Common Misconceptions About Evolution

Sometimes, the way we use words in conversation
is different from the way scientists use them in a formal setting. Which is fine, but it can cause confusion
when you’re trying to talk about science. Evolution as a subject is especially vulnerable
to these kinds of misunderstandings. Like, you might have heard someone dismiss
evolution as “only a theory.” But in science, there’s nothing “only”
about theories. So here are some of the most common misconceptions
about evolution — and why they are so wrong. You’re probably familiar with the basics
of evolution: It’s a change in the genetic makeup of a population of organisms. Different organisms have different genetic
mutations, which create the variation that leads to evolution. If an organism dies without leaving offspring,
its genetic material is gone from the population, so the gene pool has changed. If another organism has lots of offspring,
its genes are overrepresented in the next generation, which is also a change in the
gene pool. Natural selection can cause those kinds of
changes, but so can other factors, including random chance. One of the most common misconceptions about
evolution is that it is, quote, “just a theory.” And it’s true — evolution is a theory. But in science, the word “theory” means
a lot more than it does in everyday conversation. Often, when someone- like when I say I’ve
got a theory, it means that I’ve got a hunch or I’ve got a guess. But when scientists talk about theories, that’s
not what they mean. In science, a hypothesis is a prediction of
what might happen based on available evidence. And a theory is a whole collection of hypotheses. Theories fit all the facts. They’re a sort of framework for thought,
and you use them to make new predictions. A strong scientific theory can expand to fit
new evidence — it can accommodate things that aren’t necessarily even known yet. For example, Darwin knew practically nothing
about genetics. He understood that variation among individual
organisms could be inherited, but he didn’t know how. Even so, as knowledge of genetics grew in
the late 19th and 20th centuries, that knowledge slotted neatly into our understanding of evolution. So, yes, evolution is a theory. It’s a rigorous framework of testable predictions
that accounts for all known evidence, and can account for more evidence that we don’t
even have yet. Speaking of Darwin, another common misconception
is that he invented the theory of evolution. It is true that in its current form, evolution
traces its academic roots to Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species. But it’s totally unfair to say he came up
with the whole idea. Darwin didn’t “invent” evolution. Lots of people before him had noticed that
groups of organisms can change over time, and many scholars proposed their own theories
of evolution before Darwin. One of the best known is Jean-Baptiste Lamarck,
whose work Darwin knew about and referenced. Lamarck got the “what” of evolution right,
but he got the “how” wrong. The “what”, that species were changing
gradually over time, was totally true. As for the how, though, he thought organisms
could pass on characteristics acquired during their lifetimes, which doesn’t quite gel
with our understanding of genetics. We do now know that a parent’s environment
can have effects on its offspring through epigenetics, but those changes don’t seem
to stick around in the genome and drive evolution the way Lamarck was imagining. So, Darwin’s contribution wasn’t the idea
of evolution. It was the mechanism, the “how.” It was natural selection. He even borrowed the phrase “struggle for
existence” from an economic thinker, Thomas Malthus. By that, both of them meant that populations
grow faster than the resources that support them, which leads to competition for limited
food, space, and other needs. Darwin also knew that not every individual
is the same. Some individuals might be taller, or faster,
or have stronger teeth. Those variations give them an edge when they
compete for resources, and can also be passed down to offspring. Organisms with more advantageous variations
tend to have more successful offspring, so those variations — which we now recognize
as genetic traits — show up more and more in later generations. Even the idea of natural selection wasn’t
totally original to Darwin. An eighth century Arab scholar called al-Jahiz
made similar observations about competition and predation. al-Jahiz still credited a creator with the
ultimate origin of species, whereas Darwin’s framing called for only mechanisms that can
be observed in the natural world. So it wasn’t like he was just ripping off
that other guy. But the evidence has been there for a long
time for people other than Darwin to observe and think about. Scholarship never originates with just one
person, in other words. But Darwin developed the foundation of the
theory of evolution that we know today, and popularized it among other scientists. There are more specific misconceptions about
evolution, too — like the idea that there’s a missing link between humans and apes out
there that we just haven’t discovered yet. Basically, people figure that apes are a lower
or more primitive form of life, so there must be a link that’s somewhere in between more
primitive apes and humans. But that’s not quite how evolution works,
because there is no single, unbroken chain between our ancestors and us. Evolution is about diversification, not linear
progression. Far in the distant past, we humans share an
ancestor with apes. Some of the offspring of that ancestor developed
an interest in walking upright, banging rocks together, and eventually barbershop music. Others stuck with foraging for fruit and grooming
insects off of each other. But for a while, those two populations weren’t
all that different–they could still interbreed and swap genetic material. For example, modern humans once interbred
with other species of hominids — the Neandertals and the Denisovans. You can still find their DNA in humans alive
today. We know Neandertals and Denisovans aren’t
our direct ancestors, but we also know they branched off from our common ancestor and
continued to trade genes with us for a while. Evolution tinkers around with organisms, but
it makes branching trees, not long chains. So, there is no need for a “missing link”
because there’s no one chain. It’s more of a bush, and we’re one leaf
waving at the other leaves over there that look a little bit like us. Then there’s the phrase “survival of the
fittest”. It’s another thing that’s often associated
with Darwin’s thinking, but it wasn’t original to him either. It was coined by sociologist Herbert Spencer. This phrase is considered … unfortunate
by many evolutionary biologists because of how easily it lends itself to misunderstanding. It conjures up an image of the most ruthless,
cutthroat, strongest organisms trampling over their peers to, like, “win” at evolution. But “fittest” doesn’t necessarily mean
strongest. If it did, you’d expect the most successful
dinosaurs alive today to be like the T. rex. But instead, it’s, like, chickens. Good job, chickens. “Fitness” is another one of those words
whose rigorous scientific definition is different from its everyday one. In evolutionary biology, fitness refers to
an organism’s capacity to thrive in its environment well enough to have offspring. And that can mean very different things in
different contexts. In some environments, a plant with nice, broad
green leaves is probably able to harvest more sunlight than its competitors, making it more
fit and better able to reproduce. Whereas if you had broad green leaves, then
you should probably get that looked at. In other words, there isn’t any one adaptation
that’s a magic bullet, and there isn’t one ultimate form for an organism. Something incredibly beneficial to one scenario
could be useless or even detrimental in others. So “survival of the fittest” doesn’t
always mean what people think it means. Even if you totally understand natural selection
and survival of the fittest, it’s easy to think that evolutionary change is always good
for the organisms it’s happening to. Because natural selection does favor organisms
that are fitter or more successful than others. But we defined evolution as a genetic change
in a population, and sometimes that happens for literally no reason. Genetic mutations can be helpful or harmful,
but sometimes they’re just trade-offs that are sorta good and sorta bad. And a whole bunch of the time, they don’t
make any difference at all. That’s because a lot of our DNA doesn’t
do much. And even the important regions usually have
a little flexibility. So, sometimes a mutation doesn’t do anything
except sit there, being a little different than it was before. The laws of statistics have a kind of surprising
effect on these neutral mutations — they contribute to a type of evolutionary change
called genetic drift. Among all the organisms in the population,
there might be ten different versions of the same gene that do the same thing. But since these trivial mutations don’t
affect an organism’s ability to reproduce, natural selection doesn’t control whether
a mutation is passed on. Every time a parent reproduces, it’s just
random chance which version of the gene gets passed on. So you might think that eventually, you’d
just end up with more and more neutral variants of the gene within the population. But because statistics are kind of strange,
that’s /not/ what happens. Instead, over a long time and many generations,
only one neutral variant of a gene will stick around. All the others vanish because of pure chance. Genetic drift doesn’t have as much of an
effect on larger populations, because there’s more room for the effects of random chance
to equal out. But in smaller populations, it can lead to
pretty significant genetic changes, just by chance. So the idea that evolution is always beneficial
is just another misconception. All of these misunderstandings stem from old,
confusing phrasing. But the next time you meet someone who’s
confused about them, hopefully you’ll be able to explain why they have been misled. Thank you for watching this episode of SciShow,
which was brought to you by a bunch of great people who are our patrons on Patreon. They give this show money so that we can make
it, so we can make it free for everyone, so that people will like it- we like it, I hope
you like it. If you want to go there and become one of
those people you can And if you just want to subscribe so you can get more of this stuff
you can go to and subscribe! Also- I think they put the subscribe button
under the video now, so you could just click on that. There it is. Over there. I think it’s over there.

100 thoughts on “Common Misconceptions About Evolution”

  1. For everyone who keeps saying "Evolution is not true/ it's is false".
    Then consider this, is the "Theory of Creation" have more scientific proof than the "Theory of Evolution"? No, it doesn't have any supporting scientific proof.
    Every proofs of "The Theory of Creation" is based on only one particular book "The Bible" which doesn't really have a known origins. God didn't have any scientific proof that he made the Bible.
    While on the other hand, The "Theory of Evolution" has been considered as a fact for many scientist since it has more scientific evidence than "The Theory of Creation" which only relies on the Bible.

    And come on,
    Which is more ridiculous?
    A theory which we were evolved for many years and have many scientific evidence like fossils and gentics or a theory which a god in the sky made a planet in just 7 days that literally makes no sense.

  2. The biggest misconception about evolution is that it is the truth.
    Nobody knows what happened thousands of years ago, only GOD knows, and his word is in the BIBLE. It is very arrogant to pretend that we know more about the universe than GOD, so stop confusing our children with your arrogant nonsense and start reading the HOLY BIBLE
    NAH just kidding, stay scientific people ;P

  3. I am thinking Google has new more improved algorithms to stifle freedom of speech, five words come to mind, Class Action in Your Future Google.

  4. Actually Evolution is a misconception itself because all creatures were created the way they are now by our lord!

  5. We talked about evolution in class and the teacher didn't believe in it and told the children it's the theory that humans come from monkeys. It was terrible, but then THIS happened.
    I talked to a friendish person in the class about it and said: "you know it's more sophisticated that that right?" She said yes, but that she didn't believe in it be ause she didn't understand how we could come from apes. So I told her a bit about it and explained a few things, and she said "Oh!". She actually took in the information and there was a genuine feeling of understanding! It was amazing!

    I think we should look out for people like this. People who genuinly don't understand and are willing to learn! We shouldn't accept that no one is going to listen. Don't get into a debate about it with everyone, but talk about it to people who genuinly don't understand and want to.

  6. Okay, so perhaps missing link is used incorrectly. The question might be what then is the common ancestor at the split of the branches? And surely each branch would have fundamentally similar creatures that eventually become fundamentally different as those branches age.

  7. One way to understand Evolution is to first understand “Artificial Selection”. Wolves and Dogs are descended from common ancestors (which looked more like modern wolfs than dogs). Over many generations, Humans selected the “favourable” traits (e.g., long shiny fur, or stocky legs etc) to produce the many different types / breeds of modern dogs that we have today. The keyword here is “over many generations”. There are modern dogs that, of course, are still very much wolve-like in appearance (e.g., Huskies, German Shepherd etc). Some dog breeds are much less wolf-like in appearance (Chihuahua, Shih Tzu etc) as they have been artificially selected for their small size and “cute” traits. So why is it known as artificial selection? This is because the Human (the dog breeders) are the ones determining which individual dogs they would prefer to produce offsprings, thereby continuing the genes they would like to retain. Prior to this, it is also important to understand the idea of Variation. This means that in a litter of puppies, not every puppy is physically identical (even though they may look identical to the untrained eyes). Some puppies have slightly longer legs, some shorter legs. Very small differences, but, yes, the differences are there. It is due to this physical variations that the breeders (humans) select which dogs possess the traits he wants, thus the term “Artificial Selection”. This Selection process is repeated over many generations and the result is the modern dog breeds we have today.

    In just merely thousands of years (which is still a relatively short period of time in the evolutionary timeline), modern breeds of dogs we see today can be obtained from their wolf-like ancestors by Artificial Selection. If we can understand how Artificial Selection works, understanding of Natural Selection should not be too difficult. The difference is that Natural Selection takes place over millions of years (without Human intervention). In Natural Selection, the environment aka Mother Nature (instead of Human) is the factor deciding which traits survive through the generations (over millions of years). How? One example is Food Source. Many species of birds have developed the ability to swim to obtain their food (Adaptation). One pre-requisite of aquatic birds is having waterproof feathers. In this case, this is the “Favourable Trait”. One large group of birds may live nearer to the seasides and Individual birds with “more waterproof feathers” are seen by Mother Nature to possess a “Favourable Trait”. And so individual birds with this trait has a much higher chance of survival in that environment and thus passing on this gene to the future generations. Birds with “less waterproof feathers” may probably not even live to adulthood as they may have difficulties obtaining their food (in the sea), resulting in their genes being eliminated from this group of birds. Using an analogy, you may think of this process as a kind of “filtration process”, where only the finest particles are able to pass through the fine filter. Instead of thinking it as Survival of the Fittest, we need to think of it as the survival of those which happen to have traits that are advantageous to the existing environment. Birds in that group which possess “more waterproof feathers” need not imply that they are any fitter or stronger; it’s just that they “happen to have” physical traits (or genes) to suit the existing environment more. Many people misunderstood the term “happen to have”, and mistakenly conclude that Evolution is happening at random.

    Well…….Mutations are random, but Evolution is not random. Evolution has a certain direction. Given enough time and over many generations, this group of birds living near the seaside are destined to develop into a species of birds with waterproof feathers (assuming their environment changes very little). This is not a random development. Instead, it is shaped by the existing environment. This is Adaptation, and it has to be highlighted that it takes place over many, many, many generations. Physical Adaptations (e.g., change in body shapes) DO NOT take place in merely one generation. In other words, an individual animal will not change its form physically to obtain that trait in its lifetime, unless it’s metamorphosis which is a totally different thing.

    We also observed this in rabbits living in deserts and rabbits living in cold countries. The long ears in rabbits act as effective heat radiators. This enables the rabbits to lose body heat efficiently, just as how humans lose heat efficiently by sweating. The rabbits living in deserts adapted (over many generations) to the environment by developing very long and erect ears for highly efficient lowering of their body temperature. But rabbits living in cold countries tends to have shorter ears (some even have lop ears). Shorter ears is the “Favourable Trait” here as it enables them to lose less body heat. All animals (and yes, that includes Humans) are still in the midst of Evolution. If Evolution is constantly ongoing, why can’t we see it happening? We need to understand that Evolution is a very, very slow on-going process. Evolution will never be “complete”, as change is the only constant. If Evolution is still on-going, why are there no living animals that are “neither here nor there” (i.e., in-between two modern species)? We need to remember that we humans are the ones who gave distinct names to different distinct species of animals in the first place. “In-betweeners” (animals in-between modern species of animals) do exist, but they existed in the past. Yes, they are the dead fossils. Two modern species are just like the two ends of a tree branch. Trying to find living specimens of “in-betweeners” between two modern species (assuming no cross-breeding has taken place) is akin to finding a “twig” that connects the two ends of a tree branch (which is impossible).

    However, we can still find animals that are in-transition between land and aquatic environment. Let us look at the Seals / Walruses. Their ancestors are land animals, but their body shapes (flippers and hydrodynamic bodies) and anatomy are hard evidences that they are in the midst of “transition” from land animals to aquatic animals, as their main source of food is in the sea. Of course, we cannot see an appreciable change in their appearances in our lifetime, as the change is happening far too slowly over many generations. So presently, we can only imagine the current physical appearances of Seals / Walruses as being “frozen-in-time”, as with the rest of the millions of species of animals currently living on this planet Earth. And do appreciate their beauty in their current physical form (and the diversity of the Tree of Life), as all these species of animals will never be the same again one million years from now.

  8. Arguing on behalf of evolution is like putting your head against the wall and trying to sprint. All it does is hurt your head and make you look like a fool

  9. I just realized that no evolutionist Compares any plants to animals as an example of evolution. They're always comparing birds and dinosaurs or apes and man because of similar body features. No one has ever said that since a tree has a trunk and a human has a torso that they are related. I'll give you evolutionists that comparison for free. I'm afraid it won't help, though, since you'll still be one step closer to exactly where you are. LOL

  10. You are right the definition of theory in the academic world has a different meaning but so does the word fact.In the academic world facts can change for example akademiks used to believe in the static world theory about 60 years ago and it was a scientific theory but now akademiks have falsified it. I can give you more examples of a scientific theory being second point is about darwinian evolution that it is based upon probabilistic framework which is based upon assumptions that can be falsified and actually have been falsified by secular akademiks and one of the sumption that darwinian Evolution use is homology which has a opposite called homo play Z which refutes homology with evidence and these are just some of the issues of darwinian evolution

  11. Read this bible study going into detail as to why the teaching of "evolution" is among the most absurd beliefs that exists today, yet many deliberately choose to believe this lie, because they do not want to believe the truth. Read the bible study here .

  12. It's still just a theory. No amount of lemmings supporting that theory makes it any less of a theory. Unlike theories such as electromagnetism, which can be tested with experimentation, the theory of common ancestry and natural selection cannot be tested by any means.

  13. Technically evolution isn't a theory, evolution is a fact and the theory is "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection".

  14. I challenge the idea that we have “junk DNA” it’s like fascia, they used to think it was junk tissue and now it’s it’s own sensory organ

  15. Oh boy, atheists and amateur evolutionists just won't listen to the scientists will they. Gould and Eldredge have been complaining for a LONG time that gradualism is not seen in the fossil record. That's why they developed the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
    500,000 fossil fish collected, zero intermediate forms.
    1000 fossil bats collected, zero intermediate forms.
    5,000 fossil seals collected, zero intermediate forms.
    100,000 fossil dinosaurs found. 3000 are full skeletons. Not a single ancestor found.
    Mutation + natural selection doesn't work as a mechanism either. You need new and useful information, which has never been observed. Surely, given the extreme diversity of life just in my armpit, let alone in the entire world, and given only 65 million years since an asteroid destroyed 80% of life on earth, science would have found a little more than….nothing.

  16. EUREKA
    Cultivars- types of apples or oranges
    Breeds- types of cats or dogs
    Races- different types of people.
    Chihuahua and Mastiff are both dogs (canus domesticus i think) but physical limitations keep them from breeding unless the mother is the larger dog.
    So cave men or its ancestor could cross breed with apes cuz we were different species but similar enough to mate. Kinda like donkeys and horses.

  17. If we'd ever witnessed a species evolve into another species we could say it's scientific fact though.

  18. Chickens are the most badass dinosaurs around today are they ?, come to Australia mate and see how weak our Saltwater crocs are…

  19. Pseudoscientific theory vs Scientific theory is two different things. At least the theory proposed by Darwin doesn't qualify as empirical evidence nor as a scientific theory.

  20. Glad they acknowledge that modern birds are still dinosaurs. The only thing they failed to mention is that humans are still apes right now. You can't grow out of your ancestry, kids.

  21. Sorry, I don't get it. Why is evolution still not classified as a law when it is already an established fact?

    Would be very glad for any answer.

  22. How to tell if a person is a Christian who doesn't know anything about evolution –> they refer to it as Darwinism. When someone is trying to marginalize a widely-accepted theory, they attempt to make it sound like one man's belief, similar to what the right did to "Obamacare."

  23. Evolution prepared him and mr. John green with genes that make them very easy to listen to and learn from.

  24. Now I understand why people don't understand, when I say "it's just theory"
    When I say it I mean: Does we put all know fact together correctly? Does is our conclusion correct?

    And because Bible doesn't sad how, I don't completely dismiss evolution. Only replacing "natural selection" with God's plan.

  25. When this video is done, remember how Evolution is brought to you by liars, frauds and the indoctrinated.

    The modern scientific community has seen a METEORIC rise in science fraud over the last several decades. (To be clear, we're not talking about retractions due to honest mistakes, but good old-fashioned lying and fakery). If the increase in fraudulent science had simply doubled, that would be very disturbing indeed, but it hasn't only doubled! In fact, the amount of fraud being committed by modern scientists hasn't just tripled, nor even just quadrupled! But, according to research published by the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the amount of fraud being committed by modern scientists has skyrocketed an incredible 1000% (ONE-THOUSAND PERCENT)! And if that wasn't horrific enough, keep in mind that the vast majority of the iceberg is unseen, and there's no telling how much of that fraud is referenced in subsequent research before the fraud is discovered, thereby further poisoning the body of science.

    (“Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications” Ferric C. Fang, R. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall) The abstract states that a “…detailed review of all 2,047 BIOMEDICAL AND LIFE-SCIENCE research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted…” Again, BIOMEDICAL AND LIFE-SCIENCE. 

    “ONLY 21.3% of retractions were attributable to ERROR”. So again, In the abstract, it says “The percentage of scientific articles retracted BECAUSE OF FRAUD has increased ∼10-fold since 1975.'' Let that sink in. 

    "67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, …Including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%)."

    Finally (“…the amount of fraud being committed by modern scientists has skyrocketed an incredible 1000% (ONE-THOUSAND PERCENT)!" is a fact! Most of this is in evolutionary science. The biggest lie on Earth.

    Obviously peer review is important and better than nothing, but it's rife with fraud. With so much fraud, its amazing no one seems to care. But then again, this is why everyone believes the evolutionary fairytale lie 100%. Lies fill every textbook page on Earth and no one dare question it (student will fail the class/Teacher will get fired). Indoctrination is an awful thing. 

    the problems and limitations of peer-review are much worse than many of us think. 

    Just Google “problems with peer review”, and here are just a few of the troubling headlines in the search results: 

    Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals Scientists Aim To Pull Peer Review Out Of The 17th Century – NPR 

    Let's stop pretending peer review works – Vox 

    Problems With Peer Review And Alternatives – jstor 

    A look at the system’s weaknesses, and possible ways to combat them. Is It Time for Pre-Publication Peer Review to Die? | PLOS SciComm 

    Uncovering new peer review problems – this time at The BMJ

  26. Your theory of what a theory is… nice, and certainly what we'd like…….but(you had to know there was a but)
    Some scientific theories come about because another theory is not holding up to reality, then to make sure they don't have to keep generating new scientific theories they make these theories so that it is impossible to prove or (most importantly) disprove.

    Then because these new theories explain why the widely accepted theory doesn't match reality all the scientists jump on the wagon

    As far as we know, the genes passed on are by pure chance…….or in better words "we can't figure it out….yet"

  27. Another unspoken misconception — OK, let’s call it an unspoken potential misconception — is that believing in evolution is compatible with believing in what is variously called scientific materialism, or philosophical naturalism. The philosopher Alvin Plantinga is among the best known who makes the argument, but here’s a more accessible presentation: And before the fanatics on both sides hurt their knees (by jerking them – it’s a wee joke 🙂) can I plead for calm and reason. Bear in mind, if you watch the video, that: a) Plantinga accepts evolution; b) These philosophical arguments can be subtle, and require study, or put another way, the argument may well be wrong, but even if it is, still it’s unlikely you’re going to refute it quickly and with a simple counter-point; c) Even if you decide your position is unaffected by the argument, merely working through it might be a useful exercise. Like going to the gym! 🙂

  28. Ok but now can you exain to my roommate that dogs aren't grey wolves 🙄 I'm not sure he'd get that from the shared ancestor thing

  29. Evolution is a theory but so is creationism. You can't pick one over the other, that's bias. The problem is we pick one and not the other. I love science, but the is still another theory to be studied.

  30. I rather like Neil DeGrasse Tyson's presentation in Cosmos, A Spacetime Odyssey : "survival of the good enough.

    Many of our human traits aren't as good as other species: our hearing range and softness of sound we can hear, the acuity of our eyes, etc. We don't have claws, venom, long tongues, or even cheek teeth to shred our meat. We have a complete collar bone like apes do, but we have a harder time than they at swinging in branches or climbing trees.

    But, as Aristotle was called "Beta" because he dabbled in all things, but he was expert in none, we humans also use a little bit of this and that to be good enough to live.

    Cats have a little collarbone but not all the way around their shoulders. Horses have none. So cats can instinctively proceed gracefully in their deadly hunt, and a horse can run swiftly to avoid predators.

    What animals do naturally because of their shape, we humans must train ourselves to do. I think parkour is about the closest thing we will get to mimicking a cat of any species.

    Just a few thoughts.

  31. A common misconception I see is people thinking we evolved from monkeys. We have common ancestors with other terrestrial life.

  32. I saw another misconception about evolution: evolution does always make living beings more complex. People who accept this misconception will, for example, not accept the absence of the useless palmaris longus muscle in 10-15% of humans as evidence for evolution because it shows them getting simpler.

  33. I'm about two years late to this video but I do have some questions, I will in no way say that evolution in not real because there is much evidence. The one thing that I have looked at in biology is the fact that everything changes its basically a way of life, but as I have also studied biology the one experiment that intrigues me is one of Louis Pasteur. He had done the amazing work of letting us understand that life cannot spontaneously appear. If life cannot spontaneously appear then where did life come from? This is the problem and the debate that I've had with many people. What explanation could there be to this question? How can you explain that life came about when science itself has proven that life cannot come about by itself?

  34. Yes, but what do you do when someone says, "Yeah, but I've never seen a monkey turn into a human," and then rolls their eyes when you say the word "Fossil?"

  35. 2:50 technically they can if they develop a genetic mutation that they weren't born with in their lifetime like how I used to be lactose intolerant until I ate a bunch of cheese and milk to the point that I wasn't intolerant anymore my mother still is but I developed a mutation that allows me to eat dairy now

  36. Pretty clear and easy to understand. I 'wish' more people would take the time to see that it's just science and science leads where it leads. This goes for climate change deniers and (laughably) flat earthers.

  37. Evolution is still a Hypothesis. Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.

    Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.

  38. Good job chickens, I wouldn't have known how to carry those Tyrannosaurus eggs home from the supermarket

  39. Where does the God of Abraham enters the picture ? As far as I know the bible does not mentions evolution !

  40. Not all theists are non evolutionists. In fact, a ton of research and experimentation leading up to our modern understanding of genetics and evolution was done by Catholic monks. You have remember, most of the educated before modern times were in the church.

  41. Most creatures evolve by levelling up. Though some evolve by trade, some need items, some both. Some need a special move or need to be in a certain area to evolve. Some can only evolve at a certain time of day, by being happy, or both. Some have to be beautiful first, and some need to have full affection for you. Some don't evolve at all. Different methods appear every Generation and it's pretty cool.

  42. I once had a religious nutjob tell me that evolution was impossible. I asked if his god was all-powerful, to which he replied, "Of course." I said, "So, your god could have created animals through evolution." He said, "No…" and then he got very quiet. He finally said, "Evolution is stupid!" This is, sadly, one of the most intelligent responses a religion person is capable of. When you are incapable of distinguishing between mythology and reality, you lack any critical thinking skills altogether.

  43. -‘’There isn’t one ultimate form for an organism ‘’
    -‘’Frezza cringes in his final form’’

  44. A really concise way to explain what a theory really is: A scientific theory is a scientific law that also explains how/why the law works. For example, the law of universal gravitation allows us to predict the magnitude of the gravitational force between two objects, but doesn't explain the origin of the force. A theory of gravity not only explains the magnitude of the force, but origin/nature of the gravitational force.

  45. Another misconception about evolution shared by many is that it's a fact. The problem with this is that it's even taught in classrooms to innocent children. If teachers taught it as theory, that would be a lot better.

  46. Evolution is not just a theory , it's a fact of nature . We have ample fossil evidence that support Evolution by natural selection .

  47. The THEORY of EVOLUTION is a LIE. Everything we see is fully formed and complete. Consider; say, fruit trees. Evolutionists argue, I believe, that fruit trees have a common ancestor. But, are they arguing that Peach, Apple, Pear and Cherry trees are evolving into something else? YES ! THEY HAVE TOO ! Otherwise, they would have to admit that evolution is NOT taking place! Consider one of the orifices in your head, your mouth. As mammal creatures today and our ancestors we CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT A MOUTH! If ANY of our ancestors did not have a mouth THEY WOULD BE DEAD! Therefore, ALL the time they were (supposedly) evolving a mouth THEY WERE DEAD (because they didn't have a mouth) Therefore, the MOUTH did NOT EVOLVE! EVOLUTION is a LIE!

  48. This is the best video I've seen on evolution. As a professor I had a hard time convincing my students that evolution is "ramdom" and there is no "better" species, just a more "fitest" one, depending on the environment. Coacrahes may probably more fit than us in the long run, if the environment suits them.

  49. When a species evolves if one believes that . The lower order does out . If that not true then we would still be breeding with Neanderthals 😖😁🤨🤨🤨

  50. I dont know why dont scientist just change the word theory to fact,
    Knowing how the common person is and all

  51. Under 18 but as soon as I have full control on my finances, this will definitely be one of the first channels that I’ll join Patreon for. I love all the truth that can be found her and how objectively they approach science while also making it fun.

  52. There's no such word or event as evolution but degradation and adaptation are naturally occurring all the time. Light is neither a particle, wave, or photon, but a perturbation of the ether field which is the creator. Light is merely perturbed by objects that adapt to its absorbative nature and then quickly resumes it's potency within the omnipotency of the field. It is not degrading or slowing down, it is nourishing itself on the needs of others; likewise the ignorance of fools gets real complicated, but the wisedom of the ages of the existential perceptions of time's light perturbation is free to those who find it.

  53. People are drawing the wrong conclusions about evolution because scientists didn't pay much attention in English class. Smh

  54. Wellllll…….I'm gonna have to disagree on your discussion of "theory." You say "for most of us, a theory is a 'hunch' or a 'guess,' but for science…." Well. in science it's also a hunch or a guess. The difference is that it's supposed to be a GOOD hunch or guess. It's good because (hopefully) it's made only after a considerable number of hypotheses have been tested and consistent and useful results have been acquired. With that, one can PERHAPS make a "good" guess about a "process" or "cause" which underlies the results so far; and, as you mentioned, it can be a source for further hypotheses to test.

  55. I feel that Alfred Russel Wallace deserves a shout out in this video.

  56. Wait, I’m confused. If Homo sapiens were able to produce fertile offspring with Neanderthals and Denisovans, then wouldn’t that by definition make them the same species? I’m just confused since there seems to be a contradiction.

  57. Some people say “if we evolved from apes, why are there any chimps left?” And I try to tell them, but they don’t believe the truth

Leave a Reply

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