Evolution is not fact. It's a different science.

[tfavors28]

Evolution is a fact, cause we can see it happen. But you don't have to choose between studying evolution and religion. You can still be a christian and study evolution.

[forest51690]

@tfavors28, we see changes happen, I agree. But we have to think in terms of genetics. At the rate it's going, hardly any good changes are going into the genome. And evolution is not happening as fast as it would have had to be for all life to have evolved. So yes, you can say that a small amount of evolution is happening today, but that doesn't mean that the present diversity of life evolved. It's like seeing a piece of driftwood washed up by the sea and thinking that it was created by the sea.

[tfavors28]

@forest51690 You see the piece of drift wood in the river. It is a good metaphor, but you are a bit incorrect. Evolution would state that the drift would came from a tree, not the sea. We do see minor changes, and I have heard people state that this is only "micro evolution" or even "adaptation" but the proof of either of these concepts still is claiming that evolution exists. Micro evolution is only Macro evolution with less time. We have no reason to believe in creationism

[forest51690]

@tfavors28, imagine the waves turning and splashing the driftwood. This is what evolution is like today. It's not really doing anything, and it's doing mostly harm. Yes, evolution would envision the wood coming from a tree that grew out of a sapling. But the reality of evolution is the seashore and it does not fit evolution's supposed past. It would sound like microevolution should turn into macroevolution with time but that's not the case. Macroevolution means variation or change.

[tfavors28]

@forest51690 But we can see variation and change within a species over time. Though I will grant you, this can be difficult to identify with fossil records what with sorting and splicing and all, but there is evidence for variation for different species. Different species of primates still have the same mitocondia dna. I made an error in my last comment. I referrend to the wood coming from the river, when it was the sea. However, creationists would see the wood as forming from the sea.

[Samsonite999]

There are no experiments to use as evidence of evolution? Are you living under a rock or are you purposely ignoring the mountains of experiments that have been performed in the past just to make it sound like you know what you're talking about when you have only a third graders knowledge of the topic?

[forest51690]

@Samsonite999, When I mean evolution, I mean the commonly held belief that evolution is the source of the existence and diversity of life today. It deals with the past. So experiments don't deal with the past; only explanations do. Now scientifically speaking, evolution is a process and should be observed. Experiments can be done to try to facilitate mutations and evolution. But mutations overall are moving in the destructive direction, not constructive.

[Samsonite999]

@forest51690 How can you logically think that evolution is a legitimate scientific process, but also believe that it wasn't the cause of the diversity of life? It sounds like you're simply rejecting it because it's in direct opposition of your religious belief. On top of that, no one with any sort of knowledge of the topic claims evolution is the source of existence. It's merely an explanation as to the diversity we see in plants and animals. Abiogenesis is what deals with life's beginning.

[forest51690]

@Samsonite999, well there's a difference in the definition of the term evolution in the eyes of common people vs. scientific scholars. I try to play both courts...

I believe evolution happens (scientific definition). I also believe that evolution didn't happen (common definition). This is to say that abiogenesis and evolution weren't the cause of life as we see today. I can't deny that evolution happens, because it does at a small level. But it's not the kind that could produce life's variation

[getsallad]

Try looking up the difference between science and religion. Science is based on the premise that it's falsifiable. In other words, if it's not true, it's possible to disprove it. Religion is not.

What you say about evolution is just wrong, probably because you simply don't know enough about it.

[forest51690]

@getsallad, see my video "The great flaw of science." Science assumes that there is no supernatural, which is logically absurd to assume such a thing. (And by "science" I mean the scientific community today)

[brianpv1]

When you said that evolution doesn't lead to new discoveries in science i literally spit my coffee out. Evolutionary theory is the backbone of ALL modern biology. Theres a reason you can't get a degree in biology without taking multiple courses on evolution. Without the explanations evolution gives us, the life sciences would be disjointed. Evolution has given us increased understanding of conservation, viral mutations, production of antibiotics, gene therapy, and many other topics.

[forest51690]

@brianpv1 the knowledge of how things work is separate from the knowledge of how things came to be. Creation scientists do not deny the knowledge of how genetics works. But they do deny the theory of evolution. Isn't it possible that one can learn how genetics works without believing that it evolved?

[SidewaysGts]

(part 7) Its important to state how science works. We do not create a theory, then find facts to support it, rather it is MUCH the opposite. Theories are formed once we see a pile of evidence, and facts. Theories are used to explain phenomena and tie together those facts/pieces of evidence. Once we have attempted to explain a phenomena with a theory, we build a model with it, make predictions with it, and test it. Again. And again. And again.

[forest51690]

@SidewaysGts So the Theory is based on the evidence and the evidence supports the theory. That's a circular path. And theories constantly change to accommodate new discoveries. The fossil layers do not indicate slow, gradual change which we see today. They indicate rapid changes with no intermediate forms (whatsoever!!). Only complete static organisms.

[SidewaysGts]

"fossil layers do not indicate slow, gradual change which we see today. They indicate rapid changes with no intermediate forms (whatsoever!!). Only complete static organisms"

Where do you get your information from? Oteolepis Esusthenopteron, Panderichithys, Tiktaalik, elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys, Ventastega, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Tulerpeton, Pederpes, Eryops, Eryops.

"Coincidental" chronological arival of animals that "look" like they slowly change from fish to tetrapods

[forest51690]

@SidewaysGts Hm, one could say that those are transitional fossils. But on simply the basis of physical appearance, one could say that a spork was a transitional item between a spoon and a fork. I would argue that all of those creatures were distinct animals, created just like that.

They may have even been sorted by water from smaller to larger when the waters covered the earth in Noah's flood.

[SidewaysGts]

A) Donnt compare non-living object to living reprocuding organisms in such a fashion, its silly at best. B) Then youd have to conclude it is coincidental that those animals APPEAR to arrive in a chronological order, not just some of them, ALL of them. You'd also have to come up with some experiment showing how water could "sort" them like that, short of saying it was gods will. Its also funny that ALL the organisms, tens of hundreds of THOUSANDS, are "coincidentally" "sorted" by this "flood"

[forest51690]

@SidewaysGts I'm no paleontologist, so I don't know about that stuff. I've heard the claim that there's a conclusive trend in the fossil record, but I've never had that claim proven to me.

[SidewaysGts]

"And theories constantly change to accommodate new discoveries"

Lets be more accurate. Theories "update" to fit in new evidence we find. It is VERY rare that an entire theory is completely changed in light of new evidence.

[SidewaysGts]

(part 6) Now what do we find as we look back through the geological layers? A complete hierarchy of organisms that follows this prediction model PERFECTLY. Not just some of them, but ALL of them. Now im not saying that this for sure 100% proves the theory of evolution, but it sure as heck is one MASSIVE coincidence. This is just "one" example of the mountain of evidence to support evolution.

[SidewaysGts]

(part 5) Now with these facts (yes facts) in mind, we are able to make "predictions" based purely on these facts. We would expect to see adaptations arise in populations. We would expect to see the potential for these adaptations over large periods of times "add up" to make "large" changes. We would expect these adaptations and changed in populations to happen in chronological order.  Ie no "wings" before Forelimbs were adapted. We would expect to see subtle, but clear transitions for these.

[SidewaysGts]

(part 4) Its also been observed that these mutations can add up so much, and have such a impact on the over all genetic make up of these creatures, that we observe what is called speciation. Such large genetic changes that a species is no longer able to reproduce with its original "ancestor" species, at least without the "help" of inbetween cousin species like we find in ring species.

[SidewaysGts]

(part 3) As natural selection takes over these mutations we see the arise of adaptations. We have observed instances ranging from just modifications in limb proportion, to complete color changes, to completely new organs. Now lets start adding things up. As mention, to OUR knowledge, ALL aspects of an organisms dna are subjectable to mutations. Also to our knowledge is NO limitation on how far these mutations can go, no overall "controlling" guideline to an organisms (arguable) construct

[forest51690]

@SidewaysGts So we have observed the formation of new organs via genetic mutations? That's something I've never heard before. Can you give me a reference?

[PirateDion]

@forest51690 you're so greatly misinformed it's painful to imagine your god made you so dense.

To my knowledge we have not seen new organs via genetic mutation. Does this mean it doesn't happen? Of course not. If you watch through the whole series it goes into mentioning a group of cells that eventually adapt to be able to consume nylon. That in itself is a process of evolution. They're life spans are so much shorter than ours which allows us to see the changes happen over time much easier.

[SidewaysGts]

(part 2) parts of dna are subjectable to "mistakes" via mutations (of which there are various types of mutations). Some that replace material 1 for 1, some that remove sections, and some that expand on them. These mutations make slight differences in the overall form of the organism. These slight mutations can make minor changes that can effect the success of an organism in being more successful, namely allowing it to produce more off spring, or increase its chances of doing so.

[SidewaysGts]

(part 1) this is going to be a long one, so bear with me. For now im going to address one thing:

"You can't "test" whether or not something occurred in the past; that's what I'm saying. "

Lets forget ALL of the evidence we "assume" about the past, and focus only on what we are able to "test today". We know DNA is the chemical make up of all living creatures, for every aspect of a creature there is a chemical marker that controls a chemical reaction in the dna. Now as far as we know, ALL

[platothelapdog]

And Buddhist scientists, and Shinto and Muslim. Think about that.

[Shalek]

So if it's testable, if it produces predictions and leads to new discoveries it's not imagination? Check, check and check. Go to talkorigins(dot)org the FAQ section lists these among many other points creationists often come up with.

[AronRa]

There is evidence of how life-forms arose. But we're still at a point where there are multiple scenarios. In science, we do have to hypothesize explanations. But those explanations have to be testable. Evolution is testable, and has lead to new understanding in science in multiple fields. If everything you've just said was shown to you by God, then why is your every point or argument wrong?

[forest51690]

@AronRa I don't see how any evidence could have survived from when the first life forms arose. All we can do is create models and simulations to reproduce how it might have happened. But those are not evidence that the event ocurred.

[falchion49]

@forest51690 Try reading "Preservation of 3.4–3.5 Ga microbial biomarkers in pillow lavas and hyaloclastites from the Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa" from Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

[forest51690]

@AronRa Also,

Evolution is not the kind of thing that's testable. You can't test an explanation. We can observe if evolution happens today. (Any change observed today does not contradict the Bible, which says organisms will reproduce in their kinds.) But this is not factual evidence that evolution occurred. You can't "test" whether or not something occurred in the past; that's what I'm saying.

[AronRa]

@forest51690 You CAN test explanations. Science requires that you test ALL explanations -without exception- however that can be done. And it is certainly easy enough to test evolution. If you want an example, define what evolution is, and then name one aspect posited by it, and I'll show you how to test it.

[forest51690]

@AronRa "name one aspect posited by it, and I'll show you how to test it.

Humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

[crompee]

Evolution predicted that Humans have a common ancestor with chimps, overtime this was proven to be correct through the fossil records it also predicted that there must be someway for us to pass down our physical traits onto the next generation with was proven true with the discovery of DNA. Then once we sequenced our DNA, we found that were nearly identical to chimps which adds further proof that evolution is true.

[falchion49]

@forest51690 How about 98 000 randomly inserted, commonly held ERVs in our respective genomes?

[SidewaysGts]

In response to someone asking for a subject to test, you responded: "Humans and chimps have a common ancestor"

Ill give just one quick and easy way, retro viruses. If you however deny the current scientific communities understanding of retro viruses, I do have many, many other ways to test this.

[AronRa]

@forest51690 You say the idea that humans and chimps share a common ancestor cannot be tested. Others have already given you references to genetic similarity and ERVs. Is that not enough? If not I have lots and lots more. What would you accept? In order to test whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor, tell me yourself what else should be true, so that we have other ways to test for that. Or what should NOT be true if we do?

[garith21]

@forest51690

The theory of evolution explains how populations change over time and evolution predicts like creates like, basically you're saying the equivalent of, "because we can show gravity happens now doesn't mean it happened in the past and it can't be used to explain previously falling objects and it's not testable".

Once scientific ideas pass every known test to become a theory it serves as an explanation and is tested with each explanation, when it fails it ceases being a theory.

[crompee]

@forest51690 Testable does not mean able to show right now that through an experiment. Evolution is testable by the predictions it makes, it predicted our entire fossil record and all it takes is for us to find one fossil dated to the wrong time period and its proven wrong, We also use evolution to decide where to dig for fossils to uncover new extinct species or to find links between species. It also predicted other things such as DNA. We test the theory of evolution everytime we find a fossil.

[adam3251]

@forest51690 "You can't "test" whether or not something occurred in the past"

So there is no test for the existence or resurrection of Jesus Christ then? How can we tell anything about the past? What is your methodology?

[AronRa]

Yes, many "atheists" say 'evolution is a fact' -and other atheists deny that. Many Christians say evolution is a fact too, because many leading evolutionary scientists are Christians. Evolution is not "all in the past" either. It's still happening now, and it is measurable and testable.

[theDracoIX]

@AronRa No, evolution is NOT happening now... nor did it EVER HAPPEN! You think that you can suppress the truth by blocking people you fvcking coward?

Now, I will just work that much harder to spread the truth and to expose you for the lying coward that you are... I can PROVE that you lied about the reason you gave for blocking me, and I've been doing just that.

[sheri226]

Evolution is still happening. There are Christians who know evolution is true as well.

"Let's forget about accounts because according to evolution there's no account ..." You were mumbling so I couldn't understand you.. What did you mean when you said that?

I don't agree 'the earth is a crime scene'. There's Geologists & Archeologists who can analyse the earth & tell us what happened. No need to guess.

"No evidence? Just imagination" There's evidence & testing in science, not in the bible.

[BillKiernan]

"it's not something that can lead to new discoveries in science" you're going to have to call up the biotech, farming, medical industries, as well as the entire body of biologists and let them know this amazing revelation of yours. here they are making all kinds of discoveries well documented, they must all be hallucinating...

[Korkzor]

I´m sorry.. If I hadnt read your comments, I would think you were joking.

Did you even watch the video you responded to? Or did you just have a need-jerk reaction and come out with the usual mantra of "evolution = atheism, and there is no possible way of being a christian while accepting evolution".

When your beliefs are incompatible with reality, that´s really just...sad. The fact that we are related to chimps can be demonstrated by the same method we can determine it between cousins.

[forest51690]

@Korkzor I made this video before I watched that video. I made it a video response to that video so that more people would watch my video.

You're right, "evolution != atheism", but "atheism -> evolution", get what I'm saying?

You can't believe the Bible and accept evolution.

And my beliefs aren't incompatible with reality.

[Korkzor]

@forest51690 "You can't believe the Bible and accept evolution." - Most christians on the planet would disagree with you. There was even a priest in 500 AD or so who didnt think the bible was to be taken literally. The people telling you it had to are the same that go under the banner of "no evidence can ever be considered if it contradicts the literal word of God" - in other words, you have to deny reality if it conflicts with a preconcieved notion in order to uphold it.

[garith21]

1) Evolution is population genetics, it's the observation that populations change over time.

2) The theory of evolution explains how populations change over time with the mechanism of natural selection.

3) Evolution happened in the past and is happening right now, in fact evolution is used to make new vaccines and various products

4) Try and not confuse the predictions and conclusions based on evolution and what the theory actually is, because using this logic no science is "real science"

[forest51690]

@garith21 Evolution is not "used." If humans alter DNA, then it's not evolution anymore. If humans "breed" organisms and select for certain traits, then that's artificial natural selection, not evolution.

[garith21]

@forest51690

1) So when people put populations in particular environments, the dna of the population changes on it's own by the process of the theory of evolution that's "humans altering DNA" even though there's no genetic engineering involved?

2) Selective breeding works by the same process of natural selection, the only difference is instead of humans selecting what traits they want, nature selects based on what traits are best suited for survival based upon the environment.

[forest51690]

@garith21

1) It's complicated. But basically, a mere change in genes isn't equal to evolution. Evolution is an upwards trend in complexity, or features which can turn a bacterium into a bat. Changes in genes can be destructive, or just rearrangement of existing structures (say, enlargement of holes in a cell wall). Then there's nothing new intoduced, just modification of existing features.

2) Right. The Bible allows for natural selection.

[garith21]

@forest51690

1) Actually that's all that evolution is by definition, there's also nothing that would turn a modern day bacterium into a modern day bat, we all have common ancestors and as generations have passed we have become more specialized in the particular niche's that we evolved in. What you propose in fact would falsify evolution.

2) Which means it allows for evolution and what does the bible have to do with anything about science?

[biomanwin]

@forest51690

Evolution doesn't mean an increase in complexity... that just happened to be a trend in most lineages. By definition evolution is the change in allelic frequencies in a population over time. That is it, if a population is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (that is having no allelic frequency change) then it is evolving, plain and simple.

Also repeating that evolution is imagination doesn't make it true.

[Shalek]

@forest51690 The only thing that differs from one organism to another is its genetic material so if it can change and we have enough time then what constraint is there on how much an organism's genetic material can change and hence how much an organism can change? From say a wolf to a dog, a mammal to a wolf a tetrapod to a mammal or a single celled organism to a multicellular one?

[garith21]

@forest51690

Basically if you allow for basic things to happen like

a) there is variation in each generation (no matter how small)

b) The traits are heritable

c) certain traits are better suited to survive than others due to environment

d) the organism is in a reproductively viable population

Then you accept evolution happens, if you still say it doesn't then you don't even know what the theory of evolution even is

[hugesinker]

"Evolution happened in the past, right?" Yes, and the present too. It's a continuous and observable process. It is used every day by hundreds of different professionals, from manufacturing pharmaceuticals and treating diseases, to engineering food, to predicting where certain types of fossils are buried.

Before you say that it's "imagination", you might want to look at the evidence with a Google search or watch the rest of the series you are replying to.

[hugesinker]

"All scientists are 'evolutionists', right?" Almost. But especially those working in the fields of biology, archeology, and genetics.

"All 'evolutionists' are scientists, right?" No one asserts this.

"There are many Christian scientists." Of course. Most people who accept the theory of evolution ARE Christian. This was shown in the video you are replying to.

[hugesinker]

@hugesinker oops, I meant to say paleontology, not archeology-- I'm not sure what most archeologists think.

[forest51690]

@hugesinker Oh yeah, you're right. I meant Christian scientists who affirm the Bible. Thanks for pointing that out.

[hugesinker]

@forest51690 Hmm.. all Christians affirm the bible to a degree. Many of them believe that they are true accounts mixed with ancient tales given by men, thus subject to some error and contention naturally due to their individual limited perspectives. A minority (literalists) dogmatically believes that the bible is literally the word straight from God and is accurate in all details. Only the latter group of Christians is compelled to hold the position that evolution cannot occur to some degree.

[forest51690]

@hugesinker I agree with that.

And some Christians ... dogmatically ... with good reason. They believe Jesus really said " not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." and "from the beginning God made them male and female." Matthew 5:18 and Mark 10:6

[SidewaysGts]

I cant tell if youre joking or not, maybe youre just a good actor? Youre right, evolution is not a fact. It is a theory. It is an explanation given to a phenomenon support by a MOUNTAIN of facts. So many facts that evolution is better support than gravity. EVERY branch of science coincides with the predictions and hierarchy of evolution. Biology, genetic, paleontology, radio metric dating, dendrochronology, geology and strata layers, morphology, etc, etc, and etc.

[forest51690]

@SidewaysGts it interprets a mountain of data in a certain way.

[SidewaysGts]

"it interprets a mountain of data in a certain way."

Just like every theory. Keep in mind the foundation of evolution makes NUMEROUS predictions if it is to be true. Evolution and the evidence supporting it is by all means nothing but a HUGE house of cards, one thing out of place could easily topple it over. Cambrian rhinos/elephants/dolphins/chim­ps, mechanisms that regulate key features in genetic code to maintain overall "forms", there are countless things that could falsify evolution.