Evidence for Evolution

[@helpless1340]

I did not expect these types of comments when my teacher linked thus video for an assignment but I’m not disappointed

[@ohboyitslauren]

This is the most chaotic comment section on KZbin.

[@incalycia]

Lmao not even close

[@killergamer7222]

@@incalycia Fr this man doesn’t go on KZbin comments that much

[@nghiadoan3507]

I was forced to watch this

[@johnmcguire5869]

me to it sucks

[@npc1238]

i feel your pain, we all were

[@ajadavis1365]

werent we all

[@ignsn1104]

same

[@YourMom-bn2zp]

I was forced to watch this too :c

[@bananajoe5315]

Who else came here from schoool?

[@aviator_canaan6290]

me:(

[@ashlynknutson2877]

Me

[@cxlebcqt7455]

me

[@EEE45445]

Naaa dude I just watch this for fun. Definitely not science class.( plz subscribe)

[@fightlewis4907]

Me

[@omega4258]

my mums cheating on my dad with his brother

[@adrianagastelum8895]

I-

[@hendrikdaendels9667]

Shame and scandal in the family...

[@xXppbtoXx]

SWEET HOME ALA-

[@maxxxxx0919]

Wth

[@JG_on_Beats101]

@Kitalia the kitsune fr

[@Theo-oi5nb]

Couldnt understand im deaf can you say it in braile

[@0bdexcode]

You can turn captions on.

[@clintonb8384]

..:..:.::.::::.:..:.:.:.::.:.:.:::::......:.:.::.:.:::..:::::....:.:::::::::

[@stratum8362]

if we all spammed the comments with stuff they can't show in school they wouldn't be allowed to show it, just saying

[@AW-hn6ro]

Nah, the poster would just turn off comments :(

[@junodonatus4906]

No because a teacher can easily enlarge the video to take up the entire monitor screen and give the class paper notes to take. I never show students comment sections and I believe most schools block them anyway.

[@uqnu]

fun fact: someone who's youtube comment you've seen is now dead

[@smart-brian]

These comments give me cancer. Theory in science is not hypothesis. When something is called a theory it means it has ample evidence to support itself, like the theory of gravity...

[@k1k120]

Y’all got the answers? 🙄

[@yungsofa1937]

i’m just here taking notes 😭‼️

[@lokey108]

I can feel the brain cells melting away

[@sibel792]

this year I have had 12 different science teachers because they keep quitting.

[@imstilllogan8990]

that is cool

[@sophiachew3424]

lolllll

[@lizthanthree5072]

im forced to watch this in class lmao edit: WAIT THIS WAS TWO MONTHS AGO ??

[@yisselleh.f7579]

hi there habibi 🦆

[@lizthanthree5072]

@@yisselleh.f7579 hii 🦆

[@archetypal_c442]

I’m stating to regret taking Biology.

[@archetypal_c442]

@Kaden Peterson The amount of studying I have to do. Not as bad as chemistry last semester. But biology is just not my cup of tea.

[@victxria6180]

Teacher’s pet, if I’m so special why am I secret?🐰👗💕

[@maxxxxx0919]

Oop yassss

[@GSpotter63]

Here is the most often used equation for getting the age of an igneous rock from the results of an AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) data set. D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1) t is age of the sample, D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample, D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition, N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt, λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope times the natural logarithm of 2. Tell me how can anyone know D0 "The number of the daughter isotopes in the original composition", when the origin of the original composition supposedly took place millions or even billions of years ago before the first humanoid was even suppose to have walk the earth? I must also point out that the D0 in this equation is not a product of the equation but a requirement of the equation. Without it, it won’t work. When testing modern rocks; rocks whose formation was observed, the daughter isotope percentages at formation vary wildly and are in fact never zero. If the daughter isotope levels at rock formation in modern observed samples vary then one must accept that rocks from the past acted in like manner. Making the assumption that there are no daughter isotopes at formation for older samples is not supported by modern samples. If the starting ratios are not known then there is no math that can find the date. The dates used and accepted by supporters of evolution are in fact nothing but guesses based off of unproven assumptions. If two trains on parallel tracks were observed traveling in the same direction. One traveling faster and is 3 miles farther down the track then the other one. One could use simple math to calculate backwards to find at what point the two trains would be next to each other, sitting side by side on the parallel tracks. You could even find how long the trip took from the point that they were next to each other to where they are observed now. But none of the math would give you the starting point of either of the two trains. Assuming that they started in the same place and at the same time together cannot be confirmed. Yes one could look how far back the tracks go and calculate the maximum time they could have been traveling. But that would be the maximum possible time, not the time they actually started. In fact, in every case when the trains starting position was observed, they never started together. Such is the case for observed solidifying igneous rock. If the solidifying rocks observed today have varying starting ratios for the isotopes then one must maintain that the rocks in the past would act exactly the same; Resulting in the same problem that was encountered with the trains in the above example. Without knowing the starting ratios of the parent and daughter isotopes at solicitation the math is useless. Thereby making the dates arrived at with this math irrelevant. Isochron methods use the same data from the equation above to make their plots and as such suffer from the same dilemma... *The goal of the isochronic method is to identify and eliminate samples with possible contamination in situ or during handling and does nothing to eliminate the mathematical errors inherent in math in first place.* All that has been achieved by Isochron methods is a plot made of even more errors. There is no mathematical way one can determine the level of a coefficient without knowing the starting values of the variables used. The only reliable constants in the equations used are the decay rate of the isotopes (see Appendices A. at the bottom of this paper) and the rate of the passage of time. Without the starting ratios of parent and daughter isotopes math cannot determine an accurate date. You can find the oldest and youngest possible date that a sample could be by plugging in starting ratios at both of the extremes. But the dates obtained would give such a wide spread as to be useless. In fact you can obtain just about any date by simply plugging in whatever starting ratios will give you the date you want. Assuming that the ratios are zero for older unknown samples when every modern sample shows this to be wrong is..... Self induced ignorance. The level of self dilution displayed by those promoting the accuracy of radio dating is absurd. Again the train analogy was about the time and the distance traveled. Running the trains backward at the speed observed can tell you at what point the trains would meet each other. Another words, sit side by side on the parallel tracks. But this does not tell you that this is where either of the trains started. Show me an equation that can give an accurate date from the results of an AMS without relying on the unverifiable parent and daughter isotopes at solidification. If you cannot then your belief in the dates it provides is called faith. All of (macro) evolutionary theory rests on the billions of years. If you cannot verify those billions of years then any construct built upon its findings are no more reliable then the AMS suspicious unproven data. Perhaps if you looked for your evidence in something other than the authorized scientific dogma, you might find the errors that that dogma chooses to ignore. Appendices A... Apparently researchers at Stanford and Cornell have shown that some radio isotope decay rates can be affected by magnetic fields and ray interaction... The results of this research add even more question to the accuracy of the standard radio dating equations.

[@anwarsaoud2632]

Cool.

[@GSpotter63]

@@mohamedtaqi2941 I think you for your intelligent and informative response. I will look into the validity of your claims. It may take a while I am a bizzy man..

[@GSpotter63]

So are you trying to say that if you have 5 or more trains on individual tracks in different locations and you know the speed of all the trains you can calculate back at to what point all of the trains would converge? This thinking would still have the same problem... Just because the trains converged at a particular location does it not prove that any of the trains started at that location. The problem is not in the math it is in the assumptions that are made. If I am wrong about your argument then please elaborate.

[@GSpotter63]

@@mohamedtaqi2941 I wasn't talking about carbon 14 dating.... That has its own problems... I was talking about AMS dating from Volcanic or igneous rock.

[@Whosfridge]

get some bitches

[@islamicschoolofmemestudies]

3:53 that guy has an abdomical hernia lol

[@clintonb8384]

..:..:.::.::::.:..:.:.:.::.:.:.:::::......:.:.::.:.:::..:::::....:.:::::::::

[@thefaltus3933]

sir can u please make a vedio on these topic: frederick griffith experiment animation hershey_chase expt watson and crick dna model. structure of tRNA. & recombinant dna tech. please sir

[@bequiet24]

Teachers' Pet, do I have a purple long intestine and an orange small intestine? This imagery is very frightening.

[@aj_zzz]

;-;

[@ruthherrera1463]

Also, thank you Teacher's Pet.

[@christinestoen8789]

she seems like an adult

[@xx6aesthetic9xx47]

Simp

[@providence3977]

@@xx6aesthetic9xx47 bruh moment

[@aacn08]

@@christinestoen8789 its their youtube channel name lol

[@calebcartwright9468]

Did you know that the youngest picture of you is also the oldest picture of you.

[@douglasbailly8519]

If the human appendix is now known to have a function and is in fact not vestigial, why cite it in a video entitled 'Evidence for Evolution'? You mention the recent discovery, but quickly and at the end of the segment. Same for the Haeckel drawings. If you know they are exaggerated and not accurate, why show them? Why not show what true embryology looks like?

[@scottevanmacfar]

Most textbooks have replaced Haeckel's drawings with actual embryonic photos. Haeckel's drawings aren't terribly inaccurate. Of the over 100 drawings he did, he had actual embryos for all but about 6. He did forge those 6 drawings, but it was still 80 after his deception was revealed that his theory of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny was proven false. He never was an "evolutionist" and was Darwin's leading opponent of the the theory of evolution.

[@Marcosaur03]

historical context.

[@aaronheaton2606]

Because there really isn't evidence for evolution so they had to make half the video fluff that seems like evidence if you aren't actually paying attention. Why would they compromise their own dogmatic indoctrination? Beats me. Maybe it's an attempt to seem honest.

[@doctorwebman]

'Vestigial' does not mean 'useless', but rather that the structure served a different function in the past.

[@Mayan_88694]

@@aaronheaton2606except evolution is a scientific fact that is supported by overwhelming evidence. So it’s not dogmatic indoctrination at all. Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas of biology: Anatomy. Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures). Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are. Biogeography. The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change. Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species. Direct observation. We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).

[@alil6547]

yo whats with the comments? genuine question.

[@husefultyu5046]

Ppl are complaining about being forced to watch thie for class when jts literaly a 5 minute video doesnt matter if ur not interested just watch it its not that bad 💀

[@jackrutledgegoembel5896]

So, wait, the appendix stores bacteria? So if isn't useless?

[@chumanzky9862]

your body use good bacterias to digest the food ( sorry for bad english)

[@scottevanmacfar]

Not useless, no, but unnecessary, yes. Frequently vestigial organs are re-purposed.

[@allrounderchannel8491]

you forgot biochemical

[@isaiahapodaca03]

the true facts of "evolution" actually prove to contradict what is being told to the masses. maybe studying about carbon 14 would help people better understand.

[@scottevanmacfar]

care to elaborate?

[@scottevanmacfar]

Didn't think so

[@baldkiwi444]

@@scottevanmacfar elaboration: yiuor mom

[@Mayan_88694]

No it doesn’t. At all

[@Mayan_88694]

It doesn’t contradict at all, evolution is a scientific fact.

[@brantgentry1463]

Ernst hackel was shown he falsified his drawings in the 1800's

[@lukerosenberger4212]

Hm, this video was interesting. But I was a little distracted talking to Aaron, sorry, maybe I will rewatch later

[@lukerosenberger4212]

makes sense! good comment!

[@lukerosenberger4212]

Thank you, good reply!

[@lukerosenberger4212]

No problem, anytime!

[@babiesmoove]

@@lukerosenberger4212 you good bro, nobody knows aaron and you replying to yourself.

[@Prettylady_Lmao]

Anyone else got forced to watch this? 💀

[@zaheerbaig238]

Great work

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it

[@vijay44988]

no understanding language

[@adkredmen6632]

wait wait hold, so wings are both homologous and analogous, this is more brain rot than modern tik tok

[@ForumLight]

1) How are fossils formed? The animal dies then immediately is buried by mud and in time the minerals will create a mold or cast to create a fossil. Since many continue to be found in multiple layers, this proves the layers are not 'millions' of years old, but were all laid down in rapid succession. 2) Explain the Law of Superposition in your own words. When minerals / dirt / etc in water settle, some settle first followed by others in turn due to their density and/or mass, creating different layers but all put down at the same time, like a fossil protruding several "layers". 3) What are homologous structures? Give some examples. The belief that just because things look the same, that means they have a common ancestor. Like a tree branch that looks like a human hand. But this of course is not evidence of any such thing, just reasons they believe in it. 4) Why are the wings or a pterodactyl, bat, and bird considered analogous structures? Because they are cases where it's too obvious their common descent belief does not hold, so they change the name. 5) What part of your body can you live without? (Vestigial Structure) The appendix has a use, but because of common descent evolution, medical science was held back from finding their uses (and other "vestigial" structures uses) because it sheds doubt on their common descent belief. Science allows questioning - common descent evolution does not.

[@jeffdundas7913]

Lol you are in denial. You can't grapple with the fact that humans are the result of a multi-billion year lineage of evolution.

[@spatrk6634]

this seems to be like one of those creationist sunday school exams. where they lie to kids for a while and then present them with 10 questions which they just covered to reinforce the lie by giving them good grade by writing down and repeating the lie they were just told.

[@grexsn9184]

I should've dropped out when I had the chance

[@argiemaeparaiso2092]

She didn’t explain the biochemical evolution

[@naracruz369]

God bless

[@morganconverse4969]

When they doin't mention Biochemical Evidence and shiz

[@adrianagastelum8895]

frrrrr I had to restart everything lol

[@pjo2386]

'to suppose that the eye could have been evolved by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree' Charles Darwin 1872 supposed 'graduation' theory; the fossil evidence he hoped would be uncovered, has never appeared

[@junodonatus4906]

Not quite. We can see the all the stages of the development of the eye today in different living species.

[@pjo2386]

@@junodonatus4906 you cant prove the development of the eye bc no person witnessed the orginal eye; evolution is a theory; scientific method involves human observation; no human observation has ever witnessed the eye evolve

[@junodonatus4906]

@@pjo2386 We see every stage of eye development in living creatures that exist today.

[@greatwarantics9647]

Get

[@alys6165]

i

[@yvngsauxey]

Gay

[@alys6165]

@@yvngsauxey uhm so

[@alys6165]

thx 4 the like

[@jahpickney200]

you have integrity

[@ryannelsen1490]

She proved her whole vestigial organ thing wrong in her own video

[@ninetailed9496]

Anyone here from school

[@bigboibob8313]

You can’t lie, the intro music is 🔥🔥🔥

[@braidenlotier6512]

Dude this is actually so freaking sick man 💯 keep it up 💀🤮👹👻

[@itzassassin4205]

bob

[@kuurusuaki]

What is this comment section

[@ishpreetsingh5845]

Man do I ever just wanna pop a perc u know

[@andrepatterson2063]

Ayo Wassup

[@ruuberiloveyou9277]

Mr. hirn gang

[@martylawrence5532]

In a 30 billion year time frame there are only 10^18 seconds. Could these 10^18 seconds possibly put together biological arrangements such as DNA and protein sequences of over 10^450-by-chance each? Each cell has SIX information codes. They are the DNA, protein, epigenome, the 'sugar code' that covers the surface of each cell, and even a lipid code comprising of 40,000 different configurations. The mitochondria in our cells has its own DNA code. Number six! These are made up being 100% right or left-handed molecules. This is all a signature of intelligent design. Is accidental evolution possible? No. Here are some logistics of why not... When the new synthesis of evolution was formulated [pulled out of butt science...POOBS for short] in the 20th century, it proposed DNA mutations were naturally selected into new arrangements for adaptations to occur...such as Darwin Finches and their beaks. If post-2014 knowledge of the epigenome capabilities were known at the time, then evolutionists [Poobers] would have had to explain which adaptations were being made by mutations and which ones were being done by epigenetics in which are WITHOUT mutations. How would that have went? Not too well. The conclusion would have had to be epigenetics causes adaptations with DNA mutational changes to life were just effects from the mutations. The little 'two-step' of 'microevolution' leading to 'macroevolution' would have been disallowed because of logistics. 'Microevolution' turned out to be epigenetic-derived adaptations. Epigenetic adaptations are within the boundaries of all life forms...there is no evolving out of the boundaries such as birds from dinosaurs or hominids into human beings. In 2014, scientist Michael Skinner discovered and proved the iconic emblem of evolution, the Darwin Finch, got its new beak adaptations by epigenetics. The epigenetics works ABOVE the DNA sequences by chemical tagging. The adaptations to changes comes from cues from the environment such as a new diet. These adaptations transgenerationally pass to offspring by the eggs of females AND in the seminal fluid from males in which the sperm swim in. Dr. Skinner says these can pass for HUNDREDS of generations in which Poobers said was just for three generations or so, then resetting. Nice guess, guys! The word epigenetics was not even in biology textbooks in the 1990s that humped the leg of evolution two or three times on every page. Lucky for the evolutionists, they got to press the evolutionary theory for over 80 years with a false precept. There you go. There's your science. Evolution is not happening. The epigenome and its epigenetics have an intelligent design signature. We are a creation with purpose by God...not dumb-lucked into biological structures that are mathematical impossibilities-by-chance. The Creator? Jesus Christ. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZmUh4hjlLR5b5o

[@prkrmc6457]

Good God, I hate these comments. You're arguing from INCREDULITY. Because "there isn't enough time." Because "it's mathematically impossible or improbable for all these changes, for all these modifications, for all this evolution to take place... then it possibly couldn't have happened." Except, the fossil record, anatomy, physiology, etc., shows otherwise. Mathematically impossible things happen EVERYDAY. Fertilization, implantation, embryonic development and birth are mathematically impossible events given the magnitude of stages and steps taking place. A baby being born is called the MIRACLE OF BIRTH because it's literally an impossibility taking place. It can go WRONG in an infinity of ways, and yet, ~400K of babies are born daily. That is the best evidence for a creator there is - the impossibility of birth still happening. The impossibility of evolution still happening... I am already a believer in God. IN fact, I wouldn't even call me a believer. It's just plainly OBVIOUS to me that the evolution of consciousness is the ultimate goal of cosmic, planetary and biological evolution. Though I can understand people who reject such claims given how truly awful the world can be. But the idea that because a "Creator" exists, he must be "Jesus?" GTFO. You Christians are deluded.

[@wakingforbacon6439]

Dude the bible has been debunked. If one thing in the bible can be proven wrong then it is not the infallible word of god can it. Okay no global flood. Not possible. If so the earth wouldn't be here no more. We would have heated up to thousands of degrees. Plus no dinosaurs in the bible. As much as you creatards want to say there is your full of poop and you know it. The bible don't mention nothing about a dinosaur. Plus no evidence for a global flood. All you say is life has to come from life. So I'd god alive? If so then he cannot be eternal. If not then he cannot Create life. The bible is so full of contradictions. Hoe do you hold a book that is supposed to be all of morality yet it supports and upholds rape. Then the woman has to marry her rapist. Or upholds and loves slavery. How can you say that is a moral book? You can't. Thank Allah that Christianity is losing people at an all time high rate. Nothing better could happen to a bunch of bigots and hate filled people. Imagine being so arrogant you think you have debunked all the greatest minds of the time. How arrogant do you have to be? Another 50 years and Christianity will be the minority and that scared the help out of you doesn't it? Well facts don't care about your feelings partner. Are you scared there is no god. Why else get on here arguing about it. Scared aren't you. That you might have Easter your pitiful life believing something that is false. Have you actually read the bible. I'm assuming not. Because nobody can read the bible and actually believe the bible has anything moral in it. Nobody. That's how people become atheists. Do you support rape? Genocide? Slavery? Your god does. So why wouldn't you support what your creator supports. We have also never seen someone live for hundreds of years. Never in history. Ever. So how can you say that it happened when I'm you can't observe it. Sorry dude. God himself cannot be debunked. But the christian god with all the attributes you creatards assign to him sure can be debunked. Your just scared of becoming the minority. I know it's scary when you have had control all your life. Atheism is growing. Faster and faster. People are waking up. Praise ye Allah. I couldn't imagine supporting a book praising a book that the supposed author loved rape and genocide. And supposedly knows all but created evil and disease and starvation. Wow I would get on my knees and die for something like that. Ha ha yeah right. Come on over to the real world buddy. Creation had it's chance. When we knew the earth was flat. Wonder why the bible says the earth is flat and the firmament with the waters above and below. Are you a flat earther? Your bible says it's flat. So how can you say it's not flat. Your going against god. Who I guess didn't even realize he made a globe earth and not a flat one. Hmm he must have just forgot. Or what about god not being able to find adam and eve in the garden. Or losing to iron chariots. What a weak god you have. Funny all these christian prophets couldn't even get the election right. When god ess telling them all trump was gonna win. Maybe god forgot who he picked. I can't. I'm dying. When your ready come on over to the real world and get out of the stone age bro. We'll be waiting on you. Sorry the science don't agree with you. So you have to try and poke holes in the science instead of coming up with science to replace it. Professor Dave is a good channel. Shows how ridiculous james tour and the discovery institute really is. Remember whenever you want to join reality it's here.

[@spatrk6634]

because it didnt form by chance. it formed by following laws of chemistry.

[@junodonatus4906]

Chance is a powerball drawing. Have you ever seen them? Glass cylinders contain a number of balls bouncing around and one is selected at random...by chance. Because each one has an EQUAL opportunity of being chosen. Evolution, of life/of species is NOT by chance. That's because environmental circumstances favor particular arrangements/mutations over others. In this way, the universe all the way up to ourselves (consciousness/emotions, etc.) is explainable and knowable without invoking magical creators.

[@junodonatus4906]

@@prkrmc6457 Eh....what people call a miracle is irrelevant. People find their misplaced car keys and act as though "God" took time away from his busy schedule to address their most mundane needs.

[@05yhj]

ahh i need help what evidence of evolution is dna sequences (embryological , fossil, anatomical, or biochemical)?

[@yvngsauxey]

Thought you where Hannah Montana

[@ryannelsen1490]

How come the oldest tree Dead or alive only has 4,000 rings

[@ExtantFrodo2]

I guess you've never heard of clonal species of trees.

[@ryannelsen1490]

@@ExtantFrodo2 what does that proove

[@ExtantFrodo2]

@@ryannelsen1490 some of them are 80,000 years old. Also, ring matching let's us line up live trees with old dead trees with older dead ones going back at least 11,000 years.

[@ryannelsen1490]

@@ExtantFrodo2 how do they know they're 80,000 years old. And 11,000 years is a far cry from millions. I don't have problem with 11,000

[@ExtantFrodo2]

@@ryannelsen1490 Phew! Like I said, if you can't educate yourself, then just remain ignorant. Do I really need to explain a second time about ring matching? No. I have better things to do with my time. 11,000 is just what we get from tree rings. It in no way says the earth isn't much older than that.

[@fatnigga2060]

Coon tree

[@kingfeao7067]

YOUR USERNAME LMAFO GMFU

[@victxria6180]

brro love ur pfp and username ur dope

[@hunterwhite9163]

♿️♿️♿️♿️♿️♿️♿️♿️♿️♿️♿️♿️crip gang

[@MarcelM0123]

Teachers pet?

[@wimblop]

what you know about rolling down in the deep when your brain goes numb you can call it mental freeze

[@ncg_essel8822]

If your seeing this while doing science work this is your sign Don't do the work.

[@quianalatiker1283]

Jj

[@titankiller5833]

666 likes?

[@paxdj0810]

Dogwater

[@drywall1873]

Prove it

[@paxdj0810]

@@drywall1873 huh

[@pizzaonpineapple4328]

committing war crimes is my least favorite things to do 🙂

[@sharesternarsterprankster4788]

lol

[@aidananderson6636]

i hate biology

[@headleyspringer7158]

I have been studying evolution for over 30 years. I've heard all the arguments, and read broad, sweeping statements that evolution is a proven fact. Yet in all my research, I cannot come to grips with how the central Darwinian mechanism is justified. How can random mutations create a complex digital genetic code?

[@WaughinJarth]

Natural selection, a random mutation at birth that helps the creature lives on in it's offspring, with more mutations effecting the original genetic code make the code more complex and helpful for that creatures survival, that same original genetic code in a different area will have different mutation living on, so the species is slightly different, after 30 years of research, I thought you would know the justification for Darwinian evolution.

[@poliincredible770]

It can’t, evolution is science fiction. No one has ever observed the transition of one kind of creature to another (fish to snake, etc.) What we can observe is that organisms reproduce after their own kind just like the Bible says God designed them to.

[@WaughinJarth]

@@poliincredible770 Evolution isn't a theory you flat-earther, read a book other than the bible for once

[@poliincredible770]

@@WaughinJarth I didn’t say evolution is just a theory (although it is). I said it’s science fiction. I read books all the time. Reading will help us understand that evolution is untenable faux science. The Bible is a collection of books that have never been disproven. Don’t be a science denier. Accept Christ.

[@WaughinJarth]

@@poliincredible770 Wait, did you just say that god was science and never disproven? Ha! Ok then, why do all the Christain holidays just happen to be when other, much older, pagan holidays took place?

[@poliincredible770]

The bottom has fallen out of Darwinism/ evolution. No one has ever observed the transition of one kind of creature to another kind of creature (ape to man, etc.). However, many people throughout history have interacted with God. Choose recorded history, not hypothetical atheistic conjecture; choose Christ!

[@trentonyoung3959]

Because evolution occurs over hundreds of thousands of years

[@poliincredible770]

@@trentonyoung3959 no scientist has observed hundreds of thousands of years.

[@katkit4281]

@@poliincredible770 We have observed the change in species. The problem is you don't understand what observable means by the scientific definition. In science observe is defined as evidence for a hypothesis or theory that can be tested in experiments where the evidence can be falsified. There is overwhelming testable evidence that shows evolution from one species to the next does happen. Lastly can you please define what a kind is? I gave asked this question to many creationists and not one has ever been able to answer.

[@poliincredible770]

@@katkit4281 kind is closer to family. Changes within species is breeding, not evolution. Breeding is observable. You can get a poodle, a mastiff, or a Scottie and they are all dogs, but you’ll never get a dog that has wings. The changes within a family have certain limits. What we can observe is that creatures reproduce after their own kind just like the Bible says God designed them to. Trust documented history and observable science. Accept Christ.

[@katkit4281]

@@poliincredible770 Closer to family? That isn't a definition. I asked for a definition. And by your logic since humans and chimps are in the same family that means we came from a common ancestor.

[@sethrankin5319]

This video progresses ignorance and assumptions as fact... SMH sad sad sad

[@scottevanmacfar]

Uh, no. This video presents an introduction to the evidence of evolution. What is sad is your immediate denial without presenting a counter argument. Do you even science dude?

[@ryannelsen1490]

Mutations are always a loss of information

[@ExtantFrodo2]

So if A mutates into B that's a loss, but it's also a loss when B mutates into A?

[@ryannelsen1490]

@@ExtantFrodo2 I don't think you understand how genetics work

[@ExtantFrodo2]

@@ryannelsen1490 I know that you don't.

[@donnguyen3795]

Care to elaborate?

[@0PGamer]

This doesn't make any sense

[@DeFreshS10]

0PGamer What are you confused about?

[@AtamMardes]

+0PGamer To believe an invisible God magically did it all is intuitive. But evolution is not intuitive. That's why the primitive people made up the adam/eve story and why today, with all the fossil and DNA evidences, people still have difficulty understanding evolution.

[@vsbladz]

+atam mardes do you believe you descended from a chimp like ancestor, who evolved from crawling creatures? you can't be serious!

[@marsyaakmalhizam9123]

+vsbladz I agree with you. I mean I kinda found it preposterous we came from them. The Quran and the bible already stated we come from Adam and Eve. I believe in my Holy Book and the human evolution seems like its missing a piece somewhere even if its true...

[@AtamMardes]

+vsbladz An invisible magician God magically created a fully grown Adam from dust of ground and then magically created Eve from the rib of Adam. Is that your brilliant magical solution? Theists doubt the found evolution evidences and keep asking for more evolution evidences; But theists never doubt or want any evidences for creationism and accept an Adam/Eve story from a book just because the book claims itself to be the holy truth. This inconsistency in requiring different levels of evidence is a hypocrisy that delusional theists are oblivious to due to their dogma and emotional attachments to their indoctrinated beliefs. Based on the evidence, evolution is a fact beyond a reasonable doubt whether the truth hurts your delusional beliefs or not. Fanged carnivores like lions that kill by instinct for survival are expected from an imperfect, unguided, and immoral evolutionary process, but are not expected from a perfect, benevolent, omnipotent, and moral creator, unless the creator enjoys watching bunch of lions pounce on a pregnant deer and tear her and her unborn calf into pieces. Thanking an invisible God for choosing you to have good health while hundreds of handicapped babies were ignored by God, is the show of your utmost narcissism and ignorance which make you believe you are special in your delusional mind.

[@chrisanderson7590]

How many evolutionists does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. Just give it millions of years and the lightbulb will screw in itself. ;)

[@brianprice2350]

There’s an argument that many people make: that the natural world, and humanity’s existence in the Universe, point towards a divine creator that brought forth all of this into existence. To the best of our knowledge, Earth exists with a plethora of conditions that allowed for our existence, and does so in a way that no other world can match. WOW!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A AWESOME GOD WE HAVE, to have created such a awesome ECO system, from the recycling of the polluted waters, by humans back into freshwater with the Oceans ECO System, to now recently discovered, a ECO System that recycles the polluted lands itself that has been polluted by humans. Science continually disproves Evolution itself, Scientist have now learned that the Earths crust is completely recycled over ????????? many years,and at a rate of about eight inches a year, four inches in one direction, and four inches in the other. There are fractures in the earth crust, two are major fractures, one is in the bottom of the Pacific, called the Pacific Realm, the other one is in the Atlantic Ocean, called Mid-Alantic Ridge, at these major cracks in the Earths crust, one continental plate is being pushed down below the other, where they meet, the one being pushed downward is melting into liquid from the heat of the Earths core, therefore being recycled. This is why we have earthquakes, volcano's, and we have had great city's like Atlantis, or Alexandra, etc... sink into the ocean, California will be joining them one day, with its seashores with high cliffs, and this is why you can go up into some of our highest mountains, and find seashells, because this part of the the Earths crust use to be at the bottom of the ocean. The cool ocean waters keep this process of recycling the earth crust at a slow pass, but with Earthquakes, or Global Warming???????? And if we didn't have our oceans this process would speed up dramatically. My point is, Evolution needs a lot of time to take place, million and million of years , and if there was any proof or evidence of Intermediates, where one Species evolves into another, it would all be melted down by now, by the Earths crust being recycled, which means there is no proof or evidence of Evolution . Also no matter how much the human race pollutes the Earth, the Earth will be set back right by this ECO System that God has put into place, good luck trying to find another planet out there like the Earth, anywhere in the Universe, with this ECO System that is intelligently designed. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKrViXR9jpaXo6c

[@endermaninwater5582]

Look idk how fast you think the world is ending but i can tell you, as the ceo of earth, that that's not how it works. Are all fossils at these collision points of tectonic plates?? Do you know how deep in the middle of the earth the core is? you know how dumb you sound saying, all this evidence is fake. Any hard evidence is right in front of you and you say its fake. ngl kepler 62f sounds good to live on.

[@elnath122]

Don't see proof here at all

[@arthurbaker1592]

It's because you're a religious nut.

[@TheUnluckyWolf]

And I don't see proof of God

[@GORF_EMPIRE]

You do realize all of this crap has been debunked for decades, right?

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

What exactly has been debunked how?

[@corruptneedles3384]

What?

[@Longcat_1]

keep on yapping

[@lowpoint6015]

Doing this bull shit for school

[@kamenriderxxx1]

Guru gue nyuruh nonton ginian

[@Eddievanbeek]

Was forced to watch this