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

[@lrvogt1257]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@lrvogt1257]

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

[@billonesty]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@billonesty]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@maylingng4107]

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

[@TheLizardOfOz]

The Christian fundamentalists who adhere to biblical literalism & Young Earth Creationism are a very loud minority among Christians. The majority of Christians accept evolution as the best explanation of the diversity of life we see today. Most would likely see evolution as their god's creative process. Christianity itself is not the problem - charlatan preachers who see under-educated Christians as a source of income are the issue.

[@Jesse622]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@zachtastic625]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@zachtastic625]

@@numbersix9477 Good point, they are also smarter.

[@archelonprime]

And said book comes in *11* different editions just in the English language alone, which by itself SHOULD cause anyone with a functioning brain to question the trustworthiness of the claims made in it... and based on it!

[@kristiandoon8976]

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

[@lareytogba9984]

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

[@kristiandoon8976]

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

[@louiekilleen3276]

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

[@frankrivera8719]

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

[@wernerstapela4616]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@Detson404]

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

[@grumpysanta6318]

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

[@Ericwvb2]

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

[@kelliepatrick519]

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

[@oldpossum57]

@@Ericwvb2 Hence claims that corpses resurrect 48+ hours postmortem violate second law of thermodynamics.

[@vince6252]

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

[@masterlee9822]

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

[@johnfitzgerald8879]

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

[@masterlee9822]

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

[@johnfitzgerald8879]

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

[@hilakummins3104]

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

[@chinweifeng9112]

The statement of using similarity of embryo to conclude that all living things are coming from the same ancestor is a leap of faith. The example given in the slides from darwin is still within the difference in speaciation , or mico-evolution which is widely observed in today. But it take a leap of faith to conclude that all living things come from same ancestor base on this evidence.

[@TheHairyHeathen]

Frequently in criminal trials, a verdict of not guilty or guilty is not reached from the examination of a single line of evidence. All the different items of evidence are evaluated as a whole to form a conclusion. What applies with forensic science, is the same in all sciences, multiple items of evidence are examined to reach a conclusion. Comparative embryology is not the sole item of evidence used to reach a conclusion that different organisms share common ancestry. These days the strongest evidence lies in comparative genetics. The genetic tests legally accepted in the determination of what degree of relatedness exists between people in cases of law, are the same tests used to determine the degree of relatedness between organisms, except that those used in scientific determination are actually far more stringent, than what is required by the courts. A test which determines that you and a sibling share common ancestors (your parents), will even more surely reveal whether various organisms share common ancestry.

[@jdmitchell6559]

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

[@parheliaa]

Technically today's chickens are evolutionary descendants of the dinosaurs

[@jdmitchell6559]

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

[@brontehauptmann4217]

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

[@jdmitchell6559]

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

[@seriouscat2231]

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

[@legalvampire8136]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@mysterymaverick1982]

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

[@madams3478]

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

[@davevaness4172]

Yes buy thr fitter you are the luckier you are!

[@jamespeace1237]

In better terms. I agree.

[@ChuckThompsonTTCMedia]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@ChuckThompsonTTCMedia]

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

[@ChuckThompsonTTCMedia]

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

[@ChuckThompsonTTCMedia]

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

[@ChuckThompsonTTCMedia]

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

[@zachterry4710]

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

[@zachterry4710]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@antimechanistic4631]

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

[@punkydoodle9899]

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

[@punkydoodle9899]

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

[@nigelsaunders9865]

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

[@b-m605]

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

[@b-m605]

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

[@b-m605]

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

[@b-m605]

@Will Hutch glad you found that funny it is kind of mocking you, but it's good that you can laugh at yourself. Maybe your aren't quite delusional.

[@b-m605]

@Will Hutch of course I've made up my mind, I've honestly looked at the evidence. I left atheism 40 years ago, I left atheistic evolution at the same time. I continued to think evolution was true for another 7 years. and I've continued to let go of the lies I was taught in the name of science over the years as I see new evidence. When was the last time you changed your mind?

[@watchtowerdragon7098]

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

[@watchtowerdragon7098]

@Nevets Essagal 🤣

[@jounisuninen]

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

[@buckcubmandingo6772]

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

[@alainbellemare2168]

racoons in my back yard

[@NoName-uf6rf]

Used mine to like this comment

[@Greenie-43x]

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

[@redmatters9318]

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

[@TheHairyHeathen]

Djavagoodweegend? Just check'n ya really speak stryne?

[@redmatters9318]

@@TheHairyHeathen haveagoodday cobber.WIKIREDSTAR Australia 🇦🇺.

[@Woodbug-b7t]

Bloody oath cobber barcoo gumtree mate!

[@tebogo743]

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

[@thandasibisi7534]

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

[@erronsears750]

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

[@douglaidlaw740]

Those who argue whether or not evolution is true never tell us what the alternative is. Because there is no alternative.

[@cgivensldr]

I ask you to watch "The Odds of A Protein Forming", or anything related.

[@anthonymitchell9793]

@@cgivensldr Arguement From Personal Incredulity.

[@jaqua7732]

There is no alternative to you because you have already bought the farce hook line & sinker. The alternative is creation, and it makes a lot more sense than to believe that a single-celled organism, as complexes that is, formed itself for no apparent reason, eventually crawled out of the ocean and evolved into everything from a flea to a human being, what foolishness smh.

[@beetsar]

I love how scientifically illiterate theists think its ok to redefine evolution to suit their lack knowledge. If you want to know about god go to a priest, if you want to know about evolution go to an evolutionary biologist.

[@mickelodiansurname9578]

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

[@ChrisFineganTunes]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@davidhawkins8758]

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

[@evaristogrant4193]

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

[@CesarClouds]

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

[@garywalker447]

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

[@ianthompson3579]

That's kind of where Darwinian evolution is now, new evidence counters the Darwinian narrative and those who know least are shouting the loudest

[@lrvogt1257]

@@ianthompson3579 : False. Evolution has only been strengthened over time. There are details under discussion but not the basic premise.

[@garywalker447]

@@ianthompson3579 Nope. There is NO evidence that runs counter to biological evolution.

[@justsomeguy6474]

@XTRM His science made it fact.

[@YMEJake]

And yet Darwin doubted that sight could be a result of evolution. Without some way to recognize the frequency of light, no being could construct a mechanism to detect, decipher and develop such a system. And most sighted beings seem to have 2 eyes with marvelous abilities to focus on objects near and far, control the amount of light and be able to determine distance. Knowing nothing about the properties of light nor the necessary additions necessary to capture those frequencies makes it impossible for sight to be evolved. Sight screams that it is designed. Take hearing as well with one added element, speech!! DESIGNED NOT EVOLVED. NOT KNOWING THERE IS SUCH A THING AS SOUND AND FREQUENCIES, HOW COULD HEARING AND VOICE BE DESIGNED TO BE THE SAME FREQUENCY? How many hair cells are there in each ear? One doctor told me 10,000. Can't swear to that though. Ears and voice are definitely a product of design, not evolution. Scientists are so in love with the science that they cannot see how flawed it is. Over 90% failure rate, flipping a coin would get better results. If only they would step back and use common sense, they could see that weakness. But actually discussing such methods would weaken the scientific theory. Their problem is that they gave evolution a bye and did not force it to comply with their own rules. Life only comes from life. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS which states that all life slowly deteriorates , not improving. Hence we see extinction of species. Don't blame me, science came up with that theory but evolution is in direct conflict with that theory as well. FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC RULES AND THROW OUT THE HYPOTHESIS IF EVOLUTION. NO, IT IS NOT A THEORY ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF SCIENCE!!! IF I AM WRONG, STATE WHAT MISTAKES I HAVE MADE AND QUIT ATTACKING THE PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE OF WHATEVER. CLAIMING THE HIGH GROUND ON SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES MEANS THAT YOU EITHER DON'T KNOW OR YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE THEM LIKE THEY DON'T EXIST.

[@walkergarya]

Biological Evolution is a FACT. The Theory of Evolution is our explanation of that FACT.

[@rl7012]

Is that why it is called the THEORY of evolution? It is not called the fact of evolution is it? No. It is a theory and not a very good one either. Only the indoctrinated brainwashed believe it.

[@numbersix9477]

@@rl7012 The fact that you have no idea what a scientific theory is does not falsify the theory of evolution.

[@rl7012]

@@numbersix9477 A theory is not a fact. Cope.

[@numbersix9477]

@@rl7012 You're making yourself look uneducated. Buy/borrow/steal a middle school level science textbook and learn the science jargon definitions of "theory" and "fact." (Suggestion: While you're in there, learn a couple hundred other science related things. I promise, it will only hurt for a little while.)

[@FrankHarrison12]

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

[@quantumrobin4627]

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

[@quantumrobin4627]

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

[@quantumrobin4627]

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

[@quantumrobin4627]

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

[@mentkansley6694]

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

[@nicosteffen364]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@elinabalibado5982]

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

[@PortmanRd]

Monster munch.

[@oldedwardian1778]

Don’t you love it when the GOD GOONS complain that “HE STILL DIDNT EXPLAIN EVOLUTION”. After the GOD GOONS have been asked a billion times to provide ONE SINGLE IOTA OF EVIDENCE OF GOD OR CREATION and they simply point to the Bible. The Bible, that is, that exists in MULTIPLE DIFFERENT VERSIONS ALL WITH VERY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES NON OF WHICH HAVE ANY EVIDENCE. The one I love is “ NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING”. So where did god come from.

[@mayling8643]

God(s) came from the fears and imagination of frightened people.

[@oldedwardian1778]

@@mayling8643 You are exactly right.

[@nickkarr2607]

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

[@AMC2283]

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

[@TheHairyHeathen]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@Dr.IanPlect]

Nick; strawman bs.

[@Dr.IanPlect]

@Philip K No, it's strawman bs.

[@brianedwards7142]

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

[@mtobrien1]

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

[@rondoclark45]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@rondoclark45]

@@numbersix9477 Where did I attack Darwin??

[@mtobrien1]

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

[@mtobrien1]

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

[@邓梓薇]

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

[@ronbyrd1616]

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

[@grumpygranny62]

You sound like a lovely person but sadly, I also must respectfully and regretfully disagree with the optimistic sentiment you express😢

[@chrish.4686]

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

[@Mischief6467]

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

[@debunkerofatheism6874]

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

[@kennethbransford820]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@kseke25]

Same thought

[@kseke25]

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

[@fcc1704]

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

[@eddyeldridge7427]

Sounds like a story that absolutely didn't happen.

[@fcc1704]

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

[@bobs182]

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

[@woodygilson3465]

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

[@oldpossum57]

That was not Darwinian evolution. It was Lamarckian theory, a model that Darwin displaced. So your kid’s teacher needs instruction. The long necks simply result from random genetic mutations, which occasionally produce a small variation that leads to greater reproductive success, thus expanding the frequency of the mutation. Over time, the longer necked giraffes outnumber the shorter necked. Your story about your kid could well be fictional. In the news we see that teachers, far from sending children outside of class for any reason, instead are required to evacuate the class from the room when a child is having a violent incident, destroying property. It is called “a classroom clearance”. If your child was sent from class, it sounds like you send him to a private, not public school. Choose a better school. Or don’t make up stories. Longer tongues or knees and hips better designed for leaping could be a result of Darwinian processes. Some reptiles have long tongues. So the question of why this adaptation did not arise is a good one: I bet the cranial anatomy of mammals is one reason it couldn’t. (Leaping mammals? Can’t think of one.)

[@Andrew-ep4kw]

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

[@R3ptile]

and the bold

[@powerdriller4124]

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

[@jm505]

I prefer “survival of the survivors”.

[@rrmackay]

"Many: people don';t think evolution is controversial, media tells them to think its controversial, the difference between the modern day and the 1870s is the media.

[@maozedung7270]

God destroys and craetes the whole universe in the same moment ! You are agree?

[@maozedung7270]

"God" is the only power, exept us. Humans are a illness for the live on the planet. We have to extinct soon! Or sooner or later...But nobody cares.

[@Mermaid2261]

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

[@neilreinhardt556]

DID IT EVER OCCUR TO YOU THAT MANY HAVE NOT?

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

Patterson was not a creationist and resented being quoted out of context by science denying creationists.

[@I_Never_Lie]

Evolution is 100% right. As for some religious guys saying life is too complicated to be created by itself, remember you guys used to think that we're the central of the universe. Just remember it's all from human perspective, there's no need to have a beginning or an ending in this universe.

[@kornelobajdin5889]

Exactly its simple. Its all about perspective. God that humans made up didn't create the dinasours or anything before them. All those organisms didn't think of a creator. They were there through evolution just like we are. And they were animals just like us. And it was all about survival of the fittest. Its just that humans as a species has evolved way more and became the dominant. God didn't create any of that. Its simply just cycle of evolution.

[@chesslife2345]

If Evolution is 100% right like you said. Why monkeys are still exist?

[@kornelobajdin5889]

@@chesslife2345 you would think that all monkeys would evolve into humans? Obviously not all and it just branched out you could say.

[@chesslife2345]

@@kornelobajdin5889 haha lol chicken/egg 🥚 argument or algorithm?. So what kind of monkey or branch that human came from. You knew it specifically?

[@theotheleo6830]

@@chesslife2345 A better question is, what were they before they evolved into monkeys, and what will they evolve into hundreds of millions of years later?

[@Icedcoffee03]

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

[@TheHairyHeathen]

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

[@alanadams5982]

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

[@warren52nz]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@danielmoore4024]

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

[@calledtowin147]

O' the foolishness of men. After walking half my life without acknowledging God in any way and then experiencing His love, power and presence over the last 40 yrs, seeing thousands of miracles, changed and truly transformed lives... I truly feel for those who are yet to come to know Him.

[@TheHairyHeathen]

I'm glad you recognize your foolishness. Have you seen a doctor about the delusions and hallucinations you're experiencing? Perhaps medication might help?

[@ekd5213]

Pls pray for me Kennith.

[@melissagonzalez6447]

Lol definitely should see a doctor about that

[@firecloud77]

"Nothing in nature will ever simultaneously go to both low entropy and high energy at the same time. It's a physical impossibility. Yet life had to do that. Life had to take simple chemicals and go to a state of high energy and of low entropy. That's a physical impossibility." --Physicist Brian Miller

[@numbersix9477]

I find it interesting that Miller didn't publish the math he used to reach his conclusions. That would have been a slam-dunk Nobel Prize winning paper.

[@firecloud77]

@@numbersix9477 I find it interesting that you offered no argument.

[@numbersix9477]

@@firecloud77 --- I don't need an "argument." I have a "model" and my model is taught as science at every major university on planet earth. Maybe you didn't have the time to go to college. Many people don't. That doesn't have to stop you. With $12 and an internet connection you can get your own copy of an outstanding textbook (several editions old but even the oldie is a goodie) that is used to teach evolution at a number of those universities. The book is "Evolution", it's primary author is Douglas Futuyma. ... It's OK to be smart.

[@firecloud77]

@@numbersix9477 If you had written, "I am here to waste your time and mine," I would have been very impressed by your accomplishment.

[@alanclarke7]

@@numbersix9477 *"I find it interesting that Miller didn't publish the math he used to reach his conclusions."* Harold Urey's FAITH helped him reach his conclusion: _"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great it is hard for us to imagine that it did." - Harold Urey (known for Miller-Urey experiment)_

[@therealzilch]

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

[@cynthiagaudino9272]

Maybe you should have been obsessed with God.

[@therealzilch]

@@cynthiagaudino9272 Why?

[@josephshackelford7242]

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

[@paulgarrett4474]

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

[@therealzilch]

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

[@Titan_Ruler622]

A big slap to all those who trolled athiests and believe in Adam/Eve's story. God may exist but I don't believe in religions which were created by humans.

[@NealeBaxter]

sathish Kumar,all religions are created by humans.

[@Titan_Ruler622]

@@NealeBaxter That's true but nobody would believe it.

[@grahampaice5696]

@@NealeBaxter We Christians believe the Bible was written by man under the influence of the Holy Spirit

[@joshriver75]

@@NealeBaxter I think that was implied.

[@grahampaice5696]

@Stephen Sachs I trust you are aware that the early Christians were Jews....! Go back to school and learn some respect.

[@reinaldocruz1007]

Evolution can't be as perfect as we are, there has to be a blue print, and a Creator... If science says that a man can get pregnant, or at least that can be awoman this days the fact that they still belive in evolution is not that crazy...

[@garywalker447]

Your ignorance of biology does not refute Evolution.

[@darkiee69]

Man perfect? We are weaker than most animals of similar size, our eyesight isn't as good, nor is our hearing or sense of smell.

[@reinaldocruz1007]

@@darkiee69 And still we can control them

[@reinaldocruz1007]

@@garywalker447 That was a mockery of actual science... You don't have to be an Einstein to know that.

[@garywalker447]

@@reinaldocruz1007 Nope. Darwin's Theory of Evolution cut the apron strings for Biology allowing it to be real science for the first time. Prior to that Biology was only collecting and cataloging species with very little understanding. With the the understanding of Biology, the classification system developed by Linneaus for the first time made sense. The Theory of Evolution is science and your bellyaching will not change that.

[@realthursty4953]

Why do you suppose that he uses discredited drawings from the 1890s to show his point about embryology instead of photos? Because photos don't show what the drawings do and won't support his point.

[@paulgarrett4474]

He didn't, those were different drawings, besides which we now have ultrasound images of thousands of embryos that confirm the evidence.

[@lrvogt1257]

It was part of the history of the subject. Science doesn't pretend things didn't happen it learns from errors and changes. Religion is allowed to change.

[@realthursty4953]

@@lrvogt1257 He's not presenting it as history, he's presenting it as modern factual evidence for evolution. If he was correcting Haekel, as you asert, he would have had to include modern photos.

[@Lussra]

@@realthursty4953 He began the talk by asking how and why the scientific community in the 1800s started to accept evolution despite being a very religious time. This is more about history.

[@rexsceleratorum1632]

@@realthursty4953 Haekel's drawings were inaccurate, but that does not contradict the concept that vastly different animals go through similar embryological states/processes, which is still true and still evidence for common ancestry.

[@geoffhansen9969]

Plenty of reasons that show evolution is illogical. Darwin assumed that the cell was simple. But we now know cells are extremely complex. The more we know the more impossible is evolution. This is also excluding the perfect conditions we have on earth for life to exist.

[@gregtrester1152]

well stated

[@paulgarrett4474]

Life evolved into those conditions. Your ignorance does not refute the science.

[@numbersix9477]

Five years ago, over 98 percent of earth's scientists accepted the theory of evolution and one hundred percent of the planet's thousand largest universities taught the theory of evolution as science. Creationists have had five years to whine on KZbin threads and fix that. How have you/they faired?

[@danielsanford4109]

@@paulgarrett4474 It amazes me how you cling to the lie and feel free to so easily insult a fellow human being simply because he disagrees with you.

[@xx7101]

@@danielsanford4109 Easily manipulated dimwit, not every musing merits attention.

[@pepper419]

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

[@mickeythompson9537]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@grabes1980]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@bighairyfeet]

We learned not to listen.

[@OregonDARRYL]

You are proof of evolution. Your DNA isn't your mother's or your father's. It's brand new. It's different. That means what's "human" has been evolving for thousands of years.

[@samozeal9466]

Well that's not what evolution is, but setting aside the term 'evolution', the thing that is controversial isn't that one type of being can develop variations, but that one type of being can become a totally different one. Or more specifically that the complexity and variety of life stemmed accidentally from a slime.

[@OregonDARRYL]

@@samozeal9466 It IS evolution... but only a tiny moment in the process. New DNA is new DNA. And in say 1,000,000 years we would have evolved into something different. So, each generation is evolving. There is no line that gets crossed in an instant.

[@samozeal9466]

@@OregonDARRYL let's look at the Stanford Dictionary definition of evolution: "Evolution may be defined as any net directional change or any cumulative change in the characteristics of organisms or populations over many generations" This means you and I being different than our parents in itself isn't evolution, although that is a necessary requirement FOR evolution. The point though, isn't whether dogs and wolves share a common ancestor, or species of birds share a common ancestor. No one doubts that form of evolution. What's debated, is whether you and I were once lizards and before that primordial slime. All life coming from a single common ancestor is what's controversial.

[@gregoryholden3255]

@@samozeal9466 To me, there is no controversy! Evolution is or it isn't a fact . And I'm afraid that it's a fact___for those whose minds are made up!

[@samozeal9466]

@@gregoryholden3255 well certainly micro-evolution is a fact.

[@late8641]

Wow, 2,6 thousand tinfoil hats disliked. The world is a messed up place...

[@paulford9120]

It proves that our education system needs a lot of work.

[@maxmac7845]

That will be the religious.

[@unclepatrick2]

@@maxmac7845 I got a better education about Darwin and the theory of evolution from the Jesuits then I did at University .

[@bobblue_west]

I've been working as a business coach with a very smart, articulate and intelligent young woman, 25 yrs old. She was interviewed on BBC World TV News about her work. Yet, she rejects evolution. And yes, she is a devout Christian. Super bright on practical worldly matters, but doesn't believe we evolved from pre-human apes.

[@unclepatrick2]

@@bobblue_west I had two students who parents were of a weird church . The parents really believe that the earth was flat (as the bible said) . Both of their Children earn a A 's in my History class . If I had never met the parents , I would never have known based on the kids.

[@seeker9241]

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

[@walkergarya]

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

[@manofthetombs]

It that the same level of scientific proof that the Covid "vaccines" are safe and effective? Because, after all, we MUST trust the science ... especially when the science is WRONG!

[@peternicholsonu6090]

Am only 75yrs and as a child evolution was called the Theory of... during my youth it was declared “fact”. However the supporting evidence during that time has contradicted itself continuously.....we were told in the 1950’s of the “simple cell” dividing (this by miraculous unknown outside influence). By the 1970’s the “simple cell” was discovered to be not “simple” at all. Reportedly “more complex than the (then) telephone system of NYC”. Wow some massive holes blown in your so called “simple cell”.....bear with me please this gets better...the cell was then discovered to contain DNA RNA Basically helix coding of incredible data upon which proteins ran back and forth repairing any breaks in the ‘ladder rungs’. Read the book Ebola. Then miraculously for the cell to divide itself the helix must divide perfectly in order to “reproduce itself”. At an early stage “something “ directs cells to become skin, or bone, or organs, legs, arms, hair,teeth whatever assembling perfectly into a whole which after maturing can mate with another to totally reproduce itself either male or female taking with it genetic codes from original cells. Dr Jordan Peterson will despise me for misquoting him but he offered unwittingly an analogy. He said children play with mud pies etc. They earnestly believe them to be real because as yet they lack experience in life. If you have stayed with me thus far your anger will be rising with counter arguments BUT scientists of their day allowed surgeons to go from morgue to surgery....they were patently and fatally wrong. Scientists advocated a flat earth...wrong. The clergy have been contradictory and should never be alone with children nor each other. We have ancient writings saying “the earth hangs upon nothing”. The church and secular authorities decried this notion. Same writings say the earth was developed sequentially way before humankind came on the scene. Same writings depict what is stated in folklore of countless civilisations that a deluge (ice age) engulfed the world. A study of evolution is a study of repeated reform and adjusting. The clergy have been outed. But that clergy is guilty of driving erstwhile intellectuals into any alternative to the notion of a Creator. Have noticed Attenborough and his like are so frustrated with their evolution fact being blown back into theory that they are now explaining the unexplained as Mother Nature ‘ designed‘ to explain the incredible developments around us. So let’s analyse Mother Nature” shall we.....you guys are going to hate what you discover. I’ve been there and it explains all beautifully such that I worry not about extinction of humans by Putin or US or pandemic. And after most of my life comparing what I’ve learned along with what I’ve heard my expectations are rising not falling.....oh to quote Attenborough and he will despise me for doing so..when the rapids duck leads her new ducklings down to waters edge she does not encounter a smooth pond (as we have all witnessed with amusement) but rather a racing stream of water thundering down stream.....she dives deep and upstream to emerge in the lee of a river boulder and her ducklings “are designed” to do the same in order to preserve the species. Designed? Love that you makers of mud pies pontificating like the clergy ignoring what is right before your eyes in the hope of preserving the ‘science’ you are financially committed to.....just sayin.

[@walkergarya]

@@peternicholsonu6090 In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution. - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[@peternicholsonu6090]

@@walkergarya The vernacular is consistent worldwide. You seem to debate the word to smudge facts. You allow for adjustments by Evolutionists but still state “humans did descend from apes”. That is not a scientific proven fact it is an assumption based on cranial similarities not unlike similarities between apples and oranges, both round, edible, grow on trees, even sometimes similar coloring. We both share the need to hold onto our base beliefs and I do not wish to tear apart you belief system. But it would insult Henry Ford to claim that his model T was not designed and assembled brilliantly. Please be wary of making the same error the Church does when it states God is a trinity. Question the logic of that assumption and they retreat to “oh it’s a mystery”. Your family history from apes demeans the individual beauty of many of its members. We either were Created as was the model T Ford. Or we miraculously developed from slime to fish to reptile and so on. It was held once that the sun set and later rose in the morning. People swore by it and still do. But it soon became clear to reasoning folk that the earth spins into sun light and out of it. That requires a belief system meaning faith that it is so. Do you recall the ancient man using a yard stick fixed perfectly upright and noting the day on his calendar when it no longer cast any shadow at noon? A year later he planted his stick again 100 miles away in the same manner and on the given day noted at noon it cast a measurable shadow. Using this distance figure he calculated the curvature thence circumference of the earth. Many around him laughed not comprehending that he had discovered an empirical fact. Erstwhile great men nevertheless clung to their flat earth theory until very recent time. They feared Columbus would sail off the edge in seeking your very homelands. My gorgeous wife descended from a beautiful human mother and genetics has agreed in recent times. Given time, Evolutionary Science will settle upon Mother Nature to explain it’s base miraculous stages. Many of us are already defining Mother Nature...

[@D.Will.C.]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@michaelbrandt5416]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@alainbellemare2168]

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

[@grainiac7824]

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

[@alainbellemare2168]

@@grainiac7824 there is a lot more people

[@poufter]

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

[@Vurbanowicz]

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

[@vhawk1951kl]

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

[@oldedwardian1778]

One of the stories about Darwin that I love is this. The great English composer, Ralph Vaughan Williams was the great nephew of Charles Darwin, they were all members of the Wedgewood family. As a young child VW was curious about his famous uncle and asked his mother what all the fuss was about. His mother replied that the church said that the Earth was about 5,000 years old but Great Uncle Charles thought that it was wrong and the Earth was a bit older than that. VW was one of the greatest composers who ever lived he was a lifelong ATHEIST and was awarded a medal for bravery as an ambulance man in WWI.

[@originallegendz8325]

All dislikes are religious people who actually think god exists 😂

[@numbersix9477]

@Mark Landrebe Burn, Baby, Burn. I'm looking forward to watching! You?

[@Adrian-yf1zg]

Probably. However God does exist and Evolution can be true.

[@originallegendz8325]

@@Adrian-yf1zg god doesn’t exist there no proof. And also it’s stuff people believed in 1500 BC. People need to get over it and live life how they wanted to live it, and not be reading into all this b.s that stops them from doing what they want to do. Have a good life not believing cos there’s no point in doing so cos god does not exist I’m afraid man

[@jeanoduterval7859]

Evolution is a religion. It takes a great leap of faith to believe that we came from a rock

[@paulgarrett4474]

You don't understand evolution.

[@maylingng4107]

The rocks are in your head only.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

Another Hovind adept.

[@numbersix9477]

You have access to an online dictionary, looked up the definitions of "religion" and "evolution" then made your assertion that "Evolution is a religion." I'll be generous and assume that you were sleep deprived.

[@paperxuts5808]

This is based on old theoretical evolution, much of it disproved in the 1800s do your research

[@numbersix9477]

You are saying that the theory of evolution was falsified over a century ago - yet the world's scientific community has yet to realize it? That's a pretty bold statement! What is your evidence?

[@wakygee]

Lol. Yes, of course we all now know that Jesus rode the dinosaurs

[@johnfitzgerald8879]

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

[@trishmurphy1941]

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

[@kensanity178]

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

[@lrvogt1257]

I knew my fruit salad was off.

[@johnfarrell6282]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@edsalinas9996]

Some will get it, some won't.

[@hermanhelmich]

😂👍🏻

[@KrazyJojo4594]

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

[@markbreck8008]

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

[@johndehaan2764]

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

[@pudermcgavin4462]

Plastic cot sleep so cold

[@elinabalibado5982]

HAHAHA 😂😂😂

[@robinj.9329]

I'm sorry but that very title is rediculous. There is NO WAY to prove a hypothetical assumption about events millions of years in the past ! TRY AGAIN!

[@numbersix9477]

--- Arguments from personal incredulity are logical fallacies. Let me quote YOU, "TRY AGAIN!"

[@micah7492]

It's been proven. Nobody questions it besides religious fanatics.

[@numbersix9477]

@@micah7492 --- LOVE your moniker! Was it inspired by a Steve Martin routine?

[@18dot7]

@Robin Jacobs - There is NO WAY to prove a hypothetical assumption about a god coming into existence out of nothing ! TRY AGAIN!

[@percyjohnsoniv1794]

@@micah7492 definitely NOT proven. Just interpreted.

[@khinrunite]

In those NatGeo and Discovery channel docus that I've seen when I was a child it's always portrayed as a creature evolving by adapting to its environment. Like a fish developing legs so it can move out of the water. This confused me. I always found it unlikely for a creature to be able to "will" a change in its dna or offspring's dna. This "survival of the luckiest" seems more plausible.

[@DrMontgomeryMontgomery]

That's more a version of Lamarckian inheritance than it is anything Nat-Geo or the Discovery Channel would be pushing. Given the fact you saw it as a child, its probably more your rationalisation of the science than it was their missteps in explaining it. I say this because a certain sort of fish would have developed legs so it can move out of the water. You seem to have imposed the will part through intuition. It got their not by will, but because luckily developing a 'predecessory' version of that trait increased the likelihood of them passing on their genes. Add time, randomness and luck and you get legs. Say we restarted that process we may have gotten and even greater version with more luck, or never have gotten any legs at all. That's really what I find amazing about it all.

[@Rabbitland2000]

@@DrMontgomeryMontgomery Hmm , so a fish by luck got legs then they say to themselves oh I guess since I’m too smart I should use them to walk out of the water ! Lol leave alone that such one mutation wouldn’t help that much hence you need to have lungs that can breathe air oxygen. That sounds legit.

[@DrMontgomeryMontgomery]

@@Rabbitland2000 - You do realise that you can hold your breath right? Wtf is even your response.

[@MultiMolly21]

Random mutations are the lucky part, the weather defines who makes it. The tendency of mutations to affect all off spring at once and the resultant inbreeding speeds up the process; but we're still talking millions of years.

[@warren52nz]

LJ. Look up the discovery of Tiktaalic. A fish with legs found where scientists expected to find it

[@walkergarya]

No creationist in 160 years has ever refuted the Theory of Evolution. It is the foundation of all biological study.

[@Instant4real]

@walkergarya why do you say that, its a 50 / 50 or better creationist. Neither side can claim high ground.

[@AnubisSolvang]

Someone get this poor man a glass of water!

[@tausifkarim8861]

Do you mean a glass of wotah?

[@MarinusVesseur]

It's a reasonably good presentation, but this subject matter is dealt with in a much more entertaining and enlightening manner in The Song of the Dodo by David Quammen, a real eye-opener for me and the final nail in the coffin of my creationist views. That still doesn't make me an atheist, but the evolution of species from other species is proven beyond a doubt for me.

[@trentrubenacker9718]

Don't worry. If you're open to reality, and intent on believing true things and not believing false things, reality will assert itself and you'll lose your faith.

[@godloves9163]

@@trentrubenacker9718 the reality that computer can code and assemble themselves without intelligence. Yeah ok 👍

[@sandman7849]

This is a propaganda video. It doesn't prove anything.

[@williamb3257]

Sandman sez: "This is a propaganda video. It doesn't prove anything." Actually, it does prove something.. It proves that you have no idea what you are babbling about..

[@sandman7849]

Yes, we all came from mole rats.

[@davidcross4815]

Many of the following comments are examples of how badly religiosity has rotted the American education system.

[@maylingng4107]

Those who make most of the comments are the least educated.

[@numbersix9477]

@@maylingng4107 It's impossible to both memorize thousands of Bible verses AND get a quality education. God wants us to do the former; He couldn't care less about the latter.

[@maylingng4107]

@@numbersix9477 I would not know. Neither can I memorize meaningless bible verses nor do I care about what god wants. If god is omnipotent, she can do it all for herself.

[@numbersix9477]

@@maylingng4107 The Bible is quite clear on this; God is a HE!

[@maylingng4107]

@@numbersix9477 I disagree. Someone as capricious and so vengeful could only be a woman. btw: you are getting close to not being funny.

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

Creationists shouldn't be allowed to operate heavy machinery.

[@numbersix9477]

What? And make them ALL flip burgers?

[@mantexas9033]

Bob Smith creationists invented the electric motor which powers all sorts of heavy machinery.

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

Man Texas; Creationists invented a now functionally obsolete god which powers all sorts of modern societal problems.

[@wannabecarguy]

@@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1 I was taught to run machinery by a devout Christian named Bob Smith. Just saying.

[@dokbob5795]

@@mantexas9033 Rubbish

[@amosleung7821]

Picking on the other's wrong does not prove you are right!

[@hermonghebresslasie3198]

@Colin Cleveland instead of bein sarcastic try to understand what I said. We have never found a skeleton of a spiecies thats evolvin. Therefore it isnt real. U should know that if u read the book. Charles Darwin himself said theres no evidence to back it and its just an assumption

[@numbersix9477]

@@hermonghebresslasie3198 "Charles Darwin himself said theres no evidence to back it and its just an assumption" --- Bald faced lies do NOT enhance one's credibility.

[@hermonghebresslasie3198]

@@numbersix9477 try reading the last chapter pf his book

[@numbersix9477]

@@hermonghebresslasie3198 --- And when I've read every single word of that chapter, only to verify that you were lying, how do I get my time back?

[@haram-hunter5630]

@@hermonghebresslasie3198 wtf just google there are literally hundreds

[@kazzana9013]

Not sure if their is a god or many gods, but our bodies are so brilliant and complex I think it is highly unlikely that we happened by evolution alone. I am inclined to think we were designed and have since evolved over time with evolution. I suspect the process of evolution is part of our design. I don't have much interest in religions, but do acknowledge there is health benefits to meditation of which many get from their religious practices. If we were designed to evolve, is the only description we have for the designer/s God? which always come in the context that one should spend a great deal of time/life worshiping. I believe in good ethical science, but there is little of that around these days as most is sponsored by huge multi national corporations which influence our governments and education, but I also believe the genius of life is way to complex to have devolved by evolution alone. We cannot trust how they set up the research, their controls or the way they can manipulate data, nor can we trust our governments to regulate to ensure we get science with integrity. This leaves me in the uncomfortable position of sitting on the fence as I have no desire to get on bended knee and pray to any god.

[@davidm9618]

Because you don't understand something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[@wooe]

"I can't explain X, because of that I'll make up an argument". Do you really think that this is sounds plausible? Have evoking magic ever been the answer to anything?

[@leonardronalddow1755]

_"Not sure if their is a god or many gods, but our bodies are so brilliant and complex I think it is highly unlikely that we happened by evolution alone."_ That's more or less what Newton said about wobbles in the orbits of planets around the sun - and inviked God as an explanation. Then about 100 years later, Laplace showed that he was wrong - that the perfectly natural interaction of matter was responsible with no supernatural intervention needed at all. Typical God of the Gaps. There are too many obvious 'design' anomalies in our bodies for them to have been designed and we can show, for example, that even our intelligence springs from a few random mutations to certain genes that influence brain development. How do you pre-load the genome to factor in beneficial effects of viral infections or accidental & partial gene duplications? I share your concern about corporate bodies needing regulation.

[@numbersix9477]

Kazzana "Not sure if their is a god or many gods, but our bodies are so brilliant and complex I think it is highly unlikely that we happened by evolution alone." --- "Not sure how many gods there are but our gods are so brilliant and complex I think it is highly unlikely that they weren't created by an even higher power than they."

[@kenbar4761]

Because you don't understand something doesn't mean it did! @@davidm9618

[@danbenson7587]

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

[@TheHairyHeathen]

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

[@L.Ron_Dow]

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

[@danbenson7587]

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

[@TheHairyHeathen]

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

[@danbenson7587]

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

[@MIKEGODSQUAD]

There is not one point in this video that “proves” evolution. He just discusses the theory.

[@Greenie-43x]

It is VERY OFTEN referred to as a fact. It is OFTEN STATED that it IS a FACT. Look around at the COUNTLESS times it gets purported as a fact, that it is 'fully supported by ALL the sciences like a tight fitting puzzle. ' But if you really scrutinize it then sure, they can say, "well it doesnt HAVE to be true- it's just the best explanation we have right now" If we know it's a fact, say so. If we DON'T know its a fact, Say So. May Ling, you seem reasonable and I dont mean to make statements in your name. I'm writing about general experiences with many others. Thanks to you both. .

[@emmadabdelkrim3073]

@May Ling Think deeply Then answer this question to yourself Is Evolution real ? Don't lie to yourself There is a creator and he works in ways beyond our Minds Islam teach us Adam and Eve were created to live on Earth Not as a punishment But to serve a bigger role. The Existence of the universe is itself a miracle. Darwin has his Results in his mind That there is no Creator! Evolution is the lie he tell himself and he spreads it to the rest of us

[@Greenie-43x]

@May Ling Please tell me. To what do you refer to? What was duplicated in a lab? I'd love to research it. Because EVERY TIME I do, I find a lacking of actual evidence. So I'd be really interested in your Best example. Thanks.

[@Greenie-43x]

@May Ling Hi May. Thank you so much for the information. I looked into it and found some things that might be helpful. In the interest of information, I can get long winded so I'll put down 2 responses. The 1st one brief and the 2nd longer and detailed. Feel free to skip the long stuff if it's too boring. 1) The e-coli are indeed adapting and evolving as needed to survive. But they haven't ADDED any Brand new functions or parts. They are still e-coli that just adapt to survive. No Macro evolution is being displayed, only the variations that no one disputes. 2) It seems that life forms have a "range" of variation that can happen. They can turn a gene on or off to accomplish necessary changes. With those gene changes, physical changes follow. But they are limited to the functions that seem to be "built" in them. The e-coli have had over 60,000 generations. They equate this to more than 1,200,000 years of human life in comparison. Yet still no brand new function or parts. The most noted mutation was for the "citT" gene. This gene is usually turned off during aerobic growth but Lenski observed the gene switched on during aerobic growth. E-coli is traditionally citrate negative during aerobic conditions. He argues this counts as a new species but the opponents have some issues with that. 1. The ability to utilize citrate is something that e-coli in the wild can do. It's not completely unheard of, even though not typical. 2. The gene for utilizing citrate was already there in the first place. 3. The culture media has citrate in its buffer components, making it available for 60,000 generations. 4. It's been demonstrated that e-coli can adapt to utilize citrate relatively quickly, making it appear more of a living adaptation, rather than a large scale change. Another argument, maybe not as strong; evolution is often told to be the reason bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics. None of the 12 cultures Lenski is growing have gained any resistance to antibiotics. Another fact pointed out is that e-coli has been growing in labs for over 100 years, yet still remain e-coli. This stuff is from the opposition so of course its critical. But even when I look through the positive information, I see no brand new function. What I do see, is a general surprise at how they Keep evolving to adapt and grow large populations. Just nothing that points to e-coli Ever becoming ANYTHING other than e-coli This is so often what I find when I look deeper into a subject. I dont blame you by any means. We read a report, we would like to think everything about it has been checked. But sometimes people's excitement gets away from them. I dont think they are lieing to you. I think they genuinely believe in evolution and simply see NO reason to question it. Then it gets hard for them to be discerning and critical. THEN, it gets hard for me to blindly believe their reports. Thank you again for sharing the info. I'm glad you have an interest in life and the universe around us. .

[@L.Ron_Dow]

@@Greenie-43x _"It is VERY OFTEN referred to as a fact."_ Yes, *Evolution is a Fact.* _"It is OFTEN STATED that it IS a FACT."_ Justifiably, *Evolution can be observed.* _"But if you really scrutinize it then sure, they can say, 'well it doesn't HAVE to be true - it's just the best explanation we have right now'"_ And *Yes, that is True too.* But you are referring here to *TWO different things.* *'Evolution'* is *_'the change in allele frequency in species or populations over time'_* In other words, the *genomes* found with populations change over the generations. As I have said, *we see that happening.* Evolution is TRUE. *'The Theory of Evolution'* is *_'the Best Explanation we have of HOW Evolution happens based on the current set of Observations.'_* In fact there are several theories involved dealing with different aspects of Evolution and its mechanisms. Don't get thrown by the fact that evolutionists (hey Darwin used the word twice in his book - it's short for 'Evolutionary Biologists') use the word 'Evolution' to mean both the Fact and the Theory - we all get a bit lazy at times, and we are used to dealing with people who understand which meaning we intend according to the context. Now, I detect that like most Creatards/ID proponents, you think there is a difference between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution. That one is real and the other isn't. Well, *can you tell me what genetic mechanism stops the first becoming the second?* You also conflate/confuse Variation, Adaptation and (Micro)-Evolution. And you bounce around ideas like: _"It seems that life forms have a 'range' of variation that can happen. They can turn a gene on or off to accomplish necessary changes."_ Now, *that is also True* - gene expression & regulation *is* responsible for many physical changes that, for example allow a critter to *adapt* to seasons (turning white in winter.) Such adaptation is reversible, there may be transgenerational epigenetic inheritance lasting a few generations but ultimately there is *no change in the genetic structure of the genome.* You can't see 'gene expression' with a microscope and it is not 'Evolution' of any sort. But there is another form of Adaptation - it's when critters experience *mutations in their genomes* that give them a survival advantage in a new environment, especially when they are in competition for resources with others of their 'tribe'. These mutations (DNA segment duplications, insertions, deletions, inversions and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs, swapping one nucleotide base for another)) are *not reversible* - although they may not gain foothold in the general population and so die out or be subject to another mutation (see the 'Jesus Gene' or 'IRGM' - it was killed and then brought back to life) - and they are *physically detectable.* Such genes enable people to survive at high altitudes or eat Omega-3 rich diets with no ill-effects. This IS 'Evolution' in action. Of the LTEE, you say: _"No Macro evolution is being displayed, only _*_the variations_*_ that no one disputes."_ Hang on a minute - have your forgotten that the LTEE started with a SINGLE _E-coli_ bacterium that 'cloned itself by division? That means *there can be NO VARIATION* of the genome except that which arises by *Mutation.* Now, I can see you bouncing up & down on your chair (I have switched on your webcam) shouting -_'But, they are still _E.coli, bacteria, 'dumboflies' or 'whatever' - they are still the same *Species* - that's just 'Micro-Evolution.' Well, here's the thing about 'Species' - they don't exist! Well, they do exist but only in the same way that 'New Year's Day', 'Time Zones' and the 'Equator' exist - in our heads - not in Nature. They are useful man-made concepts that help us communicate certain ideas to each other. There is no hard & fast rule for determining what Species an organism belongs to - or not. Yes, I know 'Breeding Compatibility' is a good rule of thumb - but it doesn't always work (hence Ligers & Tigons and other fertile hybrids - heck, most of us have Neanderthal DNA in our genomes - how'd that get there?) - and how do you apply it to an asexually-reproducing organism like _E-coli?_ *WE* choose what to call an organism *IF* it is sufficiently different that the description of its ancestors doesn't quite fit any more - there is *no* natural barrier that can't be crossed and there's no consensus on the distinction between 'Micro' & 'Macro' - especially by 'evolutionists' (Evolutionary Biologists).

[@garywalker447]

Birds are descended from and are a living branch of dinosaurs. We have found many dinosaur fossils with the imprints of feathers preserved, even dinos that were too heavy to ever fly. Even the velociraptor of "Jurassic Park" fame has been shown to have the anchor points on the bone of its fore limbs of feathers indistinguishable from the same bumps found in eagles or geese. This case is further reinforced by the fact that chickens still have the DNA for a long bony tail like a dinosaur

[@rl7012]

Seriously? You believe a chicken is descended from a T Rex?

[@garywalker447]

@@rl7012 No I do not. T-rex were wiped out 66 million years ago in the KT extinction. However, T-rex was a type of theropod dinosaur and Avian Dinosaurs first diverged from other Theropods some 50 million years before that. Chickens, indeed all modern birds do not descend from T-rex but they do share a common ancestor with T-rex.

[@rl7012]

@@garywalker447 And the common ancestor all life shares is a single cell bacteria that accidentally invented life 3.7 billion years ago in some deep sea vent? So this single cell bacteria is the father of all life on Earth?

[@JacobPatrick1]

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

[@TheHairyHeathen]

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

[@Geraldster]

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

[@martinzitter4551]

Evolution tends to favor the offspring of the most adaptable.

[@false-set]

I aitnt no monkeh

[@false-set]

@Josef H. You know nothing about my poor education! I don't need school when I have a Bible!

[@false-set]

@Josef H. Unlike humans a sense of humour can evolve.

[@hatetazezeryakob3169]

False-set one day you are going to die and will be food for the flora and fauna of this world, just like you lived feeding on them.

[@false-set]

@@hatetazezeryakob3169 cremation

[@vanderleifeliz4394]

Well, instead of denying why not go out there and try to prove evolution is wrong with science, because is the only tools we have? Wishful thinking is where we get in the wrong path!

[@grainiac7824]

If you found a watch or calculator or something in the depths of an African safari you would presume someone had been there, right? You would not presume it happened on its own? Similarly when I see a world where the sun is the perfect distance from the earth and the kidney is amazing and the human eye stymied Darwin, I presume Someone was there.

[@seriouscat2231]

It depends on how you define science.

[@rexsceleratorum1632]

@@grainiac7824 When you find a God out there, remember that someone was there, and his name is Dinkan, Creator of Creators.

[@grainiac7824]

@@seriouscat2231 yes we've seen some major pseudo science throughout the pandemic. There are physicists and biologists, astrologisists and astrophysicists all over you tube that admit evolution isn't likely. I watched one video that included a biologist that admitted he hated having to acknowledge it bc he admired Darwin for his passionate work. So I haven't just sat here denying. I listen to the evidence and it's shoddy and not provable

[@seriouscat2231]

@@rexsceleratorum1632, you did not tell us to remember that the great spaghetti monster was there? Why?

[@brianedwards7142]

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

[@numbersix9477]

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

[@uknowispeaksense7056]

I just came to read comments from religious nutters. Was not disappointed.

[@primeminister1040]

Where's the evidence, I hear nothing but speculations

[@L.Ron_Dow]

The evidence of what? This was a History Lesson given by a Historian about the History leading up to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Everybody knew life change over time, species disappearing & emerging - that's observable - what they didn't have until Darwin & Wallace came along was a plausible mechanism by which it happened: *'Descent with Modification by Natural Selection.'* Until then most people assumed that God was killing-off species and 'Specially Creating' similar ones - amazing what some people will believe isn't it? The real evidence came well after Darwin & Wallace had died - with the discovery of DNA and Genes and what happens to them.

[@primeminister1040]

@@L.Ron_Dow repeating scientific jargon that you don't understand is not gonna help you win an argument. evolution is nothing but a probabilistic framework, can you observe the immersion of new species from another different species? Give me one example

[@L.Ron_Dow]

@andrew gallovich Evolution is OBSERVABLE - so it doesn't need to be 'Proved'. Of course you are probably using the straw-man definition of Evolution (dogs giving birth to cats) touted by Evangelizing Creationists so you wouldn't understand that.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

@@primeminister1040 Please tell me which of the words that I used were 'Scientific Jargon'. Furthermore - which bits do you think I don't understand? I taught this stuff for thirty years. If you think that I was using 'Scientific Jargon' then that explains why you can't understand that Evolution is not the Strawman definition touted by Evangelizing Creationists. Just to prove my point - I'm going to ask you HOW we would KNOW whether two organisms are the same or different species. How would we know that a species has given rise to a new sub-species? A dog giving birth to a cat would be transmogrification (Magic) NOT evolution - such an event would DISPROVE Evolution. In fact, do you even know what Evolution is? What exactly do you mean by _"evolution is nothing but a probabilistic framework"?_ _'Tragopogon Miscellus'._

[@mostafazahid1710]

Your religion has no evidence yet you believe that. Why the double standards, huh?

[@JeseSavignon]

Evolution is true, weather you like it or not. Science works bitches! ‐ Richard Dawkins

[@TheHairyHeathen]

I don't know *_whether_* to bring my *_wether_* in, or not, because I haven't heard the *_weather_* forecast yet.

[@allanlee9520]

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

[@GodJesusChristlovesyou_knows_u]

Why do you think so?

[@tenplusten1116]

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

[@woodygilson3465]

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

[@garywalker447]

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

[@manofthetombs]

So, how could the 1st first "fish" that crawled onto land procreate? when after a very short time, it would die of suffocation?

[@garywalker447]

@@manofthetombs Creatard, crawl back into the nearest pond. You are a waste of hundreds of millions of years of Evolution.

[@rexsceleratorum1632]

@@manofthetombs If you really want an answer to your question, you should stop depending on creationist polemics and instead read up on actual science. Which might actually expand your perspective, like tell you that it wasn't an individual fish that did anything, but a population of fishes that gradually adapted to breathing air -- as plenty of fish still do. Look up lungfish. Fresh water fish often need to survive dry spells, and being able to absorb oxygen from air helps a lot. Out of the normal body variation of a population of fish, the ones which absorbed oxygen from air better survived better. The genes that made them different will dominate the population soon. And new genes are born randomly every generation, so give it a few million years and the changes will add up. Yes, most mutations are deleterious, which is why it is relevant that nature kept weeding them out every dry spell.

[@manofthetombs]

@@rexsceleratorum1632 With all due respect sir, I am not looking for an answer to any question. I have found all the answers, to any question I have ever had, in the bible

[@rexsceleratorum1632]

@@manofthetombs I figured as much. And it's not a flattering look in the 21st century.

[@glennshrom5801]

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

[@miked412]

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

[@oldpossum57]

Sorry, Glenn, but the 35+% of Americans adults who believe in a god(s) directed evolutionary process have no evidence of this, and also misunderstand how evolution works. The National Academy of Scirnce has been at pains to correct this misunderstanding. It is not simply that there is no evidence of nor reason to suppose supernatural involvement. It is more important that citizens understand that our relationship to our biosphere is absolute: there is no afterlife we can run to if we make the planet uninhabitable. If you are, as I am sure you are, an ethical person, consider just how horrible the climate crisis could be. In the lifetime of our children. There is no god to fix it, there is no second coming, there is no pie in the sky by and by. This natural world is what there is: and it is our responsibility to maintain and preserve it.

[@Cre8tvMG]

No one really thought those were the devil’s toenails. That was a colloquialism. It’s BAD scholarship to present a falsehood and deceitful impression to attempt to shore up your position. No one thinks a sawtooth ridge is made of real saw teeth either. You are abandoning proper literary and sociological critique to present a shallow strawman.

[@garywalker447]

Most animals do not see in 3 colors. The gene that allows humans to see yellows, blues and reds is only found in one group of animals, primates of which we are a member species. Some 40 million years ago a gene duplication mutation occured doubling the OPN1MW gene sensitive to the yellow/green section of the light spectrum and a later mutation of this resulted in the OPN1LW gene that enables primates having this to see the color red. This mutation is unique to primates and as a primate, we too have this form of color vision.

[@mcmanustony]

I read about this in Sean Carrol's book. A beautiful account of evolution in action. Same pattern of opsin genes in old world primates: creationists "same genes same designer" Different pattern in new world primates (with the exception of the howler): creationists: different genes, same designer" all the explanatory power of a wet sock.

[@robtierney5653]

Kentucky Fried Chickensaur

[@doublew030]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@SantiagoTM1]

SIR, I'm now ROFLMFAOOOO!!! Brilliant indeed.

[@seanjones2456]

The mass murder boat ride with dr. Doolittle!

[@michaelharris4651]

Kentucky Fried JABAWOKI , Monty Python !

[@paulesposito7055]

I got calluses on my hand from guitar playing. We are definitely an adaptive species

[@poliincredible770]

Paul Esposito, respectfully, people have been playing stringed instruments for a long time. God designed us to develop calluses so we can be better equipped to make beautiful music, not so we can become a new species. If or when you have kids, they probably won’t be born with hardened finger tips 😉

[@agesilausii7759]

Why didn‘t god also design us in a way that our dna doesn‘t mutate?

[@TomElijah1]

It is called "anti-fragility" - a key feature of biology. That which stresses makes you stronger. That covers everything from immune systems, bones, psychological resilience and ... callouses :)

[@KRIPP548]

@@agesilausii7759 He did. Then there was sin.

[@agesilausii7759]

@@KRIPP548 lol! So after the sin we started evolving. That's good for us!

[@ed5117]

This guy needs to see how Kent Hovind takes every "evidence" apart and explains what truly happened with the fossils etc. Kent will have field day with him.

[@TheHairyHeathen]

Kent Hovind is nothing but a tool who keeps claiming everyone who doesn't believe his magical fairytales are real, is wrong, but never actually shows they are wrong. He constantly appeals to _ad hominem_ launching pusillanimous attacks against the person, not against their arguments. He dishonestly uses strawman arguments to support a false dichotomy to ostensibly justify your belief in made up magical fantasies. How is it that you are so gullible to be a thrall of, and to even admire, such a despicable low life human being?

[@garywalker447]

Hovind is a liar, fraud, narccisist and an imbicile, I would not trust him for the time of day.

[@paulgarrett4474]

🤣🤣🤣 I genuinely thought Kent Hovind was a comedy act!!

[@rleriche5044]

"what truly happened with the fossils etc" lol

[@andya2665]

Or, Jason Lisle, the creationist, and astro physicist.

[@alanclarke7]

*@Julian S "As I prefer the theory of evolution instead of creationism..."* You're comparing apples to oranges. An "apple to apples" comparison would be Naturalism vs. Creationism. Most creationists including myself accept that today's varieties of candids evolved from gray wolves but we reject the idea that all living things share a common ancestor... and for good reason: _"In the evolutionary model there have only been 3-6 million years since humans and chimps diverged. With average human generation times of 20-30 years, this gives them only 100,000 to 300,000 generations to fix the millions of mutations that separate humans and chimps. This includes at least 35 million single letter differences, over 90 million base pairs of non-shared DNA, nearly 700 extra genes in humans (about 6% not shared with chimpanzees), and tens of thousands of chromosomal rearrangements. Also, the chimp genome is about 13% larger than that of humans, but mostly due to the heterochromatin that caps the chromosome telomeres. All this has to happen in a very short amount of evolutionary time. They don’t have enough time, even after discounting the functionality of over 95% of the genome-but their position becomes grave if junk DNA turns out to be functional. Every new function found for Junk DNA makes the evolutionists’ case that much more difficult." - Robert Carter_

[@L.Ron_Dow]

Every human born has between 80 and 120 genetic mutations not inherited from their parents - that's about 700 thousand million in just this last generation alone (ok, only a small number will become fixed - but it still sounds about right. What do you count as a 'chromosomal rearrangement'? I know of about 7 on Chromosome 14 and there's the fusion of our Chromosome-2 (all of which demonstrate Common Ancestry) - can you name any of the other _'tens of thousands'?_ _"the chimp genome is about 13% larger than that of humans"_ and deletions can't happen? _"mostly due to the heterochromatin that caps the chromosome telomeres"_ What's your point? What do you imagine is the rate at which repeats in telomeres can accumulate?

[@numbersix9477]

@@L.Ron_Dow I'm EAGER to see Alan's attempt to address your reply.

[@romulusmadison8432]

Great quote, Alan. Thanks.

[@4SyriaTruth]

@@romulusmadison8432 oh, so that's why my parents are coneheads and went to Hobart college!

[@justinwmusic]

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

[@joshgoodman6534]

@Robert B. tax breaks?

[@martymcmannis8662]

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

[@jonathandevereaux298]

Someone agrees with you on KZbin, very comforting 🥴

[@thereaction18]

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

[@BennyTwennyGrand]

Why do you believe a god has anything to do with marriage? Which god are you even referring to?

[@rickegarner8111]

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, with 87% accepting that evolution occurs due to natural processes, such as natural selection. Creationists believe in Noah's Ark 😂

[@numbersix9477]

And talking donkeys. And talking snakes. And sticks that make water flow from stones. And a "firmament" which separates the waters above from the waters below - and into which on the order of 200 billion trillion stars are set. And a sun that can stop in the sky so good guys can win battles without being prematurely halted by inconvenient nightfall. And circular pits with circumferences equal to three times their diameters. And ... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@mickeyray3793]

I don't need a lot of fancy science talk to show the truth of evolution. It's all pretty much common sense. The creationists are looney.

[@frankieRandle8779]

You criticise the person making the argument, why not criticise the argument with insight and solid reasoning?

[@joshuareturns9907]

Sedimentary layers can build up in an instant deep enough to cover a life form. fossilization can occur in a matter of hours to days. it must by definition of the process.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

_"Sedimentary layers can build up in an instant deep enough to cover a life form."_ That's true - especially land or mud slides. _"fossilization can occur in a matter of hours to days."_ it depends upon the type of fossilization - permineralization takes longer _"it must by definition of the process."_ The main requirement is that the specimen is deprived of *Oxygen* which would allow decay - this could be in ice or any material that reduced decay while fossilizations takes place. It is not how quickly the fossils form that is important - it's *how long ago they formed.*

[@joshuareturns9907]

@@L.Ron_Dow How long ago they formed? You know circular reasoning is employed here? Naturalists date the fossil by by the age of rock and the rock by the age of the fossil? Neither of which can be done by measurement as no organic material exists in rock. It's true the organism must be deprived of oxygen nearly instantly. The other issue is mineralization. This occurs under great pressures as micro particles are forced into bones and living tissue. Deprivation of oxygen stops microorganisms breaking down the dead organism. The pressure of materials and likely a great depth of water, combine to mineralize recently deceased tissue. It won't work with long dead organisms as minerals must replace living matter in every part of the tissue. So burying the organisms happened very fast, mere days; they were buried in silt under enough depth of water for adequate pressure to force the mineralization. process.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

@@joshuareturns9907 _"You know circular reasoning is employed here?"_ That's an out-of-date idea (are you getting your science from Kent Hovind?) - index fossils (useful when working in the field) have been identified in sedimentary rocks that have been dated by *alternative* means such as: Radiometric dating; Fission-track dating; Cosmogenic nuclide geochronology; Luminescence dating; Incremental dating; Paleomagnetic dating; Magnetostratigraphy; Chemostratigraphy and Correlation of marker horizons See the wiki page on Geochronology for an explanation of these methods. I don't understand what you are trying to say in the rest of your reply.

[@reeb9016]

@@L.Ron_Dow There are animals alive today found in every layer of strata supposed to be "millions and billions" of years old.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

​@@reeb9016 What's the problem with that? We know that unless there is any environmental pressure on a critter to do otherwise, it will remain almost unchanged for millions of years - good examples are the Tardigrade and Coelacanth. The Coelacanth and it's cousins were at least three sub-groups of Lobe-Finned Fish (Sarcopterygii): one is now extinct; the ancient Lung-fishes and the Coelacanths. They all possessed some of the necessary traits, to transition from the sea to the land, that had evolved in their common ancestor. But, *only* descendants of the *Lung-fishes* went on to become tetrapods (such as Tiktaalik) and actually transitioned from sea to land. The Coelacanths were too comfortable in their unchanging home to bother growing legs and getting dry - but, they HAVE evolved - the modern and ancestral forms *do* differ. There is no inevitability that any ancestral species will become extinct - some of their offspring may evolve new traits and colonize new pastures, leaving them to carry on as they did before. Species tend to become extinct when they have to compete with their own 'more efficient' stay-at-home kids or the environment changes so much that they are unable to make a living in it.

[@2002daverj]

A detective doesn't see the crime but he can piece the evidence together to show beyond reasonable doubt what happened. The evidence for evolution is as strong as anything. For example, that the earth circles the sun, and nothing has been found to contradict it. Therefore to any unbiased mind it's a done deal.

[@premabaul7570]

How...polaris never moves from its position above the North Pole. Evolution, heliocentricity, dinosaurs...all BS.

[@paulgarrett4474]

@@premabaul7570 polaris moves at 1 degree every 75 years. Your ignorance and denial are not refutation of any evidence.

[@pietekoo5559]

If you look at the evolution of motor vehicles or electronics or communication etc, you should realize it did not happen spontaneously, but is the work of intelligent beings progressively improving things.

[@earlthepearl4161]

What isn't true about evolution? Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable. Evolution is 'just' a theory. Evolutionary theory is invalid because it is incomplete and cannot give a total explanation for the biodiversity we see around us. Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.

[@numbersix9477]

@@earlthepearl4161 You've been corrected in the past yet you repeat your mendacities. It's NOT a good look, my friend.

[@ruperterskin2117]

Right on. Thanks for sharing.

[@Prisoner-jf8vi]

I have always felt that it was possible that evolution was part of G-d's plan

[@TheHairyHeathen]

That's right, evolution does not preclude the existence of any G-d, just the interpretation of a six-day creation and of a 6K years old earth. That's why there are even more Christians alone who accept evolution, than there atheists in total.

[@stefanoskarvounis8671]

Yup. I could never understand how people can't grasp the idea that if there is a God, perhaps he created life with the ability to evolve.

[@johnbrooks7144]

Never. There was no death before Adam disobeyed God and animals were killed to cover his nakedness. It was a horrible distortion of the perfection of creation that we live with today and will until the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 is completed.

[@adamfawkes9972]

⁠@@johnbrooks7144it isn’t clear if Genesis is a historical book or a story. I wouldn’t get caught up on things that aren’t important. The message is the important part. Plus genesis isn’t the foundation of the faith, Jesus is

[@romulusmadison8432]

The title of this video is misleading. Telling the history of a hypothesis doesn't make that hypothesis "true."

[@numbersix9477]

So what IS the origin of life's biodiversity, Romulus?

[@romulusmadison8432]

@@numbersix9477 I don't know. Do you know?

[@numbersix9477]

@@romulusmadison8432 The words are sometimes different but, "I don't know," is pretty much what every science denier says when challenged to actually contribute.

[@romulusmadison8432]

@@numbersix9477 Go away. You're a flame thrower. Reading your other posts in this comment section it's obvious that you have no interest in a real discussion. Mean spirited ridicule is your game.

[@numbersix9477]

@@romulusmadison8432 I've asked you politely to to share your model of life's history with me, with the gallery. How is that "mean spirited ridicule"?

[@Delfontes]

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

[@Delfontes]

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

[@bengoins4366]

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

[@kedwa30]

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

[@kennyw871]

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

[@thegreatbehoover788]

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

[@jonathanoconnor9546]

Lots of people believe that living things were created by inanimate matter simply collecting itself and then assembling itself into just the right molecules. Then those molecules animated themselves. If that happened, we should see it happening all around us, every day. Yet, no one has seen even a single protein molecule assemble itself in nature or in a laboratory. So how does inanimate matter assemble itself to sustain life and then animate itself ?

[@TheHairyHeathen]

You obviously didn't even successfully make it through high school chemistry, if you had you would realize that _"animated"_ is not a term used to differentially describe molecules. Your personal incredulity and ignorance of how life emerged from prebiotic organic chemistry does not in any way disprove abiogenesis.

[@jonathanoconnor9546]

@@TheHairyHeathen Just give me the link from a reputable scientific journal that explains the experiment or observation in Nature where non living molecules became a living organism (however simple an organism may be.) You should have links to dozens of articles of articles describing where non living matter became living matter, whether observed in Nature or found in a reaction vessel in a laboratory.

[@numbersix9477]

The logical fallacy, appeal to personal incredulity, is based in a presumption that something isn't true if it isn't easy to understand by the individual making the argument. As is true with all logical fallacies, your personal incredulity argument won't persuade educated audiences.

[@TheHairyHeathen]

@@jonathanoconnor9546 Life is not a property found in molecules, it is an phenomena emergent from a set of interdependent, self-sustaining chemical reactions. There is no such thing as a living molecule. Again you are appealing to your own simplistic incredulity and ignorance.

[@zachtastic625]

@@jonathanoconnor9546 False dichotomy.