Technically today's chickens are evolutionary descendants of the dinosaurs

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

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

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

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

Dunning Kruger effect

Wanna have an ignorance contest? Evolution Theorists are in the lead and pulling away. Charles Darwin was a Mason and therefore a Luciferian and a liar.

@@brontehauptmann4217 Actually you lose with your starting post. It does not matter what Darwin thought about anything else, the Theory of Evolution has been tested and evolved over the past 160 years and today's version better models what we see in nature. Darwin started the ball rolling with our evolution but that ball as kept rolling. We do not worship Darwin, we do not hold him as the "Holy Man of Evolution". He is respected but his books are NOT "Holy Writ". You have not presented evidence that Darwin was a Mason and it would not matter if you did, Biological Evolution is an observed FACT and the Theory of Evolution is our explanation of that FACT.

You do know that Darwin, in later life, believed that sight could not have been evolved? The age old problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg, gets evolution in trouble as well. Care to explain that and how it was possible? Today we need a hen AND a rooster to produce the egg and to incubate it. Without that body warmth, the cycle ends. Read up on Louis Pasteur and know that the theory of evolution must either disprove Pasteur's theory or conform to it. That is the scientific way. Perhaps you can list the beings that existed without sight and the intermediate stages on the road to full sight including the connection to the brain, the sockets forming for the eyes, and include the eyelids, tears, muscles for movement in concert so the many wonders of sight can be appreciated. Light control, focus and even responding to only a very narrow band of frequencies. How did the body know of the existence of those frequencies and how to change the body to accommodate them. Or do we just believe that because they are here and working, that they were evolved. Just creating the eyeballs is a wondrous miracle, almost like they were created?

@@YMEJake You do know that Darwin, in later life, believed that sight could not have been evolved? The age old problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg, gets evolution in trouble as well. Care to explain that and how it was possible? Today we need a hen AND a rooster to produce the egg and to incubate it. Without that body warmth, the cycle ends. Read up on Louis Pasteur and know that the theory of evolution must either disprove Pasteur's theory or conform to it. That is the scientific way. Perhaps you can list the beings that existed without sight and the intermediate stages on the road to full sight including the connection to the brain, the sockets forming for the eyes, and include the eyelids, tears, muscles for movement in concert so the many wonders of sight can be appreciated. Light control, focus and even responding to only a very narrow band of frequencies. How did the body know of the existence of those frequencies and how to change the body to accommodate them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fite, then why does your "science" ignore the fact that Darwin renounced his biased lies of evolution? No, current evolution promoters Do Not follow those before them, IF those former leaders changed their mind as deeper facts were discovered. "Is Genesis History" details their lies.

@@claudearmstrong9232 Darwin's own son made it clear that story was false. And even if it was true, the evidence gathered since the. Overwhelming support his theoru

@@fite-4-ever876 are you to scared to actually allow yourself to go behind the curtain the evolution theory people cover up their real agenda with and discover that they are really just blindly determined to destroy all the honest facts that Hebrew Scripture records? Is blind faith in these liars really that valuable to you?

@@claudearmstrong9232 I don't have faith in anything. I trust things. Things like how a rational scientific process based on observation and experimentation offers a better explanation for the universe than what a bunch of goat herders guessed the deal was 2500+ years ago.

HaHa! Well, how about this concrete fact that you, and no one else can disprove, Fite - The hard, vetted facts of peer reviewed archeologists that continue uncovering artifacts only recorded in Bible records cannot be dismissed. Do you turn a blind eye to these just because they do not fir with your assumptions?

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

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

Monster munch.

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

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

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

Yes buy thr fitter you are the luckier you are!

In better terms. I agree.

racoons in my back yard

Used mine to like this comment

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

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

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

Djavagoodweegend? Just check'n ya really speak stryne?

@@TheHairyHeathen haveagoodday cobber.WIKIREDSTAR Australia 🇦🇺.

Bloody oath cobber barcoo gumtree mate!

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

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

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

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

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

Shawn Simmons It's not odd. Odd means unusual. Nothing unusual about hypocrisy

Shawn Simmons There is no evidence for evolution

mudu abdi...There is evidence, everywhere, that be repeated, tested, and demonstrated by anyone, anywhere, at any time. You're even sitting on evidence. Your coccyx bone. But, in this modern age of information, if someone doesn't value evidence, then what evidence can one provide?

Shawn Simmons There is no evidence for such a hoax apart from parroting It's a myth that there is a vestigial organs, update your science The human coccyx has pretty many functions

Shawn Simmons I reject Darwinism because of information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I quickly read the beginning and end of your statement - had to reread it to see why your girlfriend was callous and cruel. Ha

@@Cantstanya 🤣

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valid point.

Where is the missing link? Debunks Darwinism (:

@@collinskocmoc8888 Have you tried checking whether or not your own claim has been debunked?

@@oskarhenriksen It would be in the news! biggest news since news was born. You have a missing link or explain it?

@@collinskocmoc8888 Well, what exactly do you mean by a "missing link"?

most of them don't even read their book

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

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

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

@@numbersix9477 Good point, they are also smarter.

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

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

@@numbersix9477 Where did I attack Darwin??

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

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

Oh, well said!

Aylbdr Madison Believe a lie if you want to.

@Tim Webb It's based on assumption. They assume evolution is true (bc God is imposible to an atheist, so it HAS to be true), and all evidence comes w/ the assumption that evolution is involved.

@May Ling based on speculation, and speculation that they BELIEVE to be evidence, but still NO PROOF!

@May Ling Thank you for your comment, but unfortunately, Darwinian Evolution IS taught as a PROVEN TRUE science. Anything you read on the subject always starts off talking about it 'may' be, or 'could' be, or 'is thought to be', but after you get into the article, it will start taking about the situation as if it is real, stable, unshakeable, true and proven science! You said, "When all the evidence points to the same conclusion and nothing refutes it, we recognize it as a scientific theory." With all due respect, there are TONS of laws and evidence that totally refute evolution! For instance, TRUE science says that life can only come from living organisms, and THAT is the ONLY thing that TRUE science has ever seen or observed, or witnessed, and we know this to be true, yet evolution says that there is no God, and we are here, so that proves that life on this earth came from NON-LIVING matter, and THAT is ALL the evidence or proof that they have, and that is NOT true science, so that refutes evolution. Look at the earth as it is today with all of the complexity and everything working together in complete harmony, the trees breathe in CO2 and breathe out O2, we breathe in O2 and breathe out CO2. Common sense tells us that this complex world is the result of Intelligent Design, how else could a chaotic exploded pile of rocks, a planet of total ruin and chaos from a Big Bang, how did this order come out of such choas? That would be even more complex than a tornado blowing through a junk yard and leave a finely tunes 474 jet put together, greased and fueled up with the air conditioners on and working ready for take-off. That is very far fetched isn't it? But that is a lot more feasibly than this earth and life and the impossible complexities of DNA and everything else coming into be BY ACCIDENT, by non-thought, and non-caring nature and a pile of chaotic cooling rocks! Statistics and common sense and TRUE science tells us that complexities of this world and life would be impossible left to itself. TRUE science says that order (especially THIS kind of order) can't possibly come from choas. So does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Decay. EVERYTHING runs down, EVERYTHING decays, and NOTHING goes from a lower state to a higher state UNLESS it is from an outside factor. THESE things totally refute Darwinin evolution. And I haven't even scratched the surface yet about all of the evidence of TRUE science that totally refutes evolution!!! So why do you say that all of the evidence points in favor of evolution and that NOTHING refutes it??? You and I have been spoon fed and brainwashed on the 'attributes' of and the glorious heritage of the 'noble theory of evolution and therefor think that there are no scientific factors pointing in the opposite direction, but that it totlly untrue. I would love for you to give me the GREATEST evidence that you think of to support evolution. Not 10 or 5, but just “1”, and how come it is a proven fact. I really would like to hear your answer, thanks!

Oh I don't know, take a wild guess, or ask a grownup if you know any.

facts please, this is all subjective

@@strugglefortruth262 Google scholar evolution all you need to know.

So you just accepted it and don't understand it yet?

@@badideass Google this, "A World-Famous Chemist Tells The Truth: There’s No Scientist Alive Today Who Understands Macroevolution".

@@Michael_Howard59 no, I understand it, I'm just giving you a very good place to go learn about it... Why do I have to teach you? I can help you at least...

and the bold

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

I prefer “survival of the survivors”.

Sounds like a story that absolutely didn't happen.

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

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

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

Normie it’s curious because I watched it a few years ago.

Sadly yes, among many other false theories being spread on here

I did.

Yep not to much proof of evolution little on adaption and extinction

Normie Where is the proof in Charles Darwin's plariarised book? Last I checked the origin of species it was all theories

And that, my friend, is the meaning of the title - John van Wyhe is a Historian giving a History lesson. Now, had the title been: _'How we know that Evolution is True'_ then I would expect some evidence (like genomes changing over time.)

I know exactly how you feel. I don't believe in Charlemagne because my European history teacher never "proved" that Charlemagne ever existed.

@@numbersix9477 That is not my statement.

@@boriscuduco4377 --- I was going to delete my post but concluded that what I'd said was still relevant, despite being based on a misinterpretation of what you'd said. I do apologize for the original misread.

@@numbersix9477 Ok

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

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

Agree . I love to here him cover this material with more time.

Plastic cot sleep so cold

HAHAHA 😂😂😂

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

It's not a 'theory'; it's fact.

@@misterbonzoid5623 true that

But evolution still explains all life on earth, despite the clumsy and John’s profound lack of knowledge of geology, the key role of stromatolites creating all the oxygen that exists today, and the first animals that evolved from these stromatolites who created every single animal in the air, on the land, and in the oceans, as they all have the same DNA and genes found in stromatolites. John just blew it in his talk.

@@misterbonzoid5623 Neo-Darwinian evolution is not a scientific theory. Even Darwinian evolution is not a fact. Darwin originally used the word "theory" of evolution in the sense of it being theoretical and not what is considered today as a scientific theory. So just when did Darwin's theoretical theory become a scientific theory? A scientific theory is repeatable, falsifiable, and it makes predictions. None of this is true of neo-Darwinian "theory" of evolution. So it isn't even a scientific theory; it is merely a hypothesis. But after 160 years, it needs to be discarded. And yes, the millions of missing transition fossils that Darwin said (in 1859) will be soon discovered are STILL missing.

Well he assumes a lot and explains very little as is common when explaining the theory of evolution.

It's a joke but true 🤣

@@professorx3060 "It (Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." Mark Twain

@@AtamMardes Are you still pushing that false narrative? but then what does what Mark Twain said about the Bible have to do with the validity or veracity of the claim that evolution is true?

Strange, I found the opposite to be true. I didn't really take Christianity seriously until I read the Bible, now I'm convinced that this is the revelation of God

@@mpalmer22 *The Bible isn't inspired by a moral God but by selfish, rapacious, sexist, low-intellect barbaric savages.* Numbers 31:17-18, "17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

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

Some will get it, some won't.

😂👍🏻

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@b-m605 "atheist creation myth" lol if you have evidence that contradicts evolution you should submit it and collect your Nobel prize. .... Oh, you don't have any? I didn't think so.

@@flashgorgon188 so you want to play that atheist game of "show me the evidence. That's not evidence!!" not interested. You are welcome to your delusions. The evidence is the same evidence that atheists pretend supports their myth. But magic without a magician is still magic, just less believable.

@@b-m605 Oh, you don't have any? I didn't think so.

@@flashgorgon188 let me simplify this for you. In a murder trial there is evidence. Both sides work with the evidence there is and make their arguments from it. So if you say there is no evidence for a creator, then there is no evidence for anything. Yours strategy is a rather tiresome Atheist game where they pretend that 1. they are righteous, impartial judges, or judges at all 2. that evidence just speaks for itself 3. They can decide what is and isn't evidence. 4. they pretend they would love to be proven wrong. In your delusions or little game, you always win; It's a silly little game and your willingness to play on and on at it, suggests you are convince you have a lot of time to waste, far more than I have. but carry on show me how smart you are.

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

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

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

Same thought

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@cgivensldr Arguement From Personal Incredulity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's because he was told to catch all the facts on camera...he never got to one.

@@vikkibowers4301 I can at least say that was clever.

So your theory is true by definition of theory?

Help me with this please: Wherein lies the difference-if any, between being persuaded to believe X and finding X to be proved and does the number of those that find X proved have any bearing on whether or not X is, or is not, the case? When you speak of " proof", may one enquire two things of you, first proof to what standard and second proof to whom? Who is to decide what is proved to what standard and to whom?

And, have you figured it out?

... I know, right? Isn’t God the most creative artist who makes a perfect creation every time....

@@mahwahazet4133 You've only got childish medieval fantasies about "creation".

@@georgeorwellsghost3833 One can only cram so many things into a 15 oral presentation. This talk isn't even "The tip of the iceberg." on the topic of evolution, it's more like the Cliff Notes of the Cliff Notes of evolution.

@@georgeorwellsghost3833 Agreed. One of the biggest problems is that they confuse creation's programmed genetic variation (where the young are different from the parents not due to mutation but due to sophisticated processes of splicing within the genome) with evolution's mutating genetic variation. Thousands upon thousands of studies look at the programmed genetic variation and natural selection operating on it, like Darwin's finches, as if it was evolution. In fact, mutations are destroying the genome.

A chancer more like.

@Repent and believe in Jesus Christ Thank you for demonstrating yet again the irrelevance of religion when inserted into a discussion for learning.

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

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

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

Nick; strawman bs.

@Philip K No, it's strawman bs.

@Robert B. tax breaks?

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

Someone agrees with you on UKposts, very comforting 🥴

@@martymcmannis8662 I love my wife and god has nothing to do with it.

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

Nirizius lol

Not because of an old book. Till very very recently everone took creation as a self evident truth and and a deep mystery. I am not religeous but creation is what makes sense to me. I like to discuss the topic and have yet to find a darwinist who knew much about evolution and who got frustrated and upset. Darwinists then accept the theory because it suits them for whatever reason. Too me they are just another cult based on faith.

"Faith" Indeed, we use faith, but there are many different meanings for the word. The one most of us use is the one that has a synonym with trust. We trust the evidence that has been presented to us, and we do not trust the teachings of something that we can't even question, as the answer will always be: Because of God.

Speak for yourself Nirizius. We have rules for every aspect of our lives. Rules for when we wake up, clean ourselves, eat, sleep, work, play and socialize. But for some odd reason. When the Bible is considered or read, no one seems to realize there are rules for how it works. This is why people don't understand it. I'm thankful to know the rules of how the Bible interprets itself so I don't have to make errors in understanding it. I posted this above and will do it again. I've been involved in Biblical Research for 43 years. I have found evolution to be true. However, I would suggest we look at it again. It would appear evolution is going backward. Man did not evolve from apes. Man is evolving into apes.

Nirizius ..... People say evolution is false NOT because of an old book, but because there is no empirical evidence to prove it. In addition, the whole theory depends on blind chance, and as the speaker says in his last words, " survival of the luckiest.".

It might have been poor videography. It might have been that van Wyhe used copyrighted material in some of his slides and the videographer was directed to not videotape them.

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

While this is true I believe the distinction lies in the difference between the terms "accurate" and "proven." While the scientific method does not necessarily seek to prove something, what it does instead is measure the accuracy of a theory or hypothesis through rigorous testing and validation. As theories are continually improved or modified as more information is gathered, so too does the accuracy of the prediction become greater over time. A theory, then, does not get proven to be correct, but instead simply does not get proven wrong. The argument lies in the semantics. A theory is accurate until it is proven wrong.

Hmmm I hadn’t seen thought as deeply about the distinction. I will still believe that it is essential to use proper terminology otherwise one’s language could appear misleading or manipulative

Not quite, we can prove things wrong, like creationism has been.

Interesting. How so?

@@walkergarya Well, that's a bit disingenuous. Creationism has not been "proven" to be wrong. Even the renowned atheist Richard Dawkins will tell you that he is 99.99% sure that creationism is not factual, but that he wouldn't be a good scientist if he didn't allow for that .01% of inaccuracy. Creationism has merely been refuted. And that is the more factually accurate way to express it. It is not proven wrong, it has simply been refuted.

Do you mean a glass of wotah?

I remember that too. I was in the sixth grade. But as I and my classmates got older and became more and more capable of understanding nuance and complexity, the definitions of the scientific method repeatedly got more and more complex, mora and more nuanced - at each phase, our understandings of science became more complete and nuanced than before.. The same thing happens again and again in science education. First we were taught about the law of gravity. Then we were exposed to special relativity. Then general relativity. Then Einstein's field equations. They taught us that matter was composed of atoms. Then the atoms became intertwined electrons and indivisible nuclei. Next, the nuclei weren't indivisible after all. They consisted of neutrons and protons. Before we knew it, neutrons and protons weren't indivisible at all. Each contained quarks, one up and two down or two up and one down. And there were new forces - the strong and the weak. And that wasn't even the end of it all. ... A science education is a process of learning. Then learning that what we were taught was incomplete followed by refining what we knew. Then again. Then again. Again until we've stopped learning or until we have been taught everything the experts know. It's actually kinda cool!

@@numbersix9477 - great answer!

@@numbersix9477 Nuance = diffuse.

@@TheHairyHeathen Thanks!

Like the observations of the originator who laid out the development cycles of finches? And flies? And the laboratory experiments that have tracked thousands of generations of bacteria?

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

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

You tube Dolores cannon 3 waves its long .but watch it.

Thank you for a very interesting video. Near the end of the video you talked of people eating chicken. My belief is that in order for us to continue to evolve we need to stop eating the flesh of other animals or we are going to become extinct. 🌱

I'm with you, berni

Hey, all dogs are dogs!

Of all the aspects of nature, humans are the only ones who still don't know the reason for their existence.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

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

The mass murder boat ride with dr. Doolittle!

Kentucky Fried JABAWOKI , Monty Python !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Llll

Lol l

L

Mo

DID IT EVER OCCUR TO YOU THAT MANY HAVE NOT?

Good on ya, now I've got the munchies!

Agreed, John van Wyhe is a great science communicator. He really makes a complex subect simple, clear and interesting.

Agreed. Encore!

25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God By Scientist How did the universe begin? How did life arise on Earth? These have been humanity’s most important questions through the ages. In the last century, we have learned more about science and the creation of the universe than everything known before the twentieth century. What is more notable, the last decade has opened new discoveries leading to new theories that give us unique hypotheses about the presence of God and the nature of the universe. Today’s article will discuss some of the most famous scientists in history who believed in God. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Arthur Compton (1892 - 1962) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Ernst Haeckel (1834 -1919) Erwin Schrödinger (1887 -1961) Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Francis Collins (Born 1950) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Gottfried Leibniz (1646 -1716) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Guglielmo Marconi (1874 -1937) Isaac Newton (1642-1727) James Clerk Maxwell (1831 -1879) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) John Eccles (1903 - 1997) Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) Max Planck (1858-1947) Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Robert Boyle (1791-1867) Robert A. Millikan (1868 - 1953) Werner Heisenberg (1901 - 1976) William Harvey (1578 -1657) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)

Play it at half speed :)

Jesus Garcia The majority of those scientists were dead before the Theory of Evolution, the Industrial Revolution, or the Age of Enlightenment. All of them were dead before DNA was understood.

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

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

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

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

howmany of these think trump won the election?

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

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

9Add z8ⁿ please 0ok0⁰⁹9k9 0u 0

Did they also approve of the overwhelming "science" that said the "VAX" is totally safe & effective?

@@manofthetombs Vaccines are safe and effective. Nothing is tottaly safe or effective but you are far safer with the covid vaccines than you are with the virus.

@@walkergarya And your proof of that comes from where?

@@manofthetombs Covid death rates and infections droped in line with the rate of vaccinations in populations all over the Earth, not that you will believe that.

Nobody said anything about _"an unimaginably strong flow of Water",_ duh! Do you think strong water flow pushes teeth inside of rocks? Fossils are formed in depositional *_sedimentary_* rock, which only happens in waters calm enough for deposits to settle. You don't find teeth pushed into igneous rocks.

quick fact: TEDx (vs TED) are put together by random locals. Pretty much anyone can host a TEDx conference and put anything they want in the presentation.

it would be nice to shoot the screen every time the slide changes, We know what the set and the presenter look like. Better yet switch to the graphic video directly. i would normally downvote inconsiderate production like this, but on this video a downvote would be misunderstood, so i won't vote at all. No like, no sub.

I've been a photographer for many TEDx events; the video team is just a local group of volunteers.

Nice of you to say so Biff Tannen

You got me... I laughed.

Darwin came to believe that species are mutable while in the midst of a major campaign to edit and publish the scientific results of his voyage on HMS Beagle. *His ideas on evolution were drafted as early as 1842.* In 1844, Darwin's initial ideas on evolution had been sketched out and he prepared a memorandum for his wife requesting for it to be published in the event of his death. But he also asked her to see that it be "enlarged" and developed by an editor before it was published, because in his view the work was not yet ready. Evidence from Darwin's journals and private correspondence suggests that he was determined to *publish a massive, multi-volume work on species.* However, when he finished his long-term work on the Beagle voyage, he became preoccupied with research he was carrying out on invertebrates and particular barnacles - and in 1849 he wrote to Hukker advising him that he regarded this as a fascinating subject he would get through *before moving on to the species theory.* Ill health delayed the work further, pushing the work on species late into the 1850s. In 1858, however, Alfred Wallace hit on a strikingly similar theory, spurring Darwin to action and prompting him to publish *a much shorter account* - this became the *'Origin of Species.'* As we know, he then expanded on his ideas in later books to deal with the Descent of Man etc. Just to be clear, the paragraph above is a mash-up of John Van Wyhe's account of why it took Darwin so long to publish his ideas - JvW was rejecting the idea that Darwin was delaying publishing his ideas for fear of push-back from theologians and the 'believing' public. Darwin was simply a procrastinator who got obsessed with other matters of interest. It must be remembered that in the early C19th, there were many ideas being bandied about to try to explain what had become totally obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain - that Life on Earth is in a constant state of change. In fact one such observer, *Patrick Matthew.* who in 1831 wrote about trees being grown for use in ship-building, had included in the appendix some observations about how plastic species appear to be and after reading 'Origin' complained that Darwin had 'stolen' his ideas. Darwin, expressed ignorance of Matthew's rather obscure work but nevertheless acknowledged his insight in later editions of 'Origin'. The start of the industrial revolution in the UK, creating a need for coal-mining, meant that many more fossils were being unearthed than were being exposed by random erosion. More and more, 'scientific societies' were being formed and at their meetings, it is only natural that these findings would be the topic of conversations - with the result that the obvious Truth of Evolution by Natural Selection would be 'out' very soon - that Diversity *wasn't* created by Extinction followed by Special Creation of very similar species but that Species *'morphed'* by some means. Darwin got lucky and recognized 'Natural Selection' as the key mechanism in what everybody else was starting to acknowledge and was able to express this to the public in a way they could easily understand before anyone else did. Darwin had the foresight and breadth of experience to see its implications for ALL life on Earth, something Matthew didn't have and didn't spend 30 years developing into a full Theory - which is why you've probably never heard of him. Lots more detail Patrick Matthew's 'wiki' page. btw, Wallace could never let go of the idea that the *variation* life-forms experience was not *'guided'* by some interfering busy-body (between watching what people were doing in their bedrooms) - he couldn't prove it (I wonder why not) and so gave up on the idea.

Yes, I know 'Hukker' is not spelled that way, but YT won't let me spell it correctly.

You obviously know a number of Darwin's thoughts and motivations. Did you know him personally? Did he confide in you? If so, why did he confide in you?

I disagree with his views on the relative merits of women and dogs.

@@allenjenkins7947 Darwin has been dead for well over a century. I know of no mechanism whereby you could challenge him on the views that he held when he WAS alive.

@May Ling He is irrelevant to all things. If you do not exist, you cannot be relevant.

@May Ling You are saying that the most complex thing known to man, your brain is an accident? And to say our existence is of no value or has no value and we are all alone in the universe and Jehovah is not responsible for your existence. Life would have no direction or purpose and no meaning without our designer or maker our heavenly father .

@May Ling So you are ok with man kind/ women kind having no regard for our planet earth? How we are causing animals to go extinct, using thermonuclear weapons on our home our nest egg, how man/women kind is exploiting our earth and its resource for the sake of greed, how wars, hate , no genuine fellow feeling for one another, racism, egos, ruining the earth, oceans, air, emotional damage caused by humankind against humankind, weapons,lack of food, corrupted nations and politicians, those killing in the name of god and nations, ect.....

@May Ling It is obvious that you are oblivious to the serious harm society is inflicting on one another and our planet .Yes many,many live their lives without a thought as to were we came from and the infliction we cause on our planet and one another as a whole. Not being aware of your surroundings will not excuse you or save you from others who just simply do not care about all the wonderful things they have or possess, including their lives and where it came from.

May Ling eloquent responses to such assumptions based on nothing. I applaud your grace in responses. It's funny how a religious zealot would make claims about people destroying the earth. Most history books will reveal the simple truth religion has caused more wars and destruction than any other reason. Oh well.. have a goid day ma'am

What makes you think that religious believers don't also believe in Darwinism? It may well be perfectly true, but it's not the end all be all of truth. Truth is deep, layers upon layers. Darwinism is part of the truth and many 'religious' people believe it.

Religion is braindamage. Lack of IQ and subsequent broken feelworld is proportionate to religiosity. Been studied and confirmed.

Of course believing that we made ourselves out of nothing is perfectly logical

How does one get something from nothing? Are you of the infinite regress of causes school of thought?

I would say that science is its own alarm clock. It agrees with itself until it gets to the point where it proves the impossible. Then it affirms the impossible on faith in science.

You're not....I started out looking at movie trailers....🤷‍♀️

Manage your time 👍

@@jrzygurl which one

@infinightsky nothing that impressed me all that much but was looking for horror...saw a trailer for a movie called " Blood",,, looked kinda cool....oh wait I did c something that looked fantastic...Oppenheimer by Christopher Nolan!!!,,,

Eventually, time will dispose of all of us.

He never mentioned How they found evolution is True!!!

@@emmadabdelkrim3073 uhhh... that's what the whole thing was. Maybe watch it again or as many times as you need to.

@@emmadabdelkrim3073 Weird how you people have no interest in actually properly understanding and viewing the evidence. It doesn't make it false because you can't comprehend it.

imad krimo Multiple fields of study with multiple lines of evidence that all point to the exact same conclusion. Kinda like being in a court room at a murder trial and having DNA evidence, a GSR test, witness testimony, CCTV footage, GPS records and tyre/shoe treads all pointing to the same person. Under those circumstances, some guy saying 'I've got an ancient book that I interpret as saying this man is innocent' doesn't really carry much water.

@@ChrisFineganTunes you can't apply this analogy to justify that evolution is so evident and we ! , the other people just can't aknwoledge the fact that it is Evolution Many scientist criticized evolution and pointed to flaws in its claims These scientist just pointed there May be A Creator behind Nature They were not treated with scientific respect and openmindness No they were Bullied It's more like Evolution is a doctrine And it's a Temple of Atheists Not a scientific theory

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. This is as true of naturalistic evolutionists as it is for creationists. Both camps read the same facts and make them fit their own belief. As for me, purely naturalistic evolution makes a nice bedtime story but it flies in the face of logic when we consider the complexity of life, the inbuilt information systems of cells, extraordinary design and compare this to our real world experience and knowledge on how designs and information systems arise and knowing that they come from intelligence and mind., not mindless random processes.

@@stephenking4170 that's great, but the natural process do just fine on their own, and there is no evidence of a designer aside from your unwillingness to accept that it could happen without one.

@@stephenking4170 Your personal incredulity is not evidence

@@stephenking4170 but you're filling in gaps with whatever pre-conceived notions you had about the creation of the Universe. I would argue that if we would give a completely neutral and unbiased computer the data we have now from geology, paleontology, biology and all other relevant fields the conclusion wouldn't be that a "designer" made all this. There's no need for one when you know the rules of how biology works and have enough time on your side to let it play out.

@@tudorrad5933 And why would the computer be neutral? It would completely depend on how it was setup. Classical evolutionists also fill in the gaps, very many in fact. . The different philosophical outlook produces different conclusions from the same observable data. Humans exploring biological origins are like blind men reporting on an elephant.

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

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

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

@@agesilausii7759 He did. Then there was sin.

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

It would help.

David, I strongly suggest you do your research. Evolution has already been debunked. What you are being taught is doctrine of a theory that hold no weight scientifically today. to be clear, depends what you call evolution, if it’s the process of natural selection and randomness, please fix form yourself. Unfortunately our schools and lives are indoctrinated and we take it for truth.

@@Hfornos Don't be ridiculous. Evolution is an observed fact. Try reading a few science books.

Harry Gonzalez ....... HAHAHAHAHAHA. You are an example of a clearly brainwashed, flat-earther, creationist that believes unprovable text from flawed human beings that created rules for controlling micro societies by a few. Science is fact based research and technologies .... such as this electronic media that allows you to declare this ridiculousness. Or has the internet been debunked as well. You are yet again confusing “truth” with facts.

@@Hfornos LOL!

Presumably your Nobel Prize for debunking evolution is about to be announced? Your comment is absolutely typical of its ilk - grand claims with no substantiation - and thus can be ignored without further debate.

Evolution (for all 5 billion species during earth's history) occurred by natural processes: mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow.

I suppose it grew that way somehow & had to go through with it. apparently anteater tongues roll up in the back of their head too

Woodpeckers with longer tongues had a better survival rate because they got more insects.

@@bobs182 The longer tongue would need many more linear adaptions. And that of course doesn't explain the genetic mechanism which would've produced the woodpecker in the first place. Who has seen the transitional forms that led to woodpecker? Or was woodpecker simply created?

@@jounisuninen Not all tongues are the same length and long tongued woodpeckers would have better survival rates. Natural selection "created" a population of woodpeckers that overall had longer tongues.

No. But the median level of scientific literacy would tick up

You're 100% correct... You DON'T understand evolution.

@@numbersix9477You're already evolved into stupidity.