How does evolution really work? Do monkeys and thermodynamics disprove it?

In 1859, in Apocalypse biblical proportions occurred in the Western Hemisphere. This
was not the kind of apocalypse you might imagine. Nothing physical was destroyed.
But the destruction of conventional, intellectual, social, and religious
thinking was equally apocalyptic. So what happened in 1859? A book called “On the
Origin of Species by means of natural selection” was published, by a little known
person by the name of Charles Darwin. And the world has never been quite the same.
We don’t realize today how this impacted Society of the time, but suffice it to
say that 160 years later, we are still affected by it. Charles Darwin changed
the way people look at living things. Most Western society at the time had
believed the biblical account of creation, before this intellectual
earthquake. Today evolution is one of the most tested, well established theories
backed by solid evidence, in all of science. Yet it remains one of the most
misunderstood. Here’re some common statements that you will hear. “Evolution
makes organisms change to better suit their environment.” “Evolution occurs by
random chance and mutations.” “Humans are the most evolved species.” Evolution is
just a theory, so it’s speculation.” If humans came from monkeys, there wouldn’t
be any more monkeys.” Thermodynamics disproves evolution.” Why are all these
statements incorrect? How does evolution actually work? And why do so many people
get it wrong? This is one of the most important topics in all of science in my
opinion. And that’s coming up right now… First let’s define evolution. Evolution
is inherited change in a population of organisms, over time, resulting in
appearance of new forms, under the influence of pressure from the
environment. The first thing to note is that changes are in populations, not
individual organisms. So for example, if an elephant finds itself living in a
very cold climate for a very long time, it will not become hairy, like the
extinct woolly mammoth, in its lifetime. But over successive generations, the
environmental pressure will likely cause hairier versions of the same breed of
elephant to have a survival and reproductive advantage. So subsequent
generations will likely get hairier, because those hairier elephants in the
population are likely to have more opportunity to reproduce. Their offspring
will have inherited the hairy trait. The change would occur in the population
over time, not the individual, and not suddenly. Another point to note is that
this change does not occur by random chance. Mutations are caused by mistakes
that happen when a cell makes a copy of its genetic information, during the cell
division process. Mutations are random, but they are driven by a non-random
process called natural selection. Natural selection is the opposite of random
chance. It’s driven by a survival and reproductive advantage. And these changes in populations are not typically caused by sudden beneficial random mutations
either. Mutations do provide a critical source of variation in the gene
pool of large populations. But the vast majority of these genetic mistakes,
called mutations, are either neutral or harmful. It is estimated that only about
0.01% are beneficial, meaning 99.99% of all mutations are neutral or
harmful. But even the small amount of just 0.01% is
enough to be a significant driver of evolution, because it generates the
genetic variation on which natural selection can act. Any variation that
makes organism more fit for survival is more
likely to spread in the gene pool through this process. But this idea of
“fitness” does not mean that the strongest survive. A better fit organism does not
mean that bigger, faster, more ruthless, smarter, or stronger individuals are
favored. Only individuals that have a better chance for survival and
reproduction are favored. Strength, size ruthlessness, or intellect does not equal
more fit. Ultimately, evolution is not goal-oriented or a linear process
towards some kind of “progress.” It is simply about fitting best in one’s
environment, and having the opportunity to reproduce. Some organisms may not
change over long periods of time. Take the example of the American alligator.
The fossil record indicates that it has stayed largely the same for 8 million
years. If there are no major changes in the environmental conditions, and if a
species is already well suited for life in those conditions, why would it change?
Also the idea that humans are the most evolved species because we are cleverer,
or faster, or have more nuclear bombs, than any other species is plain wrong. If
you think you’re superior to a tuna, try living underwater for 40 years. Humans
are not the most successful species on the planet. Our planet is dominated by
single-celled organisms there are 10^30 single celled organisms weighing
10^14 kilograms. The weight of all humans is 10^11 kilograms. If you
go by weight, then even insects are more successful than us, weighing 300 times
more than all humans combined. What about the idea that evolution is only a theory,
that it’s about faith and not evidence? First, in science, a theory is not simply
a hypothesis, meaning a speculative and unprovable idea. In science, theories are
well supported explanations. A theory means that it is a model capable of
being tested by experiment or observation, and able to predict future
observations of the same kind. It’s based on a careful and rational
examination of the facts. Calling something a “theory” is a good thing not a
bad thing in science. So if someone says that evolution is only a theory, ask them
if they know what a scientific theory actually is? It’s still called a theory
because it’s still subject to examination and confirmation. We have the
theory of relativity, and the theory of gravity too, which are also very robust
theories. One distinction should be made here when people say that evolution
cannot explain how life started. That is absolutely correct. But that’s not the
purpose of the theory of evolution. Evolution only works on populations of
living organisms. How life first started is called abiogenesis. And it is not well
understood yet, like evolution is. I made a video about it if you want to know
more about it. Then there’s the statement, “if we evolved from monkeys, why are there
still monkeys?” First, we did not evolve from monkeys. We didn’t even evolve from
chimpanzees or gorillas. Rather, evolution shows that we share a common ancestor
that lived probably around ten million years ago. This ancestor was not a
chimpanzee or gorilla but just a common ancestor of all modern apes, including us!
Go back further, about 25 million years ago, and this common ancestor of ours,
shared a common ancestor with modern monkeys that live in Africa and Asia
today. So that 25 million year old ancestor is our ancestor too. In fact, if
you go back far enough, all living things on earth have a common ancestor. We’re
even related to all plants, mushrooms, and bacteria. Now we get to the commonly held
idea that the laws of thermodynamics, namely entropy, disprove evolution. the
idea here is that evolution cannot be correct because it defies a fundamental
law of physics, that entropy or disorder increases over time, whereas complex life
appears to be a drive towards more and more order. Astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe famously told a court in 1981, “the chances that life just occurred are
about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and
ding a Boeing 747.” This proves that even highly intelligent science educated
people can totally misunderstand and mischaracterize evolution. A slightly
better analogy would be something like this: Start with a million junkyards. Put
a tornado through each. Exhaustively test the wreckage left after each tornado to
find the most flight worthy object. Make a million exact copies of that flight
worthy object and junkyard combination. Put another million tornadoes through it.
Run exhaustive tests to determine the most flight worthy object. Make a million
more copies of the junkyard and flight worthy object. And keep doing this over
and over, millions of times until you produce some kind of machine that can
fly. It could be very simple and crude. Then make millions of copies of that, and
further refine for flight worthiness. And keep doing this over and over for
millions of years. You will end up with something that might be even more flight
worthy than a Boeing 747… if the evolutionary driver is flight
worthiness. If you pick even the simplest bacterial life today and calculate the
odds of getting their genome by randomly shuffling DNA sequences, the odds are
astronomically small. But random shuffling is not the way evolution works.
The idea of entropy applies to closed systems. Put crudely, a closed system
where matter and energy are conserved, gets more disorderly over time. The earth
is not a closed system. The Sun is spraying it with huge amounts
of energy every day. This energy is driving the thermodynamics of the earth.
Overall entropy is increasing of the closed system that contains the earth
and the Sun. But this does not mean that pockets of lowering entropy cannot exist.
Your refrigerator is a prime example. The food inside is getting cooler, and it’s
entropy is decreasing. But if you feel the vents outside that refrigerator,
you’ll find that it’s heating up your house. The entropy of your whole house, if
it was a closed system, would be increasing. To understand evolution, you
need to appreciate three things. First, that quadrillion to 1
chances actually happen all the time. Second, that while mutation is random,
which mutations survive is not random. It is a systematic process that results
in adaptations over time, influenced by environmental factors. And thirdly, given
enough time, the accumulation of one beneficial mutation after another can
produce amazingly complex systems. Although the present-day observational
results of evolution can appear to be impossible, it’s a process that given
enough time and influenced by selection and other environmental pressures, can
make the impossible extremely likely. For the past 160 years, scientists have
tested this theory every imaginable way – from field studies, to fossil studies, to
computer modeling, with every imaginable organism. Each new test has only added to
the already overwhelming body of evidence to support this theory. There’s
not a single piece of credible evidence to disprove it. There’s not really much
in science that is as well proven. Famous French Jesuit priest and philosopher,
Pierre de Chardin, said This is where surfshark is
a savior. Surfshark is a VPN service that makes online privacy protection
easy. Surfshark encrypts all Internet traffic sent to and from your devices,
and ensures that your IP address remains hidden, to make sure nobody sees what you do online. So for example, the Internet knows a lot about you. Think about the
information that’s on your computer right now. When you send your passwords,
name, social security number, birth date, etc., you need to make sure that this
information is encrypted. You can do that through Surfshark’s secure VPN tunnel.
Now here’s another neat thing that you can do – if you live outside the USA, say
the UK, and you have Netflix, you don’t have access to the full suite of movies
and shows available in the USA. Likewise, in the USA, you don’t have access to shows available abroad. You can even get better prices on
airline tickets in many cases, because the same tickets are often cheaper in
other countries. With surf shark you can access any country to stream from, no
matter where you are. Click on the link in the description right now because
surf shark has an incredible deal Again many thanks to Surfshark. And if
you like this video please share it with your friends and leave a question or
comment. I try to answer every question. I’ll see you in the next video my friend!

100 Replies to “How does evolution really work? Do monkeys and thermodynamics disprove it?”

  1. Thank you for making this video @ArvinAsh !! It answered my main question about why we haven't found the "missing link" yet. From what I gather, it's because we didn't evolve directly from Chimps and apes but we have a common ancestor. That's where I was getting confused. You explain things so well! Keep up the good work 🙂

  2. Great vid. THis explains a lot about the sub-population of early man who left their ancestral homeland and encountered new evolutionary pressures and so natural selection "steered" evolution into a different direction than back on the home continent where the conditions had been identical for millions of years (like the American alligator). Add to that mix that it was only that group of early humans that left the ancestral continent who interbred with neandertals and only then – in a remarkably short period of time after the interbreeding – did civilization arise. And back on the ancestral homeland civilization never arose – because it was the same ancient genes that never evolved because no new evolutionary pressures existed and no new genetic material was being introduced by interbreeding with a different species. I read several books by Dennet and Dawkins and they explain and expand on this much better than I have done. But it is very interesting to be able to see how us humans are really no different than other species when talking about evolution and the way that different sub-species can arise and branch off.

  3. Actually the problem with your claim that "small" chances of evolutionary "lotery" winners, is enough, it isnt, because it still fades in the face of probability/entropy. Again this takes us back to the Emergence Theory where complexity emerges naturally through mathematical laws or "algorithms" embeded in nature. Not by anyone in particular but its just a phenomena in itself that drives evolution and other states of matter. This seems to be the reorganizing "force". Hegel would probably argue that "God" in itself isnt conscious and is atemporal but that he becomes conscious through us, meaning if knowledge is a bottomless well, there is a veiled link between matter and the timeless dimension of mathematics. Paradoxically, no-space/no-time = no-thing. That is acording to our limited understanding of the world. Perhaps God is dead, but he needs us to be alive or be aware of himself. Perhaps the emergence theory and drive towards more complex life forms is the "will" but a positive one, as evolution shows the goal maybe an evolution of mind, striving towards the "big mind" the actualization in living form of the atemporal all inclusive all knowledge/dead/"god"mind. Analogous to a inert/dead seed containing all information and then coming to life and becoming a tree. When i say God its just a metaphore for the unknown "it". We are "better" than a tuna in this video, because we are more complex, thats a fact. We need to do away with the "better" means more likely to survive. That may not be what "better" means.

  4. A typical Religious persons argument for why evolution isn't real is that we are so much more intelligent than 'monkeys' that we couldn't have possibly come from them..
    You need to look at why we are intelligent- We are smart because we developed effective ways of communication and complex languages. A human with no input is almost brain dead, dumber than any animal, but with input we can far exceed the intelligence of any animal by a huge margin .
    Why did we need to develop our brains so much? Because we are relatively defenceless physically, most wild animals can kill us in unarmed combat, not to mention the elements! Then evolution learned… "hey there are a lot of benefits to this intelligence thing, let's pursue it further!"
    Intelligence also allows us to experience a higher form of consciousness as we can string together more complex thoughts, like writing bibles or even discovering evolution itself!

  5. In the beginning we were all fish okay, swimming around in the water, and then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby. And the retard baby was different so it got to live. So retard fish goes on and make more retard babies. And then one day a retard baby fish crawled oud of the ocean with it's mutand fish hands and it had butsex with a squirrel or something and made this, retard frog squirrel. And then that had a retard baby which was a monkey fish frog. And then this monkey fish frog had butsex with that monkey and then that monkey had an other retard baby, screwed an other monkey and that made YOU!

  6. One example of a questionable evolutionary proof is the galapagos lizard. It was discovered that two populations had a difference

    Darwin's theory should have intermediary examples of how the gut changes progressed but it seems sudden rapid evolution took place with a fully functional difference with no non functional progression.

    The airplane example but fully functional wings appear with no intermediary fossils.

    How do we account for sudden explosions like the Cambrian.

    Possibly the link showing a progressive change was not documented or discovered.

    But if a mutation is not functional in its intermediary phase what mechanisms allow natural selection to take place.

  7. No matter how many evolution videos i watch. I still dont understand all of it. If the mammoth developed a coat from living in an environment that needed one for millions of years, how did it survive for millions of years without it? And was an elephant miraculously born with fur??

  8. One of the best video on youtube about evolution. The impact you made on Science part of Youtube is fascinating. Thank you sir.

  9. If people only knew the ward “theory” in science it’s not just a theory, It’s facts and evidence gather together to create a theory, there is nothing higher than theory in science.

  10. Viewers should also watch Arvin's video on Abiogenesis ( to differentiate b/w Origin of life and Evolution.

  11. This comment doesn't relate to this particular video but why is our universe not considered a whitehole i searched about comparison in the internet and couldn't find much, one article says that bcoz unlike whitehole the universe doesn't have a singularity but wasn't our big bang a singularity, wouldn't it explain the age old question of why our universe had such low entropy to start with. Also just like whitehole we have a cosmic event horizon from where space is receding faster than the speed of light….. so isn't it possible that we are living inside a whitehole…… What are ur thoughts regarding this? 🤔

  12. Fitness is just about getting more children that again make more children. Theory of Evolution is basically – those who live today are those who are children of individuals that managed to make kids in the past. Now, the added thing is that as the environment changes, some animals and individuals won't make children and will die out. Those who manage to make children will have their genes passed on. Its pretty self evident really.

    The exact way genes are changing and what exact factors are involved in making the children different from their parents is where there is anything of scientific interest to behold. And the theory of evolution doesn't really say much about the mechanisms here.

  13. There are many problems in the evolution theory, often it doesn't work like we thought, anyway it doesn't work like Darwin described. Such overconfidence in what is but a theory, much more confidence even than in general relativity, is a symptom of bad science. We can have full confidence only in facts, a theory isn't a fact because it can never been proven.

  14. 8:20 So let me get this straight

    Its not possible to revive dead organisms, even recently dead and intact organisms with guiding intelligence.
    But it's possible for a living organism to come into being, from a bunch of dead parts, by happenstance?

  15. Why do we have so many different life forms on this planet?
    When we go to an assembly plant of a complex product, do we se only final product or we see several parts, subassembly lines and final assembly lines then you will have your product. Life is much more complicated process but you can compare it with product assembly line. Same with software, you have many layers to it until it brakes down to binary codes. But life is a limited part of the evolution process. This planet is designed for life and life is designed for consciousness.
    Evolution of space/matter/energy and it’s consciousness is our universe.

  16. Our universe is a dynamic process, every movement there are energy losses. Due to these energy losses obviously there is a fundamental form. Whether we call it dark matter/energy or space it’s up to you. That’s why science doesn’t understand the quantum world. Ultimately everything breaks down to space whether it is atom, light or any other form of energy. But this is just one side of the coin on the other side something else is happening and life is part of this process, where consciousness is evolving.

  17. We are conscious enough to question the existence but not conscious enough to understand it. Humans have created money and time, created a world as time is money, getting lost in this madness. But universe is created for consciousness. Space,energy, matter is gaining consciousness. Life is a part of this process. This planet is part of this process. With out conscious energy nothing comes to existence. This is a dynamic process there are energy losses at one side and evolution of consciousness in different forms on the other side. We have to stop misusing the resources of our planet which suppose to be used to create and support life.

  18. Evolution of space/matter/energy and it’s consciousness is our universe.
    Our current lifestyle is not aligned with our universe. It’s time to understand about our true nature and what role we are playing in this evolution process of our universe. We are good at taking different identities, even for tiny differences. Our modern science and religions are part of the same reality but their perspective and knowledge is different, they are not completely wrong but also not completely right. It’s time to fill those gaps and understand the truth about our universe and educate this world. Our planet Mother Earth is designed to create and support life, we should stop misusing the resources of our planet.

  19. Just being picky:
    The weight of all humans (of one single species) = 10^11 kg should be compared to the weight of one single species of insect or one single species of bacterium.
    But I do get your point.

  20. 6:10 be careful my friend that's not true and very very very naïve thing to say… You gotta read more in Philosophy of Science. You are here getting yourself into the problem of induction! It's not able to predict, it's the best we have but not necessarily able to predict you'll only have a cyclical logic dilemma if you attempt to make such statement and go further more…

  21. Excellent video on the topic! All too often I'm confronted with people – my students with a certain, religiously biased cultural background – claiming evolution was merely a theory.
    What I liked most of all in this video is your way, how the popular junkyard to jumbo jet analogy has to be put correctly.

  22. Here's the BIG question to Mr. Ash…..Does the Theory of Evolution leave room for GOD? Or put another way; can one believe in the Old Testament's Creator and yet still reconcile Darwin's Theory? I'll bet you have some interesting ideas about this one.

  23. I'm not an intelligent design believer, but it boggles my mind how animals evolved over millions of years to be able to fly. Even though they would have been flightless until the end product. Or how blind orchids evolved to imitate a particular wasp. Ect.

  24. idk if you read these comments, but one thing you said seems off to me:

    Random mutations are a random process, and they do drive natural selection (as there would be nothing to select for without mutations, assuming we're not talking about epigenetics). The selection process however is non random because what is better or worse in an environment is measurable and deterministic.

    Sorry I just didnt like your phrasing. Maybe Im wrong here. I don't think natural selection drives mutation, mutations don't care about the selection process.

  25. Really good video, I think that the channel is one of the best channels on science topics, I'm always happy when a new video appears

  26. Evolution is a politically correct word, the real word is "adaptation". Evolution is about adaptation. The reason why "adaptation" is disliked by the scientific community is because unlike evolution, adaptation is omnidirectional, it can go in both directions. You have to look at it from the physicist's perspective where there is no place for ideology or emotion

  27. “ we are far more intelligent that what is needed to survive and reproduce “. Does that mean in the future our intelligence can decrease, since it is over the top?

  28. If evolution happens at the population level, then did humans and apes really have a single common ancestor? Or do we share a population of ancestors?

  29. Science is a tool. There is another tool and it is in the toolbox, with all of the other tools! How many tools are in the tool box? Science does not know! Evolution is a tool for product and adaptation, which requires a tool box. Evolution is missing some tools, and this is Observable when viewing Egyptian Pyramids And The Granite Sarcophagi engineering. Which is beyond human capability even in the 21st Century. If evolution is the complete Genesis, then somehow Crocodiles, Turtles, Rhinoceroses, And, other such prehistoric creatures were Not susceptible to continuous Evolutionary processes. The comparison is directly related to Unexplainable Pyramid Engineering And Unexplainable Prehistoric creatures of all types. Evolutionary Theory is not in any shape or form a complete toolbox on it’s own! And I will take some convincing about the prevailing Scientific paradigm, as conveying omnipotence about it!

  30. Lols. Evolution theory cannot predict how long exactly a change from one specie to the next specie, that is because it can't. Adaptation is inherent to living things to be able to live long enough to pass their genes. A big hole in evolution theory is the Cambrian Explosion. You mentioned in one bit of a second, that the odds for having the variety of life as we know it today is impossible, yet you follow it up with "given enough time"… but how much time actually? By this alone, macro evolution is a myth base on faith and cannot be proven. Those who are holding onto this fantasy must not be scientists, for science only favors testable theories backed by evidence. Then we have other issues of irreducible complexity and paradox of enrichment, all of which evolutionist cannot get around to. There are overwhelming evidence as to why macro evolution is just false.

  31. none sense , ; There is no Blind chance , No blind coincidence. DNA a Code , Information and Purpose is from Intelligent Being . There is no Single Transitional Fossil THAT AGREES WITH Evolution. ! All fossils Proved instant and sudden 1 Creation ; ( The Cambrian explosion ) . . GOD Almighty The – Supreme Exists ! Science Refuted Darwinism ; a completely none sense . Complex Protein :

  32. So isnt the way we live as humans today (keeping the worser repoducers alive) very bad for our human race? Looking at it from an evolution standpoint?

  33. What experiments, other than thought experiments, have been done to test various portions of the theory? Shouldn't we see several species in the middle of an evolutionary forking right now?
    I'm not a scientist, and was until now misinformed about the definition of theory. Please be kind and helpful in responding.

  34. Nice try. I admire what you've tried to. Unfortunately most of what you presented is poorly argued, imprecise, or incorrect. One example: You defined "theory" as an argument that is "well supported." No definition of the word theory includes anything about "well supported." A theory may be right, wrong, accepted, or not. It's still a theory. Exposing the logical fallacy of the arguments would have equipped people to think more clearly. Presenting correct definitions would have helped them understand and communicate.

  35. Im no scientist, and im not religious whatsoever, so i must admit my ignorance before stating my disagreement with fitness vs progress. I guess my question is, how are those two things different? One of the biggest mysteries to me is how we go from a single cell organism to me and you, who can ponder the stars. From a certain viewpoint, that is progress, no? Anything that moves towards a better chance at survival and reproduction is effectively progress is it not? Wouldn’t the ultimate survival trait be that of rationale, therefore it only makes sense we “progressed” or “adapted” to the point of humanity?

  36. 4:50 You could have also used Sharks as your example here – the modern Great White has been around around 11 million years. 👍

  37. Protein a miracle of GOD , Intelligent Being Design and for a purpose; No blind chance or Blind Coincedence

  38. I've always wondered if one had a can of paint with two different colors poured into it so it needed to be mixed to be a uniform color, if you could keep mixing forever would there ever be a time when it came back to its original separation of colors?….. and would this be an example of entropy?

  39. I have a wild thought. Can a species mutate randomly and become a previous form.
    Full circle back to the initial common ancestor?

    Plant evolve to bacteria?

  40. Arvin, I’m not a evolution denier but I can’t imagine how animals evolved to have bones. Why don’t we see new species evolving to have bones now?

  41. Good day, I would like to ask if there are multicelled organisms that have short life spans and we can induce them evolution through experiments?

  42. Evolution is impossible. The sequence of nucleotide bases is specific to each species and is the instructions for creating that species. Randomly changing the nucleotide base sequence will only produce malformed organisms and death. It won't produce a new and different animal. These nucleotide base sequences that are the instructions for creating animals are from the mind of a genius.

  43. The one thing I disagree with is the Earth not being enclosed. Earths ecosystem has life sustaining atmospheric particles, noble gases, and etc that help facilitate our living environment. Space is a near perfect vacuum with very few particles per square centimeters. As you climb the Earths atmosphere there become fewer typical atmospheric particles that sustain life. High above leaving the fine tuned atmospheric sustaining environment, theres pressure between the Earth and space. Theres must also be natural hard boundaries to keep the vastness of a near infinite vacuum from obliterating Earths ecosystem in which living organisms thrive. Space while expanding, itself has no life sustaining atmosphere. With very few, near to no particles per square centimeter. Be There is a plasmaspheric hiss barrier 7200 miles above and around in radius that stops highly radioactive killer electrons traveling at near light speed. Not to mention the vacuum of space has to be stopped by something inorder for us to be here. I get certain very excited particles can travel through other forms of matter or barriers in a transference. But that may mean they weren't designed to upset the enclosed Earth system as they pass through.

    We experience entropy within Earths ecosystem; people as they age bodies reach entropy in life and death. Governments rise and fall. Seasons come and go. Particles pop in to existence and decay. Theoretically space is reaching entropy as it expands and time moves forward. If so, systems must be sub to a larger. Fine tuned sperate individualized within relational collective systems in which entropy acts uniformly.

  44. And that's the meaning of life, reproduction. The question then be comes does your reproduction have meaning ?
    only if you're successful…

  45. You have not convince me.

    You push under the rug the most important part; there is not enough time to explain the influence of mutations on the process of natural selection.

    Considere this: the human DNA consist of a chain of 3.2 billions pair of nucleotides intelligently organised in a compact form.

    And this would have to have evoluate in less than 5 billions years (if we consider the first billion year on earth as inappropriate for life).

    3.2 billions nucleotides intelligently shuffled in 5 billions years?

    That's a bit hard to imagine!

    Not to take into account that nature also had to create the 4 bases that constitute the nucleotides, the histones, and a complex protected environnement called the primitive cell before it could even begin to organise the DNA, and many other stuff contain in a living cell also.

    Even if I grant you the cell and a primitive set of DNA already form.

    You would still need to have at least 3.2 millions different species of cell, each containing a strand of 1000 nucleotides within there DNA, evolving independently in separate environment, to somehow get to ressemble a section of human DNA.

    Then somehow they would have to combined together in a meaningfull way without disturbing what's already there to form some kind of primitive man ancester.

    And from there, it would still have to continue to mutate for 10 millions year to give us.

    Are you joking?

    That's a little more complicated than the Rubik's cube.

    If you want to convince me, you got to do better than that.

    Natural selection is easy to understand. Man has used that process to create most canine breed, and most of our fruits and vegetebals. But no mutation is involve. We don't rewrite the code. We only select which genes are express.

    If mutations and natural selection produced man, it would have to be nothing less than a miracle.

  46. Tortured. You disproved evolution at every turn. E. g.:' Entropy doesn't apply to the Earth' but it applies to the universe. You are lost and don't realize this fact. So disappointing.

  47. I am a creationist myself and I appreciate the educational videos you provide. This one is very informative and without videos like these I would be unable to argue my case. I saw your video about abiogenesis and I will just say that maybe something like that could happen by chance, however, it seems strange to me that a ribosome (or at least something simpler that does its job) along with it’s corresponding part in the DNA/RNA would appear at the same time, as it would have to ,as well as transport proteins, in order to produce any other protein. Can that happen by chance? Maybe. But what about reproduction? It would need at least a few other proteins/enzymes/etc. encoded in the DNA/RNA such as at least some to make the different nucleotides, some to assemble them together, and some to allow the cell to reproduce. Also, the DNA/RNA would need some sort of protective sheath in order to maintain genetic information once it does reproduces as well as something to repair damaged DNA/RNA. And wouldn’t the first cells have to gain genetic information somehow in order to differentiate? How would this occur? When would the cell go from being solar powered, to ATP powered? This is also contrary to cell theory which states that cells can only arise from other cells. Regarding evolution, by what means could, or would cause a sea creature to be motivated to differentiate into a land dwelling, and especially a flying organism after becoming a land dweller. What benefit , and how would a prokaryotic cell to differentiate into a eukaryotic organism? Isn’t there evidence suggesting that we are actually losing genetic information? If so, why would we have gained genetic information in the past? Do you think it is at all possible that a “Swiss army knife” protein (or a few proteins) could be coded to do all these things to begin with? And if not by abiogenesis, how would the first cell arise otherwise? I think the advent of quantum computers could be used to ultimately to answer many of these questions in the not-so-distant future, but in the mean time, I would appreciate your input into any or all of the questions. And again thanks for the information you provide!

    Additionally, I would like to point out that the quote from the Jesuit priest is an argument from authority, and personal, I don’t identify a Jesuit as being particularly trustworthy.

  48. I think evolution is a slow stupid process, the most adaptable mutation amongst huge numbers of species survives, to describe human evolution – the living organisms branched into two one that absorbed energy like algae which had less energy init per single organism, so other cells which wanted more energy started to devour algae to have high energy in them, so to gain more energy they became animals they had to move around to eat more plants, when more animals increased they had to cordinate the acess to more food, so evolution of brain was inevitable, so we became animals with brains and a large brain had more acess to food and reproduction, the evolution of brain would have happened with amphibians, also with reptiles, or moluscs infact, only due to solar disturbances like asteroid hits volcanoes, ice ages gave way to humans, a lucky chance otherwise squids would have eaten our ancestors and no humans!!

  49. Even we get mutation in our somatic and germline cells .twins studied showed that there brains harbour different mutations known as somatic mutations.
    We are changing for many million years.

  50. I am a physicist ,this video contains many errors
    happy to see you mother fish,grandfather monkey 😂😂😂😂🙂

  51. Thanks for another excellent video. A nice follow up might be one on genes themselves and gene expression. From what I learned the genetic evolution is much more refined than just simple copy-mutate-select. For instances genes can change after birth and then be passed on to the offspring, meaning that the experience of an individual can be passed on on some sort of fast track. At least so I learned years ago on Radiolab. Again, a 2019 video on this would be fascinating! Thanks again Arvin + team!

  52. The changes are not random. Environmental changes cause different hormones and other chemical production over rime it pushes dna copying to make changes to specific chromosomes.

  53. We know all living organisms made up of atoms, But also we know well about wave form and energy form and other forms of existence of something in universe. My question is if living thing on earth like any others in any others form ??

  54. I don't agree with the tornado theory eventually building machines. Apart from that, its a good explanation, and he carefully avoids mentioning God. Our understanding of God needs to be clarified and defined.

  55. Salute to you sir. We would have a much more rational earth population if everybody had the deep insights like you.

  56. Hi Arvin, does the evolution stop for the species if they got adapted well to its environment or does it continue to evolve.

  57. So a weight of a species determines its “success?” I don’t understand why you think we aren’t the most successful species on the planet? Just because we can’t breathe underwater? Please explain why you believe humans are not the most successful…

  58. Sorry but i find several contradictions in topic :
    Why would elephant have to grow have in a cold environnement if its already living there in several generations ?
    Why would you say the natural selection have goal for surviving and adapting when 99% of its mutations are harmful .
    If 99% of those mutation arent the results of natural selection so how do you know the difference , if there is .
    Its impossible that there wasent any environnement change in 8m,y .Still you say that he stayed the same . So how can you say that a creature change or not when the environnement is still changing ?
    We are clearly the most superior species when we can creat and using tools to live in evey environnement , and its matter of time that we would have the biggest biomasse .
    There tones of others questions and contradictions and evolution is far to be more convincing theory like gravity laws .

  59. Do you think there is more to evolution than natural selection? I'm somewhat of a believer that life experiences influence changes in the genome in the next generation, which is why I've been fascinated by epigenetics since I first heard of it. I still dont know a lot about it but it seems like a very fascinating idea and something I always kind of suspected.

  60. Interesting, this video starts by using language to persuade rather than inform. Actually it is making the opposite point. At about 3:25 he states, “Mutations are random but driven by a non random process called natural selection”. Therefore natural selection is either random or natural selection is God. It is self evident or circular to say Natural selection is random and natural!

Leave a Reply

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