This Drives Evolutionists Crazy, but It’s True

Hans Christian Andersen’s classic tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes, is a story about an emperor who becomes blinded enough to believe something that is obviously false. In this video, Calvin Smith shares how evolutionists have made a similar mistake.
To see more content like this, start your 7-day free trial of Answers TV: www.answers.tv/

[@raifcluster]

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:22

[@CBALLEN]

Always learning never coming to the knowledge of the TRUTH.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Amen

[@jpd4676]

To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.. Psalm 14:1

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

How telling that scientific textbooks don't contain lists of insults to throw at creationists.

[@craigstevens9351]

@@joshuakohlmann9731 well, they arent scientific textbooks. they are fantasies.

[@noneyabidness9644]

Exactly. Every argument presented here, I've made countless times before I even watched creationist content. I was told, as a biology major, decades ago, that creationists lie and misconstrue and ignore evidence. So, I avoided their content, as I assumed it would not benefit my arguments, at all. And yet, just last year, my autoplay put on an AIG video while I was cooking. And the EXACT arguments I made, presented exactly the same way, using the same exact facts, is what I heard coming from the video. It was then that I realized, creationists ARE *actual* scientists. Not "fringe lunatics" as college indoctrinated me to believe they were. Our schools are teaching falsehoods. Known falsehoods, and inoculating our children against a proper understanding of our world.

[@noneyabidness9644]

@@Bomtombadi1 to the contrary, I've had many successful conversations. :) You don't have to change someone's mind, just expand it. The Spirit brings to repentance, not us. I was an atheist in college, truthful testimony by the faithful led me to a place where the Spirit's leading took me out of error. If you feel parroting to be effective, so be it. I devised these same arguments, myself, from the knowledge I gained in my education. Others will, too.

[@davidm4566]

@@noneyabidness9644 exactly. Keep planting seeds of logic and reason and water them with love. At the end of the day, the love is what matters and we are called to do anyway.

[@micheleh5269]

This explains why Christian Colleges find that their science majors are more likely to believe in young earth than religion majors that never watch AiG videos and assume evolution is a robust theory

[@noneyabidness9644]

@@Bomtombadi1 I went to a public college. And yes, I did devise them. Creation science is real science. It is just that simple. When an atheist, like I was, can come to the same conclusion, based on the same evidence as creationists, then that is the reasonable interpretation of the facts.

[@noneyabidness9644]

@@Bomtombadi1 and I could sense your spirit was infirmed from the first comment you made. Bitter and combative. I'll pray for you.

[@peterjansen3846]

Dr George Wald, in his Nobel acceptance speech said that there are only two possibilities for the origins of life, spontaneous generation or divinecreation. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago. But that leaves us with only one alternative, and as we cannot accept that on philosophical grounds, we continue to choose to believe the impossible that life arose by chance from nothing.

[@Jewonastick]

How was spontaneous generation disproved?

[@billy9144]

@@Jewonastick Spontaneous generation is outdated. it's the old hypothesis that life randomly generates on decaying organic material. They used to think that's what maggots were. It was disproved by Pasteur. Sadly, this guy still completely missed the boat because abiogenesis is the slow formation of life over time from its basic components, not the refuted hypothesis from hundreds of years ago.

[@katamas832]

He was simply wrong, this is a false dichotomy. That's not what Abiogenesis is lol.

[@jilskehupkes7729]

Indeed, you can't prove a bigfoot does not exist by pointing to the absence of evidence. Spontaneous generation might be possible under very specific circumstances.

[@WhatInEarthIsGoingOn]

@@Jewonastick Rather, it has never been demonstrated, even in a lab setting. I think scientists have been able to create 1 amino acid in a lab setting... which is a fundamental building block... but the remaining 19 are still a work in progress.

[@ashleyhavoc1940]

The 'Emperor's New Clothes' taught me that adults were fake and purposefully ignorant....

[@elguapo2831]

Living in ignore-ance 🙊🙉🙈

[@toldyouso5588]

It taught me beware of grifters selling you something.

[@kathleennorton2228]

It teaches beware of group think which can delude the consensus of people to believe blatant lies.

[@GodRock369]

What make laugh out loud is the fact that even Darwin put it in his book that if certain criteria were not met, this theory would be wrong. And those criteria have never been met.

[@CBALLEN]

So true.The natural man has come up with such stupidity throughout history to try and get rid of the God they hate.In other words,a natural man can be made to believe anything but the truth.It takes the power of God to change a man from a God hater,to A GOD LOVER!

[@alantasman8273]

True...The cell is immensely complex and transitional animals (links missing because they are mythical) have not been found....

[@CaptainFantastic222]

@@alantasman8273 are you claiming “transitional” fossil have not been discovered?

[@chloemartel9927]

@@CaptainFantastic222 are you claiming there are transitional fossils?

[@CaptainFantastic222]

@@chloemartel9927 Yes, in fact you can go to certain natural science muesems and see them yourself

[@runwillrobinson]

Here is a quote from Darwin showing even he was surprised how eagerly society took his ideas and built a huge structure around unproven theory. "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."

[@alantasman8273]

satan has created many false religions to confuse Gods creation.

[@ianmonk6211]

where did he publish this? I'd like to add it to my collection of evidence against evolution

[@denvan3143]

Also, consider that Darwin lived during the Victorian era, a time of ambivalence about imperialism. We in the United States were not at all ambivalent about imperialism: we staged a revolutionary war. But the upper class of British society were to some degree had mixed feelings about the subject, some notion of oppression as well as opportunities afforded their colonies. Darwins ideas about upper races, and lower races had its appeal: survival of the fittest sounded good, given that you assumed yourself to be the fittest. Darwin said this in a letter to one of his colleagues: "I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316; cited in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, by Gertrude Himmelfarb (London, Chatto and Windus, 1959), p. 343. That evolution is racist isn’t hidden; it’s in the title of Darwins book on evolution: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or _the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”_ Some people insist the word “race“ is taken out of context, but, in light of Darwins correspondence with others, there is no doubt concerning the meaning of the word. Evolution is racist. It occurs to me. This is part of the reason the “elite class” in the United States and elsewhere, believe in evolution.

[@ChunCat]

This guy really put something on the old social media and got picket up by the algorithm

[@garyfortenberry5829]

This ‘quote’ has been debunked many times over. It is from Elizabeth, Lady Hope who claimed to have a deathbed conversation with Darwin. Members of the Darwin family who were there during her visit denounced her claims as false and without merit.

[@capitalb5889]

"A flying dog with wings" - wow - the most stupid thing I've heard.

[@Newnodrogbob]

This was less stupid than I figured it would be. Let me introduce a fact. For most of human history, lactose tolerance was not available in the gene pool. Lactose tolerance was a mutation, but it imparted incredible survivability and success, and this spread rapidly. To use your flawed analogy: a new card was added to the deck.

[@danielb5400]

Most of what drives evolutionists crazy is the truth.

[@alantasman8273]

Their craziness is the result of cognitive dissonance resulting from science exposing their dogma for the myth that it is. They are having difficulty grasping that their house of cards crafted over 150 years is infested with error.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

The more information that comes out, the more we find out that we have been lied to for years. Evolution is nothing but a big lie.

[@badgerdad5943]

What makes creationists crazy are the facts.

[@inthelightofhisglory9614]

That's why Jesus said he is the truth because all other "truths" simply fade away.

[@inthelightofhisglory9614]

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am lthe way, and mthe truth, and nthe life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

[@michaelatkinson4815]

I am an evolutionist and this does not make me crazy. In fact I love the questions raised. This is science, a problem is raised to your ideas and you explore further.

[@kenlucero3651]

That is a good point. However, I believe what is most important is how one explores their ideas. I further believe that many people put more into the word. Science ! Than what is really there. According to Websters, science merely means knowledge .But that is mans knowledge which cannot hold a candle to the knowledge of an Almighty God . For example: Take two scientists that are studying the universe. One believes in an Almighty God and the other does not. The one that does Believes in God will put his findings under the lens of the Bible. Where as the non believing scientists will develope a theory that he just cannot explain. He then may do 1 of 2 things. He will either become so frustrated that he cannot explain or prove his theories and spend the rest of his life time trying. 2 he will surrender and say. An Almighty Creator is the only thing that I can prove . So it is very important what mindset is applied before one test their ideas. Now I don't know about you. But I would rather consider myself a hand made creation of an Almighty God versus being the product of an Ape! How about you?

[@michaelatkinson4815]

@@kenlucero3651 thanks for the reply. To me science is a method where ideas are put forward that can and should be both questioned and tested. This is why I like evolution because it is an amazing set of ideas that thousands of people have added their ideas to. Questions force scientists to rethink and revisit their ideas.

[@kenlucero3651]

@@michaelatkinson4815 I also am grateful for your reply ! If I may say, I am really enjoying this conversation and again you have made a very good point. As I said. The mindset that one applies to their study is crucial. For example: Darwin did not conduct his studies as a means to learn the origins of man. I believe that He conducted his studies as a means to refute the Bible. This became a dangerous a concept in which the most evilist one uses to deceive people and tear them away from God which is his chief goal. I further believe that an evolutionist begins his study from the bottom up meaning with his finite knowledge of ideas he has at that time. Where as a creationist begins his study from the top down meaning with the knowledge he has of an Almighty God at the time he began his study . I realize this may be a difficult concept to grasp . Now as a Christian I have studied God in my church Bible study and I have found that our human ways are totally opposite of Gods. For example: Some people believe that Archeology proves the Bible, where as I believe the Bible proves Archeology ! So you see it is all about the mindset. And as humans I believe our minds are finite where as Gods is infinite. We have impossibilities where as God does not. I also believe that Jesus IS God in the flesh and He is inviting you to spend eternity with Him. For the alternative to that is condemnation in the pit of hell for all eternity. And as Catholics are taught to believe in a Purgatory that doesn't exist. So I I ask you. Where you like to spend eternity?

[@g.alistar7798]

The purpose of science and the scientific method is never to find the truth rather to find error. Science is ever questioning, ever testing and always challenging the orthodoxy. Those who say “the science is settled” usually political zealots and not true to the fundamental purpose of science.

[@kenlucero3651]

@@g.alistar7798 Well I must give credit where credit is due. That was very eloquently and professionally put. If I were a covetousness person I would wish that I made that I made that comment ! Good job.

[@Homo_sAPEien]

We can’t breed flying dogs because, it would take too long, and be extremely complicated. And, the diversity with in the dog subspecies is impressive as it is. Radical differences in size, and even in skull shape, with some dogs having very long snouts and some breeds having no snout whatsoever. There are probably more anatomical differences amongst different dog breeds, than there are between humans and chimpanzees.

[@Homo_sAPEien]

@@globalcoupledances Flying foxes are not actually foxes. They’re bats.

[@sailguy2010]

Trying to teach a dog to fly annoys the dog.

[@koinkollector2873]

Nice presentation, thank you!

[@MistaJG]

The fact anyone could believe nothing caused a massive explosion in the middle of nothing and ended making everything line up perfectly in the universe is crazy lol everything moves and works together too perfectly for there not to be a creator.

[@CaptainFantastic222]

That’s not what mainstream science claims or believes… we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang. You’ve expressed nothing but an argument from ignorance

[@Butchman2000]

...this is exactly what i hear musl/m apologists saying...

[@billcollins6894]

No credible scientist believes that the big bang came from nothing and was caused by nothing. They just do not understand it yet.

[@welredd]

@@Butchman2000 and? They can be right about things. Just because they’re religion is false doesn’t mean they can’t see the clearly obvious conclusion that intelligent design is necessary for life to exist.

[@mikeboettcher9709]

it wasn't an explosion. What is nothing? and what would be the middle of it? What is 'line(d) up perfectly"? what moves and works together so perfectly? everything is as vague as you can get. Btw, arguments from incredulity are about as bad an argument as you can have.

[@Makai77]

As a Catholic school child, when school was out, I would walk across the street to the public library and wait there for my mom to pick me up. In that public library, there was one of those classic "ape to man" evolutionary images. I recall thinking, 'hmm, that makes sense.' Which is sad considering I was in a Catholic school! Even sadder is the fact that I wasn't learning a biblical world view at the Catholic school. Fast forward to my teen years. My mom becomes born again, and takes me out of the Catholic school. I also become born again and have grown in my faith, mainly because of being plugged in to solid, bible based churches. "In the beginning, God CREATED..."

[@ngabacletus9677]

Are you saying Catholics are not born again?

[@Makai77]

@@ngabacletus9677 No, I'm just saying my mom and I were not.

[@tropicalcocktails4104]

Asking respectfully: Why aren't Catholic churches bible-based?

[@ngabacletus9677]

@@Makai77 ah ok, I get that 🤝

[@SamsExotics]

@@tropicalcocktails4104 I think it it depends on the individual church. There are "protestant" churches that are Bible based too.

[@justcallmeblah2543]

Naysayers: We are the part of science. Also naysayers: You can be the opposite gender.

[@Newnodrogbob]

You’re trying to pretend that huge masses of people are identical. This is false.

[@jackjones7620]

gender, not sex

[@jan_777]

@@jackjones7620They are working on it, called transitioning. But even after transitioning, trans people know they are not the opposite sex.

[@CADAVRR666]

@@jan_777 of course they know they are the opposite sex. however, they KNOW they are the opposite gender. you are dodging the person replying’s point though. there is a difference between gender and sex, one is strictly biological, and the other is strictly social.

[@justcallmeblah2543]

@@jackjones7620 I know. but I prefer to say gender because to me, the other word is a cuss word.

[@ImVeryWholesome]

Ok but, what about a Whales hip bone…or a snakes shoulder bone….or other organs/structures in the body of creatures that are now seemingly useless

[@kimsoares3271]

They don’t mention those as they want to believe in fairy tales.

[@elguapo2831]

​@@kimsoares3271 Have you ever looked at a painting or a building and was able to recognize who the maker was? Would you think they made themselves too? Of course not. Remember a fairytale about a 🐸 turning into a 🤴 from a kiss? Another one is where a 🐸 turnes into a 🤴 from "Time"

[@gozerofgozmis4181]

​@@elguapo2831 they are not living beings darling

[@elguapo2831]

@@gozerofgozmis4181 Who.

[@Lokana]

As someone with a degree in Anthropology, who studied evolutionary biology, this is like listening to someone explain how the Earth can't possibly be round or we'd all roll off of it. This guy does a great job of explaining away something he either doesn't have the slightest understanding of or is purposely being dishonest about. Ok, first off. Darwin didn't understand anything about the biology, the genetics, or the concept of inheritance that made natural selection (part of, but not all of) a viable explanation for evolution. Trying to take the words of someone that didn't understand evolution and use those misunderstandings to disprove a completely different concept of mutation, is incredibly disingenuous. Can a dog grow wings when they don't have feathers? Over the span of tens of thousands of years, yes. How do we know that? Because we have fossil records of feathers developing over the course of thousands of years from scales, then to quills, then to feathers. Over the span of ten thousand life spans, could a dog, through natural selection, select for thicker skin, then scaly skin, then scales, then quills, then feathers, yes. And again, we have fossil records of this exact thing happening. The card analogy, btw, the line, "You might lose cards, but you can't ever select for new ones that don't exist." This is true in cards, but it isn't true in genetics. In genetics, each time a cell splits, there are mutations where the new cell DNA doesn't copy correctly. Why yes, this means new, never seen before "cards" are put in the deck. You don't get a new mole on your back at age 40 because it was in your DNA all along. That's new information. That's a new card. You're only driving evolutionists crazy because you're grossly ignorant of science.

[@TeaMollie11]

It's funny how everybody else here "knows more" than the ones who actually study it.

[@chrisneuhaus7188]

The moment a person allows doubt and distrust for God to take root in their thinking, is the moment that a chain reaction of all the seeds of evil begin germinating in the mind. The ability to believe what God has made abundantly easy to see and understand leaves a person and the scales of spiritual blindness grow rapidly. Envy and ego, greed and jealousy, shame and pride take over a persons' reasoning and motivations in life. The need to prove ones thoughts and ideas and motives become insatiable. Thanks for sharing this well presented explanation we should all be well grounded in as believers.

[@an9l1c1sm6]

I am an atheist, I don't feel anything taking over - If you personally have an issue with these things, then that is because of your brain chemistry.. You might have a faulty brain.. Like many other people..

[@razark9]

So what you're saying is non-believers of your particular imaginary friend are automatically evil? You do know there's envious, greedy etc christians too, right? It's frightening that you're this far gone. And how is an in society wizard magicing the universe into existence easy to see?

[@glennbrooks3449]

I once was a doubter. Back around 1993. I told God just what I was but at the same time prayed every day for months using Jeremiah 33.3 KJV as part of my prayer. Also told him I would go where ever he required regardless of friends or family including my wife. Well that never turned out good but my answer from God changed my life forever. He led me to the right church to be able to understand the bible including the prophecy of Daniel and Revelation. Life has never been the same as I know where this is all going. One more thing to happen worldwide and then the end of time will come rushing. Like it will only be a few years more or so after this ww event takes place. No I do not know the day or hour. Who does say they do are a liar. However this ww event will separate the wheat from the Tares. A big shaking coming in all churches. I have about 20 million more who will agree with me.

[@chrisneuhaus7188]

@@razark9 Thank you for proving my point. All people are evil. Christians are no exception, but they are forgiven of their evil nature and their sins are Passed over by the grace of God through the sacrifice of the Savior. The only difference is we believe what God says and we do not doubt him. Christians are not cut off from God. Unbelievers are cut off from God by their own choice. Unless they humble themselves and utterly yield to God and seek His mercy and His forgiveness, there is no way they can overcome the separation from God. And cut off from God an unbeliever will never comprehend the anything pertaining to God or how He works.

[@chrisneuhaus7188]

@@glennbrooks3449 everyone doubts or does not trust God before they are redeemed by God. God calls people to Him, not the other way around. We respond or refuse God's calling. You weren't hardened in your heart to God's calling, otherwise you wouldn't have been digging for truth. If you were, you would not have been seeking God's help, you wouldn't have been talking to God. The kind of doubt I'm referring to above is when a person is being called by God, when God is opening their eyes to His truth. If a person refuses to believe and trust God once they recognize He is calling them, their heart will harden against Him. God is long suffering beyond anything we can imagine, but if one refuses God, if a person hardens his heart and refuses to trust God, then the things of God become vague and unintelligible to him. The truths of God become nonsense to the person who refuses God. That doesn't mean that God can't knock you to your senses, but those are called trials and you don't want that to be the way He calls you. But hardship is one avenue that does bring some people to their knees before God Almighty begging for redemption. The fact that this world is in for a cataclysmic reckoning has little to do with an individual's salvation. Maintaining your faith in God if you live to see this cataclysmic time is another story. There are thousand upon thousands of Christians living through unimaginable tribulation this very day and they have been living in terror for centuries. Today Christians are hunted and slaughtered for their faith in God in many parts of the world. This has been going on since the beginning of the church. Will it get worse in the end? Yes that is absolutely clear. But millions of Christians have lived in tribulation and died because of their belief in salvation through Jesus Christ's sacrifice. What you are focused on has always been happening to believers.

[@AnnoyingMoose]

In regards to potential sources of variation to choose from what about transposons, viral mutagenesis, and genetic drift?

[@Jewonastick]

Hey, don't bring in facts here! You know AIG hates them

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

Drift isn't a source of variation. Reply to discuss.

[@kathleennorton2228]

What do you think these things have to do with causing new information that changes one kind of organism into another? They work within the boundaries of organisms, and can cause harm or be fairly neutral.

[@valeriegoldstein3483]

Mutations involve loss of information

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

@@valeriegoldstein3483 "Mutations involve loss of information" - not necessarily, sometimes the original phenotype is retained whilst an additional one is added

[@MegaMerdeux]

I remember reading this story when I was a kid. And always keeping the moral of that story throughout my life when encountering similar situations

[@davidwalker5274]

I like the pacing of this video. I've seen lecture videos from the Ark encounter, and the lecturers speak so incredibly fast that it is difficult to take in and absorb what's being said. This one was well paced. Good job.

[@nosirrahonline1225]

Do you want to ask an atheist any questions?

[@roscius6204]

@@nosirrahonline1225 They will happily ask you a million questions. What they won't do is answer any.

[@reverendbarker650]

Although the pace is better then the usual race to cram in as much crap as possible in the allotted time, they still do not have arguments that make ANY sense and which as usual fail to include any credible science. .

[@ianmonk6211]

@@nosirrahonline1225 what questions do you want to be asked

[@ianmonk6211]

@@Moist._Robot if you do it's because Satan deceives you. revelation 12:9

[@user-mx9db3lr3z]

I love to listen to people like this man, who are intellectually gifted and know so much about these things, and are fighting for the truth to be revealed. I don’t understand much of it, but I thank God that my faith is strong and ever growing so that I don’t have to have all the answers. God’s Word is all I need. HalleluYah!

[@mehallica666]

God speaks to you? Or do you mean that old book written by humans?

[@Ilyena]

@@mehallica666 Probably the latter. In the end it's always the latter.

[@yogun1922]

@@mehallica666i’d actually like to know what you atheists think of this video 🤔

[@mehallica666]

@@yogun1922 It's creationist propaganda. They tell you want you want to hear, allowing you to wallow in your own confirmation bias. God forbid you break free from the shackles of indoctrination, for these grifters will have no business model. Don't fall for the lies. It's in their best interests, not your own, to keep you trapped in the cult.

[@luispablo3881]

@@yogun1922 let me help you. This video is FULL of lies and concepts taken out of context. Look up the following: Mycoplasma laboratorium. Evolution happening right in front of our own eyes.

[@InsatiableMonkey]

Thanks for all of the great content you make. One minor critique: You said "very unique" in this video. Unique means "totally unlike anything else", so something can be unique (or not), but it cannot be very "totally unlike anything else".

[@joeharris2659]

The deck of cards analogy is very helpful because it illustrates a key difference between both camps. AiG proposes that cards from the same deck are shared and mixed together, while evolutionists claim that each generation (or, rather, each member of that generation) is effectively copying - and sometimes mis-copying - genetic information from the previous generation’s deck. This allows for the possibility of mutations, and also doesn’t imply that the parents’ genetic information is used us after they have two children. This ‘copying’ rather than ‘reusing’ theory also explains how the Tarot deck of cards (with different symbols) emerged through the copying of traditional playing cards.

[@rickallen9167]

Yes, the deck of cards analagy is very helpful, especially the Tarot deck. Originally added as a triumphant (trump) suit to traditional cards, they were then much much later attributed (aptly for the purposes here) to divination, the practice of seeking knowledge of the future or the unknown through supernatural means! Or, in other words, adding or replacing plausibility with numinousity. AiG proposes the ideological prime creation of the kingdom of heaven and the earth. While nothing can be substantiated or proven upon the first, it can and has been regarding the earth. If the earth was without form and void, it would have to have been previously with form and sound, but then deteriorated. There would also have been no waters, and certainly no deep. Our planetary system is a solar system, not a terranus system. Night and day exists because our planetary axial rotation exists. And so on, and so forth. Whilst the proposal for any God exists, it exists only through mankind. The ideological man, The explanatory man, The fearful man, And the scripted man.

[@timspiker]

@@rickallen9167 Tarot cards are a satanic practice

[@lapin-rouge]

Perhaps the next time you create a video trying to talk about what evolutionary biologists believe, you should bring on a well-respected evolutionary biologist and add their unedited, fully contextual arguments in with your video. Then, you can explain why you believe they’re wrong. This video format doesn’t perform any meaningful debate because it’s just “I will present to you the information I want you to know, then explain why the information I presented is wrong; oh, and I won’t respond when I’m told I didn’t explain things well/give the whole story.” Im all for discourse, just proper discourse.

[@Jewonastick]

A debate between Calvin and someone like Forrest Valkai would be absolutely hilarious

[@thomasjefferson5727]

There's plenty out there

[@sonus89]

He says it's "unobservable" but it's a not true. You can observe the evolution of bacteria in minutes. There are KZbin videos already about that.

[@fitforlife3168]

@@sonus89you can observe *microevolution* of bacteria and the evolution of traits that scientists consider “analogous to macro evolutionary processes.” But your bacteria remained bacteria at the end of the study didn’t they? So he’s right speciation of entirely new taxonomic groups has never been observed which is clearly his argument in the video.

[@user-cc5wu3lh1n]

@@fitforlife3168what happens though if let’s say a dog mates with another animal species, wouldn’t that increase the available gene pool? I’m just speculating, but, for example, can a bird egg be fertilized by dog or fish sperm into some kind of new animal species? I think the answer must be no or scientists would have already done it. Anyway, just curious.

[@Tea-Flowers]

Wow. This guy didn't skip a beat when speaking. Well done! I actually could follow along with understanding and focus. This was great! All Glory to God!

[@n0etic_f0x]

Did you miss the part where he says that Darwin did not know about natural selection and then out himself as a liar by saying Darwin talks about natural selection? How about that analogy with the cards that implies your mom am dad gave you their entire genome? That was horrifically wrong as well. It denies mutation is even possible.

[@siquod]

@@n0etic_f0x Did you miss the part where he said that the card analogy is just a flawed illustration, or the admittedly short and unsatisfactory part in the end where he addressed mutations, or did you mishear the part where he said that Darwin didn't know about *genetics*, which lead him to expect too much of natural selection, which he clearly knew about because he himself came up with the concept? I have the impression you came here only to burn straw men.

[@HoldToChrist]

@@siquod I agree with you that this person did misunderstand the creator of this video, but please don’t be rude to people. If we want others to come to Christ we can’t be insulting them. It doesn’t represent Him well.

[@siquod]

@@HoldToChrist Was I rude? I rebuked them, sure, but I don't think anything I wrote was insulting. But maybe I let show my annoyance with the intellectual dishonesty of someone who wants to claim intellectual high ground too much? I'll consider. Thanks for the feedback.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@HoldToChrist I happen to think it's more rude to accuse someone of being a liar than accusing someone of presenting a strawman fallacy. After all, to be a liar requires the intend to deceive, to present a strawman fallacy can be explained from mere incompetence without the intend to deceive.

[@CADAVRR666]

“the fact that he can stare straight into the camera and spew out easily refutable fallacies shows a level of confidence i cant even begin to understand, or want to for that matter.” -some dude from a video debunking this video.

[@Jewonastick]

I'm pretty sure Calvin knows he's lying.....

[@CADAVRR666]

@@Jewonastick oh no doubt, but nonetheless it still makes him look very stupid

[@Jewonastick]

@@CADAVRR666 Fooling the gullible is there method of making money... He doesn't give a fuq about what anyone says or thinks about him.

[@kathleennorton2228]

Go ahead and say what you think that he said that is wrong. Come on, spit it out.

[@jamesstewart4457]

The video is completely factual, the same can't be said about the darwinian evolution fairytale.

[@scottguitar8168]

Around the 12:20 mark he sort of nails what apologists try to hide about evolution, which is "mutations" occur, but the mutations occur on something that already exists leading to a growing branch of the evolutionary tree. This is why big cats are related to small cats or wolves related to dogs, or humans related to other primates. There is no wild production of something completely unrelated to the original gene pool. You don't go from a fish to a human on the next mutation and what determines a new species is when the mutations soon make it impossible to have offspring with the original species who had the mutation. While this mutation often requires thousands of years to directly observe it, there are things that do create new species that are observable in our lifetime. Apologists like to call this micro evolution and of course agree that this exists but claim that because we cannot observe macro evolution, it does not exist. Sort of ironic isn't it considering we cannot physically observe God yet that exists. There is no micro and macro evolution, there is just evolution. While evolution does dispel the Adam and Eve story, it doesn't rule out the existence of Deities, only that evolution could have been their solution to the formation of life in our universe. There are Christians who accept the true science of evolution while still accepting the Christian religion.

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

In Europe and in other parts of the world, the major Christian churches, Protestants as well as the conservative Catholic Church, have no problem with the theory of evolution since decades. Seems to be mainly a problem in the US-America.

[@amark350]

While I agree with the explanation given in this video, the Achilles’ heel to this theory is the fact that people promoting it say the Earth is only 6 to 10,000 years old.… if you push that as fact, nobody will listen to anything else you have to say. * also that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time… and T-Rex was a vegetarian.

[@ludwigkirchner08]

You need to read Contested Bones. Then you won't be as ignorant. All those bones you call "dinosaur" have pathology. Did you know that? Nope. You didn't. So digging up Andre the Giant, and claiming all humans were 8 feet tall and 600 pounds, is shameful logic.

[@amark350]

@@ludwigkirchner08 so you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? If you say yes to that, then nothing else you say on this topic deserves respect.

[@ludwigkirchner08]

@@amark350 You didn't address what I wrote, genius.

[@amark350]

@@ludwigkirchner08 Your fear to answer the question speaks enough to settle if for me... you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old so nothing more to say. Do you believe the Earth is flat? In short, why would I investigate "your evidence" if my mind is already made up. That's like a flat Earther asking me to "review all his evidence"... as if it would somehow change my mind. why would I do it? Or someone that has a bunch of evidence on UFO abduction. Why waste the time?

[@johnhubler5905]

From a "logical" standpoint - if we believe that God can create the universe and everything in it... it isn't that big of a mental leap to believe he could create some things to be older than others. If we, as humans, can produce art, clothing, or media that appears to be older than they actually are - surely God could produce rocks that seem, by all modern testing methods, older than they are.

[@kennethmarshall306]

The deck of cards analogy is totally wrong. New genes can arise by well understood mechanisms

[@331Grabber]

Pitting a bronze age book against the findings of peer reviewed science is always foolish. Keep in mind every time religion has gone against science, it has lost.

[@Lexi2019AURORA]

So true lol

[@mrcxx8694]

Exactly. BTW, all of the assertions in the video are false. New genes CAN arise in a species - genes are duplicated all the time and mutate, so the idea that an organism is limited to what ones it's already got, is just wrong. Game over creationtards.

[@florincoter1988]

True, but futile. A believer does not need scientific arguments. Belief is a closed, self sufficient state.

[@nebulous-draco1711]

I find it curious that he mentioned mutations and forgot to mention positive or even neutral gene mutations. Not every mutation results in something bad happening, if that were the case, then there would theoretically be a "perfect" genome somewhere out there, zero flaws, but that would have been at the beginning of gene based life. Take for instance, the ability for humans to drink milk from non humans, its not a normal trait, it was a random mutation that came along. Doesn't seem very negative to me, it seemed to actually help as it expanded the sources of calcium and other minerals humanity can gain access to. Gotta love people claiming to have questions that drive 'X Community' crazy, then proceeding to ignore the information that doesn't prove their point. It's not the deck of cards that dictates the traits of an organism, its the combinations in which they are played in the game we call life. Take a look at a chart that has the combinations of amino acids in DNA, some of them give different results, some have multiple trios that give the same result. This results in some mutations being positive, some neutral with no effect and some negative. Thanks for coming to my TEDTalk

[@jamesvaughn7389]

I was thinking the same thing. Not as detailed as you, but, he ignores Downs Syndrome. Which is the result of an extra added chromosome to someones DNA. While not good, it shows that "Cards" can be added to a deck. And he doesn't deal with the fact that, in a given population, an animal or plant from 1 species can successfully mate with an animal or plant from another species. Thus adding cards to a given deck. And mutations happen. So, while on it's face [pun intended] the card analogy is compelling, I don't think it works in the natural world. Clearly, it doesn't because I think dog DNA from Wolves alone, doesn't have all the variations we see today. Unless wolves are like DNA master class with every possible combination built within. There's no way a wolf pack would ever naturally have a Pug, Lab, or Great Dane looking dog in the mix. Those must have been natural mutations, changes to what was to create what is. Now, was God part of that? Or did God create the system that allowed for that. I think that's a better question.

[@steveg1961]

"Nebulous-Draco" - You wrote, "Thanks for coming to my TEDTalk." LOL! In your next TEDTalk you should also discuss the occurrence of gene duplication mutations, which even adds sections of genetic material that were not even there before, which then down the line further mutations do their thing and the new genetic material can end up being used by the organisms. And, of course, there are things like transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous retroviruses, all of which give very strong evidence for common ancestry, and which contradicts the "baraminology" concept of some kind of "mutations limit" between "kinds" ("baramin" - which literally has no scientific definition at all; indeed, creationists can't even agree among themselves what these supposed "baramin" are - except of course they all agree that humans constitute a "baramin" because of Adam and Eve in the creation myth in Genesis).

[@steveg1961]

@@jamesvaughn7389 The very bizarre aspect of the young earth creationist "baraminology" concept is that young earth creationists (well, the young earth creationist who use the argument; because not all young earth creationists agree with it) end with the evolution of millions and millions of species populating the planet WITHIN THE LAST 4,350 YEARS. So "baraminology" entails superfast hyperdrive rate of evolution a million times faster than anything ever proposed by evolutionary biologists or paleontologists. Young earth creationists choke on a gnat, and swallow a camel. What a joke.

[@jamesvaughn7389]

@@steveg1961 Right. Well, as an aexample of how little this person knows about DNA. Do a little research into Barbara McClintock and transposable DNA. It's a concept that DNA can transpose itself to create new mutations within the DNA chain. Simply put, DNA can mutate itself to create something that wasn't there prior. Now, I ask, is that God? Or is that God acting through natural methods and devices?

[@MichaelBoyd-eq5ts]

The fact of the matter is, every mutation creates a LOSS of viable genetic information. The overall DNA of plants, animals, and humans has been gradually degrading since scientists have been able to accurately measure, quantify, and identify the DNA of all living entities. Oh, and make sure you have some cookies with your milk.

[@alexjulien5629]

"If a woman kiss a frog and it turn into a prince we call it a fairy tale... but if a frog turn into a man over million of years we call it science..."

[@Mark-cq9nq]

Lol

[@kartashuvit4971]

Good thing no one says the second thing

[@gertrudebaggins6996]

Common ancestors. Why do you think a frog has a very similar body to humans.

[@kateofone]

Likewise if man was once clay it’s seen as a fairytale and oh wait it still is a fairytale

[@alexjulien5629]

@@gertrudebaggins6996 make me wiser... explain me?

[@julianmucke2921]

The problem I see with this, is while very reasonable, the arguments fail to factor in 2 Things: that new genes can emerge (super rare, but random mutation can add new gene information) and the unbelievible amount of time Evolution takes. (Sorry for my bad english)

[@kelvinc1205]

If the mutation is large enough to create a new organ (as opposed to a small change), the animal will die in development just as pregnancies end in miscarriages. When evolutionary scientists do mutation experiments they can easily generate mutations in fruit flies, but the babies die.

[@MB-gi8iq]

Do you know of any proof that you can cite, that new gene information emerges?

[@thomasbooth9079]

Exactly and genetic mutations add up over time.

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

Your worldview essentially says the following. If I had a software that made random bits of code with 1s and 0s, over millions of years, I would eventually make a software that would make the genetic code of humans.

[@goliatghoul7679]

@@TheSpacePlaceYT Your argument lacks two crucial things: 1 I have thousends of the same Code 2 The few of the Code that have some 1s and 0s different, most probably die. This means even if some of Codes get defective, they just die or those random 1s and 0s make the Code a bit better witch then proliferates and makes the alterations more commen in the huge Code community

[@doctortabby]

Been teaching this sort of thing in a public school classroom for many years. 🙂 So much fun and satisfying to discredit naturalism in a place where it is the resident religion. All I have to do is tell the truth; science is the search for truth. 🙂

[@TheHairyHeathen]

No, you've been spreading lies, to defend a lie. Those who are pretending they can see the Emperor's new clothes because everyone around them is saying they can see the clothes, are the theists pretending they have an experience of a supernatural being, because they believe everyone around them is experiencing a supernatural being - you are suffering from, and contributing to, a mass delusion. The thing is about methodological naturalism, is that it relies upon evidence occurring in nature to demonstrate a high degree of certainty in it's explanations of nature, whereas theism relies on faith - the excuse you use when you have no evidence. You've been brainwashed, and now you are abusing children, brainwashing them into believing they are the pawns of invisible supernatural agencies, when you have absolutely no evidence of this.

[@davybaert-oz8yw]

Of course it's all so complicated so it's much easier to claim than some god has done all this...although no one who has ever seen or doesn't even know how to imagine this. Man has already evolved a lot in the last 100 years, so what after millions of years!

[@bobbyleeper]

Someone didn't pay attention to the video.

[@carolkegel7599]

So how do you explain ERVs confirming the relationships between vastly different species? And can someone explain what a "kind" is?

[@danb77777]

The same intelligence is behind all creatures. A kind is a category like "family" or "order" that we use to group similar animals today.

[@zenyattamondatta7757]

What's an ERV? What are you considering "vastly different"?

[@Justinbuhagiar]

Forrest Valkai completely destroys this video and it wasn't even difficult for him to do so.. Religion will eventually die off after it continuously moves the goal posts after every scientific discovery.

[@garyfortenberry5829]

@@arongladden8282 There are none so blind as he who will not see. How ironic.

[@garyfortenberry5829]

@@arongladden8282 I am absolutely talking about you.

[@garyfortenberry5829]

@@arongladden8282 Sure thing.

[@Justinbuhagiar]

@Aron Gladden LOL What??? Ok aron, what was Forrest wrong about in his video? Just give me one thing he is wrong about. Look, just because you don't understand what evolution is, doesn't make it wrong.

[@Justinbuhagiar]

@Aron Gladden Give me an example then of something that would not qualify as evidence when it comes to Forrest's video? You then make a blind observation that you understand evolution better than me, when you don't have any gauge to my knowledge on the subject at all. Why do you do that? It seems like you don't have an argument at all and you are full of straw man points that are completely useless. "He is wrong because I say he is wrong" is a terrible debate strategy. Get back to me when you actually have something of substance to say.

[@andrewleadley715]

An excellent commentary was very concise. One minor criticism of why you need to add the annoying music in the background only adds a distraction. I notice nothing like that in the ads

[@Jewonastick]

Concise? Straight up lie you mean!

[@BenDover-mw6ic]

10:54 it ends up making more because of genetic mutations in organisms. Genetic mutations create random changes in an organism that are are either beneficial or harmful to the organism. Mutations are then selected through natural selection. Speciation is the result of two organisms can no longer produce fertile offspring. This could be the result of many factors including changes in behavioural patterns or geographic changes. The phrase “everyone is unique” is an excellent example of mutations. I have longer arms than most people, some people are born with an extra chromosome, some people are extremely tall. The list goes on. If we selected for these mutations, let’s say we let only people with certain mutations exist like for example, some people can see a broader spectrum of light. Over many years this mutation will become a dominant gene until another useful mutation is selected in which the cycle will continue. Really enjoyed the video and have learned more about other perspectives and how even if I disagree, can still learn something.

[@MosaMan-ik6ei]

I would kindly disagree with you, as you see he says that there are limits to genetics, you Can't have a human who can run faster than a cheetah , plus all genetic mutations are always bad , now you can tell me why then whe have tall people or short people, my answer is that their height and color where predetermined when there where born and genetic mutations don't play any role in the shape of the organism, and all of them are deadly, but in the end I respect your opinion I'm not a god after all to tell you what you should believe

[@BenDover-mw6ic]

@@MosaMan-ik6ei that’s a valid point. While mutations aren’t always bad. Take giraffes for example. Their genes at some point mutated to give a longer neck. Once it flourished because if its advantage it reproduced to make more. We also use mutations in plants to give larger yields. Some mutations are destructive while others are beneficial. That is what is conveyed in the theory of evolution. Just because it is random doesn’t mean it’s bad. With that said, I definitely learned a different perspective from this video and your response and would love to continue this. The reason I watch these videos is to challenge my beliefs, not to validate them. I always find flaws in my beliefs and am constantly working to refine them. More input helps me in this journey. I remain open minded to either side and can be convinced, I just haven’t found irrefutable proof for either case.

[@solomon6823]

But where are th fossils short necked giraffe

[@BenDover-mw6ic]

@@solomon6823 I believe somewhere in Northern China some were found in an expedition. They’re the prehistoric version of the modern day giraffe we have now. Sometimes referred to as “Giraffoids”.

[@solomon6823]

@@BenDover-mw6ic makes sense

[@elliejohnson2786]

I need to know this: Do you actually believe in evolution or not? Your video makes it clear that you understand basic concepts within it, but then you just... randomly deny other aspects? I can't tell if you're lying about it for publicity, or if you're just in denial.

[@jamiebanks4939]

They are promoting microevolution (evolution within a kind, but not between kinds - which would be macroevolution).

[@elliejohnson2786]

@@jamiebanks4939 but macro evolution is just a series of micro evolutionary stages strung together. You can't have one without the other

[@patriciabradshaw5319]

I encourage everyone to watch the AIG playlist named "The new history of the human race."

[@alantasman8273]

Yes, an excellent series regarding the genetics of man and his dispersion after the flood.

[@razark9]

I'd rather stick to the actual science and not the pseudo-scientific religious propaganda mill that is AIG, thanks.

[@alantasman8273]

@@razark9 What is AIG saying that is not scientifically accurate. Be specific.

[@razark9]

@@alantasman8273 Beyond denying science for religious reasons and literally claiming the supernatural as scientific when science is strictly about natural phenomenon and despite them having zero positive evidence for their positive religious claims? They commonly strawman science by saying it takes faith, they use words like "assumptions" where there are none, they call people who accept science (regardless of their religious beliefs) "evolutionists" in a dishonest false dichotomy where you're either christian or accept science when they're not mutually exclusive. They commonly spoit things like "evolutionists claim a fish can grow legs" and other ignorant/dishonest strawmen. They confuse big bang with evolution, simply because they're both scientific theories they feel takes credit from a presupposed creator. They also often call the scientific theory of evolution "darwinism" as if nothing has happened since his time. Speaking of Darwin, they also claim he was racist when he was probably one of the least racist people of his time. He was against slavery and said there was only one race, the human race. Need I go on? AIG and creationists in general manipulate, misrepresent and twist everything.

[@silasreade]

What baffles me the most… people can’t (don’t wish to) wrap their minds around this. It’s so simple. It’s far logical than the alternative.

[@kube572]

As an atheist, it's interesting to me to watch these videos, because while they do have some truth in them, they always leave out a bit of information that's crucial to understanding why they're wrong. In this video, the missing bit is genetic mutations. This is gonna be a long comment, so the TLDR is that genetic mutation is extremely common and if it happens in exactly the right way (which is very likely given the timespans evolution deals with) you can get a 'new gene,' something that this video stressed as being impossible. Genetic mutation is actually extremely common in the form of point mutations, where one DNA pair (DNA is composed of four nucleotides - cytosine, adenine, guanine, and thymine. Adenine will bond with thymine, and cytosine will bond with guanine, and when you stack enough pairs on top of each other, you get the double helix of DNA, where one strand will be made up of all of the respective nucleotides of the other strand - for example, one strand could be ATCG, and the other strand opposite would be TAGC) is somehow messed up in the copying process. It might have been removed, replaced with another pair, or there might even be an extra imposter pair. This is important because of how DNA functions. DNA is a set of instructions to make proteins, and the proteins are made up of amino acids. There are 21 amino acids, but only 4 nucleotides, so when the instructions are being read in the ribosome, it reads 3 nucleotides at a time, and each combination of 3 nucleotides is going to correspond to an amino acid. There are 4 possible nucleotides though, and if you put them in a combination of 3, that's 4^3 possibilities, which is 64 - more than the 21 nucleotides. This means that there are repetitions - AAA and AAG both make lysine, for example. This is a sort of padding, so that some point mutations, such as replacing an A with a G, or vice versa, have no effect on protein production. However, AAC is asparagine, and this would mean that that one section of DNA is gonna make a different protein. What about addition or deletion of pairs, however? Well, that's gonna be even worse - that would shift the ENTIRE DNA strand over one, so if you had a strand that before was AACAAA, which would make asparagine + lysine, and you added a G at the start, you'd be making glutamate + glutamine, and whatever pairs came afterwards would also be shifted by that extra adenine at the end. Sorry if this was all way too complicated, but the idea is that if you have these genetic mutations happening, and you give enough time for them to keep happening, you could in fact get a reptile with wings. This is also pretty obvious just by looking at the fact that some animals that are parts of the same group have genes that the other animals don't, but at the same time they share a ton of other genes which make it obvious that they're part of the same group - flying fish and sharks, for example, couldn't be more different, but they're both fish.

[@kube572]

If it's more intuitive, to use the guy's card dealing analogy, imagine you accidentally rub the paint off of one of the cards - that would mean that whatever decks you make that come from that card might now be blank, and that fold might be bred into, making a whole new deck with all blank cards. It's a weird analogy that obviously doesn't work with dealing cards in real life, but the idea is that you're breeding the cards? Again, its a weird analogy.

[@kube572]

He is right about not technically introducing anything new - its just more combinations of adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine. Sorry for replying to my own reply, but im the kind of person that always wants to add more onto their point that was already made 😅

[@MrProsat]

Mutations do not become natural selection of a species. Order doesn't come from chaos.

[@TexasScout]

Outstanding analysis, concise, informative, easy to understand. Well done

[@TexasScout]

@@Bomtombadi1 How droll, what you have just posted leaves anyone that reads it dumber as a result.

[@phoebemulube4451]

♦️Only dummies or idiots will believe in evolution! Because they reason or think like apes.

[@denvan3143]

@@Bomtombadi1 when was the last time you saw a liberal comedian? They all became bitter monologuist with daddy issuess. 😖

[@phoebemulube4451]

@@Bomtombadi1 ♦️I believe in Creation, only when it is based on the Word of God. ♦️NB: Jehovah created all things and He made them perfectly. Whatever God made does not need any improvement from man. ♦️Whenever Man tries to improve what God made, he destroys the authenticity of that thing.

[@alanmcnaughton3628]

@@phoebemulube4451 very sad how so many were sucked into believing an injection could "improve" the human genome with UNKNOWN ingredients. THEY always knew what they were doing.

[@ShunkUp]

For those interested, the flaw in this video is that new genes are proven to come from mutations. And when you consider this represents thousands of years of evolution, then the process over millions of years would add many new cards to the deck for selection to act on. This process can be observed in many animals even in modern humans. An example is the HbC mutation selected for Malaria resistance and minimal anemia as a cost. Or the change to immune system during European pandemics that now causes resistance to other virus (like HIV in 10% of Europeans). It is called the CCR5-Δ32, appeared some 2,500 years ago. The science is repeatable and very real.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

If there's an irony on this page, it is that nearly everyone here asserts the emperor has fine clothes. It is the commenters that are the sycophants expressing their wisdom and insight.

[@charlymaiden]

Don't waste time, they are idiots.

[@richardeldridge8335]

A mutated HbC gene is still an HbC gene. No new gene has ever been observed coming into existence. And when referring to genetics, thousands of years is almost nothing. The average protein is over 700 specifically sequenced amino acids. The hemoglobin protein is smaller. If you filled a trillion universes with random hemoglobin sized proteins, probability dictates that not one of them would be hemoglobin. You don’t have to take my word for it, and you shouldn’t, you can do the math yourself. The HbC mutation you mentioned is caused by a single nucleotide out of over 1500 in that particular gene. A person’s genome could be otherwise flawless, yet a single wrong nucleotide out of millions can kill him. The reason you will never observe a new gene coming into existence is the laws of probability will not allow it.

[@sybrandvankwawegen2554]

You are again perverting the truth by attributing, for instance, "genes" being formed that resist HIV, with the natural restoration of the divinely created immune system to detect and reject virus attack. Your evidence is false and corrupted. We do not, however, have the need to react any more strongly against such falsehoods. The wise will know it and you are paving your own way to eternal damnation.

[@charlymaiden]

@@sybrandvankwawegen2554 brrr! spooky! 😱

[@daniellevy2272]

Tbh this is extremely interesting. We take so many claims in the modern world as "scientific consensus", but most study nothing about the formations of the theories.

[@lintongreen]

Do some more reading... U dk what u talking bout

[@statutesofthelord]

Very true, Daniel. Evolution is the mother of these other modern scientific consensus theories that are harming God's world and leading millions to perdition.

[@lintongreen]

@@statutesofthelord I'm sure God would fix it if he wanted to 🙂

[@alexmackay7454]

No because humans have free will.

[@andrewjustice210]

@@statutesofthelordthere has to be an overwhelming amount of proof and evidence for something to be classified as a Theory… not simply having a “scientific consensus”…. That’s why it’s called Theory of Evolution…. Because there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence

[@lequsejones5384]

I really struggle with this. I'm a Christian but I find myself not believing the creation account in Genesis. To me, it is allegorical.

[@lequsejones5384]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 I understand that creationism is not a religion, but when preachers "demand" that we who profess Him also believe it, it is difficult to bring the two together.

[@tuckerchisholm1005]

Jesus believed in Adam and Eve. Matthew 19. And Jesus was called the Son of Man (Ben-Adam). Sin entered mankind thru Adam, literally. Romans 5:12-21. Jesus is the new Adam, literally redeeming the human race, being the perfect sacrifice and the firstfruits of the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:16-23 So Jesus believed in the account of Genesis literally, Jesus literally believed that He would die for the sins of many. And Jesus atoning for the sins of mankind is only possible in there was a literal Eden and literal Fall. No Fall, then why is Jesus necessary? No forbidden fruit, then why is creation corrupted? And if creation is corrupted by means other than man’s sin, then why does God hold us accountable for our evolutionary nature (horniness, violence, racism- we’re just animals after all)? So I believe in the Bible and do not believe that mankind evolved from any other creatures. I believe that Adam literally sinned and thus brought death, and Jesus literally defeated death and thus brings life. That is what the gospel is all about. If its not true, then Jesus Himself was a liar, and why would you follow a man who either lied, or was delusionally false about human history and God’s existence/plan. Jesus also literally believed in Noah (Matthew 24) and Jonah (Luke 11). So Jesus believes that the entirety of the Bible is true, given how He references the vast majority of the Torah and Prophets. Praying for you, that your ur faith would grow, that the Lord would clarify certain things to you, confirm things for you, and that the Lord would guide you into the fullness of understanding He wants to bestow on you! Be strong, my sibling in Christ, continue to ask, seek, and knock!! You are loved!

[@Florida79578]

​@@lequsejones5384almost like you are in a cult

[@mattwhite7287]

​@@tuckerchisholm1005jesus was a first century, middle eastern cult leader. Nothing more. 😅

[@wofan1000]

​@@lequsejones5384 that's what I belive. The super preachy fundamentalist types only exist in the USA and most Christians around the world belive God made things through evolution. Understanding both would strengthen a person's faith and not the other way around. I recommend checking out channels like InspiringPhilosophy and Biologos.

[@pigzcanfly444]

Exactly genetic entropy is what we are witnessing. Not the addition of new genetic information that creates novel functionality and structures. Every time I bring this up people try to fall back knto ad populum and "multiple fields" which correspond supposedly to corroborate the theory when in reality geomagnetism, astronomy, genetics and virology completely disagree with this notion. It's just that only a few people are actually looking past the indoctrination and asking the questions to get to the heart of the matter. And of course those individuals are treated as outcasts and liars. Such is the world we live in today.

[@philm.8756]

This guy is a very, very good presenter. Great pacing and genuine delivery.

[@drewdrake9130]

It's really easy when you're preaching to the choir, and no one is there to ask questions.

[@billy9144]

Aside from the blatant lies.

[@iamshredder3587]

Yeah he's good, he hosted Creation Magazine Live with Richard whatshisname for many years before coming to AIG.

[@iamshredder3587]

@@billy9144 haha yeah ok troll. Truth hurts huh?

[@omp199]

I initially read your comment as, "This guy is a very, very good pretender," which would have been more accurate. I don't know what you mean by "genuine delivery". If you deliberately deceive people in your delivery, is your delivery "genuine"?

[@eadgbe13]

Darwin also knew nothing of how complex cells were and how complicated these changes were.

[@mikolajtrzeciecki1188]

Newton knew nothing about gravity waves and Higgs field and still the theory of gravity created by him had enormous validity.

[@leeaal7306]

He was a founder of "The Glutton Club" whose sole purpose was to consume species of animals unknown to people of the time. His description of the animals was rather from a foodie perspective, which obviously has nothing to do with zoology or biology. In fact, many scientific experiments were carried out in attempt to support Darwin's claims, but ended up proving that he was wrong. The best example that comes to my mind is the Russian scientist who tried to make a hybrid of human/ chimpanzee by injecting human sperm in chimpanzees, and women with chimpanzee sperm. The experiment was redone many times but always ended with failure.

[@user-rb3tk5th2i]

@@mikolajtrzeciecki1188 yes Newton is widely acknowledged as the greatest scientist who has ever lived, and 70% of his writings were christian theology, his faith heavily influenced his works

[@mikolajtrzeciecki1188]

@@user-rb3tk5th2i So perhaps you should also stop discounting Darwin for his lack of knowledge about mitochondria and about DNA

[@gozerofgozmis4181]

​@@user-rb3tk5th2i he wasent a "christian" .....he had his own ideas of God and not use the bible as surce of his fate

[@robertbaker1893]

The reason why macro-evolution has never been observed is that it takes millions of years to happen.

[@YeshuaYaakov]

Also that it never will happen

[@nebulous-draco1711]

​@@YeshuaYaakov Thats funny, macro evolutions never happening... hilarious Guess that means one of two things, in the beginning of life, every species that ever existed and will exist was there but then several hundreds if not thousands died off. That or some species suddenly and inexplicably appeared in the world... wonder which it is?

[@YeshuaYaakov]

@@nebulous-draco1711 god created one common ancestor for each species and in that common ancestor varieties branch off that's why we have horses and zebras

[@nebulous-draco1711]

@@YeshuaYaakov can you clear up what that means for me? My brain is drawing two possible outcomes for that statement, that "God" created one of every species and everything spawned from there or "God" created one true species and everything spawned from there over time. For the first one, that makes no sense as the "All mutations are bad" claim from the video would mean that everything that exists today would be in such a horribly degraded state that they would cease to function, that and it would be impossible for that one ancestor to procreate without going the bacteria route and just cloning itself. The second is a bit more believable, because there had to be a root origin for life, the first cell, but I doubt your "God" would just pop a cell or two in the ocean and call it a day would he?

[@YeshuaYaakov]

@Nebulous-Draco I said that God would not have created the modern day horse we see today but its ancestor and its ancestor would have created all the variations we see today horse zebra donkey ect

[@dustmaker1000]

Wow - what a simplified version of science to fit a belief. He makes the argument that man bred dogs for 300 years and none of them have feathers so therefor, evolution which occurred over millions or billions of years isn’t valid scientific argument. He does throw in mutations but equates mutations to always being inferior. Granted 99 out of 100 (or maybe 999 out of 1000) mutations may cause weakness or death to the animal, the 1% or 0.1% that have a favorable mutation, would have a significant advantage over the rest of the species. As these animals breed and additional mutations occur over thousands of years, the animals can develop into a very different looking and functioning creature. So using flawed logic and simplified science he is simply saying “you cannot prove 100% that evolution is real and therefore the belief in a supernatural being is more believable” is not something that provides any sway to my understanding. This is a good argument for those that have already decided in a supernatural being to explain everything that doesn’t have a simple answer. It will further enforce the belief in those that refuse to do the hard work of thinking. There are clearly scientists that do not believe in evolution from a single cell to the complex life we see today and they have their theories which are well thought out and arguable. But universally it is acknowledged that life has been changing for over a billion years. The argument above does not address what can happen in a billion years and watching this gives me the feeling of a semi-knowledgeable adult talking to a classroom of second graders.

[@InakiArzalluz]

13:26 it's funny how he tries to make an argument against mutations using computers, not being aware that genetic algorithms (which use the concept of mutation) have been used and studied in computer science for decades.

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

Engineers even use evolution-based simulations to optimize technical products.

[@psalm919]

@@h.gonyaulax2190 the point is...actual biological macro evolution doesn't , and didn't , happen.

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

@@psalm919 I do not know the scientific background on which your statement is based. You are already aware that you are in contradiction to the absolute worldwide majority of all established scientists in this field.

[@parkertheprophet]

I'm happy you mentioned genetic mutation at the end. Most traits are too complicated to come from random mutations and the animal will most likely get a disease and die.

[@mar145gh7]

Blue eyes and light skin was a random genetic mutation

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

@@mar145gh7 Yeah but those are modifications of a human being. We're talking about humans coming from fish. Explain how those somehow are the same thing.

[@mar145gh7]

@@TheSpacePlaceYT Both are still mutations. Change in eye color is a minor mutation.

[@garymaclean6903]

You are correct in that MOST mutations are not helpful to survival. That's why there's such diseases as cancer, and why viruses mutate to better attack acquired immunity. What you've ignored is how a small percentage of mutations ARE advantageous, and those animals who are lucky enough to acquire such mutations actually have a survival advantage, and slowly spread those genes throughout the population. That's essentially how evolution works...

[@blankablueboy1501]

Neither light skin or blue eyes are mutations. Like all varieties of species the genetic potential was in humans from creation forward. If you want to see evolution disproved, simply look at the fossil record. There should be fossil records from 1 cell to 2 to bug to fish to bird to dog to pig to bear to cow to whatever. These missing links should be everywhere. They aren't tho. Evolution is just Athiest religious dogma pushed unrestrained so no scrutiny is allowed.

[@Yamyatos]

"Answers in Genesis" may aswell rename their channel to "Arguments from Ignorance". The scientific consensus is pretty clear on evolution. There really is no debate, other than some creationists not wanting it to be true. "Micro evolution" was coined by creationists, to differentiate between the kind of change they cant deny and the kind of change they need to be untrue. Scientists didnt use this term for the longest time, as it was simply unnecessary. Evolution is evolution, it's the same process. Even today, when the term is unfrequently used, it is only used to differentiate the timespan talked about. That's it. Everything else is the same. We have mountains of evidence to support the notion of common descent. Genetics alone is enough to prove it. Yet all fields of biology, and many others, tell the exact same story. Be it embriology, taxonomy, comparative anatomy, or the fossil record. They all tell the exact same story. Not one of them agrees with your creationist world view. This is not a "you can believe A or B, it's just a decision". We have a scientifically accurate model about reality. Your decision is to care about truth, or listen to intellectually dishonest people or channels like Answers in Genesis, who literally profit off of telling you lies. "New genetic information" also isnt some kind of mystery. It happens all the time. Imagine genetic code like a page of letters. Mutations can change some of those letters, leading to a different description. If this description is beneficial, it will improve your rate of survival and reproduction, ie make you more fit for the environment you live in, and vice versa for negative mutations. Noone argues against mutations changing "existing" information int his way, right? That's "adaptation" after all, which even AiG agrees with. Yet there is common known mutations that literally duplicate existing data, thus causing an increate in the length of "paper" you can write on. Now we dont have 1 page but 2 pages to work with, which can be edited by the "adaptation" we agreed upon existing just as it worked with 1 page of information. I really have a hard time grasping how people dont see how this equals "new information". It's not rocket science, really. We have plenty of reallife examples too. Naturally occuring nylon eating bacteria are a thing, despite nylon being a synthetic material which did not exist until very recently. The core problem with the creationist worldview is that it relies on "kinds". What is a kind? How do you *define* a kind? It may seem intuitive, but reality is not that easy. Creationists wont give you a definition, because a working one *simply does not exist.* Feel free to prove me wrong. To any intellectually honest christian.. if you care about believing as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible, you really shouldnt be watching channels that profit off of selling you lies that feed your preexisting bias. They basically tell you want you want to hear. I dont expect you to read scientific papers, but there is literally databases (such as talkorigins) which pretty much track every creationist claim ever made and the correct scientific response to them. Why? Because creationistm only has one source, their holy scripture. It's thus rare for their arguments to change or for them to come up with new ones, and the rest of the world is literally bored of debunking the same arguments again and again which have been around for *decades* ..

[@briandeadmarsh7538]

It's kind of amusing to hear someone say that believing in the process of evolution is "believing in something that no one has seen, and then in the next breath refer to a god, which is the ultimate "believing in something that no one has seen". LOL

[@schofrenzy3444]

Many have seen the messiah and rise from the dead he is Yahweh and he has more documents about him then anyone in human history cause he is the way the truth and the life Yahweh 3 in 1 eternal God

[@briandeadmarsh7538]

@@schofrenzy3444 And many claim to have seen Bigfoot.

[@tonythepreacher]

What a great, fresh, out of the box explanation of "natural selection." I could never understand the topic as it relates to evolution. But your picture of only being able to 'select' what's available in the buffet . . . perfect. The 'gene pool.' Such a fresh approach. Thank you. Great!

[@FilipCordas]

It's terrible explanation. And the fact he is using 'kind' to explain anything makes this really really stupid.

[@jamesbon1]

@@FilipCordas You DO realize you just affirmed everything he says about not allowing deceptive evolutionists to pressure you and conflate micro with macro evolution. Using words like "terrible" and "stupid" to describe a well thought out and factual description of true evolution with modern DNA discoveries that discredit Darwin, is just...terribly stupid on your part.

[@FilipCordas]

@@jamesbon1 No micro and micro evolution is the same thing just like micro and macro economy is studying the sam thing from two different angles. So then please tell me what does he mean when he says 'kind'? How can you tell if a living organism belongs to one cind or the other? Using words you don't know the meaning of is what makes it stupid.

[@jamesbon1]

@@FilipCordas You need to edit your first sentence. re-read it. He means canines are a "kind" and can evolve into different kinds of canines, but they can't sprout a fish tail or wings, as evolutionists believe. It's simply not in their DNA. Micro evolution is the former, macro is the latter. Yes, both are forms of evolution, but the former is observable, while the latter is belief and a long shot considering all we know about DNA today.

[@FilipCordas]

@@jamesbon1 So you don't know what a Kind is as well, so a kind evolves into other kind of canines? But again that still isn't a definition of what is a 'kind'? There are no forms of evolution just change in allele frequency over time. And no a member of canines can't ever sprout a fish tail because they are not fish what ever that maybe. But what has happened is a member of the carnovora has accumulated alleles to become a seal you know how evolution actually works not made up nonsense you people say it is out of compleat lack of knowledge on the subject.

[@alistairgrey5089]

One word debunks this entire argument: mutation. DNA is not static, it mutates constantly and sometimes those mutated traits get handed down through the generations because it is better for the creature. To say that DNA has to contain everything that can happen with a creature is a lack of the fundamental understanding of genetics.

[@con_boy]

I'm 48. A Genetics graduate from 1997. I said all this 30 years ago. Speciation isn't possible by natural selection. Natural selection is easy to understand. For 12,000 years humans bred animals and plants. And the illiterate farmers for generations understood intuitively "manual selection" You missed this: partial sterility (outside any geographical isolation factors) is necessarily part of speciation. And the highest amount of speciation occurs in rain forest and coral reefs where there is no geographical isolation. But speciation means partial sterility which natural selection MASSIVELY selects against . IE it doesn't matter how big your muscles, if you can't mate 100% efficiently compared to your peers

[@jannordling288]

So how do you explain people born with 6 fingers or 2 heads then? It's genetic mutation.

[@kaasmeester5903]

There are some decidedly odd notions put forth in this video. For instance @9:00 The idea that evolution is driven by pure genetic recombination, comparing it to a deck of cards that never changes no matter how much you shuffle it. Here's a hint: the genetic deck only contains 4 cards: A C G and T. Those are the letters that make up the genes of all living things, so it is not a stretch to think that reshuffling would result in new, never seen before variations. Stack the deck a little, and you *can* put wings on a dog. At @10:45 it is clear that the writer has no clue about how evolution is supposed to work (or he is being selective in the parts of the process he discusses). Yes, selection decreases the number of variants, but that is only part of the process of evolution. The other parts are recombination and mutation, which create more variants. It always struck me as odd that believers get so worked up against the notion of evolution. I'm not a religious person myself, but my roommate in college was (deeply) religious, and we talked about some of this stuff at length. He never dismissed the notion of evolution, and to him the idea that God created a mechanism, so refined and so elegant that it would result in such an abundance of life wondrous in its diversity, was sure proof of the omnipotence of God. To him, "intelligent design" doesn't mean that you go and create every single individual species yourself, that's busywork. True intelligent design means you create the mechanism and preconditions for life to develop on its own. And to me, the latter is far more impressive as well.

[@spacedinosaur8733]

Then why arn't there? Why are no wolf packs silently diving down on packs of elk? Why are coyotes prevalent in the desert instead of scaled lizard-dogs, or even more importantly why are we at the top of the evolutionary ladder? Surely having opposable thumbs, being able to lift, climb and throw would be great advantages to any predator. We should all be the descendants of Lions, Tigers and Bears...Oh my. instead of little monkeys that mostly end their lives with a squeak and crunch of bone in someone else's jaws.

[@antonioveritas]

Depends what you mean by "evolution". If you mean variety within a kind or species, there is plenty of evidence to support this. For example pekingese and great Danes are both breeds of dog, so they are distantly related to eachother. But evolutionists would have you believe that dinosaurs evolved into little birds like Robins and wrens! So they say that cold blooded scaly skinned solid boned creatures that couldn't fly turned into warm blooded feathery hollow boned flying creatures! And yet they also say the dinosaurs were wiped out in some major disaster like a comet or asteroid hitting Earth. If the dinosaurs were all wiped out, how could they then evolve into birds!

[@kaasmeester5903]

@@antonioveritas Birds supposedly evolved from flying / gliding dinosaurs during the Jurrassic period, 150 million years ago. They had already evolved into "modern" looking birds in the cretacious period, when the meteor hit, 65 million years ago. It is assumed that the dinosaurs died out because of climate change and acidification of the oceans caused by the meteor, but there are also theories that they died out naturally. Either case, the smaller animals like birds survived and eventually thrived. The problem with the theory of macro-evolution (the evolution of large changes, such as the ones that led from dinosaurs eventually evolving into birds) is that it cannot be observed, given the large time scales. There are also many "missing links", in a lot of cases we simply don't know how a certain species evolved into another, in other cases we find evidence that makes us revise our theories. But none of the evidence or lack thereof invalidates the scientific theory of macro-evolution. And in some cases we have a pretty good idea, backed by fossil evidence, how certain species evolved over the aeons. It's a good theory, better than the alternatives, as long as we take this for what it is: a theory, rather than the truth. Those are not the same thing... something some proponents of evolution theory tend to forget.

[@vinnymac4668]

@@kaasmeester5903 ...why are there no transitional fossils?

[@kaasmeester5903]

@@vinnymac4668 There are plenty. Fossils in general are pretty rare, in the sense that we don't have fossil records of every single species, and we certainly don't have an unbroken fossil record of the entire chain of evolution. But of the fossils we do have, many are of transitional species.

[@weobeyjesus4565]

We theists say atheists are foolish to believe complex life forms came into existence without being created but we ourselves believe God (who is the most advanced of all) exists without being created.

[@adielpeso9805]

As an atheist I have much respect for you to acknowledge something like that

[@Potatoman3132]

God by definition doesn’t need a creator.

[@assimilationsynthesizer]

Thank you for making me want to stay as an athiest and believe in evolution more by making this video

[@rodangus4489]

Fallen man is desperate to hold on to anything that keeps him from the knowledge of God.

[@rodangus4489]

@@PhilipK635 The One you're avoiding with sophistry.

[@rodangus4489]

@@PhilipK635 Yes. Odin would definitely be step up from Darwin.

[@us3rG]

Explain rocks evolving to DNA

[@assimilationsynthesizer]

@@rodangus4489 Hyper-religious man is desperate to hold on to anything that keeps him away from the knowledge of scientific fact and evolution.

[@alantasman8273]

Thank you AIG for posting this and keeping the comments turned on. Information and debate is a good thing as long as we can have a civil discourse.

[@CaptainFantastic222]

Agreed! I disagree with I’d say 100% of what AIG puts out but I do enjoy learning other peoples point of view

[@rispatha]

@@CaptainFantastic222 ... So are you actually learning other peoples points of view or are you just going through the motions and discarding what was said as it passes through your ears? What is the point of listening to what others have to say if you are going to dismiss it the moment they are done speaking?

[@denvan3143]

@@rispatha it appears you were describing yourself here, rather than others. And the comports with every conversation I have had with an evolutionist. Most of them are unaware of even the basic precepts of evolution, I know nothing of its current state, and cannot talk intelligibly about the subject. Evolution is their mythology, and their conception of “science, and “is nothing but a sword, it is simply a comfort system. Your attitude of condescension put you in a very precarious position in any earnest dialogue.

[@alantasman8273]

@@rispatha You seek the truth. You go where the evidence leads unencumbered by evolutionist dogma.

[@rispatha]

@@alantasman8273 ... The more truth I find while seeking it out points to life being CREATED and not "evolved". Even in grade school I never really accepted "evolution" when they first brought in up in biology class.

[@poliincredible770]

Every shred of evidence used to support Darwinism requires the presumption of evolution.

[@johnschwalb]

I am a Christian, I will tell you the problem I have with a lot of Christians. They will look at a banana and see how it’s similarly shaped to our hands and say “this was intellectually designed to fit in my hand”. Then they will look at a skeleton and be shows the same bones in different species and go “this is not evidence of anything. It doesn’t matter that our hands and monkey hands have the same structure, that’s not a common ancestor that’s just a designer using copy and paste.

[@poliincredible770]

@@johnschwalb you didn't explain what is inherently wrong with that. It is deductive reasoning. BTW, I don't know of anyone who says the fact that a banana can fit in his hand is proof of a creator.

[@dumb_hole]

wait till this guy takes a highschool biology class

[@RS54321]

Amazing how a little idea/speculation got a foothold and basically became the unwavering and unquestionable consensus. "You need the simplest version of the idea-the one that will grow naturally in the subject's mind. Subtle art.” ― Christopher Nolan on Inception.

[@gowsif_dnb]

The enemy is crafty.

[@rokavelli]

The perfect model to remove God and replace him with government. Every corrupt power hungry leaders go to. Thats why it took off.

[@danielduvana]

You really think that evolution is just an idea than no one ever really looked into very much and just got to be accept as scientific fact? That’s an insane thing to say

[@finleylouissaint5436]

​@@danielduvana let me guess you're one of the ones who have looked into all the so called facts and verified for yourself and thus concluded for yourself that at least for you, you evolved from slime. Why has this idea only pop up within two hundred years. Did Darwins brain evolve to get this understanding?

[@MrSixPool]

The reason is that most people WANT it to be true. Anything to get away from God.

[@WadeWeigle]

Thank you for this clear cut easy to digest take on micro/macro evolution fib that’s being forced on us. God bless you and all you do.

[@maninhat77]

Funny thing is he says natural selection is not evolution. And - he's right. It's not. And I don't think any evolutionists ever said that.

[@alantasman8273]

@@maninhat77 Evolutionist always give natural selection as evidence for evolution...that was the entire premise of Darwin.

[@HS-zk5nn]

there is no direct observational of macro-evolution.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

@@HS-zk5nn There can't be, by definition. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a larger time scale.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@joshuakohlmann9731 that has no direct observational evidence. thus cant be proven by science by definition

[@thresamatthews9096]

Well worth watching. I really enjoy this guy. He speaks with such clarity and humility, rather than contempt. And that's not easy, considering there is SO much ridiculous material spewing out from evolutionists.

[@Deontjie]

I disagree slightly. New DNA can be created. That is called cancer, and it is mostly a negative thing. There is a slight change cancer can create something that is beneficial. The chancers that something like that survives and breeds is close to zero. The clincher for me is that there is no way that these accidental errors could have created symmetrical creatures. Most live is symmetrical.

[@StudioDaVeed]

Humility??? His snarky smugness is nauseating...you rarely see that out of evolutionists.

[@FilipCordas]

@@Deontjie What about eye color? Or did Adam and Eve have every human eye color we see today...

[@Deontjie]

@@FilipCordas That sound strange. Coming back to my argument, so "evolution" magically evolved two eyes simultaneously, and they did a perfect match with the colour. And evolution did it eight times for a spider.

[@FilipCordas]

@@Deontjie No no magic need, and you avoided my question how many eye colors did Adam and Eve have? As to your question having two eyes is the product of bilateral symmetry or do you not believe in that? Spiders or clade Araneae don't have 8 eyes they can have 6,5,4 2 or even no eyes and they didn't evolve 8 times they evolved two times once for the primary then for the secondary that's why they are distinct one from the other.

[@jamesstrawn6087]

Even if one could see a micro-evolutionary mutation that created a single small change, there would still be a huge problem: Every micro change can only continue to exist if, for its own sake, it somehow supports or enhances viability and procreation. Not merely the major outcome (say a liver e.g.) but every preceding micro mutation must have such a fundamental ground. Evolution is ostensibly a series of endpoints not "steps." Even the very term "steps" suggests purpose.

[@jilskehupkes7729]

A mutation can also persist if it does not support or enhance anything. It just should not have a strong debilitating effect at that time and situation.

[@Locust13]

So you admit the mechanisms of evolution are real, the observations of evolution are real, that speciation has been observed, that evolution has been observed, but them cover your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and claim evolution isn't real? This is sad.

[@PapaGDazzle]

It's so easy to see, unless you're blind. Very sad. May God continue to bless and guide the Answers in Genesis mission.

[@razark9]

As a ex-christian I can truly say I'm no longer blinded by the bible goggles, the appeals to emotions and manipulation as well as your ridiculous fables. Magic boats built by 900 year old men, hahaha.

[@danielchomistek6113]

Calvin! Was wondering what happened to you after Creation Magazine Live.

[@civilisedhumanbeing]

3:33 adaptation is the change of behavioral/structural features of living things over time because of changes in its environment

[@owenduck]

I love how creationism is now at the cutting edge of science. It's such an epic plot twist. There must be some great arguments going on in the education institutions between clever creationist students and out of date evolutionist teachers.

[@glumberty1]

You know that doesn't occur. Our schools promote only one way of thinking on all topics. Critical thinking is always discouraged.

[@owenduck]

@@glumberty1 that's for sure. I encounter the same kind of zombie group think in university.

[@amaizenblue44]

Creationism doesn't do science. It's always about trying, unsuccessfully, to poke holes in evolution. There are never any experiments, hypotheses, or attempts to falsify. It is ASSUMED correct by its proponents, and then defended. It is literally the exact opposite of the scientific method.

[@glumberty1]

@@amaizenblue44 What is scientific about the hypothesis that we all originated from a common ancestor, that life emerged spontaneously from nonlife and that it just kept dividing itself into different species?

[@amaizenblue44]

@@glumberty1 every single new organism discovery, whether fossil or newly discovered species, is a test for common ancestry, with clearly defined potential failures. Ie, genes or bones or layer of strata which doesn't fit the expected nested hierarchy of descent with modification. There are no potential falsification for creationism because you'll just say, well maybe god did this instead. That is the opposite of science.

[@michealferrell1677]

This was well produced, liked it very much ! I’ll use it .

[@andytaylor2321]

Believing that first man was Adam and Eve is like believing in the tooth fairy

[@Bea_InChrist729]

Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video.

[@dexter-hi6ze]

I appreciate the distinction between natural selection. You made statements regarding spontaneous mutation that were incorrect. While most mutations are indeed deleterious and result and subtracting from the gene pool if given enough time if one in 1 million mutations are beneficial and expose an organism to natural selection the effect of spontaneous mutations will be seen.

[@johnwiltshire8763]

A great Maxim is this “DO NOT learn all you know about evolution from Creationists!” However, as the video demonstrates, you CAN learn something about evolution from Creationists but there’s a catch! If you only listen to Creationists, how can you separate: The correct from the incorrect, The wheat from the chaff, and The truth from the lies and fill in the missing perceptions? It's not easy unless you can see some light. This might help. 1) Note that no mention is made of the possibility that "Beneficial Mutations" can sometimes if rarely, occur and be Naturally Selected. That adds NEW information to the gene pool. 2) Note that no mention is made of "Gene Duplication". This is a significant mechanism via which beneficial mutations can be retained without loss of the original function. That's ADDITION not SUBTRACTION. 3) Remember that the scientific model of reality includes plenty of evidence that the Earth is some 5,000,000,000 years old and not 6,000. No surprise therefore that some very slow evolutionary mechanisms have not been observed in the last 1000 years. 4) Note that whales have vestigial hind legs indicating evolution from land animals. 5) Remember that vaccination works via the natural selection of random mutations to DNA. Consequently, a vaccinated Creationist who denies the possibility of beneficial mutations is a walking contradiction. 6) Remember that the analysis of tell-tale genetic markers in DNA has led to the conclusion that Chimps are our closest relatives and our common ancestor species lived some 6,000,000 years ago. 7) Creationist commentators know all this. Ask yourself why they never mention it.

[@johnwiltshire8763]

@Aron Gladden Check out the evolutionary history of the Covid 19 pandemic. A number of new strains have evolved since 2019 (That's less than a million years :-)). The mutations involved were not beneficial for us but they sure gave the virus many new leases of life. So you are quite wrong. We have seen many "Beneficial" Covid 19 mutations since 2019. Vaccination has saved billions of lives and our modern world would not be possible without them. They work via the natural selection of beneficial mutations to DNA. Perhaps you don't know about "Endogenous retroviral markers". :-) Those markers and the genetic molecular clock are how we know that chimps are our closest relatives and that our common ancestor species lived some 6,000,000 years ago. As for "all scientific evidence" you don't seem to know about the evidence in Geological strata, tree rings, ice cores, radiocarbon dating, Uranium decay dating, the fossil record, and the correlations of all that with the Milancovitch Cycles. Have you been skipping your homework assignments? Evolutionists know all this and so do many Creationists but they don't let on.

[@johnwiltshire8763]

@Aron Gladden The DNA of all of the many covid strains has been fully sequenced. Is it really your view that the DNA of later variants can be found in the DNA of earlier ones? If you are right about that then we could prove it by downloading the DNA files and get ourselves Nobel Prizes! You up for that? I note that you don't deride the significance of the cross-correlation seen between the various dating methods and their correlation with the Milankovitch cycles. Does that mean you don't know about these things. Same goes for the history of smallpox, Polio, and many other nasty diseases that are held in check by vaccination.

[@gerinja]

Well explained. Thank you and God bless.

[@frosted1030]

Let's guess here.. a small joke on a gumbal wrapper is as deep as you are comfortable going. You have ZERO background in any biology.

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

I still believe in a book that features talking snakes donkeys eagles and bushes and lots of other absurdities tho . Go Jesus !

[@arkadeepchattopadhyay1371]

I have become a great fan of your content. I watched just 3 of your contents and I cannot stop watching.. The card demo was perfect to reshape the concept of Natural Selection. Yes Genetic Mutation can happen from what is already available in the Gene pool of the higher peers of a species. Thanks again.

[@wadenovin2479]

The framework of Evolution is the best explanation for the development of complex life on Earth.

[@rtmcdge]

What are you going to use to support this claim. Do, you have evidence to support the mythical common ancestor? What examples of organisms of today can you use to support dinosaur to to bird or land animal to whale, or even ape like to ape and ape man? Your lean, extra lean,, on evidence.

[@wadenovin2479]

@@rtmcdge Yes there is plenty evidence both in the fossil record and the human genome that supports the existence of a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. This would be the Sahelanthropus tchadensis which lived about 7 million years ago. As far as land animal to whale, Cetaceans have a common ancestor with modern-day artiodactyls such as the cow, the pig, the camel, the giraffe and the hippopotamus. There is again ample evidence in the extant genome and the fossil record.

[@rtmcdge]

@@wadenovin2479 No, there isn't. If there was there'd be a whole lot less people who reject evolution. There has probably never been a speculation that has been so accepted but is so still rejected by other scientists. All of what you are claiming is only unsubstantiated speculation. Hundreds of millions of years, STILL NOT SUPPORTED WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. But, there is other evidence disputing this. "Newly Published Analysis Refutes Claims that Sahelant" hropus tchadensis Was Human Ancestor...These claims have led to much disagreement in the paleoanthropology community. Brigitte Senut, of the Natural History Museum in Paris, called Toumai “the skull of a female gorilla,” and co-wrote in Nature, along with Milford H. Wolpoff, Martin Pickford, and John Hawks, that “Sahelanthropus was an ape,” not bipedal, and that many features “link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.” This debate has continued.More Discovered than Reported It turns out that there was more of Sahelanthropus discovered than was initially reported. At the end of 2020, nearly two decades after the fossil was first reported, the debate was seemingly settled when the femur of Sahelanthropus was finally described. The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study: The leg bone suggests that Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the earliest species generally regarded as an early human, or hominin, didnʼt walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps. As the technical paper put it: A partial left femur (TM 266-01-063) was recovered in July 2001 at Toros-Menalla, Chad, at the same fossiliferous location as the late Miocene holotype of Sahelanthropus tchadensis (the cranium TM 266-01-060-1). … The results of our preliminary functional analysis suggest the TM 266 femoral shaft belongs to an individual that was not habitually bipedal, something that should be taken into account when considering the relationships of S. tchadensis. … In terms of size and shape, the external morphology of the shaft is closer to that of the common chimpanzee than to modern humans, gorillas, or orangutans. … Likewise, the cross-sectional morphology of the TM 266 distal shaft is most similar to that of Pan [chimpanzees]. … Given the results of the comparative analyses in the previous section, the overall morphology of TM 266 appears to be closer to that of common chimpanzees than to that of habitually bipedal modern humans. … Given the broader comparative context of the morphology of the TM 266 femur, there is no compelling evidence that it belongs to a habitual biped, something that would strengthen the case for S. tchadensis being a hominin." Source: evolutionnews.org/2021/02/newly-published-analysis-refutes-claims-that-sahelanthropus-tchadensis-was-human-ancestor/ Come on, if you are going to make claims, at least do some research. I'll point out this. "The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study: So, now, you see, there is much more to the story that you seem not to be aware of. And your claims of "much more", for this, "Cetaceans have a common ancestor with modern-day artiodactyls such as the cow, the pig, the camel, the giraffe and the hippopotamus. There is again ample evidence in the extant genome and the fossil record." is grossly overstated. The evolutionists have not come into an consensus as to what mythical land animal that was the ancestor of the whale. And all the while, this is contradicted each time it is seen that only whales give birth to baby whales. So, all you have is misinformation and unsubstantiated speculation to rest your beliefs on. NOT SCIENCE.

[@rtmcdge]

@@wadenovin2479 "Articles by Brunet and colleagues in the journal Nature called it “the earliest known hominid ancestor,” or more cautiously proposed it as “close to the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.” Although Brunet’s technical paper at the time admitted that “There is not yet sufficient information to infer reliably whether Sahelanthropus was a habitual biped,” he and his team proposed that “such an inference would not be unreasonable given the skull’s other basicranial and facial similarities to later fossil hominids that were clearly bipedal.” To this day, the Smithsonian Institution calls it “one of the oldest known species in the human family tree.” These claims have led to much disagreement in the paleoanthropology community. Brigitte Senut, of the Natural History Museum in Paris, called Toumai “the skull of a female gorilla,” and co-wrote in Nature, along with Milford H. Wolpoff, Martin Pickford, and John Hawks, that “Sahelanthropus was an ape,” not bipedal, and that many features “link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.” This debate has continued. More Discovered than Reported It turns out that there was more of Sahelanthropus discovered than was initially reported. At the end of 2020, nearly two decades after the fossil was first reported, the debate was seemingly settled when the femur of Sahelanthropus was finally described. The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study: The leg bone suggests that Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the earliest species generally regarded as an early human, or hominin, didnʼt walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps. As the technical paper put it: A partial left femur (TM 266-01-063) was recovered in July 2001 at Toros-Menalla, Chad, at the same fossiliferous location as the late Miocene holotype of Sahelanthropus tchadensis (the cranium TM 266-01-060-1). … The results of our preliminary functional analysis suggest the TM 266 femoral shaft belongs to an individual that was not habitually bipedal, something that should be taken into account when considering the relationships of S. tchadensis. … In terms of size and shape, the external morphology of the shaft is closer to that of the common chimpanzee than to modern humans, gorillas, or orangutans. … Likewise, the cross-sectional morphology of the TM 266 distal shaft is most similar to that of Pan [chimpanzees]. … Given the results of the comparative analyses in the previous section, the overall morphology of TM 266 appears to be closer to that of common chimpanzees than to that of habitually bipedal modern humans. … Given the broader comparative context of the morphology of the TM 266 femur, there is no compelling evidence that it belongs to a habitual biped, something that would strengthen the case for S. tchadensis being a hominin. Since “the bone is curved, not straight, typical of apes like chimps,” New Scientist quoted the lead author Roberto Macchiarelli as saying, “There are a lot of indicators which deeply discourage bipedal gait.” Madelaine Böhme at the University of Tübingen in Germany said: “I saw the pictures 10 or 12 years ago, and it was clear to me that itʼs more similar to a chimp than to any other hominin.” Phys.org put the implications bluntly: Sahelanthropus “was not a hominin, and thus was not the earliest known human ancestor.” This evidence forced the researchers to suggest that if Sahelanthropus were a human ancestor then that would mean bipedality is no longer a necessary qualification for status as a hominid - an unorthodox view that would cause great complications for the primate tree. As the recent article in the Journal of Human Evolution concluded: Based on our analyses, the TM 266 partial femur lacks any feature consistent with regular bouts of terrestrial bipedal travel; instead, its gross morphology suggests a derived Pan-like bauplan. Thus, if there is compelling evidence that S. tchadensis is a stem hominin, then bipedalism can no longer be seen as a requirement for inclusion in the hominin clade. Did Rivals Stonewall Publication? New Scientist told one last part of this story that is potentially disturbing, most especially for those who think that the scientific community is always objective. First, New Scientist commented on the circumstances under which it took nearly 20 years for the femur - which apparently contradicts Brunet’s initial view that Sahalenthropus was a bipedal human ancestor - to be described: The researchers found a femur, or thigh bone, along with two ulnas, or forearm bones, that would help clarify the matter, but they published nothing about them for almost two decades, prompting criticism from colleagues. Brunet didnʼt respond to a request for comment from New Scientist. Why did it take so long for the femur to be described? As New Scientist explained, after the femur was discovered in 2004 it was brought to the University of Poitiers. Collaborators wanted to study the femur, but the two lead authors of the present study, Macchiarelli and Aude Bergeret-Medina, opted not to do this “until this could be checked with Brunet and his team.” What happened next was quite strange: Later, Bergeret-Medina was unable to find the femur. Neither she nor Macchiarelli ever saw it again. However, when Brunetʼs team didnʼt describe the femur, she and Macchiarelli prepared a study using her photos and measurements. Source: evolutionnews.org/2021/02/newly-published-analysis-refutes-claims-that-sahelanthropus-tchadensis-was-human-ancestor/ And the rest of your post is just as unsubstantiated.

[@mnpa6154]

@@rtmcdge "If there was [evidence] there'd be a whole lot less people who reject evolution. " But there already AREN'T many people who reject evolution. Putting aside your fallacious reasoning there (that the number of people who reject evolution is a metric for its soundness), your premise is wrong, as it implies there are a large number of people who reject it. The only people who reject it are fundamental christians and muslims. The majority of the world (including virtually 100% of biologists and other natural scientists) already doesn't reject it. And even still, as the first reply pointed out, we have tons of fossil evidence of human evolution ALONE, not to mention the countless other species of plants, animals, fungi, etc. And fossil evidence isn't even the be-all-and-end-all of evidence, as fossilization is hit and miss, so we're actually quite fortunate to have found what we have. More than that, we have incredibly detailed molecular genetic evidence of phylogenetic relationships, in the exact same way as we have DNA evidence of certain people being present at certain crime scenes (unless you'd just like to dismiss all of that as well). So when you ask 'what examples of organisms of today can you use to support your...ape like to ape and ape man' evolution, and the commenter gives a RECENT example -- i.e. a discovery from a few years ago, which, like all scientific papers of import, will be hotly debated for years -- and you simply use the controversy around that SINGLE example to dismiss the entirety of the evidence....is absurd. What about Homo habilis, the earliest known hominin? Or Homo erectus? Or all of the Australopithecus spp.? Sure, it's possible Sahelanthropus tchadensis specifically has been incorrectly classified (the analyses of the coming years will determine that; although, importantly, you have not shown that it IS, you have simply shown that there is not unanimous agreement about it), but those other examples like H. habilis are solidly established for decades. What is your rationale for insisting these AREN'T hominins and hominids?

[@rickallen9167]

How to pick an inappropriate analogy... People are being proposed to see something that they are told is there, present and obvious, when in fact, it is not, only to the proposers! Empirical evidence of and for evolution is there, present and obvious. Just as we exist in the corporeal world, we do so by no choice, we don't exist in some metaphysical world of your choosing.

[@HoldToChrist]

Personally, I always thought natural selection and adaptation happened too fast in things like anoles for it to take millions of years to make a new creature. Using an anoles timescale you’d think it would take a few hundred, maybe a few thousand years. Anoles can go from tiny with sharp toes to large with massive toe pads for climbing tree leaves in several generations. Within a human lifetime. Seems like a God thing to me. I’ll go into that last comment if someone wants to know what I mean by “a God thing”.

[@jaybennett236]

You are correct in saying that time is a problem for evolutionary theory. Steady State Theory is what Darwin believed and he insisted that changes took place over eternally long periods of time. Proof that the Universe had a beginning (13.8 billion years ago) and is not eternal, has ended Steady State.

[@bharat5496]

im not very educated about anoles, but the fact that one animal adapted fast does not at all disprove natural selection and adaptation. the fact that you believe in natural selection means that you should accept evolution. evolution is just a continuing cycle of adaptation and natural selection. also, you're drawing lines by saying one creature simply 'becomes' another. evolution is not like a ladder but a gradient, interconnected web thats constantly changing. there is no one right answer. try to do some research without being biased by faith and itll start to make sense

[@Nixit1]

This is sooooo prevalent at this time for so many other things as well I.e. climate, gas, Covid, crt, etc etc etc!!!

[@rascalap2968]

Staggering that at this time in our history people can still believe in religious nonsense that humanity should have jettisoned centuries ago…

[@mryan4452]

Humans and other animals have a biological tendency to believe an 'actor' created something. But ye, even with that, it's still fairly staggering.

[@lewislee9201]

Belief in one or more supreme beings and oganisating society to worship them seems to confer an evolutionary advantage.

[@rascalap2968]

@@lewislee9201 at this point in human history there hasn’t been a control group of non-believers to provide any evidence of that. The step away from naive barbarism is very recent.

[@notfactoryapproved]

Everyone, evolutionist or creationist should read The Autobiography of Charles Darwin by Francis Darwin. Yes it's true autobiography biography. It is very informative as to Darwin's character and goals.

[@SomeTomfoolery]

I always find the creationists' concept of "kinds" to be fascinating, especially when compared to modern taxonomy. Where can I find a description of what creationists consider to be kinds? Like a creationist taxonomy.

[@ianmonk6211]

kinds reproduce together to recreate their own kind. like canines create canines equines equines felines felines etc.

[@SomeTomfoolery]

@@ianmonk6211 I understand that, but I'm wondering of any creationist scientists have compiled a scientific list of what is and isn't a "kind". They must've used on for the ark I'm thinking

[@Justmekpc]

@@ianmonk6211 and there was one canine to start with and multiple types now. Just like primates which man is part of.

[@joelapp]

Don’t get caught up in the word. Kind is synonymous with species. A species cannot produce another species. So a dog cannot produce a cat.

[@xigbarii8432]

​@@ianmonk6211 my problem with this answer is that in Leviticus 11:13-19, God says the bat is in the same category as a bird; but they can't reproduce because bats are mammals. I still believe in God btw, don't think I'm some heathen

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

This video doesn't drive evolutionists crazy, they just don't care.

[@APR4U]

Thank you so much keep the good news coming

[@Homo_sAPEien]

How is it good news? You want to have someone watching over you all the time and telling you what to do? Sounds like bad news to me.

[@JiffyCakes]

I wish you would've addressed mutations in more depth: yes dog breeders only select existing traits, but ultimately we've only been properly breeding dogs for like a few thousand years. That is not enough time for mutations to create non-compatible changes. Evolution works on the span of millions of years. In your card example, I get what you are trying to show, but remember that DNA makes replicas of itself: a better analogy would be to have a very good photocopier create a new deck of cards each time. Initially everything would be fine, but I guarantee you after millions of copies (i.e. one new generation per few years in wild animals) I guarantee you'll end up with a lot more variation, so much so that the cards will become unreadable - if you then select for cards that actually show patterns then you can create pretty much any deck of cards. The argument of "mutations are mostly bad" is completely irrelevant: as you say, they are _mostly_ bad, but what happens when say a fraction of mutations are good?

[@richardgregory3684]

Actually that's not true either. Mutations are mostly neutral, and have no effect whatever on the viability of the organism. Every single human being was born with hundreds of mutations, which is why they are not clones of their parents, and why brothers and sisters look similar but not identical. Even identical twins are not genetically identical.

[@Madokaexe]

Microevolution equals macroevolution, accepting one will inevitably lead to the other, evolution doesn't stop at some time it goes on forever as long as the creature's lineage exists, it is a process that lasts millions of years because each major mutation is small and almost non visible, we only see those changes when the species already separated completely, it is similar as to how we don't see the changes in our body from when we are a baby to when we are an adult, you can take photos but there will not be a "transitional" photo that is gonna make it clear when you stopped being a baby or a kid, that's what happens to the transitional fossils that we have, they are so similar to us genetically and physically that when you make a line with all of them chronologically located it all leads to a clear pattern of evolution over the millions of years that they existed to the bones of us living today, I would be happy to see you guys trying to debate with someone with at least basic knowledge of evolutionary biology because I'm certain that those arguments wouldn't last a minute.

[@johnnybrown6050]

@@josephthinn3900 There are a lot of wrong things to unpack here. You mention organ evolution. I ask you to read the article "The Evolution of Complex Organs" (Gregory, 2008). It is a pretty long read, and it includes a case study regarding the evolution of eyes.

[@johnnybrown6050]

@@josephthinn3900 1. The skin 2. The stomach 3. The brain 4. The liver 5. The heart 6. The kidneys 7. The pancreas 8. The upper intestine 9. The lungs 10. The lower intestine

[@ConspiracyLoon]

What about DNA mutations due to things such as radiation? Effectively adding more cards to the deck? Some mutations are less advantageous, others more.

[@billy9144]

Shhhh, no facts allowed!

[@Hoojammyflip]

The Hulk is not real 😁 - apart from that what genetic mutation is beneficial? 🤔

[@billy9144]

@@Hoojammyflip Most genetic mutations are neutral. It's a common creationist lie to assume genetic mutations are never beneficial.

[@xn85d2]

@@billy9144 That's not even slightly true. Most genetic mutations are deleterious; those that are beneficial and have been observed experimentally, e.g. E-coli mutating to reproduce faster involve losing a portion of DNA.

[@billy9144]

@@xn85d2Again, that lie has been long refuted. The majority of mutations are actually neutral to survival, deleterious are rare and are often eliminated from the gene pool because it doesn't survive.

[@TRUTHALONE]

Love from India. I like ray comfort tooo...

[@peterb2272]

13:37 "Its like saying that scrambling information in a computer programme could result in better software being written by random process". I am going to assume here you have never heard of "Evolved Circuits". This is process by which random 'mutations' of information and artificial selection produces an electronic circuit design to perform a particular job. There is a whole field of study delving into Evolutionary Electronics. This is doing EXACTLY what you deride as clearly ridiculous. 🤷‍♂ Just going to add the point that this evolution of a circuit starts with zero information, and by random mutation and selection, CREATES information. A process which according to you and fellow creationists is clearly impossible.

[@Carneades2012]

Is the domestic dog a different “kind” of animal from the wolf? It seems to be a different species from the wolf, because (among other things) dogs relate to humans in a way that wolves do not, even if raised from birth by humans. But the DNA of dog and wolf are so similar that they are sometimes considered subspecies, or varieties of the same species. The theory is that the dog is derived from a now-extinct wolf species in the Pleistocene era (see “Dog” in Wikipedia for a summary of the theory), probably when wolves began to hang around human encampments, looking for discarded meat and bones and other edible waste. Humans then found them useful as an “alarm system” (like watchdogs) and later as helpers on the hunt (pointing out game, like hunting dogs). If the dog is a different “kind” of animal from the wolf, then this is a case of a new “kind” arising in a very short period of time (about 15,000 years) by human selection (rather than natural selection). If the dog is the same “kind” of animal as the wolf, this still suggests that separation of two varieties of the same “kind” over a much longer time frame (millions of years instead of thousands of years) might, in fact, produce a new “kind.”

[@Generik_]

Wow. Simple and hard hitting delivery.

[@RLaraMoore]

Many things can be simultaneously true and not mutually exclusive. (Natural selection can be true, aNd God's Creation is true too) There can be many truths in Lies... ...There are no lies in Truth.

[@alantasman8273]

Even the fossil record indicates that God created an abundant variety of life at the same time in without transitions...the supposed Cambrian explosion ....while not millions of years old is evidence for this.