Scientist vs Scientist - Is Evolution Real? | Reacteria

ladies and gentlemen boys and girls i've waited so long to say this again welcome back to reacteria [Music] i know it's been a long time since we've seen each other but i've got really good news first and foremost being i'm talking to you with an actual camera now secondly i've got professional editing software now which means there won't be any weird audio sync issues anymore no more little clips where the audio just doesn't exist for some reason and possibly most exciting i'm so happy to tell you that this episode is sponsored by nordvpn really genuinely i just want to tell you that i do use nordvpn uh i think it's an awesome service i've never had any problems with them my favorite way to use them is i like to watch things like rick and morty which you can't get on netflix in america so i just connect to australia and then i can watch every single episode even the newest season that's really really cool for me and nord is offering a special promotion for my subscribers it's a massive discount on a two-year plan plus one additional month free and all you have to do to get it is go to nordvpn.com labs now i went to that url before i told you about it because i wanted to make sure what they were offering you and it looks like they're giving you guys 73 off that two-year plan that comes up to a little bit more than three dollars a month plus the additional one-month free so in total you're getting 25 months of service for 79 bucks that's legitimately an awesome deal it's actually cheaper than their one year plan right now so if you're interested in a vpn this is an awesome time to get one and it really does support the channel again that's nordvpn.com valkylabs and with that let's get into the video because i feel like it's going to be a good one [Music] kevin it seems what you're describing here is that there's a large part of the scientific community that is in kind of a desperate attempt here to preserve age why is that time is the critical component for evolution if you're going to say that a simple cellular system became a multicellular system that then became fish and the fish then jumped up on land and grew legs and started breathing air and then that creature grew feathers and wings started flying so if you give us time we'll claim to account for all of this massive change of organisms but we got to have the time time is a critical factor in our understanding of evolution like i said in the last video about radiometric dating there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the earth has been here for a really really really long time that's why the fossil record makes sense we see layer after layer of plants and animals gradually changing in form over time yes from simple to complex eventually ending up in the complex forms that we have today but even if you were to take away our understanding of the age of the earth even if you were to prove somehow that the earth was 6 000 maybe 10 000 years old it would certainly blow our minds but we still have several other lines of evidence showing us how evolution works so you wouldn't disprove evolution you just show that it happens insanely fast if you pull out the notion of a long period of time you're pulling out a major foundation for the conventional paradigm absolutely evolution specifically neo-darwinism requires a lot of time and it's their foundational issue you pull that out they've got to come up with a whole new understanding because without time they don't have anything again that's just not true time does have massive explanatory power yes but this guy specifically mentioned neo-darwinism which is the blending of darwin's ideas with mendel's ideas mendel was the guy with the pea plants and helped us figure out genetics darwin and mendel never knew each other they published their work around the same time they never read each other's works so darwin didn't know anything about genetics and mendel didn't know anything about natural selection but when you put these two ideas together they help explain each other really well and mendel's laws of genetics really help us understand how accumulated phenotypic changes can cause macroevolution which was darwin's ideas so that's what he's talking about but even that model is severely lacking as well for example it leaves out things like epigenetics which are changes not to the genome itself but to the way in which the genome is expressed it leaves out things like the microbiome we have massive amounts of evidence that show that someone's gut biome has at least as much if not sometimes even more control over things like their body fat content and their metabolism and or their overall health than their genetics do so that kind of has this weird neolimarkian twist to it lamarck was the guy that thought that heritable traits were something that were accumulated within an individual's lifetime so like if you were to cut the tail off of a rat all of that rat's babies then would be born without tails lamarck was wrong but it turns out that he was kinda almost right because things like epigenetic changes and microbiotic changes are things that can happen within an individual's lifetime and can be passed on to their offspring which can affect their evolutionary trajectory and even that super duper blended view of evolution still leaves out things like phenotypic plasticity and that's a huge factor to survival as well so like if you're gonna throw out neo-darwinism here as the thing that you're trying to disprove you have to realize that there's a lot more there that you're just kind of ignoring and if the only thing you're bringing to the table here is saying that you're going to disprove deep time to do this my dude you are bringing a toothpick to an atom bomb fight the mechanism claimed to drive evolution is mutation where we'll define mutation as a change in the nucleotide sequence of dna so the driving mechanism claims revolution is a mutation and the natural selection looks and sees what effect that mutation had and if it likes it and this is giving of course a lot of power to natural selection it doesn't have but if natural action likes it see then that organism survives if it doesn't like it then that organism dies off and then you do the next step and you keep repeating that step over and over again i mean he's doing a phenomenal job of explaining neo-darwinism this is a great way to introduce this concept to like maybe an undergrad class even like high schoolers this could be like the total understanding of evolution that they need to get a good handle on how this works now why do i get the feeling that he's about to completely just crap the bed in the next sentence the idea being that somehow in that process the fish who only breathes oxygen through water who doesn't have legs whose vision is based upon seeing through water not seeing through air somehow plops up on land and through these very slow processes transforms its entire anatomy and physiology where it can breathe air it can walk on land and it can see in here and there it is it's not somehow we know the process fish today who live in low oxygen environments will occasionally come up to the surface and gulp air to get the oxygen that they need it's not crazy to see how that kind of thing might be so beneficial that over time it happens more and more regularly here's a fun fact for you lungs evolved before swim bladders did swim bladders are actually modified lungs so lungs came into existence and then some fish kept the lungs and used them to become better fish how cool is that we have fossils of sarcopterysian fish with shoulder girdles and big thick wrists and hand bones that were in the transition to becoming amphibians and as far as the whole concept of just being inconceivable that a fish could learn how to like see and breathe on land might i remind you that long fish exist there's a whole clade of them dipnoi i believe that is a whole bunch of fish that stayed in that weird in-between niche that was opened up by this transition that you think is somehow illogical so like there's living proof today that what you're saying here is nonsense and so they see it as you give me enough time we can account for all this see now it really doesn't but time becomes one of those things to a human you know yeah it's almost like anything can happen given enough time mine gets fuzzy when you yes and they hide behind that fuzziness it just took a long time somehow that becomes the magic wand you know a long time poof there it is forget the idea that there's no biological mechanism that accomplishes that time poof we got it what do you mean no biological mechanisms there are plenty of biological mechanisms you just got done explaining a couple of the biological mechanisms what are you talking about darwin wrote his original ideas in a time where there was very little known about the cell and even less known about genetics now gregor mendel who's the kind of considered the father of genetics he did the pea plant studies and all that he and darwin were peers and there was even found in darwin's library an unopened copy of mendel's paper but it's questionable even if darwin would have opened it if he would have understood it because and that's not that's not putting darwin down it's just a matter of most people in that time didn't understand mendel's studies they just simply didn't understand it and so darwin proposed these ideas and they became very popular at a time where genetics and even cellular biochemistry was not well understood so in essence there was this big vacuum of lack of knowledge that they were able to quickly step into and we could just pretend that it all made sense because maybe maybe not we just simply didn't know i mean i'm glad to hear that you understand that darwin and mendel were contemporaries but the conclusion that you're drawing from that that evolution is some ridiculous hypothesis that was just thrown out with no real evidence that makes no sense darwin didn't know anything about genetics mendel didn't know anything about natural selection but if you notice on the origin of species isn't a college textbook we mentioned darwin because he was the first one to really publish this idea of natural selection but we don't worship darwin he was wrong about a lot of things and so we've moved on and darwin's ideas mixed with mendel's ideas that you just explained combined to make a new theory called neo-darwinism which you just explained like did you think that your audience just wouldn't notice that you just said one thing and then said the exact opposite or are you just kind of banking on the idea that nobody knows what these words mean you could not and this is a challenge i put out over and over again you could not today present darwinism and it'd be accepted because we would know better but because it's already accepted then well it must work somehow yeah if on the origin of species was published today it would absolutely be rejected why because it's a book from the 1800s it doesn't have access to all the data that we've collected in almost 200 years since it was published so yes it would be thrown out fortunately darwinism doesn't mean only and exactly what darwin said if the theory of evolution as we presently understand it was presented today it would be massively celebrated because as the geneticist the odysseus navsansky said nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution like i'm starting to think that you're not just being willfully dishonest here i'm starting to think that you actually don't know how this stuff works several years ago i listened to a nobel laureate give a talk and in that talk he describes cellular systems as rube goldberg's you know what that is where it'd be all hubbled together and he was trying nobel laureate trying to claim that because of evolution evolution just pobbles things together whatever works so the sailor systems are all hubble together so he called him rube goldbergs and even at that time i thought that's a very very foolish thing especially in absence of not knowing but what we already knew i felt challenged what he said i would defy him to say that today in the face of what we know about sailor system today they're not rube goldbergs they are enormously sophisticated where we still don't understand it's still beyond that and the dna is a classic example the human genome project the irony is that instead of the human genome project destroying the foundations of biblical creation all that it has been one of the biggest booms one of the greatest things for creation to ever happen because among other things what it has shown is it is shown that in each cell in your body that has chromosomes there is a system going on there that we don't yet have more than the very minor understanding of good gravy what a weird amalgamation of the god of the gaps argument and the fine-tuning argument you don't know how the body works yes we do you don't know how cells work yes we do well you don't know how the genome works yes we do well you don't know every little bit of it and even if you did it's all so complex that clearly it must be controlled by something like can you imagine how silly it would be if a meteorologist made these exact claims because they used to you don't know how lightning works yeah actually it's just electricity well you don't know what controls the electricity it's ions actually well you don't know what makes the ions work and even if you did it's also intricate and perfect that clearly it must be a god it's just you're making this god and ever shrinking pocket of ignorance until finally you have nowhere left to hide so it just explodes and now it's everything again just boring and lazy dude and i'll get people to write me what about this and what about that well you don't know what you're talking about you don't understand mutations i spend 20 years studying mutations let's take a look at some of dr anderson's work over his 20 years of studying mutations all right so i just went to google scholar and looked up kevin anderson it's kind of a mess but i did check out his creation wiki page found out that his middle initial is l so i've got here kevin l anderson evolution typed into google scholar and here's two papers right away the first one is published by the proceedings of the international conference on creationism that's at least a published paper it's published through cedarville university let's look that up it's a private christian university the other one here is published in the creation research society quarterly so that's definitely not peer reviewed but let's double check so this is a search engine of scientific journals out of stony brook university it's a great way to see if a journal is actually legitimate so i'm just going to look up the creation research society yeah big surprise there's nothing there looking back at this paper here at the bottom it says that kevin works at the van andel creation research center so he's not working among peers in his field he's working in a place that values ideas like his let's look a little bit more into this dude so back here on the creation wiki page it says that he got his phd from kansas state that he taught at mississippi state and that he is actually the director of the van andel creation research society and that he is the editor-in-chief of the creation research society quarterly so he's publishing his own work in a journal that he's the chief editor for that's not necessarily awful but yikes that's concerning i can't stop looking at this paper what are these graphics why are they so low-res like this this wouldn't fly in an essay for a bachelor's degree much less a scientific publication it looks like his whole argument here is that because the mutations that he's observing are like just shutting genes off rather than building new ones that it's not real evolution and that it doesn't tell us where the genes come from and so we can't say that evolution's real it this makes no sense like even if you wanted to split hairs here and say that it's micro evolution not macroevolution it's still a change in allele frequencies in a population across generations this is still talking about evolution so i'm gonna do two things since dr anderson clearly isn't familiar with the concept of peer review first of all i'm going to put the link to this paper in the description for this video so you can go and read it and uh you know let me know what you think in the comments and then number two i'm gonna send this to a few friends who are familiar with peer review and see what they have to say i'm actually recording this before i do that so we'll see how that goes i guess if if it works and it goes well you'll know about it right now hey pete hey forrest how you doing my name is peter white i'm an associate professor of evolution education and entomology at michigan state university hey what's going on sam hey forest i'm doing great good to see you yeah so i got my undergrad in wildlife biology from the university of montana and then i went on to the university of maryland for my masters in phd where i got to spend four years in australia studying satin bower birds um from there i then took a postdoctoral fellowship at texas a m university and then moved back up here to washington state hey there alina hey forrest i'm lena i'm a fifth year phd candidate at the university of wisconsin-madison where i'm getting my phd in astrobiology and i'm also a nasa graduate fellow hey there cole hello my name is cole creighton i am better known on tick tock is called a science dude where i make fun videos about science and uh i used to be a citizen scientist for many years but now i work as the director of research for a cannabis company in michigan called grasshopper farms hey ben hey forest what's going on my name is dr ben ryan i'm a neuroscientist at stanford university i'm also a science communicator on tick tock and other platforms what's up isaac hey forest good to see ya i teach eighth grade science in kansas so i have a lot of the evolution unit so i sent you dr anderson's paper what were your thoughts i think the author makes two mistakes in the paper for the first mistake what he's pointing out he's saying look antibiotic resistance is based on various genes and proteins being rendered non-functional through mutation so because in this case biological changes resulting in things breaking it's actually not a good exemplar of evolution the mistake he makes here is that evolution is not exclusively limited to the making of things in fact in his paper the definition of evolution that he uses is descent with modification well when a genetic sequence is rendered non-functional through mutation and that's passed on to future generations of bacteria that's precisely descent with modification the second mistake and this is a bit of a shorter one he concludes that because bacteria develop antibiotic resistance by turning off genes or rendering genes non-functional that evolution can therefore not explain where those genes came from in the first place and when i phrase it that way i think we can see how erroneous and maybe even a little bit nonsensical that that conclusion might be i almost feel like that these scientists sometimes are like bilbo baggins and they see this this missing scale on the dragon smaug right and they think if they put an arrow in that scale that just the whole dragon dies this paper just focuses on origin origin origin if you can't identify the specific origin of a genetic mechanism that is say lost function or allowed a bacterium to resist a particular antibiotic that that that brings the whole dragon down and that's just not the wonderful thing about science is that's not how science works that's just one piece of the puzzle and it doesn't mean you don't still have an almost complete puzzle and then on top of that the entire argument that we need to know the origin of every single genetic mechanism to then make some claim that that that precludes the operation of evolution as as we talk about it is i mean it's kind of ludicrous it's it's just not a a solid argument it's trying to do something pretty ambitious which is to cast out or overthrow a very well accepted framework to explain a lot of natural phenomena in the biological realm and it's not presenting any new data necessarily but it's trying to reframe data and suggest that there is a better way to explain it than through evolutionary theory um and that is you know that's those are pretty big claims and so what i'd be looking for if this came across my desk as a reviewer is well does this new framework explain the existing data better than the current one does it present any new evidence or does it does it show that the evidence fits better with with the tenants or the or the assumptions that that other framework has and then i'd also be looking for how well represented the current framework is so i think that this paper failed to do both of those things because the strategy that it seems to use is to misrepresent or mischaracterize the existing framework and also simultaneously does not provide any new evidence that supports the alternative framework so i think that that is my those are my general thoughts and as a result of that i'd probably recommend rejecting it just based on on those two facts one of the things that was very odd from my perspective uh was that the paper seemed to rely a lot on logical fallacies to arrive at the conclusion including in many of the examples that the author themselves offered so they kept ref using this line they would say uh however a mutation that causes a loss of regulatory control does not offer a genetic mechanism that can account for the origin of this regulatory control which is very odd a that's not actually a requirement for the thing be able to explain uh both how it got there and how it went away but more importantly in the example that they use in that line where they talk about this regulatory protein called mar r that inhibits the production of the e flux pumps mar a and mar b after five minutes of googling i was able to find another article online that shows that that a decrease in mar r the regulatory protein actually causes a uh net loss in the genetic spreading of any given bacteria there were birth defects there were a variety of other problems with regards to like you know ampicillin resistance or some kind of antibiotic resistance in a condition an environmental condition in which that is necessary to procreate it will obviously natural selection will select for the the genes that allow something to procreate in an environment with antibiotics that doesn't mean that whatever regulatory control or cell functions are getting shut off aren't beneficial outside of the extreme scenario of growing in an antibiotic and the really sad thing to me is that um there is a valid and interesting argument to be had regarding the importance that we place upon horizontal gene transfer with regards to how that affects our understanding of kind of neo-darwinian evolution right this is an interesting question and we should look at how because there's been a lot of evidence that horizontal gene transfer is really important with regards to the genetic diversity that we see in the prokaryotic domains of bacteria and archaea but the approach that he came in the paper uh having this be like evolution versus creationism was just a very odd take for an academic paper and overall i am not a professor but i would give this paper an f it's described on the website as quote emphasizing the reinterpretation of existing scientific data within a creationist framework and i just thought that was so interesting um and then i just was pissed off the whole rest of the way so but basically my my end result was pissed off it felt like he was trying to find a way to finish his sentence but he like couldn't really quite figure it out a lot of the time like i've been there a lot of time where i write a sentence like i just need to get this out and i'm gonna come back and i'm gonna revise it and make it better later but he just like never went back and did that he makes the assumption early on that any change in genotype will alter cellular function in a negative way and i thought that was senseless his arguments when he starts breaking down each of the antibiotic resistance pathways and stuff is he says this does not provide an explanation for the original molecules binding affinity for the antibiotic and this was just puzzling for me i i just didn't understand why he felt the mechanism through which bacteria evade an antibiotic must also explain the anti the bacteria's original vulnerability to the antibiotic i just don't understand that as an argument and that's that was like the whole argument too like that was the whole thing so i just didn't feel like that was really strong like i thought that his arguments were a reasonable debate against whether or not bacterial antibiotic resistance in vitro should be considered like a the model of evolution because of like there's a lot of other good examples of it and and i felt like at parts he was like kind of getting there and i was like okay i see a little bit of his argument but then like he just like blew it back open he's like this is why evolution doesn't exist and it's like okay no that's not the case you know and i have a quote from his paper that i just did not understand it really epitomizes the entire thing is and he says that if a house if you take out an interior wall of a house that's like the equivalent thing and he says quote while this larger dining room may be desirable the mechanism of removing this wall cannot legitimately be offered as an example of how this interior wall was originally built and i just thought first off it kind of can because when you're taking down the wall you're going to get to see everything in there and how it was built but also like why i just didn't understand that like that that whole debate makes me question his understanding of biology but yeah it's just shocking and overall thumbs down right away the first word was evolutionists and i knew from there this was going to have a bit of a bias really from what just within the first little bit of the paper he starts talking about how many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids via horizontal gene transfer and that got my kind of mind ticking as this may end up being misleading and the author even admits that when he talks about what the definition of evolution is and he mentions that it's a change in gene frequency over time but unfortunately by the second page when he starts putting up his entire straw man he's no longer arguing against evolutionary change over time he is now admitting that he is going to change the definition into it in his paper and he is going to argue against descent with modification basically arguing that antibacterial resistance isn't evidence worth proving like common ancestry evolution is in the bigger picture it's even right here highlighted therefore these genetic changes offer no example of a genetic mechanism for the evolutionary acquisition of flight by non-flying organisms cognition by non-cognitive organisms photosynthesis by non-photosynthesizing organisms etc and like yeah i agree i'm an eighth grade middle school science teacher and i would never tell my students that antibacterial resistance is evidence of any of that it's not but it is evidence of evolutionary change which is what you set out to answer well thank you so much for your thoughts and before i let you go do you have anything going on do you want people to know about yeah well one of the more recent things i've been working on is something called the connected bio project you can go to connectedbio.org and we've put together a set of interactive online lessons i've worked with a group called the concord consortium it's for high schoolers where they can learn about the process of evolution here they're looking at mouse fur color in a species called perimiscus polynotis they can look at the genetic sequences they can look at how new proteins are formed how pigment is is formed in these mice and then how at an organismal level natural selection actually acts on these mice with different fur colors and how allele frequencies can then change over time in in populations so it's really looking at evolution from nucleotides all the way through to populations so that's connectedbio.org feel free to check it out if you have a chance so i feel like i've got a couple of exciting things that i'm working on right now um chuck darwin on tick tock so just at chuck darwin on tick tock it's a lot of science content you'll see a little like maybe some peppering of little social justice and some funny stuff but it's largely science and my love of science and nature just live there um you can also find some of the things that i create so i love the you know sasquatch i love working with vinyl and fabrics and stuff it satisfies my creative side so if you're on um instagram you can find my stuff at chuck darwin designs that's all one word at chuck darwin designs and i also have an etsy shop chuck darwin designs so check it out thanks very much yeah so check out my tik tok channel which is where i post most of my science communication content my handle is at charm quarks with a z at the end and then i've also recently started uh creating new content for my instagram specifically which is the same handle at charmcorks anyone that would like to find my content on the internet you can find me on pretty much all social media under the name call the science dude remember that's called the science dude not cool the science guy and i look forward to seeing you around check out my social medias i suppose um you know tick tock at dr brain instagram at dr brain twitter at dr brain um if you want to check out my research papers feel free to you know check out my google scholar my name is ben ryan actually our ein so i'd say go check out my tic toc account if you want to learn more about evolution especially human evolution i'm really interested in the ancient human species so i love talking about that my twitter's at i russell 21 and i would highly recommend watching this experiment you can watch it on youtube we'll put the link in here but you can watch as bacteria evolves over time and you can see the evolutionary change and this is one of those that is not just gene flow this includes mutations so it seems to kind of debunk this study as a whole if i should have said study but at that point whatever [Laughter] you see that kevin that's peer review if you had done that before you published this paper would have saved you a lot of embarrassment beneficial mutations you know we define a beneficial mutation as a mutation that provides a benefit to the organism in other words i'm now resistant to the antibiotic which is beneficial if that antibiotics around you know okay as a human i like to drink milk okay i have a mutation in me that allows me to drink milk it's a mutation always to me it's beneficial you know but it's still a mutation it's also a great example of evolution lactose tolerance is caused by one single point mutation one single nucleotide that changes and is so beneficial that it spread throughout a massive population of people good example if you look just at beneficial mutations with what evolutionists love to look at beneficial beneficial beneficial and i say but that's really irrelevant what's happening at the genetic level that's the key it's not whether it's beneficial or not beneficial it's what's happening genetically but the beneficial mutations are genetic saying that the mutations aren't important it's what's happening at the genetic level it's like saying being blonde or brunette doesn't matter it's your hair color that we're looking for it's like saying epinephrine isn't important it's the adrenaline they're the same thing dude repeatedly what the evolutionist community does is they offer example after example after example of what they claim here's how evolution works no it's not yes it is because what you're doing is you're taking pre-existing systems and knocking them out or reducing them you're not explaining how they evolved to begin with because that's not what those papers that you just showed we're talking about evolution can be reductive or it can be additive either way a change in allele frequencies in a population over the course of multiple generations is evolution there's nothing in the definition that says that it can never lose anything or that it always has to gain or that you have to know where it came from otherwise you don't know anything like all you're doing here is saying i don't know how this works therefore it must be magic if i don't know where my car was manufactured that doesn't mean that i don't know how the engine works or that it isn't a car it's the analogy of if you have a house and in your house you have the dining room and a wall and then your recreation room and your wife being you know the big socialite that she is she wants a bigger dining room to entertain her parties we have a choice i can keep my rec room or i can knock at that wall and get a bigger dining room well you know everybody knows happy wife is a happy home that's like anybody else's sexist so you knock out the inner wall and they have a bigger dining room and it's beneficial because she's happy but don't tell a carpenter that how you built the house is by knocking out a wall but that's what evolutionists do repeatedly is they give you an illustration of knocking out a wall and this is how the house was built this dude seriously has one argument like this is the exact same nonsense from the paper kevin nobody's saying that knocking down a wall is how you build a house what we are saying is that the processes by which you can knock down a wall are also some of the processes by which you can build a house and either way knocking down the wall is an adaptive change it would be evolution if that floor plan was now so much better that all the new houses on the block started being built with a bigger dining room without this wall you're mixing up acclimatization adaptation and evolution it's a freshman mistake your analogy is bad and you should feel bad now kevin a lot of your research was it was done in the area of studying bacteria correct correct correct yes particularly mutations in bacteria let me give an example to become resistant to certain types of antibiotics some bacteria will eliminate an enzyme or a transport protein just get rid of it now if a human got rid of a certain enzyme or transport protein we'd probably die if we didn't die we certainly wouldn't be very healthy sweet merciful ghibli you just gave an example of that happening just a couple of minutes ago you talked about lactose tolerance as a mutation you have a gene that produces an enzyme called lactase that breaks down the sugar lactose around age five that gene gets methylated and shuts off that's why lactose intolerance is also called lactase non-persistence lactose tolerance or lactase persistence occurs when a single point mutation stops that methylation from happening so more lactase is produced so more lactose can be broken down throughout the course of your life that's a reductive mutation we are stopping a process from occurring and we are benefiting from it we didn't die we didn't get sick like you just said like this is like the second or third time that you've explained an observable example of evolution and then said that that kind of thing is impossible like how dumb do you think your audience is humans can't do that so easy we can't just shut things on and off like that and particularly because we're our generation time is you know every 20 years not every 20 minutes bacteria because the generation time they can reproduce very quickly and they can pay what is called cost of selection so what works for bacteria doesn't really work very well for animals but because bacteria is so easy to study they like to extrapolate like say well look this out would work in the animal too well not necessarily so the comparison of us and bacteria only goes so far and then it starts falling down you literally just got done explaining that bacteria are good models because they have such a short generation time and now in the same breath you're saying that bacteria aren't humans and they work different ways than humans do so we just can't we just can't know anything about it they're so different that we just can't learn anything about evolution it's just not real they're models dude that's not really dna either it's a model a little airplane it's a model can't get on it and fly nobody's saying that bacteria work the exact same way that humans work they are teaching tools you're a microbiologist if i were to expose a large container of bacteria to a very very traumatic environmental condition like starving for an amino acid i may kill 99.9999 [Music] of that population of bacteria but the next day those few that are left that have the mutation that allows them to compensate for you know lack of a particular amino acid in the media they've regrown them the whole population is restored again just boom just like that this is seriously like the most frustrating episode we've ever done you forgot the second half of that you forgot the second part the most important part of that whole scenario is that you created a disturbance you killed off most of the bacteria but not all of them so the small population that's left is resistant to that kind of disturbance so now when they reproduce and repopulate the whole population is going to now be more resistant to that kind of disturbance you created a bottleneck and now we're seeing the founder effect these are like associates degree level vocab words like if what you described made any sense if this really really wasn't proof of evolution then mrsa wouldn't exist because this is how antibiotic resistant bacteria happen you don't use antibiotics properly and so you don't kill all the bacteria and the ones that survive are the most resistant they were able to survive all the antibiotics that you did use they repopulate and now the whole population is stronger and so you need more and stronger antibiotics to kill them off like i i don't get how you keep just running face first into the point over and over and over and you're still somehow missing it like i seriously feel like i just spent the last 16 minutes of my life watching a person beat their head against a wall to prove to me that walls don't exist whereas with humans if you wipe out 99.99999 percent of humans first off that's a potential extinction event but second off even if we do even if we do survive how many centuries a millennia will it take for us to recover from that see so bacteria can pay that extremely high cost of selection where you eliminate almost all of them but a few survive and the population returns back very quickly and voila evolution has occurred that's what we're told and i can't really do that in humans and in dogs and in cows and such they don't respond that way this is apocalyptically aggravating because this guy was a professor how many students heard that you know what else is different between bacteria and humans bacteria don't have sex and that's one of the many reasons why haldane's cost of selection dilemma which you just laid out doesn't hold any water haldane's calculations used a fitness constraint that totally invalidated his own assumed population size and he didn't take crossing over into account so he thought the two mutations would take twice the amount of time and that's why in his own paper he said that his calculations would probably need and i'm quoting here drastic revisions and when you do revise his calculations to include real numbers his proposed cost of selection disappears i didn't even have to learn that like in a college class i learned that in independent study because i give a crap about this stuff how they made your argument in the 50s and it has been refuted again and again and again since then in fact you know what i just went to google scholar and typed in halden's dilemma here's a paper published in genome called sex solves haldane's dilemma you should probably keep up with genome you know since you study mutations and all that here's another one published in the procedure for the national academy of sciences in 1974 titled solutions to the cost of selection dilemma the last line of the abstract reads the special genotypic and populational conditions required for rapid evolutionary change in genetically complex characters are not unusual in higher organisms i don't know when you finish school dude but your knowledge is woefully out of date and for you not to understand something that is this central to our discipline or just to be willfully ignorant of it and then to go on to be a professor is seriously disconcerting and your repeated use of flashy fancy vocab words that consistently prove you wrong is not a good strategy and that's why your arguments are being shot down so easily and the rest of us are learning from that and moving forward with better arguments you see that that's a change in populations across generations we call it evolution it's pretty cool right kevin how would you define science first of all i just simply define science as a tool that we use to understand the world around us and it's just simply a tool now within science there's obviously a certain methodology but science itself is just a general approach that's used to try to understand you know what's happening understand what do we see here understand what is it that causes thunder what is it that causes earthquakes you know what is it that causes you to be sick it's never been a matter of science this way creation that way science this way the bible that way you're right science is a tool for understanding the universe but in order for a tool to be effective it has to be used properly i can use a hammer to drive a nail or i can bash it into the dirt only one of those actions is going to help me build a house so with science you need to set constraints on what you are and are not going to believe is true and namely that constraint needs to be are you going to believe something without evidence you're sitting here as a scientist believing in cell theory and germ theory and the theory of plate tectonics and the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity all because of the evidence that they bring to the table some of those are remarkably counterintuitive and yet with this one thing with creationism you have a totally different set of rules where now all of a sudden you don't have any evidence you don't need any evidence you're going off of the lack of what you consider to be sufficient evidence for something else and implanting this insane either or fallacy where well i've decided that all of the evidence for evolution just isn't quite good enough for me therefore it can only possibly be magic and then you're going to go on to say that it's not science versus the bible that these two things are one and the same but in the bible it says that in the end times stars are going to rain down out of the sky and land on earth and you should know that stars are millions of times bigger than the earth and light years away so for you to sit here and say that with a straight face is saying that in this one special case you don't care about evidence and you don't care about critical thinking and that's insane by the way has anybody else noticed that this dude's been wearing gloves this whole time for no reason like i keep waiting for him to like break out a petri dish or to like do something show me some sort of physical example i think i think he just put the gloves on to look more like a real scientist come at me bro evolution as an official scientific idea as in what's in the literature what's in the textbooks what's talked about at scientific meetings is god ever in any of that of course not evolution is viewed as kicking god out so as a christian why would i ever be attracted to something that prides itself on kicking god out hey editing forest here i'm surprised that i missed this the first time i watched this whole video i think i was just so tired and so done with it that i just couldn't handle it anymore but now going back and re-watching this i have to say something about that ridiculous argument the idea that science is all about removing god from the equation and that evolution is all about just kicking god out when napoleon met with the great french mathematician pierre simone laplace he mentioned that he was really distressed that laplace had done such great work in explaining the whole universe and how this whole thing works but he never once mentioned the universe's creator to which laplace replied i had no need for that hypothesis science is not kicking god out we're ignoring a hypothesis that we have no evidence to support and quite frankly no need for you're not oppressed you're just wrong well this one was immensely frustrating guys like this are why i always say a degree doesn't make you a scientist i once had a genetics professor in college he was a phd geneticist who didn't know what a hux gene was when i asked him who didn't know how to use a percent sign correctly and who had to be corrected by the class several times because he kept teaching things that were contradicted by the textbook after about the second or third time that happened i left and stopped showing up to class i taught myself genetics in the hallways and as a result i got a higher score on my major field exam than a lot of my classmates did because guys like that aren't interested in learning anything new they're not interested in correcting themselves all they want to do is regurgitate the information that they learned in college however many years ago they confuse schooling and education and they forget that learning is supposed to be a lifelong endeavor so i hope that you watching this remember that degrees don't make scientists publications don't make scientists the degrees that i've achieved and the research that i've done has nothing to do with me being a scientist what makes a scientist is curiosity integrity and the ability to change your mind when presented with new evidence if you can question everything assume nothing and follow the evidence wherever it leads the universe is yours as for this guy i give him a science teacher challenge level 6 out of 10. his arguments suck but for the average person especially a young person who's just starting out in college they see that phd after his name they hear all these big words they see the gloves this can all be pretty convincing but if you've actually put in the work to learn how to formulate a scientific argument you'll quickly realize that uh he has not thank you so much for watching for liking for commenting for subscribing and all the other stuff that you do here on youtube please exit through the gift shop on your way out pick up one of these sweet t-shirts if you like terrible podcasts i've got one of those linked down below as well and don't forget to go to nordvpn.com valkyre labs to take charge of your internet privacy trust me i'm wearing gloves have an awesome rest of your day and never stop learning oh this bye crazy mother [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] you go to tap on that microphone tip tap sounds pretty good

Channel: Forrest Valkai

Views: 382,505

Keywords: scientist, reacts, reaction, biology, science, evolution, faith, truth, creathin, creationism, evolve, humans, bacteria, funny, stupid, gross, dumb, weird, renegade, teacher, tiktok, forrest, valkai

Id: kUEWBFQAJk8

Length: 53min 52sec (3232 seconds)

Published: Thu Nov 11 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/Boxdog]

Spoiler : Yes it is Real, It is Demonstrable and Observable