If Darwin Knew This, Would He Still Be a Darwinist?

---

If Darwin was alive today, knowing what we know about living things, would he still be an Evolutionist? Charles Darwin’s theories changed what the world believes about biological naturalism. His contributions to science are legendary, yet he knew nothing about the complexity of living things.

Our guest, Dr Robert Carter, is a marine biologist and geneticist. He’s studied Darwin’s work, examined the Galapagos Islands firsthand, and debated the origins of life with skeptics.

⏳ CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction
01:04 If Darwin were alive today…?
02:37 What led evolutionists to change from original Darwinism?
05:09 What are some basics that Darwin was mistaken about?
12:01 Why did Darwin theorize in the first place?
20:51 ‘Origin of Species’ written and reviewed
25:48 Documentary films
31:21 Could the complexity of life have evolved?
35:31 Darwin’s ‘evolutionary tree of life’
39:08 Key point: The wall of incomprehensibility
41:00 What would you say to Darwin?
43:39 Discouraged by nihilism?
45:01 ‘Darwin: The Voyage That Shook the World’ film
46:33 Wrap-up

✍️ LINKS AND SHOW NOTES

📚 HELPFUL RESOURCES

💙 SOCIAL MEDIA

📅 EVENTS
We present at hundreds of events around the world each year. To see what events are happening near you, or to request a creation presentation in your Church (or other gathering) visit:

Thanks for watching!

[Vernon-Chitlen]

That the only known way proteins are made is by a molecular machine made of 40-80 proteins and 4 rRNA's that provide the code for the specific arrangement of only 20 particular of over 500 kinds of amino acids.

[philiprobinson]

The short answer to your question would be, yes, Darwin would still have believed in evolution. Life may well be complex and far more complex than Darwin was aware of, but that does not undermine evolution. If anything it undermines the belief that life was created by some supernatural entity. For example why create something so complex? We all know the best designs are those that achieve the desired result with a minimum of complexity. The more complex the design the more there is that can go wrong and proof of this is easy to find. You only have to look at humans. We suffer from numerous illnesses, we suffer countless skeletal, muscular and nerve related disease and we all to easily suffer trauma from even the most minor impacts. How much better the design of humans could have been if we were to start again with a clean sheet and the knowledge we have today.

[l.m.]

Ha. This is the first time someone has explained ATP synthase on YT. Say goodbye, NCSE. Great job sharing the science, guys!

[bigbluebiblebus]

Thanks for doing this. Could you do another one that has more concrete descriptions of the complexity of life so that we can use that to help nonbelievers see. It seemed you were going that way but then spent tmost of time on debunking evolution. Thanks again!

[stevenrobinson]

Dr. Carter, I believe the KEY DIFFERENCE between Darwin and Wallace is this: Wallace believed in Intelligent Design, not Natural Selection, as the basis for diversity.

[inquisitive_stranger]

You poor, poor creatures.... It's 2024, yet you continue to try to prove, and ultimately fail, to prove that there is a god...

[Pyramidalist]

Information is somehow just usable content ... H²O is just like that ... the result is using the unique structure of it ... repeatedly ... in an unimaginable amount of parallel and in time following processes ... so the result may then somehow a stable molecule ... containing more content/information ... even this parallel and in time repeatedly ... so there starts a sequence of information ... becoming more complex.
Of course this is not random and caused by laws of physic and chemistry ... the combination of molecules may be random ... but the result is following this laws.

The amount of atoms/molecules and billions of years made it to humans.

The law or rules of physics and chemistry ... here is a fundamental question left for science.

[salvadoralvarado]

mr carter says that darwinian natural selection does not explain anything, but if you read the newspapers you often find news reporting about concerns regarding facts like:
bacteria becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics,
insects acquiring resistance to pesticides,
parasites that become resistant to drugs,
viruses the escape the action of vaccines
weeds acquiring resistance to herbicides
etc, etc, etc,
i think mr carter needs to get better info regarding evolution

[cmp]

'Achilles Heel' documentary is excellent.

[markmetternich]

Darwin would be a full fledge Creationist today.

[owlfethurz]

God's creation is endlessly fascinating and marvelous! Thanks for the insights.

[dennisferrara]

Life is very complex. How did life begin? What was the original creation from God?
Is Evolution God’s way of creation after the spark of life?
If there is a designer, what is it? Where did it come from? Is the spark of life the same on different planets?

[bwtv]

Cats were created perfectly as obligate carnivores. They were never herbivores and didn't evolve into carnivores.

[l.m.]

Darwin came to a conclusion based on "science of the gaps". Our existence is a marvel according to the extent of our knowledge. The more we learn, the more wondrous God is shown to be.

[daftwulli]

Yea he would be sooo shocked life is the way his theory predicts. Didnd´t think that through did ya ?? He would be stoked about all this and would be even more of a defender of his theory, and would be very proud he predicted all that

[eensio]

The progression of life is based on mutation. It is often harmful, but also sometimes favorable.

[jimschlaegel]

Don't miss the free access to the 2009 Darwin movie they offer in the notes. It's a great movie, and worth it just to not recognize Dr. Carter... before the beard.

[larsbitsch-larsen]

Really it is quiet simple. But you have to understand how chemical processes come about. Atoms consist of a nucleus and are surrounded by electrons. The nucleus determine which chemical it is and the electrons determine how reactive the substance is. All atoms have an intrinsic movement or vibration. This means that when atoms come close enough thy may come so close that they exchange electrons and create a new substance. This is a random process.
In a pond or in the sea the process of creating new substances is slow, very slow. May take years. But with gentle mixing and patience chemicals evolve.
Evolution took 2 billion years or more, experimenting gradually creating a complex we know as a single cell.
By chance nature invented enzymes, ie proteins that can promote these chemical processes. In principal enzymes attract two different molecules and bring them close together. The space that does this, has the shape that only allows for certain molecule to enter. Once these molecule are combined, they are released and give place for the next pair. Som enzymes work with a speed of several 100 molecule per second. Compared with a process that without enzymes may take a year or more.
All this is built up on the basis of trial and error.
The most basic enzymes took a long time to develop. But once in place mutation gave this function a boost. Mutations may insert a wrong substrate and the protein has defective or the mutation may double the enzyme capacity and things go faster. And in some cases multiple enzyme doubling gardually evolve into new functions, meaning that not all enzymeshave to be developed from scratch.
Cellular biology chemistry is fascinating.

[virtualvessel]

Godly attributes needs explanation where biology attributes needs explanation.

[QuiteBoss.]

Darwin thought the way he did just bc he wanted to disprove god. That completely it. He lost someone close to him and he stayed mad at god abt it.