airway protection, coordination of swallowing, and phonation. It is a branch of the Vagus nerve responsible for hiccups (another vestige). The nerve in fish travels from the brain to the larynx past the heart. This is a direct route and would be consistent with 'intelligent design'. Through successive stages of evolution these organs moved further apart, yet the nerve still looped around heart arteries, in effect "adding more hose" to get the job done. In the giraffe, that amounts to about 15 feet of "extra hose". There is a similar situation in the leg bones of the horse. In the course of evolution, running over hard baked plains favored the fusing of leg bones (Fibula and tibia) for a stronger bone. As in other mammals, there is an artery that passes between these bones. Had an "intelligent designer" been involved, the artery would have simply been rerouted a couple of centimeters and the bone totally fused. Again, the 'robot gardener' of evolution cannot backtrack to do this and a gap remains between the two bones the only function of which is to allow passage of that artery. One often hears creationists claim that life is "perfectly designed", yet the various adaptations we see in the natural world are quite often just good enough to get the job done. Weak backs and knees are characteristics of humans; we have a common windpipe and trachea which results in many deaths each year from choking; we have a vestigial appendix that, while any remaining function is debatable, an inflamed one can be fatal. We have 3 sets of muscles attached to our ears that would move them toward the source of sound that are now totally useless unless one considers wiggling ones ears to be a form of sexual attraction. We all have a semi-lunar fold in the inner corners of our eyes with attached muscles that are vestiges of nictitating membranes many animals have as a "third eyelid". Then there is the Plantaris Muscle, which in other primates facilitates arboreal lifestyle, allowing the feet to function much the same as hands in gripping branches. The human foot has lost this ability in the process of becoming bipedal, but the muscle is still there. It is a long pencil thin muscle and tendons running down the back of the calf, that are extremely painful when ruptured and often misdiagnosed as a more serious injury. This injury, often called "Tennis Leg" occurs most frequently in athletes over 40 due to the tendon and attachments becoming more brittle. With or without treatment, the two ends of the rupture will shrivel and disappear within weeks with no loss of function in the leg. It is indeed one of evolution's leftovers. It is often harvested for reconstructive surgery elsewhere in the body. We see vestigial structures all through nature. They remain in some cases because they have been adapted for other purposes, in others they remain simply because there has been no evolutionary advantage to eliminating them. Similarly, pseudo-genes are vestiges of previously active genes. They certainly do not support the idea of "intelligent design". They are however, completely consistent with the Theory of Evolution

[@marshallroberts3021]

"Offspring will always differ slightly from their parents genetically." What are the differences between you and your father that you think lend support to your neo darwinist faith?

[@haniyaasif4641]

How long did it take 2 write that?

[@hunchira3826]

Mutations are almost always harmful.

[@danpaulisbitski]

Randall Wilks I am very curious on the scientific methodology used to determine “bad design” in life.Do we redesign the life with the theorized bad design and see if it’s “better”? Clearly life is undergoing genetic degradation.This is evident by the increasing number of genetic diseases and disorders.It seems far more reasonable to say that “evolution” is a process that slowly but surely is causing a breakdown of our original design.Natural selection works to remove genetic diversity from the population and leads to extinction.This is evident by all the extinct animals found as fossils and the increasing extinction rate agreed upon by most scientists today. The irony of your argument of “bad design” is that it is entirely subjective and it still infers design.It is hard to deny that life has purpose and purpose infers intelligence.Things that have specific functions infer intelligence and fore thought.Creation is the most reasonable and logical explanation for life. Evolutionists always make the debate about creation or evolution.Creation is how life started and we all have heard the anti-creationists declare that evolution has nothing to do with how life started. So why are Evolutionists opposed to creation? Is it maybe a defense of atheism or an issue with God? Lol! It is not creation or evolution, it is about the limitations of evolution and what the evidence infers.It is a debate over the claims of universal common ancestry, not over if genes change over time.Of coarse offspring differs from their parents.Duh! We just make reasonable inferences from the evidence.Claims like, we are related to carrots are absurd and completely unfounded by the evidence.Creationists have plenty of scientific evidence to support their objections and criticisms about universal common ancestry.I am completely unaware of any creationists that argue that life has not changed over time.How you have convinced yourself that intelligent design hinges on whether or not you think the design is bad, good, perfect or whatever, is beyond me? We are the most intelligent creatures on Earth and could we create a better human? Could we create the simplest form of life? Your arrogance highlights your ignorance of how much of life we don’t understand and how we are nowhere close to being able to create living things. It sounds like you’re mad at your creator. Like a child, you think that pretending he doesn’t exist is a reasonable way to act.What is next?Hatred? Maybe revenge?Are you trying to teach him a lesson by spreading atheism? If you’re going to make claims about creationists, at least address their actual arguments and the evidence for those arguments.If your going to call a design bad, be consistent and admit it was designed.I really hope you find peace with God.I hope you stop seeing yourself as some bad design and recognize that you are of infinite value and are made in the image and likeness of the creator of the universe.God bless you.

[@asap9224]

Randall keep your comments short by the time someone read all of your comments they could have evolved into something else...

[@bvvrf]

Who else is here because of "Biology Class"

[@ryvlur]

Hereeeeeee, sighhh

[@zandosaurofficial6593]

me

[@marthaschilling8635]

Nope science

[@jordotheboyo466]

Yup

[@jackal192]

We dont see evolution in our biology class...

[@horsegirlb7120]

Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is uneducated on the concept of evolution. They either A) Don't understand the concept of evidence B) Don't understand the evidence that supports evolution C) Don't understand that the Theory of Evolution is on the same playing field as the Theory of Gravity, the Heliocentric Theory, the Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory, and so on. My advice is to make an effort to learn so you don't make foolish choices.

[@horsegirlb7120]

***** You're right. I should have specified that they are not educated in this particular scientific theory

[@ellizory]

***** You just say "a lot of educated..." or you can really tell their names and arguments against the Theory?

[@whiskeredtuna]

I certainly don't believe nature is the force behind life. I found it rather comical that the narrator started the video off acknowledging that evolution doesn't tell us "how life began on earth" in the first place! what we believe about the beginning of all things really is the necessary starting point for our entire worldview. Just because something appears to be random and undetermined may not be that at all.

[@horsegirlb7120]

I disagree. Though what we believe about our origins is important, I don't think that's the starting point. The mechanism we use to determine what our beliefs will be is the starting point - it's where every single one of our beliefs comes from. If we are intellectually honest, we would determine each belief in the same way consistently. I personally try to use logic for myself. Speaking of logic, what makes you think natural forces couldn't cause life to begin?

[@ellizory]

Do you want all at once? Tracing step by step from obvious things to deeply hidden is the only way to discover more.

[@АфанасьяКошкина]

Hello world! I am a girl from Russia, and I am preparing for exams) I do not know English, but I am very glad that there are subtitles for Russian!

[@criert135]

Hello, hope your exams go well :)

[@CrowSephus]

But explain to me when we get Charizard?

[@haiggoh]

According to the bible there once were so called "Leviathans", they were not quite like Charizard, since they lived in the Sea, so more like Gyarados. But the were able to spew fire, so I guess that could have been dragon rage attack or something. So if we ever find a Leviathan fossil I'm sure they could revive a biblical Gyarados Jurassic-Park-style :D Too bad so far no fossils of fire-breathing sea-dragons have been found :(

[@CrowSephus]

haiggoh Maybe just none of the fish ever made it to level 20?

[@haiggoh]

CrowSephus well they can only splash so what else would you expect? I guess exp share wasn't invented yet

[@CrowSephus]

haiggoh just gotta make it to level 15 then they get tackle and the whole process becomes much easier.

[@haiggoh]

CrowSephus haha, you out-nerded me ;)

[@jay_daplugbeats6082]

This presentation made soooo much sense. It tells in simple manner that evolution is and relates the topic to a relatable subject. I love this presentation thumbs up!

[@raysalmon6566]

the presentation is hight presumptuous and impossible

[@RandallWilks]

​@@raysalmon6566 To a creationist whose mind is cluttered with creation mythology it must seem so. If your religion has convinced you that 'faith', belief in the absence of evidence, is in any way superior to evidence based science, then you have subordinated your intellect to that of ancient goat herders.

[@outofthebox9699]

Scientist have made a new discovery! Smartphones evolved from toasters, which evolved from screws, which were created by Iron molecules 1 billion years ago.

[@RandallWilks]

@@outofthebox9699 Ah, the words of an imbecile, flaunting his ignorance across the internet.

[@raysalmon6566]

@@outofthebox9699 those where created by man

[@daserstereichen]

Even Religion evolves.. Oooooh The Irony...

[@myrinsk]

Almost everything evolves lol

[@ThomasLBrock]

amen😂

[@TenleyandChevy]

If a religion changed, why would one believe it? They wouldn't. Simple.

[@craftygirl1886]

​@TenleyandChevy Your right! Because people change. An example, look at Christianity. There are many branches of Christianity, like Catholicism, Protestants, Reforms, Calvinism, Lutheranism, and so forth.. People change and so does their mind. But even tho certain people changed Christianity. It doesn't mean God has change too or the Bible. People may try to add or take away to the Bible, but the Bible is God's Word and His Word stands firm.

[@commonsenselogic]

​@myrinsk Enough to become a different species is the question?

[@archive2500]

Dear Randall Wilks, I urge you to stop commenting because I am getting tired of liking your comments. Please stop.

[@RandallWilks]

Lol.

[@RandallWilks]

Hey, I got 3 letters. Now try more.

[@RandallWilks]

Okay, looks like The block has been removed. Hot damn.

[@wooe]

It's time for some creationist bingo! First we take a look at Eagle Jones a few posts further down this page. What typical traits can we find in this interesting example? - American? Check! - God did it? Check! - Evolution is a lie, no sources included? Check! - Secret conspiration? Check! - American christians is oppressed? Check! 5 points in two badly formulated sentences. That's something to be proud of Eagle boy!

[@themac7915]

Religion is horrible here in America. It's hard to convert people to Atheism without people saying how it's false without evidence, and they may try to turn it on you saying stupid things like, "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" And, "That's stupid!"

[@justinlastname2931]

@@themac7915 This is so unhealthy for both sides ):

[@abulkamali9472]

@@themac7915 america sucks

[@dynamitecrip]

So remember kids, on thanks giving, you're really eating grandpa!!! LOLLLLLLLL

[@thethinkingapeman5648]

Mammals are distantly related to reptiles, but the lineage goes back much further than one or two generations. On Thanks Giving you are eating a descendant of ancient reptiles.

[@lambdaofbacon7118]

Not grandpa. Distant cousin Eddy.

[@horsegirlb7120]

Your ancestors are dead. The turkey is your cousin.

[@AnthonyCalderwood777]

LOL

[@Take22952]

dynamitecrip Now, we are all sons of bitches

[@CCP-Lies]

Why are young earth creationists on this channel? Can't they just go to Answers -bullshit- In Genesis or Kent Hovind -fails- debate?

[@numbersix9477]

The folks at Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind need to make livings. They've found a way! A few tens of thousand of sheep get shorn (just a tiny bit) in the process. You're thinking of it as predator-prey relationship. I agree but a case could be made that it's a symbiotic relationship. The shepherds need the money and the sheep need to be misinformed. Is harm done? Oh, absolutely! The sheep end up being vaccinated against scientific literacy. But if that's what the sheep want ...

[@janickgonzalez8900]

or we can go to doctor (mediocre) Richard Dawkins that refuses to Answer anybody that has different views like Dennis Noble.

[@RandallWilks]

*HOW EVOLUTION WORKS It is helpful to understand that evolution is a molecular process. The random mutations that naturally occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis) are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Mutations are ongoing and continuous for every living species. "Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur.''* Those genetic variants are subjected to a selection process that is performed by whatever environment the organisms find themselves. In this respect, evolution is an ongoing, continuous set of natural experiments. Those that work get perpetuated, those that don't, perish. It is as if the environment acted as an umpire who says "There are good mutations and there are bad mutations and there are neutral mutations, but they ain't nuthin' until I (the environment) calls 'em." That is Natural Selection. Neutral mutations just go along for the ride producing neither immediate benefit nor harm (Genetic Drift). The result of those selection processes is organisms best suited for their current environment. Should that environment change, it would put the population under stress. If the population gene pool has sufficient genetic variation it increases the likelihood that at least some offspring should be able to survive and perpetuate the species (albeit one of slightly different genetic makeup). What everyone should understand is that genetic changes do not occur because of some 'need'. The mutations are RANDOM and get selected if they are USEFUL. That is a process called Natural Selection and it is anything BUT random. Let's take the example of the Panda. Bears in general are omnivores, eating plant matter, but with a marked preference for meat when available. The preferred food of the Panda however, is bamboo leaves, which have such low nutritional value that they must eat almost continuously. The Panda would certainly be able to extract more nutrition with a four chambered stomach (as in ungulates and whales) or something akin to a cecal valve that would slow the passage of food, but it has neither in its genetic toolbox. In feeding themselves, pandas are continuously stripping bamboo leaves from their stalks, a process that could be facilitated if they had a thumb. Bears however do not have thumbs, nor do they have genes for them in their genetic toolbox. Nor do new features simply spring into existence. However, if a slightly altered body component provides some benefit, natural selection will perpetuate it. Evolution is modification with descent and results in incremental alterations to what is already there. As an analogy, imagine a robot gardener dragging a hose around various obstacles it encounters in a garden until it can go no further. Now an intelligent gardener could simply retrace his steps and take a different path, avoiding those obstacles. The robot gardener (evolution) is not an intelligent force and cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, it can only (figuratively) add more hose to get the job done. While a thumb would be quite useful to a panda for stripping leaves, evolution cannot rewind to produce one. Instead, it has taken "a piece of hose' (a wrist bone) and enlarged it to act as a stand in for a thumb. That is not an elegant solution and not a perfect one, but it gets the job done. Evolution is does not produce perfect solutions, but tweaks here and there to "get the job done". THAT is how evolution operates. The panda’s "thumb", developed over many generations of holding things, is clearly a co-opted “radial sesamoid” bone from the paw of a bear. Likewise, the 'Red Panda', a raccoon relative with a similar diet, has evolved a similar feature. Based in part on the fact that no tetrapods, (terrestrial vertebrates) exist in the fossil record prior to about 370 million years ago, the Theory of Evolution would predict that tetrapods evolved from fish. If that were the case, there should have existed at one time a fish with characteristics of both fish and tetrapods. In other words a Transitional Species. Until about 2005, there was little evidence for such a creature. There were however, a class of fish called Sarcopterygians or Lobe Finned Fishes, that dominated Devonian seas. What characterized those lobe finned fishes was that those fins were supported by external bones and muscles. Those bones, a single bone, connected to two bones connected to smaller bones, are analogous to the limb bones of all tetrapods, including humans. Most Sarcopterygian Fishes have long been extinct, but they are survived today by two species of coelacanth and six species of lungfish. ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/sarcopterygii.html Still, what was missing was a fossil showing characteristics of fish AND tetrapods. When Neil Shubin and his team decided to search for a fossil that filled the gap between the Lobe Finned Fishes that dominated Devonian Seas and the earliest tetrapod fossils represented by Ichthyostega and Acanthostega dated about 370 mya. Since those fossils were found in geologic deposits indicating a freshwater environment and if the Theory of Evolution is correct in its hypothesis that tetrapods evolved from fish, then transitional fossils should be found in similar deposits somewhat older in age. The problem was that geologic deposits of that age are exposed at few places on the earth's surface. Fortunately, a great deal of geologic exploration has been done throughout the world, financed often times by oil and mining interests. They selected an area in the Canadian Arctic, Ellesmere Island, as having the greatest likelihood of success. It took 4 years of searching during the short summers of that hostile environment but succeeded, returning in 2004 with 9 specimens of the fish they named Tiktaalik. It was exactly what one would expect a transitional fish-tetrapod to look like and was found in deposits dated 375 mya. If this was not the direct ancestor of tetrapods, it was something very much like it.This is a great example of using evolutionary theory as a predictive tool. Btw, biointeractive(dot)org is a great source of information for all of science. If anyone has an interest in expanding their knowledge of science they should use it. The genetic variation within a population is referred to as a gene pool. Organisms can move freely within that population breeding with each other, perpetuating any new mutations that work and eliminating those that are less than optimal. Each offspring will most resemble its parents, yet will vary slightly genetically because of unique mutations acquired during meiosis. Thus the genetic makeup of a population will change ever so slightly with each successive generation. Populations are not stable, they expand and contract with changing conditions. So long as there is sufficient genetic variation within a population there will be some members capable of surviving those conditions and perpetuating the species. The alternative is extinction. When populations expand and migrate to new territories, some portions of it will become genetically isolated from each other and no longer share a common gene pool. In such cases, each such sub population will carry a subset of the parent population genome, but subsequent mutations will be unique to each new population (the genotype) that will come to differentiate that population from others (Genetic Drift). To the extent that such populations encounter differing environmental conditions, that environment will exert different evolutionary pressures on that population. New mutations will have a much greater chance of coming to dominance within a smaller population than they would in the larger parent population where they would be one among the many. Over thousands of generations genetic differences accumulate in the different gene pools making interbreeding ever more difficult until at some point speciation can be said to have occurred. Because speciation is a process, rather than an event, it would be no more possible to pinpoint where speciation occurred than to identify where on the color spectrum orange becomes red.

[@luisaugustobonilha8210]

Excellent your text. I think the vast majority of people don't understand this mechanism well. Evolution is the hypothesis that best explains life on Earth. Mutations + Natural Selection = Evolution. When you use Panda as an example, we can conclude that it is a mistake to call a Species as being "more evolved" or at the "top of the evolutionary scale" as some like to think about the human kind, after all the concept of "elegance" it's pretty relative since the Panda adaptation does the job.

[@jesusisdead]

Evolution would have to be a result of deleting dna because the simplest life forms are complicated

[@RandallWilks]

Deleted comment: Jesus911 2 hours ago (edited) Evolution would have to be a result of deleting dna because the simplest life forms are complicated

[@RandallWilks]

@Jesus911 It is very obvious that religion has destroyed your ability to think.

[@RandallWilks]

Another deleted comment: Jesus911 Randall Wilks ameobas 290 to 670 billion dna base pairs. You have 3 billion. Yeah no buddy i went to a secular university and I am a biologist and let me tell you that the university tried to do that

[@lemmonadethefennec1359]

Thanks for helping me with the test I’ll have tomorrow. Maybe I’ll do a little better now thanks to you:)

[@fendergilbraltar5158]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmPWiK13pdqorMU

[@vijeta754]

There is one phrase from indian ideology.. which says "Vasudev kutumbakam" means the whole world is one family..

[@TrashDeviant]

This is why while I don't follow any particular religion, I believe there is a lot of wisdom in a lot of them. Some more than others. :)

[@alexikamran7039]

@yugen dran could pass me the link of this research paper, I need to do some research?

[@rivvy2138]

@@nehasinghrajput8200 it's not so difficult to say "we do not know" okay? Yall religious people have difficulty saying that. We do not know what was before the big bang or if there was even a before. It doesn't mean your God did it.

[@rockellkassandra2807]

BOND, James BOND i know its your opinion but you sound stupid as fuck

[@daughteroftheholyone]

Further research proves otherwise

[@RandallWilks]

Creationists don't like evolution and wish it would go away. They have been attempting to refute Darwin's ideas for 160 years and their lack of success makes them very frustrated. Since they have no facts by which to refute evolution, they turn to personal attacks on the man. One suggestion; since they have so far been unsuccessful in eliminating evolution, they might consider prayer. While I have personal doubts as to its efficacy, there are those who claim it works. If creationists were to put all their efforts into mass prayer and were successful, I might be convinced.

[@guardianoftheknowledgeemer4743]

I'm a creationist,btw. The reason Creationists failed to refute Evolution is because a lot of pastors actually accepted some parts of Evolution.They didn't fight back the way they should have.

[@ahryan8557]

Do you believe we are the products of random chance?

[@StalinistEnjoyer]

@@ahryan8557 Uh yeah lol

[@arsjproductions5743]

but how can nothing become something

[@RandallWilks]

@@arsjproductions5743 Something from nothing is what the bible claims. What do you think "Out of the void" means? It asserts that life was 'created' where none had existed before. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation for the BIOLOGICAL PROCESS which gave rise to the vast diversity of life on this planet; what Charles Darwin termed "descent with modification". Creationists assert life originated by supernatural intervention, for which there is ZERO evidence. Most scientists think it most likely came about by natural molecular combinations from inorganic precursor components. That is called _Abiogenesis,_ for which there is SOME evidence, but is inconclusive. In science, that is called a _Hypothesis,_ a possible explanation for observed phenomena. There is insufficient evidence for it to be regarded as a Scientific Theory. If further evidence were to demonstrate abiogenesis to be impossible, that hypothesis will be discarded. However, as additional evidence accumulates in support of a hypothesis, so does the confidence that it is correct. When all evidence supports a hypothesis and none refutes it, it can become a Scientific Theory, which in science is the highest level of certainty possible.

[@RandallWilks]

*IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?* Answer from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences: *It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."* . *In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.* *The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.* *Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.* *One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.* *In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.* From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences © 2019 U.S. National Academy of Sciences. www.nap.edu/catalog/6024/science-and-creationism-a-view-from-the-national-academy-of

[@jesussaves3376]

Evolution is not valid

[@RandallWilks]

@@jesussaves3376 Thank you. Your confession of abysmal ignorance is very courageous. Most people of marginally greater intellect than you find it best not to advertise the fact. You, on the other hand, flaunt your ignorance for the world to see. That takes incredible stupidity.

[@kylewagler8488]

I must say; I really do appreciate your time and effort into this very informative video! thanks :)

[@motherlandmars5999]

The theory of evolution is a dogma without any scientific evidence. It was introduced not for scientific reasons but for ideological reasons. There are no fossils that prove evolution. Millions of fossils prove no evolution. Living things did not appear by evolution but by the Cambrian explosion. And traces have been found that prove that people from the times when Darwinists claimed that people were half animals were fully human. There was no such thing as evolution. And countless studies in laboratories have failed to turn up any examples of beneficial mutations. Almighty Allah created living things not by evolution but by the Cambrian explosion. The functions of all organs, which Darwinists call obsolete organs in living things, have been revealed. In other words, there is no such thing as an expired organ in humans or other living things.

[@Grey-Fox_94]

I love it when creationists sit there on their behind a computer watching a video on evolution with provides facts and evidence, in an easy to understand way, and then sits there behind their computer screen saying nope! That's rubbish. Go read your bible. Just because your not convinced does not mean that evolution is false. That is called an argument from personal incredulity.

[@nuddin99]

They just state that evolution is false and give no data to back up their statements ;-;

[@thesciencekid7664]

this is why im athiest

[@Tenuk868]

***** How can u deny god=creator just because you was ape and still an ape? Why can god create human from ape?? The theory of evolution deny nothing ..

[@RandallWilks]

Tenuk868 It is not necessary to deny something that does not exist, just like those monsters under the bed.

[@blaster-pz9cz]

***** "Dogs do have a common ancestor, it was a dog.". No. the common ancestor to all dogs are wolves.

[@ianhills5793]

Very valuable presentation. Thanks! So glad this one mentions Alfred Russel Wallace, who should be as celebrated as Darwin.

[@T800-theRealOne]

This is a very well put together video on evolution and the process behind it. Thanks for the upload.

[@ramptonarsecandle]

How has this got 1500 dislikes when he's only stating facts??? Guess some people don't like facts, can't change them though

[@richardblazer8070]

Facts discomfort willfully ignorant people.

[@picturepainter]

The dislikes could really be one person with 1500 sock accounts.

[@fendergilbraltar5158]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmPWiK13pdqorMU

[@ramptonarsecandle]

@@fendergilbraltar5158 seen that before, biggest load of lies, mistruths and misunderstandings out there. Try again Cletus

[@FinflazodeTurroai]

Very, very good clip. I've watched it several times. Illustrations are good, and the explanation very clear. Keep up with the good work.

[@RandallWilks]

Probably the best test of any scientific theory is its usefulness as a predictive tool. In that respect, the Theory of Evolution has performed admirably. The Theory of Evolution would predict that, IF birds evolved from dinosaurs, there should be a progression of derived traits in dinosaurs leading up to the origin of birds and that is exactly what we see. Arguably, the most complete transitional sequence in the fossil record is that from dinosaurs to birds. Birds didn’t just evolve from dinosaurs overnight, but the features of birds evolved one by one; first light bones and bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers that look like quill-pen feathers, then wings. Yes, wings evolved before flight. Just as there are birds today such as ostriches, emus, rheas, etc. that no longer fly, yet still use their wings for other purposes, there were winged theropod dinosaurs that may have used them to shelter young, for mating displays, or intimidating a predator or rival just as do birds of today. Long before wings, the forelimbs of theropods evolved to allow them to reach forward to grasp prey with their claws. Those are the Maniraptors. That movement is exactly the same as that required for flapping wings. Archaeopteryx still had those grasping claws as did other early birds. The young chicks of the “Stinking Hoatzin” still retain remnants of them. There is a succession of feathered dinosaur fossils with increasingly bird like characteristics i.e. Xiaotingia, Sinosauropteryx prima, Caudipteryx, Sinovenator and others. Any of these fossils showing such a mix of traits can be considered transitional. The whole lineage of feathered dinosaurs could be considered transitional. The fossil record even shows the stages of feather evolution from simple spikes to down to contour feathers and ultimately to quilled flight feathers. Today we have lots of feathered dinosaur fossils; so many feathered theropod fossils in fact, that most paleontologiosts now think ALL theropods were probably feathered. There were dinosaurs with wings that couldn't possibly fly, like 5 foot 40 pound Zhenyuanlong suni and little ones like Microraptor that could fly. There were a great many almost-birds and not-quite-birds. And birds like Auronis, Archaeopteryx, Shenzhouraptor, Rahonavis, Yandangornis Jixiangornis, Sapeornis, Omnivoropteryx, Confuciusornis and Changchengornis that retain some dinosaur-like features such as teeth and long bony tails. Evolution is NOT a linear process. Many of these species lived at the same time, displaying a matrix of characteristics. Evolution is a natural experiment. Some things work and get perpetuated, others may enjoy brief success before extinction. With so many transitional fossils displaying both bird-like and dinosaur-like features, there is an almost seamless transition from dinosaur to bird (as well as a great number of dead end evolutionary experiments) and it is often difficult to separate the two. Doing so requires statistical analysis of nearly 1000 inherited and derived characteristics.

[@ufuksertoglu7534]

How many theories or is there a reality? Misunderstanding about science and religion, as there exists only one divine way, to be seeked, as only sence to all Science and Divinity cannot be separated Its the opposite, world-leaders always used science to influence world-folk and since ever highest leading staff also arrogate to change divinity, all for selfish benefit So is Darwin a Project of world-leading Freemasons Reality is not based on theories. We are here to find out what is already given, not to add speculations - this is science. Any subjective attempts are based on bad intentions. Human has created nothing, so cannot know and must only learn. Sent Prophets revealed "reality" and last holy book Koran explains lifes before humans, evolution and all creation. Koran expains embroyonal development of baby, long before doctors had no tools to find out this; and many more truth. If you are prejudiced, you will not seek, but act inbetween your and others limitedness. Those who ain´t seek divine way, won´t face matter of salvation, as not agreed truth that came from of a direction their ego haven´t awaited at life

[@TenleyandChevy]

have you personally studied dinosaur and bird genetics? Have you tested that theory or do you just take that easy answer instead of offending people?

[@F1zzyUp]

I was 5 when this came out and this saved my grades in biology. Thank you🤝

[@TheFallibleFiend]

Creationism in a nutshell: "I have never engaged in any activity that could remotely be confused with homework on this subject, nor would I recognize actual homework on it, nor do I understand or appreciate the homework that others have invested on the topic. However, I browsed a web page, talked it over with a minister and an MBA, and consulted a few like-minded and equally ill-informed people, so I feel confident in saying that scientists are full of cr@p."

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Well said.

[@alfonso201]

@Dan C. What would you accept as evidence for God's existence

[@alfonso201]

@Dan C. Which one?

[@alfonso201]

@Dan C. Actually the bible god is not the only god that claimed to create everything there are other religions that their god claims the same claims And how do you know that the nt is the word of god as it doesn't claim to be from god to begin with it could be someone who is just writing stuff?

[@tobleramone]

@Dan C. Suggesting that a deity created everything solves nothing and only creates an endless cycle of 'what created the deity that created the deity that created... etc'.

[@RandallWilks]

*WHAT ARE CREATIONISTS?* Creationists are, by their own admission, people who hold to any one of the thousands of creation myths that arose in primitive societies. Their one common thread is a belief that one or more supernatural entity used magic to create humans and everything else. The fact that there is no evidence to support such belief does not register with them. Their religion dictates what they are to believe and those that fail to do so are threatened with eternal punishment, because the deity loves you. On the other hand, those who willingly parrot the dogma of their particular belief system are promised an afterlife of 24/7 eternal bliss. (perpetual use of hallucinogens, perhaps?) The one seemingly unifying concept of such supernatural belief systems is that the vast diversity of life on this planet could not possibly have come about by any NATURAL process, such as evolution. It is immaterial to creationists which supernatural entity (or entities) performed the miracle of creation, they are united in their opposition to evolution. To aide them in their denial, many adopt a "Statement of Faith" such as this from Answers in Genesis: *_"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."_* This makes creationism the antithesis of science. Science is a search for truth and truth is established by evidence, not by what anyone says. By what means can rational discussion be conducted when evidence is rejected? Virtually none. Such an attitude sets creationism at odds with science, which is a search for truth based on evidence. How logical is it for someone to claim they accept the findings of science in some regards, but not others? Trying to reason with such people is like administering medicine to the dead. 'Cognitive Dissonance' is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who is confronted by information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas or values. Beliefs instilled in children are particularly resistant to change, since they tend to become part of that person's identity. Thus any information contradicting those beliefs will be seen as an attack on one's self, causing extreme mental stress and discomfort. There are but two means by which to resolve Cognitive Dissonance, to either change the belief or to deny and attack the information that contradicts that belief. "Belief is not an idea the mind possesses, belief is an idea that possesses the mind." (Robert Oxton Bolton) . Belief is so inextricably enmeshed in emotion that rational thought becomes impossible. “Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.” - Albert Einstein Breaking free of such indoctrination creates its own set of problems. Not only is there inner conflict, but any attempt to do so will certainly meet with resistance from family or circles of acquaintances who have been similarly indoctrinated.

[@sariathebrave5259]

Imagine if people denied mathematics or language. That’s the same as science deniers like creationists

[@fortunenese1668]

where is evidence for evilution? nothing but fake lucy fossils made with pigs teeth!!! the evilutionists commit tax fraud and tax evasion by funding their religion with government taxes. this is double felony. we should round up these heathen evilutionists and send them all to jail. start with mayling and randalwilts, fbi on their way

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

@@fortunenese1668 - Triggered much?

[@fortunenese1668]

@@hammalammadingdong6244 by stating truth? self project ur butthurt elsewhere evotard

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

fortune nese - ad hominem attacks and ignorance are not evidence, amigo.

[@sariathebrave5259]

Hamma Lammadingdong Im pretty sure he’s just trolling and acting like a creationist. The funny thing is though I don’t really know, because some creationists I know act just like that seriously.

[@nanyanzisophia863]

Thanks for your clear explanations. Your work is very understandable and it is easy to piece up the pieces between genetics and evolution.

[@alejrandom6592]

God exist because there is no proof he doesn't Therefore, santa claus exists as well

[@bananatorpedo275]

*_HECC_*

[@isokessu]

What the hell are you talking about. Santa claus used to be real person in germany

[@asap9224]

Now wait just a dog gone minute there Kenny Arais are you telling me that santa is not real 😢😢😢 now i have to rethink this whole christianity thing...

[@chriscornell9409]

Take a step outside the box. Count how many fingers are on your hand, Count how many eyes you have, Take anatomy classes or look it up. Look around you. Look a trees look at rocks.

[@davidrivas6412]

The idea of a god/creator sounds more rational and logical than Santa Claus since everything we see today is created somehow. And who knows Santa Claus might be real too. He probably was a man dedicated to Christmas but the stories about him flying with his reindeer is probably a myth or made up .

[@bugzpudding]

We watched this is class today and you helped me understand the theories of evolution so much! Thank you! Our class of 2020 loves you!

[@CarpenterBretL]

You got deceived!

[@godach1lles741]

@@CarpenterBretL PEOPLE ARE REALLY WIRED TO THING THAT REALY HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD, HOLY MOLE.

[@lexiedus]

Creationists! If you feel threatened by this then please click on the advertisement or an assortment of videos on creationism on the right. Don't worry, you don't want your fictional "heaven" to be overcrowded anyway. Just let us revel in actual science (or in your mind burn in a fictional "hell") so that we don't have to live a life of ignorance. This seems a lot more exciting than whatever it is you're wasting your time on. I thank you kindly.

[@blaster-zy7xx]

+God, Science, and People Ah yes, and still protecting your the typical belief in magic fallacy.

[@loafers1682]

What is fiction to you is the whole world to somebody else. Idk if you were born yesterday but pretty sure you would know

[@fendergilbraltar5158]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmPWiK13pdqorMU

[@asmafaqueer213]

bruh this vid is about evolution why everybody having a war over religion lmao

[@thatkidwholovesfighting7638]

because unlike evolution, religion has logic "minus infinite"

[@rathernot6587]

@@thatkidwholovesfighting7638 ?

[@ennervool]

Because evolution goes agaisnt their beliefs

[@Xarai]

because young earthers think evolution is fake blah blah blah

[@mendyriddims]

look, I'm Christian (Catholic) and still believe in evolution. There is a possibility that evolution still occurred. Not necessarily in the bible but It's possible 🤷‍♂️

[@shivkuma100]

Awesome we learnt a lot!!!!! I like how it was cartoonic that children can understand! Wonderful! A child or adult WILL like it mostly !!!! KEEP IT UP!!!!!

[@shantanu2117]

FINALLY!!! A comment that is not about what is fake ,religion or evolution.

[@deantotherescue8429]

Cartoonish. Just like the THEORIES behind the evolution religion. Spongebob. Pastor Kent Hovind cracks me up when he says that. JUST IMAGINE!

[@TenleyandChevy]

@@deantotherescue8429 you are so right. It is stupid.

[@TenleyandChevy]

You are believing in a lie.

[@RandallWilks]

Creationists often resort to attacking and vilifying Charles Darwin, a man who has been dead for 130 years. Why they choose to do so is beyond comprehension as there have been thousands of scientists who have since not only confirmed Darwin's findings, but have uncovered troves of fossils and genetic evidence that expand our knowledge of both past and present. They seem to think that saying _"Nuh-uh", "Nuh-uh", "Nuh-uh",_ is a really profound argument.

[@TheMorhaGroup]

And this argument here, where no valid point has been made, and is in fact of a fallacious nature, can it too be considered "profound"?

[@amyzhang5622]

Is nobody gonna talk about the weird visual glitches throughout the video?

[@troyhayworth7209]

I was literally going through the comments to see if anyone else had them too.

[@sohanpattnaik4331]

Damn man you just cleared my 2 year old doubt in a couple of minutes. Thanks a lottttt.....

[@fendergilbraltar5158]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmPWiK13pdqorMU

[@RandallWilks]

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

[@TenleyandChevy]

But we shouldn't only depend on those things, don't you see? Man cannot live apart from God. "In Him was life, and life was the light of men." John 1:4. Apart from God we are nothing. Jesus gave his life, and this is what he got. Uneducated people who can't accept Him

[@RandallWilks]

Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypotheses and theories all of which must be backed by evidence. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is initially PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). There are degrees of certainty in science and as further evidence accumulates in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence. Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science.

[@kp-chris]

when?

[@bobbertonsmivelton7019]

So you all believe that the big bang, if I can get this straight, A MASSIVE EXPLOSION came out of nowhere when nothing wasn't anything. That's supernatural, supernatural as in can't be explained by normal science as we know it.

[@kp-chris]

@@bobbertonsmivelton7019 we are allowed not to know things lol

[@RandallWilks]

@@bobbertonsmivelton7019 If you ever learn how to check facts for yourself you would realize that someone fed you a line of shit. NO, you did not "get it straight", you bought creationist bullshit. There was no _"MASSIVE EXPLOSION."_ If you ever bother to learn about a subject, and you should before demonstrating your ignorance, you would find that the term "Big Bang" was initially used derisively by astronomer Fred Hoyle who believed in a "steady state" universe. The hypothesis of an expanding universe was proposed in 1927 by the Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaître, who was also a Catholic priest. He proposed an expanding universe as a model that would explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae and that the red shifts themselves were not constant, but varied, suggesting there was a definite relationship between amount of red-shift and their distance from observers. In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided observational evidence for Lemaître's hypothesis. Hubble's observations showed that galaxies are receding in every direction at velocities (calculated from their observed red-shifts) directly proportional to their distance from the Earth and each other. The physics of the "Big Bang" Theory originating from a singularity suggested that the initial condition of the universe would have been an extremely dense white hot plasma (an opaque fog) the gravity of which would have been so,great as to prevent the escape of any radiation until it cooled sufficiently to allow protons and electrons to bind forming the simplest elements (primarily Hydrogen, with small amounts of Helium and Lithium). IF that assumption was correct, it was hypothesized that some 'echo' of the Big Bang should be detectable in the form of residual radiation. The search for such evidence began in earnest about 1940 and by 1964 a group at Princeton proposed a series of elaborate experiments to aid that search when the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was discovered quite by accident by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. It earned them the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics. From 2003 to 2010, NASA's WMAP spacecraft took very detailed pictures of the universe by means of the cosmic microwave background radiation. The images can be interpreted to indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (within one percent error) and that the Lambda-CDM model and the inflationary theory are correct. No other cosmological theory can yet explain such a wide range of observed parameters, from the ratio of the elemental abundances in the early universe to the structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the observed higher abundance of active galactic nuclei in the early universe and the observed masses of clusters of galaxies. The "Big Bang" Theory was not some wild ass guess that scientists adopted to verify their "world view." Quite the opposite. Its acceptance by the scientific community only came about after much debate, in the 1970s when the evidence became beyond overwhelmingly persuasive that that there was an expansion of space from a pre-existing state. (Not from 'nothing' as creationists assert.) It is not so much that "steady state' was proven wrong, but that the evidence supporting "Big Bang" became overwhelming. As Albert Einstein said "The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms." The Big Bang theory certainly did that, providing explanation for the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law. So, in the future it would benefit you to really "get things straight" and not be so eager to buy creationist bullshit.

[@RandallWilks]

SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT BELIEFS, IT'S ABOUT TESTABLE AND FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESES AND SCIENTIFIC THEORIES; all of which must be backed by evidence. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is initially PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). There are degrees of certainty in science and as further evidence accumulates in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence. Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science..

[@TisEYEthe1]

For those of you who have a problem accepting research and scientific theories of biological evolution, just remind yourselves of what you're used to believing in: God's, Devils, Ghosts, Demons, Angels...

[@RandallWilks]

*HERE IS WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS US - About Morality.* Please cite the passages that promote morality. Don't forget the quiz at the end. 1. You can own slaves. You can buy and sell slaves. You can even sell your own daughter (Exodus 21:7-10). If she fails to please her master, you must refund him the purchase price. 2. You can beat the living shit out of your slaves without being punished, as long as they do not die within two days (Exodus 20:20-21). Under what standards of morality is it ever okay to beat another human being like that and not suffer any consequences? It is reassuring the bible endorses property rights, but a source of morality it is not. 3. The bible not only condones slavery but sets prices for them (Leviticus 27:3-7). The bible obviously was concerned about human traffickers getting a fair price for their goods. 4. Surely Jesus had compassion towards slaves. He tells slaves to be obedient and subservient. That is why slave owners in the Americas pushed Christianity onto their slaves and punished those caught practicing their ancient religions.. Very reassuring. According to Jesus, it was okay to beat slaves, those who unwittingly made mistakes were to be given few lashes, those who knowingly violated rules were to be given many lashes. Ownership rights, you know. 5. Thou shalt not kill. Now THERE is a good one. However, it seems there are exceptions: No sooner had Moses returned from his first trip up the mountains to find a party to which he had not been invited, in a fit of rage he orders his Levite goon squad to kill "every man his brother, and every man his friend and every man his neighbor." Exodus 32:28 "The Levites did as Moses commanded and that day about 3000 of the people died." 'Tough Love' maybe? 6. But there are others. The bible requires the faithful to put to death by stoning; Adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:10); Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), Non virgins (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), any of your neighbors foolish enough to mow their lawn on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15,Exodus 35:1-3,Numbers 15:32-36). 7. Oh, and speaking of rape, surely that ranks high on the ‘Thou shalt nots’ of the ten commandments. *NO???* It is not even mentioned??? An oversight perhaps? But then it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times) and such. Take a look at these REALLY important commandments (there are different versions within the bible). Thou shalt not: Worship other gods Work on the Sabbath (death penalty crime) Take the name of the lord in vain (OMG, ANOTHER capital crime) Make graven images Covet thy neighbor’s wife or house or ass And, oh yes, ‘thou shalt not kill’ and ‘thou shalt not steal’ are in there somewhere near the bottom. *But rape? Not one word!!!* How about elsewhere in the bible? Surely somewhere the bible must condemn rape, no? Oh, yes, here; Deuteronomy 22:28-29 28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her *and they are discovered,* 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" *YESSS! There it is. Rape is a PROPERTY crime*. The rapist has damaged the father’s PROPERTY and it is he that must be compensated. What justice for the victim of the rape? She has to marry her rapist. Surely she lived happily ever after, no? And what if they were not discovered and the girl kept quiet out of fear? The bible is quite clear about the fate of girls who are not virgins on their wedding day. Here, as elsewhere in the bible, women are chattel and have no say in their future. It is interesting to note that, while the bible mandates death by stoning for adulterers and non virgin brides, raping an 'unbethrothed' virgin incurred only a monetary penalty. This is biblical justice? In any case, it begs the question; what is the penalty for raping a 'betrothed' virgin? Is compensation to be paid to her intended husband? 8. The bible endorses mass murder and sex slavery. Numbers 31:14-18 "14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. *17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."* Numbers 31:35 - "And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him." *THIRTY TWO THOUSAND VIRGINS* being divided up to be used by “god’s chosen people” at the same time their mothers and brothers by the tens of thousands were being slaughtered like animals. Many of those women would have been pregnant, their unborn fetus dying inside them. And what would have been the crime of young boys of whatever age? 2? 4? 10? There was no distinction about age. This is GENOCIDE, condemned by civilized nations of the world. If you fail to feel a deep sense of moral outrage at this, how do you condemn ISIS for doing far less? Genocide in whatever form is an ugly stain on humanity. To claim it to be a moral act is the ultimate evil. Why then, should you regard the bible as a moral guide? Is ISIS any less evil? So what response do we hear from zealots? Shock? Horror? No! Their predicable response is indifference and a callous “They had it coming to them.” We have heard those words echoed by unrepentant Nazis and the barbaric ISIS. And how does that equate to morality? Are not empathy and compassion the cornerstones of morality? Where then is there any morality here? Perhaps it was just an oversight that the bible nowhere condemns slavery, or rape or molesting children, but yet it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times). What does that say about biblical priorities? If the bible is the source of your 'morality', call a mental health hotline, NOW.. God sends Abraham to murder his own son, clearly an immoral act. Abraham is perfectly willing to do so. And for this, the bible praises Abraham. To a rational person, morality is doing what's right, no matter what one is told. Biblical morality is doing what you are told no matter what. Although an angel was sent to 'stay Abraham's hand', no such courtesy was given Jephthah's daughter made into a burnt offering to the lord (Judges 11:29-40). That should be enough to turn anyone's stomach. And what of Jephthah? Was this murderer of an innocent child punished in any way? *Was he condemned? NO. He is PRAISED. THE BIBLE TACITLY APPROVES OF HUMAN SACRIFICE.* To suggest that morality stems from religion is not only wrong, it is frightening. You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, you lack empathy, not religion. And the bible has a special message for women: "STFU". We see at every turn they are denied the rights afforded to men; they were regarded as property, either of their father or their husband. It can be a source of pride for women that apparently not a single one of them participated in the writing of the bible. The rights that women have today were not granted them by the bible, they had to fight for them. The bible endorses misogyny. Some of the rules in the bible are downright strange. Take Leviticus 15:19- 24 for instance that forbids contact with a woman while she is "unclean" (during her period). I mean how is a guy to know? Surely it is impolite to ask. Donald Trump has a way of finding out, but I doubt the average guy could get away with it. Atheists have greater claim to morality than those who espouse religion. They are moral because it is the intelligent way to behave towards our fellow man, not out of expectation of reward or fear of punishment. If you are "moral" because of those constraints, you are a very dangerous person. Slavery still exists, but it has been made illegal in virtually every part of the world, NOT because of guidance from the bible, but because it was the right thing to do. Morality stems from empathy and concern for our fellow man. Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things; but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion. Dictators take control of a populace by instilling fear of punishment, how is religion any different than that? “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire Mark Twain once said _"It ain't the parts of the bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I DO understand."_ Now the question: Do YOU understand why the bible is said to be the source of morality? Because I sure don't..

[@TheSoleToast]

10/10-IGN "good animation"

[@fendergilbraltar5158]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmPWiK13pdqorMU

[@RandallWilks]

Creationist tactic #1: Lie Creationist tactic #2: Lie some more. Creationist tactic #3: Keep lying, no need for evidence; someone is bound to believe the lies. Creationist tactic #4: When challenged to present any evidence for fabricated statements, respond with “prove it is a lie”. Creationist tactic #5: Why stop lying now? You can always claim you are winning. Creationist tactic #6: Claim you are morally superior.

[@bensonchen3915]

Randall Wilks Atheists tactics #1 attack the believers

[@numbercode2486]

@Eden Zurlent, Except evolution is not just considered as a "belief", it's also considered as a proven fact. For which creationists deny.

[@tagnochciao7102]

You forgot quoting the bible

[@RandallWilks]

@@tagnochciao7102 Oh, yeah. You're right. They do that quite often, don't they? What they don't get is that TRUTH is determined by EVIDENCE; not by what anyone says and not by words in an old book. The rules of evidence are this: IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY... *YOU LOSE!*

[@RandallWilks]

@@bensonchen3915 *_SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT BELIEFS, IT'S ABOUT TESTABLE AND FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESES AND SCIENTIFIC THEORIES;_* all of which must be backed by evidence. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is initially PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). There are degrees of certainty in science and as further evidence accumulates in support of a hypothesis, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a hypothesis and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence. Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science.

[@alans.wendelschafer6588]

I wasn't allowed to learn about this in school, so I thought I would try learning now.

[@matteomastrodomenico1231]

It's never too late 👍

[@isabelloaiza3275]

Very well explained. My children really enjoyed it. Me too! Thank you!

[@gabemartinez03k]

The best part about evolution is that it’s true whether you believe in it or not.

[@martahailegiorgis3443]

Its all lie. If you believe or not God is exist.

[@Brathize]

@@martahailegiorgis3443 OK Marta go back to feed your children

[@Brathize]

Also.. believe in it or not cthulhu exist!! You cannot use the same sentence to everything you can imagine.

[@no.9516]

@@martahailegiorgis3443 Are you a genetic twin to either of your parents? No? Congrats! Evolution is real and youre wrong.

[@milad6914]

Dude this is awesome. I haven't finished the video yet. But this is awesome. Evolution is awesome.

[@RandallWilks]

There is zyl zyl again. All he does is deny, deny deny; never EVER offering any evidence in support of his empty assertions. He seems to think that continuous repetition gains him credibility.

[@jesussaves3376]

Evolution is deception by the enemy

[@yield269]

Scroll down for the Festival of Ignorance. Enjoy!

[@evanwilder6432]

A

[@evanwilder6432]

A b c d e f g h I j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

[@butternuttt]

thank you for a really great explanation for simple-minded people to understand evolution

[@deejay2301]

+Edwin Luciano Thank you for pointing out that words are still words regardless if it's Spanish or English words. They're all still words. Back to poodles coming from wolves different in size and abilities, but they're still the same species. Just like words can come in different forms, they're still words. You just proved my case. What we have discussed is just Natural Selection, NOT EVOLUTION. Evolution says a dog mutated into a whale Edwin. Think about the changes a 50lb dog will have to go through in order to become a whale. That dog will have to gain over 20 tons of weight, lose it's legs, increase it's size 20ft or more in length, lose all it's hair, develop sonar abilities, lose it's keen sense of smell, grow fins, develop a blow hole ect ect. And on top of all that the dog will have to SURVIVE THAT WHOLE PROCESS. Please understand the difference between natural selection and evolution.

[@EdwinLuciano]

+Dee Jay Oh. I see. You think that _Pakicetus_ is a dog. It's not even in the same order as the basal whale. No wonder you don't understand evolution. Your facts are all mixed up.

[@EdwinLuciano]

Dee Jay It's not a rodent either. And a dogfish isn't a dog. And a tiger lilly isn't a tiger.

[@deejay2301]

+Edwin Luciano Clearly you have yet to research natural selection dealing with DNA information. You believe an overgrown Possum evolved into a whale Edwin. First off proteins cannot form DNA without the guidance of information from preexisting DNA. Proving us coming from a chemical soup FALSE. But your still on words are still words....tsk tsk my friend tsk tsk. I'm trying to help you out my friend. People care Edwin...people care.

[@mulcontol]

+Dee Jay www.google.com.au/search?q=evolution+of+feathers&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ8du9_fTLAhVHG5QKHcNND1QQ_AUIBygB&biw=1536&bih=699#tbm=isch&q=Pakicetus+transition+to+modern+wale

[@deejay2301]

+Scott Pansini Pakicetus has already been excluded from being a transitional fossil. The ears after being studied by a real biologist has confirmed it resembles more of a land mammal like giraffe..DEAD END. Philip D Gingerich the main man who discovered rodhocetus admits NOW there are no transitional indications found in the fossil of rodhocetus...DEAD END. The fossil record is misleading, distorted and based on evolutionists beliefs automatically being biased.

[@SSmith-ce8tk]

Absolutely loved this!! We are all related! 🔬🐛🦋

[@nicknick493]

the amount of people who think evolution is a myth is scary tbh

[@daadventuresofvboi956]

true...

[@der_municycler]

Thanks for talking about Wallace as well

[@jamesthewatcher3932]

"But my magic book says.. ! "

[@easylivingsherpa]

I agree origin of the species is pure alchemy.

[@obi6753]

I really enjoyed the topic. It was clearly explained

[@RandallWilks]

*EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - THE HUMAN BRAIN* (part 1) - is remarkable for its size and complexity in relation to body mass. Even more remarkable is the fact that at 2% of average body weight, it requires 20% of total caloric intake to function. Still more remarkable is that the human infant, born of necessity at a very early stage of development, utilizes 60% of available calories for neuronal development. That brain continues expansion through adolescence and even into early adulthood. Such a long childhood is also a unique human feature, but is a continuation of a trend that began with our primate ancestors.. Our abilities to speak, make tools or fly to the moon are due to the increased cognitive abilities of a brain whose size and complexity increased incrementally over millions of years of evolution. Evolution is a PROCESS and not an EVENT. What we see over the course of evolution is incremental alterations of existing structures, not sudden changes. This is what we see in the evolution of the human brain. Humans are vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes and our genome reflects that ancestry. Early mammal survival in a world dominated by dinosaurs, depended on increased sensory perception (sight, smell and hearing) and the mammalian brain developed an expanded cortex to accommodate that demand. Primates and rodents separated from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago. The rodent evolutionary path to success lay in their reproductive ability, primates on the other hand, relied on increased cognitive ability for enhanced survival. Rather than relying on having large litters of young, primates invested more time and effort producing one or two offspring, nurturing them over longer periods of time during which offspring learned from their parents. Primates are generally limited to two mammary glands, although supernumerary mammaries are not unheard of, even in humans. They are regarded as atavistic traits.

[@reeseexplains8935]

Great explanation that is very well explained and stated clearly.

[@motherlandmars5999]

The theory of evolution is a dogma without any scientific evidence. It was introduced not for scientific reasons but for ideological reasons. There are no fossils that prove evolution. Millions of fossils prove no evolution. Living things did not appear by evolution but by the Cambrian explosion. And traces have been found that prove that people from the times when Darwinists claimed that people were half animals were fully human. There was no such thing as evolution. And countless studies in laboratories have failed to turn up any examples of beneficial mutations. Almighty Allah created living things not by evolution but by the Cambrian explosion. The functions of all organs, which Darwinists call obsolete organs in living things, have been revealed. In other words, there is no such thing as an expired organ in humans or other living things.

[@Strade8]

I have a dream: one day, I'll open a youtube video about evolution, and i will find just people with a degree in biology and same nerds posting underneath it. Really, just leave us alone! It is time you go bother astrophysicist about dark energy for Christ's sake!

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Agreed

[@RandallWilks]

*THE HUMAN BRAIN IS REMARKABLE* for its size and complexity in relation to body mass. Even more remarkable is the fact that at 2% of average body weight, it requires 20% of total caloric intake to function. Still more remarkable is that the human infant, born of necessity at a very early stage of development, utilizes 60% of available calories for neuronal development. That brain continues expansion through adolescence and even into early adulthood. Such a long childhood is also a unique human feature, but is a continuation of a trend that began with our primate ancestors.. Our abilities to speak, make tools or fly to the moon are due to the increased cognitive abilities of a brain whose size and complexity increased incrementally over millions of years of evolution. Evolution is a PROCESS and not an EVENT. What we see over the course of evolution is incremental alterations of existing structures, not sudden changes. This is what we see in the evolution of the human brain. Humans are vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes and our genome reflects that ancestry. Early mammal survival in a world dominated by dinosaurs, depended on increased sensory perception (sight, smell and hearing) and the mammalian brain developed an expanded cortex to accommodate that demand. Primates and rodents separated from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago. The rodent evolutionary path to success lay in their reproductive ability, primates on the other hand, relied on increased cognitive ability for enhanced survival. Rather than relying on having large litters of young, primates invested more time and effort producing one or two offspring, nurturing them over longer periods of time during which offspring learned from their parents. Primates are generally limited to two mammary glands, although supernumerary mammaries are not unheard of, even in humans. They are regarded as atavistic traits. When ancestral primates took to the trees, it placed a premium on visual acuity, depth perception and hand-eye coordination. Again, the brain expanded to accommodate that demand. Individual primates lacking those characteristics would have been more likely to fall to their deaths. That is natural section at work, improving the gene pool through elimination of the least fit. Primate brains are, on an average, about double the size of other, similar sized mammals. Monkeys have larger cranial capacity and more complex brains than prosimians (Lemurs and Lorises). The brains of apes are still larger and more complex. The human brain is a continuation of the trend. It is a is a scaled up ape brain. This is consistent with evolutionary theory that, rather than creating new structures, evolution modifies what already exists. Each increase in brain size corresponds roughly to increased cognition. Whereas the brains of other mammals are smooth, primate brains have convolutions that effectively increase surface area and the number of neurons. The Neocortex is the part of the mammalian brain involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning and (in humans) language. The Neocortex is a major part of the brain of all primates, especially so in humans where cerebral cortex occupies 80% of the brain mass and contains 16 billion neurons (Avzevedo et al., 2009). Thus far, we know of at least three uniquely human genes associated with greater human cerebral development: NOTCH2NL, ARHGAP11B and SRGAP2C. The latter two came about from partial duplications of the parent gene found in apes. In a related development, one mutation in our ancestors disabled the MYH16 gene making it a pseudo gene. That gene in apes gave them powerful jaw muscles which encircled the skull, possibly restricting encephalization. Other genes affecting human evolution are FOXP2 involved in the development of language and HACNS1 affecting limb and digit specialization.

[@penginator89]

"THE HUMAN BRAIN IS REMARKABLE for its size and complexity in relation to body mass. Even more remarkable is the fact that at 2% of average body weight, it requires 20% of total caloric intake to function. Still more remarkable is that the human infant, born of necessity at a very early stage of development, utilizes 60% of available calories for neuronal development. That brain continues expansion through adolescence and even into early adulthood. Such a long childhood is also a unique human feature, but is a continuation of a trend that began with our primate ancestors.. Our abilities to speak, make tools or fly to the moon are due to the increased cognitive abilities of a brain whose size and complexity increased incrementally over millions of years of evolution. Evolution is a PROCESS and not an EVENT. What we see over the course of evolution is incremental alterations of existing structures, not sudden changes. This is what we see in the evolution of the human brain. Humans are vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes and our genome reflects that ancestry. Early mammal survival in a world dominated by dinosaurs, depended on increased sensory perception (sight, smell and hearing) and the mammalian brain developed an expanded cortex to accommodate that demand. Primates and rodents separated from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago. The rodent evolutionary path to success lay in their reproductive ability, primates on the other hand, relied on increased cognitive ability for enhanced survival. Rather than relying on having large litters of young, primates invested more time and effort producing one or two offspring, nurturing them over longer periods of time during which offspring learned from their parents. Primates are generally limited to two mammary glands, although supernumerary mammaries are not unheard of, even in humans. They are regarded as atavistic traits. When ancestral primates took to the trees, it placed a premium on visual acuity, depth perception and hand-eye coordination. Again, the brain expanded to accommodate that demand. Individual primates lacking those characteristics would have been more likely to fall to their deaths. That is natural section at work, improving the gene pool through elimination of the least fit. Primate brains are, on an average, about double the size of other, similar sized mammals. Monkeys have larger cranial capacity and more complex brains than prosimians (Lemurs and Lorises). The brains of apes are still larger and more complex. The human brain is a continuation of the trend. It is a is a scaled up ape brain. This is consistent with evolutionary theory that, rather than creating new structures, evolution modifies what already exists. Each increase in brain size corresponds roughly to increased cognition. Whereas the brains of other mammals are smooth, primate brains have convolutions that effectively increase surface area and the number of neurons. The Neocortex is the part of the mammalian brain involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning and (in humans) language. The Neocortex is a major part of the brain of all primates, especially so in humans where cerebral cortex occupies 80% of the brain mass and contains 16 billion neurons (Avzevedo et al., 2009). Thus far, we know of at least three uniquely human genes associated with greater human cerebral development: NOTCH2NL, ARHGAP11B and SRGAP2C. The latter two came about from partial duplications of the parent gene found in apes. In a related development, one mutation in our ancestors disabled the MYH16 gene making it a pseudo gene. That gene in apes gave them powerful jaw muscles which encircled the skull, possibly restricting encephalization. Other genes affecting human evolution are FOXP2 involved in the development of language and HACNS1 affecting limb and digit specialization." - The human brain

[@RandallWilks]

@@penginator89 Just wondering; what was your purpose in duplicating my post?

[@penginator89]

@@RandallWilks read the last 2 words of my duplicated comment

[@RandallWilks]

@@penginator89 You added the words '- The human brain'. That doesn't answer my question.

[@KHIMERA609]

Nice video. I liked how you didn't brought up religion. No comparisons, no snide remarks, just good clean info... Still 117 people chose to feel offended.

[@anothercomment3451]

When speaking of Evolution, isn't the consideration and discussion of our divine Creator a relevant necessity, in order TO sort things out sufficiently? When I was in school, Evolution was the Theory ... and it remains so, to many.

[@rayman11]

@@anothercomment3451 You dont know what a scientific theory is, do you

[@anothercomment3451]

@@rayman11 Gravity?

[@rayman11]

@@anothercomment3451 Gravity, and cell theory are both scientific theories

[@anothercomment3451]

@@rayman11 Yes! Just a theory.

[@ANDROLOMA]

"In everyday speech, people tend to use the word 'theory' to mean an untested hypothesis, or even a guess. But the term 'evolutionary theory' does not refer to any single hypothesis, and it certainly is not guesswork. As used in science, 'theory' refers to the entire body of work on the understanding and application of a field of knowledge. When we refer to evolutionary theory, we are referring to our understanding of the mechanisms that result in biological changes in populations over time, and the use of that understanding to interpret changes and interactions of biological organisms." -Life (the science of biology) Ninth Edition Sadava, Hillis, Heller, Berenbaum

[@GoodScienceForYou]

“The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all . . . Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going.” Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10

[@lycaonpictus4433]

Evolution is such a wonderful part of science

[@KenJackson_US]

But it doesn't explain life.

[@lycaonpictus4433]

@@KenJackson_US correct evolution doesn't have nothing to do with the origin of life.

[@KenJackson_US]

I was talking about the mythical evolution from a microbe to man, @@lycaonpictus4433. But it's interesting that you bring up _"the origin of life"._ Most people who have faith in evolution are afraid to discuss origin of life at all.

[@lycaonpictus4433]

@@KenJackson_US i see, so i have no faith in evolution and its not mythical. (no im not atheist .)

[@KenJackson_US]

If you believe in microbe-to-man evolution, @@lycaonpictus4433, you do so by faith. There's no natural explanation for the coding of tens of thousand of proteins in our DNA or the control information that determines which organs synthesize which proteins. Do you know about DNA, genes, proteins and protein synthesis?

[@RandallWilks]

*Does every scientific organization in the world endorse evolution as a fact? YES.* *Do all science organizations in the world regard evolution as a branch of science? YES.* *DO Biology departments of every secular university in the world back evolution? YES.* *Does the Biology department of Baptist Baylor University teach evolution? YES it does.* *DO the Geology departments of every secular university in the world endorse evolution? YES.* *Does the Geology department of Baptist Baylor University endorse evolution? YES it does.* *Does the Episcopalian church endorse evolution? YES it does.* *Does the Catholic Church endorse evolution? YES it does.* *Does the United Methodist Church? YES it does.* *Does the Presbyterian Church? YES it does.* Do creationists accept the evidence for evolution? NO, because their belief system requires them to reject any evidence that does not support their biblical interpretation. They grew up with that belief. It was not reasoned into them, and most likely cannot be reasoned out of them. One cannot reason with those who reject its use. That would be like giving medicine to a dead man..

[@iiddrrii6051]

Amazingly clear explanation!

[@RandallWilks]

The following statements are what scientists say. The creationist answer: "Nuh-uh", "Nuh-uh", "Nuh-uh", ad infinitum

[@GodotOfficial]

What is Evolution? Ask Triple H

[@Rocky-bd5jm]

lol

[@Rocky-bd5jm]

now that was funny

[@iceb9ar]

+Rocky Garcia haha

[@matthewhollier]

Good one

[@kiarah8400]

W

[@popcorrn6912]

I saw this in my science class👍😀

[@virgil3421]

Elvis Grullon I’m useing it for online school 😂😅

[@GabeAdventures]

@@virgil3421 Lets go bois they thought we were failing at school but were failing at home, suckers ;)

[@eddyward3272]

Hello Stated Clearly! I just want to know where did u get the part which shows the DNA replication and mutation or you are the one who made it? Because I just need it for our science video lesson in school. If your willing can I ask for your permission to borrow that part and use it for education purposes. Thank you! I hope you can reply asap. Thanks -Edward

[@mrqadaffi3638]

my beautiful yet simple mum doesnt "believe" in evolution, so i tried to find a easy to understand video to explain it. searched evolution explained FOR KIDS. before showing her this i already know she wont get it.

[@asap9224]

Mr Qadaffi good for your mom...

[@rayanallouzi8806]

Bro don't be such an ass when talking bout your mother online, bruh she can believe whatever she wants she produced you from nothing you simpleton

[@guardianoftheknowledgeemer4743]

Good

[@joanacardoso3364]

@Mr Qadafi check this out... kzbin.info/www/bejne/iXa9h618l7qMrq8

[@fendergilbraltar5158]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmPWiK13pdqorMU

[@science8sriprakashschools296]

thank you so much for the perfect introduction to evolution

[@fendergilbraltar5158]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmPWiK13pdqorMU

[@pawanraut7952]

Lots of Atheist here.... I love it...

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

I do, too.

[@ihavenolife7625]

I love it too.. Seeing atheist ppl gives me pleasure

[@ihavenolife7625]

@consuetudinary were not talking to you.. if you don't care do not reply then ?

[@nathaliaamorim6811]

I'm a Brazilian atheist

[@thedailycompost431]

@Dan C. please pe nice. Evolution is a religion to in a way. You are put your FAITH in men that think we are here because of giant rocks and other elements.

[@RandallWilks]

*EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Our Common Ancestry* with chimps is based on more than physical or genetic similarity. although those are pieces of evidence. Just as you have in your genome a defective gene you inherited from your parents who inherited it from their ancestors.That gene, named GULO, is what allows most other animals to produce vitamin C which is essential for good health. That gene has a specific mutation which prevents it from completing the final stage of vitamin C production and it is now a pseudo gene. Humans who do not get vitamin C in their diet (from fresh fruits and vegetables) get Scurvy, a disease that decimated the crews of sailing ships. It turns out that chimps have that same defective gene, disabled by exactly the same mutation. That fact does not bother chimpanzees in the least, because their diet of mostly leaves and fruit provide all the vitamin C they need. Living chimps today of course got that defective gene from their parents who got it from their ancestors who happen to be our ancestors as well. Not only does every ape have that same pseudo gene with the same disabling mutation so in fact does every other primate in the sub order Haplorhini. That is Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, even Tarsiers, which are close to basal primates but not ancestral to the Strepsirrhini sub order (Lemurs, Lorises et al). That places the origin of that mutation to be about 63 million years ago and underscores their common ancestry. And that is just one of the many pseudo genes passed from generation to generation from ancestors to present day organisms that are evidence for common ancestry. But those are just part of the problem for creationists and "intelligent design" advocates. Evolution explains pseudo genes very well. Explaining why some "creative entity" would leave such things "on the cutting room floor" is quite another matter. And as if that were not enough, there is the matter of Endogenous Retroviruses (ERV's), the genetic 'fossils' of ancient retroviral infections. The thing about retroviruses is that when they enter a host organism's cell, they always insert DNA copies of their RNA into a random location of that host's genome. When that cell divides and replicates, the viral DNA will be replicated at that same location. If that cell is a germ cell, that DNA sequence can be replicated and passed through millions of generations and found in present day species. Again, that is also evidence of common ancestry. As always, the creationist/'intelligent design' people have no good explanation for them. qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b65fc4ce28f8463fccac2d53a765835b Those ERV's make up 8% of the human genome which is an awful lot of DNA compared to just 2% that code for proteins. That expanse of DNA may be something of a 'Scrap Pile' of disabled viruses, but that doesn't mean that certain useful snippets can't be found and put to use. They certainly have. One such snippet is a segment of Human Endogenous Retrovirus W (HERV-W), named Synctin 1 which in humans aids the formation of the placenta. See: "Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis" www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10693809 Now, other placental mammals use other versions of synctins for placental development, but they are derived from different ERV's. The one utilized by the human genome is the same one used by the other apes and Old World monkeys, but not New World monkeys, which places common ancestry of those species (Catarrhini) more than 25 million years ago. academy.resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/endogenous-retroviruses.jpg slideplayer.com/slide/5684143/18/images/63/endogenous+retroviruses.jpg www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-genetic-differences-between-humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/ www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

[@thephaneron3676]

The term _"scientific theory"_ should be discarded and replaced with "scientific paradigm" or even better: A *HYPERTHESIS* (above hypothesis) to insinuate it's a practical and pragmatic body of knowledge constructed from multiple confirmed hypotheses that constantly churns out accurate predictions despite our ongoing attempts to falsify it. Far too many people conflate scientific theory with nothing more than a mere hunch or hypothesis. Renaming it to a hyperthesis would gradually eliminate the misnomer.

[@toserveman9317]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger If there is a controversy of _pedagogic strawman_, a change is to be considered for clarity sake. ... Lots of science gibberish should be changed. A SMALL impromptu list: disorder adaptation mutation "bad /faulty" mutation sexual selection (or at least a clarification of what it is)

[@slack_cactus]

In a scientific distribution, a scientific theory is a group of many hypothesis along with more evidence

[@politelyimpolite]

Informative, slick and to the point. Great video and the first I have seen on your channel. I will definitely be watching more!

[@waltviviers]

Evolution is incredible! The universe is amazing :)

[@xtr3me_hx832]

Because it’s like sci-fi

[@RandallWilks]

*The DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES at conservative Baptist BAYLOR UNIVERSITY has issued this statement:* *"The fossil record clearly indicates a progression in complexity of organisms from very simple fossil forms in the oldest rocks (>3.5 billion years old) to a broad spectrum from simple to complex forms in younger rocks, that some organisms that were once common are now extinct, and that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks.* *Mammals, for example, are prevalent today and can be traced back in the fossil record for approximately 200 million years, but are not present as mammals in the fossil record before that; however, fossil forms that have reasonably been interpreted to be associated with the evolutionary precursors to mammals are found in older rocks. Whether biological evolution occurs has not been a matter of scientific debate for more than a century. It is considered a proven fact. The specific mechanisms of biological change over time continue to be a topic of active research, and include mechanisms proposed by Charles Darwin as well as more recently developed ideas based on our growing knowledge of genetics and molecular biology. Using the methods of modern science, our knowledge of the fundamental mechanisms of life has grown enormously since the initial characterization of the role of DNA in reproduction, inheritance and evolution in the mid-1950s.* *The American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society, partnering with the most respected geoscience societies in America including the Geological Society of America, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (among others), have produced a booklet on evolution and the fossil record that can be downloaded as a PDF file. This booklet was written for the general public by people who have worked with the fossil record throughout their careers, and was thoroughly reviewed by other professional geologists and paleontologists."* www.baylor.edu/geology/index.php?id=62340 That site also has a link to download above referenced "Evolution and the Fossil Record" by Pojeta and Springer. (1 MB PDF file). It also provides links to the position statements from other scientific organizations. This is a science department in religiously conservative (Southern Baptist) run Baylor University that has declared their intent to teach SCIENCE. Imagine that.