Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution Scientifically Debunked

The “serious scientific video” presented in the OP is a cesspool of ignorance, fallacies, unsupported assertions and even a quote mine from Darwin. So let’s pull on our rubber boots and wade on in.

For the sake of clarity there follows a definition of evolution as understood by scientists, but not necessarily by those who obtained degrees in Truthology from Christian Tech.

Evolution (ToE): Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. (Aron Ra)



Law [of nature]: A general statement in science which is always true under a given set of circumstances. (Aron Ra)

So, of course evolution is not a law. It is both a fact and a theory.

Fact: A point of data which is either not in dispute, or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable. (Aron Ra)

Google: “observed instances of speciation” and you can find hundreds of peer-reviewed papers.



Correct. A scientific theory can never become a law because laws are included within theories.

Theory: A body of knowledge including all known facts, hypotheses, and natural laws relevant to a particular field of study. A proposed explanation of a set of related facts or a given phenomenon. (Aron Ra)



Correct. And no sane scientist believes that the ToE makes such an absurd assertion. The author has neglected to quote any scientist, paper or textbook. This is a common Creationist lie lifted from Ray Comfort videos.



Natural selection is the recognition that members of a population that are well-suited to their environment have greater reproductive success, on average, than those that are not so well-suited. The author gives no clue of the nature of a “DNA limit” or what it has to do with natural selection. And, unusually for a scientific argument, gave no citation.



Vacuous drivel. Since DNA is not a species, of course, it cannot be changed into another species.



Citation needed. Who said the coelacanth had half-formed (whatever that means) legs and primitive lungs. How does its existence prove evolution wrong? The modern coelacanth is in the same taxonomic Order as the various fossil species but not even in the same taxonomic Family. To show the distance in this relationship in a way the author might understand: dogs, cats, bears, seals and weasels are in the same taxonomic Order.

“A transitional fossil is one that looks like it’s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two.
Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...”
-Quoted from the Young Earth Creationist website, WasDarwinRight.com.



Another assertion extracted from the seventh planet. If he could demonstrate any such thing he is guaranteed a Nobel Prize. Guess he doesn’t need a million bucks.



If the author uses Ben Stein’s material he should give him credit. Maybe they can get together and discuss their vapid misunderstanding of abiogenesis (look it up).



The Second Law says that in a closed system, one from which matter and energy cannot enter or exit, the amount of energy available to do work cannot increase. Perhaps the author exists in a closed system where knowledge and understanding cannot enter.



Another assertion without evidence or explanation.



There are no chromosomes in DNA. Chromosomes are composed of DNA.

Ever hear of polyploidy?
“Polyploidy
J.S. Heslop-Harrison, in Encyclopedia of Genetics, 2001
Polyploidy in Evolution
Polyploidy, involving the presence of multiple copies of identical or similar chromosome sets in one species, is an important feature of species evolution in the plant, animal, and fungal kingdoms. Polyploidy is widely considered to be an enabling force in evolution. Because chromosome sets are duplicated in polyploids, heterozygosity may be fixed, and random mutation or factors modulating gene expression may be buffered (unlike a diploid), so new genes and gene functions may evolve, leaving the original function in the other chromosome set.
Polyploidy is seen in many angiosperm plant species, and the related diploid species can be readily identified. More than 50% of all plants are obvious polyploids, while detailed studies are showing that many other species are crypto- or paleopolyploids.”

And it’s not just plants, as you can find with a 5 minute internet search.
Bedbugs have 29-47 chromosomes
domestic sheep 52-53
Asian wild ass 51-52
Equis hemionus kulan 54-55
Donkeys 62
Horses 64
Mules 63
There are many more examples.

The author of the video kindly presented in the OP is clearly full of beans and has no clue about science. He has merely repeated Creationist claims that have already been refuted thousands of times and provided nothing in the way of evidence.

Then there is the aspect of time. Like billions of years. Change is inevitable.

Jag, you are aware, I assume, that wings (bat, pterosaurs, or bird) are supported by a framework of finger bones, right? The bone structure of wings are adaptations of finger bones. Wings are arms (forelimbs) that are specialized for flight. Some, even today, still bear claws. In some birds, those claws are only present when immature, and disappear later, after they feather out and begin flying.

Jag, you are aware, I assume, that wings (bat, pterosaurs, or bird) are supported by a framework of finger bones, right? The bone structure of wings are adaptations of finger bones. Wings are arms (forelimbs) that are specialized for flight. Some, even today, still bear claws. In some birds, those claws are only present when immature, and disappear later, after they feather out and begin flying.

Jag, you are aware, I assume, that wings (bat, pterosaurs, or bird) are supported by a framework of finger bones, right? The bone structure of wings are adaptations of finger bones. Wings are arms (forelimbs) that are specialized for flight. Some, even today, still bear claws. In some birds, those claws are only present when immature, and disappear later, after they feather out and begin flying.

Without the sin of Adam there is no curse. Without the sin of Adam there is no need for Jesus to be our Savior.

The whole book of Genesis is ridiculous. It's only purpose is to make intelligent people laugh at it and turn away from the true message of Christianity. Genesis had nothing to do with God. It was made up by stone age illiterates.

Why couldnt God leave good enough alone?

ie; dont put the serpent in the garden to target Eve

Refrain from such and avoid killing your own son
And condemning all of mankind... Win/Win.