Khan Academy

Fossils donʼt document +nything. They +re just the sh+pes of de+d +nim+ls.
You c+nʼt re+d their genome, you c+nʼt see who their +ncestors were or know if
they h+d +ny children. Fossils +re + big problem for evolution+ry theory, forms
+ppe+r +bruptly +nd st+y there until they dis+ppe+r. Thereʼs no gr+du+l
ch+nge from one form to +nother. People pick sequences of fossils +nd try +nd
write + story of line+ge between them, but this c+n never be verified itʼs just +
story. And +s weʼve +lre+dy le+rned +bove using the visu+l form of +n +nim+l is
extremely deceptive, bec+use the genes donʼt +gree th+t the homologous
forms +re +ctu+lly genetic+lly rel+ted. Then you h+ve the C+mbri+n explosion
where pretty much +ll pf the m+jor t+x+ exploded into existence without +ny
precursors. So ye+h you m+y h+ve some expl+n+tions for +ll of these
problems, but none of them +re verifi+ble. Also t+ke note th+t the story of
line+ge is const+ntly r+dic+lly ch+nging. e.g. “dinos+urs evolved into birds” yet
m+ny modern d+y birds existed +t the s+me time +s dinos+urs, + f+ct +ny
p+l+eontologist will know but wouldnʼt like to p+rticul+rly bro+dc+st.
Direct observ#tion. We c+n directly observe sm+ll-sc+le evolution in
org+nisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resist+nt insects).
the sm+ll sc+le “evolution” we observe is nothing more th+n the switching on/
off of existing function+l genes. This is the equiv+lent of tuning + c+r engine.
Itʼs possible to r+ndomly twe+k the tuning of +n engine, +nd get + decent
setting by ch+nce th+t m+kes it run better … th+tʼs not how you m+ke engines.
Evolutionists need to be +ble to demonstr+te the b+sic +bility of r+ndom
mut+tion +nd successive n+tur+l selection to innov+te/cre+te + new gene.
Ch+nging + bit of + control gene doesnʼt count (this is like tuning +n engine).
Wh+t youʼd need to demonstr+te is something th+t evolutionists think h+s
h+ppened millions of times; the emergence of + tot+lly novel gene with +
different fold +nd new function by mut+ting the gene for + different protein. So
if you c+n t+ke + gene for one protein +nd mut+te it (n+tur+lly +nd without
intelligence) +nd get + new protein with + different fold +nd new function th+t
is the most b+sic tiniest bit of evidence weʼd need to get us st+rted.
Evolutionists c+nʼt produce this … it h+s been tried + LOT. And they donʼt h+ve
+ny ex+mples of this in the wild. HGT is not +n ex+mple of this, th+t is the
movement of existing genes, you need to show the origin of those genes. THAT
is wh+t weʼre skeptic+l of … +nd I donʼt think th+tʼs ridiculous or unscientific +t
+ll.
People c+n shout +nd scre+m +nd cry +ll they w+nt, +nd +ccuse us of not
re+ding enough (believe me, Iʼve re+d + lot +nd c+n throw secul+r p+pers +t
you if you donʼt believe +nything Iʼve s+id when I h+ve + ch+nce) but weʼre not
the only ones who donʼt +ccept neo-D+rwini+n evolution. Lots of le+ding
evolutionists +re questioning it seriously too. Sure they w+nt to find + new
n+tur+l expl+n+tion … but they donʼt h+ve one yet.
So r+ther th+n br+nd Intelligent Design +s stupid +nd unscientific m+ybe