Why am I still torturing myself with this book?
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0I34SYx60k
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFpuj3Q2E0Q
Sources and Further Reading:
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/dna
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MQdXjRPHmQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwibgNGe4aY
http://knowgenetics.org/dna-and-proteins/
http://knowgenetics.org/dna-mutations-2/
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-biology1/chapter/dna-mutations/
http://www2.csudh.edu/nsturm/CHEMXL153/DNAMutationRepair.htm
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/sicklecase_01
—————————
End Music: What Ifs by Melanie Baker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sStRjf1PTL8
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/mel0nnn
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/71VckCz8JMieQkjjAXzR5y
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/melaniebakermusic/
—————————
MERCH: https://teespring.com/stores/racheloates
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rachel0ates
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rachel0ates
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rachel0ates
Podcast: http://thehereandhow.com/
—————————
PO Box
LETTERS:
Rachel Oates
Unit 16588
PO Box 6945
London
W1A 6US
PARCELS:
Rachel Oates
Unit 16588
Courier Point
13 Freeland Park
Wareham Road
Poole
Dorset
BH16 6FH
UK.
Sorry they’re different addresses, it’s the one downside to the PO Box company I use!
—————————
A huge thank you to these guys for supporting me on Patreon this month ♥♥♥
Data Jack
Gambit and his chauffeur
Liv’s Pantyhose Addiction
Christian Berg
Jadeon Sheppard
Robert Korte
Peter Kyrouac
Sir Michael Moore, Bt.
Christina the atheist
Christian Opitz
Sage Villarreal
Greg Ladd
Loren Hart
Zachary Wallace
Eden
Lord of Therring
Mark Dauner
Awesome Aussie Atheist
Mary Civitano
Dean A. Batha
Crystal Bryce
Nathalie ML Romer
Simon Lundh
James Hahn
Flatterfuchs
Max Aldrich
Bric Mahlum
Kaitlyn Smart
Brent Kelley
John R
Manny Dylan Music
Becky Lashua
Stuart Bower
Tennomusha
Kevin Conrad
Michael Sommers
Matt
Chris Cox
Alan Stevens
Michael Butchin
Szaimis Burzynski
James Curtis
Hashtag Heathen
Solvor Megard
Skeptik Kabinett
James Classen
Andrew Jennings
Kate Carter
Klaus-Peter Hammerschmidt
Peter de Vries
The Bearded Heathen
Rachael Cooper
William
Philip Gagner
Conrado Manzano
Pegasos
Yamile Reyes
Bastian Hamilton
Sarah Nicole
Helene de Marcellus
Abrie Fourie
Rebecca Strong
Titania Grewe
Johanna Thurigen
L McKinnon
Holy Koolaid
Brian Lehman
EventHorizon
Shannon Stephenson
BriBri Doll
Dino Joe
Adam Thornton
Jaylee Moore
ultima9
Silvan Wespi
Stephen moorhouse
David G
David Lally
Susan Schindler-Lorito
Lizzie
Gustavo Cardenas
Pilot
DawnOfPagolia
Brant
Barbora Sedlakova
Daniel Loughmiller
Schema33
Kevin Breen
Ram Gilamar
Robert Butler
Martine Waeras
Alison Ryland
TaterThoughts
Abigail B
Sean Blackwell
Elliott Allen
Alex Gillott
Tia
Richard
Lieke Elioth
kelly nicholls
Melanie Allen
Matthew N
James Hale
Riley Cox
Spencer Young
Barry Smith
Jeannie Ashelin
Jonathan Milliken
Diamond
Vanessa Nassberger
Jeremy Frens
Marlon Robertson
You guys are incredible!! ♥
—————————
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/racheloates
Don’t feel like you have to donate, but please know I’m super-grateful to anyone who does ♥
It really gives me the opportunity to re-invest back into my channel and continue to improve me content for you guys. Plus, I can finally be financially stable again and stop disapointing my parents 😉
These pantyhosed legs are whorish!! ![Kent Hovind vs Basic Biology [PART 3]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8Amtdu7gwBI/hqdefault.jpg)
These pantyhosed legs are whorish!! This is the huge gilf ever%sentence_ending Kent Hovind vs Basic Biology [PART 3] from Rachel Oates These pantyhosed legs are whorish!! hi guys today we are talking all about
lying Kent Hovind
says that science textbooks are lying to
us I say he is lying about them lying he
says I am lying about him lying about
them lying
it’s lies section here it’s all kicking
off it’s craziness let’s just jump into
the video if you’ve not seen the first
two videos in this series I thoroughly
recommend you go check them out I’ll
link them below but if you do want to
skip them for whatever reason because
you know I can get a bit boring I guess
well but rambley here’s a summary Kent
Hovind say science textbooks are lying
about nearly everything however the
problem is Kent Hovind
doesn’t understand basic science that’s
pretty much it that’s that’s all we
talked about for two videos and we’re
gonna do it for a third because I must
be a masochist we are currently at the
point in the book where he’s going
through a series of Lies that he thinks
that textbooks tell us and mostly to do
with evolution because he doesn’t
believe in evolution as we saw in the
first video he has a really weird warped
definition of what evolution actually is
go watch that if you’ve not seen it
already it’s kind of ridiculous
Oh career is making her bad again aren’t
you we are kind of stepping things up a
little bit in this video because we’re
finally reaching the stuff that you know
unlike Kent I actually studied pretty
in-depth at an accredited university so
this is a stuff that I know about the
kind of genetics of cell biology the
human biology this kind of aspect of it
last time we were talking a lot about
like some geology bits and stuff like
that and which is not my area of
expertise this stuff I still wouldn’t
call myself an expert I’m no I near the
level of some incredible people but and
this is what I know this is what I
studied at University and yeah it’s kind
of my thing as final thing I want to
address before we like jump into reading
any of the book itself I know I’m sorry
lost that admin at the beginning it was
get boring right but the final thing I
want to discuss is that Kent has been
making some video responses to me and
I’m aware these exist but I’ve not
watched them yet actually I tried to
watch a bit of like his first one it got
kind of boring any connecting more since
then anyway I am aware
that they exist I’ve not seen them so
before any of Kent’s fans commit me with
any more Christian love so loving I will
say this now I’m gonna continue making
these videos about the book as I have
planned them and research them and or
any like basically not not scripted but
like bullet pointed them out what I want
to talk about I’m gonna keep making
these videos as planned I’m not changing
that I’m not responding to Kent
straightaway I’ve already said I’m not
going to debate him but at the end of
this series of videos I may look at his
responses and then make one final
response to his responses if that makes
sense
but I’m not gonna get into a
back-and-forth on every video with him
because I think that’s a waste of
everyone’s time but yeah like I say if
there is a response to his responses to
me response ception it’s not gonna be
before I’m done dissecting this book and
the bad science in it because I want
that to be the focus and I don’t want
this series to devolve into what he has
already tried to make it which I his
like childish Christ it’s like and the
good and they taste destroying her and
then him spelling my name wrong and yeah
so where we are in Kent Hovind are you
being brainwashed book is at lie number
seven which is where Kent tells us he
doesn’t think the sigil organs or
structures exist in any animal ever
there’s a lot in this and I don’t
actually want to focus on the vestigial
organs bit for this I want to focus on
one really interesting line he says it’s
kind of a sarcastic comment on the claim
that he’s making where he says by the
way even if there were four stitch
organs there are not isn’t not losing
something not gaining something is that
how evolution works you lose things
until you have everything and I really
wanted to talk about this and focus on
it because again it’s a blatant
misunderstanding of what the whole
process of evolution is for one thing
there’s no conscious effort behind
evolution it’s not a definite
progression in one way or another to
lose or gain things there’s no ultimate
goal with it it’s just a series of
changes sometimes random mutations
happen and sometimes those mutations
result in genes being expressed
differently and every so
than those gene expressions are useful
to an organism in the environment that
it’s living and those organisms will be
more likely to survive to have offspring
which will have that same mutation
passed on to them and over generations
those genes become dominant that’s all
it is it’s not gaining or losing
anything there’s no conscious actor
behind it there’s no one pushing things
in a certain direction there’s not even
like a certain direction that things are
going in where we always lose or gain
something it’s just a series of events
and so reading this sarcastic comment in
the book and reading a lot of the
comments from Kent’s fans on my last few
videos I’ve kind of become aware that
Kent Hovind
and his fans don’t understand the basics
of how evolution happens which is why I
want to take a few moments in the
beginning of this video to kind of jump
into the science go way back to basics
explain the process of evolution by
natural selection as simply as possible
as possible right down to the cellular
level this is complicated stuff I can’t
cover every detail there’s a hell of a
lot more here that I’m not covering I’m
basically covering this to light maybe
an a level biology standard but there’s
a hell of a lot more I could talk about
we could go into more of the details
about how these events like
transcription and translation and
everything actually happened we could
talk about that in more detail but for
simplicity’s sake I don’t want to jump
ahead too far and get into that kind of
deep level just yet because I think we
need to explain the basics first and so
this is gonna be a kind of
oversimplified basic explanation of how
mutations arise or what DNA is and how
all this influences or leads to
evolution by natural selection inside
the nucleus of our cells and the cells
of all living things there are these
little little molecule called
nucleotides nucleotides are the organic
monomers that make up DNA and RNA
nucleotides are made up of a phosphate
group a five carbon sugar or a pentose
sugar some people call it and a nitrogen
based base in
this base can either be Simon adenine
guanine or cytosine for simplicity’s
sake I’m leaving out the differences
with RNA for now but basically the DNA
of all living things is made up of
nucleotides with these four bases
doesn’t matter if it’s a single cell or
a plant cell or a fish or a complex
mammal everything is made up of these
four basic monomers the basis for all
living things is fundamentally the same
what I want you to remember now is that
these monomers aren’t in themselves
living which means that the basis for
all living things is a nonliving thing
so when people say how can you get a
living thing from nonliving we are all
made up of nonliving things the boundary
between living and nonliving is kind of
complicated and cloudy and messy but
again that’s a topic for a whole other
video so the phosphate group of one
nucleotide will form a covalent bond
with the sugar group of another
nucleotide and so this ends up forming a
big long string of nucleotides base
pairs that aren’t attached to anything
will then usually form hydrogen bonds
with the other base pairs of other
nucleotides and then they as they match
up kind of like form the covalent bonds
with the ones next to them and you end
up with these two strands of nucleotides
attached at the sides by covalent bonds
in the middle by hydrogen bonds these
bases kind of pair up so guanine always
bonds with cytosine and thymine always
bonds with adenine these two connected
strands of nucleotides are DNA and DNA
can be hundreds or thousands or millions
of nucleotides long within this like
millions long-chain stretches of these
nucleotides can have specific functions
usually to do with building proteins but
not always and these are specific kind
of areas at the chain are called genes
while it’s easy to make a claim like
there’s a gene for blue eyes for example
the gene itself isn’t creating an entire
blue eye one gene might just be
responsible for creating the pigment
that goes into our irises while another
gene is responsible for creating the
muscle in our eye I knew the genius
responsible for building the lens and so
on there’s a lot more that goes into
kind of like building a part of an
organic living thing than just one
single gene usually it’s lots of genes
working together to produce different
components that make up us and who we
are
it’s nowhere near as simple as just one
gene for one RA one gene for arms one
gene for lungs it’s nothing like that
far more context some genes along some
genes are short some genes create really
complex proteins some genes create
really really small simple proteins
through transcription DNA is converted
to mRNA and then mRNA works with
ribosomes to create proteins every three
bases in the mRNA I like a code and each
of these either codes for like stop or
one of 20 amino acids the ribosome reads
these three little bases and says ok
well this means I need to pick this
amino acid and it picks that amino acid
and then it reads the next 3 bases and
says okay I need to pick this amino acid
it attaches it’s the last one and that’s
how it builds proteins but not all bits
of DNA encode protein sequences we call
these bits non-coding DNA but they do
have a variety of functions and purposes
usually they’re there to be regulatory
so they look after how ribosomes are
building proteins or so on they have
lots of different functions just because
they’re not building the protein it
doesn’t mean they’re useless or junk
these bits are also usually where we
look for markers to trunk like identify
people and so on sometimes DNA can be
affected by mutations mutations are
permanent changes to the sequence of DNA
mutations can range from a single
nucleotide being altered to a string of
nucleotides being altered or removed or
added or changed in some way most DNA
mutations occur as a result of errors
when the DNA is copied or by a strand of
DNA being affected by environmental
factors when mutations are found in the
DNA of gametes then there’s a chance
that these are going to be passed on to
the person’s offspring which is how
genetic mutations are passed on from
generation to generation there are many
different kinds of mutation some unknown
as substitutions and this is where one
nucleotide in the code in the string in
the chain is accidentally switched with
another nucleotide some are deletions
where a nucleotide or series of
nucleotides are just completely missed
out of the chain completely they’re just
not added in there during transcription
or translation or something and and some
mutations are known
insertions which is where random
nucleotides or syriza’s and chains of
nucleotides are accidentally added into
the sequence again usually during
transcription or translation or whatever
in some cases this has absolutely no
effect on the protein being made
sometimes different little codes of the
basis can code for the same amino acid
so this might have no noticeable effect
even if there is a mutation however in
some cases a mutation can cause an
effect to be noticed for example it may
cause a wrong amino acid to be added to
a protein which means the protein won’t
function properly which means we may
notice the effects kind of physically it
may cause a protein to stop being built
or it may cause a protein to just kind
of carry on being built and built bigger
than it should be and again this will
stop it functioning as it should not
every mutation has an effect on how a
gene is expressed and some have no
effect at all but mutations are actually
fairly common
and when mutations do have an effect on
gene expression sometimes they’re minor
sometimes they’re major there’s no
correlation between the number of and I
guess bases that have been added or
changed or taken away and and how big
the actual can gene expression change is
for example you can have one tiny base
substituted out and it can lead to a
huge huge change in how a gene is
expressed or you could have a random
code inserted in by accident and through
look and chance it has no impact on how
genes are expressed or at least no
noticeable impact on it so it is a lot
more complex then it might seem a
mutation is not a conscious way of
saying add this or take this away from
an organism it’s not saying okay I’m
gonna add a third eyeball it’s not
saying okay I’m gonna take away this arm
it’s simply a small error in the code
which may or may not alter how a gene or
genes are expressed which in turn may or
may not alter how a protein is made or
how a cell functions to look at an
example take a person with sickle cell
anemia what happens there is that inside
all of our DNA’s we all have a gene that
helps make hemoglobin he
what helps red blood vessels transport
oxygen around the bloodstream so
everyone has this gene that makes
protein and in people with sickle cell
anemia there’s one small part where one
base is switched out for the wrong one
and as a result this one single base
being switched when the ribosomes in the
cells come to make the hemoglobin it’s
not really the right shape it kind of
still works but not really it kind of
all clumps together and it stops the red
blood cells from being able to properly
carry oxygen and so obviously this
affects people and on a physical level
because you know they struggle with
exercise because they can’t carry as
much oxygen in their blood and so on
it’s not always that simple
it’s often a lot more complex often just
mixing up one base won’t have such a big
drastic effect on a person physically
but sometimes it does it’s all down to
kind of chance and look and yeah it’s
all very complicated one website I found
puts it all a lot better than I ever
could by saying in many cases
evolutionary change is based on the
accumulation of many mutations each
having a small effect whether the
mutations are large or small however the
same change of causation applies changes
at the DNA level propagate up to the
phenotype so how does this relate to
evolution because I know I’ve been kind
of like throwing a lot of heavy science
that you hear as we’ve established
sometimes changes or mutations in the
DNA affect how genes are expressed right
and a change in gene expression can be
good or bad or unnoticeable it’s not a
matter of add or taking away a structure
or something like that from a living
organism just a matter of changing the
underlying code that builds that
structure if there are noticeable
changes in gene expression and there’s a
negative and hinder the organism in some
way then the organism may not survive
long enough to have any children to pass
on these negative or harmful genes to so
they died out but if the expression of
the mutation is advantageous if it helps
the organism in the environment that
they currently live in that organism is
probably more likely to survive is more
likely to have babies and have more
babies with which to pass these genes on
to and then these kids with that
mutation will have a higher chance of
surviving and passing their genes on and
so on sometimes things do go wrong in
the negative
mutations and somehow end up being
passed on and kind of like quite
prominent sometimes mutations can have
one negative side effect and one
positive side effect like I say it’s all
very complex I’m just trying to explain
this is simply and as basically as
possible
but there’s a lot more to it than just
this like I say over time mutations and
changes in gene expression build up
throughout a population and while each
step of change may be very small over
millions of years we do see them build
up to big big changes and this is the
bit in particular that I think people
like Kent Hovind and his fans can a
struggle to get their head around
because they’re like and they can’t
quite see the big picture and they can’t
quite see how these small changes build
up to something so big but it is
possible with time I want to give you an
analogy about one of my favorite things
in the world try make this a little bit
clearer let’s imagine you’re baking
cookies and you have a basic cookie
recipe that you always follow you have a
list of ingredients and a list of rules
for how to mix them this is your DNA you
make cookies for everyone you know and
these people are all kind of split up
into groups we’re gonna focus on three
groups in particular today one is a
group of kids one is a group of elderly
people and another is a group of
athletes say so you bake your basic
cookie recipe every day sometimes
several times a day you you bake a lot
of cookies and everyone likes your
cookies well enough but this one day you
accidentally add a little bit more sugar
into one of your recipes by accident
turns out the kids all love these
super-sweet cookies a day go crazy for
them so now you take that feedback you
say oh well these guys like this these
guys didn’t really mind so now you start
making two different batches of cookies
you’ve got your regular cookies for the
elderly people and the athletes and your
sweet cookies for the kids another day
you add in a little bit of extra flour
by mistake and the elderly people they
grumble because this makes the cookies
really hard and you know they can’t chew
them with their false teeth so like
remember you throw out that batch of
cookies you get rid of the recipe where
you put in too much flour and you go
back to what you were doing before
regular cookies for the elderly and the
athletes sweet cookies for the kids
another day you’re baking your batches
of cookies again and you accidentally
drop in a bunch of nuts
into the mix it turns out the athletes
love them because all this extra protein
it’s great for like building up muscle
and doing whatever athletes do I don’t
know the kids don’t like it so much the
elderly don’t like it so much it’s
soaking their teeth the kids like this
is too healthy so now you’re making
three different batches of cookies
regular for the elderly with nuts for
the athletes and sweet for the kids you
carry on making batches of cookies day
after day and sometimes you switch up
the ingredients sometimes you switch up
the method sometimes you get really
positive feedback sometimes you get
negative feedback and you listen to that
feedback and you adjust your recipes
slowly over time sometimes you make a
change and your friends can’t tell the
difference between the new cookies and
the old ones sometimes you make a change
and they’re like oh my god this is
amazing
keep doing this every time you take that
feedback and use it in your new recipe
or your next recipe over time your
recipe slowly changes and while not
every stage of the recipe is perfect or
good it gets better
over time slowly over a series of years
you find yourself using less flour and
more eggs for the elderly you start
adding protein powder and taking out
some of this sugar for the athletes and
the kids you start adding more sugar
more sweet things you start decorating
the cookies slowly over hundreds and
hundreds of patches of cookies you’re no
longer just making simple cookies
anymore
the elderly people you’re making fairy
cakes for the athletes you’re making
protein bars for the kids you’re making
these intricately decorated gingerbread
men you start up with the same recipe
and made tiny changes over time not all
of these worked out not all of them were
noticed but you had that same foundation
the same building blocks and now you’re
making three very different kinds of
baked goods for three very different
people with very different purposes once
you understand that and apply it on a
huge scale to genetics and DNA and
having babies and natural selection
you’ve got evolution lots of tiny mostly
unnoticeable changes happening over a
long period of time and it’s only when
we look back and compare you know
animals and species hundreds thousands
of generations apart that we see the big
changes because generation to generation
they’re usually not the
noticeable anyway okay I know that was
long I know that may have been a little
tedious for some of you already know
this kind of stuff I think it was
important worth saying I know it wasn’t
specifically about vestigial organs but
I think it’s very important to cover
this and because based on the sarcastic
comment Kent made I don’t think he seems
to understand this at all but you know
Kent
prove me wrong you know it’s like it’s
very easy for people say a dog doesn’t
give birth to it non dog but it’s just
as easy to say well you can’t make cakes
from a cookie recipe and you can’t but
if you change that recipe you’ll
eventually end up with a cake recipe
instead of cookies and that’s evolution
anyway now on to line number eight which
is our three titled lie eight animals
and plants have adapted to their
environment I mean have so he writes
while it’s true that variations happen
and animals can adapt within limits the
textbooks teach or imply that there is
no limit to the adaptations now again I
would like to see an example of this
I’ve never seen a textbook say there is
no limit to adaptations because on the
one hand I do agree with it that there
are no limits but the way Kent
interprets this is like completely
ridiculous because he comes out with
this anecdote which says one atheist I
debated said given enough time a cow can
adapt to the water and become a whale
now I don’t wanna go all no true
Scotsman on you but this atheist that
said this he’s an idiot and yes he does
deserve to have that statement
completely ripped apart because it’s
nonsense and I get too repetitive like
the last video but no cow will ever turn
into a whale
that can’t happen that’s not evolution
Kent goes on to critique the use of the
word adapt because he says that we’re
only doing it to avoid saying designed
because we don’t want to admit there’s a
designer or no we use the word adapt
because that’s what living organisms do
they adapt and the environment adapts to
us as well there’s no design there’s no
proof of a design there’s no proof of a
designer there is proof of adaption and
it’s not just a matter of organisms
adapting to their environments but the
environment often adapts around
organisms as well we’re not just on this
earth because someone put us here we’re
here because we are the right kind of
organisms to live in this kind of
place this kind of time he goes on to
say that everywhere we look in nature we
see evidence of design the evolutionist
would like you to believe that this is
just a coincidence and there really is
no design it is all a result of random
accident straw Manning again it’s not
all the result of a random accident yes
mutations may be random and accidental
but they only stick around if they’re
useful
there’s no conscious act to saying pick
this one and this one this one but there
is pressure from natural environments
for organisms with certain beneficial
traits to be more likely to survive than
others so I guess on one level you could
say well okay we’re gonna take this back
to what started it all and yes a lot of
us are here because of random mutations
and random accidents but that doesn’t
mean the entire process was random and
accidental and there are lots of things
like this just because something starts
off as a result of random chance it
doesn’t mean the entire process is
random like I don’t know if it’s weird
to bring this up as an example but you
know since we broke up but when I met
Dan meeting him at the party that I met
him at was completely by accident and
random and pure luck that we bumped into
each other but the fact that we kind of
like started spending time together as
friends and the fact that we cultivated
that relationship and like built it up
to something that was amazing in the end
that wasn’t random or accidental we
started out like as the consequence of a
random action but that doesn’t mean the
whole process of our relationship was a
random accident and it’s the same with
natural selection
anyway ken goes on to talk about the
watchmaker analogy which oh I just like
but he uses painting as an example
instead I always have to say this that
like why the people who use this analogy
always assume there’s an actor and a
reason behind something there isn’t
there just isn’t when it comes to
natural occurrences sometimes they just
happen and yes we can look back and say
how something happened and like you know
what it’s the consequence of but that
doesn’t mean that was a why and a reason
a conscious reason behind it a chain of
events can just lead to another event
happening but that doesn’t mean there’s
an actor behind it all there’s no one
planning it out there’s no conscious
decision to make it happen
it’s just a series of events when you
see it raining if you stop and think oh
I wonder who decided to turn the rain on
today no well you don’t see a wild
flower growing and think oh I wonder who
planted that every time your heart beats
it’s not a conscious decision on
your part to say okay beat beat and beat
and beat no that happens subconsciously
there’s no conscious actor behind it
it’s just how your body functions based
on signals and how it works you don’t
have to consciously guide your body
through every step events happen without
conscious actors all the time so claims
like it is obvious there was a creator
because the absolute insanity of the
contrary it is impossible that there not
be a design emphasis such a complex
universe as the one we live in claims
like that honestly seem bizarre to me in
line number nine
Kent tries to take on the human eye or
the animal I just the eye in general I
think and and what really pleasantly
surprised me is that for once a
creationist doesn’t take Darwin out of
context here so good on Kent for doing
this thank you however he does ruin it
in the next bit where he says in order
to get students to believe that a
complex structure such as the eye could
have formed by chance textbooks will
often show examples of different types
of eyes from reptiles birds and even
light-sensitive spots from smaller
creatures they will arrange them in the
order they choose claiming that this
next is an example of evidence as to how
the eye evolved office obviously
arranging things in some type of
artificial order is not evidence for
anything but they’re not giving it as
evidence like that they’re using it to
explain how eyes with our structure for
example aren’t the only type of either
work for an organism when you see
different levels of like eye complex –
like this they’re not saying this
happened to us and then this happened to
us and then this happened to us they’re
not saying that they’re saying hey look
these are all kinds of eye these are all
different levels of complexity of the
eye living organisms can and do function
with different kinds of vision and
different kinds of eye and different
levels of complexity it’s not all the
same level as say the human eye not
every organism needs vision not every
organism needs a level of control of a
focal length for example and that we do
not every organism needs to be able to
see all the colors that we do some can
see a larger range of light than we can
some are more sensitive to light and
dark than we are
there’s
so different types of I out there sounds
stupid doesn’t and the thing is Kent
gets this cuz he literally goes on to
explain evolution by natural selection
in the next sentence he says each
creature in the world seems to have the
type of eye that it needs to survive in
its environment amazing yes that’s
because they evolved to have that that’s
because over generations they adapted to
their environments until they survive in
it and some animals some organisms don’t
have the best eyesight for why they live
and that’s maybe because I haven’t
finished evolving yet maybe that’s
because something went wrong somewhere
but yes this idea that there are so many
organisms out there that do have the
perfect eye for their environment it’s
brilliant and it is proof of evolution
by natural selection
but then Kent goes and ruins it by
saying each type of eye is incredibly
complex and conspicuously designed he
goes on to say one textbook states you
can better understand how the I might
have evolved if you picture a series of
changes during the evolution of the eye
and then he actually gives us a source
for once which is kind of impressive for
Kent so thank you for that please do it
more often
he says apparently this book intends for
students to picture or imagine how the I
might have evolved this is definitely
not science this might be somebody’s
religion you know saying okay imagine
this or using analogies is a pretty
common teaching tool it’s not saying
okay we’re gonna discover something new
today by getting you to imagine it it’s
saying okay this is what scientists have
already discovered and know to explain
it to you guys in a simple way I want
you to imagine this that’s all it is
it’s a teaching technique it’s so
bizarre that he doesn’t get that it’s
like me saying okay and I’m explaining
how gravity works as part of this I want
you to imagine you drop a feather in a
rock at the same time which lands first
I mean by Kent’s logic in the rock and
feather example because I use the word
imagine in that scenario to teach kids
about gravity then somehow gravity’s a
lion doesn’t exist anymore
Kent claims that the fact is the eye is
far too complex to have evolved
piece-by-piece
the i illustrates what is called ear
useable complexity if certain components
in the I am missing it ceases to
function I completely disagree
I think irreducible complexity
especially in the context of the AI is
complete nonsense take away parts of the
eye and it won’t function exactly as the
eye we know today does function but we
know that people do function with less
than perfect vision vision with problems
in the eye because we have people
constantly wearing glasses it’s not like
a circuit board where if you take away
one wire the whole thing stops
functioning you can take away small bits
of the eye and it will still work to
some extent just not a level that we
know it today it’s just like the cookie
cake analogy again not every stage has
to be perfect every time yeah if you go
back in time the eye isn’t always gonna
have functioned as well as it does now I
won’t have always function in the same
way that it does now but who says it
always function like this no one does
look at the eye you take away the
muscles holding the lens in place and
you still got an eye that works to some
extent you just can’t change focal
length so you might struggle to see
things further away or closer up or take
away the cone cells in your eye and you
can’t see color but you can still see
shapes and textures and patterns using
your rod cells I have spoken about this
in other videos but it is incredibly
plausible to think the eye started
evolving in small stages over millions
of years initially starting out as one
light-sensitive cell becoming multiple
light-sensitive cells developing cone
cells to pick up colors and adding some
neurons to the brain so we can start to
consciously and unconsciously interpret
these signals and add a lens to focus
the light at muscles to alter the focus
and yeah vision wasn’t always as good as
we know it today but but that’s okay
because vision developed over millions
of years
like I say irreducible complexity is
often easily debunked there’s lots of
ways people can be visually impaired but
still have a functioning eye to some
degree the eye is not irreducibly
complex Oh anyway that’s where I think
I’m gonna end this here
this was quite a science heavy one I’m
enjoying the science side of things I’m
enjoying making these videos and I’m
joining some of the feedback I’m getting
but I’ll be honest Kent Hovind fans are
exhausting and some of them are just so
means like not necessarily towards me
just to us people in general I really
kind of shocked me
but there we go and I’m gonna keep
making these videos like I say I’m
enjoying them let me know what you think
of them let me know what you thought of
this slightly more science heavy one
hopefully it wasn’t just me talking at
you too much but I do feel like we
needed to cover some of those like basic
bits about like genetics and cell
biology and so on before we kind of go
any further at this point because you
know cover the basics before you get any
more complex right anyway I’m gonna shut
up talking this has been way too long
thank you so much for watching today I
appreciate you guys so much and
hopefully I’ll see you guys again soon
[Music]
thank you so so much to everyone support
me on patreon this month with a special
thank you going to dead jack gambit in a
chauffeur lives pantyhose addiction
Christian Berg Jaden Shepard Robert
cortex pizza kara watts Sir Michael
Moore Christina the atheist Christian
Opitz
sage Valerio red five and Lauren Hoth
you and everyone else support me on
patreon is absolutely amazing i won
don’t do it without you thank you so
much
[Music]
you
