7 Scientific Reasons why Darwinian Evolution is a Myth

Ave Maria! In this video we are joined by Dr. Marco Fasoli who holds a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Cambridge. Using science, he exposes many of the flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution.

Order

[swiftmatic]

Darwin didn't have access to the current body of scientific knowledge or modern instrumentation.

[dudman]

Peltdown Man refers to a set of fossils found near Piltdown, England, in 1912, which were initially thought to be the remains of a previously unknown early human. These remains, which included a skull and jawbone, were purported to bridge the gap between apes and humans, causing significant excitement and reevaluation in the scientific community regarding human evolution.

However, by 1953, the fossils were exposed as a fraud through chemical analyses and other tests. It was revealed that the bones were a combination of human and orangutan parts, artificially aged and manipulated to appear ancient. The identity of the perpetrator of the Piltdown hoax has never been definitively established, though various individuals associated with the discovery have been suspected. The incident is one of the most infamous scientific frauds in history and serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of rigorous scientific methods and peer review.

[tedgrant]

I went to a very small school. The history teacher also taught RI.
In the morning the earth was 6000 years old.
By the afternoon it had aged considerably.

[JesseMeijer]

"Have an open mind" and "Do your own research", but "Just don't read the text books".

[leomullins]

I was home schooled by my Catholic mother 60 years ago. This probably accounts for my never accepting evolution as a fact and today being comfortable with a supernatural view of creation.😮

[donovanayers]

Man disproves entire field of science. Can’t wait to see his Nobel prize for saving us from our ignorance

[mikebrown]

“You can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into!” ~ Johnathan Swift ~

[redgodofwar]

Absolutely fascinating that a Cambridge professor has to read nonstop from his notes, rather than his own vast knowledge.in order to speak.

[joekiplik]

If the theory is rejected, it ll lead to conclusion that there must be Creator behind creation. They dont want to agree with that conclussion.

[steveg]

In regard to Ernst Chain, Marco Fasoli is literally using creationist quote-mining to garble up an out-of-context quote of Chain from a young earth creationist source - and mixing Chain's words in with the words of the young earth creationist. The young earth creationist's name is Laurence D. Smart, a creationist in Australia.

Now, first of all, anyone who takes science seriously at all - I do mean, at all - knows that young earth creationists are completely off their rocker when it comes to science. And, second, young earth creationists are notorious for engaging in misrepresentative quote-mining. And, third, I looked at Smart's out-of-context quotes referring to Ernst Chain - and here in this video I see Fasoli mixing Chain's words together with Smart's words and pretending they're all the words of Chain. We literally can't tell from Smart's quote-mining what Chain was specifically referring to, because the young earth creationist Smart left that out - because all Smart was interested was finding some brief snippet that he could use to misrepresent Chain, and misrepresent science.

The very fact that Fasoli would regurgitate Smart's quote-mining is another point discrediting Fasoli's rhetoric here.

Specific example:

In the video, Fasoli states, "In another statement he [Ernst Chain] made, he said, quote, 'I would rather believe in faeries than in such wild speculation as Darwinian evolution, ' close quote."

But that's not what Ernst Chain said! Indeed, in the quote-mining document that the young earth creationist Laurence D. Smart put together, he actually screwed up, because he quotes Chain two different times using the same quote here - except in one of the quotes he actually shows more of what Chain said, and the longer quote disproves the shorter quote.

Here is the shorter quote of Chain given by Laurence Smart: ""I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation [as Darwinian evolution]."

Notice those words in square brackets? Those are the words that the young earth creationist Laurence Smart ADDED IN to misrepresent what Chain was talking about. But Smart screwed up, because he already had given a longer version of the quote that contradicts what he ADDED in order to misrepresent Chain.

Here's the longer version of the quote of Chain: "I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable."

So Chain didn't say "as Darwinian evolution" and was not in fact referring to biological evolution in the first place, but was referring to speculations about the origin of life back in the 1970s.

And yet here is Marco Fasoli directly using a misrepresentative out-of-context quote provided by a young earth creationist science denialist (Laurence Smart), in which some of the words were added in by Smart himself, and pretending that he's "quoting" Ernst Chain.

This is just another example of the self-discrediting kind of behavior that creationists such as Marco Fasoli (and Laurence Smart) engage in.

[l.m.]

Darwin described his own writings as "speculation, full of holes". Honesty is the best policy.

[robertvirnig]

What exactly is "Darwinian" evolution and who cares about science almost 2 centuries old. How about modern evolutionary science, which is the cornerstone of all biology? Just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they aren't a shill.

[refusebdcvd]

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science..."
"It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.” —C. Darwin

[Andrisq]

I don't think this guy really understands the 2nd law of thermodinamics.
What he's ignoring is that this law is applied for closed systems, but the evolutionary process is not a closed system.

"but the bottom line is you cannot get order and complexity from disorder, no matter how many billions of years you're waiting"
Yes, that is the statement "entropy never decreases" of the 2nd law of thermodinamics.

But, then according to this reasoning, a refrigerator should not work either, as entropy decreases there (making cold to break the thermal equilibrium), which is not permitted by 2nd law of thermodinamics.

What he forgets is that a refrigerator or living beings (in case of evolution) are not closed systems: they're getting the necessary energy from somewhere: from a power-grid, from the sun, from food, etc.

The entropy of that refrigerator, and the entropy of living beings are decreasing, but the entropy of the whole system, is still increasing more (!), because the same or more energy needs to be consumed to make those changes (cooling down, growing, reproducing)!

The total entropy overall does increase, with the fact that the entropy of those parts/components decrease in lesser extent, the 2nd law of thermodinamics is just fine with evolution.

[martinroncetti]

Darwin’s theory is NOT a myth; it’s a theory. The primary role of science is to either:

1. Prove that the theory is correct; or

2. Prove that the theory is incorrect.

[JanPBtest]

4:15 No, it doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm all for disproving Darwin's theory _honestly._ Making up lies like this one only weakens your argument. Cut it out, stay scientific and truthful.

[PamelaHackett-du]

I am a Christian, but when I recently read that every cell in the body contains billions of instructions for life, i couldnt see how there could not be a Creator. Looking at all creation, it is "order and design". Doesn't that say something?

[Ozzyman]

All their funding and still creationists can't find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix. And silence...

[AlexStock]

Any critique of evolution that focuses more on Charles Darwin than phylogeny has already largely discredited itself.

[biblical]

"NOT A SINGLE FACT THAT BACKS IT UP" - You are RIGHT as long as you bury your head in the sand!