and here thought there was literally no significant debate in evolutionary theory, only in evolutionary history. Neutral evolution would (I suppose) support punctuated equilibrium do to the fact that most mutations seem to have no physiological effect on a species which would cause a stasis, as you put it.
Mutationism would more or less support Darwinian evolution since it implies that each mutation would have a measurable effect over time.
@TheCopaceticMan thanks! Mutationism acknowledges the role of selection pressure in evolution, but focuses on the creative power of new mutations, whereas neo-Darwinism focuses on the creative power of the environment. Molecular biologists tend to favour the former view whereas zoologists and population geneticists tend to favour the latter. This quibble of relative importance is academic and unlikely to interest creationists, unless they want to do some quote mining.
Great video! Nice to hear a calm voice of fact and reason amongst a sea of pro and anti-evolution videos that are often emotionally charged and, in the case of creationists, extremely ignorant.
The only controversy is that science discovers things that contradict ones literal interpretation of the Bible. ID is nothing more than creationism repackaged. The ID'ers just throw in some "bigger words" to impress the gullible, the scientifically illiterate and the ignorant at the fundamentalist churches they evangelize to. Other than that, I(creationism)D only says the G(designer)D did it.
I don't see why you have such a low rating. All of this is very important information. Vote bots perhaps idk.
I'm not sure I agree with you on the claim that ID is based upon ignorance. Do you think ID is based upon ignorance out of necessity or simply because no evidence is found for it. There are some who think that ID necessarily from ignorance because of the way it is built, but there is not necessarily anything stopping evidence from being found in its favor; is there?
ID is based on irreducible complexity. here's an example of what that boils down to: if we don't know how process x in the human body evolved, and if we see that it's got components that are only useful together, but useless individually, it's irreducibly complex, and hence, supposedly cannot be evolved (and hence, in a leap of logic, must be intelligently designed). what it actually means is that we don't YET know how the process evolved. that's why ID is by its nature based on ignorance.
I look at it differently. We've always had ID; we just called it by different names. Irreducible complexity is a recent phenomena, so the way you are approaching this doesn't make sense. I think what happened is at first creationism (or whatever it was called then) was the standard and then the theory of evolution came out and had a much better explanation. The attempts to refute evolution today is not in order to prove ID correct, but rather to prove TOE doesn't have a better explanation.
Irreducible complexity is not the base of ID. It's just an argument for it.
ID's base is religion. The name "ID" and the claims of irreducable complexity are there just to make it sound like it has something to do with science in order to get it through US constitution and into schools.
ya, my bad. owchywawa and blizbob you're right about ID's base being creationism and therefore religion. owchywawa, i guess the reason why there's necessarily something stopping evidence being found in ID's favour is that a divine designer (and we can agree that that's what ID must reduce to eventually) is an inherently unproveable proposition. how do you test/verify something that operates outside the bounds/rules/limitations of natural phenomena?
Well you could simply axplain why this imaginary god planted all the evidence for evolution for no other reason than to fake evidence for it on purpose.......
ID failed in COURT and it has not entered any sort of intellectual arena. ID is NOT a scientific theory. Theories are not simply interpretations of observations, they include predictive power. Investigating these predictions are how real theories are separated from bullshit like ID.
ID doesn't offer any testable predictions, or the silly ones it does are absurd and are flatly contrary to observation (i.e irreducible complexity, human fossils next to dinos, etc.)
I DREAM OF THE DAY WHEN SCIENTISTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO TEST ACIDS, CHEMICALS AND DRUGS ON CREATIONISTS, INSTEAD OF ANIMALS, I DREAM OF THE DAY WHEN WE GROW CREATIONISTS IN FARMS AS SLAVES, SO WE DO NOT HAVE TO WORK, I DREAM OF THE DAY WE BEAT UP CREATIONISTS FREELY WHENEVER WE ARE STRESSED, I DREAM OF THE DAY WE CAN TIE CREATIONISTS ON OUR CAR BUMPERS 4 FUN, I DREAM OF THE DAY CREATIONISTS ASSUME THEIR PROPER ROLE IN LIFE, AS MINDLESS SLAVES. dont blame me i watched their unintelligent videos
The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics defines scientism as "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of natural science to be applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities)." (I would add to that origins and natural history.)
Hi Howie47, I've view your video and your main thesis is that gastropods and cephalopods do not share a common ancestor.
This issue is best resolved via comparative genomics (eg. human evolution).
However, since there is currently no gastropod or cephalopod genome project going on, I'll encourage you to financially support research in this area or join in the research.
Biological research is tedious and frustrating but if you care enough about the truth I'm sure you will not hesitate.
The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics defines scientism as "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of natural science to be applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities)."
All life has a common designer; who used a common plan. A plan that was then modified down to fit all life. That is why we find the similar genome in all life!
Mouse, Zebra fish, 93% similar DNA too man. Banana 60%.
No life evolved without it!
So it is with what point of view we start with in the first place, that determines our
interpretation of the evidence. Too assume that scientist would come to honest conclusions, is to embrace scientism.
I'll check your stuff when I have time. But I don't disagree with some common descent. I just disagree with "universal common descent". Does your evidence conclude UCD?
Nothing about life makes sense, except in the light of a creator, anyone who says differently. Is either a stupid idiot, liar, demented, or worse, but I won't go there.
It's two world views, that are diametrically apposed. One promoted by the anti-Christ world. The other by those who accept the Lord.
Your blindly extrapolating Micro-evolution into macro. That is where the controversy resides. While your education has reached a high level. It is still far from complete on this subject. Can man tell the difference between intelligent design and random illusion? Check your moral clock, and then answer that question.
Howie: Your arguments are so bad, they're not even wrong. It's impossible to deal with them on a level that you will understand, because you have proven your complete inability to understand even the simplest concepts.
But you should know that your ignorance is showing.
Evolutionary theory doesn't propose either the presence or absence or god. It's about the diversity of life on this planet. Period.
That you don't know this is why you've been outed as an idiot.
Just can't quit your demeaning of others. Oh well it is part of your low character. Evolution (Darwinism) is all about erasing a (Creator) form the conscious. But no one expects Darwinist to be honest about that.
It's curious that Howie47 considers the evolution of nautilus to octopus to be an example of "microevolution".
Especially ironic then that the first image in that video is the eye of a cephalopod, the very organ that refutes Howie47's assertion that "upward evolution" (ie. gaining of new body parts/materials) has not been observed.
So - complex eyes and sophisticated suction cups in the octopus can evolve, but ink sacs and jet propulsion can't?
They have fixed views which are unsupported by any facts of body of evidence, and they're completely willing to show themselves to be uneducated on the subject in order to try to prove their views.
Their primary objections to evolution aren't scientific (how could they be; they don't understand the science). They're religious.
Even though the majority of theists disagree with them, they persist. It's geocentrism all over again.
Actually I don't understand where they're going with this. Genome projects are being completed left, right and centre; the common ancestry between humans and chimps is already rock solid, so they get picky on the common ancestry between gastropods and cephalopods?
If everything else evolves and the only creatures on Earth to be immutable are the gastropods and cephalopods I don't see how that would help their case!
Very dishonest of you Xista, since we already discussed this on my video thread. I admitted to you there that nautilus shouldn't be considered a cephalopod. So I shouldn't have used it as a sample. I even added annotations
that explained this. Biologist have misplaced Nautilus as a cephalopod. They are very dissimilar, with no connecting variations. Dishonesty is all you got. Isn't it!
"Loose of body parts and materials in these Cephalopods is a sample of downward micro evolution. The squid loses the nautilus's shell; the octopus loses the squid's mantle and two longer arms."
Now you say the nautilus shouldn't even be considered a cephalopod, doesn't that demolish your own "micro-evolution" idea?
Do you even read my replies? Obviousy not. That is a sign of someone who's mind is made up; and doesn't want to be confussed by the facts. And you call yourself a serious scientist? Your a laugh. A sad laugh.
You mentioned that the nautilus is a cephalopod a number of times in your video, and this classification is an integral aspect of your "micro-evolution" idea.
However, once I pointed out that the nautilus has simple pinhole eyes and no suction cups, you immediately disavowed this, since your viewers would clearly see that as "upward evolution". So the nautilus has become its own separate "kind".
I strongly encourage you to do some basic fact-checking before proposing any more new ideas.
''I just had my (mainstream science) inoculation updated.''
i meant inoculation against disease. science developed these vaccinations. if you dont trust science then you shouldnt have any vaccinations.
''YOU can't take anything they say at face value.''
precisely! which is why everything should be critically considered and scrutinised. we apply this careful method to evolution (as we do with all science). it has passed the test
to be grouped together in a way that promotes the idea that they evolved from the ground up. Nautilus have very little in common with cephalopods. Tentacles and jet propulsion is about it. They have 60-90 tentacles. Some fish have jet propulsion. Most important, there are no species that connect Nautilus with other cephalopods.
So the mainstream science can't be trusted, is our only lesson here.
''Nautilus have very little in common with cephalopods.''
this is not a secret. nautili are the only living members of the nautiloidea, whilst all other extant cephalopods are members of the subclass coleoidea.
in every grouping you will find one or two organisms that have remained plesiomorphic (primitive).
other examples of these would include the monotrme mammals, the tuatara, the crinoids etc
The reason its not very christian of me is because i am not a christian. I tend to mock those who so freely believe things like a voice form the sky or a man turning into a goat and in the same breath try to disput scientific evidence that supports credible theories such as evolution.
The random intelligence that created evolution in the first place must have not been very intelligent - just random idiocy, sparking life for no intelligent reason. i.e. "dumbfounded" is where we all come from, not intelligence. That explains why we are dumb instead of intelligent beings.
"Most rational people do not believe in things that are 100% proven."
Believing in something that's 100% proven is the definition of rational. To think otherwise is completely irrational. Duh. Did you know someone actually proved 1+1=2. That's 100% proven. Don't believe that, moron.
messiahjonz what the fuck are you on about? Did you not see the quote of the comment I was responding to? Did it say anything about science? Is your comment in any way relevant? I don't think so.
Your definition of faith is absolutely wrong and your just altering its definition as rhetoric to support your beliefs. Every dictionary supports the definition of belief without absolute proof. If faith was belief without evidence, how would one be led to believing such a thing in the first place? However shaky or however strong the reasons are for leading one to faith in something, there in all cases must be a cause of the belief.
I looked all over the web and I haven't found any new fossils than when I looked around last week. I've looked for pictures or just documentation. If your just so sure that evolution has occurred, why do you get pissy when I tell you anything different? I wouldn't even say I'm that against accepting evolution really, I just need to see more evidence of what it claims. Yeah, thanks for calling me a nutjob I'm not a fundamentalist, just honest. There are secular people who are skeptical as well.
Middlekk, I know your not on here for scientific reasons but rather religious or metaphysical reasons. I looked at your profile. Please don't masquerade as an empiricist who only operates by the scientific method because your not. Empiricism is a myth. I am also quite amused at your definition of faith as well.
I think you better re-look at the fossil evidence. There's MASSIVE amounts of evidence supporting evolution.
And DNA evidence provides 100% support of evolution.
Evolution has fossils AND DNA. It wins.
Only fundamentalist Muslims and fringe nut jobs on the christian right teach against evolution. It has nothing to do with the science, however, only feeble attempts to separate man from the universe in perverse and unnatural ways.
What is the "controversy in evolution"? It was just a summary of evolution including the slight variations within the theories. I don't disagree with it, but I wouldn't use evolution as a way to explain the mystery of nature and the universe.
Yes, evolutionary theory only explains the diversity of Life. You need science as a whole (cosmology, chemistry...) to explain the mystery of Nature and the Universe.
Actually there is more uncertainty concerning evolution, especially with people who really look into it. I was just reading that evolution is chiefly guided by the spiritual part of DNA.
Christian don't waste your time on usless debates. Follow the calling of god. go on to Iran to preach the gospel of the lord to Persians. Ah and there is a big chance that you can achieve martyrdom for the sake of jesus. go on, lord is calling you!
what we can: observe, test, duplicate over and over again and make accurate predictions about DOES NOT have to be taken on faith... like say... a invisible skydaddy?!?
In best case scenario, you ChristophilusX, are just simply mistaken about the meaning of the word "faith".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
well I didn't say mine isn't faith. but mine is sensible compared to yours. it doesn't go against the odds of probability, it has evidences written THOUSANDS of years before science discovered them. so who is having the foolish faith now?
what i have noticed is that as time pass by the HYPOTHESIS of evolution gets more ridiculous and scientists just can't give up on their faith. it has blinded them. and their believers (the lay men) doesn't even question them at all..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Faith is belief without proof, at least that's how Christians use it. Scientists use faith all of the time, admit it. Science depends on assumptions and those assumptions do require a degree of faith. I'm not even saying that's a bad thing, but be honest and admit that you use faith all the time in every aspect of your life. Stop trying to sound like a concrete rational empiricist, because you are far from it.
Belief without proof is EXACTLY what I object to. Science doesn't have 'faith' in ANYTHING...that's what the peer-review process is all about. Nobody trusts anybody, and even if a paper or a concept makes it through the process, the next scientist is checking the work by trying to reproduce the experiment.
If we worked by "faith", cold fusion would still be considered viable, Piltdown Man wouldn't have been exposed as a hoax, and on and on and on.
No middlekk, I would agree if there wasn't a sort of elitist dogma infecting certain individuals of the scientific community. The theory of evolution does not have adequate fossil evidence for an honest acceptance of it on the level that it has by some. Its just not honest. Its far from demonstrated and the evidence only lends credence to micro-evolution. Do you really believe you can't believe in anything that isn't proven?? If so, can you prove that statement?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Do you really believe you can't believe in anything that isn't proven?"
Great point! Science is guilty of circular reasoning (or arguing from a presupposition). The scientific method epitomizes this! However, we all reason with certain presuppositions, but for some reason scientist are afraid to admit it!
They see no problem with induction even though renowned scientists like Stephen Hawking admit that induction poses various problems in science.
1. Circular reasoning isn't presupposition. Look it up.
2. What exactly is presupposed by the scientific method that you would consider unreasonable?
3. You're right, induction isn't a perfect form of reasoning, and I'd imagine Hawking admits this, but you can't tell me you disagree with reasonable assumption and justified belief in the regularity of outcomes. The problem of induction is why 100% proof is impossible in science. That doesn't mean science is a problem.
Without adequate evidence, in some schools of science scientists can use "faith", but they absolutely admit that they have no proof and do not think that the thing is just so.
They can imagine a scenario (faith part) and start working on the problem. If they cannot support it, or in fact find evidence contrary to their "faith" based "belief", they have to drop it.
In this sense yes, scientists can have "faith" in some issues. However, as I've shown, it is much different from your faith.
I have a question that was posed in another video.
Is gene swapping among bacteria, transpositions, duplications, etc. considered a mechanism of "evolution" in the classic definition of "descent with modification"?
Or is that definition of evolution too restrictive?
I'm not sure how to categorize the resulting gene product.
I keep trying to pump up your numbers, because it's a great video.
Yes, you have pointed out another genuine debate in evolutionary theory - horizontal gene transfer.
I think that evolution via gene transfer is still within the "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next" working definition of biological evolution.
However I'm not an expert on bacteria evolution; there are good articles in Ars Technica and Wikipedia about this subject.
Excellent Video and Information! Incredible job at delving deep into the subject without losing the message. Almighty Thor would be proud of thy crushing blow to misinformation! I look forward to your next video...
Thanks ZeppelinRocker16! Here at Fresh Brainz, we strive to bring you the simplest and clearest explanations of some of the most complex topics in life.
Superb video, it highlights the controversies raging in evolutionary theory today! It also notes that evolution as a biological fact is not being debated, only its mechanisms are.
Evolution is as natural as water flowing down a slope. It is mindboggling how such a incredible diversity of Life emerged from a common source. We do not have "dominion" over other living systems; our fates are interwoven with theirs.
Yes, let's teach all of THESE controversies in evolution. I'd love to see that proposition put before the Kansas Board of Education. Their heads would spin off.
wow! makes the "let the kids decide" slogan of ID really laughable. sure the kids can decide! but ID isn't really an option in science =) that falls under the category of boring fiction.
Wonderful summary of the history of evolutionary theory, and all opponents and additions thereof. Like all good videos, the information was sequential and streamlined, and introduced me to new concepts which I'll have to research on my own. (forget university; YouTube is where I get all my homework from).
And while I know it's already been said, I can't stay silent on the water analogy. Visual examples are always a plus for explanations of anything.
Yes, this video is a only quick primer to the key concepts; the actual history of theory development is more multi-faceted, and this process continues today.
Some exciting details of evolutionary theory (Does the developmental process impose limits on evolutionary possibilities? Are the speciation "bursts" observed by Gould due to certain types of mutations?) still await resolution by future generations of scientists.
I'm glad to have sparked off your curiosity to read further. Have fun!
Yes, our current evolutionary theory is distilled from the ideas of many scientists, not just Darwin. Creationists like to imagine that there is a conspiracy against alternatives to neo-Darwinism, but always fail to mention Masatoshi Nei and Arlin Stoltzfus.
I love the water bottle analogy at the end to illustrate internal and external pressures and the current controversy about their relative importance. Wonderful job.
What a great video! I never have been able to understand how it is possible for Creationists to reject an observed natural phenomena: it is like rejecting sun light and rain.
Well, nobody has actually followed a raindrop all the way from a cloud to the ground, so each raindrop must be a separate creation. There is only microfalling, no macrofalling... *wink*
and here thought there was literally no significant debate in evolutionary theory, only in evolutionary history. Neutral evolution would (I suppose) support punctuated equilibrium do to the fact that most mutations seem to have no physiological effect on a species which would cause a stasis, as you put it.
Mutationism would more or less support Darwinian evolution since it implies that each mutation would have a measurable effect over time.
Great video, subbed!
TheCopaceticMan 7 months ago
@TheCopaceticMan thanks! Mutationism acknowledges the role of selection pressure in evolution, but focuses on the creative power of new mutations, whereas neo-Darwinism focuses on the creative power of the environment. Molecular biologists tend to favour the former view whereas zoologists and population geneticists tend to favour the latter. This quibble of relative importance is academic and unlikely to interest creationists, unless they want to do some quote mining.
Xisla 6 months ago
Excellent Video.
slicingwater 1 year ago
Great video! Nice to hear a calm voice of fact and reason amongst a sea of pro and anti-evolution videos that are often emotionally charged and, in the case of creationists, extremely ignorant.
entyrion 1 year ago
Controversy in Evolution? There isn't one.
The only controversy is that science discovers things that contradict ones literal interpretation of the Bible. ID is nothing more than creationism repackaged. The ID'ers just throw in some "bigger words" to impress the gullible, the scientifically illiterate and the ignorant at the fundamentalist churches they evangelize to. Other than that, I(creationism)D only says the G(designer)D did it.
joelkness 1 year ago
That was extremely enlightening! I was unaware of the neutral theory and that that is where the idea of genetic drift comes from.
websnarf 1 year ago
if fundamentalist whack-jobs would stop push the Theory of God did it. more time could be spent on more reliant topic's like punctuated equilibrium.
if the religious right wants to teach the controversy then they should stick to teaching different creation myths in Sunday school.
eventh0zi0n 2 years ago
Creationism in all its forms is an intellectual dead-end.
ASTCify 2 years ago 2
I don't see why you have such a low rating. All of this is very important information. Vote bots perhaps idk.
I'm not sure I agree with you on the claim that ID is based upon ignorance. Do you think ID is based upon ignorance out of necessity or simply because no evidence is found for it. There are some who think that ID necessarily from ignorance because of the way it is built, but there is not necessarily anything stopping evidence from being found in its favor; is there?
owchywawa 2 years ago
ID is based on irreducible complexity. here's an example of what that boils down to: if we don't know how process x in the human body evolved, and if we see that it's got components that are only useful together, but useless individually, it's irreducibly complex, and hence, supposedly cannot be evolved (and hence, in a leap of logic, must be intelligently designed). what it actually means is that we don't YET know how the process evolved. that's why ID is by its nature based on ignorance.
SatyaVenugopal 2 years ago
I look at it differently. We've always had ID; we just called it by different names. Irreducible complexity is a recent phenomena, so the way you are approaching this doesn't make sense. I think what happened is at first creationism (or whatever it was called then) was the standard and then the theory of evolution came out and had a much better explanation. The attempts to refute evolution today is not in order to prove ID correct, but rather to prove TOE doesn't have a better explanation.
owchywawa 2 years ago
I disagree.
Irreducible complexity is not the base of ID. It's just an argument for it.
ID's base is religion. The name "ID" and the claims of irreducable complexity are there just to make it sound like it has something to do with science in order to get it through US constitution and into schools.
In short: ID's base is religious dogma.
BlizBob 2 years ago
ya, my bad. owchywawa and blizbob you're right about ID's base being creationism and therefore religion. owchywawa, i guess the reason why there's necessarily something stopping evidence being found in ID's favour is that a divine designer (and we can agree that that's what ID must reduce to eventually) is an inherently unproveable proposition. how do you test/verify something that operates outside the bounds/rules/limitations of natural phenomena?
SatyaVenugopal 2 years ago
" found in ID's favour "
Well you could simply axplain why this imaginary god planted all the evidence for evolution for no other reason than to fake evidence for it on purpose.......
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
No way. Intelligent Design is emerging science; Cdesign proponentsists have only scratched the surface of this new theory.
PraktikoolSinik 2 years ago
@PraktikoolSinik
ID failed in COURT and it has not entered any sort of intellectual arena. ID is NOT a scientific theory. Theories are not simply interpretations of observations, they include predictive power. Investigating these predictions are how real theories are separated from bullshit like ID.
ID doesn't offer any testable predictions, or the silly ones it does are absurd and are flatly contrary to observation (i.e irreducible complexity, human fossils next to dinos, etc.)
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion
Apparently your sarcasm detector is broken ;-)
google 'Cdesign proponentsists'
PraktikoolSinik 1 year ago
fathead
ninjascroll6789 2 years ago
"Fathead"?
Is that a weird way to say that you think I have a large brain?
Or is that supposed to be an insult?
BlizBob 2 years ago
best video on evolution i've ever seen.
jasonoatmeal 2 years ago
Thanks, I'm glad you like it.
Xisla 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I DREAM OF THE DAY WHEN SCIENTISTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO TEST ACIDS, CHEMICALS AND DRUGS ON CREATIONISTS, INSTEAD OF ANIMALS, I DREAM OF THE DAY WHEN WE GROW CREATIONISTS IN FARMS AS SLAVES, SO WE DO NOT HAVE TO WORK, I DREAM OF THE DAY WE BEAT UP CREATIONISTS FREELY WHENEVER WE ARE STRESSED, I DREAM OF THE DAY WE CAN TIE CREATIONISTS ON OUR CAR BUMPERS 4 FUN, I DREAM OF THE DAY CREATIONISTS ASSUME THEIR PROPER ROLE IN LIFE, AS MINDLESS SLAVES. dont blame me i watched their unintelligent videos
graphattic 2 years ago
Wonderful work on this. I learned a lot.
dlhitch2007 2 years ago
Great. Thank you.
Opl65 2 years ago
A great video. Thanks for the concise history of the development of evolutionary thinking.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics defines scientism as "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of natural science to be applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities)." (I would add to that origins and natural history.)
Howie47 2 years ago
Hi Howie47, I've view your video and your main thesis is that gastropods and cephalopods do not share a common ancestor.
This issue is best resolved via comparative genomics (eg. human evolution).
However, since there is currently no gastropod or cephalopod genome project going on, I'll encourage you to financially support research in this area or join in the research.
Biological research is tedious and frustrating but if you care enough about the truth I'm sure you will not hesitate.
Xisla 2 years ago
Comment removed
Howie47 2 years ago
The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics defines scientism as "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of natural science to be applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities)."
Howie47 2 years ago
All life has a common designer; who used a common plan. A plan that was then modified down to fit all life. That is why we find the similar genome in all life!
Mouse, Zebra fish, 93% similar DNA too man. Banana 60%.
No life evolved without it!
So it is with what point of view we start with in the first place, that determines our
interpretation of the evidence. Too assume that scientist would come to honest conclusions, is to embrace scientism.
Howie47 2 years ago
"All life has a common designer; who used a common plan."
google: "loss of egg yolk genes" and click on the plos biology paper, I can't think of any way how we could explain this without common descent.
Can you?
Terrencje 2 years ago
I'll check your stuff when I have time. But I don't disagree with some common descent. I just disagree with "universal common descent". Does your evidence conclude UCD?
Howie47 2 years ago
Nothing about life makes sense, except in the light of a creator, anyone who says differently. Is either a stupid idiot, liar, demented, or worse, but I won't go there.
It's two world views, that are diametrically apposed. One promoted by the anti-Christ world. The other by those who accept the Lord.
Howie47 2 years ago
Your blindly extrapolating Micro-evolution into macro. That is where the controversy resides. While your education has reached a high level. It is still far from complete on this subject. Can man tell the difference between intelligent design and random illusion? Check your moral clock, and then answer that question.
Howie47 2 years ago
Howie: Your post SCREAMS "I failed 8th grade science in 1961" louder than you could possibly know.
Why you would post something that completely "outs" you as that uneducated about this subject is beyond comprehension.
You're like a guy who claims that the reason the car won't start is because the tire pressure is low. And you wonder why we think you're an idiot.
Read a book that doesn't have talking snakes in it.
middlekk 2 years ago
The only one screaming in caps is you.
Need I read between the lines of your
personnel attack? But that is all you got, when confronted with the facts.
Howie47 2 years ago
Howie: Your arguments are so bad, they're not even wrong. It's impossible to deal with them on a level that you will understand, because you have proven your complete inability to understand even the simplest concepts.
But you should know that your ignorance is showing.
Evolutionary theory doesn't propose either the presence or absence or god. It's about the diversity of life on this planet. Period.
That you don't know this is why you've been outed as an idiot.
middlekk 2 years ago 2
Just can't quit your demeaning of others. Oh well it is part of your low character. Evolution (Darwinism) is all about erasing a (Creator) form the conscious. But no one expects Darwinist to be honest about that.
Howie47 2 years ago
No, Howie, I just can't quit demeaning mouth-breathing, cousin-dating, bible-thumping no-nothings like you.
Others, I have no trouble with.
middlekk 2 years ago 2
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them..."
— Thomas Jefferson
That low character.
middlekk 2 years ago
If any idea has no distinction, it is Evolution. Maybe you should watch my video. Not that I expect a honest review. Just for your information.
Howie47 2 years ago
Hi middlekk,
It's curious that Howie47 considers the evolution of nautilus to octopus to be an example of "microevolution".
Especially ironic then that the first image in that video is the eye of a cephalopod, the very organ that refutes Howie47's assertion that "upward evolution" (ie. gaining of new body parts/materials) has not been observed.
So - complex eyes and sophisticated suction cups in the octopus can evolve, but ink sacs and jet propulsion can't?
LOL
Xisla 2 years ago
He's what's known as a "common" creationist.
They have fixed views which are unsupported by any facts of body of evidence, and they're completely willing to show themselves to be uneducated on the subject in order to try to prove their views.
Their primary objections to evolution aren't scientific (how could they be; they don't understand the science). They're religious.
Even though the majority of theists disagree with them, they persist. It's geocentrism all over again.
middlekk 2 years ago
Actually I don't understand where they're going with this. Genome projects are being completed left, right and centre; the common ancestry between humans and chimps is already rock solid, so they get picky on the common ancestry between gastropods and cephalopods?
If everything else evolves and the only creatures on Earth to be immutable are the gastropods and cephalopods I don't see how that would help their case!
Xisla 2 years ago
Their reasoning goes something like this.
1. Evolution proposes that creatures today evolved from ancestral forms.
2. Evolution proposes that humans have a common ancestor with other apes.
3. The bible says that humans were specially created in god's image "as is" in an instant.
4. Therefore, all of evolution must be false.
Their objections aren't scientific; they're religious.
Even though the majority of the world's religions accept evolution. This is the vocal hard-core lunatic fringe.
middlekk 2 years ago
Very dishonest of you Xista, since we already discussed this on my video thread. I admitted to you there that nautilus shouldn't be considered a cephalopod. So I shouldn't have used it as a sample. I even added annotations
that explained this. Biologist have misplaced Nautilus as a cephalopod. They are very dissimilar, with no connecting variations. Dishonesty is all you got. Isn't it!
Howie47 2 years ago
Did you even watch your own video?
You wrote:
"Loose of body parts and materials in these Cephalopods is a sample of downward micro evolution. The squid loses the nautilus's shell; the octopus loses the squid's mantle and two longer arms."
Now you say the nautilus shouldn't even be considered a cephalopod, doesn't that demolish your own "micro-evolution" idea?
Xisla 2 years ago
Do you even read my replies? Obviousy not. That is a sign of someone who's mind is made up; and doesn't want to be confussed by the facts. And you call yourself a serious scientist? Your a laugh. A sad laugh.
Howie47 2 years ago
You mentioned that the nautilus is a cephalopod a number of times in your video, and this classification is an integral aspect of your "micro-evolution" idea.
However, once I pointed out that the nautilus has simple pinhole eyes and no suction cups, you immediately disavowed this, since your viewers would clearly see that as "upward evolution". So the nautilus has become its own separate "kind".
I strongly encourage you to do some basic fact-checking before proposing any more new ideas.
Xisla 2 years ago
''Current paragrim forces species
to be grouped together in a way that promotes the idea that they evolved from the ground up.''
wrong. evidence shows that evolution is a demonstrable reality and the only explanation ofr the diversity of life.
no other mechanism for organisms getting here has ever been observed.
''So the mainstream science can't be trusted, is our only lesson here. ''
I guess you havnt had any inoculation then, if you cant trust science, that is.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
I just had my (mainstream science) inoculation updated. Thanks to Xisia. YOU can't take anything they say at face value. They are totally full of it.
Howie47 2 years ago
''I just had my (mainstream science) inoculation updated.''
i meant inoculation against disease. science developed these vaccinations. if you dont trust science then you shouldnt have any vaccinations.
''YOU can't take anything they say at face value.''
precisely! which is why everything should be critically considered and scrutinised. we apply this careful method to evolution (as we do with all science). it has passed the test
TheProf1988 2 years ago 2
''Oh well it is part of your low character. Evolution (Darwinism) is all about erasing a (Creator) form the conscious''
evolution =/= darwinism
evolution =/= atheism.
please look up the definition of these three words (the secular definition, not the idiotversion...)
TheProf1988 2 years ago
If you are interested in definitions. Take a look at the one I have provided below. For scientism.
Howie47 2 years ago
''If you are interested in definitions. Take a look at the one I have provided below. For scientism.''
that doesnt apply to me (or most people).
''Biologist have misplaced Nautilus as a cephalopod''
no, nautilus is most definatly a cephalopod. nautiloidea is one of the major branches of cephalopoda.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Current paragrim forces species
to be grouped together in a way that promotes the idea that they evolved from the ground up. Nautilus have very little in common with cephalopods. Tentacles and jet propulsion is about it. They have 60-90 tentacles. Some fish have jet propulsion. Most important, there are no species that connect Nautilus with other cephalopods.
So the mainstream science can't be trusted, is our only lesson here.
Howie47 2 years ago
''Nautilus have very little in common with cephalopods.''
this is not a secret. nautili are the only living members of the nautiloidea, whilst all other extant cephalopods are members of the subclass coleoidea.
in every grouping you will find one or two organisms that have remained plesiomorphic (primitive).
other examples of these would include the monotrme mammals, the tuatara, the crinoids etc
TheProf1988 2 years ago
''Most important, there are no species that connect Nautilus with other cephalopods''
because there shouldnt be any.
''Nautilus have very little in common with cephalopods''
nautili ARE cephalopods. their muscular foot is modified into tentacles. what you mean is that nautili have little in common with OTHER cephalopods.
''They have 60-90 tentacles''
yes, and all other cephalopods are either decapods or octopods. this is not a secret.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
German/Austrian accent?
tanerofies 2 years ago
Awesome video!! ***** and subscribed!
TheProf1988 3 years ago
Newspaper claims suspect transformed into a goat. January 23,2009.
hitoallandme 3 years ago
When a respected peer-review science journal reports the same thing, you'll have my attention.
Otherwise, you're just blathering about "news of the weird" and mocking the beliefs of a primitive tribe.
Not very christian of you.
middlekk 3 years ago
The reason its not very christian of me is because i am not a christian. I tend to mock those who so freely believe things like a voice form the sky or a man turning into a goat and in the same breath try to disput scientific evidence that supports credible theories such as evolution.
hitoallandme 3 years ago
It was completely unclear as to what your point was, so forgive the misunderstanding.
middlekk 3 years ago
No prob. I should have been a bit more clear on my mocking. Its amazing how civil two people can be without a voice from the sky telling us to be.
hitoallandme 3 years ago
Only 3 stars for such a good video. 5 from me. More please.
6Untitled9 3 years ago
The random intelligence that created evolution in the first place must have not been very intelligent - just random idiocy, sparking life for no intelligent reason. i.e. "dumbfounded" is where we all come from, not intelligence. That explains why we are dumb instead of intelligent beings.
thiswasatest 3 years ago
wait was that a cicada making his little noises on that tree?
Cnidarious 3 years ago
Most rational people do not believe in things that are 100% proven.
People are well justified in believing that Christianity or Theism for that matter are true.
christo815 3 years ago
Most rational people do not believe in fairy tales.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Santa Claus isn't real.
middlekk 3 years ago 2
"Most rational people do not believe in things that are 100% proven."
Believing in something that's 100% proven is the definition of rational. To think otherwise is completely irrational. Duh. Did you know someone actually proved 1+1=2. That's 100% proven. Don't believe that, moron.
dave28lax 3 years ago
there are many ways to get to 2.
5 + -3 =2...
I-1I+ I-1I = 2 as well...
then again, utilizing mathematics as an example is less than honorable, since mathematics deals in proofs, and science does not.
Just my observation.
messiahjonz 2 years ago
messiahjonz what the fuck are you on about? Did you not see the quote of the comment I was responding to? Did it say anything about science? Is your comment in any way relevant? I don't think so.
dave28lax 2 years ago
The fact that you have to ask what I am going on about tells volumes. As for you thiking...do not believe everything you think.
messiahjonz 2 years ago
@messiahjonz Fuck off troll.
dave28lax 2 years ago
LOL... how quaint and typical!
messiahjonz 2 years ago
Your definition of faith is absolutely wrong and your just altering its definition as rhetoric to support your beliefs. Every dictionary supports the definition of belief without absolute proof. If faith was belief without evidence, how would one be led to believing such a thing in the first place? However shaky or however strong the reasons are for leading one to faith in something, there in all cases must be a cause of the belief.
christo815 3 years ago
Ummm...you might want to check the dictionary.
Faith = belief without evidence.
Even the bible says so. The whole story of Thomas. "Blessed are those who believe without evidnece"...
Really, if you can't even acknowledge that faith REQUIRES belief in things you can't prove, how are you going to learn anything?
middlekk 3 years ago
I looked all over the web and I haven't found any new fossils than when I looked around last week. I've looked for pictures or just documentation. If your just so sure that evolution has occurred, why do you get pissy when I tell you anything different? I wouldn't even say I'm that against accepting evolution really, I just need to see more evidence of what it claims. Yeah, thanks for calling me a nutjob I'm not a fundamentalist, just honest. There are secular people who are skeptical as well.
christo815 3 years ago
Oy. You're an idiot.
Have you ever heard of "paleontology"?
People get PhDs in the field.
There are millions upon millions upon millions of fossils. You can hardly kick up a clot of dirt in some areas without hitting a fossil.
Ken Hamm's Creation Museum is built on one of the richest sources of fossils ever discovered.
Limestone is basically nothing BUT fossils.
You're either incredibly ignorant, or incredibly brainwashed.
In either case, please open a real book and learn something.
middlekk 3 years ago 2
Middlekk, I know your not on here for scientific reasons but rather religious or metaphysical reasons. I looked at your profile. Please don't masquerade as an empiricist who only operates by the scientific method because your not. Empiricism is a myth. I am also quite amused at your definition of faith as well.
christo815 3 years ago
I think you better re-look at the fossil evidence. There's MASSIVE amounts of evidence supporting evolution.
And DNA evidence provides 100% support of evolution.
Evolution has fossils AND DNA. It wins.
Only fundamentalist Muslims and fringe nut jobs on the christian right teach against evolution. It has nothing to do with the science, however, only feeble attempts to separate man from the universe in perverse and unnatural ways.
Faith = belief without evidence. Look it up.
middlekk 3 years ago
What is the "controversy in evolution"? It was just a summary of evolution including the slight variations within the theories. I don't disagree with it, but I wouldn't use evolution as a way to explain the mystery of nature and the universe.
guyjohn59 3 years ago
Yes, evolutionary theory only explains the diversity of Life. You need science as a whole (cosmology, chemistry...) to explain the mystery of Nature and the Universe.
Xisla 3 years ago
Umm...yeah. Those ARE the controversies in evolution.
As far as whether or not evolution is true...well, outside of a few fanatical christians and muslims, there is no controversy.
And evolution has never and was never proposed as a way to explain "the mystery of nature and the universe", so we're good there.
Evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet. Period.
middlekk 3 years ago
Actually there is more uncertainty concerning evolution, especially with people who really look into it. I was just reading that evolution is chiefly guided by the spiritual part of DNA.
guyjohn59 3 years ago
WHAT?!?! "Spiritual part of DNA"? What kind of metaphysical mush is that?
Adenosine, thymine, cytosine and guanine do not have "spiritual" parts, nor does the sugar base that forms the double helix.
It's chemistry. Complex chemistry, to be sure, but just chemistry.
Anyone claiming there is a "spiritual" part to DNA is trying to sell you something. Hold tight to your wallet.
middlekk 3 years ago
Christian don't waste your time on usless debates. Follow the calling of god. go on to Iran to preach the gospel of the lord to Persians. Ah and there is a big chance that you can achieve martyrdom for the sake of jesus. go on, lord is calling you!
ptica11 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so you still have FAITH in evolution after all these years? believing in evolution is faith of course
ChristophilusX 3 years ago
what we can: observe, test, duplicate over and over again and make accurate predictions about DOES NOT have to be taken on faith... like say... a invisible skydaddy?!?
In best case scenario, you ChristophilusX, are just simply mistaken about the meaning of the word "faith".
Paxmax 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
well I didn't say mine isn't faith. but mine is sensible compared to yours. it doesn't go against the odds of probability, it has evidences written THOUSANDS of years before science discovered them. so who is having the foolish faith now?
what i have noticed is that as time pass by the HYPOTHESIS of evolution gets more ridiculous and scientists just can't give up on their faith. it has blinded them. and their believers (the lay men) doesn't even question them at all..
ChristophilusX 3 years ago
BZZZZT. Wrong.
Belief WITHOUT evidence is "faith".
Belief WITH evidence is "knowledge".
What other simple-minded creationist bullshit do you have?
middlekk 3 years ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Faith is belief without proof, at least that's how Christians use it. Scientists use faith all of the time, admit it. Science depends on assumptions and those assumptions do require a degree of faith. I'm not even saying that's a bad thing, but be honest and admit that you use faith all the time in every aspect of your life. Stop trying to sound like a concrete rational empiricist, because you are far from it.
christo815 3 years ago
Belief without proof is EXACTLY what I object to. Science doesn't have 'faith' in ANYTHING...that's what the peer-review process is all about. Nobody trusts anybody, and even if a paper or a concept makes it through the process, the next scientist is checking the work by trying to reproduce the experiment.
If we worked by "faith", cold fusion would still be considered viable, Piltdown Man wouldn't have been exposed as a hoax, and on and on and on.
The scientific method is OPPOSITE of "faith"
middlekk 3 years ago 7
No middlekk, I would agree if there wasn't a sort of elitist dogma infecting certain individuals of the scientific community. The theory of evolution does not have adequate fossil evidence for an honest acceptance of it on the level that it has by some. Its just not honest. Its far from demonstrated and the evidence only lends credence to micro-evolution. Do you really believe you can't believe in anything that isn't proven?? If so, can you prove that statement?
christo815 3 years ago
You've been reading too many Muslim nut job web sites on evolution.
Microevolution = breeds, like dogs
Macroevolution = species. Hundreds of new species have been observed in the past 50 years, ranging from the very small to the quite large.
My suggestion; stop wasting your time with Muslim kooks. Start learning the REAL science.
middlekk 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Do you really believe you can't believe in anything that isn't proven?"
Great point! Science is guilty of circular reasoning (or arguing from a presupposition). The scientific method epitomizes this! However, we all reason with certain presuppositions, but for some reason scientist are afraid to admit it!
They see no problem with induction even though renowned scientists like Stephen Hawking admit that induction poses various problems in science.
dmerk81 3 years ago
"Great point! Science is guilty of circular reasoning (or arguing from a presupposition). "
LOL defame science and lie its like your belief! Thats low and just shows your belief is without merit.
StupidCreationists 3 years ago
1. Circular reasoning isn't presupposition. Look it up.
2. What exactly is presupposed by the scientific method that you would consider unreasonable?
3. You're right, induction isn't a perfect form of reasoning, and I'd imagine Hawking admits this, but you can't tell me you disagree with reasonable assumption and justified belief in the regularity of outcomes. The problem of induction is why 100% proof is impossible in science. That doesn't mean science is a problem.
Leanstrum 3 years ago
By the way, dropping names of scientists who would obviously disagree with you doesn't work.
Leanstrum 3 years ago
Without adequate evidence, in some schools of science scientists can use "faith", but they absolutely admit that they have no proof and do not think that the thing is just so.
They can imagine a scenario (faith part) and start working on the problem. If they cannot support it, or in fact find evidence contrary to their "faith" based "belief", they have to drop it.
In this sense yes, scientists can have "faith" in some issues. However, as I've shown, it is much different from your faith.
latuman 3 years ago
Great job!
Brianswers 3 years ago 2
Heh. I think the creationists have found you guys. Expect a lot of really, really, really STOOOOOPID comments and downrating.
Don't let it bother you. You did a great job on this. Looking forward to more vids from you.
middlekk 3 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
Excellent video. Thanks!!
supertomate10 3 years ago
Great work! I do not think I can put into words how wonderful this video is.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago 2
So much information in so little time, yet presented so that it was easy to understand. Great video, keep it up!
sorienor 3 years ago 2
This was a wonderful explanation of concepts seldom considered by anyone debating this issue. Thank you for posting this.
AronRa 3 years ago 3
Thanks for stopping by, AronRa. Your information-packed videos are an inspiration for me. Cheers!
Xisla 3 years ago
I have a question that was posed in another video.
Is gene swapping among bacteria, transpositions, duplications, etc. considered a mechanism of "evolution" in the classic definition of "descent with modification"?
Or is that definition of evolution too restrictive?
I'm not sure how to categorize the resulting gene product.
I keep trying to pump up your numbers, because it's a great video.
middlekk 3 years ago
Yes, you have pointed out another genuine debate in evolutionary theory - horizontal gene transfer.
I think that evolution via gene transfer is still within the "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next" working definition of biological evolution.
However I'm not an expert on bacteria evolution; there are good articles in Ars Technica and Wikipedia about this subject.
Thanks for the heads up!
Xisla 3 years ago
Thanks. I'll expand my working definition of evolution.
Although that's liable to make creationists' heads spin right off. But what the heck; it would be entertaining.
middlekk 3 years ago
Excellent Video and Information! Incredible job at delving deep into the subject without losing the message. Almighty Thor would be proud of thy crushing blow to misinformation! I look forward to your next video...
TheHealthySkeptic 3 years ago
inspiring!
5/5 +fav
sophophilo 3 years ago
Very good ! THANK YOU....Keep 'em coming
Tobytrim 3 years ago
Excellent analogy of evolution with the water and the slope. One of the best explanations I've ever heard!
ZeppelinRocker16 3 years ago
Thanks ZeppelinRocker16! Here at Fresh Brainz, we strive to bring you the simplest and clearest explanations of some of the most complex topics in life.
Xisla 3 years ago
Fucking Brilliant!
ANDR3W1848 3 years ago 3
Well done!
norcofreerider604 3 years ago
thank you.
jhakana 3 years ago
genius!
Salmo77 3 years ago
Awesome, seriously. I am subscribing right now.
FriendlyCougar 3 years ago
As well..
AtheistCitizen 3 years ago
Superb video, it highlights the controversies raging in evolutionary theory today! It also notes that evolution as a biological fact is not being debated, only its mechanisms are.
squealpiggy 3 years ago
I understand the concern, sculpt2live, but I have to wear a labcoat in the lab. It's a safety regulation :)
Xisla 3 years ago
Evolution is naturally miraculous, but not a miracle. Thank you for the educational video. The water flow analogy was very compelling.
CHAS1422 3 years ago
You're most welcome.
Evolution is as natural as water flowing down a slope. It is mindboggling how such a incredible diversity of Life emerged from a common source. We do not have "dominion" over other living systems; our fates are interwoven with theirs.
Xisla 3 years ago
Wow. What a great video! Thanks Xisla!
mediusnacht 3 years ago
Thanks everyone for your encouraging feedback!
Xisla 3 years ago
I've recommended this for richarddawkins. net
Hopefully we'll see it up there soon!
PPartisan 3 years ago
great video 5/5
KameWaOni 3 years ago
Wonderful video, thanks
claschxtreme 3 years ago
A most excellent video... 5 stars.
PicadillyJester 3 years ago
Fantastic, and long overdue; an account of the real scientific controversy. Thanks very much for making this, I'll be sure to pass it on.
PPartisan 3 years ago
Great! That was very informative and interesting.
kanjitard 3 years ago
Favorited!
Looking forward to more videos from you. :D
AtOneWithNothing7 3 years ago
Excellent work. Intelligent and clear.
Yes, let's teach all of THESE controversies in evolution. I'd love to see that proposition put before the Kansas Board of Education. Their heads would spin off.
middlekk 3 years ago 2
Great video. Nice to see a brief history of evolutionary science.
DefaultPosition 3 years ago
OH THANKYOU!
this is brilliant. finally the actual controversy.
Brettah31 3 years ago
wow! makes the "let the kids decide" slogan of ID really laughable. sure the kids can decide! but ID isn't really an option in science =) that falls under the category of boring fiction.
ccaptorchen 3 years ago
Awesome video!
waffletastic 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I believe in the biblical account of creation.
BurtWilson1 3 years ago
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Let's teach that.
middlekk 3 years ago
Absolutely brilliant
ProcInc 3 years ago
Thanks ProcInc!
Xisla 3 years ago
Thanks to everyone for your encouraging feedback!
Xisla 3 years ago
You've got a future in science popularization if you want it... looking forward to more!
beakeclipse 3 years ago
Thank you, beakeclipse!
Xisla 3 years ago
Very good video. Thank you for putting fourth the effort to create this.
otakujhp 3 years ago
Fantastic video, criminally underviewed.
★★★★★ and favorited
Silvermane21a 3 years ago
Should be shown in every school !!! well done
mattpbent 3 years ago
Wonderful vid!
ericv00 3 years ago
Great video! subscribed and 5 starred cant wait to see more.
Kujien 3 years ago
Very informative, Thank you.
animalfan27 3 years ago
Wonderful summary of the history of evolutionary theory, and all opponents and additions thereof. Like all good videos, the information was sequential and streamlined, and introduced me to new concepts which I'll have to research on my own. (forget university; YouTube is where I get all my homework from).
And while I know it's already been said, I can't stay silent on the water analogy. Visual examples are always a plus for explanations of anything.
Extraintrovert 3 years ago
Yes, this video is a only quick primer to the key concepts; the actual history of theory development is more multi-faceted, and this process continues today.
Some exciting details of evolutionary theory (Does the developmental process impose limits on evolutionary possibilities? Are the speciation "bursts" observed by Gould due to certain types of mutations?) still await resolution by future generations of scientists.
I'm glad to have sparked off your curiosity to read further. Have fun!
Xisla 3 years ago
Wauw. This is great :D Bravo.
Portiadude 3 years ago
Thank you!
Xisla 3 years ago
Fantastic Vid Xis, VERY good job!
Thunderf00t 3 years ago
Thanks Thunderf00t, I love your videos. Make more soon!
Xisla 3 years ago
Really good. Thanks. 5 stars
150 years since Darwin shows that the process of learning is slow but steady and frought with controversy even between scientists.
It is the critical thinking that results in progress.
bencubed 3 years ago
Yes, our current evolutionary theory is distilled from the ideas of many scientists, not just Darwin. Creationists like to imagine that there is a conspiracy against alternatives to neo-Darwinism, but always fail to mention Masatoshi Nei and Arlin Stoltzfus.
Xisla 3 years ago
great work,thank you for sharing it.
five stared and favorited
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
Thanks, much appreciated!
Xisla 3 years ago
thank you for showing me what neo-darwinist means outside of a creationist's rants.
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
I love the water bottle analogy at the end to illustrate internal and external pressures and the current controversy about their relative importance. Wonderful job.
LytningBug 3 years ago
Glad you like it, thanks!
Xisla 3 years ago
Excellent.
manan0nim0us4 3 years ago
Thank you!
Xisla 3 years ago
What a great video! I never have been able to understand how it is possible for Creationists to reject an observed natural phenomena: it is like rejecting sun light and rain.
Desertphile 3 years ago
Well, nobody has actually followed a raindrop all the way from a cloud to the ground, so each raindrop must be a separate creation. There is only microfalling, no macrofalling... *wink*
Xisla 3 years ago
I deny macrofalling!
Theworldiswonderful 3 years ago
Thank you for this excellent video!
ScottishAtheist 3 years ago
You're welcome, I'm glad you like it!
Xisla 3 years ago
I love the change in tone of voice near the end when talking about creationism.
InReasonWeTrust 3 years ago
nice video
InReasonWeTrust 3 years ago
Thanks!
Xisla 3 years ago