The Definitive Guide to Debunking Creationists Part 4: Genetics/Molecular Biology

[@Handsomeanthony68]

As someone working on their master’s in genomics, your introduction to the background information is fantastic. Easy for the layperson to understand without over simplifying. Masterfully done, good sir.

[@punkyfeathers1639]

As a former fundie cult member, I appreciate this series a lot. It’s hard to learn this stuff for the first time with your grandkids.

[@chuckyfarley9465]

Better late then never, welcome to the club.

[@cspahn3221]

Welcome back to reality !

[@lnsflare1]

​@@cspahn3221Flat Earthers: "Oops, there goes gravity!"

[@punkyfeathers1639]

@@chuckyfarley9465 Thank you!

[@punkyfeathers1639]

@@cspahn3221 Thank you!

[@Xenobears]

Creationist preachers are already “responding” to this series by: 1) Complaining that Dave doesn’t have a Ph.D. (You don’t need one to understand basic concepts of science). 2) Claiming that they liked his content before he “went off the deep end” (i.e., they’re mad that he’s calling them out specifically). 3) Attacking him on epistemological grounds rather than on the science (since they don’t understand the science well enough to refute anything). 4) Complaining that Dave was using modern taxonomic classifications to say that the Bible had scientific errors in how certain creatures were classified (wouldn’t an omniscient being know that whales are mammals that live in the water and not fish, and classify them as aquatic mammals rather than fish?). It’s kinda sad, but funny. Keep at it, Dave!

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

Haha really? Like who?

[@Xenobears]

@@ProfessorDaveExplains one example is a guy named barelyprotestant5365-and there are also already rebuttal videos to their objections. This stuff goes around _fast_ on KZbin.

[@enderforces7013]

while we're at it, an omniscient being is also supposed to know that pi isn't equal to 3 or that chlorophyll is one of the most inefficient pigments possible to make plants work. It's either not real or one of the most stupid omniscient beings to possibly exist, therefore not really being worthy of worship. edit typo

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

The internet is funny 😂

[@ahvavee]

All within an hour or so?

[@kingmenelaus7083]

Honestly this series, and other argumentative videos, helped me understand evolution better than just being given the information. Not sure if it makes it more interesting or if it's because I was raised on the creationist lies you and other pick apart so well.

[@sandroelbers]

You would like Forest Valkai's Reacteria series on youtube, start with the oldest episodes.

[@kingmenelaus7083]

@@sandroelbers oh I've already gone through all of Forrest's videos and regularly listen to him on The Line and other call-in shows

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@kingmenelaus7083 I have seen some, too, and he occasionally stops to breathe.

[@grantparker6092]

Saying there is microevolution but not macroevolution is like saying there is microaging but not macroaging because people don’t grow old instantly like The Sims

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Saying that there is micro evolution but no macro evolution is like saying there is micro stepping but no macro stepping. Hence stairs don't exist. (Thanks Sensuous Curmudgeon, Scientific Case Against Stairs).

[@TheLastos]

No mater how many years you go to the gym ,there is a limit to what the body will achieve

[@TheLastos]

@@marknieuweboer8099 Thats your fundamental misunderstanding. Saying there is micro steps therefore they will turn into elevators is the problem here,.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

@ TheL: good point! That limit you talk about not only proves that stairs don't exist - elevators don't exist either!

[@halimshehadeh9010]

Tomorrow? yes, 10 years from now? Voodoo magic.

[@Teqnifii]

Genuinely some of your best work ever. I've watched tutorials of yours for subjects I already have qualifications in, just because of how enlightening and yet still concise they are, but the background information for this video is on a completely different level.

[@OmarDahdal]

Professor Dave cooking here

[@k.m.sparks1190]

Right.... but MISTER FARINA!!!!!

[@StevoVT]

How can you tell posting 3 minutes after the video drops lol

[@phammanh2689]

@@k.m.sparks1190 HERE! GO! GO! GO! GO!

[@berniethekiwidragon4382]

(Chef's kiss)

[@s4uce116]

Ong

[@paulthemailman9915]

I’m actually really excited for the philosophy section, because this is where creationists theoretically have the most arguments, and it requires a lot more logic to debunk than it does to debunk things that have already been disproven. Good luck Dave ❤

[@bactrosaurus]

They only agrue with obsolete arguments, or unproovable Statements...

[@Bangin0utWest]

Yeah they take philosophy so serious because it gives them a little wiggle room to exist and spew nonsense that nobody understands even them 😂😂

[@sarahchristine2345]

It actually doesn’t tbh, philosophical problems with Christianity (for instance how can an allegedly all knowing god be both benevolent AND commit such atrocities, how can a benevolent god sentence people born in other parts of the world to an eternity of torture simply for where they were born - and how lucky that your religious upbringing just so happens to be the ONLY correct one out of countless other man made religions, and why doesn’t the Bible make a single solitary prediction, why is it ALL disproven piece by piece, forcing Christian leaders to constantly move the goal posts… etc etc) were the VERY questions that made me skeptical of my religious upbringing since like 6 years old… I NEVER believed the Bible for these very reasons, but I still kinda considered myself an agnostic until going full blown atheist a few years ago… but that was more wishful thinking than true belief I think, cuz deep down, I kind of always knew it was all bs

[@Simon-fg8iz]

The irreducible complexity argument is beautiful... it is clear proof AGAINST intelligent design that we actually do not see ANY irreducible complexity in any organism. Everything is reducible, and you can actually rely on that in prediction of possible outcomes. Something that was just a random addon at some point, but became crucial as other systems become dependent on it in more complex organisms, can never get replaced, so it's stuck in a suboptimal version (you can't go from hemoglobin to another completely different oxygen transport, you can't just swap chlorophyll, only modify it,... because intermediate states would have to either have two competing systems (hard to select for) or nonfunctional).

[@FullFrontalNerdity-e3z]

Oh yeah? Explain how Spock's father, who had copper based blood, was able to mate with a human? Checkmate! 🤣

[@Pershath08]

@@FullFrontalNerdity-e3zgot ‘em! “Science” supporters have failed to explain how evolution in the Star Trek universe works for years, and it is time we held them accountable!😂

[@canamrock]

@@FullFrontalNerdity-e3z All humanoid species in the Milky Way Galaxy, per Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Chase", were products of directed artificial evolution by the Progenitors, who had the technology to induce specific goals into evolutionary processes across the early galactic biological development of worlds where we find those species in the show's modern day. So a non-divine intelligent design is correctly determined for that franchise specifically. While complications are noted in other episodes and shows as relatively common between species, that explains the cosmic coincidence of such convergent evolution.

[@FullFrontalNerdity-e3z]

@@canamrock Oh. I forgot.

[@FullFrontalNerdity-e3z]

@@Pershath08 They have never explained the watered-down Klingons in the original series, either. I smell a conspiracy!

[@chasingcheetahs5017]

Fun fact: when creationists claim that "the human eye is so unbelievably complex, God must have made this." they are insulting God's intelligence (well unless we live in a spec evo project made by God, using the principles of evolution from his world) by being unaware of the fact that the human eye is kinda mid. We can only see 3 colours (birds and some reptiles can see 4), we also have a blind spot our brain has to fill in (and certain pictures can show the blind spot if you close one eye and focus on one part of a picture, the other part seemingly disappears.) Cephalopods don't have this blind spot, so their vision is 10% better for no reason.

[@secularidiot9052]

There are also animals who can see past the visible light spectrum and have eyes that can zoom-in like a telescope (jumping spiders are fricken cool)

[@synthetic240]

There's a series of lectures by Dawkins from 1991 "Growing Up in the Universe" that includes explaining and demonstrating the evolution of the eye with models. So biologists have understood this topic for 30+ years and creationists are STILL lying about it to this day. All the anti-science crowd knows how to do is decide when science stopped advancing and then lie, lie, lie about everything that happened afterwards.

[@Appletank8]

yup, in a twist of fate, the ancestors of all vertebrae animals flipped a coin and grew in all our optic nerves backwards, forcing the nerves to have to go in front of everything in order to exit the eyeball.

[@josephhawthorne5097]

Well, their fantasy book also pretty clears indicates their God is kind of a dick with anger management issues, so they've never actually done that good a job of glorifying him. And as Prof Dave has often mentioned their very arguments pushing God into those gaps that they don't understand as a weak glue to hold their belief systems together is a pathetic god, who can only rule in people's ignorance.

[@juanausensi499]

@@catpoke9557 Our eyes are pretty good in a jack-of-all-trades fashion, and certainly above average compared to most mammals. But they aren't exactly remarkable, either. Much better eyes exist, the best ones being the eyes of the birds.

[@dedik8SKB]

I love this series and am excited for what's yet to come - Eric Weinstein, more Discovery institute, updates on the looney bin aka Billy Carson and Terrence Howard... It's amazing to have so much entertainment back to back to back. The pace at which you debunk frauds is unmatchable, and if education ever wins the battle against grifters, we owe it to people like you that let facts and rational arguments speak for themselves. Keep it up, Prof. Dave!

[@sanjaymehta6948]

Dave, your channel is the best. Period!

[@alphagrunt7506]

Objectively

[@johncoleman3188]

Thank you for your service again Professor Dave! Self-deconverted over a decade ago after really experiencing the world and the preponderance of evidence against creation (as explained by any human being ever, at the very least)

[@Rayrard]

This is usually the final bastion of the creationist after their other arguments have been defeated, and the one where most debators usually falter as molecular biology is very complicated. Another excellent video.

[@Pancakegr8]

Philosophy portion is gonna be so good. Can't wait!

[@jhizzy9456]

I was raised in a Christian, independent fundamentalist Baptist church as a kid. I was taught until the 8th grade under a heavily Christian curriculum. I even watched Kent Hovinds videos. When I started highschool I was reading at a 5th grade level, thought the earth was 6,000 years old, thought things like tectonic plates and psychology were merely satanic ideas meant to confuse me. Because of what I wanted to do in life, I majored in Biology in college. Evey time my dad would talk to me he’d reaffirm the world was flat and that if I believed in evolution he’d beat me. I appreciate all the work you do. It helped a younger me be able to stand up for truth. It continually helps me be able to have a good rough draft for when I’m challenged by family and childhood friends.

[@Orthosaur7532]

Happy for you bro

[@seanmcdonald5365]

Ayoo, this was a real nail in the coffin, actually. The ides of intelligent design, focuses mainly on an argument of "look at how amazing and complex this is, no way this could be 'random' ". It relies on people having a complete and total underestimation of what can happen "naturally". They use big numbers to make it seem like it can never happen, but any person who does statistics enough knows that if something has a probability, it will eventually happen. It's just a matter of your sample size. This is why science never accepts a hypothesis. We only fail to reject because we will never have the entire sample space to ever accept anything, we probably just haven't tested enough yet.

[@iwkaoy8758]

Yes, complexity does ant 100 purr cent prove it was create Ted, but a 99 purr cent chance it was create Ted. Their a 99 purr chance a mind is typing you comets. Their a less than 1 purr cent changes a rat or tree branches blowing indie wind are typing your comets. Its physically possible four rats and tree branches two type my comets,but the odds are so low,it's virtual impossible. Ate theist use the virtual impossible as their default an sir. That's like finding typing own a computer out side,So you use the trees as your default explanation. Its possible four the trees two dew it,but it wood never happen.

[@kennybobby201]

This is my fav series dave has done. What a legend.

[@mustafa.h6927]

Thank you, you're doing society a great service!!

[@David34981]

This is absolute gold, Dave. All you need to shut up any creationist, is this series. They might still try to lie and obfuscate, but they won't have any substantive argument left. Not that they did anyway, mind.

[@ajthesquirrel]

Beliefs around undiscovered facts make their discovery and acceptance harder. Idk why people still think the biblical creation story would be a more impressive explanation for our origin than all of this. I don’t understand why so many still need to build belief structures around the idea that existence is reality and a miracle in itself.

[@rhodimusrime6737]

For real. All this still leaves room for a higher power too if that’s what you want to believe

[@Julian0101]

@@rhodimusrime6737 Not really, it just leave room for a god of the gaps.

[@thunderd7904]

Because they’re fixated on the idea of eternal life that they’ll get if they just bow their loyalty to something that makes no sense

[@ArKritz84]

@@Julian0101 And a rapidly shrinking gap at that.

[@Zebrahhh]

Because the peace God offers is incredible - I only needed to have faith and He covers me. No matter what happens on Earth, I know there’s better days. That’s peace.

[@Jeonex]

A very informative episode this time. It’s surprising how much of this I had forgotten since ‘studying’ (being subjected to) biology in college, but i feel like I learned a lot here. Thanks once again

[@jakebocskovits7426]

“Waiter waiter! More Prof Dave videos of cooking creationists alive!!”

[@sarahchristine2345]

I’m starting to think apologist orgs did that thing where they have bots mass report certain videos to skew the algorithm & keep recommendations down… cuz this series DEF should have way more views, this is one of the best anti-apologist series I’ve ever seen, and I’ve been into these kinds of vids for a few years now

[@Drewzilla666]

I’m really enjoying this series and learning quite a bit! 🔥🔥🔥

[@felipemldias]

Thank you for your awesome patience always returning to this subject. Also, it is quite beautiful to see soo many different areas of inquiry independently converging to elucidade evolution and other natual phenomena

[@VitRav]

All these videos are better then what Santa brings

[@jloiben12]

When creationists say “[x] is statistically not likely to have happened the way mainstream science says”, I can’t help but laugh at their utter inability to do math. Really basic math demonstrates how what we see is reasonably likely to occur. Appealing to math is an argument against creationists

[@thug588]

do some math then smart guy

[@jloiben12]

@ I do

[@thug588]

@@jloiben12 yeah right

[@jloiben12]

@@thug588 You are talking to a literal mathematician. Telling me to do some math is the equivalent of saying to a real estate developer to develop some real estate

[@thug588]

@@jloiben12 sure buddy

[@Buzzcook]

Glad there's a pause and rewind function.

[@jimg6178]

Love this series, my son and are huge fans. I tried to raise him fundie…but sent him to an International Baccalaureate school here in the deep south…and well he figured it out in 9th grade with his first logic course. Dad eventually caught up after realizing that the spoon fed lessons had massive reasoning holes…thankfully we are both now agnostic atheists as most all of our children are. They simply looked at the shitty people we went to church with and said fuck that nonsense.

[@johnpettit6886]

Creationists don't even investigate this, it's not how you proove anything wrong, It's just fact to them.

[@balroahseth]

Thank you Dave for the great work, keep it up ! looking forward to the Origin of Life series. Best !

[@chriscasperson5927]

Don't think this general debunk of creationists excuses you from continuing to spank the -Liars for Jesus- Discovery Institute, young man.

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

More on them soon!

[@chriscasperson5927]

@@ProfessorDaveExplains Excellent. Eagerly anticipated. The episode I can't wait for is when James Tour finally goes young Earth religiflerf.

[@IncineroarBestPokemon]

​@@ProfessorDaveExplains Lame Tour gonna be pissed when this drops :D

[@citizencj3389]

​@@ProfessorDaveExplainsdude is fighting the good fight in the name of actual Science.

[@EricGraham-h6s]

Abracadabra Vs Prof. Dave… I Think I’m Going With Prof Dave 1000%

[@spinnetti]

Might seem like simple HS genetics to you, but to your typical home-schooled kid, this is like alchemy.

[@introskeptical2545]

It’s kinda a nice silver lining for having been brainwashed in our early years by the loathsome Jay L. Wile.

[@JCW7100]

"Most creationists do not comprehend genetics on even a high school level." That's most Americans, but yes, also creationists 😂

[@nathon1942]

I'm not sure why you singled out Americans, probably to stroke your hate boner. Most people do not comprehend high school level genetics (of western schools), in any nation.

[@ExpansionMediaGroup]

Yo Dave I'm happy that you are here making those videos! Keep it up bro

[@mongolloyd8310]

You can show a person knowledge, but you can't make them think.

[@tonyk4615]

YES! Thank you for pointing out that there is no distinction between “micro” and “macro” evolution. I mentioned this was one of my pet peeves in a comment on your previous video in the series.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

In the literature, there is a distinction. I took an entire graduate course called 'Macroevolution' as part of my doctoral work in evolutionary biology. Creationists misrepresent the distinction, but that doesn't mean we should hand them ammunition by saying something false.

[@maylingng4107]

@@Crispr_CAS9 As part of your doctoral work? Your comment is not even worthy of a high school dropout. The only difference between micro and macro is time and scale; otherwise both are exactly the same process.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

​@@maylingng4107 So you're saying there's not a distinction in the literature? Really? Go check. Go on... I'll wait. Go check the literature to see if there is a distinction. Then come back and apologize.

[@maylingng4107]

@@Crispr_CAS9 Listen you ignorant liar. Explain the biological difference in the process between micro and macro evolution. And make sure that you refer to peer-reviewed science articles not religious crap. Dr. May Ling Ng (PhD - bioscience Nottingham University)

[@Crispr_CAS9]

@@maylingng4107 So you didn't bother checking the literature? And you're calling me the liar? Have you ever read anything by Hansen? Or Houle? Or Pélabon? Or Jablonski? Pavličev? Wagner? All peer-reviewed evolutionary theorists with many publications on the topic. Search any of those names with 'macroevolution' and see what you find. Or maybe you should start with the 2023 Nature Ecology and Evolution article by Rolland et al for a primer on the topic. Oh, and you should also learn how to read for comprehension. Think: What does the word 'distinction' mean in the context of my first comment? And by the way, I'm an atheist. Not that it matters here. Lastly, a PhD in bioscience is not a degree in evolutionary biology. How many courses on evolution did you take at the graduate level?

[@rubenhirsch111]

I love this series.

[@Onio_Saiyan]

Excited for the genetics portion.

[@toweypat]

Alright, let's get to the point: if we have dinosaur tissue then why isn't there a real Jurassic Park?????

[@Kyeudo]

We have them. They are called aviaries.

[@lnsflare1]

​@@Kyeudo Welcome to.... *Jurassic Coop.*

[@yeetme3940]

Hehe unfortunately having remnants of soft tissue is very far removed from having complete genomic information 😢

[@toweypat]

@@yeetme3940 Sigh. Another disappointment.

[@yeetme3940]

@@toweypat 😭ikr

[@bman6302]

Keep going bro. This was a great video. Everyone feels this one.

[@wemusthavechannelstocommen619]

people will really choose peasant's tales over how interesting the world is by itself.

[@tomesplin4130]

Great to see such a comprehensive (and comprehendable) series I can refer to my fundie friends! Sadly I know they won’t watch something so obviously from the dark side 😂

[@Justin-rf7md]

Every time I get roped into a “discussion” about faith (re: Christianity) with family and coworkers I hold my breath and imagine bringing Dave and Matt Dillahunty into the arena like a damn final fantasy summon. Blessings of the eldritch cosmic fat cat upon you sir.

[@blahblingo7605]

Dave would be Alexander

[@SuitYourself]

Another great video mate. Needs to be in its own playlist. :)

[@quazzydiscman]

Creationists are no different from a remote tribal society which believes existence was formed out of a capybara fart.

[@quincywilliams9860]

At least the capybara fart could have actually happened, even if it wasn't the origin of life 🤣🤣

[@stewystewymc3929]

​@@us3rGwhy are you referring to yourself in 2nd person sweetie?

[@dr.michaellittle5611]

Outstanding presentation !👏👏👏👏👏

[@mfischer387]

Get ‘em Dave!

[@jank_memes]

Tried my best to keep up, I didn't remember everything but I learned some thing so thank you.

[@JustJezBeingJez]

The thing with big numbers is funny. There is a 1 in 400 trillion chance someone could be born and yet births happen all the time.

[@nobody.of.importance]

Hox genes fascinate me, it's nice to see them finally brought up in a creationist debunking video.

[@Alice_Fumo]

I find biology to be an extremely boring topic to learn about, because no amount of biology knowledge tends to give me any more predictive power over anything which is relevant to my life. Despite that, I did find this video reasonably interesting.

[@jatsantsa]

Molecular biologist here. Love your work. Junk DNA is little bit oversimplification as there are also structural sequences, tlaces like telomers etc. Yes we still do not know function, but it is not corret to claim as we do not know the function it is ther without function. Could be the case? Yes. Do we have a proof? No and it will be hellish archievement to prove that sequence does not have a function (Russells tea pot anyone?).

[@lutek1]

If I were asked to present just 1 single fact of evolution to an ID believer, it would be ERVs. There is just no way this can be denied.

[@ritchie6162]

ERVs were undeniably what allowed me to connect the dots for macroevolution for me.

[@darkness8488]

I LOVE UR VIDEOS NEVER STOP DAVE, I AM UR BIGGEST FAN

[@Lerithan]

Now you need to debate Kent Hovind again so that when he says his "You need to view my tape #7" BS you can retort with "Yeah well you need to refer to my video #2!" or whatever's appropriate.

[@mcalkis5771]

What I mainly got from this video is that I'm a poor physics undergrad who still has a lot to learn about genetics and biology. Thank you Dave.

[@tomxia6228]

Dave the goat

[@milanorichie]

🐐

[@Mrgravitycoil]

🐐

[@jayb5596]

1. Photon as a Point Particle: A photon is considered an elementary particle, and it is the force carrier for the electromagnetic force in quantum electrodynamics (QED). It doesn’t have mass, but it does have energy and momentum. As a point particle, the photon can be described by its interactions at specific locations in space-time, for instance, when it is absorbed by an atom or when it triggers a detection event in a photon detector. 2. Electromagnetic Wave as the Wave Aspect: The electromagnetic wave represents the collective behavior of a large number of photons, or the probability distribution of where a photon could be found, described by oscillating electric and magnetic fields. This wave is not the photon itself but is a manifestation of the electromagnetic field in which the photon exists. The wave aspect describes how the probability amplitude of detecting a photon fluctuates in space and time. 3. Wave-Particle Duality: The photon interacts as a point-like particle (e.g., when it is absorbed by an electron in the photoelectric effect), but it also behaves as though it is part of a wave when we consider phenomena like interference and diffraction.This duality is captured by quantum mechanics: a photon’s wave function (describing the probability of where it might be detected) follows the rules of wave propagation, but the photon itself is always detected as a particle. 4. Electromagnetic Wave Equation: The electromagnetic field obeys Maxwell’s equations, which describe the propagation of electric and magnetic fields as waves. However, when we look closely at these fields at the quantum level, we see that these waves are composed of discrete photons. The energy of the electromagnetic wave is quantized, and each "packet" of energy corresponds to a photon. The energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency of the electromagnetic wave through E=hν (Planck's relation). 5. Interplay Between Wave and Particle: The electromagnetic wave represents the probabilistic side of the photon’s nature: it tells us where the photon is likely to be found. The particle nature comes into play during discrete events like absorption or emission, where the photon behaves as an indivisible packet of energy. The photon is fundamentally a point particle, but its behavior is governed by an underlying electromagnetic wave represening a field, which determines the probability of where it might be found and how it propagates. The wave-particle duality is crucial to understanding this dual nature, where the electromagnetic wave represents the photon's wave-like behavior in certain contexts, but the photon itself is always detected as a discrete point-like particle. This distinction aligns with both quantum mechanics and classical electrodynamics.

[@VaughanMcCue]

I think this was in the Old Testicle and written by Moses or some other nutjob.

[@flyingprist]

I believe the next part is Philosophy, so it'll be interesting to see that nonetheless. Cause sometimes creationists or even some atheists think that creationists have the upper hand in that discussion. But actually their insistence on "something can't come from nothing" will be their downfall as Through pure philosophical discussion, we can prove that Something can Come from Nothing! I will discuss this idea in the replies if y'all are interested. Feel free to use this idea your own video Proffessor!

[@flyingprist]

first let us define nothing - Nothing - The absence of anything. When no 'things' are present, it is nothing. Now before we continue let us define things as well, Thing - an object, idea or rule that can be referred to and understood.

[@flyingprist]

Now as I mentioned above, all things are absent in a nothing. That also includes time, as time can be referred to as 'a thing' And finally, the rule of "matter and energy remains constant" is also 'a thing'. I think you all see where I am going with this

[@flyingprist]

So with that rule gone, there is no reason to think why something can't spontaneously form in nothing. The laws of the Universe are still things and in nothing, no laws apply. So anything can happen, including matter just popping into existence.

[@flyingprist]

And before people jump in saying that's how big bang began, I am not saying that. true nothing does not exist (atleast as far as we know). What I am talking about is a purely philosophical nothing. And besides, the big bang starts from a singularity, that is also when time begins . Asking what was before it is like asking what's north of the north pole.

[@El-Duderino42]

I don't know if you proved something can come from nothing so much as you demonstrated that nothing can be known about nothing. If something came from nothing, then "nothing" is no longer Nothing. It's the source of something. And if we can know about that something it's possible to know about it's source, but only insofar as the source is not Nothing. Nothing is a fun "thing" to speculate about. There is no reason to think something can't come from nothing and no reason to think something can come from nothing. Nothing can be known about the total absence of anything. If we could know anything about it, that, in itself, would mean we aren't knowing about Nothing, but instead something knowable. The only way we know actual things is in relation to other things. That which cannot actually be in relation to anything else is not the domain of science. It's the domain of fiction.

[@siwilson1437]

Top quality content, added to favourites alongside AronRa's classification of life series.

[@Atlas6355_]

I used to believe in Santa, God, etc…..then I turned 7! 😊

[@stewystewymc3929]

​@@us3rGdid you find out where you kept your meds grandpa?

[@stewystewymc3929]

@@us3rG you still didn't find your meds huh

[@Phlegethon.]

Good work man. Well the problem is that even though you are right, people who believe in those stuff already left logic behind. But still, maybe some people might be convinced. Keep up the good work.

[@ChewyTwee]

A puddle forms in a ditch and says ‘this entire world was formed for me to exist! How could I have possibly randomly collected all of these molecules in one place? There is truly a greater power.’

[@marknieuweboer8099]

A little fly lands in the White House and says: such a nice, cozy resting place! I'm sheltered against rain, the temperature is ideal and look! Food in abundance! The building must have been especially designed for me. Thanks, Herman Philipse (God in the Age of Science).

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

Source: *Douglas Adams - The Puzzle of Existence and a Puddle of Doubt*

[@ahall9839]

@@marknieuweboer8099 Yeah... maybe don't use that analogy. Puddle one is great though.

[@debravewolf]

So you believe that puddles talk, now?

[@marknieuweboer8099]

@ Ahal: just because you say so? Okay.

[@joeribak]

Great video Dave. Keep explaining! It benefits society. Knowledge is power. Very little knowledge can be dangerous (Dunning Kruger).

[@Killashard]

How many people have been doing a math problem, use the wrong equation or made some other mistake, but the answer turns out to be correct? Does it happen every time? No. But has it happened? Yes.

[@pridelander06]

I remember all the irreducible complex arguments from your Michael Behe video. I had a feeling that bacterial flagellum was gonna come up again.

[@Kyeudo]

Here before the creationists!

[@Ewgene]

They wouldn't watch it anyway. They just click on the video and type some vitriol

[@briancurtis6022]

It takes longer to travel when you're navigating across a flat Earth.

[@Treasureguy_-qr8df]

Great job! Hope to see more content like this!

[@blackrosed8068]

Was the old image getting demonetized or is it just a stylistic change? I liked the old one.

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

Yeah I was getting hit with demonetization

[@goodbye6490]

@@ProfessorDaveExplainswhich image?

[@chasingcheetahs5017]

@@goodbye6490 creation of adam image

[@goodbye6490]

@@chasingcheetahs5017 oh for the thumbnail?

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

yeah thumbnail, i like this one better anyway

[@jamiegallier2106]

I love this series! Thanks Dave. ❤

[@gmonkman]

10:33 CORRECTION. Hi Dave, Darwin in his chapter "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fitest" in Origin includes a subsection on Sexual Selection. Sexual Selection was a contributing mechanism to natural selection which Darwin recognised. Thanks for this great series.

[@smartic5822]

Great series👏

[@mariostroie4408]

I can’t believe that some creationists need basic biology lessons…

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Add chemistry, physics, geography and history too, will you?

[@mariostroie4408]

@@marknieuweboer8099 And mathematics as well

[@yourlocalyoutubecommenter]

@@marknieuweboer8099 and rhetoric

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

And logic

[@nostur4984]

The shame isn't that they need it. It's that they don't have the humility to admit that there are things they just don't understand and shouldn't touch. I see it less as a creationism debate and more as a debate between intellegentsia and an overconfident or jealous layfolk class.

[@a2sbestos768]

Yay, new genetics video just dropped! Never knew how chromosomes duplicate. 17:34 This one is also very interesting example, thanks 15:09 Yeah, cool, HOX genes "can" have a dramatic effect, but do they? I mean, most progeny with large-scale mutations will either perish, or be less fit than it's ancestors. So much so, that we classify "hexapoda", six-legs at the level of whopping subphylum, for the difficulty of gaining new, extra legs. Meaning, that changes in HOX genes need to be "less dramatic" to fix in the population. (Do they happen at all? No idea). And thus "large-scale" evolutionary changes are really limited, even if change of body plan is technically possible. That's also the reason why evolution must slowly turn flippers into hands, wings, hoofs and whatever else... And sometimes back into flippers.

[@Appletank8]

Now it's a lot harder yeah, since everything is so specialized, but I guess back when everything was an amorphous blob of cells, in was a lot easier to randomly choose several nubs to be in charge of moving it around.

[@a2sbestos768]

@@Appletank8 Somewhat like that, yeah. They were not exactly clumps of cells, though, more like lancelets on 19:23 - the Hox genes themselves (discounting older precursors) are ~500 mil years old themselves, roughly around the age that primitive lancelets (Pikaia, Myllokunmingia, Yunnanozoon) lived. These also were one of the first creatures to evolve brains, eyes and jaws (which i'd say IS a change of body plan). No idea if there are any more recent examples, which is kinda the point.

[@RolanRoyce]

Consciousness, or psyche, ego, whatever term you like for something that senses the environment and that feels pain and then reacts to them, evolved as a strategy for protecting and multiplying DNA. You can't start with the consciousness and then have it create the life forms and their DNA, it has to be the life forms first and then those life forms evolving to have the consciousness. DNA relies on the self serving nature of a consciousness, it wants to avoid discomfort and to do that it eats, drinks and seeks shelter from the elements, all of which benefit DNA. Same with reproduction, the act gives a jolt to the pleasure center of the brain generating the consciousness so it does it regularly, thus benefitting DNA. DNA doesn't care about the suffering of the consciousness, just that everything works out to its benefit. DNA doesn't care that a cuckoo bird lays its eggs in a warbler's nest and the chicks hatch before the warblers real eggs and pushes them out of the nest and that it's appallingly selfish, it only cares that it works for the cuckoos. Would a deity plan that out and create it? Seems unlikely, what would the motive be, to keep the warbler population down? Could just create them programmed to lay fewer eggs, it would be less cruel that way. Only DNA would have a plausible motive for things like cuckoos to exist. Is there a plausible motive for a deity to create bedbugs? That was just gratuitous cruelty to humans and whatever other creatures they parasitize, the list goes on.

[@madamegeorge7258]

This was an amazing video. As Billy Carson would say: Facts!

[@Albertandearthie]

Insert James Tour here: (Again)

[@davidm8107]

MISTER FERINA!!

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

GO! GO! GO! _…threatening Dave with a dangerous looking piece of chalk…_

[@Albertandearthie]

MR FARINAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@zacharysieg2305]

This alone is such a comprehensive dissection of the topic that no reasonable person can find any fault in it.

[@briancurtis6022]

Of course, creationists aren't reasonable people, so they'll find a way.

[@RevilHermes]

It's super fascinating that dna is made straight out of atoms.

[@AlbertaGeek]

Why is that fascinating? What else would it be made out of?

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@AlbertaGeek Ants? Adam Ants.

[@AlbertaGeek]

@@VaughanMcCue Can't argue with that!

[@BIayne]

We love Professor Dave ♥️

[@razark9]

Nobody on the entire planet lies as frequently as your average creationist.

[@davidbutler1857]

This. Just the sheer amount of lying liars and disinformation and prevarications...

[@Kualinar]

Flatards are close contenders for that title.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Duh. Creationism starts with the lie that christians can't accept evolution theory and immediately proceed with the lie that methodological naturalism (ie the scientific method) proves the supernatural.

[@Megaritz]

The *average* creationist does not lie very much. They are the ones being lied to by creationist pastors and apologists.

[@AlbertaGeek]

*[cough]* Trump *[cough]*

[@wilberforce1826]

"intelligent design" is hilarious to me. Every time I ask a creationist how to tell the difference between something that's designed and something that's not, they short-circuit, sputter, and retreat back into yelling "you just hate god" or some other such dipshititude. Gives me a chuckle every time.

[@m.streicher8286]

Oh cool I watched the first 3 last night

[@theguywhokepttryin4367]

james blue balling me with that delay of part 5

[@threebythestreet]

Profesor Dave, could you debate Standing For Truth? They have a ton of videos where they say that they "DESTROYED" evolution 😂

[@maylingng4107]

Evolution is a factual science based on evidence. It cannot be destroyed, it can only be lied about.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

Seems like Erica has already shown how Donny is a lying apologist.

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

@@NinjaMonkeyPrime And not only once. (Erika with a "k" btw.)

[@threebythestreet]

​@@maylingng4107I totally agree. That's why it's so funny that they make such a proclamation.

[@Paraselene_Tao]

30:30 What's interesting to me around this topic (junk DNA) is that maybe these piles of junk DNA might still have archeological value. I haven't read Dawkins' recent book, but he puts forward the concept of DNA being a palimpsest: the DNA has been written and rewritten over and over on the same, old pages of DNA. We might be able to archeologically dig through the layers of rewrites and discover even more evidence of how all lifeforms originate from LUCA and result in the species around us today. Apropos of my most recent comment about creationists not understanding the full, gestalt image of evolutionary theory and the universe in general: genetic archeology or studying the DNA palimpsest could be another layer of evidence, and another part of the whole jigsaw puzzle of the universe. It will almost certainly help fill out more of the image. It just needs some more decades of research. Otoh, will filling the puzzle out more even help? Even if we peice together more of what happened, do creationists even care? 😅 Some of them might be persuaded, but I figure many don't care.

[@johnnydingo8680]

Do Creationists require a Ph.D. to spout their beliefs ?

[@VaughanMcCue]

A diploma in Trutholgy is mandatory, as they are trained to avoid it.

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

Floodology would be helpful as well.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Hey Ernie. A PhD to explain how Noah got your cousin thylacine, platypus, and roos back to Oz.

[@johnnydingo8680]

@@VaughanMcCue Who is Ernie ? Is a creationist ?

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@johnnydingo8680 Check wiki and Crocodile Dundee II

[@kappasphere]

it's hard to even say that the mentioned soft tissue has been "preserved", it's more that people understate what it means to find the REMAINS OF soft tissue. It's like when someone accuses me of eating their cake last week, and I respond "How could I have eaten your cake when its remains are right there? Don't you want to eat this fresh cake?", and then I point at some moldy crumbs that I preserved for the week.

[@fan4every1lol89]

I'll wait for this series to finish before I'll challenge my highschool philosophy teacher who's a Believer to a God debate.

[@wakingforbacon6439]

Cool. Let us know how it turns out. 😂

[@captainzoltan7737]

Creationism does not equal Christian theism. While there's some overlap arguing against creationism is a different can of worms then arguing against the Christian belief in God broadlly speaking.

[@Julian0101]

Your teacher will probably throw away science and claim he is talking about _'metaphysics'._ He is technically right, even if that field doesnt prove his god either.

[@kennydavers3946]

There are more Christians that accept the process of evolution than those that deny it and cling onto thier 6000yr old earth creationists, Clint from clints reptiles KZbin channel puts out loads of evolution tutorials but still believes in his god, they jst dont take the bible literally as the spoken word of god

[@rhodimusrime6737]

Nothing here disproves a higher power. It can’t be disproved or proved honestly

[@sillycatboy69420]

This is the best topic to discuss when debating creationists imo, dna is way too understood and explainable for anyone to be able to dance around the point

[@mcdaniel21mc]

Mr Farina! All your points are invalid due to you not writing it on a blackboard

[@davidbutler1857]

MISTER FARINA!!!!! GO GO GO!!!

[@ExpatZ266]

And he didn't shout a lot while doing it. I feel that weakens his argument.

[@ZalmanBroocker]

25:45 I'm always impressed with how much we know about the evolution of the eye, especially with what we've learned from extant mollusks.

[@mariejohanna2166]

YES I FUCKING LOVE KNOWLEDGE. MOOOOOREEEE

[@jelitone1197]

The important point from the "embryonic development" slide is that, at one point in our development, we are just a-holes.

[@aggressivenipples8391]

And some people never grow out of that stage

[@VaughanMcCue]

You put your finger -in- on that one. Like the alleged doubting young Tommy was accused of poking about like that.

[@danielsanchez9891]

As a creationist (not YE, but I believe in God), this is really fascinating series, all the subjects covered have been really interesting and cool to learn about. I'm curious what the next video will have to say with respect to philosophy and theology.

[@Kyeudo]

Creationist and theist are not synonyms. Come join us on the side of science.

[@captainzoltan7737]

Yep you can believe in God and not be a creationist. There are accomplished biologists who are very religious. They just accept reality and are able to separate their beliefs from the science they do.

[@kennydavers3946]

Do you believe that god had a hand in the start of thr evolution process or do you believe god created humans in our present form?

[@kennydavers3946]

Lots of Christians accept evolution as a fact, they still believe their god kick started the process

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Nah, it's a matter of definition. Biologist Joel Duff calls himself a creationist too, while accepting evolution. The purpose is to reclaim the word. I don't think it handy though and I don't think they will succeed.

[@Paraselene_Tao]

11:30, this error in the creationists' worldview you pointed out is oddly similar to the comment I made on the second video about abiogenisis. Just as creationists tend to look at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, see all the order (ice crystals or living organisms) in small pockets of the universe, don't notice the overall entropy increase in the universe, and conclude that ID happened: they do the same thing with evolution here. They see the successful mutations (or various other changes in organisms) and think it must be ID, when they're not noticing the many ineffective or damaging steps that evolution takes on the way to make a few thriving/surviving organisms. What's funny is that this whole issue reminds me of children who have trouble seeing a gestalt image. Kids more often see the little parts of a picture and miss the big picture. Creationists don't see the bigger picture.

[@SapienSafari]

I wish my mom and dad would listen to this shit.

[@BIayne]

Mountain Dew is the best soda ever.

[@lllllliiillllll]

Sit down with them. Watch the video. Tell them to contend each point they have a problem with, then provide evidence against it via GOOGLE.

[@ziggy4thefacts441]

Can't wait to hear nuh uh from all the creationists