Darwin's Nightmare (Basics of Intelligent Design Biology, Ep. 1)

Abiogenesis is a failure

This isn't anything. The reasons species quickly appear is that, when a new niche opens up, animals are quick to adapt to it. Therefore, after large extinctions and other events where a bunch of niches suddenly opened up, new species appear quickly. This is basic science, and all of you are living in ignorance

Your argumentation is along the line: oh we have discovered a 4000 thousand old pyramid over there but since we haven't discovered individual brick that means pyramid just spawned there. Fossils are incredibly hard to make since you need an array of conditions for it to be possible. And since a "hard" body part is one of the preferable one's you won't be having many fossils before Cambrian era since those were (most definitely) soft body organisms. And even despite of that, many so called transitional organisms have been found. And also how does this prove intelligent design. "Science can't prove/disprove it therefore god" is not an evidence of god.

Why argue that Darwin was wrong in certain views? Newton's views have been proven wrong (incomplete). Does that mean that gravity does not exist? Of course not. Darwin's errors do not mean that the theory of evolution is completely wrong. Scientific theories are tested and improved. On the other hand, how does intelligent design solve the problem of other human-like species? And, btw, there are indeed plenty of "intermediate" species.

Isn't it funny how every single piece of information presented here is based on the findings of careful scientists, based on the robust system of the scientific method, yet trying to disprove the actual theory which allowed those scientists to come up with this information? It's like using the formula E=mc2 to mathematically prove that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong.

Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. The reason that you have to try and argue with a nearly 200 year old book is because you can’t disprove the mountains of evidence across hundreds of thousands of modern studies. The constant association of evolution and Darwin and viewing On the Origin of Species as the Bible of evolution is something only “Creation Scientists” do. The book is almost 200 years old. Lol.

I’ve been researching evolutionary theory for quite a few years now and I’ve been investigating alternatives such as ID in my quest to make sense of it all. As more and more information is presented and new discoveries are made, it becomes more and more apparent that evolution as an explanation for the diversity and appearance of life on this planet just doesn’t make any sense. As a former atheist, I now see that such a world view just doesn’t withstand scrutiny any longer and, looking back, it really never did. The only obstacle that evolutionists have between their ideas and the truth is a stubborn refusal to accept a creator. I know all too well how difficult that leap is to take. The implications just seem too profound to embrace.

Creationism. You are creationists. You have to pretend like science is a religion based off of a prophet so that you have any argument against it

Can you explain why you are removing comments from this page?

1. "Slowly" and "Gradually" does not mean "with the same speed". That speed will depend on the speed of change in nature that governs the natural selection. Sillies. 2. Quoting Darwin on possible doubts on his theory is like quoting Max Plank on his doubts on the principles of Quantum Mechanic. Yeah. we know the electron don't spin around the nucleus. 3. Compare the "Darwinian argument from silence" to the silence from the so called "intelligent designer". LOL. 4. So what are the facts of intelligent design? mum's the word, I guess.

Can we get a video about ERVs (retro viruses)?

But in the 150 years since Darwin's publication, we have found a number of intermediate species....more and more with each succeeding decade....

Interesting how many comments are missing. It will say "view 4 comments" and when you click,, only one. Why so many comments removed?

so we hear a lot here about faults in the theory of evolution, but nothing about the evidence that supports creation theory. what gives?

@08:12 Good question. If u will make a viable answer u will get a Nobel prize. As time are passing by, and we get better and better tools, we find MORE and MORE fossils categorized as new species. At the time of Darwin we barely had any specimens of the extinct ape species, yet now we have dozens, DOZENS of hominins species. Scientist can't really make a good classification model of species, BECAUSE of evolution, because they are too entangled. With an intelligent design would be effortless We know, EVERYBODY knows, that animals change to adapt better. If u think that there is a limit, PROVE THE LIMIT. This IS THE ONLY THINK you can do to disprove the one common ancestor which is an extrapolation from adaptation. U can talk all they long about trilobites, the fact is, they EXISTS, and the most important in a layer where u CAN'T find any other more complex creature. This are FACTS, make your own conclusions. Because intelligent design, as u propose it, doesn't make any logical sense. U can't explain trilobites, u can't explain fish that spend most of their life out of the water, mammals who spend all their life in the middle of the ocean, laryngeal nerve path, how much stuff contains DNA in regards to different animals and how much resemblance have based only on their body structures and functions (which also as a FACT we know that's not directly corelated), The evolution theory model today is much more refined than that of Darwin Origin of species idea, and we keep updating it to make a much more precise model of our reality, but till then just by telling lies will not overthrows it. And again it's A MODEL, its not the truth, but right now it's the best model we have and we use it to make predictions with it and it WORKS. (Ex Oil industry). PS. Gradual change does NOT EQUAL linear change. When u bring out sudden changes u contradict linear change NOT gradual change. Gradual it only means small steps, not necessarily the same rate. And if would put a little tough behind it, u would conclude that because changes are selected (be it natural or artificial) it's painstakingly obvious that the speed is DETERMINED by PRESSURE. And just because in grand scheme of history of earth, 6 millions of years is anything but small. I mean ffs, we made so many changes to dogs in just a few centuries, don't contradict common sense.

I'm always struck by the contrast between the efforts of Darwin critics, who focus on evidence, and the efforts of Darwin defenders, who focus mostly on attacking Darwin critics.

Evolution should be referred to as evolutionism. It is religion.

No, Darwin was not "making an argument from silence" when he said that the reason they hadn't found transitional fossils was because the fossil record was incomplete. If he had said "the fossil record is incomplete, and that proves I am right about evolution," THAT would be "an argument from silence". But that's not what he said. He said that the fossil record being incomplete only meant that the absence of transitional fossils DID NOT DISPROVE his theory of biological evolution. That is not an "argument from silence"; it is an invalidating-of-someone-else's-argument, from silence.

Where is the evidence that scientists opposed Darwin’s theory for findings that species were evolving all of a sudden? To be clear of what I am asking, what scientists were saying that and what exactly did they say?

5:14 - this is the most remarkably funny part of the video. Quoting Stephen Meyer's (misleading) definition of phylum just to poison the well by sneaking in abstract design concepts like 'architecture' is hilarious in itself, and then I looked down and realised you'd printed out the quote in the same way as Darwin's 😂😂 As though Meyer is even a scientist. Btw, unlike religion, science doesn't care WHO came up with an hypothesis, and rarely even the initial formulation. So tackling Darwin's flawed model (which of course it would be - he had no way of measuring or detecting what we can now. We don't roll our eyes at Newton for not factoring General Relativity into his Laws of Gravitation!) is not the takedown of an entire theory you think it i