These Scientific Papers Destroy Evolution

Here are the studies mentioned: phe.rockefeller.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Sto… phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-e… www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S007…

I was a member of this Institute before 30years ago. I admire your program .God bless you !!

Got to love how every one of the papers they cited clearly supports evolution (with the first literally being published in a journal called Human Evolution ) and yet they still pretend that questions about the mechanisms and extent of evolution are enough to undermine the best-supported theory in all of biology.

The deeper they go into the building blocks of life the more complicated those building blocks become.

"If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along." C Sagan

Great video! But... The first study seems to disagree? Haven't read the study yet, but they write the following in the header: "Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years. This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or "Eve". We do not propose any catastrophic events. "

“Evolution’s dead. Evolution’s dead, Dave. Evolution’s dead.” - - Red Dwarf pilot episode

I'm curious. From the paper ". Several convergent lines of evidence show that mitochondrial diversity in modern humans follows from sequence uniformity followed by the accumulation of largely neutral diversity during a population expansion that began approximately 100,000 years ago. " Doesn't this 100,000 years time period conflict with the Bible's 6,000 year old world or do we ignore that part of the research paper?

Today the pastors are about tithing and being popular, it’s sad that they have set aside the power of the word or of God. Thanks for sharing.

It would appear many people have left comments without listening as extensive reasons and scientific studies were mentioned. But not everyone is comfortable with open discussion and evidence.

Quick question - if any scientists have actually debunked/destroyed evolution then where is their Nobel Prize? I understand that there is much peer review when it comes to scientific Nobel Prizes - or even ground-breaking scientific discoveries of any kind - so what kind of time frame are we looking at for this important news to change evolutionary theory as we currently know it?

As shown by your own link to their paper, Stoeckle and Thaler emphatically disagree with this misinterpretation of their research. They added a comment to their paper: Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.

Forgive me if I missed something, but I'm still confused about COI barcoding. It makes sense to me that it's useful to identify a species, but how is it used to date them? And how do they come up with a 100,000-200,000 year age for almost all the species they examined? That overshoots the creation model by quite a bit. Is there a creation science explanation for this discrepancy?

I find that one of the most compelling arguments against the idea of an intelligent designer (i.e. God) who created all the species as they are is the way the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve looks like in different animals. The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve connects the brain with the muscles of the larynx. In humans it does so by going from the brain down to the chests, looping around the heart and going all the way back up again to the larynx. Why that big detor? The theory of evolution can give a perfectly conclusive explanation for this. In fish the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve connects the brain to the gills by also looping around the heart, but in fish that is in fact the shortest route. When fish went on land and evolved into amphibians they grew a neck and their gill arches turned into the larynx. A truly intelligent designer would have scrapped his old design from the fish, toss out the looping around the heart path and connect the nerve directly from brain to larynx. But that's not how evolution works. Unless there is sufficient evolutionary pressure the process of evolution never goes back and changes existing structures. Making the nerve just a bit longer is not enough of a disadvantage to do so. So that's what happened. All the way up to the giraffe, whose brain is 6 feet (1,8 meter) removed from the heart so this nerve has to be twice that long to go all the way down to the chest and then all the way back up again to reach their voice box. Intelligent design proponents can give no explanation for this insanity, except "God works in mysterious ways".

I'm reading the articles, but I'm very much afraid of the third one, since the authors say "We propose an equation, modeled after the Drake equation, to stimulate thought about evolution probabilities...", and if it is actually like Drake's equation, then it's simple a product of many terms P = p1*p1*p3*...*pn, and usually when dealing with statistics we tend to use more rigorous aproaches such as Bayesian statistics, also I can not actually read the performed calculations neither the data since the arcicle is a paid article, but I'm compelled to pay for it in order to verify it's validity I'm also concerned with the first paper as it clearly states at the top "Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years." and "This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or "Eve". We do not propose any catastrophic events." I will read the article now after writting it, but I may note that it is extremelly suspecious that, even though the current version of the article indeed says the mentioned above, right at the top of the first page, but the image shown during 4:18, so, either you are using an older version of the paper, or either you are being extremely dishonest and trying to hide it, I hope that it is the first option, but now as I said, I will read the actuall article And as for the second article, I still didn't raead it, so I'll do it after reading the previous mentioned and test analyse it

The paper your referring Called “ Why mitochondria defines species” states at the top: Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years. This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or “Eve” or catastrophic event, so where in the article does it show the Biblical creation story

I would even say Darwinian Evolution isn't dead, because it was never alive to begin with. i.e something can't be dead if it never lived.

Public education did its best to convince me that Darwin and evolution was true. However, before I even became a born again Christian I found evolution to be unscientific and ridiculous. In High School Biology class I recall my teacher giving a brief summary of how the universe and life began and he made no mention of God. I raised my hand and asked him about where God fits in and he mumbled a bit and said something like well: we can't talk about that in class. Wow, what an eye-opener that was for a teenager to hear.

At the 5.29 mark you state the study said there was no inter genetic relationship among species as you would expect with the Darwinian model. But this talk on your channel: https://youtu.be/HHfvfgjTLDk?si=XpDC5ECe6UejUPI- says at the 17.51 mark that there is an 84% similarity in DNA between humans and chimps/apes which he goes on to further explain it is impossible to evolve a human from an ape, you'd need 99% similarity. Can you please explain are you both saying the same thing because the first talk says there is no similarity.

I do not need evidence, but it's always nice to be supported in our belief ;-)