This content analyzes common arguments made by Young Earth Creationists (YECs) against evolutionary biology, specifically addressing claims about dinosaur-bird evolution, the nature of scientific observation, and the concept of genetic information. The author, an evolutionary biologist who also believes in God, aims to accurately represent and then refute YEC arguments, distinguishing between straw man and steel man representations.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
[Music]
a theropod dinosaur was found to eat
birds now don't you understand it's the
therapod dinosaurs that supposedly
evolved into birds and they go out there
they find this therapod this is
published in a secular Journal plus one
and you look in here and there's stomach
contents that got preserved as well and
so they can go up and they can do
studies on that like what did it eat
what was its last couple of meals here
and they can identify those bones they
were from different birds so how's the
therapods evolved into Birds when birds
are already around being eaten by
therapods you see when you start looking
at the details it is impossible to
change a dinosaur into a bird yikes well
hi there my name is Clint ladla I'm an
evolutionary biologist I study
evolutionary ecology particularly life
history Evolution as well as Evolution
acceptance through teaching I also
believe in God and I spend a lot of my
time talking to Young Earth creationists
not to mock or ridicule but to be sure
that I accurately understand their
position positions their arguments and
what they actually think partially so
that I'll know how to properly respond
to their most common arguments in the
classroom I don't want to misrepresent
their positions or dismiss them without
truly evaluating them on their merits
especially in front of a class but in
addition to that I want to understand
their arguments because I'm open to the
possibility that they're right as I
think any good scientist should be and
while many of the arguments that young
Earth creationists put forward are
easily refuted not all of them om AR I
have on multiple occasions summarized
their strongest arguments to create a
Steelman argument the strongest version
of the young Earth creationist argument
that I can produce and I've run those
Steelman arguments by as many
creationists as I can to be sure that
they're an accurate representation of
their actual thoughts making
improvements as I learn ways that I've
missed the mark to one degree or another
and I'll provide the most recent version
of my Steelman explanation of young
Earth creat ISM a little bit later in
this video however first I'd like to
address the opposite of a Steelman a
straw man instead of the strongest
version of an argument some people
deliberately or accidentally assign
arguments to their opposition that are
weaker than their opposition's actual
positions and then instead of addressing
their strongest arguments or even
positions actually held by their
opposition they tear down these weaker
false assigned arguments this is a
logical fallacy and it's never very
persuasive to have somebody tell you
that you're wrong when that person
demonstrates that they don't have the
slightest idea what you actually think
they disagree with something that you
don't agree with either why would that
change your mind about what you actually
think and in my discussions with young
Earth creationists I often encounter
arguments against Evolution that do not
represent the actual positions of
evolutionary biology straw man arguments
so let's take a look at a few arguments
presented by some of the biggest
creationist thought leaders to see if
they're correctly or incorrectly
representing the actual positions of
mainstream biology let's start off with
the one we just saw this video came to
us from Answers in Genesis a nonprofit
creationist organization founded by Ken
Ham who you may know from his famous
debate with Bill NY in 2014 the Creation
Museum and Arc Encounters in Kentucky or
his videos on YouTube and other
platforms this video was reporting on a
study from plus one where bird fossils
were found in the abdominal cavity of a
nonavian theropod dinosaur showing that
this dinosaur had predated upon Birds
the speaker in this video found this
interesting as it's the theropod
dinosaurs that supposedly evolved into
birds so how is it that theropods
evolved into Birds when birds were
already around being eaten by theropods
and then he says when you start looking
at the details it's impossible to change
a dinosaur into a bir bird so the
Assumption here is that birds cannot be
descendants of theropods if they
coexisted with theropods and they
clearly did given that theropods ate
them you can eat your descendants but
not your distant descendants and that's
true you can't eat your distant
descendants so the therapod that ate
those birds cannot reasonably be the
distant ancestor of those birds or birds
in general I'd say that is correct but
there is a clear misconception here
about the relationship between birds and
dinosaurs the same misconception that
Timmy had in Jurassic Park do you really
think the dinosaurs turned into birds
and that's where they all went
unfortunately that is not and never has
been the explanation for what happened
to the dinosaurs or even the theropods
for one thing bird Evolution dates back
to far before the extinction of the
non-avian dinosaurs birds first appeared
in the late Jurassic the non-avian
dinosaurs didn't go extinct until the
end of the Cretaceous this means that
birds and other dinosaurs including
other theropods coexisted for over 80
million years about the same amount of
time that theropods which first appeared
in the Triassic existed before the first
Birds came to be those theropods of the
Triassic and most of the Jurassic would
include the non-bird ancestors of birds
but the other theropods didn't cease to
exist just because Birds came to be just
like monkeys didn't disappear just
because humans came to be most of the
most famous theropods of all time came
from the Cretaceous theropods like T-Rex
Spinosaurus Carnotaurus Velociraptor
Giganotosaurus Utah raptor and danicus
and none of their descendants ever
became Birds but most of them likely ate
birds at least whenever they got the
chance there was never a time when any
of these theropods walked the earth when
Birds did not exist as well but when all
of the other dinosaurs including these
theropods when
extinct the birds were the only ones
weird enough to make it we actually have
a whole video on how they managed to
survive but the fact that later
therapods ate Birds has nothing to do
with whether or not birds are theropods
you just can't get eaten out of a CLA
just because a python gets eaten by a
king cobra that doesn't change the fact
that they're both snakes and the
descendants of snakes though it is
highly unlikely that the king cobra
itself is the ancestor of its
constrictor Cuisine is it impossible to
change a dinosaur into a bird I
certainly see no evidence that it is but
if it is impossible it has nothing to do
with whether or not non-avian therapods
ate birds in the late Jurassic and
Cretaceous it would be shocking if they
didn't but if you ever find a Triassic
theropod with a belly full of birds come
back that would be a GameChanger here's
what I can tell you about science it is
observable and repeatable has anyone
ever observed or repeated the big bang
no anyone ever observed or repeated
millions of years no anyone ever
observed or repeated the changing of a
single- cell organism like an amoeba
into a goat never seen it that's
actually a religious worldview you see
it's a battle over two different
religions okay here's another video of
that same speaker from Answers in
Genesis and here he is saying that
because science is observable and
repeatable and because nobody has ever
observed or repeated the Big Bang
millions of years or single celled
organisms evolving into goats that these
things are not science but religion and
it is true that nobody has ever directly
observed the Big Bang millions of years
of history or the evolution of goats
from unicellular ancestors but saying
that these things are beyond the scope
of science to understand demonstrates a
fundamental misunder understanding of
what science is and how it works science
is not what is repeatedly observable in
fact we don't need science for what is
repeatedly observable but repetition and
observation are essential for science to
function because science is a
methodology by which we create and test
models of what cannot be observed using
what can basically based on what has
been observed up to this point I create
a model that makes predictions about
what I should observe in the future if
my model is a reasonable approximation
of reality I then test those predictions
to see if what I observe matches or does
not match those of the model if the
predictions are correct once and then
wrong forever after then the model got
lucky but probably isn't a good model it
probably isn't a good approximation of real
real
that is why I check its predictions
repeatedly not just once to ensure that
it's a useful model and not just a lucky
one that is in essence how science works
and the reality is that science is not
only a tool but probably the best tool
that we have for understanding events
that happened just once in the past
events that cannot be repeated or
observed directly but that can be
understood based on the pieces of
information that can be observed in the
here and now like say uh the scene of a
crime if you're a forensic scientist and
you walk into a room where you observe a
dead body with multiple knife wounds
that you measured to be 6 in deep the
body also has some tissue not matching
the victims under the fingernails of its
right hand leading away from the body
You observe some bloody Footprints you
identify to be from size 10 Jordans
which lead to a dumpster Where You
observe a bloody 6-in knife covered in
fingerprints upon examination you find
that the fingerprints match those of one
Alan Tois who is a known sack of poop
and when you go to the residence of Mr
Tois You observe next to the door a pair
of Jordans with slight traces of blood
in the tread of the souls Mr TOS has
four parallel scratches on his left
cheek but Mr TOS is the only person
alive today that you suspect to have
observed the murder directly and when
questioned he says that he knows nothing
about any murder and you know that since
the murder cannot be repeated or
observed by anyone else well any
position that you would have on the
occurrence would just be a religious
worldview right science clearly can't
help us understand right or is science
probably the best tool that we have to
help us understand what happened
interestingly none of those things that
you have repeatedly observed were
science they were just observations you
didn't need science to observe them
observations have existed since long
before humans but I bet you could put
together a model based on the things
that you did observe that would generate
some shockingly accurate predictions
about what you could potentially observe
in the future for example what size
would you predict Mr to's Jordans to be
do you predict that the blood on those
Jordans would match that of the murder
victim there's a security camera in the
alley with the dumpster do you predict
that the security footage would show
somebody matching Mr to' basic
description the night of the apparent
murder do you predict that the DNA in
the tissue under the nails of the victim
would match that of Mr toas this is
science obviously nobody alive today has
observed the origin of the universe
millions of years elapsing or the
evolution of goats from single- cell
ancestors if those events occurred they
only occurred once and they occurred in
the past they won't repeat and they
cannot be observed directly but is
science ill equipped to address such
phenomena of course not questions like
these are the reason that we have
science for evolution to be true it
requires a gain of information we've
never observed that but what we do
observe is a clear loss of information
we can clearly see a loss of genetic
information from we say the LI into the
domestic house cat we even see this in
the fossil record where yes we would
recognize all of these as Triceratops
but they're still a little bit different
right we see this variation within
created kind so how many copsy and kind
were on the ark we would say two they
would have had all the genetic potential
to create the copian after the global
flood so natural selection
does not provide any brand new
information it is pulling information
that already exists completely opposite
of evolution which requires new
information I suspect we're going to
have a lot to talk about in today's
patreon extras video so uh if you don't
support us on patreon already now it's
probably a great time okay so that was
another great video from Answers in
Genesis and in summary um Evolution
requires a gain of information something
that we've quote never observed what we
do observe is a loss of information for
example a lion clearly has more
information than does a house cat it
would take a loss of information to go
from a lion to a house cat the speaker
then goes on to explain that the
diversity of ceratopsians are all
clearly the same basic thing Triceratops
but they aren't exactly the same because
there is variation within what she calls
created kinds and I'll explain more
about created kinds here in a minute it
is her contention that there were two
ceratopsians on Noah's Arc and those two
ceratopsians possessed all of the
genetic potential to produce all of the
ceratopsians that existed After the
flood because ceratopsian Diversified
once again following the flood she then
moves on to say correctly that natural
selection does not provide any brand new
information but is rather pulling from
information that already exists and that
this is the opposite of evolution which
requires new information so there's a
lot to there let's start with a gain of
information I see this argument
presented by Young Earth creationists
regularly I often struggle to get them
to specify exactly what they mean by
information but I think it's fair to
assume that they're referring to genetic
material of some kind so the contention
is that Evolution requires a gain of
genetic material and while that isn't
true in every instance some Evolution
can occur through loss of genetic
material by and large that's a fair
point you aren't going to go from the
simplest organisms that have ever
existed to complex multicellular life
without gaining additional genetic
material at some point she then says
that we've never observed that this is
why I always ask what they mean by
information because if she's referring
to genetic
material that claim is just blatantly
false we observe this with some
regularity at times it leads to nearly
instantaneous speciation not only do we
see Tiny additions of genetic material
such as insertion mutations but we
observe Gene chromosome and even whole
genome duplications How Can You observe
a doubling of the genetic information in
a single generation and still claim that
we have never observed a gain of
information the most charitable take
that I can come up with is that you're
referring to the fact that duplication
adds new copies of existing
information but nothing new and that is
where other forms of mutation come into
play she says that we observe a clear
loss of information and I think what
she's saying here is that when mutations
occur excluding the duplications that we
just discussed they change the genome in
some way any information that was there
before is now lost because it was
changed and this is significant because
when genetic information is changed in
many cases it ceases to do what it did
before perhaps the new function will be
more beneficial in terms of overall
lifetime reproductive success but the
prior function is now lost that is
unless this mutation occurs after a
duplication event because if you have
two copies of the same gene then a
mutation to one causing it to do
something new will allow a new function
new information to occur while the other
copy is still doing what it did
historically and if having a new copy of
a gene that is now modified to do
something different while the previous
function of the gene remains intact does
not count as new information then I
really need for somebody to tell me what
they're talking about when they say new
information okay her next claim is that
a house cat represents a loss of
information compared to a lion I suppose
because a lion is so much larger than a
house cat but how much information does
a lion possess 38 chromosomes compare
that to a house cat that only possesses
38 chromosomes oh yeah that's that's the
same number and a much smaller number
than something like a lampay which possesses
possesses
174 not to mention the numbers that we
see in plants which can self- fertilize
making whole genome duplications more
common some of them have over a thousand
and some single celled organisms have
over 10,000 so I'm not exactly sure how
we know that house cats show a loss of
information versus a lion it is a loss
of information versus a walking catfish
though 104 what it is pretty clearly is
a loss in size that or lions have shown
a gain in size and that is not
necessarily due to a gain or a loss of
information clearly not chromosomes but
definitely a change in the genes
specifically responsible for size but
now we're getting into the ark and some
discussion of created kinds and to
understand what she was saying there
we're going to have to understand a bit
more about what Young Earth creationists
believe and so I see no better time than
now to lay out my Steelman of the young
Earth creationist position modern young
Earth creationists YC's accept
essentially all of the mechanisms of
evolution accepted by evolutionary
biology except for mutation as the
original source of all genetic
information they think that all
variation between organisms was created
by God intact at Creation in a more
perfect form than is present today and
manifests itself differently in
different individuals within a kind due
to that information being corrupted over
time in differential ways and due to
differential expression of genes already
present in the genome epigenetics
adaptation is very much accepted but the
raw material upon which selection acts
is not from mutation but variation that
has existed in the Genome of the kinds
since their initial creation this also
helps explain why young Earth
creationists think that Evolution occurs
much faster than would be predicted by
evolutionary biology and how complex
structures that are irreducibly complex
could exist kinds also known as baramin
are a bit difficult to Define most often
the idea of a Kind reflects the
biological species concept but it is
more broad extending to any organisms in
a group where gene flow can occur even
through several intermediates as with
ring species being able to hybridize
with any other members of a kind is
enough to confirm membership to a given
kind and hybrids do not need to be
viable for more than a few cell
divisions for their existence to confirm
that the hybridizing species are members
of the same kind what truly defines a
kind is that each kind has an
independent origin diversification even
speciation can occur within a kind it is
even possible for a species to become
entirely reproductively isolated from
other members of its kind thus the
ability to produce a hybrid confirms
membership to a kind but the inability
to do so does not confirm that they are
not of that kind in harmony with
evolutionary biology many young Earth
creationists think think that
diversification and speciation occur
more rapidly when many environmental
niches are available such as immediately
following the fall of Adam and Eve or
after the great flood it is thought that
in both instances only a few members of
each kind existed and that the diversity
of species found within each kind has
evolved since those events but many
believe that the rate of speciation is
slower today than it was then because
there are fewer open niches this means
that millions of species have Arisen
from a comparatively small number in the
last few thousand years but as evolution
is not by the number of
beneficial mutations that occur over
time it can proceed forward much faster
than would be predicted by evolutionary
biology humans are their own kind
created separately and independently of
all other living things they are not
related to any other species that exists
now or ever despite similarities to
other organisms some presumed human
relatives from the fossil record such as
neander s were fully human and not
members of a different kind humans
diversify just like other kinds there
are some fundamental disagreements
between young Earth creationist views of
evolution and biology's Views one the
Earth is much younger per the young
Earth creationist view two mutation does
not produce changes that increase
Fitness and if it does not to the point
of creating complex novel structures
three life has many independent Origins
and each kind originated with a larger
and more more robust genome than its
members possess today there are some
surprising fundamental agreements
between young Earth creationist views of
evolution and biologies Views one
speciation can and does occur and
multiple species can all arise from the
same common ancestors two the mechanisms
of evolution are all valid especially
adaptation except for mutation as being
essential for the evolution of complex
structures and three diversification may
happen more rapidly when niches are
available if you're a young Earth
creationist and you see any flaws in
that summary please don't hesitate to
call me out I've run it by as many
creationists as I can but I want to
understand not misrepresent anyway that
should explain most of the ceratopsian
diversification following the flood
comments I'm really not here to
criticize their beliefs but rather to
correct any misconceptions that they
have about evolutionary biology so let's
talk about the last part natural
selection does not provide any brand new
information that's a fact
that's just true natural selection is
not a force it's a consequence it's the
consequence of the fact that some
versions of a gene work out better in a
given environment than others as
measured by the likelihood that an
individual with that Gene variant will
reproduce versus individuals with other
variants this is true and it is
observably true the young Earth
creationists agree that this is true and
because of this impact on Lifetime
reproductive success some variant become
more common over time and others
diminish and even Disappear Completely
natural selection eliminates variation
it does not produce it this is a fact
completely opposite of evolution which
requires new information this is the
part where she gets a bit over her skis
yes Evolution at some point requires new
information but not every aspect of
evolution needs to be the one that
produces it mutation produces new
information as we discussed earlier and
natural SEL ction happens because some
of that new information works out better
than others with respect to Lifetime
reproductive success mutation randomly
or nearly randomly produces new
information and natural selection
non-randomly reduces that information
down to the subset that works the best
in a given environment not deliberately
just as a consequence of that unequal
reproductive success over multiple
generations and all of this is
repeatedly observable this doesn't mean
that all genetic information originated
in random unguided mutation but saying
that we have never observed a gain of
information that's just false he said
hey folks would you like me to give you
a tour we said that would be great sir
well the first place we stopped on the
tour was the geologic time chart so
we're standing over there and the guide
said now folks this layer of rock right
here is about 70 million years old oh my
daughter was 12 years old at the time
she raised her hand she said mister how
do you know that layer is 70 million
years years old he said honey that's a
good question we tell the age of the
layers by what types of fossils we find
in them they're called index fossils and
by the way that's correct that's what
the textbook says scientists use index
fossils to determine the age of rock
layers she said thank you sir we walked
around the other side we're standing
over here and the guide said now folks
these bones are about 100 million years
old my daughter raised her hand again
she said sir how do you know those bones
are 100 million years old he said well
honey we tell the age of the Bones by
which layer they came from she said uh
sir when we were standing over there you
told me you knew the age of the layers
by the bones and now you're telling me
you know the age of the bones by the
layers she said isn't that circular
reasoning you looked at my daughter he
looked at me I wasn't about to help him
I thought wow this is going to be good I
have got to hear this he looked back at
my daughter he said wow you're right
that is circular reasoning he said I
never thought of that before that fellow
drove 50 miles one way that night to
hear me come to come hear me speak in
Union Center South Dakota the crowd
swelled to
39 we set up a chair okay so this is
Kent hovind telling about a visit that
he and his daughter had to a museum the
museum guide when talking about the
geologic timetable explained that the
layers were dated by fossils called
index fossils and then he explained that
some other fossils bones were dated by
the layer that they came from and his
daughter Ken hov's daughter pointed out
that the guide said that they knew the
age of the layers by the bones and the
bones by the layers and that this was
circular reasoning and this left the guy
dumbfounded and in agreement that this
was circular reasoning now I should
mention that while Kent hovind is one of
the best known creationists even Answers
in Genesis has criticized him for using
poor arguments that have been abandoned
by most of the young Earth creationist
movement so he doesn't necessarily speak
for all young Earth creationists but I
do see this clip presen Ed very often in
the groups where I engage in many of
these discussions so it is definitely
worth talking about okay is this an
example of circular reasoning as
presented yeah absolutely unless you
know what an index fossil is and how
they became index fossils index fossils
are common fossils that appear over a
very broad Geographic range but only for
a fairly short temporal range over a lot
of area but only for for a short period
of history that last part is the most
important part because if they only
existed for a relatively short period of
time their presence can be used to
estimate the age of the rock layers
where they're found because they only
existed at that point in time but how do
we know when and for how long they
existed this is the key and the answer
isn't from the bones that would be
circular reasoning fortunately index
fossils are not the only means that we
have to date Rock layers one of the most
valuable and widely applicable methods
is radiometric dating radiometric dating
allows us to utilize our knowledge of
radioactive decay to estimate the age of
samples containing radioactive elements
for example uranium two forms of uranium
u236 and u238 can each be used to date
Rock samples this is because of our
knowledge of how long it takes for half
of a sample of uranium to convert itself
into lead the half-life in the case of
u236 it takes 710 million years for half
of a sample to turn into lead 207 this
is based on the Decay rates that we can
observe today with u238 it takes
4.47 billion years to turn into lead
206 by carefully measuring the ratio of
u236 to lead 207 or u238 to lead 206 you
can estimate how many many half- lives
have passed or what percentage of a
halflife has passed and you can thus
estimate the ages of samples between 1
million years old and
4.5 billion years old there are other
radioactive elements that we can use to
check samples outside of this range or
to corroborate our findings from uranium
Le dating if multiple techniques all
reach the same basic conclusion there is
good reason to accept the age is
somewhat credible while many
creationists are skeptical of the
accuracy of radiometric dating that
doesn't change the fact that it exists
and it can be used to date Rock layers
though it is somewhat expensive and time
intensive to do so if you notice that
every time you see shells like these
like this one here and and you see them
everywhere the radiometric dates always
come back to be from the Jurassic well
after a while whenever you see a shell
like this what are you going to conclude
you can date the ample using radiometric
dating to be sure and if you do from
what time period do you predict that it
will be from this is how fossils become
index fossils you may have your doubts
about radiometric dating but claiming
that it isn't used among other
techniques to establish and verify the
ages of index fossils is either ignorant
or just a lie but how do you get a
fossil fish in the first place look at
the beautiful state of preservation of
that fish well here's a fish about to
have his breakfast doesn't get time to
swallow it before he's buried and
fossilized you can't Preserve a fossil
like that where he's just about to take
a Chomp and he's Frozen in an instant in
fact here's another example from a
museum in Germany that's a marine
reptile 6 ft long giving birth to a baby
one minute mother is about to give birth
to a baby Split Second later she's
buried in tons and tons of mud
fossilization had to be catastrophic
virtually instant and Rapid or these cry
noids look at the the heads of those
cids or cities they're Del they have
been preserved or the wings of this wasp
how do you fossilize a wasp like that if
it's not rapidly and catastrophically
buried okay so this video from aners in
Genesis documents multiple fossils that
suggests that the fossilized animals
were intuned by something catastrophic
virtually instant and Rapid at the end
it shows a wasp and asks how do you
fossilize a wasp like that if it's not
rapidly and catastroph ically buried and
and that's a great question probably you
don't generally when an animal dies it
is consumed by various scavengers and
decomposers and as a result never
becomes a fossil even its bones are
destroyed by erosion and other forms of
decomposition to become a fossil It
generally needs to be buried shortly
after death or while still alive
probably an unpleasant way to die but a
great way to become a fossil this can be
in sediments at the bottom of the ocean
lakes or or Rivers it could be in a
Mudslide or a flood shifting Sands
volcanic ash from nearby eruptions tar
pits and Pete bogs are a popular place
to die and be buried all at once in
other words there are a lot of
catastrophic ways to be buried virtually
instantly and rapidly and that is a
nearly essential first step in becoming
a fossil there really isn't any debate
about that so this is just something
about which we agree my only issue with
that video is it does make it seem like
there some real opposition to this idea
coming from the mainstream scientific
community and that's just not the case
the fact that rapid burial is generally
necessary for fossilization to occur is
just a point of agreement that we have
and maybe the video was just presenting
the fact that creationists also hold
that opinion but it didn't sound that
way to me anyway I hope this was helpful
would you like to see me do something
like this again are there any
creationist arguments that you would
like to see me address in the future did
you learn anything from this video I
hope you did as always like And
subscribe and we hope to see you real
soon Clint you said you believe in God I
did what I know I I'm sure that came as
a shock to the both of you especially
given that I met will at [Laughter]
[Music] church
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
