To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Sprouts/ . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.

@pyeitme508

Жыл бұрын

Meh 😑

@sprouts

Жыл бұрын

@@pyeitme508 artists got to eat.

@samuelguzman5348

Жыл бұрын

There's an apparent contradiction in your statements. Concerning the "real life" example of the moths, at 3:58 you said that the darker ones were "less prevalent", which you then at 4:38 attributed to "random genetic mutations" as per the Darwinian evolutionary presumption. How can that possibly be, if the dark moth was already in existence as attested by your previous statement? The "problem" of the chicken and the egg only becomes a "problem" within evolutionary biology. It's not a problem for us creationists, who believe that God created the chicken, a variation within the "bird" kind, with the "seed" within itself (in wisely designed complex reproduction systems) so it could "be fruitful and multiply".. yet the chicken still needs the rooster to fertilize her eggs in order to produce chicks... Hard for me to simply believe that this was a "process" of "random" chance and mutations.. God bless.

@smgdfcmfah

Жыл бұрын

@@samuelguzman5348 You're missing the fact that just because one moth is more successful and become more prevalent, it doesn't mean the other kind will necessarily vanish completely. In many cases a new evolutionary line will completely replace the old one by simply out performing it, but in others it will become a new sub-species where the original version still exists but may not be quite as common as the new, more successful one. This is the case with the moths where the white ones were more common until the environment changed extremely quickly and the black ones were suddenly more successful. This reversed again in an even shorter period when human's reversed the environmental damage. I won't spend one moment arguing your faith with you, but I will say that you can believe in God and still believe in evolution.

@alive_twicedead_once34

Ай бұрын

Life only comes from life.

Darwin's ideas weren't actually formed in a vacuum. Breeding of certain traits has always been part of farming, and in Darwin's time pigeon breeding in particular was a fad among the rich - they'd breed pigeons with extra-long necks, or extra-fluffy feathers or whatnot. The leap Darwin made was that the same process could happen naturally, without a human breeder's intervention.

@1wun1

Жыл бұрын

All humans could see this process in nature too, and the unmistakable resemblance between humans and other primates. Darwin went farther with the speciation and common ancestry ideas.

@immortallegend648

Жыл бұрын

Darwin also theorized that Africans were less evolved than their white counterparts. I personally reject the whole premise of evolution opposed to natural design.

@pmsteamrailroading

Жыл бұрын

Also about this time other branches of science noticed the world could not be only 6000 years old. The ideas of evolution had been presented before, but 6000 years would not have been enough time. When people understood how old the world really was, evolution became accepted. (Except in some parts of the US)

@MarkUKInsects

Жыл бұрын

Quite right! and Darwin's 1st chapter was "Variation under domestication".

@grahamrogers3345

5 ай бұрын

Common descent of all living things is not supported by anything presented here.

You managed to condense the history of the theory the concept and an interesting example including human interference that sticks into 5 minutes! The visualization was just wonderful and i paused several times to enjoy the drawings that made me smirk. Thank you Sprouts!

@sprouts

Жыл бұрын

Thank you ❤️

You need a sensitive content warning. I had to cover my rabbit's eyes during one of those scenes. 🐰 🙈🙉🙊 😎

@sprouts

11 ай бұрын

Oh no!

@ashketchumismystudent780

8 күн бұрын

🤣🤣

Love the artwork for these videos

@sprouts

Жыл бұрын

Glad you like them! :)

Genetics is definitely complex, but I feel the concepts of genetics such as natural selection can be easily understood by someone like me. Biochemistry, physics, and other highly abstract sciences just go right over my head.

@spongebombepicpants1073

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/nK11tqdyg9fIe5s.html

Super cute characters! Love them very much.♥

@sprouts

Жыл бұрын

Thanks! 🐰

The answer to the chicken/egg problem is egg. Ancient reptiles (such as, ya know, dinosaurs) evolved far earlier than chickens. Nice questions to get that sweet viewer interaction!

@ravi.tiwari.

Жыл бұрын

It should be dinosaur/egg problem

These drawings are super hilarious😂😂😂welldone.

I like this topic explanation and illustration.

Great work Thank you

@spongebombepicpants1073

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/nK11tqdyg9fIe5s.html

This video and the Dark triad video just explains realism in humans. We are still animals.

@creativityking4649

Жыл бұрын

True 🙃

Good job explaining Darwin's theory in such a concise matter!

Welp Charles Darwin did think of the Survival of the Fittest theory stuff🤣😂

@IBTU

Жыл бұрын

What have you done expect be a troll😂

@pyeitme508

Жыл бұрын

​@@IBTU it's except 🙄

@IBTU

Жыл бұрын

@@pyeitme508🎉 here is a congratulations on figuring something out

@MarkUKInsects

Жыл бұрын

He is nearly correct, look at Larmark

Awesome videos

@sprouts

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Wasn’t the whole species fixation thing, a Greek idea and not a biblical one? Like I’ve noticed a lot of the beliefs held by the early Roman Catholic Church, were Greek in origin.

@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana

Жыл бұрын

The Catholic Church ⭕⛪ has its own de facto scripture, so...

I actually want to see the videos because of the attractive illustrations. Great contents, though 🎉

I saw what you draw in the rabbit comic panel

After the man returned home after 5 years his wife had found other natural selection

great vid

Well presented and an excellent video that explains natural selection. - I liked that it also included mutations that just made changes to appearance with no actual benefit +/- to the survival in the environment. Attracting mates is also vital. In humans these days the whole theory becomes very complicated. - My opinion on the chicken and egg. There has to be the production of the zygote first. Or there will be no egg. So, for me the initial dinosaur line started millions of years ago...and the creation of dinosaurs goes back even further...so this is first, and the eggs followed. zygote cell Written and fact-checked by Last Updated: Article History Ascaris lumbricoides Ascaris lumbricoides See all media Related Topics: prenatal development human reproductive system zygospore auxospore zygote, fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm). In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells.

@tschorsch

Жыл бұрын

That's not the chicken and the egg problem because those weren't chickens. Actually, it's not a problem, but a misunderstanding of the meaning of species because no ancestor would have been considered a different species from its immediate offspring.

This episode should have a follow up on how natural selection and survival of the fittest were perverted into the ideology of Social Darwinism.

This is what I wish I had in my 7th grade textbook instead of A VIDEO FOR 2ND GRADERS

An interesting article I read as a kid claimed that perhaps humans originally had only dark hair and dark eyes, new colours (like in your rabbit example) emerged when there was deficit of reproductive partners in population. Article theorized that so many men died hunting, blondes had a greater chance of having kids due to being more distinct in a crowd of brunettes.

Note that this does not mean "survival of the strongest." For example, it is perfectly possible for an animal to exist which is larger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more heavily armed than a bear. However, it would most likely also need more food, reproduce more slowly, have more existential crises, and injure itself in accidents more often than a bear. Evidently, the trade off doesn't always favor bigger number = more fit.

The Movie "Idiocrocy" shows how in modern sense this can be a big problem with humans. The super smart people go on to invent, stay busy and have little to no kids, but the dumb, good looking chads have a bunch of kids soon outpacing the smart ones. We still have our monkey brains and in blind test men and women still like looks over ability/smart.

So... where is the mutation? All I heard was moths with particular coloring survived and passed their genetic traits. They existed before and didn't spontaneously manifest.

@KARAIsaku

5 ай бұрын

I agree. Natural selection occurs of course. However, random mutations that are believed to provide genetic material for evolution, are a huge problem for the theory, since they are either harmful or just neutral (don't do anything). Genetic illnesses and cancer are prominent examples of harmful mutations.

"Survival of The Fittest" is often attributed to Charles Darwin, bus it was Herbert Spencer who first used the phase. Also Charles Darwin dinn't "invent" evolution, That was Lamark and others. Darwin's and Wallace's theory defined the process, (still brilliant).

Egg is the 1st coz the early life on earth are aquatic animals and they lay eggs later they evolve as a land animals ang become chicken overtime

There is a difference between natural selection and the idea of macroevolution: it's the difference between refining an initial design through trimming off edges and believing that the process of trimming bits off can yield tons of new information to the point that something becomes an entirely different thing. You didn't need to add in a pointless and rude jab against creationists at the beginning.

Humans are in a unique situation. Where resources aren't as scare. We have defied the Laws of Nature with intelligence, societal organization, and use of tools. So, the priority shifts from Survival of the Individual. To survival of civilization. Something nature can't do. But human society can. -And throughout human history: Some civilizations have endured. While others didn't. The difference is what they actually did against real-world issues.

@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440

Жыл бұрын

No, evolution has always been changes in populations, not individuals. Civilisations ending and reforming have nothing to do with evolutionary processes. Certainly, our technologies and geographical distribution have slowed down the evolution of the human population, but we're still evolving under Nature's laws.

@orenbartal8504

10 ай бұрын

While that is true in some ways, humans still evolve via natural selection and survival of the fittest - humans with genetic traits that makes them more resistant to disease/sickness will likely live longer and reproduce more than others. Modern medicine definitely "leveled the playing field" somewhat though, so it probably slowed the natural selection of the human species.

this is the Fantasy Island version - Charles D came from a long line of atheist speculators about evolution. His grandfather Erasmus wrote a famous early evolution book, 'Zoonomia'. Charles had read this book, and worked hard alongside the atheist-evolutionist biologist named Grant at Edinburgh University (when he should have been studying medicine, as his father wished). He flunked medicine but carried on his atheistic studies his whole life. 'Survival of the fittest' is a pseudo-explanation. Neither Darwin or any other evolutionish has ever successfully defined 'fitness' in anything other than terms of 'survival', so 'Survival of the fittest' really means 'Survival of the survivors', which does not sound like an explanation of anything to me.

@luskarian4055

Жыл бұрын

The real quote is "Survival of the one most adaptable to change," which does admittedly flow back into circular reasoning. But fittest is an intentionally biased word coined and used by social darwinists, I agree.

3:00 ??????? and the sound in the background ???? 😂😂😂

great

Maybe that applies to some other planets

But I didn't understand how evolution challenges the idea that we at the initial stage were created by creator....

@orenbartal8504

10 ай бұрын

Because the bible says that god created man, not god created apes that evolved into men - or more percisely, god created the single cell organisms that evolved into every living creature we see today.

0:10 The drawing or representation here is wrong.. This is a symbol of the Eye of Horus or the one-eyed Antichrist or the Beast, and he will claim divinity and many will follow him thinking that he is the true God, and he is the greatest sedition of the three monotheistic religions, and is not a symbol of the true God.. But according to what I see the general orientation of the media, I think This error is intentional.

@sprouts

Жыл бұрын

👀

Por poco! Pero sigo....

what is the chicken-egg problem? Eggs developed before birds; eggs existed long before a bird commonly known as a chicken. Fish, sharks, amphibians, crustaceans, reptiles, are all examples of taxonomic categories of creatures that existed before birds and used eggs to reproduce. Eggs developed as an evolutionary function for reproduction long before birds evolved. Also, whatever ancestry exists by which the bird commonly known as chicken came about, the eggs of birds were already developed as a reproduction function long before the birds and long before the chicken. There's no problem.

Survival of the most adaptive actually

i wonder how the differences between the birds-of-paradise of new guinea can be explained by natural selection, i think that the mutations arent random

@chrisclark784

10 ай бұрын

Essentially there really weren't many natural predators to the birds of paradise, so they never evolved traits necessary to use against predators, and developed bizarre plumage and weird mating habits. They did an experiment with Arctic Foxes. They took offspring and bred the aggressive foxes with aggressive foxes, and docile foxes with docile foxes. After many generations they found, the aggressive foxes became more aggressive, and the physical characteristics became more aggressive. The docile foxes on the other hand became more docile, and they developed less aggressive features, such as curly tails and floppy ears, there was no need for aggression so aggressive traits went away. Same with Birds of Paradise, except one happened naturally.

@bestuan

10 ай бұрын

@@chrisclark784 with or without natural predators this diversity in morphology and behavior shouldn't exist, bright colors and energetic dances indicate the health of an individual and so they might develop crazy colors and dances but I don't see why one population would develop long head feathers while another chooses a blue smiley face on a cape, natural selection and sexual selection doesn't explain it

Fyi. Charles Darwin believes in a creator. He proposed a theory on how it was created.

Nature provides Positive pressure to blackmoths❤

Interesting

@sprouts

Жыл бұрын

Ikr!

Natural selection occurs of course. However, random mutations that are believed to provide genetic material for evolution, are a huge problem for the theory, since they are either harmful or just neutral (don't do anything). Genetic illnesses and cancer are prominent examples of harmful mutations.

@KARAIsaku

5 ай бұрын

Expliquez s'il vous plait, ce que vous voulez dire.

@thehowlingjoker

5 ай бұрын

We have seen beneficial mutations occur, including de-novo material.

@s.unosson

5 ай бұрын

@@thehowlingjoker I'd like to know a couple of examples of those mutations.

*watching*

this is an excellent example of Negative Gentile Social Engineering... Facts...

0:13 anyone know WHY he took that ”expedition”?? why dont we all talk about the REASON??

@stephenmason5682

Жыл бұрын

Well, what was his reason?

@armandolima823

Жыл бұрын

​@@stephenmason5682 Taking God out of the picture, because proud free thinkers like himself couldn't cope with the fact there is a God that establishes rules for humankind's own good. He, and many other "thinkers" of their day, like Marx and Nietzsche, despized the influence of religion and God in society ( as if corrupt religions could ever be true spokesmen for God... ). Evolution was their answer to that. But as what they observed ( animals don't change into something other than what they are ) would not fit their narrative, the answer to that became time. "Well, you know, we don't see them mutating and evolving because this happened through billions of years." Obviously, this could never be proven or disproven, and so voila', they conceived the perfect and most convenient alibi to get rid of religion and God. This "billion of years" narrative goes on today. "The grand canyon was formed through billions of years", and yet the eruption of mount st Helens last century caused the same type of canyons, with it's defined layers, in just one afternoon. "The dinosaurs have million of years" and yet soft tissue was found in several specimens ( found by meanwhile cast out and discredited archaeologysts ) Because the desire to remove God from society increased exponentially in the "science" world, and "scientists" now became prostitutes to whatever agenda is paying them. Every ludicrous and insane theory is considered, but to consider an intelligent being created this perfectly designed world, now that's just unscientific...

@stephenmason5682

Жыл бұрын

@@armandolima823 A simple question asking what was the reason, and you spew out all this nonsense? Fact of god?

@meatchips4936

Жыл бұрын

​@@armandolima823 I mean yes, the fact that a invisible man in the sky who also made cancer and some of the saddest species every known to exist is unscientific

What about of making a Carl Jung's video? :)

What do you mean by egg and hen riddle?.

@sprouts

Жыл бұрын

🐰

@imaneka4498

Жыл бұрын

He's takin' abt who was first created, an egg or a hen.

@tschorsch

Жыл бұрын

A riddle that's not a riddle because the question makes no sense in the light of evolution.

@smgdfcmfah

Жыл бұрын

@@tschorsch Sure it does. Did the first chicken hatch from an egg that was laid by and animal that was not a chicken, or was the first chicken born of a species that game live birth but in turned had an evolutionary mutation within itself the egg laying ability? The correct answer (imho) is logically the first option (as we believe all birds evolved from egg laying dinosaurs), but we have no real proof as of yet.

The chicken and egg problem is a problem of definition. Of course eggs are older than chickens, when you do not mean a chicken egg. But if you mean a chicken egg you need to specify, is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken or an egg that has the genetics of a chicken?

@smgdfcmfah

Жыл бұрын

The first chicken came from an egg that was laid by an animal that was not a true chicken, just like the first homo sapiens was born of a creature that was not quite a homo sapiens.

@UrsusPolaris01

Жыл бұрын

@@smgdfcmfah But was it a chicken egg?

@smgdfcmfah

Жыл бұрын

@@UrsusPolaris01 It WAS a chicken egg, but it was NOT a chicken's egg.

@UrsusPolaris01

Жыл бұрын

@@smgdfcmfah Thank you, for sharing your wisdom in capitals.

@smgdfcmfah

Жыл бұрын

@@UrsusPolaris01 You're WELCOME!

A single creator. Cthulhu?

So I’m not pulling baddies cuz I’m not “the fittest”?

@Krish_Ketchum

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, it seems I'm not the fittest as well but I go to gym and can bench 110😢

Chicken and egg? It's organic evolution that's all good drawing best wishes😊

How do people who do not believe in evolution explain what happened with the peppered moths?

I never liked the term "Survival of the fittest" I think "Survival of the adequate" is more appropriate

Pretty sure the phrase “survival of the fittest” was coined in business schools to justify monopolistic economic practices. In other words a simplistic buzz phrase used by half wit MBA’s who can’t find their ass with both hands and a map. I don’t think Darwin ever used the phrase in any of his works.

The example of the speckled moth really illustrates changes in population since the genes for dark or light colorations in the moths were already there in the species. The population swings back. How, because the genetic traits allowed for that fluency in the population.

@ozowen

24 күн бұрын

Yes, it demonstrates natural Selection. Do you have a point?

I don’t think it works up to date…

So basically improvise adapt

What about types of eugenics programs or influences ..,. . Not so natural

Observe how Darwin’s theory was framed into a human trait such as competitiveness (which reminds me about your last video on free market, monopoly, etc.) If concerned with the truth, we can observe an obvious bias due to conditioning. If our upbringing teaches about separation of species rather than interdependence, then the obvious “knowledge” of “random” mutation becomes the answer. Anything we don’t know is “random.” There is a proper balance in the Universe which maintains an equilibrium among species except when the human mind interferes. That is because humans have an “agenda,” most of the time- Perhaps the “free market” agenda or the monopoly agenda, etc. which obviously brings the idea of “survival of the fittest.” In your question of who is first, the chicken or the egg? The answers depends largely in your belief system. If you believe that linear time is the truth, you will look for who is the “first” (chicken or egg) and come up with many other beliefs to “prove” who is right and who is wrong. If you believe in circular, cyclical time, as in many Eastern religions and Mayans, then “first” does not come into the picture, as in a closed circle of time, there is no “first” but things just “appear” in a repetitive eternal fashion and “first” is merely a point of reference. ( Nietzche “Eternal return.”) Enjoyed the video. Thank you!

Thanks for your question, How can we solve the chicken and the egg problem?!!!!!..... There is no way to solve this problem through experimentation because physical life is of a variable nature, meaning that what is constant in it is change. Therefore, all experimental results are tentative and not conclusive, and it is a purely relative practical matter. There is no way to solve the problem except through the intervention of the abstract mind or what is called (necessary science). So, he is the source of judgment on physics, not the other way around Based on the above, we decide the following: We say that the logical, demonstrative mind has three sections The first is that a thing is judged by the rule of certainty and definiteness. Its name is its definition > Wajib: which is something that is established in itself or cannot be excluded. The second > He judges a matter with certainty and certainty as well Its name and definition > Impossible: which is something that is absent or cannot be proven Third > He judges a thing or a matter as being or not being confirmed Whether before confirmation or absence, its name and definition Permissible: It is something that is possible to exist or not The proof is as follows: Start with a declarative question The chicken and the egg fall under which section of rational judgment?!!!! I'll give you the answer right now, for short They fall under the third category, which is permissible or possible We said that what is the definition of the possible is the acceptance of both confirmation and non-existence. Note: the predominance of confirmation and non-existence in the case of the possible, regardless of the ratio, because we are in this position. It suffices for us to define it and to summarize it as well Continuing where we have reached in the research?..... That is, we said that they are both rationally possible _Explanation of the proof This leads to the race of nothingness and the rights of nothingness over it, according to their definition Ok, the question here What made their existence more likely than their non-existence?!!!! If we say about themselves, this role is necessary What is the role: something stops on itself at one or more levels This necessity leads to two questions _How can someone who accepts nothingness when he is non-existent be able to create himself?!!! The one who has no ability to pray has no ability _How can one who accepts existence have his existence depend on himself?!!! Both questions are from the second category of rational judgment, which is impossible Therefore, we say that both the chicken and the egg must have been created by something, and it does not matter who was found before the important other Who created one of them first or created

@ozowen

24 күн бұрын

Observation sorts it out. There were eggs before there were birds. Bird evolution is clear in fossil record and in genomes and indeed in taxonomy. So, the issue is resolved. The egg was first. Birds came later. Chickens came even later again.

@muhemmdmostafa4029

24 күн бұрын

@@ozowen The question here: Who found the egg?!!!!!.... There are two possibilities. The first is that she created herself by herself Or something else create it First: If it had created itself by itself, this would follow from it The meeting of the two opposites is impossible, because in the state of nothingness it had power....How can it be correct in the mind to describe the non-existent with power?!!!... This is mentally impossible If I find something else... Who is he?!!... Let's look for him Thank you

@ozowen

24 күн бұрын

@@muhemmdmostafa4029 No, sorry. There is nothing in that lot that is difficult. There was no created creature. The creatures that came before the ones who could lay eggs were simpler creatures. I'm not sure you quite understand how this works. We have creatures on Earth- in fact the majority of creatures on Earth are simple ones. They don't lay eggs. they don't have sex. They self clone. However, some of that lot can also merge with others to do something like sexual reproduction. Indeed, there are many creatures on Earth right now that can reproduce asexually, but have the choice also to reproduce sexually. None of this is impossible- it happens right now.

@muhemmdmostafa4029

24 күн бұрын

@@ozowen _Your Saying(No sorry. Thank you, sir. I would like to draw your attention to a matter which is, In this context, I am not interested in knowing how creatures came to be. What matters most to me is who created them?!!!..... _ Your statement (We have creatures on Earth - in fact the majority of creatures on Earth are simple creatures. They do not lay eggs. They do not have sex. There are many creatures on Earth today that can reproduce asexually, but they also have the option to reproduce sexually) Notice that you re-explain how creatures are found, and I do not care about knowing their reality at this stage of theoretical thinking, even if the method is cloning or something else. It is nothing more than the fact that our knowledge of how to unite is nothing more than, What is the method of reproduction? You would like to notice that there are four existential ratios in existence, which are: 1_ The proportion of the event, i.e. the occurrence outside the mind 2_ The ratio of mind, that is, mental thinking about the fact that creatures exist 3_ Pronunciation ratio, that is, its expression using the language in which it is spoken 4_ The ratio of the number, that is, writing about it in books.... The focus of my talk is about the existence of creatures, where did they come from?!!!... In the first place the mind always asks this question Who created these materials that are the elements of created things?!!!. Then we move to the second place, which is the search for knowledge of its facts through experimental science. The question here Is the meaning I want to convey to you clear?!!!... Sir, do you understand what I want to ask you in terms of knowledge?!!!!.... Thank you

@ozowen

24 күн бұрын

@@muhemmdmostafa4029 "What matters most to me is who created them" OK, so you are wanting to talk about a deity. I am talking about the science and only the science If you want to twist the subject to a different one to that which you proposed of which came fist, the hen or the egg? Not interested. Have fun.

👏👏👏

Nice...but it doesn’t explain my crazy sister. ...actually it does...

It is more luck than fittest

Did anyone feels good when you know what is the true meaning of this?

There is a scene not appropriate for children. See minute 2:59

I personally have never seen a conflict between religion and evolution. I think that evolution and other natural processes were the method by which God created the world, and the description of the creation in Genesis actually matches up pretty well.

@sprouts

Жыл бұрын

Interesting

@StatiCRjm

9 ай бұрын

God looks on the heart, man looks at appearance. You're not being biblically accurate

@RoxRock4ever

9 ай бұрын

@StatiCRjm how so? The translation of "Days" for the creation we already know would be better written as "Periods," meaning times of indeterminate length. The order of creation described matches what scientists agree on, meaning the formation of the world, then the land being divided from the sea, then the appearance of the heavenly bodies (easily matches when the Earth's atmosphere would finally be clear enough to see the Sun/Moon/Stars), followed by the creation of plant life then Animal life and finally culminating in Man who was "created from the dust." Now if I were Moses who was watching all this and saw the process of single cell organisms being made into man, I too would probably say it was dust. Don't presume to know my faith. What I have said above is merely my own conjecture and ultimately whether I'm right or wrong has zero bearing on my belief in Christ as the Savior of the World.

@G.A.C_Preserve

6 ай бұрын

Never? You're lucky

@G.A.C_Preserve

6 ай бұрын

@@RoxRock4ever and you're just another ignorant

The egg came first because animals before chickens had eggs

@davidmontoya6672

3 ай бұрын

But who had the egg?😂

We just need to add that, for humans, the culture and ideas spread is even more important than the genes.

@smgdfcmfah

Жыл бұрын

Except it's not. The fact that genes are spread regardless of how inferior they are is a product of our society and will likely be our eventual demise. Our species is getting weaker and weaker in many ways. In the human world, the less successful a human is the more likely they are to procreate (or procreate more often).

@PedroPortelareis

Жыл бұрын

@@smgdfcmfah 3000 years ago we were much worse in overall terms. In this time period the gene revolution was very small but the civilizational revolution was huge.

@smgdfcmfah

Жыл бұрын

@@PedroPortelareis Exactly. Now the earth is overpopulated and we're struggling to find a balance with nature without destroying it. The sharing of information, food and wealth is ultimately a negative thing as there is never a balance. People starve in part of the world because the local ecology can't support them, so we feed them from another part of the world where there is an abundance. Worse is the fact that technology is shared at such a rate that few people know how anything works - and NO one knows how everything works. 3,000 years ago a person could leave his city, move out into the countryside and live pretty much the same way he did before because he knew how to build a shelter, a fire, hunt, farm etc. Even if he wasn't an expert at all of it, he'd learn as he went. Today most city people wouldn't last a week in the wilderness, but more importantly, if part of the machine breaks down, they have no clue how ANYTHING works. This is unsustainable, to say the least.

@haru64377

Жыл бұрын

Genes are everything

@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana

Жыл бұрын

Those are also affected by natural selection...

Guess it was patched

CHARLES DARWIN!!!!!

0:56 what is this guy on🤣

Why did they have to discriminate against the black moths like that?

we now have unatural selection as we can see in a few type of dog, especially pub, with no physical abilities to survive on its own, ithink ?

YUP!!!! ACTUALLY,, I'M THINKING THAT THAT'S DEFINITELY, COULD'VE EXPLAINED,,OL TRUMPER!!!

what's changed since the theory of evolution has been the theory of evolution? when's it gonna change? you know, evolve itself? i'm witnessing...

@TmanRock9

Жыл бұрын

It’s changed quite a bit over its 150 year run time. More mechanisms have been found and genetics have been discovered.

300

Evolution makes perfect

@MarkUKInsects

Жыл бұрын

No. if so you wouldn't have extinctions. Good example is the Irish Deer.

@meatchips4936

Жыл бұрын

No not really, evolution isn't a conscious choice

@MarkUKInsects

Жыл бұрын

@@meatchips4936 Mostly! There are 1000s of dumb evolution examples,The human spine, Nerve for the larynx going down the neck, into the chest, then back up the neck, especially silly for the giraffe. You could argue sexual selection is a conscious choice?

@TmanRock9

Жыл бұрын

@@MarkUKInsects evolution doesn’t state that extinction won’t occur.

...And we all know which humans breed the most...

4:35 R A C I S M

I wish everybody could live.

@Crimsonlee2XX

4 ай бұрын

That’s not how life works

Chicken is same as egg just like a baby is same as man. It just grows up and change its body.

(^^; natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive until they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.

today's episode of Sprouts features a special guest... Donald Thump

Redundant title

That's why i can't find a white girl

@haru64377

Жыл бұрын

This life is sucks and very fucking bad

chicken

Wow, racist moths lol

The first commenter

@IBTU

Жыл бұрын

Liar

It was egg came first

@sprouts

Жыл бұрын

🐔💭

@tschorsch

Жыл бұрын

It depends on the question. The question is too vague.

Unfortunately criminals will evolve even more

Duh & literally first 🥇🙄

@IBTU

Жыл бұрын

Troll

The answer is irreducible complexity. That's out of Charles Darwin's mouth. The chicken came first. A Rose by Any Other Name is still a rose. And yes our bodies no matter what animal it is adapt to the environment. But nowhere has it been seen that a fish turned into a chicken. The banana carries 75 percent of the human genome. The mud puddle theory was debunked a long time ago. So to reduce something like this either you are completely lying and know it. Or you're ignorant as hell.

@rickdelatour5355

3 ай бұрын

A fish turning into a chicken would disprove evolution. Your ignorance is not an argument. Since you don’t understand the science here what is your alternative? What is the evidence for it?

@barryives4916

3 ай бұрын

Well aren't you special. Which discipline of science do you want to get into. Answer one of these questions correctly I'd be surprised. First find out the 10 basic needs of Boys and Girls. Then recognize you're nothing more than a product of your own environment. So if any of you enlightened people including the person that posted this. Answer these questions or set down Shut up You're not special. I will send a series of questions if you want to answer them you can. Or maybe some of your followers. 1. What is irreducible complexity. And what did Charles Darwin have to say about it and his theory of evolution. 2. Where does Consciousness come from. Not what is consciousness. 3. Using quantum physics where does energy come from. Not what energy is. 4. Explain to me how a simple protein is formed just one protein. Then a protein strand. How the molecules are able to form and come together to make that strand with other molecules. That had to form and come together by communicating with each other without disruption. Using your primordial soup Theory. Understanding all the other variables involved that would have to happen over a consistent period of time. Or even at the time it was formed. 5. Explain to me why and how long it takes to form a rock and or a diamond. Knowing we can form a rock under pressure within 1 to 3. hours. 6. Explain to me according to the climate change experts. .004 % of our atmosphere is carbon monoxide. And only 20% of that is produced by all human activity. And why it's colder in the winter than it is in the summer. Even though we are closer to the Sun during the winter. With extreme temperature changes. Butt on the bottom half of the planet it's summertime. 7. Explain to me why the covid vaccine is not a vaccine. But it is gene therapy. And what is the difference. To present yourself as an intelligent person, with a superior Common Sense knowledge you must realize you're living in a glass house and throwing stones at other people. . Again some of the things you say are absolutely right. But a lot are misguided and wrong. One more question just for fun 8. How do they do carbon testing. And how do they come up with the numbers. Arbitrarily or factual. But remember a non-response from this host is a response. Which is what I expect. Anyone that wants to can is more than welcome look up and answer all these question. So you can understand who you are To a small extent And why you behave the way you do. It's not really that complex. Think about what A babies Basic needs are . It's no different for a boy or girl. Take away sexuality. For boys and girls, as they're growing up. We're talking about emotionally. And physical needs. Physical needs. 1. eat & drink 2. Breathe 3.sleep, 4. wear clothing 5. housing To protect us from the environment we're in. That is whether you're a boy or a girl. It doesn't matter. What are our emotional needs. For both boys and girls. It's absolutely identical. 1. Affection 2. Intimacy 3. Acceptance 4. Feeling safe 5. Emotional bonding with the opposite sex Boys and girls are two halves of the whole. That is where sex and sexuality join as one. Each one has a strong part to play. Both are equally important to build a strong union, Sex and sexuality is the cherry on top. Through that we bond with each other. And the better it is the stronger the bond. Each person you sleep with or become sexually Intimate with. You bond with for life. They become a part of you and you become a part of them. Your problems become a part of theirs and their problems become a part of yours. Think about it truly and Honestly before saying no, that's not true. Then it comes down to social and environmental constructs. Those are the environmental and and social influences That shape. How we act in the society were in. So basically if society said all of us should run around naked tomorrow environment willing. We would. At least eighty to ninety percent of us. Do to our emotional And physical needs Thank you for your time; Barry E, Ives.

@barryives4916

3 ай бұрын

@@rickdelatour5355 Well aren't you special. Which discipline of science do you want to get into. Answer one of these questions correctly I'd be surprised. First find out the 10 basic needs of Boys and Girls. Then recognize you're nothing more than a product of your own environment. So if any of you enlightened people including the person that posted this. Answer these questions or set down Shut up You're not special. I will send a series of questions if you want to answer them you can. Or maybe some of your followers. 1. What is irreducible complexity. And what did Charles Darwin have to say about it and his theory of evolution. 2. Where does Consciousness come from. Not what is consciousness. 3. Using quantum physics where does energy come from. Not what energy is. 4. Explain to me how a simple protein is formed just one protein. Then a protein strand. How the molecules are able to form and come together to make that strand with other molecules. That had to form and come together by communicating with each other without disruption. Using your primordial soup Theory. Understanding all the other variables involved that would have to happen over a consistent period of time. Or even at the time it was formed. 5. Explain to me why and how long it takes to form a rock and or a diamond. Knowing we can form a rock under pressure within 1 to 3. hours. 6. Explain to me according to the climate change experts. .004 % of our atmosphere is carbon monoxide. And only 20% of that is produced by all human activity. And why it's colder in the winter than it is in the summer. Even though we are closer to the Sun during the winter. With extreme temperature changes. Butt on the bottom half of the planet it's summertime. 7. Explain to me why the covid vaccine is not a vaccine. But it is gene therapy. And what is the difference. To present yourself as an intelligent person, with a superior Common Sense knowledge you must realize you're living in a glass house and throwing stones at other people. . Again some of the things you say are absolutely right. But a lot are misguided and wrong. One more question just for fun 8. How do they do carbon testing. And how do they come up with the numbers. Arbitrarily or factual. But remember a non-response from this host is a response. Which is what I expect. Anyone that wants to can is more than welcome look up and answer all these question. So you can understand who you are To a small extent And why you behave the way you do. It's not really that complex. Think about what A babies Basic needs are . It's no different for a boy or girl. Take away sexuality. For boys and girls, as they're growing up. We're talking about emotionally. And physical needs. Physical needs. 1. eat & drink 2. Breathe 3.sleep, 4. wear clothing 5. housing To protect us from the environment we're in. That is whether you're a boy or a girl. It doesn't matter. What are our emotional needs. For both boys and girls. It's absolutely identical. 1. Affection 2. Intimacy 3. Acceptance 4. Feeling safe 5. Emotional bonding with the opposite sex Boys and girls are two halves of the whole. That is where sex and sexuality join as one. Each one has a strong part to play. Both are equally important to build a strong union, Sex and sexuality is the cherry on top. Through that we bond with each other. And the better it is the stronger the bond. Each person you sleep with or become sexually Intimate with. You bond with for life. They become a part of you and you become a part of them. Your problems become a part of theirs and their problems become a part of yours. Think about it truly and Honestly before saying no, that's not true. Then it comes down to social and environmental constructs. Those are the environmental and and social influences That shape. How we act in the society were in. So basically if society said all of us should run around naked tomorrow environment willing. We would. At least eighty to ninety percent of us. Do to our emotional And physical needs Thank you for your time; Barry E, Ives.

@GamerIng-vc4ii

17 күн бұрын

@@barryives4916 bro how did u type a para bruh

hes right when he said all animals come from one creator :) how was the earth formed with no creator.

@DenisK21

3 ай бұрын

How was the earth formed with ANY creator?

@raufkhadra907

3 ай бұрын

how do you think the world was created@@DenisK21

@raufkhadra907

3 ай бұрын

if u think big bang, so i had a stone and a window i was bored so i threw the stone at the window and it formed an iphone 6 than many years later it evolved to a iphone 14. so does that sound right?

@DenisK21

3 ай бұрын

@@raufkhadra907 No, it sounds deliberately wrong in every possible way. Now put that tangential straw man back where you found it and actually answer my question.

@raufkhadra907

3 ай бұрын

@@DenisK21 listen son, your just angry because thats how you sound when you explain big bang and evolution 🤣 your supposed to tell me how my example and your theories are different and why you dont believe how my phone appeared

You pronounced survival of the fattest wrong

I would have loved to have shared this video with my middle school students, but the drawings of bunnies having sex is just too much. Consider making sure all of your videos are appropriate for all ages so they can be viewed by more people.

Great video but i dont believe in evolution

@sprouts

Жыл бұрын

Why so?

@KARAIsaku

5 ай бұрын

Natural selection occurs. However, random mutations that are believed to provide genetic material for evolution, are a huge problem for the theory, since they are either harmful or just neutral (don't do anything). Genetic illnesses and cancer are prominent examples of harmful mutations.

The answer lays in the Bible, the 1st chapter of Genesis as well to the answer; " which came 1st, the chicken or the egg? ", it's the chicken 🐔!