"Evolutionist" Teacher versus Creationist Student (2023)

Introduction

Today we do more filler content utilizing a clickbait title

Outro: Point Pleasant by Brock Berrigan
www.brockberrigan.com/
open.spotify.com/artist/39sPWwRyNp4NNMyWzN7I0o

Socials:
gutsickgibbon@gmail.com
@Gutsick_Gibbon

Support the channel!
www.patreon.com/GutsickGibbon​
www.redbubble.com/shop/gutsick+gibbon

Content

Hello, my gentle and, of course, very modern Apes.

My name is Erica I'm getting host of this channel that you found yourself on and what we do here is we look at cool science topics with regard to biological, anthropology, primatology paleontology zoology generally, and sometimes we look at these subjects through the lens of pseudoscience, specifically debunking pseudoscience and typically that pseudoscience is Young, Earth creationism.

This is kind of my what we do here, intro that I've been testing out for the past couple.

Videos I hope you like it.

If you don't don't tell me, I was searching for Content this afternoon and I realized that our old friends, Genesis apologetics, has come out with a brand new series, or at least it's brand new to me.

I've only just happened upon it and I thought it would be fun to go over this series in its entirety.

Today.

Their new series is a collection of very short videos like two minutes, long or less, where a teacher brings up a subject related to to evolutionary theory or the age of the Earth, and then one of the smarter, younger kids in the class confronts the evil teacher with a cool and thought-provoking creationist counter.

Question I find this series particularly tantalizing, because I am myself, am a teacher of sorts, so I'm a PhD student at my University, but in order to pay for tuition or basically to to get my tuition written off, I, also ta, so I teach biological, anthropology lab and biological anthropology is like a class about human evolution and evolutionary theory effectively.

I also teach in a conservative Southern state, which is like the breeding ground for evolution, denying folks in the modern era and a lot of the students that end up in my class are like 18 to 19 year old, non-stem, Majors, so I'm like the prime target for these questions, I'm the individual, who will probably see these questions in class.

If anybody is going to see them, the only one who have matches me is probably like high school biology teachers.

So I thought why not test the robusticity of these questions? How would I answer a student in my class who brought these up to me in a classroom setting and that last portion is kind of key, because if these were brought up in class, while I was teaching, an answer would have to be relatively concise.

Brevity is not a strong suit of mine, I'm known for being a bit long-winded, especially when talking about things that I think are very interesting.

So this is a nice little test for me.

I want to test myself to see if I can answer these questions relatively quickly, because in a classroom setting you'll be teaching a subject, I'm going to ask a question and your job is the teachers to answer it and then get back to the material at hand, ideally weaving that question in to teaching the material as you continue introducing it for the day, my teaching contract does not include systematically annihilating creationist claims in the classroom.

So can we sufficiently address these questions and then move on like quickly, but I thought this might be useful to you guys as well, because what I'm going to do is I'm going to provide short answers to tough creationist questions, and given some of you out, there might have family members who are creationists or friends who are creationists.

You might find this helpful.

Unfortunately, Genesis apologetics does not have access to the APR and thumbnail guy that works for Answers in Genesis, because their playlist is just titled classroom.

Nothing, Sparks, curiosity, like a simple noun.

My interest is peaked.

Now, I'll tell you ahead of time.

Some of these are interesting to me and are things that I might actually be asked in class, and some of them are not.

For example, I'm not going to be going over is the Bible reliable abiogenesis when non-living matter becomes alive.

The hearing system or where did God come from these are a little bit outside of my pay grade.

I would say so we're going to be going over relevant questions to human evolution and evolution generally.

So first up on our list is a video titled, Darwin's finches and evolution classroom series I have a feeling, that's going to be I mean that's all of them right, they're, all in the series, so on the Galapagos Darwin found that Finch beaks and their feet varied Island by Island, proving Evolution, because nature was selecting the fittest, Birds to survive and reproduce I'm gonna kind of time myself when answering the students questions, but we will always point out when the teacher is starting off with incorrect information, you don't prove Evolution, you don't prove anything in science.

You provide support for a hypothesis by using the scientific method.

This is pretty straightforward, stuff stuff that one might learn in a high school biology.

Setting like the one being depicted here, uh I, don't think that that proves Evolution.

It just simply shows that the Finch's beaks were adapting to their food sources on that specific Island.

Well, that's an interesting note Heather, but it does make me worry that you're not attending lecture, because that is evolution, its natural selection, one of the many mechanisms of evolution acting upon natural mutation within a population.

This creates a change in allelic frequency in a population of organisms, in this case the finches over time, because you've got differential, reproductive success occurring in these finches.

Some of the finches have the mutation that gives them an edge when it comes to acquiring resources like food which allows them to grow, bigger, live longer, reproduce more often and pass these genes onto their offspring, that is evolution and then I would pull out my copy of origin, which every evolutionist is actually required to keep on their person at all times and I would say to her.

This is something that Darwin noted himself.

In fact, it was kind of what predicated the entire theory of evolution.

Who are you getting this information from because it sounds like they have an incorrect definition of what evolution is or perhaps they're trying to change the definition to fit some kind of agenda.

You can speak to me after class.

If you have more questions, there was a 2017 article in the science journal, BMC evolutionary biology and I found they weren't actually mutating and evolving by mutations natural selection.

Instead, it was epigenetic changes which is special coating that allows the animals to track and adapt to their environments without changing the DNA, and it happens in just one generation.

So it was never Evolution, really cool, Clarence I'm, afraid you might have misunderstood the study or at least misconstrued what the study population was, because, with regard to the Galapagos finches, we've managed to narrow it down to specific genes that are responsible for corresponding changes in the beak size and shape of the various finches that live on the island, and this doesn't mean that epigenetics isn't at play.

It always is, but with regard to the major changes, this is evolution through natural selection, full stop, then I would probably just Google on my projector on screen in front of the entire class and show that yeah we do know the gene that is responsible for beak shape.

It's called the alx1, then I'd probably go back to the paper and I would scroll down to the abstract just to see what it is that the paper is actually saying and I would note that the second sentence says, however, some or however growing evidence suggests that epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation, may also be involved involved in Rapid.

Adaptation to new environments may also be as in, in addition to normal, run-of-the-mill mutation and natural selection, and then clarence's classmates would likely point and laugh at him for making such a silly mistake.

Next up is a question on the leitoli footprints, which are a trackway made by australopiths in Tanzania and, what's cool about this one is I actually do teach about the late to leave Footprints, specifically in my lab.

So let's hear it.

We know our early ancestors like Lucy were walking upright, because we found her Footprints in Tanzania when I teach the Lee Tully Footprints I, usually talk about the footprints.

Last after we've talked about the rest of the australopith morphology, so the characteristics that designate bipedalism, the four that we tend to cover are the anterior frame and Magnum the valgus knee the sagittally oriented Ilias, the blades of the pelvis and the foot morphology so including things like an inline, big toe and three arches in the foot.

You guys have heard this a million times.

So, let's see what happens now.

Wait a minute weren't.

Those Footprints like a thousand miles away from where Lucy was found, yeah give or take Clarence Lee totally foot prints are at least made up of two individuals walking in a trackway, and that's that's the primary trackway that we tend to consider.

There are other hominin trackways at like totally at the site.

Are you perhaps implying that the footprints were made by Lucy the specimen, because that would be incorrect and something that no one ever on the history of the planet has ever proposed, except maybe creationists incorrectly? Well, how big were her foot fossils? Well, they didn't actually find Lucy's hands or feet.

Perhaps you were browsing Tick-Tock when we discussed the morphologic characteristics that allow humans to be bipedal, that we find in the dozens and dozens and dozens of australopith remains that let us know they were bipedal outside of the feet specifically, but it seems you also missed our discussion of some of the australopith feat specimens that we have such as stw573 literally named Littlefoot.

Well, so how big were the actual Tanzania Footprints about 10 inches long? That's how big my feet are and I only wear nine and a half.

Well now: listen! It depends on which of the hominins we're talking about, since there was more than one hominin at the site, but I've heard estimates of around seven to eight inches Ricky.

If you put your disgusting feet on the table again, I'm going to ask you to leave so wait a minute, so they never found her feet but Lucy a three and a half foot tall person made ten inch long Footprints a thousand miles away.

If you ask me, it sounds like the story that Lucy walked up right is lacking some evidence based on the Tanzania Footprints, while Clarence again, no one has ever proposed that the leitoli footprints were made by Lucy the individual specimen, but, moreover, there are other indications that australopits were in fact bipedal outside of the morphology of the foot, which we also have in other specimens that aren't specifically Lucy, which is again not relevant because no one proposes Lucy made the late.

Only Footprints such as the anterior frame and Magnum, the valgus need the saggedly oriented, iliac, blades and, of course, aspects of the full morphology like three arches in the foot and an inline big toe.

So we've got these lay totally footprints that match the morphology of other australopith specimens that we found and represent an individual, a set of individuals with biomechanics that are intermediate between chimpanzees and modern humans, albeit more similar to humans than to chimpanzees.

You know I, don't like the word Clarence, but this sure seems transitional to me and then I would show images from the paper which you can see here, like totally Footprints revealed by petalgate biomechanics different from those of modern humans and chimpanzees, and I would scroll down specifically to this one image that I really like that I think illustrates the point quite well, which is here.

We see a human footprint.

Modern human footprint on the far left on the far right is a modern chimpanzee and the lay tolly Footprints are there in the middle intermediate, but still more similar to humans than they are to chimpanzees, and then clarence's friends would probably throw rocks at him for making the class look bad.

The next question is on General, Australopithecus, afarensis, morphology and I'm really excited for it, because I know we're going to see some of the greatest hits quips in this one there she is.

These are replicas of Lucy the best example we have of human evolution.

Oh that's not so much so I had no idea.

Creationists think that Lucy is all we have and I think they have like a hypnotic Mind Block that prevents them from learning about any other australopithe.

They pulled hundreds of Bones out of 20 feet of dirt over a 164 foot area, but her bones actually refute evolution, okay, Paul! If you know so much, why don't you come on up here and tell us all about it? Yes, Clarence come teach the class uh.

As you can see, they can only find five of her skull fragments.

If you can't treat the lab material with respect, you will get out of the lab.

Now go be gone for me, the rest of it here.

The white areas, all up to the imagination, actually point out to my students when we're teaching Australopithecus the genus that Lucy's skull as a specimen is remarkably incomplete as compared to some of the other australopists that we have and then I point them to the other material.

That's sitting on the table like all shallopithecus, Africanus, Australopithecus, sediba and other members of species, Australopithecus afarensis, which are as you can hopefully appreciate complete.

This would be like telling a forensic scientist who found portions of a human skull in the woods that he can't possibly know that that belonged to a human.

It's like yes, we can know that because we have other human skulls to compare it to then her neck vertebrae.

The only problem is, you only found one and it's not hers.

It actually belongs to an ancient therapeuticus, which is a monkey, not a nape.

It is true that a theropithecus thoracic vertebra was originally assigned to Lucy, even though Johansen and colleagues noted that it was of a different texture and perhaps shouldn't be assigned to the rest of the specimen.

But when you look at this sort of superior view of the thoracic vertebra from very this Genera, you can see perhaps why so Here's Lucy here on the left compared with Homo sapiens.

You can see that they're very similar and here is Lucy compared to Papio a modern baboon.

You can see why this mistake was initially made, and mistakes do happen in science, but what's cool about this particular mishap is that it caused a lot of scrutiny to be applied to other specimens.

We looked more closely at our entire fossil record with regard to the hominins, and it showed that people were willing to admit that they were wrong about something.

For me, it increased my faith in paleoanthropology and it increased my faith in the current specimens that we have given.

They all passed the test and do indeed appear to belong to the same species.

Now that a second look has been given next her pelvis, they actually believe that she walked in right because of her pelvis.

We think australopits walked up right because of their pelvis.

Yes, they have the sadly oriented iliac blades that gives their pelvis a nice Bowl shape to strengthen the gluteal muscles in the pelvic floor, but we also know that they walked up upright because of the other characteristics that I've been teaching you here in class, like the anterior frame and Magnum, with a forward angle, the valgus knee and the foot morphology.

So an unlike big toe and three arches I will repeat this as many times as necessary until you commit it to memory clearance when they found it, it was crushed, so they did.

Is they reassembled it using a power saw to make it look like she walked up right, contrary to the intentional deceit that many creationists assigned to the paleoanthropological community? This is simply not what happened.

Lucy's pelvis was crushed as many fossil specimens are when we uncover them, but the reason that it was reassembled and it wasn't the original fossil that was reassembled, it was a cast of the original fossil was because it was found in an anatomically impossible position.

If the original state of the pelvis, when it was dug up, was the state that the organism had it in when it was alive, it could not have moved at all anatomically impossible means.

The organism cannot function with it in its current shape, which is why it was reassembled into an anatomically, feasible position and the only anatomically feasible position that it could be put into given the amount of bone that was present was one of a biped and, interestingly enough.

This is not the only pelvis of an australopith that we have found, and every subsequent australopi pelvis has confirmed that the Reconstruction of Lucy's pelvis was the correct one.

It seems like your best evidence.

Revolution is missing a few pieces Clarence, you know, I have a strict, no quipping rule in this classroom.

After all, this is a lab, not a Marvel movie, but this is especially the case when the quips are inaccurate.

The next question is on Homo habilis, so wait.

They didn't find a single one.

Technically they haven't found any complete, Homo habilis skeletons not even close to complete.

There are very few organisms in the entire fossil record that are 100 complete, but it doesn't need to be 100 complete to be incredibly informative.

This is the case with Homo habilis, for instance, take the complete skull of this specimen of Homo habilis k, m er1813.

It has some characteristics that are incredibly primitive.

For instance, it's still kind of snouty, it's more prognathic than modern humans, the brain case sizes within the range of earlier australopits, and there are aspects of its teeth that indeed align it with much more primitive or basal members of genus homo.

But there are some aspects that absolutely clock it as a member of genus homo overall, its face shape is incredibly familiar.

It is less pragmatic than what came before and the Brain case size is increasing compared to some of the earlier hominins.

Even though Homo habilis or handyman is one of the better known icons of human evolution, they found about a gender to Bone, fragments they assign to Homo habilis, but in our textbooks in our museums and even online they're shown looking complete.

Yes, this is because we have enough of Homo habilis to generally know what it looked like.

We have several skulls that let us know what its face likely looked like, as well as the fact that it moved bipedally due to the location and angle of the foramen magnum.

We have enough of the post crania to get an idea of its limb proportions, how it may have stood and its General size as far as its skin color, and how much fur it may have had that's a little bit more dicey.

Admittedly, however, the molecular clock and certain genes for body hair coverage can be incredibly informative when trying to suss out when these characteristics may have disappeared.

They have human eyes and eye whites, which Apes don't have ah [ __ ].

Here we go again.

You, sir, are wrong on that point.

But if I had a nickel for every time, I'd heard a creationist say it.

I would be a very rich ape indeed, and then down later on our textbook.

It says that Homo habilis was becoming human because they use stone tools nearby Clarence.

Could you please read verbatim from the textbook where it says that additionally, Homo habilis is associated with stone tools at more than one site? But how do we know if those were used by them or rather used on them? We don't? They have found thousands of Bones from other butchered animals in the same area.

They even found a 12-foot circular Hut foundation in the same Rock bed.

Well, given Homo habilis was capable of using tools, is frequently found with tools and is never found alongside Homo sapiens, with tools.

I think it's pretty fair to say that Homo habilis was the one utilizing the tools and given we also find butchered animal carcasses, it's probably fair to say: Homo habilis also did the butchering.

As far as the circular Huts go citation needed.

That to me sounds like modern humans were living there.

Eating and butchering animals like Homo, habilis I, don't think they were evolving.

Okay.

The next question has us examining a much earlier hominin, a homonym that lived before Australopithecus called artipithecus ramadus, and they just it's just the wrong question.

They just get everything wrong about it, so I'm just gonna.

Let it play out for you and then we'll uh briefly talk about it.

Arty is significant because we believe she walked upright based on where her spine enters her skull.

Was the skull complete, like shown in the science journal? Actually, no, they reconstructed it from over 110 bone fragments found over a 30-foot area right.

So how did her spine enter her skull from the pieces they found? So there's not much to go on there? Did they find any neck vertebrae? Well, actually, again, no, we have no neck vertebrae.

So let me get this straight, so they have no base of the skull.

They guessed on where the spine entered the skull and they have no neck vertebrae wrong on all counts.

Articus ravenous is known from more than just the one specimen, but even the one specimen has portions of the basic Cranium that are preserved and, most importantly, portions of the foramen magnum that are preserved.

Now I don't know, what's been in the water with creationists lately, but you don't need the neck vertebra, the cervical vertebrae, in order to tell whether or not the foramen magnum is indicative of bipedalism or not the foramen magnum is the whole where the spinal cord exits.

So if it is anterior, that is to say, located forward and angled forward as well, the animal couldn't not be a biped, but moreover, we actually do have cervical vertebra from artipithecus ramitus the species they're just found in gona Clarence.

You ought to be expelled for all of your misinformation Mr.

The last question that I am physically capable of covering today, due to my rising blood pressure.

Is their Neanderthal conversation, so here's what they were doing in 1909? Those hats are fire up here.

Please.

Yes, the picture from 1909 I was trying to show.

Is this one? For years scientists have portrayed neanderthals as gorilla-like cavemen kind of like a last step between ape-like creatures and humans, but nowadays they probably looked more like this.

Hey cute man do what what? Why are they still being used as evidence for ape like creatures? Turning to humans, I mean they seem much more advanced than many ancient people groups- oh yeah Clarence, like which ones don't.

We all know somebody with those well-defined, deep eyebrows who do you know that has the Deep eyebrows he's referring to the large brow Ridge, along with the occipital bun, a retro molar Gap, and a large nasal aperture.

In addition to swept back zygomatics, who do you know with all of those Clarence bring them to me? We've also sequenced the Neanderthal genome, and we know that they fall outside the anatomically modern human range, so they are in fact genetically distinct.

They can still interbreed with humans.

This we know for sure, although there may have been hybrid sterility, we're not 100 positive on that one, but lions and tigers can also interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Does that mean they're the same thing right I mean they also had jewelry? They had musical instruments, Weaponry medicine artwork that scientists are still trying to replicate a type of glue they use for their reply.

Neanderthals were capable of a lot.

They are our closest relative with regard to the hominins I, even heard that the Neanderthals lived with, had families with and were buried with, modern humans.

So to me that settles, it I think they're just humans, it sure does during portions of the Year grizzly bears and polar bears, occupy the same range and they are in fact inter-fertile.

They can produce pisley Bears, so I would contend that grizzly bears just are polar bears.

This is obviously silly as a line of reasoning.

Neanderthals are morphologically and genomically distinct from Homo sapiens.

This much we know so claiming that they're, just humans is kind of a vapid thing.

To say to be honest.

Well, that's about all I've got in me for these questions.

I realized this video very quickly deteriorated from me trying to answer these questions politely as if we were in a classroom setting to uh sassily quipping violating my own rule at these students, but honestly I just can't stand Genesis apologetics.

These questions are not being asked in Earnest right, there's so much information in the questions themselves.

That is incorrect.

So as to straw man paleoanthropology in an effort to sound like a gotcha I very much doubt any of these questions would work on anybody, who's taken, a class in biology, magical, anthropology or biology generally, but I.

Don't really think.

The point is that they're actually asked to people who know the answers to these questions.

The point is that they sound good and reassure creationists that they have a like to stand on.

This is why they're asking other creationists pretending to be anthropologists or biologists, these questions instead of just asking actual professionals, so my gentle and, of course, very modern Apes.

If you like what I do if you like this kind of filler content.

Well, you wait for bigger debunking videos or educational videos to come from me.

Don't forget to do the free way of supporting me, which is liking, commenting and subscribing, and if you really really really like what I do, you can also support me on patreon.

You get your name in the end, and sometimes you get access to videos that is early if I'm actually ahead of schedule, which sometimes does happen.

So you guys I'll see you real soon.

Next time we meet but take care of yourselves.

In the meantime, foreign.