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

[@VariousIdeas-f2q]

Thank you to this man. His speech was an intro-science lesson my kids knew at 11 years old. Sadly, many adults have no clue.

[@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?

[@mrsatire9475]

@@GodJesusChristlovesyou_knows_u They think they are losing something so it can't be true, it just can't be

[@Flosseveryday]

Na I’m Christian and I definitely find this interesting.

[@johnchurch9351]

As a Christian and a physicist, I watch and laugh at their self confidant ignorance. It’s always a hoot.

[@mrsatire9475]

@@johnchurch9351 Yes, especially their 6 day creation story, smh 🤣

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.).

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@JohnKerr-bq3vo]

indoctrination.. stupidity... conformity... lack of critical thinking.. hypocrisy...laziness...american.... I could go on!!

[@EagleZoo]

@@numbersix9477 Because people who have faith already know who is presently in control of this earth. You think Digital Currencies, facial recognition, and phones listening at all times are for our freedom and security? We have built a surveillance society and it’s not reversible. All that remains is what the book says. The Bible is right every other time. Why would it be wrong about the creation event?

[@johnchurch9351]

I’ve been a Christian (and physicist) all my life. I have never heard a Christian try to use science to support creation. I was impressed by Einstein proving the existence of God with his theory of general relativity but that has nothing to do with creation.

[@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...

[@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.

[@brucepoole8552]

I believe one alternative would be God.

[@jd190d]

@@brucepoole8552 That's the same as the magic pixie alternative.

[@konradp5817]

Fantastic explanation 👏

[@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 🤔

[@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!

[@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.

[@oldpossum57]

“If you want to know about god go to a priest”. Hmm. Science requires the assumption that there is something real out there. It would be very nice if Reality were orderly, something we could eventually understand through construction of models, but it isn’t necessary, nor is it necessary that we succeed. In the case of gods, though, there appears to be no objective evidence, even that the gods exist. So how can the priest have knowledge if his subject doesn’t necessarily exist? Theists do not test their hypotheses. I would think then a good revision would be, “If you want to hear someone talking about gods-which appear to be objectively unknowable-ask a priest.”

[@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.

[@richardcooper9167]

Pain and beauty are our own concepts, nature is indifferent.

[@richardcooper9167]

Pain and beauty are our own concepts, nature is indifferent.

[@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"

[@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”.

[@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.)

[@Archimedes616]

But is Neo-Darwinism up to the heavy lifting?

[@navskygupta5311]

superbly presented

[@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.

[@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

[@ErroneousTheory]

@@Adrian-yf1zgquite an assertion. I’ve heard it before and about a number of different gods, so I’m skeptical. Please support your assertion with evidence that does not depend on bias or logical fallacies. I’ll wait ….

[@ttrestle]

Once you start to understand evolution then you understand how beautiful and amazing it is. You see it everywhere at all times. And then when you start to learn about genetics on top of issues like random mutations and natural selection, then your mind is blown. It’s much more fantastic than man made indoctrinated religious mythology.

[@johnchurch9351]

So how many years does it take 200 random amino acids to align themselves in a specific order by random movements? Darwin based his “theory” on the earth being in existence for eternity. What is your best guess. Then let us move onto random mutations, 95% of which are contra-survival.

[@lrvogt1257]

Evolution certainly has the evidence and data to validate it. It's not so much fantastic (as in fantasy) as amazing. The supernatural is fantasy as there is no evidence or data to support it.

[@bobmuir8232]

Sorry to tell you, you’re uninformed state reeks!!! You’re completely ignoring the biblical account !

[@ttrestle]

@ why would anybody care what it says in the bible in regards to the cornerstones of all biology which are genes and evolution by the means of random mutation and natural selection? You wouldn’t care what the bible said in terms of geology or cosmology or astronomy or the germ theory of disease or physics and gravity… The christian bible is just one of millions of man-made mythological god beliefs that humans have invented for tens of thousands of years. It has nothing to do with science and the scientific method. Are you a child?

[@lrvogt1257]

@@bobmuir8232 : I'm going to assume that's satire.

[@ronjackson3]

Very good lecture.

[@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.

[@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.

[@sheakingsley3037]

Concepts of Gods have ruined the minds of many.

[@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.

[@jalapenoflavor1581]

The dislikes are the religious people suffering from Stockholm syndrome!!

[@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.

[@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.

[@Hill-rb8bk]

I was so lucky as a child to have a father who was a deacon in our church, but he was also a biology teacher. Understanding evolution is no differert from the problem of a flat earth

[@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?

[@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.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 17:39

[@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 😂😂😂

[@numbersix9477]

You didn't follow the rules! A good creationist (1) makes one or more outlandishly unsupportable claims, (2) gets grilled by scientifically literate readers, (3) defends his claims with appeals to authority, (4) gets grilled again, (5) defends himself with Bible quotes, (6) get grilled a third time, (6) hurls insults and leaves. You skipped directly to Step 6.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@toni4729]

Do you want to tell that to Lennox. He will die believing God did it all.

[@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?

[@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.

[@prisonersforprofit]

charles darwin never said, "survival of the fittest." herbert spencer, a philospher spun darwin's "natural selection" into it. later "evolving" into something that charles darwin would scoff at, "the darwin awards."

[@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)_

[@brianedwards7142]

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

[@AnubisSolvang]

Someone get this poor man a glass of water!

[@tausifkarim8861]

Do you mean a glass of wotah?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@EagleZoo]

@@rrmackay Nah. The abuse of our judicial system causing the evolutionary theory to be taught exclusively was the real controversy. No Congress, no we the people. Just lawyers in robes with the most insidious interpretations to ever dawn on our civilization.

[@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

[@eurosonly]

Watching this before my parents drag me to church and try to prove me wrong with circular reasoning.

[@numbersix9477]

--- Been there; done that; still have the T-shirt.

[@joesmoke9624]

eurosonly Nothing wrong with Church

[@roems6396]

Joe Smoke There is something wrong with church if it is teaching you to ignore science and shut off your own critical thinking skills.

[@joesmoke9624]

Ro Ems Kind of a sweeping statement. Some serious scientists attend church. A good church can help unit people, an even better church should run it self. Personally, I do not attend church. I like to think my church is inside my head. Good luck

[@roems6396]

Joe Smoke What’s your point? I didn’t say that there weren’t scientists who are religious. I said if it is teaching not to believe In science there is a problem. And there are MANY denomination that preach against science. I would not trust the critical thinking abilities of any scientist who speaks in tongues or believes the earth is 6,000 years old. Skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method. Those people are clearly only scientists in name, or at the most, scientific in a narrow field.

[@valor36az]

Great talk McFly

[@billderinbaja3883]

Nice of you to say so Biff Tannen

[@is-be6725]

You got me... I laughed.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

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

[@amin_muaddib]

The dislikes are the people from 1600s.

[@seeker9241]

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

[@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?

[@charlesseiderman29]

Excellent

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@oldpossum57]

Please note that the god botherers do not make predictions that can be experimentally tested. The Jehovah Witness cult used to predict the end of the world, but gave up on it.

[@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 !

[@markkururangi7846]

He reminds me of George McFly haha. Great presentation by the way!

[@tessgrimes6382]

K kill kkkkkkkmk kkk the kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkmkkkkkkkk kkkkkkmkkkkkkkkmkkkkkkmkkmkkkkkmk kkkkkkmkkkkmkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkmkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkmkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkmkkkkkkkk kk Kk the k. Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkmkkkkkkkk loop kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk(kkkkkkkkkkkkk. Love Love ml. You lll Kopp lll (kmkkkkkkkk kkk(like m kkkkkkk k/kk. Kmkkk like to kkkkk a kill kk. (. Kill k is k

[@tessgrimes6382]

Llll

[@tessgrimes6382]

Lol l

[@tessgrimes6382]

L

[@tessgrimes6382]

Mo

[@DivaEagle77]

This was wonderfully done. Thank you professor

[@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 👍

[@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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@walkergarya]

Biological Evolution is an observed FACT. The Theory of Evolution is our explanation of that FACT.

[@roberttormey4312]

It’s never been observed. That’s silly. Epigenetics and genetic drift have been observed. Natural genetic engineering has has been observed. But macro morphological changes? Nope.

[@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

[@roryderbyshire4630]

It's called dumbing down.

[@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

[@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!

[@deawinter]

As they say, there are two types of people: those who do not understand evolution, and those who know it is true. Evolution is as clearly observable a law of nature as gravity or thermodynamics or the speed of light. Technically, evolution and abiogenesis are different things. You could (though I don’t) believe that God created the first life, and set up the laws of nature in such a way that the rest was inevitable. I think there’s a lovely poetry to that belief. But evolution, the fundamental relation between all living things, has been borne out by every observation of the living world we have made since Darwin. He did for biology what Einstein did for physics; in an incredible leap of intuition, he landed upon a law of nature which suddenly resolved with perfect clarity the chaos of half-successful theories that had been there before. If evolution by natural selection were not true, we would not have the field of biomedicine. We would not have the cancer treatments we do. We would not have GMO’s or new species emerging in man made ecosystems. Just as every sunrise is evidence of relativity, every creature around us is living evidence of evolution. Down to the mites on their skin.

[@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...

[@ruperterskin2117]

Right on. Thanks for sharing.

[@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.

[@sandhitalenoir6057]

I didnt know there were people who didnt believe in evolution. I am shocked 😳

[@kausarmarcoshussain4530]

Bring Truth in front of their eyes, and they'll close their eyes. That's how (almost) all religious people are. For that's what religion teaches to do.

[@joelazafur7732]

Depends on what type of evolution you are talking about. This is how scientists lie to the masses. Most people don’t know the different types of evolution....MACRO EVOLUTION has never been proven (Molecules to Man). So when we see a living organism adapt to its environment and we see some type of benefit to the organism we call it “Evolution”. That’s not what Macro Evolution is. We never evolved from a soup to fish, to reptiles, to monkeys, to man. This is the mainstream hallucination.

[@LeftyRighty777]

Many great scientist don’t believe in evolution. You can find many videos here in yourube

[@LeftyRighty777]

May Ling where does consciousness come from? Science cannot even describe what it is. The brain is the hardware but consciousness is the software. It is not contained in any cell of the brain or body. Neurons only depolarize and transmit neuro chemicals between them. When and how matter turned into feelings, happiness, moral, thinking? Something that is not material. Why after human beings evolution stopped? It is not suppose to just happen? Why there is not one specie among so many evolving? What is the stimulus than can make a piece of organic matter make an eye? Just because it was needed an eye developed? ? If the brain is a product of the necessities that make organisms to evolve randomly, why the brain have more capacity that we use? It is not supposed to just develop as we use it and need it? There are persons that after a brain trauma have turned savants, with incredible new brain capacities, so the capacity was there

[@brandinlea7137]

@@LeftyRighty777 Consciousness has ZERO to due with evolution. Fact.

[@CypressVintage]

Well done. Scientific evidence (stratigraphy, paleontology, evolutionary biology, biochemistry, etc) for evolution is overwhelming.

[@rl7012]

Nowhere near overwhelming. There is zero evidence for it.

[@CypressVintage]

@@rl7012 Explain in detail or educate yourself.

[@rl7012]

@@CypressVintage You educate yourself. I am not your teacher. There is zero evidence for macro evolution and if you believe in it then the onus is on you to provide the evidence.

[@CypressVintage]

@@rl7012 Please provide scientific proof, point to areas of scientific displine as I have done, or debate your point. You seem to not comprehend well, did I ask you to educate me? Onus is on you to provide proof if you question the point I made. Once again, educate yourself in the above scientific disciplines.

[@rl7012]

@@CypressVintage It is you that believes in evolution, not me. The onus is on you to provide the evidence. If you do not provide it it shows how weak the case is.

[@KevinHammond1]

Finches, evolved into other finches. That's called speciation.

[@jounisuninen]

True. I call it adaptation (but I am not native speaker in English). There is no such thing as evolution and its existence has never been able to prove.

[@rexsceleratorum1632]

@@jounisuninen If you call a bunch of species "finches", that's just a category humans made up despite those "birds" (another human category) being different from each other and not interbreeding. It's your problem that you don't see them as different enough when the common origin is obvious to you, or fail to see the common origin when they are different enough to you.

[@franswells]

@@jounisuninen They will never get it. They will never understand.... If a frog turns into a prince in a second, it's called a fairy tale... If a frog turns into a prince in billions of years, it's called evolution....😄

[@rickdelatour5355]

@@franswells evolution is what the evidence suggests. But apparently you have a better alternative. What is it? What is the evidence for it?

[@franswells]

@@rickdelatour5355 I thought we had made that clear enough by now.... No one has PROOF and will ever find PROOF. The secular evolutionary scientists are so arrogant as to let their worldview enter the textbooks as "evidence". It's about BELIEVE in the best argument. In my opinion, you need an incredible amount of faith to believe in the evolution worldview. Creation "suggests" a much more plausible and logical model when it comes to origin and life questions. If you don't see that, I can't help you anymore. I really want to leave it at this. God bless.

[@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

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

The amount of scientifically illiterate people in the comments is actually quite depressing, especially considering that this is a Ted talk.

[@gerryfernandez8679]

I agree wholeheartedly. People conflate science with opinion. It is mindboggling.

[@MnyFrNthng]

I do not think they even watched it. They just comment based on the title of the video. :-) Because if they had watched it, they would have learned.

[@MnyFrNthng]

@Gooey Prickles You are right. Scientists made mistakes and other scientists reveal those mistakes. That is what makes science the best method to find truth. That is how humans went to the Moon. Have you seen any cleric of any religion admitting he is or his religion is wrong? In my experience, hardly any.

[@tedmccarron]

This guy didn't prove that evolution was true at all. He simply gave some evidence that seemed to point toward evolution but that could be easily disputed by people on the other side of the debate. Personally though I look at just one aspect of this debate to realize how impossible evolutionary theory is, and that's the evolutionary theory of how life began on Earth. The narrative says that after the Earth cooled off and bodies of water formed the first simple cells formed in water from various chemicals floating around and that these simple cells later evolved into human beings, pine trees and giraffes as well as everything else biological. But there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory. No evidence, none, zip, zero, zilch! It is purely 100% speculation supported by 0% evidence. The idea of billions of chemicals, molecules and atoms floating together and just happening to form into even a simple cell is saying that they formed into something that is more complex than a space shuttle. We're not supposed to believe that just one cell formed in this unbelievably unlikely scenario, we're supposed to believe that billions of cells formed this way as well as a system with food to keep them alive and growing and thriving and evolving. Basic logic as well as mathematics tells us that this is both a biological and mathematical impossibility. There has never been any observation whatsoever in the wide world of science where a bunch of nonliving chemicals just happened to come together to form even the most simple living cell. Even teams of the best scientists have not been able to do this yet. So forget about the fact that no missing link between man and ape has ever been found. Forget about the fact that there is nothing within cells to create the new information needed for them to evolve. Throw all of that out the window. If you just focus only on the evolutionary theory of the origin of the first life on Earth then any logical person would realize that these life-forms had to be created and didn't just come together like that randomly from random chemicals.

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

You can prove it to yourself in less than 60 seconds. The scientific literature can all be found online at Google Scholar and PubMed. Step 1) Go to Google Scholar. Step 2) Type "evolution" into the search bar You will find examples of observed micro and macroevolution, thousands of different evolution experiments, and tens of thousands of published science papers on the subject. Step 3) Searching specifically for observed evolution provides millions of results, searching specifically for observed macroevolution provides over 21,000.

[@SUPREME-SCIENCE]

GENIUS,IGNORANCE OF FACTS IS AN INDUSTRY

[@paulgarrett4474]

Yes, answers in genesis, the institute of creation research, the creation museum and the ark encounter all make great profit from ignorance of facts.

[@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.

[@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?

[@EagleZoo]

@@numbersix9477 Someone needs to monitor and correct you. Everyone is subject to scrutiny. Not all criticisms are bad. You might be one of the staunchest proponents of “expert authority” being the bedrock of all knowledge. I think there needs to be more discussion and not the steamroller approach to faith implications regarding human existence.

[@uknowispeaksense7056]

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

[@SuperDuperCereal]

My father was a religious man. He was a believer. He was also a proponent of critical thinking. Thinking in general, really. There was no religious issue with Darwinism. "God created evolution." Simple.

[@melanierlank2081]

Because your father said so?

[@oldpossum57]

“God created evolution.” False. I think your father thought that god intended humans to evolve. If gods wanted to be sure, god would not have used evolution, as it is directionless. Humans evolve by chance.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@johntomasik1555]

Do I believe in religion and its metaphysical stories? No. Do I believe in a creator(s)? No idea. Do I believe evolution is factual? Mostly, but not completely. Do I believe evolution precludes a creator(s). No. Do I believe humans are smart enough to know better? No.

[@oldpossum57]

You could take a science course! Science does not bother with the supernatural, because there is no evidence of the supernatural. If there were, the supernatural would be part of the natural world and part of the field of the sciences. Instead, the sciences presume that we do not use any supernatural explanations for anything, and thus far, this approach has been very productive or knowledge and understanding. (Whereas religions have produced nothing of merit.) So your own subjective opinions about creator gods are of no interest.

[@LPerezDancer]

If you were walking in the woods and came upon a house in the middle of nowhere, then said to yourself 'wow, look at this house that exists all by itself with no builder!'. That would be less absurd than thinking that DNA just popped into existence by itself without a designer.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

We recognize a builder was involved when we see a construction that we know humans build. What if you had stumbled upon a cave instead? Have a look at the pictures of Arches National Park - were they designed and built or did unguided erosion carve them out?

[@garywalker447]

Another lame duck argument for the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design.

[@numbersix9477]

If you were walking in the woods and came upon a god in the middle of nowhere, then said to yourself 'wow, look at this god that exists all by itself with no builder!'. God obviously had a builder but creationists steadfastly refused to talk about the designer and builder of gods.

[@earlthepearl4161]

@@garywalker447 If it is such a crazy idea why are scientists, academic professionals, and even evolutionists that even mention ID immediately censored, harrassed, discredited by the bought and paid for scientific cartel? In the aftermath of World War II to federalize the basic sciences has been a failure. Reforming the sciences will start with acknowledging that fact. Following upon that acknowledgement comes the logical, if uncomfortable, conclusion: reform can only come by breaking up the Big Science Cartel. While the post-war experiment in generous government funding of basic science has supported genuine scientific achievement, that regime has also shown itself to be utterly incapable of protecting the freedom and independence of thought and inquiry that was the experiment’s raison d’etre. As a result, science-the free pursuit of discovery-is being crushed. Presently, the academic sciences are the subordinate client of an $80 billion government program, $130 billion if funding from other sources is added in. This largesse has funded scientific research, to be sure, but it has also fueled the growth of the Big Science Cartel and the censorious culture upon which it depends, which subordinates or negates genuine scientific achievements.

[@paulgarrett4474]

@@earlthepearl4161 it's not a big conspiracy, it's that ID is pseudoscience and has no supporting evidence beyond 'it's complicated therefore god dun it'.

[@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"?

[@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

[@juzhang6665]

Boy I could imagine the comment section being flooded by religious people and I was damn right 😂 guys he’s talking about science so listen or leave if you don’t wanna learn

[@roberthaley7317]

Good presentation. Reminds of Stephen Jay Gould. Good story-teller and sophist.

[@numbersix9477]

I fail to catch your point. What is your working definition of "sophist"?

[@johnbrooks7144]

Gould now knows the error of his ways. He was a shill for evolution in spite of the lack of any explanation for origins. He was willing to play Harvard professor and accept a salaried sinecure basically in exchange for his soul. Pinker is just like him but perhaps not as well known. Gould is basically long forgotten except to you and his dwindling fan club. In the meantime, the government money of the NSF and academia cannot stifle the fact that God created everything out of nothing in six days with the day defined as one rotation of the earth before he even completed the earth. More people every day are becoming aware of this and other lies spoken by the demons who call themselves "government" and live off the labors of productive people.

[@cryptocaddie]

@@numbersix9477 It would be the fallacious bits

[@numbersix9477]

@@cryptocaddie With you being the final authority on what was and wasn't fallacious about statements made by Gould and van Whye, ... That's cool! So, are you a final authority in scientific disciplines other than biology? Cosmology perhaps? On the topic of the big bang theory, can we learn from you which statements by cosmologists are/are not fallacious?

[@cryptocaddie]

@@numbersix9477 No just answering your question via definitions available . "storytelling" connotates "make believe" . And a sophist can go on and on using fallacious substance. My scientific question remains. Did they find any more intermediary species or did they abandon primordial soup? I have some time to give but not to waste.

[@michaelnowak3570]

Because The Simple Believe Every Word

[@prschuster]

That was a lot in under 20 minutes. That was quite a feat.

[@sbeattie33]

Bf4u8fgìiopp88ighh986-7315hhohIg69 b posted 4 Ely yuyu high I9ohhj999i9 pop 8 I kk0hi8o0h88i999ii5y99j9090ojkp0⁶jj

[@sbeattie33]

numb gun john is bjjjynby i99k99.sdd.e in 9y9h90

[@sbeattie33]

9Add z8ⁿ please 0ok0⁰⁹9k9 0u 0

[@omnipitous4648]

I didn't learn anything new from this. I thought Ted talks were supposed to be about groundbreaking research.

[@YiannisANO1911]

Ted talks are for spreading ideas and inspiring not to present the latest research. Its true he didnt really have a point to make but he very nicely went through the history of evolution and how it came about, fascinating!

[@numbersix9477]

--- You are confusing "Ted Talks" with "peer reviewed papers." Renew your science journal subscriptions and rejoice.

[@benmonson8655]

To be fair, it was about ground breaking research. And sadly, something that is new to more people than you'd expect.

[@ArgothaWizardWars]

There will never be groundbreaking research on evolution because they will never let someone show up that says evolution doesnt work.

[@E.J.Crunkleton]

@@ArgothaWizardWars Sure they will, they just don't consider their opinion relevant.