She's got a nice one. >> True. What about his?
Interesting. Okay. Okay.
Can we stop looking at everyone's noses and get back to the finch's beaks for now? >> What a wild way to start a video. >> So, on the Galapagos, Darwin found that finch beaks and their feet varied island by island, proving evolution because nature was selecting the fittest birds to survive and reproduce.
Uh, I don't think that that proves evolution. It just simply shows that the finch's beaks were adapting to their food sources on that specific island. >> Yeah, that's evolution.
Jessica, what are we doing? To start off the new year, I thought about going back to a staple of this channel, the infamous John and Jane videos for some familiar fun debunking creationist arguments. After all, there are only a couple left, and I kind of want to go back and do like a complete recap of the whole series once I'm done.
Wouldn't that be fun? But the channel that hosts the John and Jame videos called Genesis Apologetics also has a lot of other videos. And I couldn't help but exploring a little bit.
And imagine my surprise when I found this whole playlist simply titled Classroom loaded with short videos presumably containing some of their best arguments for students to levy against their evil evolutionist teachers. Now, a couple of these videos are specifically and exclusively about religion. >> I was just pointing out that the Bible is just a collection of myth.
The Bible's flood account is only a myth. This is just a pack of lies. >> Because those are all totally appropriate ways for teachers to behave.
>> Okay, if you want to believe in God, that's fine. But answer me this. Where did God come from?
>> You see, the God that I worship is not limited by space, time, matter. He's above it, beyond it, in it, and through it. >> Yeah, >> they literally did the and then everyone started clapping meme on that one.
You can't make this up. But I'm not interested in any of those videos. If you want to hear me talk about religion, you can go watch one of my college shows.
I'm more interested in the 26 other videos where this fully grown man in a high school classroom tells his two terrible teachers everything he doesn't know about evolution. So, without further ado, thank you so much to my patrons on Patreon and my channel members here on YouTube. And now, let's see how the rest of this nose video shakes out.
It just simply shows that the finch's beaks were adapting to their food sources on that specific island. >> There was a 2017 article in the science journal BMC Evolutionary Biology, and they found they weren't actually mutating and evolving by mutations, natural selection. Instead, it was epigenetic changes, which is special coding that allows the animals to track and adapt to their environments without changing the DNA.
And it happens in just one generation. So, it was never evolution. Really cool.
So, interestingly enough, I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever heard a creationist try to use epigenetics to dismiss evolution. But while the vocabulary may be a little bit different here, the fundamental argument is still exactly the same. They believe that the only real definition of evolution is a change in so-called kinds and that it has to happen over millions of years.
So, until we are able to observe fish becoming fishermen, there is no proof of evolution. The problem is that's not how any of this stuff works. First things first, there are no studies that I'm aware of that make the claim that epigenetic changes as opposed to mutations are the major driving force in evolution.
There's this one that I think he's referring to. It's from BMC evolutionary biology and it's about the epigenetic variation in Darwin's finches, but it literally says right here in the abstract that it is these epigenetic mechanisms as well as genetic variations that contribute to the changes that we see. Notice that word also, not instead.
That's real important. almost as important as this part in the discussion which says Darwin's finches are well known for their phenotypic variability and evolution in response to changing environmental conditions. In addition to genetic variation, epigenetic variation may exist between natural populations living under different environmental conditions.
And it's also important to point out that as far as mutations are concerned, these Darwin finches are so wellstudied that we literally know which specific genes are mutating in which specific ways to cause the changes that we see in things like peak shape. These studies into epigenetics are complementing our understanding of evolution, not challenging it. But if you want to fully understand why this argument is so silly, there are two things you really need to get.
And the first one is the definition of evolution. If you're a fan of this channel or science in general, you've probably already heard this, so sing along if you know the words. Evolution is any change in the heritable characteristics of a population over the course of multiple generations.
But we'll come back to that in a moment because the second thing you need to understand is the basics of epigenetics. We're going to use some complicated terms here, but I promise this is a lot easier than it sounds. So just stick with me, okay?
You see, when your DNA is stored, it's wrapped around proteins called histones to make a thick rope called chromatin, which is then wound and packed tightly into structures called chromosomes. But sometimes events in your daily life can cause certain chemical markers to attach to your DNA and change the way that chromatin is structured. If the chromatin is wound loosely, it's easy for the molecular machinery that expresses genes to get access to the DNA, making that section transcriptionally active because transcription is the first part of gene expression.
We call that type of chromatin ukromatin using the prefix u meaning true. If however the chromatin is wound tightly, it's far more difficult to express the genes present and so they are rendered transcriptionally inactive and we call that structure heterocchromatin using the prefix heterero meaning different. This may sound a little bit complicated, but it's almost certainly something that you're already pretty familiar with, whether you realize it or not.
Consider the fact that almost every cell in your body contains the exact same DNA. So, if you have genes for both bones and eyeballs in every cell of your body, why aren't your eyes made of bones and your bones made of eyes? It's all because of epigenetics.
Certain genes are turned on or off, rendered transcriptionally active or inactive in different parts of your body. Considering all that, it should be no surprise that epigenetic changes accumulated over the course of your life can have big ramifications. Because these changes alter how your DNA is expressed, not the actual genetic code itself.
They're not technically mutations. Instead, they can cause certain genes that are already there to be overexpressed, underexpressed, or not expressed at all. This means that different individuals with the exact same genotype can have vastly different phenotypes.
And sometimes these epigenetic changes are heritable, which means the choices you make in your life today could affect the way that your grandchildren's DNA is read. So now let's go back to the beginning. These epigenetic modifications are changes made to the characteristics of an individual.
And some of them are heritable, which means the next generation will bear those epigenetic changes and pass them on to their offspring as well. the heritable characteristics of the population change over multiple generations and that is the definition of evolution and epigenetic changes are absolutely still subject to natural selection as well because it is the phenotype not the genotype that is selected for but that's a whole thing for another time anyway there's a lot more that I'd like to say about this but I think you get the point as always nature is much cooler and much more imaginative than any creationist would care to admit >> many flood myths come out of the ancient near east and the Bible's account is just one of them >> well then how do you explain 14 states in America filled with dead dinosaurs and mixtures of uh marine life and other animals. >> What?
>> I can only assume that what he's talking about here is the remains of what's known as the Western Interior Seaway. This was an ancient inland ocean that covered much of what is now the United States from the Gulf of Mexico all the way up into Canada way back over a 100 million years ago. And because this land wasn't always, you know, land, the geological column has a lot of cool diversity, especially in what used to be coastal regions in that ocean.
And there are still lots of visible markers of that history on our landscape today. For example, the Great Salt Plains in Oklahoma and the dinosaur tracks at Clayton Lake, both of which I covered in my 2023 summer science road trip video. The point is, he's going to do the same thing they always do where they claim that all fossils prove the flood.
But the only way to say that is to also assume that the current state of the surface of the earth is all due to one singular event. So not only is all of biology wrong, but also all of geology is wrong. A massive claim that he's about to prop up on unbelievably flimsy evidence.
There's an area that's about 1,800 m long and about 1,000 mi wide, and it's filled in with mud, sand, and ash, which is exactly what you'd expect to find in the case of a worldwide flood. >> You see what I mean? He couldn't even tell you what or where this area is.
But he did describe any river near a volcano or any lake near a forest fire or, hear me out here, most of North America during an asteroid impact. Those creatures were buried millions of years ago and their hard as rock fossils prove it. >> Just a phenomenal answer from the teacher there.
No details, no good evidence, no questions to engage the class and encourage learning. Just a bold assertion to shut down conversation and sound as dogmatic as possible. That's how you get through to kids.
>> Hard as rock fossils, right? But there are 120 scientific publications that reveal 16 different types of soft tissue found in ancient bones at every level of the geological column. Some of these soft tissues, like collagen, only have a shelf life of just thousands of years.
So, how'd that last for 65 million? It's literally just cross-linking. I cover it in detail in my video about Eric Hovind's third terrible movie, but there are more important things to address here.
First of all, every level of the geological column is a stretch. Secondly, don't point to the scientific publications that talk about soft tissues when all of those publications are backed by and contributing to the field of evolutionary biology. Thirdly, the woman who discovered those soft tissues and fossils is a devout Christian and an evolutionary biologist and paleontologist who has repeatedly said that creationists like you who twist her work to fit your narrative suck sweaty eggs.
And fourth, and most importantly, what is that face? And does that kid's shirt just say God? You couldn't at least have him change his shirt before you shot your propaganda film.
Like, just try to make it a little less obvious, you know? Also, what's that reflection in the TV? Could that be the lighting rig for the scene?
NO. IT'S THE SPONSOR OF TODAY'S VIDEO, BRILLIANT. Brilliant is an everyday learning app that teaches you real math and science while helping you become a better thinker and problem solver through fun, interactive lessons that keep you focused while stretching your brain.
and they're offering my subscribers a chance to try everything they have to offer absolutely free for a full 30 days plus 20% off an annual subscription to Brilliant Premium. And all you got to do to get it is go to brilliant. org/forestalkkey.
Scan the QR code on the screen or click the link in the description. A lot of people think that math and science just aren't for them because they see them as these massive insurmountable mountains of esoteric knowledge. But Brilliant breaks down those mountains into bite-sized chunks to boost your brain power and your confidence at the same time.
As for me, I always recommend their scientific thinking course to learn how to see the world the way a scientist does. And once you're done with that, you can choose from thousands more lessons in physics, data analysis, AI, algebra, and more to keep your lifelong learning habit going strong. So sign up today by going to brilliant.
org/forestvalkey, scanning the QR code on the screen, or clicking the link in the description. Remember, subscribers to my channel get to try everything Brilliant has to offer absolutely free for 30 days, plus 20% off an annual subscription to Brilliant Premium. It helps your brain, it helps the channel, and it makes the world a smarter place.
We know our early ancestors, like Lucy, were walking upright because we found her footprints in Tanzania. >> No, we didn't. The Lolei footprints were made around 400,000 years before Lucy was ever born.
You see, Lucy was a member of the species Oralopythecus Apharensis, one of the longest living and best known species in our ancestry. And Lucy is easily the most famous specimen from that species. She's so famous, in fact, that many creationists literally think that she's the only one and that all us biologists are out here saying, "Here's this weird looking ape.
She probably walked upright, so that means humans evolved. Fish, frog, Lucy, human. " That was the whole thing.
Praise Darwin. So while the lulli footprints do show upright walking and they were made by Orolopythecus apharensis, they were not made by Lucy. In other words, it is fair to say that we know our ancestors walked upright partially because of these footprints, but also because of the position of the frame and magnums, the angle of their knees, the shape of their pelvises, the curvature of their spines and feet, etc.
, etc. But it's not at all reasonable to say that these are Lucy's footprints or that they are the only evidence we have of early upright walking. This is just another example of creationists deliberately trying to make the evidence for evolution seem fantastical and unbelievable.
Or it also could be another example of creationists not knowing what it is they're debunking. And honestly, it's hard to tell which one's more likely. >> Wait a minute.
Weren't those footprints like a thousand miles away from where Lucy was found? >> Yeah, give or take. >> Which makes perfect sense considering the fact that she didn't make them.
>> Well, how big were her foot fossils? Well, they didn't actually find Lucy's hands or feet, >> but we have found the footbones of other Oralopyca specimens, so we don't really need Lucy's. >> Well, so how big were the actual Tanzania footprints?
>> About 10 in long. >> That's how big my feet are, and I only wear a 9 and 1/2. >> So, wait a minute.
So, they never found her feet. But Lucy, a 3 and 1/2t tall person made 10-inch long footprints a thousand miles away? >> No, literally none of that.
If you ask me, it sounds like the story that Lucy walked up right is lacking some evidence based on the Tanzania footprints. >> Well, that's why no one's asking you, dude. Maybe this is why you were held back so many times.
Seriously, you're still in high school and you look like you're 25. And also, whose head was that? >> Christianity is a blind faith, but belief in evolution relies solely on science.
>> What kind of a crappy teacher would say that to a class? Also, who's Christianity? Hey, that's right.
>> What do you mean she's right? She didn't say anything. >> Living things can't come from non-living things.
>> Huh? >> Like the professor said, right? >> Look, now even she's confused about what's going on.
Also, the professor didn't say anything about anything coming from anything. He just inappropriately criticized religion. What are you doing?
I'm starting to think these videos were supposed to be in a different order than they were published and edited. So, evolutionists have to believe that non-living matter became alive at some point in time down the line. Professor, can you give me a non-disputed scientific fact of how that could happen?
>> I mean, I can give you several, but the two biggest are just the simple facts that all the building blocks of life can self assemble as demonstrated in both laboratory settings and by their repeated discovery in outer space, and that all life follows the same laws of chemistry and physics without exception. If the things that make life can form on their own and do all the things that living things do on their own, then there's no reason to pretend that those two events happening in sequence is some wild leap of faith. >> There are several theories, but science is still trying to figure that one out.
>> Right? So, the law of biogenesis states that life can only come from life. It is scientifically impossible for life to generate by itself.
>> That's not what the law of biogenesis says. Also, abiogenesis isn't evolution. Also, you do believe that life can come from non-life as long as there's magic involved.
What is this argument? >> But that is exactly what you believe, sir. That is the definition of blind faith.
>> Will somebody please get these kids a proper teacher? I don't know what I'm expecting. Their school can't even afford to upgrade from a VCR.
How are they going to get an education here? >> There she is. These are replicas of Lucy, the best example we have of human evolution.
Lucy is nowhere near the best evidence we have of human evolution. >> They pulled hundreds of bones out of 20 ft of dirt over a 164 ft area. >> And also the hundreds of other specimens including many that are far more complete than Lucy and also several other species both before and after Lucy all across Africa, Europe, and Asia.
But by all means, let's keep talking about the one single specimen that you know about. >> But her bones actually refute evolution. Okay, Paul, if you know so much, why don't you come on up here and tell us all about it?
>> His name is Paul. Of course, it's Paul. Thank you, Paul.
>> As you can see, they could only find five of her skull fragments. The rest of it here, the white areas, all up to the imagination. >> That's not imagination.
It's reconstruction. If you know the shape of a part of a bone, you can make remarkably accurate predictions about the rest of the bone, especially with something like a skull, which has a predictable overall shape and bilateral symmetry. You can also use certain bones to tell a lot about the rest of the skeleton.
For example, teeth are one of the most useful diagnostic fossils available. You can learn a ton about an entire animal just from the shape and number of its teeth. To showcase what I mean by that, when we're looking at primate jaws, they have four types of teeth.
Incizers, canines, preolars, otherwise known as bicuspids, and mullers. Looking at each quadrant of the jaw, we can count the number of these teeth to determine what type of primate it is. So 2132, that's two incizers, one K9, three preolars, and two mers.
That's a new world monkey. From those teeth alone, I can tell where that animal lives and that it has a prehensile tail. But let's say those teeth have a formula of 2 1 2 3 two incizers, one K9, two preolars, three mers.
That means that it's an oldw world monkey. And if those mullers have what's called a Y5 shape, then that's a special subset of oldw world monkey called an ape. But if they're in a boiloffodont shape, then it's not.
We can also learn what they ate in their lives by looking at other indicators on the teeth like shearing crests for cutting leaves or low cusps for smashing fruit. Or we can use techniques like microware or misoar to analyze the pit scratches and wear patterns caused by chewing. And all of these techniques work on fossils as well.
And to take it even further, there are several paleoecology methods like analyzing the stable isotope content of the tooth enamel or even the enamel of other nearby fossils of different species that allow us to reconstruct the entire habitat that these animals lived in. So in summary, we can tell a lot about what this animal looked like, what it ate, and even what the climate was like while it was alive. And all just from small portions of the skull, especially the jaw.
You know, like that massive fragment of the jaw that you ignored while talking about how all the white parts were all just up to imagination. >> Then her neck vertebrae. The only problem is you only found one and it's not hers.
It actually belongs to an ancient therapy, which is a monkey, not an ape. >> What a bombshell. They misidentified one vertebrae.
And notice how he said they only found one, but he kind of quickly moved over the fact that he was only talking about the neck. They found several other vertebrae all along the length of her spine, but there was only one specifically from the neck, and that one was misidentified. And even then, the original researchers did point out that it looked kind of weird, and it should be carefully considered early on.
More importantly, however, do you know who found out that it wasn't Lucy's vertebra? It wasn't some creationist out to debunk evolution. It was real scientists doing what they do best and fact-checking one another.
Most the attention paid to Lucy's skeleton had been to her limbs. So, a new team of researchers started checking out her spine and they noticed that one of her vertebrae was a little bit too small. So, they looked more closely and determined that it was from a different species that had gotten mixed in either during fossilization or excavation and we all moved on.
That's life. Mistakes happen and scientists correct them. Creationists, on the other hand, just wait for the scientist to correct them so they can then chastise the scientist for ever having made a mistake to begin with.
because it's real easy to point out how the strong man stumbled when you've never picked up a weight. >> Next, her pelvis. They actually believe that she walked in right because of her pelvis, but when they found it, it was crushed.
>> Hey, I have a question. Can we all vote to expel Paul? And also, when's recess?
>> What they did is they reassembled it using a power saw to make it look like she walked upright. It seems like your best evidence for evolution is missing a few pieces. Her pelvis was not forced into looking like that with a power saw.
Her pelvis was found in an anatomically impossible position. So, the researchers took a cast of her pelvis and then manipulated that cast using all the bone available until it looked like, get this, a pelvis. But the key thing you're missing here is that we didn't need to find her pelvis at all.
We have other pelvises from other members of her species that all confirm the reconstruction that Paul is lying about right now. And as I mentioned earlier, there are also other anatomical features that uniformly and undeniably point to bipeedal walking. Even the footprints you tried to dismiss earlier prove you wrong here, Paul.
Unless of course our ancestors started walking upright and then they all stopped for a while while Lucy's family crawled around with twisted figure eight pelvises and then they all got up and started walking again. Also, I cannot stress this enough. This is not the only fossil of Oralopythecus apharensis or of Oralopythecus in general or of human ancestors or anything.
This is just the one fossil that creationists know about and they refuse to learn anything new. Here's a different specimen called Littlefoot, which is remarkably complete, but you can bet your butt that Genesis Apologetics is never going to show it to you because they need you to believe that Lucy is all we have. You did a terrible job today, Paul.
Maybe try visiting a natural history museum instead of the Ark Encounter sometime. That's about all the clips we have time for today, but good gravy. There are so many more and they're all so bad.
So, tune in next time for part two or maybe even three or four of this series within a series and then we'll go back to John and Jane and then we'll find some more. There's more. There's always going to be more.
There's there's so much creationist media out there and they all have the same five arguments and none of them know what a kind is and neither do I. But before I go, I'd like to remind everybody to go check out my upcoming trip to Zimbabwe. If you sign up before the end of February, you can join me to go learn a little bit about the wildlife and culture of that incredible slice of the world.
And we've got even more amazing adventures coming up. So, be sure you sign up for my travel email list while you're there. And with that, I'm Forest Falai.
Thank you so much for watching, liking, commenting, subscribing, and all the other stuff to do here on YouTube. Please exit through the gift shop, pick up one of these sweet t-shirts. Have an awesome rest of your day, and never stop learning.
Bye-bye. Heat. Heat.
