Why are Random Mutations a Problem for Evolution? - Dr. Kevin Anderson
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 06. 2020
- Taken from "Beyond Is Genesis History? Vol 2 : Life & Design." Available in full here:
bit.ly/2QlPtQV
Explore the fascinating fields of biology, genetics, and intelligent design with 16 in-depth interviews featuring Del Tackett and six scientists from the film.
☞ Purchase all three volumes in the series here: bit.ly/2MWY7Tx
We join Del Tackett on his visit to the Creation Research Center as he and microbiologist Kevin Anderson talk about the importance of time to Darwinian evolution, what mutations actually do, and why recent creation is the best explanation for what we see in the world.
Dr. Kevin Anderson is currently Director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center, as well as project leader of the Creation Research Society’s iDINO project; an investigation of the preservation of tissue in dinosaur fossils. He obtained his PhD in microbiology from Kansas State University, and subsequently received post-doctoral training as a National Institutes of Health Post-doctoral Fellow. He has held university professorships, where he taught graduate-level molecular biology classes and served as the major advisor for several master’s and doctoral students. More recently, he was the director of laboratory research for a biotech energy company. He has published numerous articles in technical journals as well as presented at national and international science conferences.
For more information on Dr. Anderson, please go to bit.ly/3eiS8o6.
----------------------------------------------------
✨ Looking to learn more about Genesis and Creation?
★ Visit our blog for helpful articles: bit.ly/3d306R1
★ Free Videos: bit.ly/3e1HRgc
★ Questions & Answers: bit.ly/3d0EG6T
Evolution sounds good until you look at the details. The closer I looked, the more I realized it just can't explain life.
It sounds like you just don't understand evolution. It's hard. Just like you don't understand how god made anything either. As people we have fairly limited intelligence.
@@josephscala6707: _"... you just don't understand evolution."_
THAT is the most common propaganda used to defend evolution. You speak against it, so you must be ignorant. It's the same tactic used by political leftists.
Do you _"understand"_ proteins, Joseph? Have you done the math to figure out that even a small protein, a chain of 100 amino acids, has 10^130 (ten to the 130 power) possible values or permutations? That's an _effectively infinite_ number.
There's really no way that you can defend evolution finding a needed new protein among so many possibilities. Even if natural selection were able to select changes that went in the right direction, it would still take too long.
But there's another problem. A mutation that goes in the _right direction_ would give no benefit and no advantage until the evolution of the protein is complete. Proteins have to fold correctly to work. The sequence has to be correct. So natural selection can't work.
No, I understand evolution just fine. But they didn't teach you the details that would help you understand why it fails.
@@hansdemos6510 "That's probably because it doesn't explain life, but the diversity of life." Hans, at exactly what nanosecond did inorganic chemicals become organic and at what point did non-life become life? In other words, when did your evo. begin to be affected by natural selection and life begin to diversify? The premise of an evolutionary event; without God is without question predicated on an abio. event. You want to allow for billions of years for evo. to work but are afraid to speculate on a timescale as small as the advent of the first lifeform. That goalpost shouldn't be to far removed from an imagination as vast as an evolutionist.
@@KenJackson_US Out of curiosity, are you a creationist? I am asking because I am not, but nonetheless question Neo-Darwinism. I think evolution happened and is still happening, but we haven't been able to figure out the mechanism yet.
I see no other possibility, @@maximilianmusterhans4659. A lot of people have absolute undying _faith_ that life originated from non life and then mutations over time changed it into the life we see. But there's a *_big_* problem with that.
The process of genetic degradation that is observed to results in new species *can't* be the same process in which mutations mythically accumulate to build new proteins, new molecular machines and new organs to form the *complex, hierarchical, interdependent* systems observed in life.
I studied anatomy and physiology in college and after we spent 6 months on digestion, my professor said we had only scratched the surface of its complexity.
However, even as a child I wondered how, since each species was so incredibly specific as to male and female attraction and mating in order to reproduce, how just the right combination of features could have been consistently repeated in each sex in enough quantities, along with healing/survival attributes, in all of the millions of creatures at the same time, to have exploded into such a miracle as we have here on earth. But then, I have always been annoyingly logical and secretly rebellious.
And, in my experience I have seen that without intelligent oversight, things only fall apart and get worse over time.☀️
The Argument from Ignorance is neither logical nor particularly rebellious. Just because you don't understand how complexity could arise doesn't mean it didn't. Especially, when evidence from multiple fields of research indicates that it did.
Your inability or disinclination to try to understand it has no bearing on its concordance with reality.
@@nolanbalzer1796 …in Darwin’s own words, “IF the theory of evolution was true, we would literally be knee-deep in transitional species”. The few they thought they found have been debunked but not too openly admitted to, as there are painful punishments for diverting from the norm. You have to look at who is paying who to have a certain agenda that must be maintained for political purposes.
There is a deep investigator, Jon Levi, who puts out amazing videos on ancient and not so ancient archeological mysteries, for an example on how the narrative has been changed in that department.
@@cmwHisArtist You can put quotation marks around that sentence all you want but those are not Darwin's words. He did predict that, if his theory was right, transitional fossils would be found and he was proven correct within his own lifetime. Since then, hundreds have been found. Many within the last 30 years or so.
All you have to do is type in, "List of transitional fossils" in your browser, make some popcorn, and set aside a few days to learn about a few of them.
Constructing a conspiracy theory around this stuff is simply a convenient way to avoid having to come to terms with inconvenient facts.
@@nolanbalzer1796 …dream away. There is a big difference between impossible and inconvenient. We are on the brink of learning much about our history that BOTH of us do not expect. We need to be ready.
@@cmwHisArtist The fact that you don't know what "we are on the brink of learning" but are confident that there will be "much BOTH of us do not expect", is a dead giveaway that you don't know what you're talking about.
When I was a kid in the 1970s I once asked my biology teacher how it was possible that all these sea animals turned into land animals. How did it happen? She didn`t answer my question, instead got upset with me. My question was pretty innocent, just like any question a student might ask about anything. I thought she just didn`t know the answer, which puzzled me because she would typically answer all students`questions and go into lengthy details about everything. As a child you know when grown-ups don`t know the answer and are cross at you for exposing their ignorance. Obviously back then I had no idea this is a bogus theory. I takes a child to say out loud that the emperor has no clothes.
Makes a lot more sense when you throw in invisible deities, magic, miracles, and all the other supernatural gibberish that makes up religion, doesn't it?
Here is your answer: They didn't, and Evolutionary Theory never said that they did. Only 1) some 2) species made that transistion, not all of them, and not individual animals.
Generally, Americans of fundamentalist protestant background have the lowest level of trust in the theory of evolution. I think this is true in part because they are taught that only one book has all the correct answers so they generally refuse to read other sources of information. People of other nationalities and religious inclinations are more open to clear and honest presentations of new scientific knowledge. Perhaps your teacher was not well versed in evolution and simply felt upset at having to admit ignorance about some aspect of a subject in which she was supposedly a certified expert. I was a teacher for 38 years and decided early on to simply admit I did not know, promise to find out the answer and get back to them. As for a specific answer to your question for her, it is simply a matter of time. No offspring is ever an identical copy of its parents, and over time, subtle genetic variations build up as the species adapts. Over a time period that we humans simply cannot grasp, this leads to major transformations. Look up "Earth's entire history (visualized on a football field." Imagine a kick taken at the goal line. By the 16 yard line, life appears, but it takes until midfield for oxygen to build up in sufficient quantity to support a rapidly expanding group of larger living organisms. Our returner still runs, the crowd is on their feet, he's going all the way! Down at the 10, two things happen; fish appear AND animals start coming on land. So land animals did not necessarily come from fish, but rather both came from earlier common ancestors. At the 5-yard line, the first mammals appear, half a billion years ago. Armadilloes, whales, wolves appear inside the one yard line. At about one foot from the goal, great apes, the ancestors of humans and other monkey species, appear. At the 1/8 of an inch point, we find humans with whom we could be sexually compatible. 1/8" is the width of a Christmas tree bulb. But our runner trips and fumbles at the beginning of human history, about 10,000 years ago, the width of the filament in that light bulb. See? The time periods are astonishingly and incomprehensibly long. Of course, if you are a strict fundamentalist, then you cannot accept any of this. But you do accept all other valid scientific discoveries, just not the one that contradicts the bible.
This channel is greatly needed.
Cos it's funny
@@ozowen No, because it's the truth
@@TrevoltIV no it's not
@@JS-br7bo You should probably smarten up brother.
Finally a science guy with a open mind and doesn't follow the normal way of original thought
Its called non scientific cretardation in a lab coat, there is always one. Just like Bigfoot hunters.
@@janradtke8318 well 90% is because our doctors can't speak out the truth in most cases cause they will lose their job and or controlled
Yeah it’s a religion to them
@@jadcock1023 That's easily remedied in two steps: 1) Create something new based on Creationism. 2) Make a lot of money and hire all the disgraced "doctors".
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. Creationists do not follow the normal way of original thought; they spend all their time trying to come up with bizarre and convoluted explanations to justify a belief in ancient folk writings. It is original and independent thought that discovers the new things.
Brilliant explanation should be taught in every school.
False premise. Mutations aren't random.
@@ja31472 Are you saying the mutations causing genetic disease are deliberate?
@@zorot3876 No, and neither is any other part of nature, beneficial or bad to humans. Mutations are not random because they are caused by deterministic physical processes and laws of nature, that are not intelligent or conscious. Google "physical mechanisms of mutation" to see how mutations work.
Also, "deliberate" is a word used in the context of a mind. There is no mind controlling mutations or any other part of nature, no matter what benefit or hindrance it has to human agendas.
We, the educated folk who understand meteorology, do not say Hurricane Katrina was "deliberate", because the laws of fluid dynamics, the energy from the sun, and the low pressure system that causes hurricanes to form are not a mind or conscious.
Also, the outcome of nature, be it good or bad relative to humans desires, *is totally irrelevant.*
The cause of mutations, like the cause of hurricanes that reek havoc, death and destruction, as well as the cause of a gentle rain shower that allows a farmer to grow food and feed starving children, is caused by the exact same thing: natural processes and laws of nature.
A biologist saying mutations are random is like a sociologist saying "there is a 20% chance of a democrat to be pro-gun". Do people flip coins to decided if they are pro-gun? Of course not.
The phrase "probability of a [good or bad] mutation occurring" does not mean it is random, or undetermined. It means the chance of observing a particular case, not the ultimate or underlying cause of that case.
@@patldennis That'll be the first creationist who ever looked up a scientific explanation.
@@ja31472 Even if we accept mutations are not random but planned based on nature etc Darwins Theory still cannot explain how every element in DNA changes as a result of one mutation. One mutation cannot make a water dependent fish etc suddenly become a land creature. Billions of changes are necessary and all must be precise. The chances that a mutation actually contributes to a change is Trillions to one and this MUST occur in thousands/millions/billions of DNA strands depending on the complexity of the species we are talking about.
It is a scientific impossibility as once 1 element in DNA changes it changes elements in all elements in DNA. 1 change in DNA cannot change a species abilities as claimed by Darwinism.
As the Biologist stated Darwin etc had zero knowledge of cells and their effect on a species. Based on knowledge at the time Darwins theory made sense but knowing what we know today Darwin would not get past step 1 today if he were to publish his theory now.
The fact scientists and others today still say evolution as per the Darwin Theory is a fact says more for their ignorance of basic facts than the stupidity etc they throw at those that have proven them wrong.
ANY scientist that believes in Darwinian Theory of Evolution is simply a denier of science.
Girl kisses a frog and it turns into a prince = Fairytale.
Add millions of years and it becomes a scientific theory.
... and if that was what Evolutionary theory was based on, you might have a point.
This more interesting than school..
In secular schools you have propaganda.
It's also more truth then school
A lot of things are
I am sorry that yall were taught to deny scientific theories (yes I am trying to bate you into saying they are only theories)
@@nordscan9043
In secular schools you have education, to varying degrees of quality.
In religious schools you have deliberate propaganda, openly so.
Thoroughly enjoyed this! I am hoping that your constant stream of new videos means that you are working on another movie!
But it is all BS ???
@@stultusvenator3233 It's not brother
@@TrevoltIV
Afraid it is Brother !!
Painfully obvious too.!
@@stultusvenator3233 I’d love for you to explain why!
@@TrevoltIV
Don't kid me.....
Never met a "blind faith " theist who cares at all for evidence, reason or facts.
Just open your eyes.
Read the bible & think!!
Very nice break down there. Thank you kindly for this.
Very interesting when the Dr, talked about bacteria beneficial mutations. Those mutations needed a loss of genetic material, not a gain to not be effected by antibiotics, its very misleading to say this is evidence of evolution, this is textbook definition for adaptation, not evolutionary change of new functioning genetic material, and as the Dr stated, the mutated bacteria will soon bring back that missing genetic material once the antibiotics are no longer present for better healthy bacteria cultures.
I noticed the same. According to the evolution theory, "All life on Earth stems from a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA)". If this was true, it would of course mean mind blowing changes in the basic anatomical structures of any given organism, in this case the bacteria. That did not happen here, so there was no evolution in the bacterial population our good Doctor presented. But that of course only confirms his case. In laboratories, man has never been able to produce evolution (changes in the existing body plan) of any test organism.
Exactly. I'd love to see that virus turn into a starfish. Simply impossible, all it does is lose information due to natural selection, just like dogs do when *artificially* selected, AKA bred.
You are wrong. Some bacterias gain new genetic material in order to synthesize new enzymes that will counter the anti-biotics.
I find that most evolutionists misuse the term evolution when they really mean adaptation.
There's no change of kind of species. Just a species adapting to its environment.
@@rhess10 they will claim that those small adaptions over time can result in big changes from one specie to another
Can someone please show me just 1 beneficial Mutation???
Mutations do not Add information they destroy information.
Ray G two copies of a gene that regulates cloresterol, effictively eliminating high chloresterol in those ppl.
Didn't the guest state that he has a beneficial mutation? The one that failed to shut down his tolerance of lactose so he can enjoy milk? Maybe I had better listen to it again. I am with you that genetically information is lost with every generation. Just asking...
@@nunyabisnass1141 technically not a mutation but two copies of an existing gene
Suzanne Hartmann a mutation is a change in the genome. It does not specify that a copy, deletion, or change to an existing gene are excluded. It is literally just a change, not a specific change.
Ray, a _"beneficial mutation"_ isn't the same as a mutation that _"adds information"._ Some destructive mutations are beneficial, as noted in the video and even more in Behe's book _Darwin Devolves._
Evolution has more problems than just time. Even if creation actually occurred over a longer period of time than the week in the bible, body plans require that all cells change into their final form in a coordinated manner. I find it difficult to believe that mutations would produce new body plans that survive.
You finding it difficult to believe is a statement about you.
That's a logical fallacy in action.
Argument from Incredulity
@@ozowen Incredulity..... that's an unnecessary ad hominem. The thing with short answers and ad hominems is, that they suggest lack of knowlegde at your side. So let's please not do this. Give a proper answer.
The thing is that even if we try to explain Lemaitre's big bang or Darwin's ET, we have to believe that natural science makes some sort of design by itself.I'm not against that idea. It only says that it's logical that nature works according to it's own rules. But, it does not answer the question about a possible designer, of these laws of nature. In the case of the big bang it could be all coincidence in which the earth's composion and position in our solar system, gave us the exact perfect conditions for life to develop on earth. After that we get the ET that gives us an explanation of how life evolved from chemistry to biology and from the first cells to human beings, baths, birds and wales.... all developing eyes at the same time. Time is not the only factor. ET runs by mutations. Mutations which are influenced by major incidents like comet impacts and glacal eras. The fittest survivor Lysterosaurus is supposed to be the ancestor (or one of several) of the mammals. The time span of the evolution from Lysterosauruses into mammals like humans is about 66 million years. We have seen a couple of fierce glacal areas in the last 2.5 million years. Some of these glacal areas were so cold that life on earth had to survive in small refugia. This means that the number species decreased. This frustrates the evolution.
So if there were no design in life on earth, the ET has a problem with time and climate chances. At the other hand, mutations are supposed to be induced by climate chances. The question is if these mutations induced by a climate that's warming up the face of the earth in the first place, could keep up with climate getting colder.... fast.
And if all that works.... does the design of everything (big bang and ET) come from the laws of natural sceince or from a designing higher power?
By the way.... George Lemaitre was a catholic priest, who had to convince Einstein that the universe was still expanding, if you used the theory of relativity.
@@HedzerKooistra I've got no problem with natural selection, which allows for changes such as fur length, fur color, bigger beaks, etc. All of that is possible because of the way that DNA is constricted. My problem occurs when they say that it's the mechanism for creating new species, and in actuality it creates sub-species of the same species.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 I agree. There is not one example of a species mutating into another species..... as far as I know. Most scientists agree on micro-evolution. It's the macro-evolution that leaves a bunch of questions open. Still ID is refuted as if it were a fairy tale.
I like it when Creationist organizations don't have their comments turned off.
Exactly. How else heathen like myself suppose to learn without being able to hear what others are thinking about the information given?
Awesome way to explain the truth. It really great to hear someone else explain it so well. Great video, thank you
That was awesome! Thank you
Yes, indeed.
Grown up people acting like kindergarden kids.
So entertaining. Just awesome.
Science is a tool to the study of God's creation.
Amen. Thank you for your teachings
The REAL materialist paradigm is not particularly “slow evolution over a tremendously long time” but rather, militant atheism. That is the bottom line.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Absolutely beautiful.
To dovetail with this talk, I respectfully recommend Dr. Michael Behe’s new book, Darwin Devolves. A clear easy read on this topic.
I would also recommend John Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. He discusses the immense challenge of creating a beneficial gene and getting it to not only present itself in an organism, but also to stick and be reproduced.
I second the book "Darwin Devolves". He makes the case that the evolution we see is due to damaging mutations.
Awesome information
But still _wrong_ information.
Very articulate, very good. Thank you.
The dynamic restructuring of DNA for reusing coded sequences baffles the mind!
For so long (75 years?) DNA was described as a “blueprint” for life, because researchers were infantile in their understanding of it. Today we see it as more sophisticated than any human-crafted computer program.
Brilliant.
This is the info I was looking for.
Excellent speaker as well.
Time is the "God of the gaps" for evolutionists.
The "Time problem" which seems to have you all so breathless is a classic hand-waving argument, a dismissal on gratuitous grounds which (it is implied) are too obvious to need explanation. I suppose it' could be worse, eg, "young earth" Creationism....
It seems to me particularly questionable given that there is a somewhat glossed--over Time Problem for Genesis: the missing 700 million years (give or take a few hundred million) after earth's formation during which there was no life on it. And no mention of what more pressing calls God had on its hands during that period.
I suppose in comparison with the major problems with Genesis, this is nowhere near the top of the list, so I suppose it gets a free pass.
difference is, evolutionists can prove the amount of time a fossil's been around
Awesome video!
Thank you very much Sır..
This is wonderful. So well presented!
But still completely wrong.
@@nupsi6
Prove him wrong then, tell us what evolved first for a cell to emerge alive? Tell us what mind drove it to form from nothing?
@@technicianbis5250
You're asking how a god could come into being without a designer-creator? I'm afraid I don't have an answer for that.
@@technicianbis5250
Are you saying that since three or four people on a CZcams thread didn't tell you the early history of life on Earth you concluded that the theory of evolution has been falsified?
@@numbersix9477
"you're asking how"
Scripture tells us that God has always existed and always will. My question was about a cells begining and no one has answered this despite asking it many times.
Evolution takes more faith than belief in God.
There's tons of evidence we all just have to find it unless we want ppl shoving it in eachothers faces regardless of interest.
Actually faith in God is based upon His words and His promises. Evilution doesn't have any foundation of faith, therefore it cannot truly be defined as faith, but foollishness
You can't afford evolution, unless you have millions
Of years that is.
@@myotheraccount5947 His Word, His promises and His actions (History).
@Justus the righteousThats just a divine fallacy though, & it doesn't matter if cells are complex they can advance too.
Like how would single celled organisms diversify if changing a cell is too complex?
THANK YOU!!!
For what?
Claiming things that make little sense?
Sounds like you are a religious believer?
Wow.. Superb..
This is wonderful.
False premise, hence the argument is bogus. Mutations are not random. Google "physical mechanisms of mutation" to see how physics (which is not an intelligence) controlls, specifies, and guides mutations.
@@ja31472
Mutations are copying errors. They destroy data, not add it and there is no known mechanism for adding to data to the genome. Can there be beneficial mutations? Sure. Can they cause change from on kind of organism, say a plant, into another kind of organism like a fish? No. There is no science that can help evolution. Science doesn't even know how life began.
@@rickdavis2235 "there is no known mechanism for adding to data to the genome"
*Natural death processes add information.* Every single time a slow-moving or slow-witted creature gets eaten by predators or succumbs to disease, information (about what works best to survive) gets _added_ to the genome.
Contrary to what simple-minded creationists think, destruction and removal of matter or data can actually add information; information about survival; what works and what doesn't work.
That is why you live right now, because death in nature has finely-tuned your species to not die as often as some of your ancestral cousins did, that no longer have a living genetic line. Death events and numerous other natural processes in ecology, like predator/prey interactions, are constantly adding information to the entire genome of life. Tera-bytes of information per second are being added, because billions of organisms are dying each second.
"They destroy data"
*Destruction of the less fit **_adds_** information **_about survival_** to the genome as a whole.* Mutations also change the physical structure of life and, along with other natural mechanisms like gene flow, sexual selection and natural selection, are the ONLY observed way life can change, which is 1000000 times more than any god was ever observed doing, which is nothing because no gods have ever been observed once, let alone observed altering life.
"Mutations are copying errors."
Like discovering penicillin, plastics, gun powder and the microwave were errors.
"They destroy data"
*Destruction of data in an unfit organism **_adds_** information (about survival) to the genome as a whole.*
Also, in all known cases, intelligence is more likely to destroy than create. The intelligence that creates more good than evil, or destroys less than it creates, is a total fiction.
"Can they cause change from on kind of organism, say a plant, into another kind of organism like a fish? No."
With natural selection and multiple generations, they can and do. There are no other observed mechanisms of change in life; certain not any gods fumbling with biomolecules while animals have sex, nor at any other time in the process of reproduction.
"There is no science that can help evolution."
Evolution is science. It follows the scientific method. ID/creationism rejects multiple protocols of science, like parsimony, scope and repeatable observation. No gods are observed once let alone observed repeatedly, millions of times changing life like those natural processes in genetics, reproduction and ecology; exactly what evolution is made of.
"Science doesn't even know how life began."
ID/creationism knows nothing about life origins and the alleged cause of life, much less how it works on the inside, or how it created life.
Science does know what caused life in the broadest sense. It says the most mathematically probably cause is the same fundamental natural processes and laws that allow life to reproduce, grow and operate right now, and make the rest of the universe operate.
Science includes the *parsimony principle,* which demands the simplest possible observable cause, which is not intelligence. Intelligence is by far, the most complex and delicate mechanism, and therefore the most unlikely cause of life in a hellish, prebiotic earth.
See reproduction and growth/development for how nature made and grew you from parts that weren't alive. See anatomy, physiology and neuroscience for how nature lets you live, heal, feel and think.
@@ja31472
Dr. Greg Bahnsen summed up evolution quite nicely.
The theory of evolution, as a world view, tells us that once there was disorder and, although we don’t know why or how, that disorder became order. This ordered matter was inorganic and, although we don’t know how or why, this inorganic matter became living and then this living matter, made up of all identical forms, began to diversify. From these diversified living forms became varied, for reasons we can’t explain, although unintelligent but then the unintelligent life-forms became intelligent and articulate and then the intelligent, articulate life-forms became language using but not moral. Then the language using life-forms, for reasons we can’t explain, became intelligent, articulate, moral men. Every step is a huge leap of faith, from nothing to something.
Someone as knowledgeable as you surely knows the mechanism by which information came about in order to the evolve chemicals into organisms. So tell us, how did LIFE evolve from a pool full of chemicals?
It's called the Theory of Evolution because it is just a THEORY! I'm reminded of the book "Tornado In A Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism" by James Perloff, in which he says Darwin's theory makes as much sense as a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a 747 jetliner.
if that tornado spun for billions of years in an infinite junkyard . . . it could happen. -c. darwin
Gravity and relativity are also theories.
@@josephscala6707 Wrong. It's called the Law of Gravity. The "theory of gravity" refers to something else entirely than what you are implying.
Valerie R look up the definition of scientific theory. It’s different to the normal definition. People always use that “it’s just a theory” line when they don’t know the difference.
It's not even a theory; it's a hypothesis. Because it's unobservable and untestable, it is not subject to the scientific method and so is not even science.
Amazing
Are there any other phd microbiologists and geneticists who don’t believe in evolution? Dr. Kevin Anderson is very informative, but I’d also like to explore who else is out there like Dr. Kevin.
There are a few, but they aren't respected in the scientific community because, similar to Dr. Anderson, they all use evidence to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion rather than the other way around.
Very well explained and captivating, me n my wife watched it twice!
One of the best presentations of this topic I have ever seen!
But still simply wrong. If you look closer their "reasoning" does not really make much sense ...
Is there a way to ask Dr K A a question? I do not do facebook/twitter/etc. I would like to know what he thinks of gene duplication (Haldane, Ohno), ORF, and de novo genes as they might apply to evolution, micro or macro. And if he can point us to resources that might help non-biologists get an overview of the main ideas in these topics.
I tried to find his e-mail, but it seems that Dr Anderson passed away in 2022.
Astonishing !
Vos vidéos sont tellement bien présentées ...
Merci de travailler pour la Gloire de Dieu!
DNA/RNA is the most advanced computersystem in the Universe, and we don't know how it was written og how it came to be.
But it works, and science is trying to understand it.
Science is trying to change it.
This video was amazing! I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
yes you are Eric..you are the only one like you, and there will never be another!
I have to disagree with the whole concept that mutations are just loss of function. What about all of the gain of function mutations? How about the creation of a promoter on a previously non-coding part of DNA? Aren't all of those mutations adding stuff? And also, DNApol often mutates the genome by adding nucleotides, and repair mechanisms do that too.
You seem to have good critical thinking, consider how everyday observation of complex ordered information always necessitates intelligent design, a computer program, a book, etc, the genome contains information way beyond the capabilities of mankind, so in order to contemplate evolution as a solution to its existence means you have to abandon thousands of years of this simple observation, complex ordered information requires high levels of intelligent input, so what does mind boggling levels of complex information that can be read in multiple directions, has error correction, and encryption require? Do you think any type of mutation can achieve this? NO, it requires a level of intellect that far exceeds our own.
@@spamm0145 _"consider how everyday observation of complex ordered information always necessitates intelligent design"_
In this statement you make some assumptions. Let's start with two.
1. Life is, or is built on, information.
2. This form of information is analogous to the information in computer programs and books.
Can you demonstrate that that's actually the case?
If not information, then what? The whole scientific method is based on it!
@@karmar22able How do you define 'information?
This should be interesting
It sure is.
Great explanation about mutation. A decrease in complexity.
Even beneficial or so called neutral mutations degrade the genome, mutation has never been observed to build the genome, to add novel, new information to it. Not even in bacteria over decades and thousands of generations.
That doesn't make sense. DNA is a chain of nucleotides shaped like a ladder. Each step of the ladder is one of 4 different nucleotides: A,G,T and C. So all DNA can be expressed as a genetic sequence (or code) consisting of these 4 letters. All animals use the same 4 letters, just in a different order. Similar species have a code that is nearly identical.
A mutation is any change that happens to a genetic code when DNA is being copied. Mutations can duplicate, delete and insert letters, or just shift letters around. Meaning that mutations can add extra letters (nucleotides) to the genetic code, thereby making it bigger and more complex. If you continue this process long enough, just one letter at a time, you could eventually change one genetic code into the genetic code of another species.
@@leroybrown9143
Incorrect. Additions to the genome have been observed.
@@ozowen Wrong. Additions to the genome have never been observed. Changes are not additions. There's no mechanism in nature that can add specified information to anything. Logicaclly, specified information cannot be the end result of a random process.
But, provide examples otherwise and I'll be glad to consider them.
@@leroybrown9143 In 2012 the long running e-coli experiment was startled to find that one of the 12 lineages of the bacterium had been able to consume the neutral medium it was in. Just the one lineage.
The experiment had a protocol of freezing a sample one a day. So they were able to sequence the genes before and after this sudden additional capacity.
The genes had a random addition that allowed it to consume a new foodstuff. The previously neutral medium.
1) DNA Mutation
2) Addition
3) Observed
4) Expanded diet
The question was about additions to the dna- this is an example. Please limit your responses to this subject. Too often creationist change the goal posts. Only one previous contender did not do this.
I love this series, I love these videos. It helps immensely in opening doors with people who believe they are smarter than they actually are! I'm not saying I'm smarter it's just that none of us can even imagine what we don't know!
If they know about evidence and science then this tripe will shut doors.
I can easily imagine what YOU don't know.
@@tonygrowley5275 Actually I used to believe in evolution and billions of years, I know much more than you might believe. That's how I now know it is so wrong. But you do you. We'll find out soon enough who is correct!
@@Unborn-Lives-Matter I already know who is correct and it isn't your mythological god.
@@Unborn-Lives-Matter You used to believe in logic and facts, but now you believe in magical thinking, Your invisible sky daddy made it all! Just show me the evidence to continue..
How does horizontal gene transfer fit in?
Fun fact time. (Comedian Debunks Evolution. Reno Coller - Full Special.)
I could listen to Dr.s Kevin Anderson and Kurt Wise, and most all the gentleman involved in this project really ;D, all day long and never get bored or tired or disagree even- which is quite rare for me concerning internet content these days. The information presented is so sensible and explained in such understandable terms...O if the whole world could have the chance to watch...However, I realize there will always be the blind and or deaf ones- the dissenters- that choose to go the other way(s)- w/o them balance would not exist i guess...But one day, when unfortunately it may be too late for those choosing the other, wider, paths- every knee shall bend, right, and proclaim the glory...yep, the big I told ya so is tha Lord's, as none of us know exactly how things work around here, or why they are working or when or why they cease working- none of us- "there is not one" can be applied in so many instances...Some do have very enlightened, intelligent, worthy of note stuff going on though- like these fellas here :). I guess what I really don't understand is why Darwin's stuff is so highly revered? because with scientific subject matter constantly evolving- new thoughts and discoveries and theories being postulated all the time- it should stand to reason that his work be challenged and updated- making it even more apparent that his "theory" is just an attempt to cut God out of the equation of existence. And once the Devil got that toe hold, boy o boy, you bet he ain't lettin go- that one went over far too easy and is workin far too well- and now he's done made it half way across tha room, schmoozin everyone he meets with the silver tongue of technology and scientific advancement...Because, yes, a lot of advancements we've pioneered, and causes we've championed over the thousands of years we have been on this planet have done tremendously wonderful things. But there, lurking just behind the veil of good, lies the deep, dark and wide avenue of the other way- but it is disguised. It certainly doesn't even look dark to most eyes i know, only new and innovative, uncharted- a bright new horizon undoubtedly- these are the terms under which we've always been snagged tho, yes? D-wave computing, new ways of creatin g vaccines, growing beef in-vitro- advancements that we actually need need or want need? Sounds like want need kinda, which really =lust...And then pride comes strollin in cause somebody(ies) has to take credit for the masterpiece at hand, and so it begins...one sin begets another under the guise of help and advancement, which in a way they are, only with the added 'tax', if you will, due to the cost of the sin they brought with them...Wow, that was a rabbit hole ramble I had no plans on takin...Sorry 'bout that, didn't mean ta get so carried away...Goodnight to you then, hope you've enjoyed this solstice and I bid you many more fine sun-filled days ahead!
Phew! This video is like a sledgehammer smashing and pulverizing the basics of the whole evolution theory ...😎
no itsjust personal incredulity
Why aren't these truthful counter-arguments introduced in our nation's schools ? In doing so, it would strengthen critical thinking, furtherance of authentic scientific exploration , and would be a Rosetta Stone for hopeful discoveries that fulfill mankind's quest for purpose . At a time when statutes are being pulled down wantonly and stupidly, Darwin's statutes remain unscathed, yet HE is the author of people thinking that the human race is not singular to start with!
Nucleotide sequence of the DNA is what mutates he said.
I'm thinking it would take trillions upon trillions of years of mutations just to get the first single cell ....🤪
Yeah, you don't think very well...
@David Ball
A mechanism would be needed that can evolve a primordial pool full of inorganic chemicals, which are totally indifferent to life, into an organism.
@@rickdavis2235 Sure, it's impossible for your tiny brain to understand. THAT is the limitation. It was a magic invisible being that created it all.. am i right? What else could it be? LOL
@@tonygrowley5275
I know you probably won't read this through, but it defines you. If only you knew. God bless.
Romans 1:18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
@@rickdavis2235 oooo Spooky! ahahah I can define you, too. A dull witted sucker! I went to a christian school for 9 years and that's where i learned that the whole religion game is a scam. It's a tool of control and a way to get fools like you to give them money. The buybull is a book of mythology, not a history book of facts. If you read it with that in mind it might do you some good. Do you know Aesop's story of the Tortoise and the the Hare? No one believes they actually existed, talked to each other, or raced. Still, the moral of the story holds true. It's the same with the bible. Wake up, brother!
He says evolution relies on an old earth and universe, well duh! Then never provides any evidence for a young Earth. Our whole understanding of cosmology depends on an old universe. An old universe has been demonstrated by observation and mathematics. For the universe to be young we’d have to throw out most of science. The same with the age of the Earth , it’s been determined by multiple methods.
As for mutations, he cherry picks a few. He never talks about a gene duplication error, where you have two genes doing the same function. This lengthen the size of the chromosomes and the second gene is free to further mutate as it’s redundant. Eventually that second genes mutations may prove beneficial.
Then there are viral insertions that add new genes that didn’t exist before. These genes sometimes have beneficial mutations as well.
The author of the video found a fellow believer with scientific credentials and fringe scientific views to spin his narrative. That is all.
The vast majority of biological and other scientists have studied the evidence and have excepted evolution. You can always find someone with a phd and fringe beliefs to promote your views. The tobacco industry used to bring doctors to court to say smoking is good for you.
God created a mature universe, earth, plants, and animals. He designed and created mature well established rock and life, just like how He created Adam as a mature man and not as an infant. Looks like everything needs to be in place for this physical life to work together.
@@des711
How did you determine this? What tests did you run? What studies did you do? Can you produce evidence for your assertion?
If you can’t why even waste your time with it? Do yourself a favor and get some good books on evolution. Ones that are not propaganda from a religious organization. Just do a search in CZcams there must courses and debates here.
Don’t just reply to people with baseless claims that you can’t back up. What did you hope to accomplish with this reply? That suddenly, I would bend a knee by the overwhelming strength of your argument. We’re talking about things that can be backed by evidence. Your reply is backed by nothing, so can just be dismissed.
There you go, comparing the tobacco ayesayers to this topic.
What do you call a 18th century pigeon breeder who looks at finches'beaks, marries his cousin, has several children most of who die, because of inbreeding influences his cousin, Francis Galton, who starts the eugenics movement which influences Hitler stalin and Mao? ......COOKOO!!!!!!
There is no evidence for evolution. It’s presumed first, then the sketchy “evidence” is juggled around to create a hypothesis that excludes a creator who requires personal accountability. Science has blindingly failed to prove evolution again and again. We are not gods. But evolution has become a religion.
Since WHEN could a CELL ever have been SIMPLE in the
FIRST place?
Cells change just like people & what about single celled organisms? They're not allowed to evolve?
Samson. Perfectly spoken.
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE that explanation of science! THANK YOU for THIS!!
Dont listen to a creationist for explanations of science, I cant count the amount of times he leaped around science to help explain his false world view
@@elizabethposekany4944 Indeed. Listening to a creationist explain science is like listening to an auto body mechanic (aka panelbeater) explain how to design intersections.
It's sad that even Christians have been fooled about this theory and ended believing that God used evolution to create human beings, and therefore converted Christian Faith in a leap in the dark when it is not. Our lives are miracles, the creation itself is a miracle, it's not something that can be argued from a physical or philosophical view.
Its not something that can ne argued?? Biggest divine fallacy I've seen so far. What if evidences do exist? Such as the bibble or animals stuck in strata layers.
Theory has a different meaning in science, it doesn't mean that it's a guess
Apparently these two haven't got the memo yet. Answers in Genesis, after having it pointed out to them that Noah's ark couldn't possibly have carried two of every species of animal on earth, changed the story to two of each "kind" of animal. No one really knows what a "kind" is, but according to Answers in Genesis that reduces the number of animals that were on the ark. That brought up another problem. How to explain the diversity of extant species which have developed since the flood of about 4500 years ago. Their answer to that is that evolution happened very rapidly. So not that much time was needed, apparently.
I am NOT a evolutionist/materialist but i am also not a creationist. I dont belive in evolution as its explained by the majority of the scientist. But its a pitty that all good critic comes from fundamental religious people. So nobody from the other side takes all these good arguments serious. What is needed is a certain number of independent non religious scientist who stand up and have the courage to publish their openion.
That happens all the time. That's the purpose of peer review and it's the reason Evolutionary theory keeps being reaffirmed as the most robust explanation we have when it comes to explaining biodiversity.
@@nolanbalzer1796 "Most robust explanation" sounds like a very good definition what Evolution- a theses with many open questions- actually is. Thank you.
Excellent understandable debunking of evolution. When you begin to understand the truth about this subject, evolution becomes so ludicrous, that it is laughable.
Still happens to exists though. & they debunked it with what, their opinion that nothing good comes from speciation?
Laughable yes inasmuch as a lot of intelligent people have been taken in by this nonsense but tragic too as people have been sent down the wrong path and are so engrossed in this fiction that they have lost all sense of direction and ultimately, truth. They now claim that Genesis is untrue, there is no God and we can invent our own morality; we are not responsible to anyone ultimately and nobody can judge us. This could end in tragedy for them.
@@frankierandle8779 Genesis was never tested true sorry. Nothing in natural history corresponds with it besides some marine life appearing 1st & some plant life appearing 2nd. And some of the flying animals But more like insects not birds & bats. This type of speaking could have got me silenced for heresy back then though. Also probably if I said that flatfish & mudskippers evolved to be that way.
They're born as regular looking fish though! same for salmon, they metamorphosize within their lives to grow a bowed mouth. The others mentioned grow stronger arms for pulling, or flip an eye to the other side of their head.
And yeah metamorphosis happens to all of them its not evolution in itself but species of frogs, toads & freshwater crabs that lengthen their gestation period will skip larval stages. So if flatfish & mudskippers did that it would be as if they Were fish like tadpoles but Not anymore.
Especially since Gobys & perciformes still resemble mudskippers & flatfish & are their closest relatives
@@frankierandle8779 Who has ever said "we are not responsible to anyone ultimately & nobody can judge us"?
or are you thinking people will cause havok if not threatened to be thrown in hell? Sorry but needing to be threatened with hell shows you may not have morals yourself.
False premise. Mutations aren't random. Google "physical mechanisms of mutations" to see how physics and chemistry control, guide, and highly-specify mutations.
Google "human development science" to see how physics and chemistry control, guide, and highly-specify your existence and growth, from non-intelligent, unconscious spec of bio-matter before birth, to conscious, semi-intelligent human.
Get degrees in neuroscience, biophysics, biochemistry and physiology to see how physics and chemistry allow your entire body to function; think, feel, grow, and heal.
Google "ab initio molecular dynamics of proteins and DNA" to see how physics allows DNA and proteins to function as they do and how simulations using only physics have recreated all functions of DNA.
12:34...And if you take out the wrong wall the house can collapse!
Brilliant explanation to us simpletons; thank you!
As a believer I take joy in my Creator who created all that is seen and unseen! Colossians 1:16 😎🇺🇸🗽✝️🇮🇱
If through evolution is how everything evolved, then we would have six arms by now.
And then why evolution and not devolution ? who is to dictate the course ? full ahead or reverse? why not get all ?
@Sam Barker Stop making sense! It's culturally inappropriate in the context of this discussion. More problematically, it will probably get you nowhere (sigh) ...
Every effect requires a cause. It is illogical, nay foolish, to believe that the cause could be anything other than eternal.
They willingly ignore (because of their pride) the evidence & they walk in darkness. Without "The Light that is Jesus Christ" they worship the creation & refuse to give glory to The Creator, who is worthy to be praised forever. IMO Romans Chap. 1 and 1st. John (that entire letter) gives us (who believe in Jesus Christ) a very clear picture of what is beginning to take place in this world. So much of the world is willing & ready to follow "the lawless one". The "good news" is that when we see these things "begin" to happen it's a clear sign for us to look up because we are going home soon w/our Lord & Savior leading the way. You folks have done a great job on this series of videos. Thanks a million. Glory to GOD Forever, AMEN !
If you had a clue about evolution you would use evolutionary arguments instead of talking about your faith.
So much for a "clear picture" if you don't understand the base principles.
What amazes me is that, despite all that complexity, the whole system operates almost flawlessly.
Even in its fallen state, amazing ❤️
"flawlessly" are you nuts ??
Not exactly - it operates just enough to work. Until something breaks! Which it does often
Forest Valkai does an excellent job at exposing the dishonesty and misrepresentation of biology and Evolution. Go watch it and make up your own mind, it is almost an hour long but very well worth watching.
I did watch it and I indeed make up my own mind.
This video is laughable. It is pretty easy to see that it is using cherry picking and questionable quotes to apparently show an issue with scientific findings.
But it actually is obvious to anyone who has actually studied those topics that this is just people trying to ridicule something they failed to understand.
I am a creationist, but when I hear something false I must address it. Natural selection does not like or dislike a mutation. Natural selection is not a thing that makes any decisions. Natural selection is simply the idea that some traits are better equipped for survival and in a life or death situation, the creature with those traits will survive and the one without them will die. Here is an example. You have 2 types of creatures. Doesn't matter what they are, but lets use dogs because dogs are awesome. The first type is a short haired breed with no body fat. The second type is a thick, long haired breed with an excess of body fat. The winter is unseasonably cold this year. Temperatures stay below 0 for months. The short haired dogs die out. The long haired dogs live, reproduce, and thrive. Nature has selected for long haired fat boys. That's natural selection. With that said, random mutations are almost always negative. The idea that random mutations could lead to the variation we see today is absurd.
J B correction, mutations are almost always neutral. The negative mutations get more attention because they are typically more visible as causing health problems, while those that do nothing go unnoticed unless you are looking for them, while beneficial mutations also tend to go unnoticed until theres an event where the right person in the right place and time notices something unusual.
Natural selection is exactly what the name says, the notion that nature 'selects' certain traits for preservation and discards others by testing whether each trait it encounters is beneficial or not.
Mendel made Darwin |(and Russel's) work possible. It does all make sense.
Why is this guy talking that tripe?
In short, they aren't.
The problem here is in the idea of "random". It expresses the human inability to understand and foresee processes and not an absence of a cause.
Who can determine what is really random?
❤
And why should that be a problem?
What happens does _not_ depend on what humans (or an imaginary "god") thinks of it.
Theistic Evolution: People try to mix the two because they think, as they've been told, that evolution is proven.
Nothing in science is ever proven, but the gold standard is to hold up to rational critique and honest attempts at falsification. Regrettably, attacks of this quality almost never come from people who carry a religious affiliation. Which is a shame, because weak attacks (like the one here) risk making the theory look more plausible than perhaps it deserves.
Evolution is an outstandingly successful hypothesis in the number of "risky" predictions which have been borne out by later discoveries, particularly from DNA sequencing, but it is a long way from asymptotic to a steady state.
@@Gottenhimfella "Nothing in science is ever proven" Of course is. Evolution theory however does not belong to science.
Atheism - but not science - is the basis of evolution theory. Charles Darwin with his friends spun a fairy tale of our globe’s history of millions and millions of years without scientific means to prove it. Their goal was political, not scientific. Darwin & Co. wanted to topple the Church’s power and the Royal institution.
How we know that evolution is a myth? We know it because genes do not allow evolution. They allow only adaptive variations. It's simple like that. Darwin's "Origin of Species" is based on ignorance because Darwin knew nothing of genes.
Scientific method is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. This means that man has never succeeded in proving evolution with any scientific method.
Charles Darwin knew nothing of genetics. When he saw adaptation in nature, he believed that it was the way to evolution i.e. to structural changes in the organisms. Today we know that genes do not enable any changes in the basic anatomical structures (body plan). Genes enable superficial adaptations and even production of subspecies. Subspecies are not new species. They have the same body plan with their stem species. They are just advanced variations and they can never evolve to new species.
A common system of biological classification (taxonomy) consists of species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain. In their genetic pool, subspecies are poorer than their stem species. This can be compared to "dealing a deck of cards". Subspecies with less genes are not evolution but devolution. Devolution makes impossible for subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. evolution. Millions of species have gone extinct through devolution and this continues incessantly.
Evolution is a dead theory. It was and is based on atheism - nothing else. Robert Laughlin, professor of physics at Stanford University, and sharer in a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect, describes evolution theory as ”an ideology, a logical dead end and an anti-theory”. Evolution theory is against the discoveries caught from empirical studies of natural science.
According to Robert Laughlin, the observations which are used to justify evolution theory are questionable at best, and at worst they are completely false.
Laughlin says that empirical natural science does not need the evolution theory and the evolution theory does not get support from empirical natural science. Physics is the basis for all scientific study, so Laughlin's statement is compelling.
@@jounisuninen Goodness me. Some irredeemable religious crank(s) must have savagely annoyed and/or deeply offended you, to stimulate you to concoct such a piercing (if implausible) parody of the worst imaginable combination of motivated pseudo-reasoning and circular logic, blithe ignorance of historical fact, wilful ignorance of the processes of science, and pompous gratuitous assertion.
Ouch!
Whoever it was, you comprehensively eviscerated them, to the point where I almost feel sorry for them...
Surely you could have allowed them to land just one punch?
Excellent points. Mutations completely debunk evolution as a Theory. Humans are not bacteria but that is where the smell sometimes comes from during exercise.
mutations are necessary. For the asexual animals atleast like Amazon Mollys even apparently
That is false.
So did the fish become an air breather before or after it came on land? Either way it would suffocate
Likely before. Those like gars, northern pike, bichirs, catfish, lungfish, amphibians etc. Adapt their swim bladders into lungs which doesn't involve using their gills when breathing.
The only one (of those) that leaves the water though & grows blood vessels around their lung is the lungfish. And some have 2 lungs & lose their gills.
@@slingslang2934 You are casually guessing at this, I see. But that's ok as much of evolution involves guesswork. Tell me, would it not be dangerous to a life form for it's chemical balances of the amino acids to be randomly shuffled around? That sounds like quite the recipe for a sure fatality in the making.
You say the fish "adapt their swim bladders", but how do they do that? Having a swim bladder just simply take off and mutate into a lung sounds like a magic trick. And how soon after a fish has a hobbled swim bladder does it's ability to avoid predators diminish?
Molecular convergence is also a mathematical impossibility for evolution.
Even when the mutation is somehow beneficial, there is no certainty of it being carried forward to the next generation. Think of all the animals who die (e.g. get eaten) before maturity - their potentially higher speed, fancier/sexier colours as an adult count for nothing if they die young.
@@billjohnson9472 sorry, but you seem to be missing the point. A mutation that makes you sexier may convey no infant survival benefit. Remember, beneficial mutations are already very, very rare.
Of course there isn't. Only mutations affecting the gametes would even have a chance.
On the paradigm of viruses we based a whole pandemic. I believe that symptoms and diseases are caused by bacterias, toxins, radiation, eSmog, etc. The detoxification process is much more complex than we think.
On what evidence do you base this belief?
No, not always. Viruses and bacteria are different.
Every living organism is a biological machine: we are wonderfully designed!
Incredibly complicated yet so sophisticatedly simple! God is an awesome GOD! Miracle of MIRACLES!
Designed well yeah we are...
@@meghadwivedi4016Most likely by evolutionary processes ...
I sometimes really think that the inconscient prayers of living beings drive benevolent mutation via placebo effects, via quantum effects, via the holy spirit. You know in math, not every thing that is true can also be proven. And this is mathematically proven. And the eye of an observer can litteraly change the past on the quantum level.
O título não deveria suprimir "é que"...?
Quem escreveu não fala português...
"Signature in the cell" and "Darins Doubt" by Steven Meyer are 2 of the best books on destroying evolution from the foundation of mainstream science, with some of the best minds today and show it is absolutely impossible for event he idea of random mutations being able to, or having enough life forms, even in "millions and billions" of years of them, to change at all.
It seems that the speaker has no idea what happens in micro vs macro evolution.
You clearly didn’t watch the whole video or didn’t understand it. Plus, there’s no fossil evidence for macro evolution. It’s either fabricated, out of sequence or constructed from virtually nothing. Belief in the evolutionary hypothesis requires a massive leap of faith and ignoring the actual scientific evidence.
👏
The word Random mutations is i think itself an excuse because you don't know from where does the information of new life forms come from therefore random what about physical causal determinism and what about irreducible complexity of living organisms systems that are interdependent on each other to function.What about the cell itself does all of information of a living cell is contained in the genes?
Atheists, evolutionists, cosmologists, etc easily take the ultimate trophy for fairy tale imagination!
Keeping in mind that atheist's evolution theories actually start earlier than just the darwinian evolution period. There is also the evolution of non-living matter into living matter, and there is the evolution of the planets, stars, galaxies, etc thus being the big bang I am referring to whereby all evolutionists admit everything evolved from the start of the big bang. With that being said, it always makes us laugh when evolutionists argue while trying to convince us their theories are more than theories boldly claiming they're theories are actual facts, but yet they REFUSE every time to provide the essential answers needed to KEY elements before they can even try to convince anyone that the atheist's evolution is anything more than a grossly hyped up fairy tale that is FRIVOLOUSLY taught as being factual.
Atheists, we're still waiting for any actual proof of the following:
1) Matter has the ability to bring itself into existence from nothingness
2) All the properties of physics that are needed to control how matter behaves brought themselves into existence from nothingness
3) Matter came together from the vastness of the universe or it already was compressed into a 'dot' having all of the right elements and components of physics that from a violent explosion/expansion creates EXTREMELY INTRICATE planets, solar systems, etc
4) Non-living matter has the ability to create living matter, and yet some two centuries later the atheist scientists still fail miserably to having observed it or proved it in any other way.
and #5 is a VERY INTRIGUING PROBLEM the atheists have concerning their darwinian evolution:
5) From 'goo pools' the living matter 'crawled' out of it whereby eventually evolving into apes and then humans evolved from the apes....and to this day:
a. Every ape-to-man missing link has been debunked after catching atheist paleontologists red handed mixing 'monkey' bones with human bones
b. Their other missing link skeleton was proven by DNA to only be an extinct species of ape
c. Them only having what amounts to a handful of bones and a partial skull that they hired artists to fill in the rest of the NUMEROUS missing skeletal structure to resemble what their imagination thinks an ape-to-man skeleton should look like in order to keep promoting their ludicrous theories as though they are actually facts for happening the way they say it happened
Darwin was a devout Christian.
As are many of today's Christians who accept evolution as the most likely explanation for speciation.
Fallacious claim with no proof whatsoever! We can’t even create a single molecule. Never mind a molecule, we can’t even understand the science of amino acids and carbohydrates interactions which is crucial to have a simple protein established. A chance that in a primordial sup like the Earth looked like 4.6 billion years ago amino acids and carbohydrates and lipids to align in the perfect chain in order to have one protein created is 1 out of 10 to the 149 th power that is 1 followed by 140 zeros!!! Please keep in mind that this is a mind blowing number and just to have one protein particle to come into the existence and in order to have a single the most simplest molecule to have around we need to have at least 150 protein combination! Let alone DNA and RNA perfect chain of interactions that requires sugar , carbon , hydrogen and oxygen groups of atomic particles to align with each other in a almost infinitely small space in a few nanoseconds and then interact with already by a chance created chain of 150 protein particles. Can you imagine how many trillions of trillions and trillions and more and more trillions of years it might take to have a single molecule in the environment in which it can start multiply in order to create a simplest organic cell which would carry no information yet because in order a cell to be functional it needs a similarly made hundreds of other cells to exist in the closest vicinity. So to say that the very origin of life started with a chance is extremely inconceivable and it’s the best thing next to impossible
Nonsense maths
Positive mutations are like pharmaceutical drugs/medicines. They also have negative side effects which evolutionists like to ignore.
Billions of copying errors do not equate to billions of bits written programming that is not there.
Can someone point me to the part where mutations don't have time to occur? The Earth has been here for over 4 billion years. Seems like plenty of time.
I keep earing that, but I never found the reasoning behind it.
It's probably just something completely made up by creationists
Mutations don't add new information. So no time will help.
@@lisaanne2802 it's not about adding information, though
You don't know anything about biology or mutations.
You have no right to call yourself a scientist.
Shaul (Paul) talks about the 4 dimensions Creator in the Bible...
Any person claiming to be a Christian that believes in evolution is horribly deceived. Their faith is very weak as they believe man over God. They don't realize they are blaspheming God by calling Jesus a liar. Here you are claiming to be a Christian out of one side of your mouth . You are depending on Jesus as savior to forgive your sins because of his once and for all time sacrifice on the cross, redeem you, justify you and sanctify you but out of the other side of your mouth you don't believe him when he says Moses was right and he Jesus the Word of God created the universe and everything in it including man in 6 days. If you don't believe Jesus when he talks about how he made the universe and created life, why pray tell would in Jesus for one thing but not the other. God is faithful and true and never lies. When he says something it is fact, it is fact. When he says something will happen, it does. Evolution and Biblical Christianity are completely incompatible. Chose now who you will believe and follow. The Creator of all our savior or some mans demonically inspired totally unscientific ramblings. God Almighty or Satan.
@@hansdemos6510: _"We know at least that he didn't warn anybody about the dangers of infectious germs ..."_
No, we do _not_ know that. Scripture only gives us a snapshot of the important things. Though it's likely that he didn't because that would have distracted from his mission, the job the Father sent him to do.
*Hans:* _"the theory of evolution is the best approximation of the truth known to us today."_
You haven't looked closely at evolution, have you? I took a close look. It doesn't work, it can't.
@@KenJackson_US Why can't evolution work exactly?
If it's because the complexity in cells or Dna then it's just a divine fallacies not failed theories. With those examples we see change too, with dna & with single celled organisms for instance. Or just how dna designs cells.
Powerful! I don't believe in evolution, it is more fitting to call it devilution, for it has the hiss of the serpent's lie ye shall be as gods and history testifies its Paradise lost and immoral decadence .
What sounds fake exactly? We agree evolution is the cause of speciation right? Though how do you assume it stops at kind when organisms like llamas & camels can interbreed & so can peaches, plums & cherries.
What is shown here is a "desperate attempt" to hang onto the Bible.
Sure. That is called "religion".
Since the 1950’s or even earlier, multiple scientists have already experimented on the origin of life, they have been trying for decades now to produce life from inanimate matters, even when they know already these particular matters that are inside 1 living cell organism, and upto now even in a controlled laboratory environment they cannot produce 1 living cell organism!!
@@achillesgarchitorena292 *" ...they cannot produce 1 living cell organism!! "* And this proves what exactly?
The theory of spontaneous generation is not correct which tells that living organisms arise from non- living organisms too. With biogenesis the new living things can be created through reproduction. Hence, Louis Pasteur disproved the abiogenesis theory experimentally.
Then you gotta ask; How did matter and energy come into existence when factoring in the 1st law of thermodynamics.
*** not a big problem, time is not the problem, any point of evolution will be subtle in our time but noticiable in many thousands or even millions of years, for instance : if a subtil mutation happens in a thousand years just find how many mutations will happens in one billion years. You make the calculations, this is just an example on how those things work, and it works exponencially.***
Great video, thx. I've come to view evolution as a derivative of Satan's deceptive argument to Eve, that she could become something that she wasn't.
Joe Baublis. What did God say after Eve partook of the fruit?
@@patldennis Oh no! Not you again.
@@patldennis nope, have you figured out how chemicals could spontaneously arranged to form complex information?
@@patldennis "A form of information" is a dodge because the amount of information in the nucleic molecule is around 215 million gigabytes. That's not "a form" - that's an astounding form. That's a form that exceeds anything that humans can do. So how did nucleic molecules assemble to create that much complex information?
Excellent presentation. DNA knocks out the "theory of evolution" every time. Even Darwin said if a cell is complex, which it is well beyond our understanding, his theory would be invalid. Did some precursor to a bird one day use the "think system" used by Professor Hill in The Music Man and say to itself, I want to fly and all of a sudden a feather popped out of its skin. And of course there is the problem of finding a mate to pass on that trait. I wonder how many of them died dropping off a cliff before one actually did fly and of course it to had to find a mate that could pass on its traits. Evolution is a hoax upon those want a fairy tale answer to God's complex creation. The complexity of DNA with it massive information and control functions for creating the billions of different creatures on this planet could not possible have come about just chance. I don't care if they say the universe is 12 billion years old, random chance alone cannot possibly account for the profusion of life around us.
Dna supports evolution everytime, It only doesn't when y'all list some divine fallacies saying it's too complicated but that doesn't make it true. talking about birds though many dinosaurs had feathers before birds, more close to downy feathers though, search Paraves. And being so small they can easily catch flight just like flying fish or normal squirrels & how they use their body as a parachute.
I'm sure you know but the oldest bird fossils also had teeth, a long bony tail, & claws on their wings. While as far as I know, none today have long bony tails, none have teeth(yet they have the genes), & only hoatzins have claws though only the young have them.
Dna is too complicated to just appear? Thats an opinion based on your beliefs.
Why is God not too complicated to just appear into existence though? You're still using faith to believe that but also using an unproven book as the baseline
@@slingslang2934 I believe you need to read up on DNA. .The complexity and information involved is beyond a random chance occurrence.
No it doesn't. You have no idea what you're talking about.
also time doesn’t exist. it’s only a perception of numbers.
He mentions "rational" a couple of times! That is key for me, the evolutionists literally have to suspend rational thought in order to believe evolution is true. Philosophically they look...silly.