As far as global warming, who was burning fossil fuels 100,000 years ago to cause that warming?

How about 18,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene? Lots of fossil fuel burning going on then?

Climate is a described by coupled sets of non-linear relationships whose actual variables haven't even been convincingly identified.

Those pointing to computer models are either frauds or incompetent; as the models are worthless. Every single line of that code needs to be held up to the light of day; the fudge factors, approximated physics, poor math, and then the whole sections where they have no idea but just wing it.

Global warming is just a tool to empower bureaucrats and unaccountable international organizations who want to control you. With communism and socialism disreputable, it's the new vehicle.

Known causes of climate change:

(1) Astronomical Causes

11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )


(2) Atmospheric Causes

Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps


(3) Tectonic Causes

Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.

Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.

Don't get me started on molecular phylogeny !!

Molecular inferences about whale ancestry conflict with morphological inferences; molecular phylogenies of animal phyla conflict with each other. Inconsistencies in molecular phylogenies have convinced many biologists to jettison the idea of common ancestor entirely.

The problem with molecular phylogeny is it ASSUMES the common ancestry it claims to prove. The entire field is circular.

Descent with modification has to be imposed on the molecules as the starting assumption. It's no better than reading chicken entrails, really.

Meaningless self-delusion.

The negative coments on the video don't address what the guy says, just parrot party line.

Thousands of generations of fruit flies have been deliberately bred, selecting for characteristics. But nothing other than a fruit fly results.

Thousands of years of forced, selected dog breeding, and all you get are dogs.

Drug resistant bacteria are the same bacteria with better defenses, but biologically the same.

The evolution of one species into another has NEVER been observed. The origin of life from non-life has NEVER been observed. If Darwin was right, everything should be in the process of transitioning to something else as a result of environmental pressures.

That's what the video is pointing out.

Darwin was wrong wrong wrong. Those of you parroting party line and stupidity vs. smart (of course you being smart for believing the party line) need to look around. You're on the same side of history as flat-earthers.

The reason you believe Darwin's 19th century understanding of biology despite the evidence of all of reality, is that the alternative means you are a designed thing, thus accountable to a designer. Even the aburdity of Darwinian evolution seems preferable to THAT ...