Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven

Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven


Evolution. You learned about it in high school. It goes like this: Life started out with very
simple forms and then gradually, over hundreds of millions of years, morphed into all the
forms we see today. Bacteria to Beethoven. Not a straight line, of course…but that’s
roughly how it went. This was the theory proposed by Charles Darwin
in 1859, and, with some modification, it has been embraced as unassailable by the science
community over the last century. As evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins
says, “If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is either
ignorant, stupid or insane.” But is that right? Are there no scientific reasons to doubt the
evolutionary account of life’s origins? In November 2016, I attended a conference
in London convened by some of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists. The purpose: to address growing doubts about
the modern version of Darwin’s theory. Let’s look at just two scientific reasons
to doubt this theory. First, the Cambrian Explosion. A weird and wonderful thing happened 530 million
years ago: A whole bunch of major groups of animals—what scientists call the “phyla”—appeared
abruptly within a geologically short window of time—about ten million years. These novel animal forms—exhibiting proto-types
of most animal body designs we see today—emerged in the fossil record without evidence of earlier
ancestors. Did you catch that? A huge number of diverse animals appeared,
with no discernible antecedents. So where did they come from? This question really bothered Darwin. And he acknowledged that he could give it
“no satisfactory answer.” Nor can scientists today. The renowned biologist Eugene Koonin, of the
National Center for Biotechnology Information, describes the abrupt appearance of the Cambrian
animals and other organisms such as dinosaurs, birds, flowering plants and mammals as a pattern
of “biological Big Bangs.” So what caused all these new forms of life
to arise? That question leads to a second big doubt:
the DNA enigma. In the 1950s, James Watson and Francis Crick
made a startling discovery: The DNA molecule stores information as a four-character digital
code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals inside
the DNA helix store the instructions—the information—for building the crucial proteins
that cells need to survive. Unless the chemical “letters” in the DNA
text are sequenced properly, a protein molecule will not form. No proteins; no cells. No cells; no living organisms. Bill Gates has said, “DNA is like a software
program.” Let’s think about that for a second. For computers to run faster and perform more
functions, they require new code. Well, the same is true for life: To build
new forms of life, the evolutionary process would need to produce new genetic information—new
code. But this raises questions about the creative
power of natural selection and mutation. Natural selection is a simple sorting process. Species keep favorable mutations that allow
them to survive but eliminate bad mutations that cause their members to die out. No one doubts that natural selection is a
real process and that it produces minor variations, but many biologists now doubt that it produces
major innovations in biological form. To see why, think again about software. What happens if you introduce a few random
changes into computer code? You’ll likely mess it up, right? Though it might still work—if you don’t
make too many changes. But if you make enough random changes, your
program will stop functioning altogether. You certainly can’t keep doing this and
expect some cool, new program to pop out. There’s a mathematical reason for this. In all codes and languages, there are vastly
more ways of arranging characters that will generate gibberish than there are arrangements
that will generate meaningful sequences. And this applies to DNA. Remember, natural selection only “selects”
sequences that random mutations generate. Yet experiments have established that DNA
sequences capable of making stable proteins are extremely rare—and, thus, really hard
to stumble on randomly. How rare? While working at Cambridge University, molecular
biologist Douglas Axe showed that, for every DNA sequence that generates a relatively short
functional protein, there are 10 to the 77th power nonfunctional sequences. Now consider that there are only 10 to the 65th power atoms in our galaxy. So finding a new DNA sequence capable of building
a functional protein is like searching blindfolded for a single marked atom among a trillion
Milky Way galaxies. Talk about a needle in a haystack! As I show in my book Darwin’s Doubt, even
4 billion years of life’s history is not enough time to overcome a search problem this
big. So, two serious doubts about modern Darwinian
theory: The Cambrian Explosion—the sudden appearance of new animals, which evolutionary
theory has failed to explain; and the DNA enigma—the implausibility of random mutations
producing the information needed to build new forms of animal life. Scientists who know about these problems are
not “ignorant, stupid, or insane;” they are just appropriately skeptical. I’m Stephen Meyer, senior fellow at the
Discovery Institute, for Prager University.

100 thoughts on “Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven

  1. HAECKEL'S EMBRYOS LIE; Charles Darwin believed similarities in early vertebrate embryos were—“by far the strongest single class of facts in favor” of his theory—and evidence for common descent from one ancestor saying; “A close similarity in the embryos of widely different animals in the same class…and this similarity reveals community of descent…It is highly probable that with many animals the embryonic or the larval stages show us, more or less completely, the state of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult condition”.(1) Embryologist Ernst Haeckel, a follower of Darwin, decided to provide evidence in the form of embryo drawings, to support the theory. The problem was he faked the drawings to make the embryos look almost identical.(2) Stephen Jay Gould said in Natural History that Haeckel, "exaggerated the similarities by idealization and omissions", and his drawings were characterized by "inaccuracies and outright falsification." The exaggerated pharyngeal folds in their neck regions are not “gill slits”. The resemblance is deceptively illusory. They’re simply clefts or pouches that develop into other structures entirely (such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland.) They’re not even gills in pharyngeal-stage fish embryos. They develop later into gills. Darwin credited Haeckel, in later editions of the Origin of Species, with validating his assumption saying, “He brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he calls phylogeny, of all organic beings. In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters.”(1)
    In 1997 embryologist Michael Richardson and an international team of biologist compared Haeckels drawings with photos of actual embryos.(3) They discovered major inconsistencies. Richardson also noted that, even though they still look nothing alike, Haeckel used embryos midway through development. By the logic of Darwin’s argument, the “early” stages should be the most similar, not the “midway” stage. In an interview for The journal Science, Richardson said, “It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.”(4)
    Haeckel’s faked drawings, along with Kettlewell's staged peppered moth photos, are still used in some textbooks and can still be viewed in Google images.

    (1) http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F373&viewtype=text
    (2)https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Haeckel_drawings.jpg/250px-Haeckel_drawings.jpg
    (3) https://ncse.com/files/images/richardsonvhaeckel.img_assist_custom.jpg
    (4) https://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5331/1435.1

  2. TREE OF LIFE LIE; Darwin pictured the history of life as a tree, with the universal common ancestor as its root and every living thing that has ever existed as its branches. He called this the “great Tree of Life”.
    Around 530 million years ago, the beginning of the Cambrian period, thousands of highly complex, fully developed animals appeared abruptly on the earth. It occurred on the earth in the middle Cambrian in a span of 6-8 million years. Compared with the 4 billion year old history since the earth was formed, the event is equivalent one minute in a 24 hour day. It happened in the blink of an eye, not the slow and gradual hundreds of millions of years Darwin's theory predicted. The biological structure of a Cambrian trilobite was as complex and sophisticated as a modern crab. It's organs included a brain, gut, heart and compound eyes. each organ was constructed from specific types of cells. Each cell type was made from dozens of specialized protein molecules, and each protein was assembled from a 4 letter chemical code in a section of DNA called a gene.
    This was counter intuitive to Darwin’s “bottom up” scenario of how life started, but he acknowledged it anyway saying: "There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group, suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks (The Cambrian strata).(1) Zoologist Richard Dawkins on the Cambrian animals: “it is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.”
    Darwin believed progressive ancestors would be found in the pre-Cambrian strata saying it must have been “A world swarming with living creatures." (1) The only living creatures paleontologist have found in it, are exquisitely preserved (this refutes Darwinist claim that soft bodied fossils haven’t been preserved) strange single celled organisms that appear around 3.5 billion years ago and went extinct right before the Cambrian.
    Another guess was they would be found someplace deep beneath the oceans. In the 20th century new technologies led to empirical conclusions. The oil company’s started to drill offshores. They brought up what are called drill cores and inside the cores they found fossils from the Jurassic. That meant the oldest rocks on the sea floor only date back to the Jurassic period. They’re hundreds of millions of years younger than the rocks below the Cambrian strata. The Cambrian rock strata was moved above sea level by tectonic plates colliding together. The Cambrian event happened at six different places–Wales, Canada, Siberia, South Australia , Greenland and China–around the world at the same time. This fact destroys Darwin's proposition that life started with one progenitor, one time at one location on the earth.
    The empirical fossil record looks nothing like Darwin’s tree of life with a single common ancestor as its root, directed by his mythical natural selection due to variations, causing living things to grow more complex and branching out with diversity over hundreds of million years. It looks like a lawn or field with thousands of highly complex living things appearing at the beginning, with no intermediates falling between and linking any two, maintaining stasis then going extinct.
    The sooner wingnut Darwinist accept the fact that the Cambrian event debilitates Darwin's idea, the sooner scientist can move on from civil war era thinking and develop an intelligent theory based on empirical factual evidence.

    (1) http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F373&viewtype=text

  3. NEO-DARWINIAN IRRELEVANCE; Naturalist Charles Darwin said homology, (similarities in the forelimb bone structures of bats, dolphins and humans) was “evidence of common ancestry”. (1)Neo-Darwinist redefined homology to mean “due to common ancestry”, but still maintain Darwin’s evidence of. Once you interpret it as due to common ancestry you can’t use it as evidence of common ancestry. It becomes circular reasoning: How do we know that feature B is descended from feature A? Because B is homologous to A. How do we know that B is homologous to A? Because B descended from A. As nonsensical as it sounds, Darwin also believed similarities in vertebrate embryos was evidence of common ancestry. What the hell does embryos being similar have to do with every living thing having descended from a common ancestor?
    Darwin asserted that natural selection was change in species due to random variation. Because it was lacking a mechanism, neo-Darwinist redefined it to changes in species due to random mutation. A mutation has never produced a beneficial trait in a living thing. When a section of DNA code is altered it results in degradation, not improvement. The same thing as when a section of computer code is altered. Remove a 0 or 1, the entire line of code becomes incoherent gibberish. Microsoft founder Bill Gates on DNA; "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Darwinian speciation (one distinct living, after going through innumerable transitional changes, becoming a completely different distinct living thing) by random variation or mutation has never been observed, so it could be tested repeatedly. A theory that fails the criterion of the scientific method—observing the concept taking place naturally (not manipulated by scientist in a lab) then taking the data learned and putting it through rigorous experimentation for validation—is rejected as not empirically factual. Moths turning into moths, flys turning into flys and bacteria turning into bacteria is not Darwinian speciation.
    Neo-Darwinist didn’t replace Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, like they claim. Re-defining two concepts of that ridiculous theory is categorically not replacing it with a an entirely new theory, that’s actually grounded by empirical factual science.
    (1)http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F373&viewtype=text

  4. WALKING WHALES LIE; Pakicetus was a wolf like mammal. It had a bone in it's inner ear called an "involucrum" that resembled something found in whales. It was fully terrestrial (lived it's entire life on land) and looked nothing like a whale but neo-Darwinist, desperate for a whale ancestor, tagged it Pakicetus or "Pakistani whale". Ambulocetus, Maiacetus, Kuchicetus and Rodhocetus were extinct variations of sea lions or otters. They were amphibious (lived part of their lives on land and part in the water). They used their hind legs and tail for swimming and their four limbs for walking on land.
    Basilosaurus and Dorudon were extinct whales that were fully aquatic ( lived their entire lives in the water).
    Land and amphibious mammals have nostrils for breathing on the front of their heads. Whales have a blowhole on the top of their bodies to breath.
    The blowhole of a whale is surrounded by thick muscular “lips” that keep the hole tightly closed except when the animal makes a deliberate effort to open it at the surface. Total submersion thus takes less effort for whales than for animals that must actively exclude water from their air passages. Coming onto land is not a natural act for a whale; beached whales die if they're not quickly helped back in the water.
    Land and amphibious mammals use four legs—tail assisted for amphibians while in water—to move around in their environment. Whales use a fluke to move around in their environment. Land and amphibian mammals can survive without the tip of their tail. Whales can't survive without it.
    Flukes are flat horizontal lobes at the ends of their tails. Fluke movements are coordinated by a complex system of long, powerful tendons connecting them to specialized muscles in the tail.
    These are a few of the myriad of changes they would have to undergo. For neo-Darwinist it would take hundreds of millions of random mutations (random variations for traditional Darwinist), to compel a fully terrestrial mammal to turn into a fully aquatic mammal.
    The biggest problem for the "walking whales" is the empirical evidence-Darwinist refuse to acknowledge–of the fossil record. It's all but complete. Paleontologist have not discovered the fossils of innumerable transitional intermediates, falling between and linking land mammals and aquatic mammals. There are six–presumed intermediates- in the Smithsonian. All the natural history museums in the world should be overflowing with actual intermediates.
    With enough imagination anyone can invent a story about how land mammals evolved into whales. But an imaginative story isn't empirical science.

  5. PEPPERED MOTHS LIE: In the early part of the 19th century woodland areas in England became heavily darkened due to industrial pollution. There were dark-colored (melanic) and light-colored (normal) varieties of peppered moths existing together. Before the pollution, there were more normal than melanic because the light lichen on trees made them less susceptible to be eaten by birds. After the pollution had darkened the lichen the light ones became more vulnerable than the dark, so the proportions inverted. After pollution laws were passed, the lichen on the trees became normal again. The proportions–more normal (light-colored) than melanic(dark-colored)–reverted back to what they were before the Industrial Revolutions pollution. The light-colored moths didn’t "acquire" dark melanin. The dark ones didn’t replace the light ones as best suited to survive in their environment, so the neo-Darwinist re-definition of Natural Selection as random mutation never took place.
    The next issue is, in the 1950's Bernard Kettlewell decided he was going to prove this occurrence was Natural Selection with an experiment. He marked and released equal proportions of the moths during the day, into a polluted woodland in England. As would be expected, on pollution darkened lichen tree bark, the results were the birds favored the light ones. The problem with that is, in the wild, peppered moths don't expose themselves during the day. They stay hidden beneath tree branches, to avoid predators, during the day and come out at night. To make matters worse, he glued dead moths onto pollution covered trees, again during the day, and took photo's for "evidence" of Natural Selection due to random mutation.(1) These fraudulent photos can still be found in some text books and viewed in Google images.
    The "greatest observed evidence" for Natural Selection was based on a proportional fluctuation in moths caused by man made pollution, a flawed experiment and staged photographs. Well respected evolutionary biologist Dr. Jerry Coyne was "embarrassed", when he learned the peppered moth story he had been teaching for years was a myth. "My own reaction," he wrote, "resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that is was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve."
    (1)https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/11/scienceandnature.highereducation

  6. DARWIN'S "BEAR CREATURE" EMBARRASSMENT: Darwin wrote in the first edition of The Origin of Species that North American black bears had been seen “swimming for hours with widely opened mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water, even in so extreme a case is this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can’t see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”(1)
    The man responsible for modern biology believed a bear could, through his mythical natural selection process, become a creature as big as a whale. He removed it from editions after the first because he was ridiculed by his peers. If he hadn't been "idea shamed", modern textbooks would contain a rendering of a bear monster.
    Even after his humiliation he doubled down saying, “As it offended persons, I struck it out of the second edition; but I still maintain that there is no especial difficulty in a bears mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits,…until it is literally as big as the whole rest of the body.”
    (1) http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F373&viewtype=text

  7. Charles Darwin was the architect of modern racism and misogyny. "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or the gorilla….The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…. The average of mental power in man must be above that of woman…. Man has ultimately become superior to woman”(1) –Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
    He regarded "The Negro"(Darwin's words) as higher primates and believed women did even possess the same uses of their five senses than men.
    (1) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man_(Darwin)/Chapter_VI

  8. Us conservatives need to stop b.s. like this . can't understand dont know … Take the easy way out ..must be God …wrong ..

  9. On point one:

    Missing progenitor species in the fossil record does absolutely nothing to cast doubt on the theory of evolution. The fact is that we have 540 million years of a fossil record since then that backs that up. The Cambrian explosion only shows that our records only go back so far. Once upon a time similar arguments were made for "the missing link". If creationists were actually arguing in good faith they'd realize that this particular point was destroyed decades ago. The Cambrian is yet another argument of ignorance and even if you buy into it, you'd still have to accept evolution for the last 540 million years. It's also worth pointing out that in Darwin's day, no one was even remotely close to discovering the Cambrian explosion so, I seriously doubt that Darwin troubled himself about it.

    On point two:

    Most DNA is junk code and changing that junk code has no discernible effects. No one credible is doubting that "major innovations" can occur over long periods of time. In fact there's no reason to believe that there's any limit to how much a species can change on a long enough timeline. A similar argument was made before Supreme Court and conservative justices even
    said this was crap argument. Natural selection and mutation are more than sufficient to explain the diversity in life today. Further more, machine learning that is being used IN YOUTUBE ALGORITHMS will generate randomized behavior in video selections and then select the randomized algorithms that keep people on the site watching ads. The very same process is creating algorithms better than human programmers can!

    Even if we ignore the fact that both of these are dumb reasons to doubt evolution and accept them, you've basically only given reason to doubt abiogenesis which is an altogether different theory.

    Richard Dawkins missed one possibility when listing qualities that would cause a scientist to doubt evolution(dishonesty). So, are you ignorant, stupid, insane, or are you a liar?

  10. What Are Mutations?

    https://www.livescience.com/53369-mutation.html

    "Mutations are alterations to a DNA sequence. If one thinks of the information in DNA as a series of sentences, mutations are errors in spelling the words that make up those sentences."

    Errors do NOT create immune systems.  Errors do NOT create error correction.  Errors do NOT evolve Irreducibly Complex systems.

  11. Comparing natural selection with purely random selection is laughable. Natural selection has a criteria – the next generation must fit better to survive. Random selection doesn't. Secondly, modern evolutionary theory has a lot more principles to account for all such scenarios.

  12. To the Cambrian Explosion, it’s important to remember how many generations you can go through in a short time. You can witness speciation among fruit flies before your very eyes, because they can reproduce quickly and that allows for more chances at change. 10,000,000 years is still a LONG time, even on human scales of roughly ~60-80 years per generation, wherein Cambrian Arthropods likely had much shorter generational time.

    And regarding the “DNA Enigma” merely espousing statistics isn’t math, PragerU. Take for example, alpha decay in an atom. In order for a helium nucleus to break free from the remainder of a nucleus of an atom, it must quantum tunnel through a potential barrier with a chance of roughly 1 in 10^23 per collision with the barrier. Pretty small right? You’d expect alpha decay to never happen. Until you realize the aloha particle collided roughly 10^23 times a second, leading to a steady outburst of alpha particles, because the rate of collisions roughly matched the likelihood per collision. So getting a new usable DNA sequence is low, but how often are new DNA sequences generated? Likely very very very often, leading to a not-so rate likelihood of generating new usable sequences. From there we can then sequence multiple usable DNA sequences and compare them via natural selection.

  13. For the sake of the argument lets accept he is right on those 2 things. So what is your alternative? God? Something else? Anything you would name has millions of issues and unexplained ideas, especially the one with god. This has only 2 (given you are right which is not true btw…)

  14. the evolution deniers watching this probably have 0 understanding of a single word coming out of his mouth but they still enjoy the mindless validation of their ridiculous uneducated ideas from one of the only educated human beings willing to validate them

  15. Bishop Sanctus Lino Wanok, Bishop of the Diocese of Lira, Uganda: "As the devil strives to immerse and drown the world in darkness and confusion under the guise of science, and as he savagely launches his attacks on the pivotal doctrines of Holy Mother Church, the “Foundations Restored” DVD series casts a bright light which exposes and defeats the camouflaged lie of the Devil. The series offers logical, scientific, philosophical and theological arguments which not only restore the “Creation Providence” account to its proper place, but also liberate the whole realm of natural science from the grasp of its evolutionist hijackers. I therefore recommend the DVD series “Foundations Restored” without reservation for circulation in the public domain so as to combat error and to proclaim the reign of TRUTH.
    " + Bishop Robert F. Vasa, Bishop of the Diocese of Santa Rosa, California: "The science presented in this series needs to be carefully considered in any program of science or biology which is presented in our Catholic Schools." https://foundationsrestored.com/

  16. "DNA is like a software program" okay buddy, your entire explanation about software having random changes will break and therefore the same with evolution must happen is entirely void for a few reasons, the first one being the statement I just quoted is a comparison which only works if both have similarities but are still different, so you're actually comparing apples to oranges, sure they have similarities but they are also different. DNA is like a software program as a dolphin is like a fish. The statement acknowledges differences already. Secondly evolutionary changes occur and stay through strict rules that weed out bad changes unlike your software program example. If I used a genetic algorithm which will change code on its own using the same principles of natural selection these random changes are successful, now isn't that funny, its almost like, you don't know what you're talking about

  17. Oh my god shut up I bet not even a single person who has been involved in these videos hasn’t been divorced at least once

  18. If your best retort is "He doesn't know what he is talking about" Your comment only shows your arrogance not your intellect. Enlighten us by breaking down what he said and showing his error. arguments on all sides should be heard and refuted when possible, not simply mocked.

  19. God of the Gaps and overall ignorance to the actual origin of the species texts by darwin. This video is about as reliable as the bible itself (meaning it isn't)

  20. Amazing how you're so upset about an EXLPANATION that you cant't falsify, that you make a video showing people that you cant falsify it.

  21. This is seriously like shooting yourself in the foot for Prager.
    The arguments in here are so easily seen to be misrepresentations. Wow.

    Why would "Darwin finding it a problem" be relevant to the Cambrian explosion when we have simple modern explanations?

  22. Does Prager read this stuff? Does anyone edit it? The intro states that "Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution has been as unquestioned as Newton’s theory of gravity." This is so patently wrong that I can't listen to a word of it. Or buy a Prager U tee-shirt.

  23. I invite you to challenge yourself with this great lecture by a renowned chemist on the most serious problems of chemical evolution:
    "The Origin of Life: An Inside Story – 2016 Lectures (with James Tour)" on YouTube

    https://youtu.be/_zQXgJ-dXM4

  24. Darwin's theory of evolution remains the best we got, but can be refuted if proven wrong, since it is definitely not a dogma. BTW, no one can prove a theory right, but anyone can prove a theory wrong. The questions mentioned do not prove Darwin's theory wrong.

  25. Computer programming and natural selection are so incomparable and the argument is so flawed I want to punch this man

  26. What's the alternative to evolution, we really don't have a better explanation or an explanation that nearly has as much evidence? For example a monkey to human evolution can be explained by the more you use your brain the bigger it will get hence your dna you pass on is 0.1% larger brain with each time, and generations the brain grows much larger and you now have a human instead of a monkey. And species of monkeys that don't intensely use their brains, it doesn't grow, like working out, if you don't work out your muscles won't get larger.

  27. "…But is that right?"

    Given that Evolution is the Foundation of Modern Biology, yes.

    As to the Cambrian Explosion, that happened because of an increase in oxygen in the atmosphere, a process which had begun in the Ediacaran Period (635-542 Million Years Ago) that preceded the Cambrian period such as Dickinsonia.

  28. Also there was mulicellular creatures the Cambrian in the Ediarcaran were no goddamn land animals or fish as we'd think of them in the Cambrian Period

  29. Also look into evolutionary software design. Computer programs write a set of a thousand or so computer programs more or less at random to do X task, they are tested at performing a function and the best 10 of that 1,000 are used as templates to make a new batch of 1,000. Continue the process and you can design programs which are highly effective at their tasks after a thousand generations.

  30. Wow, I don't think I could find a bigger collection of triggered evolutionists if I tried! I read quite a few comments. They all had pretty much the same theme – PragerU is wrong because evolution is a fact. The fact is, Meyer and his peers have raised serious questions about the ability for neo-darwinism to explain the disparity of life we observe today. If the collection of scientists who disagree with Meyer could put him down, they would have already. Instead they attack the messenger or distort his claims to create their own strawmen to knock down. Very interesting, futile, but interesting.

  31. This should be entertaining. Less than a minute and you're already being dishonest. The theory was not created by Darwin, and it does not endeavor to explain the origin of life as your description indicates. How can we trust anything you're saying when you start with lies?

  32. Natural Selection makes sense because it makes small changes, Evolution doesn't make sense because it makes big changes. Even though these big changes can just be a result of multiple small changes that happen to support these big changes.

    The best explanation I've heard of how natural selection fits into evolution is that
    "If you take the letter "A" and move to the next letter you'll reach "B". This is Natural Selection.
    However if you keep moving to more letters like "C" and then to "D" you'll eventually reach a distant letter like "J". This is Evolution"

  33. For computers to run faster ,they need new code. 2:46 what kind of BS is that, more instructions make the computer slower

  34. I'm a big fan of Prager U videos. But I must draw the line at skepticism towards evolution. Intellectual honesty and scientific discipline means accepting the unknown as the unknown. Replacing the unknown with wishful thinking is not science. If you want to reduce the unknown by some amount, follow the scientific process. All that science promises is a reduction in the amount of unknown. To seek absolute knowledge via wishful thinking is not an alternative to science. But while I'm a fan of Richard Dawkins' science (not his politics), I do have some patience for the desire to engage in wishful thinking. A certain amount of irrationality seems appropriate to a thinking being that came into being for no 'reason'. We use reason to organize are day to day activity, but ultimately we don't keep on living for a 'reason'. So let's (try to) stop looking for 'reasons' for our being there, and let's (try to) be honest and talk about causes. And let's try to accept the unknown. But I will expect failures to do to, after all, we are human.

  35. Just so you know, the stepson of the former president of France Nicolas Sarkozy debunked this video perfectly, watch?v=mQNhOZAIy2A.
    I'm conscious that no one would expect that, and that no one would expect to hear that too …

  36. planets circle the sun and gravity moves them a little closer every year. this causes the planets to get warmer each year. if the earth is warmer now its because it used to be colder when it was further away from the sun and at some point it became warm enough to support life near the equator which was closest to the sun. thus life on earth was created all at once.

  37. The problem with this video is that he is trying to oversimplify his entire book argumentation in an almost 6 minutes video, and also that he used the wrong example of quoting Bill Gates, instead of outright using mathematics to better explain his point on DNA Enigma.

  38. No Meyer, you have your head up your ass still. Our ancestry was NEVER bacterial. Prokariotic, then Eukariotic yes, but never bacterial.
    You are a liar, nothing more. You have been corrected on this before.

  39. This raises important questions that actually supports evolution by asking them to answer much needed questions as it always has been

  40. nice lies, we have precursors to the phyla that appeared in the cambrian explosion and entire phyla were already wiped out before the cambrian not to mention that during the cambrian life started to develop shells which are much more likely to fossilize compared to their soft bodied ancestors and also the cambrian period was like 50 million years so you can't really call that an explosion at all.
    friggin religious apologetics not willing to accept science.

  41. Proven Science with actual science? Fake.
    One book with hundreds of inconsistencies made centuries ago to explain things people didnt know? Seems legit.

  42. I think my biggest problem with this video is the misdirection that 10 million years is a short time period. 10 million years is still ten MILLION years.

  43. The evidence overwhelmingly sides with intelligent design, which is why I embrace the theory. I can understand why atheists are so terrified by this — Darwinian evolution has been their creation story for 160 years and counting — but they have to step aside and let science progress.

  44. Let's talk about your alternative for a bit, shall we? You know the "intelligent design", how about an observable evidence?

  45. Here's where Myer the liar lied. The Cambrian explosion didn't happen in 10 million years. It was 13 to 25 million years. And he says that "A huge number of diverse animals appeared with no discernible antecedents." No shit. Because those antecedents were soft bodied invertebrates like worms, jellies and sponges that had no bones or shells to fossilize. Duh! Myers speaks of a London conference convened to "address growing doubts about the modern version of Darwin's theory." I googled it. Sure enough, some evolutionists are proposing some slight amendments. But none of these scientists were arguing for any form of Creationism or, like Myers supports, Intelligent Design.

    Here's more baloney: "To build new forms of life, the evolutionary process would need to produce new genetic information; new code." So? That happens all the time e.g. gene duplication and whole genome duplication or polyploidy. Long ago human evolution changed its code and produced blue eyes, pale skin, extended lactose tolerance etc. But were the first people to acquire these traits "new forms of life"?

    Will xians like Myers ever stop trying to squeeze God into science?

  46. Registered Democrat here. I enjoy watching these videos in order to see different perspectives on various issues. These videos have even helped change my view on things such as taxes, the gender wage gap, and white privilege. But this…you have to stop this…this is just bad.

  47. What does this idiot have a PhD in? Evolution was not proposed by Charles Darwin. Jeez he doesn't even know that lol.

    And the Cambrain explosion was 25 million years, not 10 million.

    PragerU are filthy liars.

  48. As usual, instead of providing evidence and arguments for their actual position, PragerU pretends that lying about evolution somehow proves creationism.

  49. Last year mathematicians at MIT held a conference to question weather mathematics was wrong after all.

    Very dishonest presentation, Prager. Shame on you. This was embarrassing.

  50. This Video is wrong and misleading on so many levels. I mean just starting with the fact that the "Expert" isn't even a biologist.

  51. Why is it that everytime I encounter someone "in doubt" of evolution this person has an ideology that is mutually exclusive to evolution? In Meyer's case he's a Christian fundamentalist. It's hardly surprising he would, one way or the other, find fault in evolution. Can these people please stop pretending they're being scientifically minded?

  52. Plzzz check Stephen C Meyer's identity in Wikipedia or from other multiple sources, he is not an evolutionary biologist.

  53. Let me explain nature selection : remove unnecessary factor
    For example… human social.. feudal expression dont exist anymore. Soon or late, religion at the same way

  54. This videos is just plain wrong. Lost my respect for being a conservative channel. Fact is the more poking religon the conservatives lose their validity, same for liberals making their versiin of inclusivity being more and more exclusive. More tit for tat attitude. 2 step back 1 step forward isn't helping boys and girls.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *