What is Evolution?

[bigglyguy]

I find it very sad that we are supposed to cackle with glee at Ken Hovind being jailed for taxes. Since when have the American people being raving fans of the IRS? For shame people, for shame.

[Gorzynskii]

your covering a lot of genetics.

[MrNewkingjames]

God is the FATHER SON HOLY SPIRIT 1/3=.3333333333333333333......­..

[TCupUK]

Hello Zak

Great to find someone whom I can debate with who can hopefully provide me with more than "It is a fact".

2:46 Would you agree that Evolution is the label we use to describe the phenomena we observe, and the phenomena is the actual fact, and the label we use to describe this is evolution?

Do you agree that scientific theory's can be proven wrong?

Do you agree that scientific theory's are explanations of the the phenomena, and not in themselves the fact?

[TCupUK]

@TCupUK 4:28 Does this change create a new species?

Can you show me a slide with two flies that eventually create something that is no longer a fly?

Can you prove that this genetic defect will be beneficial?

If not, can you show me one that is?

Can you say that the environment that this test on flies was carried out was the replication of natural selection, and not selective breading?

Do we really need evolution to prove genetic inheritance?

[TCupUK]

@TCupUK Can genetic inheritance give rise to new species, and can you prove so?

8:14 You do know that physicists know that gravity theory is not complete?

You also know that E does not =MC² right?

[agentorange20]

@Mogley52 sorry, deleting spammed copied stuff. You're free to comment, but not free to endlessly paste the same drivel over & over.

[FreeBeDrug]

Note to self: jump to 2:37

[MrNewkingjames]

Three forces, three particles, three dimensions ,three states of matter, three variables in every basic axiom(E=M(c) inThree quarks in each fundamental particle .Thesis Antithesis Synthesis.Beginning ,middle end Birth life deathTriangulation trigonometry a triangle is the most rigid shape tripod Spirit tbody soul

[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames 'Three forces,'

Actually there are 4 (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force), & those are the ones we know as of now, there are very likely more.

'three particles' At the moment there are 3 we know of, but this doesn't include the sub-particles, which there are numerous & some postulated (higgsboson) which science is getting close to knowing. The rest you're talking of is more like numerology or geometry, there is nothing spiritual about them.

[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames ' you are a normal human who insists on your own will being done in spite of Gods claimsRIGHT?

If I assume I have no free will, then I am a mere puppet, & this whole dialog is pointless as it would imply fate has sealed by destiny. In that case, the mere fact that I reject the premise of a gods existence is odd as it implies that my fate was to deny its existence thereby making belief in said deity impossible for my sake.

[MrNewkingjames]

On the contrary I see gods hand in every aspect of his creation.If you cannot perceive his hand in his creation it is because you have been blinded by the GOD OF THIS If you want to see Gods hand ask him and he will reveal it to you.WORLD who is the devilThe more I know about science the more I see Gods hand

[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames 'gods hand in every aspect of his creation'

so you're saying all the misery, death, decay, suffering is all part of the omniscient plan? Some plan, talk about being malevolent. What would be difference between such a level of indifference or malevolence on gods part & no god existing at all?

'more I know about science the more I see Gods hand'

Such as?

[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames ' to prove god's non-existance is a logical impossibility there fore you can simply accept his reality. '

Just b/c I cannot logically disprove X doesn't exist is no reason to believe it does. For a proposition to be believed positive evidence is needed, not non negative evidence. I cannot disprove the Russels celestial teapot either, but I am not obliged to believe in it as there is zero positive consistent evidence for it in the first place.

[kleenex3000]

@MrNewkingjames You see an UNKNOWN NUMBER of Heavenly CreatorZ (0,1,100s,1000s...?!) with UNKNOWN PROPERTIES that these govern every aspects of Creation.

The least thing that you could (I suggest to) do IS, that if you (unfoundedly/dishonestly) identify all them CreatorZ with your man-made Abrahamic G-D, that you honestly start to TRUST him, to have brought and to bring every aspects of his creation FORTh, exactly in those ways, as that SCIENCE brilliantly reveals.

[MrNewkingjames]

Hoew can you conclude that the creator is indifferent to the human condition?Is it possible that humans are responsible for thier own condition.If we screw up because of foolish behavior can we blame God for our mistakes.?

[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames 'Hoew can you conclude that the creator is indifferent to the human condition?'

Look at any of the worlds historic natural disasters in which the death toll for human & animal life is staggering. Going back further one can review the systemic extinctions of major groups of life. The volume of parasites, viruses, pathogens, that have for many millennial decimated whole populations & only until the advent of science & sanitation has humanity pulled itself from some of the peril.

[MrNewkingjames]

The existence of a creator never stopped Isaac newton michael Faraday Blaise pascal was no slouch either liebniz and dozens of other thinkers studied God's creation with the expectation of finding purpose and meaning in a universe that "declares the glory of the Lord"as the scriptures purports they asserted that the universes primary purpose was to educate Gods creatures through metaphor about the nature of the Creator The fact of Gods existence merely exites the expectation of revelation .

[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames 'existence of a creator never stopped Isaac'

I guess not, but they never resorted to a 'god did this, that & that over that' as scientific explanations. Asserting 'god did it' regrettably answers nothing, it doesn't explain the details on how or what processes this god allegedly used so it's effectively a non starter.



[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames ''universes primary purpose was to educate Gods creatures through metaphor about the nature of the Creator''

Let's presume this premise is accurate, what then can we say to know empirically about the nature of your god? That he's indifferent to the needless suffering to living things (Epicurus riddle)?

[MrNewkingjames]

So you would agree to Gods dominion over you if he is real? Well you are in luck since to prove god's non-existance is a logical impossibility there fore you can simply accept his reality.We both know that is not going to happen since you are a normal human who insists on your own will being done in spite of Gods claimsRIGHT?

[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames 'agree to Gods dominion over you if he is real?'

I would really need some extraordinary evidence given the sheer volumes of gods humanity has envisioned over 1000's of years & how they're so mutually exclusive. I don't think 'compulsory love' of an omniscient being, whom allows such havoc, makes sense if that being doesn't care if my belief is sincere or not. Pascals wager of belief for beliefs sake is hucktorish & immoral.

[MrNewkingjames]

Whether you invoke NATURE as the agency which brings to pass complex ordered symbiotic systems from atomic elements,or call The Spirit of God is really a matter of semantics since the outcome is the same .So why do people object so strongly to the use of the nameG-O-D as the author of the natural world?Ask yourself which world you would prefer? of course you would prefer a cosmos WITHOUT an intelligent creator since this would remove culpability for your actions while in his creation.

[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames ',or call The Spirit of God is really a matter of semantics since the outcome is the same'

the outcome is the outcome, but how we understand the cause to the effect is quite different. Asserting god dun it explains nothing as it explains none of the processes by which its asserted to have occurred. At least w/ using nature we're able to describe & test for the natural laws responsible. that is why people object so strongly.

[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames 'Ask yourself which world you would prefer?'

I'd prefer the most accurate one, regardless of any theological pretentious issues it entailed, as it would be the closest to truth which we should always seek. Theists want a god involved so they can use it to control others, assert dominance that isn't naturally theirs, so they can pretend they're special & so they can pretend their infinite & not mortal. It's s big ego stroke.

[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames ''universes primary purpose was to educate Gods creatures through metaphor about the nature of the Creator''

Let's presume this premise is accurate, what then can we say to know empirically about the nature of your god? That he's indifferent to the needless suffering to living things (Epicurus riddle)?

[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames Besides, in many respects the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being is logically impossible, so the premise refutes itself. Philosophers have found many internal inconsistencies with such a premise composed of such properties, so one or more properties is wrong. & this isn't new, Epicures riddle pondered this very thing & whole libraries are devoted to addressing theodicy & still it's a viable question unanswered.

[MrNewkingjames]

If you cannot devise an empirical experiment that can prove without any possibility of error that whales for instance were once land animals (and prior to that were aquatic creatures) you should not expect people to have "blind faith" in your outrageous claims (that species for no particular reason transform themselves from one species to another)

[agentorange20]

@MrNewkingjames here's an empirical experiment based on if whales are descendants to land living mammals. if this premise is true we at the very least ought to find that fossils predating whales show transitions toward their current forms, we should also find genetically that they're more closely related to certain groups of mammals. Species don't transform themselves, nature does the transforming & selecting.

[dltanner99]

The Dare Island Enigma is a novel concerning an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer

[celledge]

just wanted to stop by and say it's really good of you to take the time and simplify this for everyone to better understand it. because lord knows people lack this kind of education >_>

[CreativeZed]

When you say that evolution means "change" then that "change", genetic or otherwise, within the same species is certainly a proven fact but can you give me some examples of species that evolved into a completely new species?

Thanks!

[agentorange20]

@CreativeZed Sure, Google 'observed instances of speciation'. Paradoxically the vast majority of evolutionary changes for life occurred prior to homo sapiens coming onto the scene, thus much of the fossils we do have are only a slight % of the actual representation of once a more diverse genera. But, the evidence in such examples as horses, manatees, cetaceans, & even modern humans demonstrate some parts of those lineages diversity & their evolution.

[GuBB3rGuN]

1:26 it says "Adam and Even" under the 5% response period.

[dacritterlover]

If evolution is true then some of these traits should come up after so many years? right?

[dacritterlover]

Maybe you will know Dr. Zach

It was told that DNA in my family would be ....the 7th generation outcome of all the past DNA's mixed into one.... just wondering cause it was told that this would be in the DNA of a child not just the parents DNA but all the DNA ..make sense? Is this true and what could it mean all the DNA outcome in the one 7th generation child

If this were true we would have had a chimp man ? or Neanderthal traits?

Missing links ..

.

[agentorange20]

@dacritterlover no offense, but I am not following your comment, please provide an example or elaborate.

[dacritterlover]

@agentorange20 nobody can ever follow what i think or say and my x is a genius and hes been around for the past 26 yrs! lol sorry will elaborate more or tell ya what i mean oky doky..

[SkylarkGSX]

Look you stupid fucking dip shit! I don't care about your PHD or your opinoun on christians or whatever else you think you know! I clicked on here to learn about what evolution IS! Clearly you don't know so retitle your video to, 'dumbest guy in the world bores you to death'!

[AnthroGenetics]

A great explanation of evolution. It would be great, if we can discuss more what is evolution and how evolution is is important in our life.

[kd1s]

Oh yes, I remember the fruit fly eye color experiment in high school biology. Drosophilia Melanogaster - and at the end of the year I think the school had a serious fruit fly infestation. Catholic school btw.

[daluzinal]

All the flower did was have a mutation.I don't see why you think it evolved.If you could answer that I would be more then happy thanks.

[gfkb87]

because thats what evolution is. lol

[foolwicked]

Evolution and genetic mutation are two different things. Mutation being an alter in biologic life forms, and evolution being progression of that mutation. But this "evolution" fact thats being described here is how this genetic mutation copes with the invironment that was not meant for this alter, unraveling contradistinctive effects. But when you look at it, there's really no way that the "theory" of evolution can ever become a fact.

[agentorange20]

foolwicked, there are the facts of evolution, like mutations, which collectively & consistently fit the current theoretical model (model) most accurately. One wouldn't say gravity isn't a fact, in the same way one wouldn't say evolution isn't a fact, as in both the amount of evidence is substantial & is beyond any reasonable doubt to be considered as fact.

[Krumbz2003]

I know MANY "ones" who would say that evolution isn't a fact and would argue with you til you just grabbed a chainsaw and cut them in diagonals!

And of course they would be wrong... just saying...

lol

[patrickledford420]

@foolwicked mutations change the organism and the definition of evolution is change in living organisms over time. no, the theory of evolution will never become a fact but neither will germ, heliocentric, atomic or cellular theory, however they are facts in any everyday term

[puncheex]

@daluzinal: Mutations are only part of evolution. It is possible that the flower had a somatic mutation; it will be different but it won't pass it to its offspring. OTOH, it may have been a germ mutation in its parent, and it will be heritable. Further, the mutation may be good or bad. It would be bad if the pollinator didn't recognize it, so it doesn't get pollinated, or it may be beneficial, in that it attracts pollinators more easily than its parents did. This is natural selection.

[puncheex]

These three things make up evolution's mechanism: mutation, heritability, and natural selection. Two other factors complicate: sexual selection and genetic drift. Sexual selection is otherwise inconsequential mutations which make a big difference in mating: plumage color, or pheromone smell. Genetic drift is the effect of purely random occurrences, like the accidental death of a beneficial mutation, or the sheer lucky ability of a genetic gimp to make it to breeding.

[JustATruthSeeker]

Molecular biology tells us that modern humans arose 50-100,000 years ago, and the fossil record tells us in one geographical location. Homo erectus died out 300,000 years ago, and Neanderthal, which appeared approximately 400,000 years ago, has been proven to be too genetically different from us to have been our ancestor. No hominid fossil connection to modern man, just a gap, and a sudden change about 50,000 years ago Humans were created! No Erectus can Connectus!

[agentorange20]

"Molecular biology tells us that modern humans arose 50-100,000 years ago"

Not quite, mtDNA points to a time period around 170 K years, while the fossil evidence of at least Archaic Sapiens shows up around 195 K, both point to origins in Africa. Google Genographic Project.

[GonzalesPaco1980]

Would you make a video of where do water came from. I can't believe that water nor life came from explosion or Big Bang.

[kandtell]

Water is the 2nd most common molecule in the universe (after H2) for a good reason.

The Big Bang produced an expanding universe where initially about 90% of the atoms where Hydrogen and there was probably almost nothing heavier than Li.

Lighter elements form bigger stars (probably because the gas cools faster, allowing larger clumps to form).

Bigger stars live fast and die young in huge explosions.

The 1st stars turned some hydrogen into heavier elements.

cont....

[kandtell]

When a star burns it first turns Hydrogen into Helium, then Helium into heavier elements.

Two atoms which are common products of Helium fusion are Carbon and Oxygen.

This is because Carbon is effectively 3 Helium nuclei fussed together and Oxygen is 4.

The result is that the most common elements in the Universe today are (in order of abundance):

Hydrogen (74%), Helium(24%), Oxygen(1%), and Carbon(0.45%).

BTW the next 3 are Neon (0.13%), Iron(0.1%), and Nitrogen(<0.1%).

cont...

[kandtell]

Since Helium is inert (i.e. avoids forming molecules with any other atom except in very special circumstances) we would expect the most abundant molecules to be the ones which easily form from the other 3.

Therefore H2 should be, and is the most abundant molecule in the universe.

H2O (water) should be, and is, the 2nd most abundant.

It used to be thought that Carbon Monoxide was more abundant than water but it now seams that the latest evidence reverses them.

[kandtell]

In case anyone is confused, all of that was in response to a comment by GonzalesPaco1980.

[puncheex]

@JustATruthSeeker: another transition seeker, eh? OK.

1. The lifespan of any fossil ("H.erectus died out 300,000 ya") is only known from fossil finds. Next year, one dating back to 200,000 years might be found. Same goes for H sapiens in reverse; current best guess for origin of sapiens is 200,000 ya.

2. Erectus is not the only possibility. There are several other homo species now known: H. heidelbergensis and H. rudolphensis, to name two. There may be more as yet undiscovered.

[smoothy321]

Tell me Mr Agent. How did the plants spread themselves across the earth? And why so much variety in the same area? Survival and natural selection? How did it happen? Did some moss wash up on the beach and the wind blew it across the earth. Then what? It needed to survive, so it began the long process of evolution and became a tree? Then some more moss blew across the earth and became more seedless tees. Then seeded plants magically appeared across the earth? Then they evolved to survive?

[agentorange20]

'Neanderthal, which appeared approximately 400,000 years ago, has been proven to be too genetically different from us to have been our ancestor"

Right, both we (H. Sapiens) & H. Neanderthals different species, both were descendants of H. Heidelbergensis.

"No hominid fossil connection to modern man, just a gap,"

H. Erectus wasn't the immediate ancestor to H. Sapiens, H. Heidelbergnesis was. Review my vids on 'Homini Fossils'.

[captaindebunker]

Hi,...Im here to drop a bomb on evolution

THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION

thanks,. now take your video down and go play darts

[agentorange20]

captaindebunker, and what about it? The CE isn't the first signs of complex life, it appeared in the Vendian Period (Ediacara Fauna). Rather the CE is the emergence of greater diversity that was previously not present. Moreover, the CE occured over a duration of over 60 Million years, so it was hardly overnight.

[NihilisticAgnostic]

The reason behind that is the increase in oxygen in the atmosphere allowing more complex organisms to survive, thus giving rise to a rapid burst of evolution. All as predicted.

[gerry37g]

Is he trying to pass off mico-evolution as macro-evolution..that all that he shows..

Gravity is not a theory , it is a part of the law of physics.. Evolution is not science, has not been proven and is not testable beyond micro-evolution..The age of strata, fossils can not be proven without the fictional Geologic Column/Index fossils. all radiologic

dating methods are too flawed to be used, and defer to the Sacred Column--Evolution is blind faith. in a Fairytale..Wake Up and take time to think.

[Darkphoenix3450]

'Wow you no nothing do you?' Must be do to fear hmm fear of what you don't understand.

[plebican]

you make me laugh!

[gojaggiesgo]

The movie clueless called. It wants its characters back.

[seonf]

Lol that's a good line to use on silly creationists.

[antonc81]

@gerry37g No such thing as "the law of physics". Any "laws" in science are constituent parts of a theoretical framework, and don't carry any more weight than the theory itself. Thus Newton's laws of motion are a part of his theoretical framework (which turned to be not entirely accurate).

Similarly the theory of relativity, atomic theory, theory of chemical periodicity etc.. the fact that they are "theories" makes them no less compelling or accurate. Try getting your info from actual scientists

[agentorange20]

antonc81 , we can argue further on semantics regarding 'laws' 'theory' & so forth, but at the end of the day what counts is does the knowledge translate to an accurate understand inf of reality to where we can create tools/devices to improve our lives (undoubtedly yes) & further our understanding of reality (again yes. I don't think I need to list how medicines, or the Internet, or satellites have improved our well being.

[antonc81]

I agree with you 100%.. the semantics are trivial but I just get sick of this ridiculous "just a theory" argument used by creationists... it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Also the macro v micro shenanigans... Just makes me wish these guys would learn the science from scientific sources before trying to criticise it... It makes the conversation completely futile when they get to define our terms.

[BenkaiDebussy]

Haha, yeah. The "macro vs micro" thing is particularly funny because "macro" evolution is a direct consequence of "micro" evolution. Once you accept that any mutations can occur, it's logically necessary to accept that evolution occurs.

[puncheex]

@antonc81: Watch it. Semantics aren't trivial; they're vital for passing the things we know on to the future. If they cannot trust what you mean when you write a word, how are they to determine what was meant? Unless you think that it is trivial that lay people don't understand what a theory is for a scientist, then don't get lax in definitions or explications.

[antonc81]

@puncheex my comment was part of a conversation. My original point was a semantic point in reply to gerry37g. Perhaps I overstepped the mark when I said semantics are trivial. What I mean to say is it is easy to get sidetracked into a trivial level of detail and lose the main point that one field of knowledge creates testable predictions and the other doesn't as agentorange20 pointed out.

[puncheex]

That's cool, I understand. My point is that often enough people are all for ignoring spelling mistakes, syntax errors, vocabulary misuse, all sorts of things. Some people are able to sort things out and understand, but often they can not. People who scoff at these sort of problems may be brilliant, but the rest of the world can't take advantage of that. The essence of the "just a theory" statement falls right within these bounds, so I agree with both sides of your writing.

[dacritterlover]

@antonc81 I need a scientists are you one in bio dna? Seeking info on traits that are passed down after time after time...how it can end up in one bunch all of the bad ones and freaky ones....all in one Is it possible.... /DNA /human/ at a time....is it possible?

It was said the 7th generation..........

[faro0485]

I'm just going to say... quantum mechanics of evolution? Or how about a unified theory including gravity?

[CO2Junkie]

If one good thing comes out of ID it's that ID is forcing scientists to take the time to educate the general public. I run into a lot of scientists/professors who feel their time is much too valuable to use any of it on lecturing or teaching. What a shame.

Now with ID threatening to invade the NSF coffers scientists have to battle for control of the lefthand side of the IQ bell curve... which means really cool & dumbed-down videos to watch. Hey it beats TV :p

[deBeuk]

I've heard Dr. Zach before on the skeptic's guide podcast and theinfidelguy. Thanks for uploading these, agentorange.