HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: CMIcreationstation

Speciation: yes, Evolution: no (Creation Magazine LIVE! 4-19)

135 ratings | 4139 views
Rapid speciation has always been a cornerstone of Young Earth Creationist belief. If all of the animals we see today are descended from the limited amount of animals on Noah’s Ark then rapid speciation must have occurred. See the stunning evidence of this very thing and why it is so challenging to evolutionists and ‘Old Earth’ creationists alike. The Creation Magazine LIVE! TV program is a ministry of Creation Ministries International. With offices in seven countries and more PhD scientists than any Christian organization this program shows how the latest scientific discoveries support the Bible and refute evolution and million of years. Related Articles: Speciation Q&A page (http://creation.com/speciation) Related Products: Dynamic Life – Changes in living things (http://creation.com/s/30-9-520) Creation magazine (free sample copy) (http://creation.com/free-mag)
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (70)
This video is hilarious!
Well, should we take everything Richard Dawkins says either literally or figuratively? Does it have to be either/or? Can't it be both? Why can't we say the same about interpretation of the Bible?
The variations within kinds are not microevolution as no evolution is involved at all. Microevolution is a misnomer. Variations within kinds of organisms have to do with genetics at work, with *gene expression of alleles (different varieties of a certain trait, such as different hair and skin colors) already in existence in the gene pool in nature*. No new genetic information is added. It's just the selection of different alleles through the Punnett Square rule expressing genes (dominant, recessive and co-dominant). Gene transfer, such as during meiosis, is technically not a part of the definition of mutation. When I studied biochemistry, mutations mean insertions, deletions and point mutations of nucleotides much like introducing typing errors in the word "transportation", with insertion like "transmportation", deletion like "trasportation", and point mutation like "transmortation". Such true definition of mutation will only result in partial or whole gene deletion resulting in loss of genetic information, such as in individuals with HIV immunity (delta32 mutation) resulting in partial loss of CCR5 gene that normally codes for chemokine receptors that the HIV use to enter CD4+ leukocytes. The delta32 mutation is technically a genotypically detrimental mutation resulting in loss of genetic information so that no chemokine receptors are coded resulting in HIV immunity. But since chemokine receptors do have their normal physiological functions in helping to mount an inflammation, with their absence due to delta32 mutation, HIV immune individuals are also more susceptible to other kinds of infections such as West Nile disease. You might want to take a course in genetics to see why speciation is not evolution at all. I would warn Christians not to allow evolutionists to use the term "microevolution" because first of it, no evolution is involved in variations of kinds or speciation. Secondly and most importantly, it won't give them the free-rider effect to say "microevolution given long enough time will turn into macroevolution". Well, if they want to insist that, then ask them for observable evidence of macroevolution since their imaginary billions of years have already gone by. With our planet populated with all kinds of organisms, with so much billions of years in the past tense (their excuse for practicing voodoo science of evolution), they should have no problem showing us fish turning into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals in real life. Their billions of years magical ingredient is no longer working for them. It's time for everyone to accept a young earth. =)
NamelessAnonymous (3 years ago)
Hi CMI! I love your work! I have a question regarding the Asian descent. Some people have told me that the climate in Asia MADE the people there with "smaller, squinty" eyes. I am very skeptical on that. If it was true, then the "open" eyed people either left there or died off for some reason I cannot wrap my mind around. Or....Are the different ethnic groups split because of climate or just because they ancestors went to that part of the world and isolated their genes thus revealing more prominent features such as dark skin or "squinty" eyes? After Babel of course. Please let me know. Thank you.
I love God (7 months ago)
I have not clicked on the video Linked on this Reply however it has been my understanding of the different races and Ethnic groups came from the Tower of Babel. That is where we spoke different tongues from that point on. I would imagine some adaptation has taken place over time but the color of skin and the language were determined from the Tower of Babel.
NamelessAnonymous (3 years ago)
+lulu12345575 let me reply with my own asnwer. I should have researched before asking but this may help someone http://creation.com/the-origin-of-the-human-races http://creation.com/a-lady-of-distinction
Jesse King (3 years ago)
Speciation IS Evolution. "Changes in a population over time." Scientists just don't perform special pleading and invoke non-existent rules that limit the amount a species can change. A wolf produces wolf offspring, and through selection and genetic mutation, wolves gave rise to dogs. A wolf didn't give birth to a dog, the children are always the species of its parents. A wolf gave birth to a wolf that was different enough from the original wolf ancestor that it became classified as a new species. Before that was miacidae which gave rise to wolves through the same process. The fact is that you are extremely different from your African ancestors, but there is a high likelihood that you have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in you showing that you are related, and descended from another species long ago.
I love God (7 months ago)
Jesse King Obviously you do not study five nor have you given any real evidence.
STREEEEEET (3 years ago)
+Jesse King I'm not sure you have watch the video to argue about such thing. First, our classification means nothing to wolfs or dogs. There is not even a consensus about which approach we should take to classify a species. And it seems that you don't quite understand what molecules to man evolution needs to demonstrate in order to explain the arrival of new (never before existent) genetic information and arrival of new functional parts. Also i detected a bit of word playing in there: " _Scientists doesn't invoke a non-existing rule_ ". So which rule they invoke to affirm that there is no limit to those changes? We sure can't see it happening. Also, genetic entropy shows otherwise...
Granualt (3 years ago)
The "age" of the univverse is not 13,8 billions years old since light comes to us from galaxies 40 billions lightyears away!! At the same time the Earth is 4 billions years old from our ponit of view!! This is relativistic physics and it also probes to us that the universe is not expanding!! The redskhift is an Doppler eeffect!! And from Gods ponit of view the Earth can be 6000 "years" old!! No CONTRADICTION here!!
Termin (3 years ago)
What evidence do you have, that is INDEPENDENT of evolution ? seems to me creationists are very slowly accepting evolution , just look at the history of creationism, it started with a complete denial of evolution, and now an attempt to simply reexplain evolution to fit their beliefs.  But what evidence to back up ? Creationism would have to have evidence unique to it, what do creationists have that is unique ?
Travis Easton (2 years ago)
+Termin warwager I presume from your answer that you define the advantageous selection of existing character traits as evolution (i.e. change is evolution, a definition so broad as to be effectively meaningless). In the real world for evolution to occur you need entirely new character traits which by definition can only be created by mutations (not adaptions) to create new genetic information (a far more specific and useful definition). Advantageous selection of existing character traits is everywhere and inevitably results in speciation (although as Dawkins point out in the selfish gene due to inbreeding, dominant and recessive traits become increasingly fixed effectively breeding out adaptiveness as the generations build up). While advantageous mutations are theoretically possible they are so exceedingly rare that they are swamped by the plethora of negative mutations that accompany them. Advantageous mutations are the backbone of evolution despite the fact that they are exceedingly rare, seldom passed on and therefore unlikely to gain prominence in a population that only effectively selects against fatal mutations. A belief in mutations being the building blocks of ever increasing complexity for me is a leap of faith of truly monumental proportions.You seem to forget that western science was built on a creationist world view by the likes of Newton and Kepler. In individuals and societies new knowledge builds on what we have already learnt. Whether you agree with creationists or not the fact they are asking questions and challenging the status quo can surely only be a good thing. If they are right we all gain if they are wrong and inspire knew thinking we all gain. This idea that everyone must submit themselves to the status quo is the death of knowledge and this preoccupation amongst atheist evolutionists is the enemy of good science. Creationists have a unique and valuable voice that can only add insight to the discussion about origins and presumably on some level you agree with this or otherwise you wouldn't be here.
Conn O (3 years ago)
Great work guys..God bless you.
Dmlaney (3 years ago)
Richard Dawkins is the descendant of a dumb ape...
M (2 years ago)
yup do you mean the imaginary man ape or the imaginary extinct ape?! lol
The Harmonica Musician (3 years ago)
Would subspeciation be a more accurate term in the creation model? It makes more sense actually as opposed to universal speciation.
Scientist Sam (3 years ago)
+Nightmaker47 You very clearly have no clue what you're talking about. When are you available for a hangout? Methinks you are avoiding your challenger.
The Harmonica Musician (3 years ago)
+Scientist Sam Why was I not notified that you replied? Anyway, I'm pretty convinced judging by your critique that you either put words in my mouth or paraphrased my arguments. I also notice a few misconceptions in your knowledge of statistics. "You don't understand what a p-value is. 5% is the probability that you achieve a better result if you repeat the experiment. That's what a p-value is." Wrong. The p-value is not the probability of getting a better result if the experiment was repeated. It is the probability of getting the SAME (as extreme) or BETTER (more extreme) observation by chance alone if the null-hypothesis was actually true. A p-value is a one-tailed/two-tailed binomial probability that is mathematically expressed as P ≥ X (greater than or equal to). It is not P > X. "It isn't a false-positive rate." Yes Sam, you're absolutely correct that a p-value isn't a false-positive rate although I have no idea where you are getting that from me. If I truly thought the false-positive rate was equivalent to a p-value, then I would say that there is a less than 5% chance of something being a false-positive since p-values are always less than that of the significance level of the test when it comes to statistical significance, 0.05 in this case. Yet, I didn't. You know why? Because I already knew that it was the alpha level of the test (a = 0.05) that determined the false-positive/Type I error probability rate, not the p-value. Thank you again for putting words in my mouth. "You also don't understand statistical significance if you think non-statistically significant ones is important." What? There is nothing important about statistical significance. As I've said before, it is only a measure of evidence based on the unlikelihood of something occurring by chance alone. That's all it is. and I highly disagree with your claim that non-statistically significant tests aren't important. Publishing statistically significant studies is just as important as publishing non-statistically significantly ones. Ignoring negative ones and publishing the positive ones claiming to be evidence is inappropriate and nothing more but garbage statistics. Look up data-dredging and experimenter bias. Negative studies are highly important, especially when combining their results in statistical methods like meta-analyses. "They also didn't mention the confidence interval or CI in the article. They aren't the same thing. A p-value is an indication of the probability that a given experiment will yield better results if it is repeated and a confidence interval is where a given statistic (for example, the true mean) is likely to lie. You need to understand how these things work if you're going to have a technical argument." Actually, p-value and confidence interval are the same. A p-value < 0.05 is the same as a 95% confidence interval. The only difference between the two is that CI expresses the range of values with margin of error in which the true value most likely falls in. A p-value does not do this, but they both share a relationship together. "No. That is a basic misunderstanding of statistics and the paper you referenced to me. Incongruent phylogenies are shown to disappear when you remove known systematic biases (Jeffroy et al., 2006; the article you claim to have read)." I wonder, did you carefully read the study? *"In contrast, a non-negligible statistically significant incongruence exists because of the use of different tree reconstruction methods, and because of the use of nucleotide versus amino acid sequences. On average, 14.2% (23.2%) of the bipartitions are different at the 95% (70%) bootstrap confidence level between the MPnt tree and the BIaa tree, albeit inferred from the very same genes. Does the phylogenomic approach avoid this incongruence? The answer is no: when phylogenies are inferred from the concatenation of the 106 genes, 36.4% of bipartitions are different between the MPnt and BIaa trees. In fact, four out of 11 nodes, which are all highly supported, are different, indicating that incongruence has in fact increased. Therefore, a large-scale genome approach only ends the statistically insignificant among-gene incongruence but opens the era of the real statistically significant incongruence among methods and character sets."* It says nothing about incongruence being eliminated, but added. Jeffroy claims that only the non-statistically significant incongruence disappear when systematic biases are removed, not that incongruence itself actually disappears. and adding to your logic that "He's saying that THEY ARE CONGRUENT WITH STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE. Thus, by contrapositive, evolution is falsified by the incongruent trees occurred with statistical significance, which is not the case." Well, according to Jeffroy's quote above:  "Therefore, a large-scale genome approach only ENDS the statistically INSIGNIFCANT among-gene incongruence BUT opens the era of the REAL statistically significant incongruence among methods and character sets."* The falsification for evolution has been fulfilled since phylogenomic approaches open up the doors to phylogenies being more incongruent than molecular phylogenies based on single/few genes and statistically significant. According to the article, systematic biases and the usage of different methods like nucleotide vs. amino acid sequencing lead only to non-statistically significant incongruence. However, phylogenomic approaches open up the doors to statistically significant incongruent phylogenies, which should be problematic according to your logic.
Scientist Sam (3 years ago)
I've read the article now in detail and I'm pretty convinced that +Nightmaker47 either didn't read the article thoroughly or doesn't possess the training to do so (which is fair; I took Evolutionary and Ecological Bioinformatics as a Master's student and I have trouble with the statistics in these methods). So, I'm going to go through his claims and correct them: "Phylogeny trees do not establish true evolutionarily history given the issue of non-statistically significant incongruence."-Firstly, phylogenetic trees are only models of divergence. They are the best reconstruction of divergence available but they are only models nonetheless. You also don't seem to understand statistical significance if you think that something that ISN'T STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT is relevant. The whole point of statistical significance is to rule out noise like the incongruence that you mention. This is basic statistics. This isn't a good start. "The evidence for evolution under the criteria of phylogenetic trees is based on statistical significance."-It is primarily based upon congruence and the fact that the congruence is statistically significant whereas incongruence is not. "Even among incongruent phylogenies, they are still evidence for common descent because they are still highly statistically significant."-No. That is a basic misunderstanding of statistics and the paper you referenced to me. Incongruent phylogenies are shown to disappear when you remove known systematic biases (Jeffroy et al., 2006; the article you claim to have read). "I wasn't talking about statistical significance at all. I was strictly talking about non-statistically significant incongruent trees."-There is no reason that we should care about things that aren't statistically significant. Stats 101. "He argued that if the incongruence of a phylogenetic tree constructed independently between morphological and molecular data was not met with statistical significance, then it would be a fatal problem for evolution."-This is a failure of reading comprehension. The argument given in the quote you provided was the following: if incongruence is statistically significant, then it falsifies the prediction of evolution. As Theobald says, "More precisely, the common descent hypothesis would have been falsified if the universal phylogenetic trees determined from the independent molecular and morphological evidence did not match with statistical significance." He's saying that THEY ARE CONGRUENT WITH STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE. Thus, by contrapositive, evolution is falsified by the incongruent trees occurred with statistical significance, which is not the case. Again, I have to ask whether you possess the scientific background to address such things.  "One can be incongruent and still be highly statistically significant past the pre-determined significance level of the test in favor of common descent."-No. This is another misunderstanding of basic scientific and statistical thinking. If incongruence was statistically significant, then it would falsify the prediction of common descent. "I can tell the researchers in that article used the 0.05 significance level p-value rejection threshold given the 95% C.I. statistic they put up there."-The proper terminology is a p-value < 0.05. They used this threshold as well as a more permissive p < 0.30 (for the 70% bootstrap) as both appear to be standards for their field. They also didn't mention the confidence interval or CI in the article. They aren't the same thing. A p-value is an indication of the probability that a given experiment will yield better results if it is repeated and a confidence interval is where a given statistic (for example, the true mean) is likely to lie. You need to understand how these things work if you're going to have a technical argument. "So given the number of 106 individual genes, it would reasonable to expect (by average) 5% of those constructed gene trees to be statistically significant (p < 0.05) when in reality they are actually nothing more but Type I Errors/false-positives."-That isn't borne out from any of the statistics in the paper. The only false-positives would be incongruence because they make up such a minority given the accepted false discovery rate. That's stated pretty plainly in the paper. I have to ask, how much statistics have you learned? "Given that the dataset only shows a very tiny percentage (close to 5%) of statistical significance, I suspect them to be nothing more but false-positives. Which suggests that the data is consistent with what Theobald proposed as a falsification for common descent."-Wrong. You don't understand what a p-value is. 5% is the probability that you achieve a better result if you repeat the experiment. That's what a p-value is. It isn't a false-positive rate. Those are different things. You don't get false-positives from a bootstrap assessment. Instead, you get an empirical p-value. That's the point of a bootstrap. "Which is what is always true about using statistical significant tests since they don't determine what possible factors could confound and skew the test. A test that is highly flawed can still be highly statistically significant. It is important to ensure all possible controls against all those confounding factors."-Part of that is true. You're only as good as the test statistic is true, but that isn't the implication of the finding in the paper. The implication is that statistical significance given by one method alone isn't all you need. You also need to factor in other known biases that aren't detected in those types of phylogenetic reconstruction. "Practical importance (how significantly effective something is) is something totally different and can only be determined by calculating the effect-size rather than a one-tailed/two-tailed p-value."-But, effect size needs to be assessed as statistically significant. That's why most effect sizes are assessed according to some measure of statistical significance. I have to say that you need to stop debating technical details when it's clear that you do not have the technical background to do so. We can discuss this in the hangout if you want, but you need to start admitting when you don't understand something. For example, it took me a few minutes to understand the bootstrap assessment because it is complicated and I've done bootstraps for years.
CMIcreationstation (3 years ago)
+Ration alMind You're initial assertion was that creationists "reject many observations". You are correct in saying that we reject the (evolutionary) implications of those observations. But we don't reject the observations.  You said, "We're making strides in understanding long-term preservation, but I won't pretend we have all the answers yet." Thank you for making my point: these observations don't fit with evolution. They fit beautifully with biblical creation.
Ration alMind (3 years ago)
+CMIcreationstation You reject the *observation* that the trees cluster together. Or perhaps I should say that you reject the implications of those observations. I'm asking for you explanation for that, and I've never seen it adequately done by creationists. You just say that similarity is because of the common designer, which doesn't address phylogenetic analyses at all. They're not done on % similarity, it's about the *pattern* of mutations. You have only 2 options: 1. God created organisms with these mutations present, or in such a way that they would occur down the line, in such a way that would precisely resemble what the theory of evolution predicts. In which case, your God is rather deceitful. 2. God created the similar organisms with similar genes, and then the mutations that cause a particular tree topology to emerge happened by complete random chance throughout all organisms. I don't consider either of those particularly good explanations. "Here is an observation that doesn't fit with evolution: creation.com/dino-dna (Dinosaur blood cells, soft tissue, different kinds of protein and even DNA)" "Blood cells"? Do you mean blood cells or remnants of blood cells? If it's the former, then I'm going to need a reference. "soft tissue"? Sure, I would expect it to become pretty soft after being soaked in an acid bath. And I'm sure you're familiar with Schweitzer's work with iron preservation. "and even DNA"? Can you show me that's been confirmed as dinosaur DNA? Why is it that we can't sequence dinosaur genomes if they're only a few thousand years old? We're making strides in understanding long-term preservation, but I won't pretend we have all the answers yet. What we do have are researchers working on it, instead of sitting back and proclaiming it can't be done therefore creation. It must be so easy being a "creation scientist", all you really have to do is remind everyone of your doctorate and then criticise and obfuscate the findings of actual researchers.
albusai (3 years ago)
I know this is out of context. But did pangea split in The food or The quake of babel ?
albusai (3 years ago)
+CMIcreationstation Thank you
CMIcreationstation (3 years ago)
+albusai We did a show on this: youtube.com/watch?v=uyhOKnyWASE
N0TS0SUBTLE (3 years ago)
Of course Catholics don't take God's Word literally. Because the one they follow, the Pope, has compromised with the world since the Churches incipience. Now he agrees with evolution, says gays and nonbelievers go to heaven, aliens should he baptized and most disturbing of all he says that a personal relationship with Jesus is dangerous!! If they truly followed God they'd realize His Word (Jesus) trumps all especially man made institutional doctrines that the Pope stands in His stead and is infallible. Lol Goodness gracious. I despise false teachings.
Ricardo Tejada (2 years ago)
+DM584 Come on this is a silly argument to use. Could you please name one invention which required Darwinian Evolution to be discovered or invented? By the way a lot of Bible fundamentalists went into making the computer. Not to mention vaccines, space ships etc. It's not about denying science it's about which model of origins fits the facts better.
DM584 (2 years ago)
+N0TS0SUBTLE Lol seriously how can you possibly believe in fundamentalist religion over actual science in the year 2016? Does the Bible provide a guideline for how to build a computer too? Because if you think that science isn't real, then it's a bit hypocritical to use an invention based on modern science.
Ricardo Tejada (3 years ago)
+N0TS0SUBTLE Note that you said the phrase "in his stead" which is the definition of anti-Christ. 'Anti' means 'in the place of' as well as 'against'. Is it any wonder the protestant reformers called the pope anti-Christ?
Kristoffer Dahl (3 years ago)
Thank you for a great video and your great work. I do have one concern however that I would like to hear your opinion on: Is the word "evolution" smart to use? On CMI I see that  you consistently say: "Evolution vs. Creation" while you at the same time state that "evolution" can mean many things. So from this video I get that we creationists believe in "evolution", but we don't believe in "evolution". And I agree. But would it be smarter if we creationists started saying: "Darwinism vs. Creationism" since "-ism" is often associated with philosophies and beliefs, rather than operational science? What is your opinion on this?
CMIcreationstation (3 years ago)
+Kristoffer Dahl To a great extent, usage determines meaning. So, the main meaning of 'evolution' is the 'molecule-to-man' version. So contrasting 'creation' and 'evolution' is sufficient to communicate the two sides of the origins debate. However, you're right, we do believe in evolution if it is defined as natural selection, mutations and speciation, so it is important to define terms when discussing things at a more detailed level. But in general terms 'creation' vs 'evolution' works well.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.