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 Comments

  1. Влад Дрезельс said:

    Guys, please, I know you are conservatives, and everything: traditions, religion, no way to socialism; but why do you try so hard to attack scientists on their fields, using analogies(which are not arguments) and anti-scientist memes that became not funny a few decades before, like randomness of mutations and countless big bangs(the video about 4 big bangs is my top)? Just remember-science is not equal to liberalism, despite very huge amount of scientists have liberal views nowadays. It is just temporal trend. Finally, do not forget David Hume’s Guillotine: to be and ought to be are two fundamentally different, incompatible things and there is no logical ways to conclude that something ought to be something from the fact that something is something.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  2. Krizizke said:

    So, we have countless amounts of evidence supporting evolution, and a couple things we can’t figure out yet…..gotta throw the whole thing away 😂 gtfoh Prager

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  3. Krizizke said:

    PragerU really our here promoting intelligent design

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  4. Tim Lee said:

    I support PragerU financially, but this one is sketchy as shown by the poorer like/dislike ratio than the recent ones.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  5. Atreus21 said:

    I admit I was a little apprehensive of an appeal to YEC but I was pleasantly surprised. These are indeed valid challenges.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  6. Ringersoll said:

    That evolution is in play is uncontroversial. Ostensible. Incontrovertible.

    Evolution says nothing about how we got here. It just shows that things change and adapt.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  7. MsKempinsky said:

    Evolution explains how the organisms develop and… EVOLVE. Not how they came to existence. Just stop, please.

    Also, great changes happen over huge amount of time. That's why we can't really observe evolution other than to check the fossil record and compare it to other fossils or animals living today. It';s just too slow process.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  8. Hunter Vandre said:

    i didn’t know t base pairs paired with g’s and that g’s paired with a’s. i was under the impression it was t and a and g and c.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  9. TVC 15 said:

    Dinosaurs got fat and turned to oil. That's according to the movie Airplane and I'm sticking to it. 😉

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  10. Joshua Chalmers said:

    Evolution has been disproved several times. How many times have we seen a previously ancient extinct animal, found alive. Yet, it is found to be unevovled but, just as it was millions of years ago unchanged. There are are no missing links for there are no evolutions of anything beyond very minute changes!

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  11. Aj said:

    Thats not how it works. DNA doesn't get scrambled each generation but changes only a bit, making the regeneration of it possible with a minor flux. So its not as far fetched as you described. That is misleading.
    I like your vids, but Im afraid this one is lacking.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  12. Leo Stepanov said:

    WOW, didn't expect this in 2019 on Prager Chanel. It's like we back to 'no god no morality' videos again.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  13. Jay B said:

    One of the reasons people are so protective about the Theory of Evolution is that, once that theory is debunked, they have to now face the God question and they are afraid to face that reality. So they hide under this theory's cover as much as possible.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  14. Quantus Tremor Est Futurus said:

    I came here to hear stupidities. I wasn't disappointed.
    – Cambrian explosion: yes it can be explained : new features, especially the apparition of eye, led to a new "race to the arms", thus exacerbated the natural selection and evolution speed. Come on human evolved from apes in less than that, 13-25 million years is not that short a period!
    Oh and BTW all modern theories on how the evolution works shows that it works that way : as long as nothing of importance changed in the ecosystem, the species tend to evolve slowly, while stockpiling DNA diversity; and when the big problem arrives, the DNA diversity allows for ultra fast evolution. Evolutionnary explosions are part of the theory.
    – Did you just say that dinosaurs and mammals appeared in the cambrian explosion? 250 millions later for dinosaurs, and slightly more for mammals.
    – DNA : that's just plain stupid. In the "non functionning sequences" you calculated, you include all the other functionning sequences, and guess what? We all have quite a lot of non functionnal DNA, waiting for a random mutation to make them our new fantastic and improbable feature.
    It's not like only one combination of code works : you and I don't have the same DNA, and both of us live (though only one seems to have a brain).
    You're plain uneducated and make a show of it.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  15. Curtis Beam said:

    Darwin pictured the history of life as a tree, with the universal common ancestor as its root and every living.thing that has 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

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  16. Curtis Beam said:

    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” –Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  17. sh4me lezz said:

    Ultimately, everything comes from chaos.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  18. Semper Gumby said:

    I'm not that old, but I recall one of the earliest scientific Truths I ever learned.

    I learned that spontaneous generation was a totally false anti-scientific theory/idea. In actuality it's more accurate, in hindsight, to call the idea mythology.

    The astounding thing about the religion of evolution is that its biological element requires complete belief in spontaneous generation.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  19. LDK447 said:

    Ok, at least now they acknowledge 530 million years ago is a thing.

    1) the Cambrian explosion. This video seems to imply that the first known instance of life was during the Cambrian era about 530 million years ago, and even says no ancestors from before then have been found. This was true as of when Darwin first put forth evolution. He rightly said that if no pre-Cambrian life was found, his theory would be in jeopardy. The thing is about 100 years after Darwin’s theory, Charles Walcott discovered microscopic fossils of pre-Cambrian stromatolites. Since then, a large amount of fossils has been found ageing over 3 billion years old. There is no way an evolutionary biologist is ignorant of this. Countless articles and papers have been written about Precambrian life, the ancestors of the life we see in the Cambrian explosion.

    2) the ‘random chance’ argument. Aaaaaaaah how are we still taking this seriously. The whole point of evolution is to explain how such complex and functional beings can come about WITHOUT needed to rely on a random group of atoms randomly clumping together to form DNA, proteins and organisms. The first replicator you have been formed by chance and the random arrangement of atoms was extremely simple and rudimentary, it wasn’t even DNA. It’s took a huge amount of time for chemical evolution to bring these replicators to RNA, then DNA, then to form actual proteins and living beings. Evolutionary skeptics always say ‘evolution is too unlikely, it’s like a tornado going through a junkyard and forming a Boeing 747’. No, the whole reason the theory of evolution exists to explain why life can exist WITHOUT needing to rely on extreme chance. I’d recommend the selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, it explains this very easily. There is no way this dude in the video is a) an evolutionary biologist or b) being intellectually honest. These are arguments that have been brought up and refuted decades ago. Even I can think of better arguments against evolution for him

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  20. Semper Gumby said:

    There zero scientifically convincing evidence that any mutation produces a net beneficial result.

    A simple example is the mutations which produce extreme "pure bred" show animals. Such animals gain purely subjective favorable traits only by sacrificing overall health, biological resilience, longevity and sometimes even fertility. In short, the direction of mutations is Always a dead end, literally.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  21. matespider said:

    Biology is more complicated than you think, people even don't undarstand quantum world yet and other strange things you did't even hear about in schools…

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  22. freesk8 said:

    Sorry, Prager. I love the stuff you do on free markets, individualism, limited government, and the Constitution. But wise religious people see evolution as the WAY that God created all species. The existence of holes in the fossil record do not disprove evolution as this Divine mechanism.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  23. john eckhart jr said:

    That's amazing. That's a lot better than saying do you believe the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything! Every single time to start out a conversation.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  24. Roger Dodger said:

    Intelligent design was created as a term to use instead of creation science which attracted a lot of criticism and in response to a Supreme Court reading that prevented it being taught in schools. But it has deeper roots in philosophical discussions of the basis for belief in god based on the appearance of apparent design and the need for a prime mover to get things moving ie life could not be bootstrapped. ID uses many of the same moves as creation science nonetheless such as if evolution allegedly can’t explain something then this confirms another specific alternative view.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  25. Ben Stark said:

    I feel like this mans got some confirmation bias by skewed experiments. PragerU is very good on establishing what is and isn’t good for our country in philosophy. When it comes to scientific fact though, they take too much from the Bible and not really what the science is saying.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  26. Ahdn Srnde said:

    everyone of us loved the theory of Evolution until we bcame adult and realised the chicken and egg problem in every evolution tree.
    "Billion of years" not gonna solve that.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  27. Royal Emery said:

    All hale to the CULT of Evolution. The faithful come out in droves to defend it right after taking a nice big drink of Kool Aid. Pure hypocrisy.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  28. troll jones said:

    Bacteria to Beethoven

    You're answer (which is not supported by evidence) is that God decided to use magic in order to create man despite the fact if he did so we would not all be related to all other animals (we are related to every other lifeform on earth).

    Dawkins quote on evolution

    The only thing he missed out is also you could simply just be a liar who does not believe it and pushes nonsense for the sake of profit (aka creationism).

    They appeared in a short period of time about 10 million years

    Which is something they account for but even then you make it seem like they appeared in some impossibly fast time like 100 years or 20 years or even a year. But outside of that even if there where valid questions about that the answer would not be that God decided to magically make a larger variety of animals at a certain time millions of years ago.

    like they appeared at once

    False but here is a video which explains it better then me (i am not a scientist)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2xJJ66K4_w

    Finally with prageru they do not only want us to be a society without welfare, living wages, clean air, clean water but they want us to be uneducated (probably to maintain the society as educated people would revolt. And the group here promoting anti science is a Christian creationist group with their only benefit being more political in their words (if you can't understand political speech and lingo you don't know what they are saying).

    Their mission statement has it to where they say they uphold the values of western society instead of the typical anything that goes against the bible is incorrect (they mean the exact same thing but they are worded better).

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  29. Tim Pieper said:

    It takes longer to debunk a quippy false assertion than it does to make one. With this in mind, is it any surprise how much I’m about to leave here to provide enough information to understand the problems with Meyers claims?

    1. The Cambrian explosion has been thoroughly explained in terms of evolution multiple times. Here’s just three examples:

    https://youtu.be/6ehv1DVQxv0

    https://youtu.be/c9l4msxHFc0

    https://youtu.be/V2xJJ66K4_w

    2. The origins of the dinosaur clade is only touched on in episode 21 in the Systematic Classification of Life: https://youtu.be/xhPTxhe9SCk but a few different dinosaur lineages are covered in episodes 29 at 3:35 https://youtu.be/apV8PAJIicY and 33 https://youtu.be/GvHo2Mgwe7w

    The origins of birds can be seen traced from 5:19–5:56 in episode 30 https://youtu.be/LlAbGxU5Eiw, and picked up again in episode 32 https://youtu.be/78bxxJvKrCE
    And continued into the stem lineage of modern birds in episode 34 https://youtu.be/p3MuDMoVzX0

    Jackson Wheat covered the evolution of flowering plants here: https://youtu.be/RP4GtV5cel8

    And the origins of mammals? Episodes 23 https://youtu.be/ZvwmwzmnG7E and 24 https://youtu.be/zRgepIUgQrk

    But the picture during that part shows a gorilla, a lion, and an elephant. Evolutionary transitions of elephants are covered in episode 41 https://youtu.be/pJNzK_6PMP0
    The evolutionary lineage of the “cat” side of the order Carnivora is covered here https://youtu.be/pNrt90MJL08

    And the clade that both we and gorillas belong to is explained in episode 43 beginning at 3:04 https://youtu.be/Cgu25TwxFb0

    3. Here’s explanations for how new genetic information gets added to the genome

    https://youtu.be/lVbEISX56iM

    https://youtu.be/DlhpvcgK_28

    https://youtu.be/G4VINRUe_o4

    4. Much of Darwin’s Doubt is refuted quite clearly by Darwin’s Confidence pt1.

    https://youtu.be/nrflb-eQFag

    And pt. 2.

    https://youtu.be/dXUXa3-7Rmo

    If you don’t accept evolution, then there's a strong probability you are unaware of all of this data. If you don’t like the word “ignorant”, then let’s just say “unaware”. It’s ok to be unaware of things. That’s part of life. But don’t buy Meyers assertions without looking at what science can show we do infact know.

    Have a nice day.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  30. hondobondo said:

    evolution gave us abortion, transgenders, and the left

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  31. Riwero said:

    Were all product of some alien biology homework project.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  32. Luna Marie said:

    Just because we have not figured out every aspect of modern evolutionary biology does not invalidate the theory of evolution. No other theory has yet been out out that comes close to explaining evolution as well as the current theory. But the great thing about science is that we are still learning. If a new theory is put forth that explains evolution better and is backed up by evidence, I’m sure the scientific community will take great interest.

    As much as I dislike prageru for various reasons, at least you didn’t propose creationism

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  33. Ayan Nari said:

    You are not so different from left, there is no biological sex from left, there is no evolution from right. You are now far religious right

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  34. Herman Ingram said:

    Beethoven is the greatest man whoever lived without a doubt.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  35. Apoc5k said:

    Evolution is still more plausible than intelligent design (creationism).

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  36. Kamui Gakupo said:

    As a biologist, I too have my doubts regarding modern evolutionary theory, particularly the Cambrian explosion. Still, there are very scientific and very plausible reasons as to why the Cambrian explosion occurred when it did.

    For example, 800 million years ago, oxygen levels in the ocean rose from less than 0.1% to 1-2%. The increased presence of oxygen alone is enough to trigger the viability of new life-forms. Because with oxygen, nature can introduce new biological systems (e.g. aerobic respiration). Also, the Cambrian explosion isn't an outlier. It's actually one of a few explosions of biological diversity in the history of the planet that are usually accompanied by spikes in oxygen levels and other shifts in the geological climate. The trend we see in evolutionary history is one of long, stalling periods of slow, gradual evolution marked by short, intermittent bursts of rapid speciation. This is the theory of punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary biology. To not discuss this theory alongside the Cambrian explosion is intellectually dishonest. Now, whether or not the theory of punctuated equilibrium satisfies your scientific skepticism is another story. But to suggest that there is no alternative explanation is ludicrous.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  37. jhhwild said:

    It's ok to question evolution but what's your alternate explanation and the evidence for that? Just because there are mysteries that scientists haven't figured out yet doesn't mean we get to throw the entire theory out. Evolution explains a lot even if it doesn't explain everything. The reason people hold on to Evolution is because the alternate explanations rely on religion and things that cannot be proven or disproven. There are a few scientists that speculate that we may be living in a simulation but without proof it's pretty much sci-fi. Until a viable alternate theory is presented evolution is the most likely explanation, it's the best we've got so far.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  38. Issac Bourne said:

    Generating code. The main reason usable code cannot be generated under the process of random chance possibility, is because for a possibility to be formulated into a math equation, aka probability math, that is accurate. There has to be a reasonable stopping point. When the right choice has to be made because no other choice is left. Something has to force that right choice. Why? Because a unintelligent process won't be forced to select it.

    In a unintelligent process, there is no learning curve. So the same mistake can be made a infinite number of times. aka no reasonable stopping point. Nothing forcing this process to make the right choice, nothing.

    If the process were intelligent, then there would be a learning curve that would ensure the same mistakes, or the wrong choices, would not be repeated a infinite numbers of times.

    Natural selection does not force the choice it only kills the wrong choice. And because there is no learning curve present, that same choice that killed it off, every other time it was chosen, can be repeated a infinite number of times.

    Bottom line: No learning curve = no force that ensures that right choice will ever be made, or that the wrong choices are not repeated a infinite amount of times. To say that it will is like using the same logic as claiming: If I stand in a garage long enough, I will eventually become a car.

    Let's take a million to 1 intelligence chance. There are 999,999 wrong possibilities, right? The intelligent process would keep trying, and not repeating the wrong ones, until it found the right one.

    Take that same possibility and add no intelligence and explain how you would calculate that same 999,999 wrong possibilities when each one can be repeated a infinite number of times? Get the picture? This is what evolutionists want you to accept as being science and probability math to support it.

    Even slot machines have to be set for so much winning and losing by law. Why? Because actually unintelligent probability guarantees nothing. ~ Issac

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  39. Secular Conservative Talk said:

    can't wait for someone to debunk this, love when this joke of a channel gets owned by facts and logic

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  40. Kamrooz Houman said:

    Thanks so much
    I learned something today

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  41. MidnightModder said:

    One word; God.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  42. Andrew Shelestov said:

    Being a Master of science in Biological Physics, and generally supporting PragerU, I have to say this video is a disgrace. One could claim God created life, which would be virtually impossible to argue, but claiming we do not know the reason of Cambrian explosion or we do not know how useful genes appear is either an ignorance or a lie.
    The first is perfectly explained with the chain of catastrophes, including changes in atmosphere,
    The second is disproven with demonstrations of bacteria’s growth in an antibiotic gradient.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  43. Yazzie Mazzi said:

    So should we believe that Adam and Eve descended upon earth 6,000 years ago? It’s a shame that Climate change and Evolution have become left and right thing. The two realities of life that can’t be ignored AT ALL!!!!

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  44. Spartan said:

    Wrong.. The vast majority of mutations produces viable sequences since each mutation is almost insignificant.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  45. Bohica Johnson said:

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Then why did your "Intelligent designer" give squids better eyes than humans?

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  46. elitist douche bag said:

    Lmao you guys have pushed too much religious nonsense in the past to pretend like you're scientifically honest at this point

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  47. Bernie Sanders said:

    evolution is a fact

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  48. TheCommentGuy8 said:

    …I don't understand what you mean, PragerU.
    Are you saying that Evolution isn't a thing? That we humans aren't distant cousins to the chimps?

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  49. Dhruva Shah said:

    3:20 minor variations over a long period of time become the major variation.

    Think of it as taking 10 steps a day. This doesn't seem like a lot if you count the total steps after 5 days, but after 5 years……..

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  50. trenton9 said:

    Always brilliant material from Stephen Meyer.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  51. XAVI FER SOL said:

    Thanks for this information, does see this video from México.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  52. Kill Team Charlie said:

    Watson had a vision of the double helix while tripping on acid at a party. Let that sink in…

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  53. Cory Weiss said:

    I don't understand why people can't accept that God created us. Came from dirt, rest in dirt. The body when decomposing puts the same nutrients back into it, sure it's not going to smell or look pretty but it does, so every natural "vitamin" we need to survive and be healthy comes from the earth when we die it gives it back. Same as lighting, we have electricity in our bodies, lighting charges the soil giving life to give back to us. But bacteria as done wonders. When there's good and bad bacteria. Just like people.

    Just how a dog can sleep with a pig and create a pug …………… 👏💩 …. I'll see myself out. 🎩

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  54. Kill Team Charlie said:

    Darwin under the Microscope is a good book on this topic

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  55. Adam Brown said:

    The matter that would eventually form Earth existed before the Sun manifested.

    Then the Sun formed.

    The land and oceans and clouds ( that would be super dense at the time) formed after the the Sun began effecting the planet.

    Plant life starts forming producing mass amounts of Oxygen which are why we have clear skies actually…

    After clear skies existed you would be able to see the Sun and the moon directly now also.

    Sea creatures, amphibious creatures and creatures that could fly form using Oxygen that is now prominent.

    Creatures perfectly suit themselves to land dominate the drier earth.

    Homo sapien comes into existance and becomes one of the most impactful creatures ever.

    Which version did I just summarize?

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  56. tanker2sh said:

    Big bang theory and evolution all rely on "explosions" that happened by chance and that chance somehow created intelligent life for some reason without substantial proof or historical record of it…yet these same evolutionists call creationists stupid and ignorant. Quite the cognitive dissonance and arrogance huh?

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  57. Ben B said:

    We were never taught that fact in HS about the cambridge lack of ancesester fossil shit…

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  58. Miguk Moonpark said:

    Minor variations in a large span of time would definitely produce major variations.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  59. Miguk Moonpark said:

    Comments in PragerU videos: Facts don't care about your feelings.

    Also PragerU comments: Evolution deniers "skeptics" are being attacked left and right.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  60. D Ross said:

    Oh, the irony….a theist having issues with a theory because it has gaps in it.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  61. Niels Kloppenburg said:

    To anybody calling this man a lunatic, he might be, but that's what they said about Darwin too :p

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  62. Justin Time said:

    Why wouldn't you mention that Darwin was a Christian?? Cowards..

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  63. CrazyTalkin said:

    Evolution just got Mythbusted?

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  64. Magister Scientia said:

    Being skeptical does not disprove a theory. Keep questioning.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  65. Afrika Smith said:

    The comment section below is a little bit spicy. Remember these comments well before YOUTUBE takes it down.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  66. Samuel Muiruri said:

    It came after a mass extinction there was an eco system with plenty of food and few predators.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  67. Samuel Muiruri said:

    The only thing i agree with you guys is politics only

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  68. Miko Mido said:

    Intelligent Design🤦‍♂️

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  69. Samuel Muiruri said:

    Really stop pretending to be a smart coder, if you assume every code had to survive to adulthood and reproduce which code isn't held by that rule and how many babies die prebirth due to birth dna related defects.
    God dunnit isn't an answer its a cop out, either ask god to come validate his claim or provide a better theory don't expect a single hole in a ship should mean we should abandon the ship?
    The more logical thing to do is close the hole i.e. figure out if what you call a problem has an answer and truly whethe it satisfies your critical mind shouldn't count unless you can scientifically un verify the theory.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  70. Ponera Grimoire said:

    At least you were honest enough to not say "evolution is wrong, therefore God" in your video.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  71. Luc Smith said:

    Questioning someone's religion isn't a bad thing we're all religious in one way or another it's obvious by looking at this comment section

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  72. Aleck Alexopoulos said:

    Both questions raised are easily answered:
    1. Cambrian explosion? Result of development of hard parts leading to radiative evolution. Previous species are not seen because they had only soft body parts. You can find this in any textbook.
    2. DNA-Proteins. This is a different version of the implausibility argument that has been refuted millions of times. Yes, mutations are random, but protein forms are NOT. So you have if you have two proteins with an alpha helix that does not mean that the alpha helix was "discovered" twice. Instead, it is a variation of one protein to another. Again, in textbooks.
    A question from me. When will these evolution-haters actual read the …. textbooks?

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  73. Perry Widhalm said:

    This Prager U video is narrated by a nutcase from the Discovery Institute which pushes the pseudo-scientific concept of "Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design is nonsense. The verifiable evidence for biological evolution is compelling and overwhelming. Religious fundamentalists know they must undermine the Theory of Evolution as it discounts their mythological beliefs in fairy tales. Scientific investigation is based in skepticism. The narrator of this video confuses skepticism with opposition.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  74. Capt Bloodeye said:

    Prager U videos are like a crystal clear pond. Every so often someone does a shit in it.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  75. John Dough said:

    Sure, you can doubt it, but you should probably have an alternate explanation for it, just being like “nah” doesn’t really contribute. Either disprove it without a doubt, or give an alternative plausible explanation.

    I can question everything till the cows come home, but it doesn’t do much good if I don’t have much reason behind it.
    Air? Nah, it’s not a thing.
    People? Nope it’s all my imagination, the whole world is.
    Water? doesn’t ACTUALLY get you wet!

    “I don’t think this is real, and I have no follow up.”

    Well thanks for wasting everyone’s time.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  76. Stephen Dutton said:

    I'm a BIG fan PragerU, I find their material well researched, and reflective of fact over believe / opinion.

    Summary: Assuming intent is a basis for religion, not science. By quoting "Dr. Douglas Axe" this video shows it's hand, in a "persuasive opinion" rather than fact based sense.

    I wish they hadn't done this.

    This video cherry picks it's accounts, massively oversimplifies the process of natural selection, and fails to account for molecular evolution.

    Molecular evolution is a pre-requisite for PNA world hypothesis, RNA world Hypothesis, and DNA world hypothesis.

    First off, I'm highly doubtful that evolutionary biologists would address or provide an account "life's origins" (Time index 0:43–0:45). This is either disingenuous, or a poorly narrated account as evolutionary theory only accounts for life's diversity in relation to it's environment, Darwins text on Evolution is called the "Origin of Species", not the "Origin of Life"

    I'm going to assume it's an oversight made in good faith.

    Secondly, this video fails to recount the 5 extinction level events which span back as far as 444 million years, the geological variations bought about by these events, the rarity of fossil record for any creatures in general and the fact that Darwins theory of evolution was not based strictly on the Fossil record, rather observed variation associated with living species from (amongst others) the Galapagos Islands.

    Thirdly, (Time index 1:33) "No discernible antecedents" does not challenge the existence of antecedents, merely a record of antecedents in the "fossil record" which after even 500 million (let alone 3.8 billion) years represents a highly disrupted, geologically prone and unreliable system for identifying uninterrupted evolution for a given genotype, in other words, whilst it can be used for supporting the chronology of genotype evolution associated with species (adaptation of reptiles of the Mesozoic era from about 252 to 66 million years ago), absence of markers in the fossil record does NOT indicate an absence of the most recent common ancestor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor), merely a lack of it's record.

    Fourthly, (Time index 4:43) No one is searching for a DNA sequence capable of supporting a stable protein: "Dr. Axe" (biased proponent for intelligent design) overlooks the fact that making something useful by chance is a lot easier than creating something meaningful by chance, and therein lies the problem, This video assumes intent, not collective advantageous events which coalesce.

    Science tests assumptions, it does not use them to challenge incomplete lines of enquiry.

    BIG fail PragerU.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  77. John Dough said:

    Viruses and bacteria seem to evolve pretty well. Otherwise we’d only get the cold once. They mutate and become different versions of itself that your immune system has to try to keep up with.

    Unless you can without a doubt disprove evolution, it’s around to stay… also, you’re not a university 🤷🏻‍♂️, just pretentious and attempt to make people think they know more than everyone else.

    Don’t listen to “scientists” or “doctors” I know a guy a few blocks away who only charges $20 for surgeries. Pfff “experts” with their “real education”… dummies.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  78. Legato Modi said:

    as a scientific theory that i believe is true, i appreciate a civil thoughtful scrutiny like this. i believe its questions that get to the very heart of the matter that will lead us to a better understanding of the truth, no matter what that truth ends up being. the greatest leaps of mankind often comes when an amazing truth in science is discovered that completely flips what people were sure was unquestionable previously. the truth, whether it parallels with my current beliefs and my ego or not, is something we'll all be better off finding but we'll never get there unless we ask everything

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  79. vinicius ornelas said:

    Great presentation!! One thing to add, there's a chance that the millions or billions of yrs timescale could be wrong, time is the enemy of the basic elements, their degregation was observed in lab on a period of weeks. That's interesting

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  80. JonatasAdoM said:

    Science is about questioning, still you're not allowed to question climate change and evolution

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  81. JonatasAdoM said:

    When you reach a point where there's nothing new to be learned it's when it starts to go downhill.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  82. shadowsa2b said:

    I hadnt heard of these points before. Very interesting

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  83. My Self said:

    1.3k dislikes from folks who don't appreciate critical thinking?

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  84. Hail Giratina The true god said:

    And some people still dont understand that Prager U is not trustworty source after this low quality video.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  85. Hugo Cunha said:

    In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. Exodus 20.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  86. Jack Rabbit said:

    Sure, no theory is perfect, but I find it hard to believe in a deity and all the incongruous things mentioned in the Bible, like Noah's ark (which is a demonstrably preposterous notion), Jonah surviving in a whale's belly, and the existence of an angry (albeit "loving") God who, when one Israelite in the wilderness ejaculated outside his wife's watouzi, responded by causing a great earthquake which rent the earth and swallowed up thousands of Israelite bystanders – say whaaat?And just as creationists have a hard time swallowing the notion of slow evolution from elemental over a huge span of time, how do they account for the origin of a creator in the first place? I know, I know, magic, but really???

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  87. Shawn said:

    … Senior fellow at the discovery institute …. oh you're one of those.

    Everything isn't explained by a theory so therefore 'god' 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  88. yourselfiegotleaked said:

    "We currently can't answer certain questions scientifically, therefore this is proof of intelligent design"

    Yeah, okay. What a joke.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  89. MosheMYY M said:

    Evolution is the regime of non-intelligence. No thinking, no questioning, no defending is required. It is settled science says the consensus and that's all that matters.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  90. Alexander Henn said:

    Nicely put up! Pretty interesting to think about…

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  91. Chevy SparkEV said:

    Stupid stuff like this is why PragerU is sometimes garbage. Software since 1977 has shown evolution works to improve the result. This is called genetic algorithm and something like it is used more and more every day. Self driving cars and other impossible task on "intelligent design" must use this concept.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  92. MosheMYY M said:

    It's no longer Darwin's doubt, the evidence is contrary and Darwin's theory(hypothesis) should be no more. Even after learning of all the explosions within the fossil "record" evolution should have been decimated. But the dogma continues as the backbone of a non-intelligent regime.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  93. Allan M. said:

    Check out any Lecture by James Tour, renowned chemist and expert in nano-machines for more. https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  94. Tim Jansen said:

    Not that it matters but Stephen Meyer promotes intelligent design. In other words, he is not unbiased. He does not think in scientific terms. In this video he is trying to debunk what is considered fact, trying to debunk what is considered fact to help advance intelligent design. I do not call it the "theory of intelligent design" because to receive that label would require it be tested and face peer review just like the theory of evolution did.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  95. Adrian Rhoden said:

    Wow, OK I give up. Whenever I see new videos trying to challenge evolution, I always think "wow, they come up with a new argument!" As usual, I'm left disappointed, hearing about long challenged and most would say debunked rebuttals. If you want more info, just do a little research on the two challenges presented, you'll feel what I'm saying.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  96. Andrew S said:

    Why am I not surprised that prager would eventually get around to evolution denialism?

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  97. BPatMann bin BPatMan said:

    Darwinism is an interesting Civil War-era idea. However, the filling up of the fossil record, the discovery of DNA and the understanding of biology at the micro- and nano-levels make it nearly impossible.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  98. theheartlessnoob said:

    All the fathers of science were Christians who also changed the world with their discoveries and inventions. Then later these fools hijacked academia with no science whatsoever, no inventions, no discoveries, no anything, only drawings and a few bone fragments. With a ln experiment of fruit flies they would change the world! Lol, their failed fruit fly experiments, that's what they orgasm for. They get all wet when they find a fossilized toe nail too. Bring in Hitchens! They yell, lol some fool who hasn't done anything but talk; hasn't discovered or invented anything, but he is brilliant! How do we make them believe this crap since it's not seen anywhere nor can it. We tell them it takes millions and millions of years!(how convenient) Then the hateful fools come to defend their religious masters and say "there's plenty of evidence for evolution!" Where? In your drawings and papers? Millions of species and not one of them is showing a single sign of turning into something else(fact) You don't need an education past the third grade to go outside and see that nothing is changing, it's all stasis. The religion of evolution that calls it's self scientific but can't be observable, repeatable and testable. But what do these God haters call say it is…… SCIENCE. The Christian SCIENTIST by the name of Francis Bacon tells us that this theory cannot be scientific because it cannot pass the scientific method.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  99. fishermen of light said:

    God.
    His Son Jesus came down from heaven 2 thousand years ago and warned people. To this day, they are still trying to figure out some fantasy on how to ignore the truth.
    Science (man) use to say the world was flat. Why would you ask man for answers only the creator can give?
    Ask God to show you the truth and he will set you free.

    October 22, 2019
    Reply
  100. Jonathan Glass said:

    Is no one going to mention evolution disobeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics aka the law of entropy?

    October 22, 2019
    Reply

Leave a Reply

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