Jump to content
LoveScience2020

Can you Please debunk these 2 videos about Evolution?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi all,
 
Can you please debunk these 2 videos about Evolution?

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq_oYftA2ow

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk1gDk1wGhQ

Basically the first one claims that we have found many Fossils which are in the wrong order, the second video says that there are many DNA examples that Contradicts the evolution.

Please help me find answers for this videos.

Thanks!

 

Edited by LoveScience2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Talk Origins website is always a good place to start with information about this sort of thing: http://www.talkorigins.org They have s section on just about every creations claim (because they keep coming up with the same lies, how ever often they are debunked).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, LoveScience2020 said:

Basically the first one claims that we have found many Fossils which are in the wrong order, the second video says that there are many DNA examples that Contradicts the evolution.

 

29 minutes ago, LoveScience2020 said:

To be focused:

 

To be focused, you want the answers so it is up to you to spell out the questions.

So

1) Why is it suprising to find fossils "in the wrong order" ? What actually does that mean? Do you know the basic geological term for this  -  Unconformity.

2) So post a specific claim about DNA 'Contradicting Evolution'.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, studiot said:

To be focused, you want the answers so it is up to you to spell out the questions.

So

1) Why is it suprising to find fossils "in the wrong order" ? What actually does that mean? Do you know the basic geological term for this  -  Unconformity.

2) So post a specific claim about DNA 'Contradicting Evolution'.

I don't understand why you are returning the question to me, I gave a direct link to the claims in these 2 videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq_oYftA2ow&t=2m14s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk1gDk1wGhQ&t=5m52s

Is it so hard to answer without all this games?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LoveScience2020 said:

Is it so hard to answer without all this games?

Thinking for yourself is the game here. If you want to be told what to think you probably want a creationist forum - i'm sure they'll be happy to tell you what you should believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Thinking for yourself is the game here. If you want to be told what to think you probably want a creationist forum - i'm sure they'll be happy to tell you what you should believe.

I want to know what is true.

I don't have enough knowledge in biology to know if it's true or not, that's why I'm asking here.

 

Edited by LoveScience2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, LoveScience2020 said:

I want to know what is true.

I don't have enough knowledge in biology to know if it's true or not, that's why I'm asking here.

 

Before I answer this please note two things.

When you signed up here you may have bothered to read the rules which require members to be have enough information to answer without going offsite.
References are good but they are a backup, not the principle.

Secondly note that new members have 5 posts in the first 24 hours, so don't waste your last one today.
I am posting this quickly and will follow with some detail about your actual questions which you can think about before you can post freely.

1 hour ago, LoveScience2020 said:

I don't understand why you are returning the question to me, I gave a direct link to the claims in these 2 videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq_oYftA2ow&t=2m14s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk1gDk1wGhQ&t=5m52s

Is it so hard to answer without all this games?

 

These are not games, they are the rules here.

2) Here is a definition of homology (and an example of how to post offsite materal here)

Quote
Definition of homology. 1 : a similarity often attributable to common origin. 2a : likeness in structure between parts of different organisms (such as the wing of a bat and the human arm) due to evolutionary differentiation from a corresponding part in a common ancestor — compare analogy.

Note the words I have underlined "often attributable". In my book that means not always so there must sometimes be other explanations.

So there is your debunking answer to (2) in a nuteshell.

But this is a discussion site and we like to say a bit more.

I am always suspicious of snappy presentations that take something out of context in a mocking fashion and move on before the viewer has a chance to think properly about it.
That is how stage magicians and politicians work.

But also the author links Darwin and 'Evolution'   - A common misdirection.

In Darwin's day 'Evolution' was a nautical term and Darwin was a sailor.
And his proper use of 'Evolution' would have not been at variance with a Creator.
 

Darwin's actual book title was 'On the origin of Species by means of Natural Selection'
Natural Selection is a process by which evolution or species origin can be achieved.
Reading his book provides compelling evidence that such a process is at work, even if there are also other ones at work.

You should distinguish between creation and evolution as they are not mutually exclusive.
All or nothing arguments are generally wrong.
You have asked about evolution, not creation I will not dwell on creation further.

 

1) I gave you a geological term to look up, if you did not know it. Did you do so? Google is your friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton's_Unconformity

It was unconformity and this was the original discovery that kicked off modern Geology.

The discovery that rock formations are (very) often jumbled up.

 

So finding another one is easy and no evidence against any particular proposal (except the null one that there are no unconfomities).

So here is your second debunking.

 

 

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the responses,

1. About the claim (in the second video) regarding to Cytochrome B I found this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/254e66/does_cytochromeb_disprove_evolution

2. And here, in the middle of the page:

https://ncse.ngo/do-different-genes-mean-different-phylogenetic-trees

But it's a little complicate, can someone please summarize it in a simpler words?

I want to understand this.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on your second I suspect it is based on the observation that a phylogenetic tree using a given gene does not always 100% accurate reproduction of the relationship of different species. This is actually expected as not all genes are under the same selective pressure in the same organism. For example in some species a given gene may be more important and therefore does not mutate much, whereas in others there may less conserving pressures, allowing accumulation of mutations. These are expected and well known effects. There are are other issue that could complicate phylogeny, which is why folks do not use any random locus to reconstruct relationships. 

I other words, if someone thinks that the observation somehow disproves evolution, then it is pretty obvious that the person has no idea what they are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.