Reacting to iamLucid's Garbage Anti-Evolution Video

hey everyone so as many of you know I have a bit of a reputation at this point for debunking creationists and because of this a number of people have reached out to me to let me know about a particular video called Evolution school's biggest lie by a channel called I am Lucid uh to tell me that this was sort of a typical creationist video and that I might uh have fun debunking it so I went to just take a look real quick um it it didn't it it doesn't have that many views as of right now it has 73 000 views but the channel has in the vicinity of a million subscribers so it didn't seem to me like something that was worth doing a full debunk but then it occurred to me what if I was to try out sort of like a reaction Style video could be you know lower effort for me but I still kind of get to go through and uh and debunk to an extent um I don't actually know how to do this is the thing so I'm just recording on the webcam like I normally do and I'm going to watch the video and then I'm gonna put it together in post I don't know if I'm gonna like overlay images at certain points or um I don't know what I'm going to do but I'm going to try it and if it works if I can figure it out and if people like it maybe I'll do more stuff like this because I think it's going to be a lot easier than the debugs which sometimes take a long time for me to put together and everything so um let's go ahead and check this out again I don't had never heard of this guy uh I still don't know anything about him I haven't looked at any of his content other content or this video I just kind of looked at two seconds just to like see what it was but now I'm going to actually watch the video and we'll do some live commentary here and see what this is all about ready let's go foreign we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation okay I gotta jump in right away right here uh I did not know that I didn't know the angle this guy was coming from scientific descent from Darwinism as many of you know if you don't know this is the deceiving Manifesto from Discovery Institute and I think I heard uh Michael be he's voice in there uh so given what I've been doing lately to those guys uh I I think I I may be the right guy for the job here so let's keep watching and natural selection to account for the complexity of life I wrote about 10 icons of evolution in my book I could have written about more but I had to stop somewhere um survival of the fittest has had a disastrous history does not sustain any kind of darwinian prediction that can be intelligently derived from darling we don't even know how to define life let alone knowing how to spark it to begin schools want you to uh does anyone else want to tell this guy what I've just been doing to James tour for a while now um per I think that was berlinski too was the other guy so these are just it's I I haven't seen what the guy's gonna do yet but he's clearly teeing himself up to be regurgitating a bunch of Discovery Institute talking points uh I also that's a weird clip for him to choose from James tour where he just says we don't even know how to define life I mean that's totally tangential but also not really true we have pretty good definite working definition of life in terms of cellularity metabolism reproduction response to stimuli homeostasis Etc uh I mean I don't know what angle he's going to take here that we don't know what life is or something like that kind of doesn't really matter life is just a word that we made up right words just represent ideas nature doesn't care about the words that we use or our need to categorize and Define any everything it just does what it does right so I don't know he came from apes they said they this theory was so solidified in reality that it's practically a fact we did not come from apes we are Apes we are Apes we are in the family of great apes just like we are mammals just like we are vertebrates just like we are eukaryotes these are taxa we belong to the taxon of Apes we are Apes um this is not a good start they lie to you lock in with me and let me fix your brain [Music] oh dear God he uses my font I think that's my font Gotham Bolt I don't like that I don't like that at all that's that's my font [Music] now before all of the biology majors start flexing in the comments down below with their phds classical music and British accents let me explain myself I am not anti-evolution I do believe that human beings actually have evolved we have seen this we can measure this it's a undeniable fact but it's on a much smaller scale and more importantly a scale that we can actually test these can be measured within human populations that I'll explain later on in the video but I do believe that humans actually have evolved this is more of a Kent Hoven style thing here where you're uh he's he's getting ready to do microevolution yes macro Evolution no um so I'll let him do that let's grow up the first of the biggest lies with the neo-darminism the evidence revolves around the theory and not the other way around the bass will become a lot more clear to you as you watch the rest of this video school left this part of the textbooks but Darwin himself actually said analogy would lead me one step farther namely to believe that all animals and plants are descended from someone prototype but analogy would be a deceitful guide all right he he threw her he threw out the term Neo Darwinism I'm pretty sure he does not know what that means because he's not able to talk about it in a he he didn't even like if you're gonna throw that term out you have to Define it Darwinism which at this point is very Antiquated which I'm sure he does not know is just uh is just uh evolution by natural selection we're really just talking about uh differences in the population being selected for by natural uh by natural selection the neo-darwinism uh which was developed maybe 67 years later Incorporated a bunch of different mechanisms other than natural selection because there are many mechanisms by which Evolution uh operates and then even neo-darwinism at this point is not something that we it's not the Pinnacle of of evolutionary biology uh our incredible understanding of genetics now is uh just these are not these are not terms that represent the current status of evolutionary biology so uh yeah well again this is out of the DI Playbook so I don't think uh I think he's probably just going to like be regurgitating di talking points the whole time let's see what he does but you're taught in school they said the exact opposite aren't you that Darwin himself believed that we all came from one single prototype when in reality in his books he says that he doesn't believe that that's because school taught you neodyminism not darwinian Evolution the differences are vest darwinian Evolution was based on Darwin's observations the theory is based within the scientific method and does not have such far-fetched conclusions for an example he believed in natural selection within reasonable limits that would be an undeniable truth he just showed a quote where Darwin posited that it's possible that all life rose from a single common ancestor and in fact that is the status of evolutionary biology so I don't know if he's trying to like throw Darwin under the bus and Salvage him at the same time or something I don't know I don't know what he's doing Darwinism is a fork of Darwinism it's modified and often politically charged it tries no no it is not politically charged it is natural selection plus about half a dozen other uh mechanisms so I don't know where he's getting this that is just a lie find definite answers deeper than Darwin ever claimed it does this through an artificial epigenetics and genetic mutations beyond the normal three which are insertions deletions and duplications okay yeah these are other mechanisms so where I don't get where the politics are here Theory brings in specific gene expression and draws bold conclusions from vague evidences I'll explain it more later on the classic uh pluralization of a word that does not need to be pluralized evidences video but this is the most known Theory and Darwin is wrongly credited for the creation of this Theory no Darwin is credited for Darwinism which he developed in the 1860s and then neo-darwinism is what biologists were doing in the early 20th century and then now we're doing much more sophisticated things still um so it's just he clearly his has has read up on di talking points but has never bothered to even Google the term neo-darwinism I'd say that would be a good start that would be something he could do if he wanted to know the definitions of the words he's using but you're taught in school and it's not the truth the new darwinist leading theory of how they assume life started on Earth was by something called a biogenesis but simply a pot of amino acids got heated from hydrothermal vents in the ocean floor that eventually evolved into all different types of life wow you're skipping a lot of steps and no amino acids did not turn into life uh I guess I I guess it would be pointless to try to summarize my hours and hours of content on James tour here but uh the origin of life is uh origin of Life research is an incredibly sophisticated field and he just tried to summarize 60 years of research in a sentence uh by fixating on amino acids I assume he's going to do the classic uh Miller Yuri is dumb so origin of Life research is dumb uh something along those lines natural selection over time plus random DNA copying mistake somehow equals all of life on Earth it's a set attempt at drawing a conclusion of the origin of life in my opinion okay so he clearly does not even understand the difference between origin of life and evolution because he's talking about he's talking about evolution by natural selection of dna-based organisms which by the way DNA evolved after life life first then DNA uh so he's constantly equating the two not really recognizing that they're actually completely separate well not completely separate right there's chemical Evolution but uh uh uh the evolution of the genome to produce different biological organisms is way later than origin of Life they don't really have much to do with each other I mean it's unbelievable to even accept this Theory even if this was possible it doesn't go into the maintenance and subsequent reproduction of the organism that was created what okay let's let them they're more people because it's in this Theory such as spontaneous generation which is basically saying that something can come from nothing uh okay so this so uh he teed this up by talking about abiogenesis and now he's trying to talk about spontaneous generation which has nothing to do with abiogenesis this is something that was discredited in like the 17th or 18th century with Francesco ready because they would see uh maggots coming out of Rotting Flesh and so they thought hey what if maggots just appear on Rotting Flesh and then he figured out no the flies come and they lay the eggs and the maggots are coming out of the eggs so spontaneous generation the idea that life appears out of thin air uh was discredited several centuries ago and is not true and has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis the process where the process by which the first unbelievably simple life became assembled uh through chemical processes uh so this is a very embarrassing equivocation or life can come from no life which is obviously not true was actually no it obviously is true because there was once not life and then there was life so life came from non-life we're trying to figure out how and we've made a lot of progress and it has absolutely nothing to do with spontaneous generation was actually disproven in the 19th century by a French chemist named Louis Pasteur and before him no it was done first by Francesco ready and that's spontaneous generation which has nothing to do with abiogenesis before him it was thought that if you close a jar of milk and then bacteria grows inside the jar of milk it was because the milk would produce this life spontaneously and the the life would come out of nowhere almost as if it was a magical creation it came to the conclusion that there were already organisms alive inside and the bacteria there we just couldn't see so that's why it would grow because it was always there right that's that's mildly roughly correct event Pastor I I'm pretty sure maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Reddy did this first but Pastor also did this with bacteria uh but again has nothing to do with abiogenesis come out of nowhere additionally able Genesis has never been recreated and the closest scientists have come to recreating it is the creation of simple peptides using artificial conditions okay a lot a lot wrong in one sentence no we've done much more than create peptides we've generated all of the relevant biomolecules and their polymers and systems chemistry has shown us how uh how how self-replicating molecules even can come about uh so we're we're quite a ways along towards even you know towards protocells and things like that so so no that's not the best we've done we've done much much much much much better but more importantly we don't have to recreate it we don't have to recreate something to substantiate it we don't have to build a star in order to know how stars form right that's not how science works we make observations and we figure things out empirically right life is here we're trying to figure out how life began and it's unbelievably more complicated right the process of abiogenesis took millions and millions of years through the principles of systems chemistry where you have sit where you have systems of molecules that are self-replicating and then complexifying over time until certain uh you know Suites of peptides develop some kind of metabolic capability they're enhancing their ability to self-replicate they're in competition with one another right this is this is kind of that hopefully we'll get to talk more about this because this is maybe the key thing that creationists don't understand when they think that a scientist is supposed to just go oh here's some molecules and we made a cell and boom it's alive and there's life and they think that that we can't do that means nature didn't do it when in reality nature also did not do that no one is proposing that in nature some molecules floated together and made a cell no we had assemblages and molecules and closed in vesicles that were self-replicating and complexifying over millions of years before those systems resembled something that we could feasibly call Life due to the internal uh of the the abilities of the molecules enclosed in that vesicle namely metabolic capabilities so all right I'm not surprised but yeah this is this is really bad so far the peptides created we're not capable of having a secondary structure let alone a globular structure while that okay I don't know what he's talking about if a a pro a peptide that has a particular folding structure an aqueous solution is going to fold that way so I don't even know what I don't even know what he thinks he's talking about so at the same time ignoring all the conditions required to keep the enzyme stable and prevent it from denaturing artificially this is very likely to not ever why would it denature it's just it's proteins in water why would it denature I don't understand not ever have happened naturally argram Cooks who serves as the distinguished professor of analytical chemistry said that proteins are formed from amino acids by loss of water and loss of water in water will not occur because the process will be reversed okay so those of you who've watched my James tour content are probably smiling right now um yes uh amino acids don't just magically couple to form peptides they require chemical activation and there are dozens and dozens of proposed prebiotically plausible chemical activators that will facilitate that even though it is endothermic it can happen so we're talking about the difference between genetics thermodynamics I really don't think he knows what thermodynamics is but let's see if he brings it up later by the water this is thermodynamically forbidden there are very large number of studies showing peptide formation but they all use Catalyst or modified amino acids to make species unlikely to exist naturally uh no yeah catalysts so naturally occurring catalysts so naturally occurring peptide formation uh there's there's not a problem here there's not a problem here we just couldn't have happened naturally in believing in Soul is a far stretch outside the bounds of reality it's not you just haven't looked into it at all ever for a second and can't and have no capability of uh digesting the research that studies exactly this uh right so there's dozens and dozens and dozens of studies uh looking for ways that uh Prebiotic peptide formation occurred uh and so if you're not going to look at any of them there's no reason for you to talk about it there are different stages of human evolution in the theory the latest of which are Homo habilis Homo erectus and Homo Sapien respectively the homo sapiens but here is do we have a common ancestor to these species are they our ancestors that we've evolved from or are they a subspecies and if we didn't evolve from them then why did they go extinct did we just wipe them out and smoke them all and outperform them to their Extinction the latest claim isn't too hard to believe actually if you look at the nature of our species what would we do if somebody just claimed a brand new land a brand new territory on the planet Earth immediate War would be waged to gain control of the resources and of the land we don't shake their hand and you know team up like we're playing a squad in fortnite we go in for the kill and take all the land that we could for our own monetary and beneficial gain that's the nature of our species literally every single country would wage war against this little small country that has no Army because what are they going to do stop us we want the money okay that's not really the way the world works anymore uh a thousand years ago yeah def or you know less than a thousand years ago so all right I'll give him this resources so we'll do it anyways that's how we're built the oldest Homo Sapien fossil on Earth is a skull founded Morocco it was thought to initially be 40 000 years old then it was recently reappraised in the year 2017 to actually be roughly 300 000 years old now this is crucial because it shakes up the entire theory of evolution by slowing down the timeline way further than is possible to hold the current theory the difference between ours I don't think that that is uh uh I'm I'm not much of an anthropologist but uh my understanding was that homo sapiens came about something like 200 or 300 000 years ago uh so I don't see the problem with finding remains that are that old because we have remains of species that predate us as well so I don't see the problem here our skull currently in the 300 000 year old skull is from jabil Hood was that it had a double arched eyebrow Ridge a larger and protruding nasal cavity a broader face and a smaller brain casing and that's all that happened and 300 000 years then how many years ago were we Apes now if the end of um okay so evolution is very slow uh it takes millions and millions of years so that we are morphologically very similar to our ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago is not that strange and uh completely expected and in line with uh what evolutionary biology predicts then again how long ago were we Apes we are currently Apes humans are Apes what he means is how long ago did how long ago were our ancestors something that kind of looks like monkeys today um I don't know off the top of my head but certainly millions of years um and yeah unfortunately this area is not my forte so I don't remember the name of the exact species and how long ago it forked off but um this is all very very very well understood by anthropologists there is no controversy about it um there's there's no controversy in the in the anthropology Community the only people who who pretend there is anything to discuss are people like Casey luskin who just lie about it uh and this is probably where he's getting this part of his Playbook is from people like that um yeah there's there's uh there's not much to talk about here but more erect this was set to end around 27 to 100 000 years ago and this better hold Homo Sapien like us was alive 300 000 years ago and that must mean that erectus and Sapien were alive together however the current theory claims that we went back further and further in stages that our species was once their species now this is problematic because a third look okay this this may be another thing that creationists don't really understand is how speciation works right you you have a very large population of animals and then some small subpopulation within that small subpopulation there are variations right and you get a speciation event until this uh this subpopulation is just distinct enough from the larger population that it merits retroactively going back and calling it a different species and and and maybe they are even not able to to uh to produce viable Offspring with the original population right it's it's very subtle um but when that happens the original population doesn't immediately die by virtue of a new species of speciation having occurred nature isn't there going oh I got the next thing that I wanted so the rest can die no they continue to exist and then compete that's what natural selection is so most species go extinct the overwhelming majority of all species that have ever ever existed are extinct Homo sapiens is not extinct we won we did really well and here we are um so that there is overlap of species is is is very trivial to understand I'm not sure why he would think that not only that everything would be segmented like that but that evolutionary biology says it should because it certainly does not because not only do we have fossil records showing us that homo erectus and Homo Sapien like us being alive at one point but we also have Homo habilis and Homo erectus being alive and hunting within one kilometer of each other at the same exact ly so what same exact time for these to be alive at the same time and in the same geographical region shows us that they weren't ancestors of each other they weren't going back in stages and it'd be a but they are yes if there's overlap but if one if if one species is derived from another that's an ancestral relationship right it doesn't mean that there's no overlap between the populations it's not that hard to understand and it'd be a lot more rational to assume that they were separate entities entirely so it's not far-fetched to believe that one homo class outperformed and wiped out the other from habilis to erectus to Sapien another point of argument is that the Earth didn't exist infinitely so we have a timeline that we have to work with the Earth has been a viable place of life for the last 4.6 billion years which might make okay so he's not a young Earth creationist he is revealing so that's good makes sense to you however we've had many mass extinction events such as the Cretaceous paleogene event reducing the timeline of evolution to about 66 million years only so with that in mind the timeline no longer adds up if what uh uh those didn't wipe out uh those Extinction events didn't wipe out all of life some of them wiped out most of it some of them wiped out as much as 90 I think um life continued to exist and continue to evolve also 66 million years I don't know where where he's going he's talking about hominid species that existed a handful of millions of years over the past handful of millions of years so what does this Extinction event have to do with anything I don't know we were still Homo sapiens for the last 300 000 years minimum and have undergone limited Evolution since then how many years ago did we evolve from a pond of amino acids again doesn't uh about four billion about 4 billion uh would be when there was a pool of amino acids and and other things that's a long time uh four billion years it's a really long time so yeah scratch scratch your scratch your head on that doesn't make sense if these fossils are probably the first thing that come to mind when you think about human evolution a lot of these okay sorry just fake fossils I mean it's like come on what do you what do you mean fake fossils like like they don't exist like we didn't find them I mean are you are you going to dispute evidence or are you going to pretend the evidence doesn't exist like pick a lane you know what I mean I don't know a lot of these models that we've used to visualize Evolution are actually so weak in authenticity that one of them is a fully fledged human-like ape model with the legs and arms and feet and everything that's fully constructed from a single tooth oh they no I think he's probably trying to talk about Lucy and australopithecines um and no we have I I don't want to give the wrong number here I was going to say hundreds of specimens and I think that's true maybe it's less than 100 I'm not sure but uh we have many many this is this is what luskin did in the thing right they wanted to be just Lucy and Lucy's incomplete um uh it's not it's not just Lucy there's a lot and lots and lots and lots of specimens of Australopithecus uh afarensis australopithe there's other uh there there are other species within the australopithecine genus uh again I'm not an anthropologist I don't remember all of them all I know is that we have many many many specimens uh something that you could find out by Googling for 10 seconds so this single tooth thing uh is a bunch of crap hey Pig my boy when Lucy was first discovered of a pig uh no no discovered in the 1970s people thought that she was the missing link between humans and apes now experts usually agree yeah australopithecines are something like a missing link between ancestral species that more closely resemble what we what what he means by Apes right like gorillas and orangutans and things like that it is a it is a it is a species that is morphologically intermediate from those kinds of species and Homo sapiens right it's it is a species that is sort of like newly walking upright and still retains certain morphological characteristics of those prior species where they're still trying to get around in trees a lot so like the way the arms are constructed and things like that but uh certain aspects of the um of the anatomy make it undeniably uh an upright walker uh check out my Alaskan debunk for more info on that do you agree that this was just a three foot tall chimpanzee no uh literally zero anthropologists would agree with that statement so no not the human in the making the reason that they thought so was because of their neo-darwinian presuppositions no that's not how science works and that's not what anthropologists do they actually look at the anatomy of the specimen and they look I mean I'm struggling to remember exactly what what the what the morphological features were uh there was the valgus knee it's the way the pelvis is uh is shaped uh where the foramen magnum is uh the way the spinal alignment uh has to be so we're talking about hundreds of specimens I believe of of a species which we call Australopithecus well that's a Genus Australopithecus and then the these species within that genus that are undeniably morphologically intermediate between those ape species that he's talking about and humans there is no denying this and no credible Anthropologist would ever deny this um so you're just denying an entire field of science sorry remember when I mentioned earlier that the evidence fits around the theory and not the other way around we didn't recover any feet or hand Bones from Lucy and yet we did from hundreds of other specimens but it was assumed that she had human feet and human heads no not human feet or human hands australopithecine feet and hands which have a more which had an intermediate morph morphology well okay I'm not an expert on australopithecine feet and hands but in general Australopithecus was morphologically intermediate I mean I can't keep saying this over and over again but this further proves my point that there is a definite bias here the handle for Sandman was made by an anthropology Professor named Reiner prash he falsified eight determinations of fossils during his 30-year career in 2010 made up data to support his claims I don't know who that is and I have never heard of that um I bet it's not true but even if it is this is a classic tactic of uh oh they like to do this with the uh the Heckle uh embryo drawings where he kind of fabricated the drawing like 200 years ago but then we later developed embryology and found out that that's pretty much what they look like anyway uh so this is uh just like that one guy did a thing so the whole field is wrong and that's not how science Works um so yeah so so yeah there's a bias there's a bias here buddy and the bias is denying science that you don't like he literally rest and lost his entire 30 years worth of work to falsify the handle for Sandman and ruin his entire life worth of credibility this is the fattest L I've seen anybody take in my life and you can see that he had this determination to prove neo-darwinian Evolution to us to a point where he risked his entire life worth of credibility for it yeah this this is a popular narrative this just like uh the this this this intellectual dishonesty this this corruption right that side like he's he's talking about one guy again I don't know if this story is true or not let's let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it is this one guy just like really wanted to get to the top of the field and he fabricated something to do so he's then extrapolating that to the entire scientific Community um which is completely idiotic right that's uh that's just stupid the bias is definitely there the pilt on man is one of the most famous fossil Fabrications there are three different evolutionary biologists collaborated on this project it's a human skull with a modern ape jaw they thought that mixing the two would fabricate The Missing Link but it didn't now they just look stupid and I am lucid's YouTube channel that you're subscribed to here subscribe to my channel right no I am not um so yeah you're just doing this again so uh if you want to actually talk about the data you have to talk about the data you can't just pretend that anthropology doesn't exist right if you want to talk about these specimens you have to acknowledge that they exist and actually talk about them so I would suggest having a conversation with an anthropologist I think that if you actually want to learn about anthropology it's a really fascinating field I hope to learn more about it myself in the near future uh I'm actually going hopefully going to be producing anthropology content written for me by Erica of gutsik Gibbon so that will be very exciting uh there's been some delays but we'll you know hopefully I'll be able to get to that and then one day I'll have all the anthropology knowledge to dunk on him about this stuff too but for now I better with the chemistry is this guy to my channel right the Nebraska man this is a fully constructed fully fledged human from a wild pig tooth I can't make this up the amount of creativity they went into this one was Immaculate how they turn a whole body a model of a whole body with the arms legs bones everything from a tooth I mean I just I don't know this example I'm sure he's lying whatever let's get past it a pig the Cardiff giant was made by George Hull who was an atheist he lost a debate and wanted to prove how easily he can pull people of religion to believe in their biblical Giants so he hired some guys three thousand dollars to make their own 10-foot Biblical giant and then buried it this fake fossil ended up selling for 23 000 which of today's time would equal 500 000. I mean you're just I mean you're dunking on religious people now um that's kind of funny I guess unbelievable the card of giant was believed to be real and was exhibited in multiple museums 3 000 people actually came out to see it because they thought it was totally authentic and I mean this whole like he's spending a lot of time on this uh this is like doing like you know the crop circles and everybody thought that the crop circles were aliens and then they weren't there were just some dudes with planks and they were good with math and they could measure stuff so that was a hoax does that mean aliens aren't real no there totally could be aliens they didn't make those crop circles but he's pretending that crop circles not being aliens means there are no aliens that's analogous to this situation that there were a couple of fakes means none of them are real um which is completely idiotic and any Anthropologist would laugh in your face then we ended up realizing that it wasn't real because he got drunk at a party and revealed that it was fake himself the pecking man was supposed to be the missing link pretty sure that's peaking but then somehow all of the evidence has disappeared I'm not joking it's supposed to be like a homo erectus human being that lived in China that had huge protrusive eye sockets but I guess we'll never know because it's gone like you can go there these remains right we have so many specimens they're in so many museums so when you just say there was one but it disappeared okay go find another one go to a museum and go look at this stuff it's there go check it out ask somebody working at the Museum to explain it to you ask them to explain to you how we know what it is and how old it is right there's so you're just ignoring science you're just pretending anthropology doesn't exist that's all that's happening here and it disappeared out of nowhere they never taught you this in school but Darwin was a racist he was also openly sexist and if he was alive today he would be canceled on Twitter and his entire Theory would have been rejected yeah people used to own slaves too if you owned slaves today you'd get canceled this is Classic this is just like the alt-right uh if they don't like something then it was developed by a pedophile right the pet a pedophile made that so it's wrong I mean uh Darwin could be could be a murderer it doesn't make science any less true right it came out later that Richard Feynman was a misogynistic douchebag so what Quantum electrodynamics stands all the same the validity of science does not depend on the character of those who develop that science I'm not a Darwin scholar in a historical context maybe he was a jerk I bet he wasn't I don't know who cares who cares the most shocking was when he wrote in his book written in 1871 titled The Descent of men where he says at some future period not very distant as measured by centuries the Civilized races of men will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the Savage races I'm sure you can use your imagination to figure out what he's talking about when he says the Savage races he published this book roughly 62 years before the event took place in Germany that I can't see the name of in this video again user of context clues they're actually you can't say World War II um yeah I'm still waiting to get to the part where he explains why I care about this the deeply connected I'll explain how in the next point but Darwin believed that the white races were evolutionary more advanced than the black races Darwin's views of gender were not much better he says that men were more courageous pugnacious and energetic than women with a more inventive genius his brain is absolutely larger the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man Darwin also says and I quote the chief distinction of the intellectual powers of two Sexes is shown by men attaining to a higher Eminence in whatever he takes up then women can whether requiring deep thought reason or imagination or merely the use of the senses and hands he added thus man has ultimately become Superior to women not me saying this but your boy Darwin but it doesn't stop again who cares there because Darwin would tell the Reverend Charles Kingsley in a letter dated February 6 1862 it is very true what you say about the higher races of men when high enough replacing and clearing off lower races in 500 years how the Anglo-Saxon race would have spread an exterminated whole Nations and in consequence how much the human race to viewed as a unit would have risen in rank remember what risks the nation of Europe ran not so many centuries ago being overrun by the Turks and how ridiculous of such an idea was the more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turks Hollow in the struggle for existence looking to the world at no very distant date what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world all right I'm like borderline gonna start fast forwarding here like broken record uh yeah Newton practiced Alchemy Alchemy is stupid yet Newton was one of the greatest scientists of all time who cares a long time ago people believed dumb wrong things we probably believe something that's dumb and wrong now today all of us and then later we'll know better who cares it does not invalidate an ounce of science at all come on let's get past this not only did he predict this but he created this ideology and gave room to prove it scientifically which made a lot of negative and nasty things happen throughout history because of his theory and no if you live in the USA You're Not Safe either because there were previously anti-miscegenation laws in the USA which made it a crime to what somebody categorize this is the stuff that Kent hovind does he does the whole Eugenics and like you know all the all Pol Pot and Hitler and everybody that it was all because of evolution this is ridiculous the idea that that power hungry people trying to get political power has anything to do with evolutionary biology is insane it's just people trying to get power okay this is this is nonsense is under a different race Darwin's theory helped to justify these claims with his scientifically back to racism these inherent beliefs had been pushed into the theory of evolution from the very beginning and have remained instilled within it making it extremely difficult to differentiate the difference between fact an opinion look if he if he was saying that you know what I want to get in a time machine and go back to the 1860s and tell Darwin off about this sexist stuff or racist stuff great let's go I'll go with you let's go help Darwin be less wrong awesome what does this have to do with evolution by natural selection what does this have to do with with four billion years of of evolutionary history nothing nothing this is just this is what propaganda does right this guy is not interested in talking about science he's interested in he's he's either fallen for propaganda and is regurgitating it actually that's almost certainly what it is he doesn't strike me as like a ringleader of propaganda he fell for propaganda because he he it resonated with him emotionally right that's how you get people like oh Injustice and oh all of these bad things is Tethered to this this thing that I want you to reject I want you to reject science so let me let me trigger the fear Center or the you know the guilt or the shame or whatever and uh and tether this message to that to get you to reject what is what it is I want you to reject so so he fell for it and he's repeating it as though it's some pearl of wisdom when he's just sort of displaying for everyone to see how easily manipulated he is this resonates with the modern Theory as well because the evidence seems to revolve around the conclusions and at the conclusions you've already drawn the evidence which is how it should be he keeps saying this over and over again as though he has a clue what biologists do he he can't even accurately summarize what uh the the status of the field yet he somehow knows the methodological practices of biologists he has no clue what scientists do and he can't even he can't even adequately bring up let alone discuss the evidence supporting evolution by natural selection where he hasn't yet thus far we've got how my God we've got 25 minutes left to go oh boy all right for any scientific method this has actually led to more than a thousand biologists raising doubts and skepticism about the theory of evolution in a joint statement where they say we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life yeah because natural selection and random mutation alone can't account for the complexity of life there are many other mechanisms by which Evolution operates and many of the people who signed that know that and other ones just aren't biologists and don't understand of evolutionary biology and got basically tricked into this is this is ridiculous I mean I've talked about this a little bit in some of my uh Discovery Institute content but this is their malicious thing even James Torres talked about how he got kind of tricked into signing that and has lamented it ever since because he's been Blacklist blacklisted from certain sources of grant funding which in honesty is unfortunate um that shouldn't be how science operates but and yet he uh the the the DI that completely screwed over his career he's kind of aligned with them now so how's that for irony but anyway um to be it seems he's coming back to this di document for a second time so um yeah this is not this is not good stuff here careful examination of the evidence for darwinian Theory should be encouraged these are over a thousand scientists not your that's not that many by the way um I don't know if he really understands how many scientists there are worldwide uh Millions um uh also uh this was sent to all kinds of scientists right so this question is is of concern for biologists right biologists study life and evolutionary processes if you ask an astrophysicist this what what why is their opinion worth more than the lay person almost right that's not what they study they don't have any privileged ability to to discuss this topic so uh most of the people who signed it are not by all actually I I would I would venture to say probably all of them are not biologists and thus their opinion is irrelevant there may have been one or two on there um that are clearly apologists anyway and not actual biologists so um the whole document is a gigantic turd sandwich and that he's obsessed with it uh is very telling not your boy that's a YouTuber the term Eugenics and its modern field of study were first coined by Francis gelton in 1883 1887. please don't talk about this that long we already did this we already talked about this this is a non-starter this is uh I really I just I kind of want to just like let him get through this and get past this then drawing on the recent work of his half cousin Charles Darwin the practice of controlled selective breeding of a human population to improve the genetic composition basically forcing survival of the fittest onto a population uh on what the leader defines as fittest I'm sure we can all think of a time in history where where this happened obviously can't see the name of that thing matter of effect why does he think that you can't say like I guess I've never said that word in any of my content I don't think you get demonetized just for saying it I'm not going to test it and try um but he's being very dramatic with his editing here uh Darwinism actually played a huge role in the radical ideology it's how they justify doing what they did with the use of propaganda and a warped pseudoscience and pseudomoralistic view of Darwinism they were able to convince thousands hundreds of yeah the Nazi party made propaganda okay yes that's what happened the Nazi party distorted facts distorted reality I'm not I'm not a scholar of Nazi propaganda let's say they did distort uh uh biology and and Darwinism to to to sell their their hatred and the idea of genocide how is that an indictment of biology rather than the Nazi party this is I just how are you gonna go down this road I don't get it thousands of people that what they were doing was actually okay and was actually good for the human race he really thought that he was lending a helping hand uh to The evolutionary struggle of EX for existence as he literally quotes himself the really bad guy in history that I can't say the name of actually I I would love to get into this deeper and tell you exactly what happened and how the two extremely horrific events that happen on the human Earth that's not what his mustache looks like are linked with Darwinism so they forced survival of the fittest and everybody around them oh yeah I can't even mention more about this to to learn the full part of the the Eugenics part of this video which I can't say on YouTube to get the full in-depth version of this video go to iamlucid.com where I will have this section in specific so that you can learn more about the nitty-gritty parts of Darwinism that school will never ever teach you it's on iamusa.com because it's not Darwinism this is history this is sociology has nothing to do with Biology at all has nothing to do with Biology at all what are you doing once you become a member and support your boy you can also get a v card while you're there to you you know stainless steel v-card my boy I'm not even going to ask I'm not even going to ask what that is and he has misspelled atheism Darwin actually wrote private letters that we're not made to be public but they obviously are now to his Christian friend where he was explaining that he was having a hard time believing in the Christian faith he had a hard time believing in theism in general but he did know that a God Head to Head existed there has to be a God that has made all of this the design argument still astonished him and he describes in his own writing that there is a impossibility of conceiving that this Grand and wondrous Universe with our conscious selves arose by chance so yeah he also lived uh 150 years ago prior to the entire field of cosmology all of genetics and evolutionary biology uh uh right the it does not matter that Darwin believed in God at all nor does this really have anything to do with anything this is this false equivocation that they love to make that in order to accept evolution in order to to accept naturalistic explanations for things that one is inevitably going to be an atheist which is completely idiotic right you can believe in God and accept all of science right and in fact most people who believe in God do right I think that uh that creationism is a very is well I mean no there's probably a lot of creationists I'm just saying it is very very possible and there are indeed religious scientists who believe in God and accept science except evolutionary biology except Big Bang cosmology and see it as compatible with their faith I'm not I'm an atheist I don't believe that a God exists but what do I care if someone if I if even a scientist says here's all this stuff that happened and here's how it happened and by the way I believe a God created the universe I don't care I don't care at all this is what baffles me about creationists is that and I've said this in my James tour content is that they believe in such a loser impotent God that is incapable of creating a universe with the parameters set in place such that everything can unfold as science knows it to have unfolded they have to believe in this idiot God that's just like okay I made a universe and hmm I I kind of want like life to happen so uh okay I got some life and it's not cool enough though maybe let me let me do more like who wants to worship that God he's a loser worship a much more powerful God that is able to instantly create a universe with with with parameters in place such that all of this unfolds naturally without any intervention that's a God that's a that's a pretty cool God I don't if I had to believe in one it'd be one like that not one like whoever this one believes in Darwin still knew that there was no way this could have happened by accident but he didn't know that he believed it right Newton believed in God too a lot of scientists have historically believed in God they did not have access to the information we have today that's all Darwin does also say that he couldn't Overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering throughout the world the guy did have a very very hard life his daughter died very young he went through extreme hardships throughout his life so I can see why he thinks this way but at the same time any person of religion will tell you yeah Darwin that's the point that's why we're here to be tested life is made to be fun and easy and happy all day long why not if you have a benevolent deity why couldn't it be I don't know but then Darwin also goes on to say and quote me I'm telling you this is exactly what he says word for word verbatim tell this to your teachers in school Darwin also says it seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist and an evolutionist I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God he also writes this as if it doesn't make any more sense to you he also writes um I had no intention to write atheistically Darwin is saying this yeah nobody cares believe in a god nobody cares you can believe in God and understand that evolution is true give it a shot he had no intention of doing it but people somehow still were misinterpreting his words and warping it for their own uh atheistic agenda to make everybody feel like they couldn't believe fighting science denial is not an agenda you have an agenda I've been God actually the reason that he makes his stands very clear is because his work was actually at the time being used as a way to promote atheism or to prove atheism or at the very least to deny any form of theism and I don't think it was maybe somebody was doing that but the point is that modern science has made it possible to be an atheist the point is that somebody like Newton who is one of the greatest scientists of all time obviously was a theist just like probably almost everyone else around him because there was no way to to conceive of the mechanisms by which the universe and life could have come about without intervention of a deity because the science Wasn't There Yet now it is right prior to cosmology prior to genetics and modern evolutionary biology how could one think of how all of this could have come about right if you go back long enough we thought lightning was Zeus doing this and that up in the clouds there's all the little angels we used to not know anything then you know more and more and more and now we know a lot we don't know everything but we know enough that someone like me can get a basic understanding of cosmology astrophysics planetary science physics chemistry biochemistry biology geology right just sort of like pretty basic I'm not an expert in any of those things chemistry maybe more so but a lot of that other stuff I just kind of know the basics and I just spread that all out and I look from T equals zero to today and I go yeah I got it that's all cool with me that's why I'm an atheist because I don't see any need the god of the gaps there's no room for one anymore it's gone except for there to me there's room right at T equals zero right if you want to believe a god went like that and it all started I'm fine with that because cosmology does not currently have an all-encompassing explanation but even in the origin of life and I don't know if he's going to come back to that or not but if you've watched my James tour content you know that the overwhelming majority of people if you don't work in origin of Life research people don't know what what we know as as a species what at the site that part of the scientific Community the incredible research that's going on there they don't have the background to even understand the research right this guy certainly does not um and as far as I'm concerned there's really not any room for the god of the gaps in origin of life now either so there's one spot T equals zero beginning of the universe that's he's been crammed into that little spot used to be everywhere disease weather everything all God or Gods many gods um not anymore so if you're just flat out admitting that you are uh worshiping the god of the gaps that doesn't reflect very well on you intellectually this was the hijacking of Darwinism th H Huxley was an atheist that used the darwinian evolution and linked it to atheism he was debating people of religion and this is what actually caused Darwin himself to start writing about his belief in Gaiden called it absurd by I quote he calls it absurd that you couldn't uh be be a theist at the same time still accept his version of evolution coming soon was Julian Huxley was actually the grandson of t.h Huxley who actually wanted people to become atheists he had this this want to make everybody around him an atheist he said that for the Modern Men the new religion is Darwinism and look at today he's exactly right he wrote an entire book about this topic and he argues that the same way that today nobody believes that the world is flat uh in the future nobody will believe that God exists all right I don't know his writings he could be butchering it I don't know again one guy says something uh but you know I don't much care if people believe in God I care if they deny science right if you believe in God and you don't deny science I don't care but if I'm being honest I think the world would be better with a lot more atheism I think it would solve a lot of problems but I ultimately that's not my I don't have an agenda to do I don't have an agenda to get people to to disbelieve in God I don't care if people believe in God I care if you deny science this guy's denying science so I'm not attacking his belief in a deity or any higher power I don't care he was the man who turned Darwinism into a religion and made it directly oppose atheism when Dharma Darwinism has never ever been a religion that's meaningless Darwin himself didn't say anything of that nature coming up next was Richard Dawkins the eye roll like oh that old guy so Richard Dawkins was a firm atheist an evolutionary biologist that wrote a book he's not dead does this guy think that Richard Dawkins is dead I just saw him in person in Vegas in October at a conference he's alive titled The God Delusion you probably heard about it in the past where he uses darwinian Evolution as a source to disprove God later he says in an interview with Lauren's cross that if people think to believe in evolution you need to be an atheist then all I need to do is convince them of evolution and make them all atheists I don't think he said that uh also Lawrence Krauss um yeah Dawkins is he just he he fights back against uh uh religious science denial I mean I don't think that I don't think that he has an agenda to convert anyone to atheism I don't think any atheists do um but they need this they need this like malevolent opposition in order to like feel like oh I'm on a crusade right it's the complete reversal of reality right uh creationists produce propaganda and then science Communicator science communicators have to neutralize it right I am the one that you know I I'll admit I feel a little bit of like a sense of Duty like a call to be doing this and he's trying to spin it like I not me he doesn't know me presumably maybe he does but uh Dawkins is a guy who is just trying to neutralize science now but he's trying to pretend the Dawkins is the one that's spreading this thing and I have to you know we have to fight it and it's like it's just that thing right accuse people of the thing you're doing that's that's uh it's it's really twisted and uh okay I won't go so far to say sociopathic but it's it's a it's a total reversal of reality this guy wanted people this guy wanted people to become an atheist he had this this need the same way that goes that's knocking on your door hi can you please talk about the the love of Our Lord this guy was the same exact thing as the door knockers but for atheism honestly he did a damn good job because nearly everybody I know in real life thinks that this is the case people in real life that I know think that to believe in evolution you have to be an atheist I've never met anybody that thinks that I don't think I'm pretty sure he's lying now naturalism starts to come into play this ideology is scary okay this now he's definitely taking a page for the DI Playbook here um so I know this right we need naturalism we need this uh it's uh the denial of a soul right when in reality all it is is just science right naturalism and science are I mean science seeks uh to explain thing how things occur or how things work by actual physical explanations that's naturalism so he's trying to turn it into some kind of ideology whereas it's really just Science Now The Atheist that I just mentioned would actually have to accept naturalism as their New Age religion in accordance with their hijacked version of it's not a religion at best it's a philosophy um but this is not even in the context of philosophy it's just hey how does that work without resorting to Supernatural things that don't exist Darwinism obviously naturalism is the idea that everything in the universe occurs only as a result of natural phenomena of natural forces that exist within the universe that are totally measurable that sounds pretty coherent but if you don't believe in anything outside the universe or there's no room for Divinity this might make perfect sense to you yeah but there's a few flaws in the school of thought to say the least uh the worst of is that you cannot believe in Free Will and believe in naturalism at the same exact time they actually go against each other if you believe in an omnipotent omniscient deity then you don't have free will the complete reversal of reality again is just astounding if there is a deity that made you and knows everything including everything you'll ever do you are not free to not do that how this person does not understand that is really astounding first of all but then to have the balls to flip the script right I I don't know if there's free will or not I think the jury's still out I I haven't really looked into this lately I don't know if we have free will or not I think there's room for it because there we still don't have a firm grasp on Consciousness but I mean if you look at a if you look at a bacterium does a bacterium have free will I wouldn't say so it's all right very rigid uh uh you know mechanical processes us I feel like we do you know why why did I lift my hand I just chose to I don't know maybe I don't have free will and if I do where is the line you know where where is the complexity of of self-reflection that allows for free will and what is the mechanism you know maybe there's something quite some mechanical going on I don't know but if uh if an omnipotent omniscient deity exists you for sure do not have free will and I'm willing to bet that's the kind of deity this guy believes in so what are you talking about because if you believe that everything in the universe only occurs as a result of natural phenomena then even the thoughts you're having all the physical and empirical measurable processes happening inside of your brain all the decisions that you make may be a result of neurons firing a certain way and chemicals being affected by the natural forces in the world which Free Will doesn't even hold room for so look what if we don't have free will I don't know maybe we don't so what that you want to have free will first of all this just makes zero sense wanting to have free will isn't a good enough reason to invent a deity out of thin air especially a deity that would that would result in you definitely not having free will there's so there's so many layers of wrongness to this it's astounding so if you're a naturalist Free Will is contradictory to your belief and if someone decides to do harm to somebody it can be their fault because this is a result of natural forces and natural phenomena so you can't blame that person for doing the worst thing in the world it's not their fault it's the natural forces's fault I mean like it's kind of true even like if you are physically abused as a child you're way more likely I don't know the exact percentage how many times more like you're way more likely to physically abuse other people right this is just it's hot like cause and effect who can deny that there is cause and effect now does that mean that I can't like choose what to have for breakfast in the morning or I don't know where the you know there's different tiers here but I mean none of this none of this supports none of this supports the existence of a deity and it definitely does not not discredit any science so this is very much a non-starter right who are they how can you blame them because all they are is the clump of cells and neurons firing inside their brain to be a naturalist you have to believe that there is no you there is no soul nothing there isn't me and there is no soul uh you don't have to believe that Souls exist to believe that you exist in fact I know that I exist it's the only thing I definitely know as Descartes would say I think therefore I am I know for a fact that I exist even if I'm a brain in a vat and this is the Matrix or whatever weird thing you want to say I for sure exist that does not mean that a soul exists and there is no evidence for a soul sorry you you besides the physical flesh and brain and you know sack of Flesh that you're living in currently this is uh this is all you are basically just this physical thing that I'm looking at right now I'm sorry I'm just never gonna understand why that's not enough for people I'm never going to understand why someone can can even potentially learn all incredible aspects of human anatomy and physiology and all these incredible things and go oh is that all what do you mean is that all the human brain is incredible like how is this not enough for you why do you need like a little like goo Essence thing in the in your wherever you think it is and to do what to do what it's just so weird but if you believe in this then if somebody steals something from you for an example it's not their fault because it's a result of their environment it's a result of their poverty that's what caused them to actually go and steal so they can be punished for it and you have to completely neglect the fact even if there's no free will people should still be punished for their actions because they can be harmful to society if somebody kills people all the time they need to be in jail so they can't kill more people it doesn't matter if they have free will or not it's just there's nothing here there's nothing here to talk about that this person is actually guilty if every single decision their brain makes is just the result of the natural and physical forces acting on it then there is no self to hold accountable for any actions this is pure delusion without separation of the mind and the body there can be no such thing as free will so instead of punishing somebody for doing something really really bad we can't hold anybody accountable instead of punishment we should just tell them to just don't do it next time or just give them some rehab instead another reason that you're not only but they may do it again and that is harmful to society that's why we have punishments and that's why we have jails attack of Flesh with no soul or no self is because foreign soul is not self you cannot make pretend that those are the same thing right I have a self I don't have a soul that's ridiculous example if we tear down a house and then rebuild it with every single part of his house being replaced then we'd consider this house as being an entirely new house right every single part changed similarly the cells in our body do the same exact thing except the side the the retina cells that we have in our eyes nearly every single cell in our whole body replaces itself yes and some neuronal cells yeah that's true um so what so yes we are not just a bunch of cells we are the pattern in which those cells are arranged doesn't really change anything about human biology we all know that or you know scientists know that certainly so with that same logic if you commit the biggest Act of sin in the book and all that person really is just their physical body then you should release them from prison and drop the charges after the cells that committed the ACT have been renewed or destroyed that's maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life uh as though the cells are all individual entities conspiring together and then when it's new cells it'll be different I mean just where come on man what are you doing because from a naturalistic point of view that wasn't the same person that committed the act that caught them in prison for life that was their old arm that was their old body that has now been renewed and changed so to be consistent with your argument you would be delusional but you are the big bang in evolution that was a fast cut uh no my friend you are delusional thinking that this is a valid argument being a choice of men or a God but it's natural selection natural phenomena random DNA mutations uh if you believe in this then you can't blame a Divine deity for creation or being the force behind the Big Bang the same way that you can't blame a human being for anything since it's all random however there's no such thing as Randomness that is actually Randomness is a concept which is a byproduct of our lack of knowledge there is no true Randomness anywhere in the entire universe if I roll a dice for an example um I don't have enough information to tell which number is going to land on based on the air particles and the strength of my hand and the throw velocity and gravity and all of these forces that are actually at play which means that nothing in the universe is truly random just we can call it random because we don't know much about it I don't think that this is an accurate description of random uh it just means not systematically oriented or arranged by a certain set of criteria right the the the the the the radii of the of the planet's orbits in the solar system are random right they're just it's not like Kepler thought where it's like this the the platonic solids and they have these really particular ratios of the of the of the orbital radii um they're just kind of wherever that's what random means uh I don't know what he's talking about it means that we're ignorant to the true calculation of the events all the events occur as a result of their cause that means a cause is the only cause of an event if there is nothing and nothing causes something to exist then nothing can exist there is no possibility of it randomly existing that even in the slightest chance since something has to cause it to happen that if nothing causes an event to occur the event won't occur so there had to have been a source there had to have been a necessary a non-contingent a being that has pure free will that actually decided to make the contingent thing which we all are the entire universe is okay this is okay I didn't know where he was going with this word salad first of all that has nothing to do that that there is a cause of something doesn't mean it is not random then I thought he was talking about like the origin of the universe which fine cosmology doesn't have a firm answer for that um but no that doesn't that things exist doesn't mean a deity exists so let's see if we're gonna get to the whole like infinite regression of deities problem here I'm not sure where he's taking this I must have the creative capacity to create that contingent thing it must have the ability to create that contingent thing through its intelligence and that's how we can come to the conclusion that God does exist it is necessary for the non-contingent thing let's say is God to have the free will to decide to make the contingent thing it must also have the creative capacity to create this contingent thing and it must have the ability to create it through its intelligence and its power this is how we can come to the conclusion that there has to be a Divine Creator behind us and now we can start to accept the more rational beliefs like I'm not just a sack of Flesh yeah so uh I've seen many many many iterations of this argument and they can all be debunked by three words what made God uh and they get really really mad when you do this to them and some of the smarter ones have ways that they like to try to answer it uh but there is no answer if you're trying to say that uh that the Universe can't simply exist that it needs to have been created uh and you're inventing an infinitely more complex thing to have created that Universe you now must Explain the origin of that other thing why are you okay with a God that simply exists and not okay with the universe that simply exists and again I don't even care if you believe that a God exists that created the universe uh your your logic is faulty but I can't disprove that God so go ahead and believe in uh in in that God but uh I'll have you note we're 24 minutes into this and we have talked so little about Evolution I'm actually really disappointed I don't have as much intelligent things to say here I thought he was going to be talking about Evolution we've talked probably a total of three or four minutes about Evolution we've talked about this like ridiculous like Eugenics angle the sociological angle we're talking about God the existence of God which has nothing to do with it um are we going to get to some biology here at some point please genetics that's that's part of biology let's check this out if you look at our mitochondria we have mitochondrial DNA mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from the mother and doesn't undergo any sort of variation this means that we can trace all mitochondrial DNA in every single modern human alive right now back to one single woman this is called the mitochondrial eve and this is thought to be a single woman who survived a genetic bottleneck while all other women died or either couldn't give birth or infertile or died she was the only one who stayed alive and was fertile we can't verify this as a fact but essential is only person alive and we can't say this is a solid fact but I mean rationally we can come to that conclusion because there's no evidence otherwise the minimum Gene count is about 525 though the exact number is disputed there is a minimum number of genes that are required for even the most basic forms of life to have life the genes have to work in perfect order and a bowel Genesis the theory that we came from amino acids enough all right this guy is jumping all over the place so he's trying to talk about mitochondrial eve and there's maybe something interesting he was going to say there and then he jumped all the way back to a biogenesis um and uh just wow wow uh he can't stay on topic so he went ahead what he's doing now is he's taking the simplest forms the simplest forms of life today counting their genes and saying that the simplest forms of life today which are the product of four billion years of evolution must be essentially identical to whatever the first living organism was uh that's wrong and dumb uh and he obviously doesn't know this James tour doesn't seem to know this no matter how many times I tell him the first living organism had no DNA anyone who's trying to talk about abiogenesis and they talk about look at all these genes it's supposed to have look at all this DNA it's supposed to have has no clue what they're talking about life first rna-based genetic code life then DNA so there is uh not there's not really much of an easier way to demonstrate your profound ignorance on this topic than by talking about how DNA has to be in the first living organism hot pool of water totally misses the mark on the complexity of even the most basic forms of life the most basic forms of life today modern bacteria dramatically vastly profoundly more complex than the first living organism genes I'll have to be in the correct order and bonded by hydrogen bonds and further strengthened by Pi Pi interactions pie pie interactions he uh he's very proud of that one they must also be broken up by enzymes to replicate so the Rarity of this happening naturally is like hitting the lottery every single day for the rest of your whole life and then your entire lineage doing the same exact thing I love the the specificity with which they throw it's like when they throw out the numbers right the one in ten to the blah blah blah uh so when DNA arose that was facilitated by enzymes so no it's not like winning the lottery I mean you could argue that it's kind of like winning the lottery that those enzymes arose uh that generated DNA to replace RNA uh and you could say that about enzymes that generated anything right that generated metabolic pathways I actually would be okay with that analogy you could say that that is like winning the lottery but here's the thing if you play the lottery 10 billion times you're probably gonna win right so uh that is another thing that is not understood here is that when you have a a an astronomical number of opportunities even things with infinitesimal odds become certain to happen so you have these uh sets of molecules in these vesicles uh and they're self-replicating and you have changes that are occurring so you're getting different sets of proteins in these vesicles some of those vesicles are going to develop sets of proteins that have interesting properties like a metabolic pathway or something like that or eventually after the first living organism the first what we would call the first very very simple unicellular life that is RNA based you we eventually we we eventually there were ones that uh there were enzymes that brought about DNA and then that replaced RNA is the genetic code um it's uh it's not that it's it to me it's not that hard to understand but he clearly doesn't even know I mean he just is so unfamiliar with with the entire body of origin of Life research that he doesn't know that DNA is not present in the first living organisms so that's kind of again all I really need to say here it's just possible through the study the study modern genetics we can understand that the small genetic mutations can have severe impacts on the rest of the genome and can drastically reduce the organism chances of survival despite the advantageous characteristics gained will know if it's disadvantageous then it's disadvantageous and it's not selected for so I mean this is this is how you can tell how ignorant someone is is there they're not able to compartmental so like when I think about I'm not an expert or anything but when I think about this I think about you know origin of life right we have abiogenesis over here and then we have these billions of years of you know all this so when when you're talking about mutation of a DNA based genome and natural selection acting upon that these are very disparate these are totally different parts of the timeline so he's talking about a biogenesis and then he's jumping to this complete other thing and doesn't even realize that he's talking about two different things that's how you know that someone doesn't know what they're talking about the complexity of religious temples built around 10 000 years ago called the gaply TP shows us that we knew very little about the human's knowledge during this somewhat recent time they had built precise Engravings into Stones multi-level structures they made an even an oracle room to make and reverberate vocal sound effects to make a powerful Acoustic sound they have richly decorated geometrical patterns of spirals and because of this we can understand that it wasn't made for living had very few or no permanent residents this site is significant because it goes against the notion that humans were hunter-gatherers at this time and it highlights inaccuracies within our modern understanding of only 10 000 year old very recent human beings while this argument is not really related to the theory of evolution it plays a big role in showing how weak our understanding of the past really is we can't just dismiss their precise and uh I I'm not an archaeologist so I don't know if what he just said is true or not but he's again doing this thing of like hey we didn't know this one thing kind of so all science wrong um yeah you can't do that you can't point at one thing and then go all this is wrong too if you want to discredit something you have to discredit or discredit it if you want to discredit Evolution uh then you have to be talking about Evolution you can't be talking about archeology or sociology or something like that talk about science then again it's very obvious why apologists spend most of their time talking about not science because they don't understand science and they have no ability to talk about it and when they do talk about it they just humiliate themselves like talking about a pool of amino acids became a living organism or something um so that's very telling Innovative architecture because it shows a lot about them as people like when an artist makes a beautiful painting you can tell about the genius and intelligence behind it same kind of concept applies here many animals especially mammals have psychological adaptations to kill or to eat their deformed young now these animals are literally wired to delete their offsprings if they show large changes in phenotype like chromosome number changes for an example so with that said invest number if a vest change in animals is nearly impossible because of this then how would they be able to evolve if they would just delete the animals who show large changes in the phenotype this mechanism actually actively stops Evolution and the chances of advantageous characteristics being passed down to begin with one thing about okay how many animals do that and for what reason right we're we're I mean yeah I don't know I'm not a zoologist I can't I don't know how many animal species do that I know that some a handful do um but to pretend that that invalidates all of everyone I mean that it invalidates it at all right he hasn't looked into this uh but certainly extrapolating it to the entire uh uh uh you know the entire you know biosphere uh is the word I was looking for uh is ridiculous conclusion is that it doesn't explain complex emotions that are disadvantageous to survival emotions unique to intelligent life such as sympathy or empathy can lead to hesitation or even death when hunting a prey or when fighting for a territory from the members of the same exact I mean you can just Google this stuff um I mean look survival survival isn't just is the mountain lion gonna get me right it's also commute right humans are are are a communal species right there when when you Bond and you form a community that enhances your ability to survive I mean you can look at animals that are dramatically different from uh from from mammals look at ants look at ants and bees look at Colony based species this is a Cooperative species so you can look at that and say oh where is the where is the survival of the fittest there right you've got all the drones that are taking all these subordinate roles right well the the ant colony or the bee Colony does a lot better surviving that way so that kind of behavior was selected for you have Cooperative Behavior there it's the same with humans when you have uh empathy which enhances the the like the the mother Offspring Bond or a father Offspring too I don't know whatever parent Offspring Bond right that enhances this the survivability of the species it's not that hard to understand it's you just have to want to understand it you have to want to look into it and learn something right you can just Google why is why do we have empathy just Google that from an evolutionary standpoint you'll get so much stuff I have a couple tutorials on this in my biology series uh there's you know just learn something come on man like species the ability for humans to have an addiction mechanism for an example or even feel guilt or have the capacity for higher thought are all actually bad for evolution look have having the ability for higher thought is not bad for evolution right we we are at the top of the of everything here as animals because of our incredible cognitive ability right we have problem solving ability where we're pretty undeniably the smartest species on Earth you nature is blind it's not gonna develop a brain that has only good things and no bad things it's we're gonna have characteristics that are side effects of this higher cognitive ability one of them I think is is wanting religion to be true right it seems to be like a cognitive defect that we have where we uh I think that by by trying to uh by by by trying to see patterns and everything because that enhanced our survival uh we attribute patterns to things that that lead us to to seek out Divinity and things like that so it's actually kind of a good example of where he's coming from but um yeah this is just this is a mess here but we have these things these emotions shouldn't have been naturally selected because they're disadvantageous for the species and could potentially lead to its demise so these things they get passed down into us when in reality if we're just all natural selection like with no no limits at all then we shouldn't have sympathy empathy the addiction mechanism uh higher thought and all of the above evolutionary psychologists cannot explain the brain's complexity from an evolutionary standpoint so they make each part of the brain independent and make it seem like each part of the brain is dedicated to a specific function which actually isn't true the new cortex is developed over time through synaptic uh plasticity and not strictly modular so they totally missed the mark on this once again nobody missed the mark man just you you you you you you you search for little phrases that you can repeat as though you know what you're talking about you've never actually looked into Neuroscience or biopsychology at all uh I just don't know what this is uh we're being really to supplement their theory of evolution like I mentioned in the very beginning now if this new darwinian form of evolution was true then we'd be surrounded by a bunch of different transitional forms of different creatures which were obviously not everything is a transitional form every living organism is a transitional form nature doesn't just go like oh I got the thing I wanted now let's mess around oh I got another thing I wanted everything is a transitional form just because it's extant doesn't mean it's somehow privileged we just happen to live today everything that we regard as transitional now because it's extinct once was alive and if you were alive at that time you would say oh that's like the thing nature was going for I just this is uh yeah this is pretty rough here basic building block of life is ATP probably heard about it I've done a scene triphosphate it's an energy carrying molecule that sometimes is referred to as the fuel of life because it's the universal energy source for all living cells every living organism consists of cells that rely on ATP to make further energy needs the process of making ATP though requires two ATP to already exist and this poses the question how is the very first ATP ever created if it requires two ATP to exist it's like a it didn't when it first came about right we current existing life has metabolic pathways for producing ATP because it was something that was already abundant uh I I could flash a bunch of papers that uh show prebiotically plausible syntheses of this and other related molecules I feel like that would be Overkill um yeah molecules came about and then life that evolved utilized those common substances that were present to figure out how to do things chicken and egg kind of theory glycolysis is a process that kick-starts the production of ATP it converts the glucose into a form that the body can actually use to begin their Krebs cycle this process requires two enzymes a hexokinase and phosphate it's a long name Frost fructokinase these two require ATP to break down the substrate these are specifically folded enzymes with a globular structure which allow the glucose 6-phosphate to enter a like a lock and key mechanism and break down the fructose-6-phosphate you're just not gonna do anything with that like wow here's this complex thing that exists and nothing yeah life that is the product of four billion years of evolution is is complex incredible oh here we go humans and apes share 95 of DNA so we must have come from apes right well pretty sure it's more than that 50 of DNA is shared with humans and bananas so we should be about half banana and 98 is shared with a pig and ninety percent is shared with a cat 85 with a mouse 84 with a dog 80 with a cow so with this logic we must have come from apes bananas pigs cats dogs cows and mice not come from share ancestry with one more time not come from share ancestry with mice to the unlearned and impressionable mind the fact that we share a large portion of DNA with a different species for an example or even a fruit to say the least it might be enticing to believe that we came from them however this is a very basic understanding of DNA in its roles in the human body the Human Genome Project which mapped around 98 of the genome found that less than two percent is of human DNA is actually active and Carries any significance to put this case to restore 2005 study from Pennsylvania State University claims and concludes that although nucleotide sequence identity between humans and chimpanzees is very high only 20 of proteins are identical between the two species and 80 of proteins are different even the 80 protein differences appear to be too small to explain the phenotypic differences case closed the case closed what we're not genetically identical who cares we have a lot of similarity because we diverged very recently in the grand scheme of things we're much less similar to bananas because we diverged much much longer time ago in fact almost certainly I mean I would imagine would be when life was exclusively unicellular right that's when that Divergence would have occurred but even unicellular life requires metabolic pathways right so there's some similarity with metabolic pathways and things like that so there's some similarity uh at uh even when there was when life was entirely unicellular um yeah this is just a Kent Hoven thing right you know you believe you came from this or that or whatever uh you're just completely missing the point difference in humans and apes goes all the way down to DNA splicing differences this changes the way that the genes are expressed at a molecular level but honestly after the last one what other level on what other level can genes be expressed than the molecular level might not even have to explain this one if you want to just read the source for yourself go ahead and do so I'm straight on explaining that that translates to I did not read it do not have the capacity to read it and have nothing intelligent to say about it I'm just going this science proves the thing I'm trying to say even though it doesn't uh and you read it if you want to but I know you won't humans and various mammals share deviated forms of the pentadactyl limb for an example Apes have five finger bones humans have five finger bones birds have five main bones in their wings whales have five main bones in their fins cats have five bones in their paws and because of this evolutionists use this as evidence that we must have come from a common ancestor and that this common ancestor has a pentadactyl limb that we've taken that trait from however if we look into our evolutionary Trio of life we can see that the pentadactyl limb actually disappears and then reappears throughout history so it's always coming and going there's actually a PubMed study that proves this by Cameron Seiler and Rafael Brown that says the results of our study join a nascent body of literature showing strong statistical support for character lost followed by evolutionary re-equisition of complex structures associated with a generalized pentadactyl body form now this proves that a once big proof of evolution is actually pointing towards its own disproof no it isn't you just can't read what you just what you just read you you said words but you didn't actually read it biologists don't go oh these two things have five fingers they both have five fingers so they're related right we're they're you're looking at lineages you're looking at evolutionary lineages what that thing just said is that there's a lineage we can trace this lineage where there's some character loss and then later down the road something is regained or some other change occurs there your scientists don't just go oh like oh yeah that's yeah that's about right they look the same they came from the same thing there's just so much more going on there's so much more going on with genetics the fossil record Etc it's it's uh this is the main this is something that that uh that Evolution deniers like to do is they trivialize and and like they try to look at one line of evidence and go see that alone doesn't prove it and yeah that alone doesn't prove it right similar morphology alone doesn't prove a particular kind of ancestry but that's not how science works right you have all these different lines of evidence and when they all agree on something that corroborates that assessment that's how people do science right so uh that's why Evolution donors like to go give me your one best evidence for evolution well what do you mean one best step that's not how science works right science doesn't conclude Things based on this very minimal amount of data that's the point we look at all of this disparate data and synthesize all of it with this one elegant model that explains all of these things predicts all of these things that are routinely verified right that's how science Works he's just trivializing the scientific process they came back and slapped itself in the face because if the limb can evolve and then D evolve and then evolve it's not de-evolution it's always just Evolution whether it goes in a particular direction or whatever it is right it's just it's it's evolving based on its environment that's what's happening well again it doesn't necessarily mean that we must have got it from a common ancestor because it can always come and go between the different animals and species Darwin has actually claimed that we have some residual body parts and muscles left over from our previous evolutionary self that we actually don't even use anymore that are totally pointless that actually prove Evolution let's disprove that the ear muscles actually are not useless even though you're told they probably were the VOR the vestibular ocular reflex is a reflex within humans in which auditory cues such as fast clicks or tones can guide the eyes towards a location called gaze shift the ABR and Pam are examples of such reflexes starting with the superior ocular muscle which wants to be useless when in reality it's not so these muscles actually provide strength and support to the ear which is seen by in cranial muscles as well as supporting and guiding cartilage growth during development of the air when you were a little baby Darwin is claimed that the appendix yeah obviously appendix and then he's going to do all yeah he's gonna do the vestigial tail probably um so uh disproving the vestigial nature of something does not mean that there is no such thing as vestigial structures obviously they are there are vestigial structures right there are many of them X is useless and was once used to digest a heavy Leaf diet however that's not true at all the appendix is a part of the immune response and contains lymphoid cells these are believed to be a part of the lymph the tnb lymphocytes mediated immune responses also it acts as a backup for the digestive bacteria held within the human body when a person suffers from a disease for example such as Chloria a lot of their digestive bacteria is actually flushed out in their GI tract and the appendix can actually release the digested bacteria to kick start the gut microbiome before important digestion once again a lack of knowledge plus a longing and desire to make the theory work is how anybody can come up with the idea that we don't need our appendix anymore and it does nothing for us lack of knowledge and a desired this guy is just describing himself various longus is a muscle scene that is a remnant of evolution that is currently useless entirely when in reality a new study actually shows us that 54 of the population has this muscle but 96 of all Elite athletes have this muscle so further tests into sports that required grip strength also revealed that there are similar disparities that when Sports need you to actually grip something tough this muscle does actually have some use the human tailbone this is definitely misrepresented as the remnants of a tale from our eighth ancestors when in reality it's actually connected to the pelvic floor muscles providing balance for humans to stand up and sit up straight like I'm doing right now that doesn't mean it's not the remnant of tail-like structures uh and and notice that he did not go into the vestigial tale with fetal development right fetal development is is the best uh way to to talk about vestigial structures because you have human embryos developing through stages that do not even remotely resemble the morphology that it'll eventually become right if you have a God that's creating everything exactly like it is why would the morphology of a fetus ever be anything other than the eventual morphology of the organism why would it go through this weird like fish stage and all these other things because these are these are remnants of our evolutionary past an apex 48 chromosomes and a human has 46 chromosomes now the theory says that chromosome 2 fused and to make it into 46 that's how we went from being Apes to humans or that's one of the proofs of it supposedly but when a chromosome infuses it gives rise to a satellite DNA that leaves behind a signature at the fusion site there is a usually a lot of telomere signature about ten thousand to thirty thousand bases but there's actually 768 bases at the supposed site which is 10 times less than what is expected the supposed Fusion site also doesn't fit the traditional chromosomal Fusion Point use case when a gene infuses it has to fuse in a way that's like the least destructive so that it tends to fuse at the least useful parts of the chromosome however this Gene is expressed in over 255 different cell types and is coexpressed further with other genes the fact that this Gene is so active and strongly used it kind of refutes the idea that this was a product of chromosomal DNA fusion and that we once had 48 chromosomes back when we were Apes it doesn't really make sense also okay again we are Apes uh I don't know actually I've never heard this what he's talking about because I don't I I didn't yeah I don't know about this I heard he was talking about telomeres telomere Fusion I think what do you say I I think he's talking about like the telomeres at the end of the chromosomes if you have chromosomal Fusion you should have this big section of telomeres in the middle I think that's what he's talking about uh uh so maybe a bunch of it was deleted right there's deletion of uh of sections of DNA um yeah I don't know honestly I'm not even gonna comment on the rest because I'm not familiar with this exact example he's talking about well another point is that the organism that received this chromosomal Fusion would have fewer chromosomes than its partners and look very different and even if it did survive it would not be able to pass on its genes and chromosomes because you can't viably reproduce with someone that has more or less genes than you that have to be the same amount if your current laryngeal nerve is a nerve that goes from your lower brain to your aortic Arch and then back to your larynx Now The evolutionary biologist claim Why didn't it go straight from your brain to your larynx why does it have to go to your aortic Arch instead now they say this is either imperfect creation disproving God is this some sort of evolutionary residue so they get this because fishes also have this and they also have multiple aortic arches because they have and giraffes where it goes way down and way back up oxygen coming in from One Direction and they have blood traveling in the other so they have to have multiple the theory claims that humans evolved from fish and this would be their proof of it now since this makes sense for fish but not for humans they claim since we don't have multiple aortic arches today then the one that we have as a result of back when we were a fish or a residue of evolution of some I I think he's looking for the word Remnant I don't think residue means much here but yes there are aspects of of human anatomy that are remnants of the anatomy of of of organisms further back in our lineage um that's pretty undeniable sure and it's actually currently pointless uh however as as babies as like a four week old fetus we do have multiple aortic arches and it makes sense to have the nerve go through the main aortic Arch that we have today because as a fetus we need the nerve to go around the arch in order to work and ensure that the larynx develops properly now we can see this definitely does make sense at four weeks old we have to have this so that we can develop properly but instead of that these evolutionary biologists start to claim oh we have something that we don't know the answer to Evolution it has to be it we're going to draw all the evidence to the conclusion every single time and never the other way around like I continue to mention to you never the other way around no how about apologists never actually learn about the things that they're trying to talk about that would be a much better conclusion to draw here now this is an example of true Evolution if you can actually witness prove an empirically study instead of making these bulldogrageous claims that is our wisdom teeth for an example I obviously agree with this maybe our ancestors had more primitive diets that consisted of like tough Meats raw plants hard nuts or wisdom teeth are actually remnants of our ancient diet and our proof of science-backed evolution not baseless theories so this we all should agree with but next we have the Tibetan tribe is the underwent the fastest genetic changes out of all of human history to adapt to high altitudes the tribes lived in the Tibetan Plateau which was about 13 000 feet above sea level and has such high altitudes only like 40 of the oxygen that we get is is what they would get up there so they have to learn how to live or adapt to survive at such low amounts of oxygen the gene variation took place at the epas1 gene which regulates the body's response to low oxygen environments and their body is adapt by carrying more oxygen carrying pigment called hemoglobin and only three thousand years the frequency of the gene grew from 10 to 90 in Tibetans this is a legitimate example of evolution we have concrete evidence that this Gene variation actually did take place through natural selection to keep the Tibetan Mountain tribes alive we can prove this we'll make the radical assumption that because they can more efficiently you know use oxygen at higher altitudes means that they were previously Birds no we just say that over 3000 years they had to make it live up there so naturally they were naturally selected to have higher gene expression of EPA S1 Gene so he's just describing proof of evolution attempting to somehow straw man it as though a biologist would I don't understand what this used to be Birds thing means but he's describing an evolutionary process and then stubbornly continuing continuing to deny Evolution uh this doesn't really again make make much sense to me um I think the problem here is that uh he doesn't understand that these processes that are going on are the same that produced all of the what he would dub macro Evolution um as well he just doesn't have any actual understanding of uh how the genome changes and what that means for gene expression and what that in turn means for morphology and uh physiology um so yeah he's he's admitting that Evolution happens and then not connecting the dots from there we're not going to make those radical claims like these neo-darminists if the about who fishermen tribes in Southeast Asia have evolved 50 larger spleens than nearby communities even members of the tribe that actually didn't die still had larger sleeves it shows us that it's a genetic variation and not just enlarged through training or practice you know similar how freedivers would actually do it in today's time they spent nearly five hours underwater every single day and could actually hold their breath for far longer than any other average human being could obviously because of their variation in gene the pde 10A Gene was variation responsible for the thyroid function and spleen size this tribe has adapted to their environment they can hold their breath for longer they can die of better they have larger spleens but because of this gonna go and make the outrageous claims that they came from sharks do we this is an example of evidence-backed evolution similarly came from sharks I mean they're not shark-like they're humans what does this mean what are you saying you're describing Evolution that happens admitting that it happens and then using Evolution to try to discredit Evolution this doesn't make any sense we shouldn't go and make such an exaggerated claim saying that human beings came from apes the fact that this is taught in school is a problem you go from learning that factual evidence your entire life in school and then by age 14 your biology teacher tells you that yeah we came from apes and then you just have to believe it because here's the book and here's all the evidence yeah here's the book and here's all the evidence so you could read it um and if you had read it you again would know that we are apes and you would have seen all of the evidence and all of the morphological intermediate characteristics that you want to see right the the evolution that you're describing right here that you admit is happening if you extrapolate that over millions of years it's not that hard to see the evolution from earlier hominid species to humans they're not even that human or that that different they're not you're not even that different you're not even lowering yourself to the Kent Hoven style like how do you get from a whale to a pine tree or whatever it is this stuff that he tries to say by by cherry picking two completely disparate forms you're talking about other hominid species to humans you just explain how Evolution does happen and you can't connect the dots and understand that over millions of years very slight morphological changes right rate a little less hair standing more upright slight changes in in the skull and the brain and and and shorter arms what are you not getting here what are you not understanding I mean you could have read that book you could have read that textbook and actually learned something I don't know it's a theory it's nothing more than a theory Oh My ultimate pet peeve um yeah theory is not an antonym of fact it does not mean guess I've said this so many times that I don't even want to do it uh the theory a theory is the highest structure in science it is the highest structure in science of the most powerful construct in science uh that you don't know what a theory is uh invalidates you at at just right off the bat uh people who don't know what a theory is have no basis trying to discuss let alone discredit science but it's being taught as a fact neo-darwinian evolution is biased narrow-minded and propagated similar to a religious call that the followers of it claim to be so against thank you no it's propagated like science because it is biology which is a science for all being here I love you so much if you want to debate further on this I have a Discord down below you can join that and debate all you want or in the comments down below or you can just cancel me on Twitter thank you for coming to the end of this video I love you mwah stay dreaming stay Lucid I'm out peace so I didn't really know what to expect there um I guess we got into some science at the end but um I guess I shouldn't have been too surprised uh yeah I didn't know that this was going to be just textbook apologetics it's as though he went through a bunch of di Discovery Institute content or like Answers in Genesis message boards or something um collected a bunch of talking points and is regurgitating them um I don't really know why he chose to make that content I really don't I don't know what else he really does on the channel just glancing his home page doesn't look like he makes that kind of content um but uh and I don't know if he'll see this don't really care um if you do see this uh why why why did you do that um I hope that you're embarrassed that you made that um yeah I just think that uh you know in the future if you want to talk about a topic especially science you should probably try to learn literally anything about that topic um I mean even just like Googling words like first of all you should know what a theory is you should know what a theory is um you shouldn't be using words like neo-darwinism if you don't know what they mean they actually mean something um so you shouldn't just regurgitate the bastardized version you heard from apologetics you should take some responsibility and actually learn something um and then you can avoid this kind of situation in the future where someone has to pick apart your content like this anyway I don't know um I think that was kind of fun it's more just frustrating uh because I've heard these talking points a zillion times and every time people keep repeating them over and over again uh it gets a little aggravating but anyway uh maybe hopefully you guys enjoyed this let me know if you did if enough people enjoyed it maybe I'll do more of this um but uh yeah that's all for now take it easy

Channel: Professor Dave Explains

Views: 796,439

Keywords: evolution, iamlucid, apologetics, discovery institute, genetics, darwin, natural selection, creationism, abiogenesis, spontaneous generation

Id: B7sgoKmz01A

Length: 114min 34sec (6874 seconds)

Published: Mon Mar 13 2023