Tik Tok MORON Has 4 Dumb "Proofs" Evolution is FAKE (Lily Jay)

Added: 2026-06-04

[00:00:05][music] [music] >> Evolution is fake and I can prove it.

[00:00:21]>> Oh, hi. It's Lily J again. You remember her? She was the Hey atheists, I have a question. TikToker who annoyed so many of you with her incessant repetition.

[00:00:31]But don't worry, she's not doing that today. No, like she says, she is going to show that evolution is fake and apparently in just 2 minutes. So, she must be some kind of hyper intelligent super being to be able to achieve that monumental feat.

[00:00:48]>> That or a complete and utter idiot who hasn't got the faintest idea what they're talking about and thinks that having a following on social media is a one-to-one substitute of a functioning brain. Let's find out. Did you know that evolution is based on four major ideas, but not one of them has ever been proven? Well, I will be absolutely astounded to discover that you are even capable of having four ideas in your head within a 2-minute period. So, you're already impressing me thus far.

[00:01:18]But I have to wonder about this four major idea concept. Certainly not one that I'm familiar with since evolution isn't based on a handful of ideas, but absolutely bleeding loads of them. All coming together to make a coherent whole that all support and reinforce one another, making it one of the most solid scientific ideas that we have. In fact, there's a reason it's called the theory of evolution and it's not because theories are bad, but pretty much as strong as science gets. But hey, even if her four ideas that do evolution is all fine and dandy, what's the chances that what she says about them is just astoundingly wrong to the point you might have to start wondering how she actually managed to sit upright and speak without accidentally flinging herself across the room. Wonders never cease. So, number one is that life comes from non-life. But, we have not one single example of life ever coming from non-life.

[00:02:15]>> Wow, straight in there with some utterly incorrect in multiple ways nonsense.

[00:02:20]Awesome. It's also a particularly popular stupid with people who have no idea what evolution is or means or what it's supposed to do. Firstly, evolution at no point, in no way, for any reason discusses the idea of abiogenesis. That is to say, the actual study of how life may have initially formed from non-living material. They are two separate disciplines, even if they are technically related. But, the thing is, you could absolutely prove that life could never ever ever form naturally out anywhere in the universe without some form of being interfering and making it happen somehow. And evolution under that would be absolutely viable with that specific or frankly nearly any kind of beginning for life. Life could literally have popped out of absolute thin air and evolution would have no problem still functioning. But, that is mostly because it simply does. Also, while abiogenesis has yet to have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, there has been much research done with multiple highly plausible hypotheses presented by people far smarter than either of us. Although, that is not much when it comes to Lilly.

[00:03:32]A piece of rancid pig anus is smarter than her if her videos are anything to go by.

[00:03:38]>> How can something possibly come from nothing? It's impossible.

[00:03:41]>> Oh, oh my god. That's That's not even something you should even be trying to argue. The concept of something coming from nothing and life coming from non-life are utterly incompatible ideas.

[00:03:52]Because, you see, non-life is not nothing, for God's non-existent sake.

[00:03:57]Things that aren't alive are, in fact, well known to be things that exist. I know, it's wild. So, again, life coming from non-living material, by your own standard, would be absolutely fine. In fact, the thing is, life does come from non-living stuff, still to this day. If you think about it, most of what you consume, it's likely not alive, and certainly won't be shortly. But then you take it and you create more life, as in extend your own existence, which would, again, not be something coming from nothing, but very much something coming from something. Number two is atheists believe we all evolved from a single cell. Oh, look, of course this was about atheists. It always is. Science makes my brain sad, and it's all atheism's fault.

[00:04:44]But yeah, sure, atheists understand that if you take the evolutionary steps we observe and run them backwards, eventually you are going to arrive at simple, single-celled life forms that would have been the progenitors of pretty much all life to follow. Just the same way that theists, who understand science, know that as well. It's got nothing to do with atheists and everything to do with facts about reality. Right now, we do have single-cell life form. It's called bacteria, but here's the catch. I think the catch is she doesn't know anything about anything. Shocking that she would have that amount of non-knowledge and thinks she can completely debunk a massive field of science. No, wait, the other one, completely expected. Yeah, no. While bacteria are, in fact, single-celled organisms, there are way more than one type of single-celled organisms. That's why it has an S at the end, and also why we have a goddamn name for things that are organisms consisting of a single cell. Bacteria, of course, but also protozoa, certain types of fungi and algae can even be single-celled life. What a shock that you didn't bother to find out and use the only thing that you knew as literally the only example. Guys, I'm starting to think that she isn't very bright. Just a hunch. We don't have two-cell life form. We don't even have three-cell life form, four-cell life form, or even five-cell life form.

[00:06:08]>> Oh, no. Can you believe it? It It turns out that she's completely wrong. I know, I was shocked, too. Yeah, no, pal, there are absolutely low-cell count organisms.

[00:06:19]Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if we found one in your head. Nah, that's a lie. There is nothing in there. But yeah, there's Tetrabaena socialis, which is in fact a four-cell life form that surprisingly form essentially a little square. It's a type of algae and it very much exists despite her obviously well-researched claim about such an impossibility. There's also Xanthidium, which is another form of algae. Aren't they popular? Which form in pairs. So yeah, more than single-celled, but not like complex multicellular organisms do in fact exist. What a surprise that you don't know about something. How did we grow from one cell into trillions of cells? Well, considering your argument is essentially there's no stepping stone from one cell to few cells, that obviously debunks itself immediately by simply checking anywhere ever. Perhaps you should try it next time before embarrassing your entire bloodline on the internet. Although, to be fair, if they produced you, I can only assume they are incapable of embarrassment at this point. But hell, even if we didn't have those life forms somehow, that wouldn't change the fact that cells are known to come together to form complicated constructs. They literally do it inside your body every day. It's how you are doing and alive right now.

[00:07:40]Take that concept, put it outside of a body, and boom, you have the possibility for near any amount of cells coming together to form thing. Amazing. We don't have a single proof of a single life cell ever growing into complex life form. Never.

[00:07:56]>> Yeah, of course she is just wrong on that. It absolutely has been observed.

[00:08:00]In fact, the multicellularity long-term evolution experiment very much showed that with the right environmental pressures that stable multi-celled structures could form in not millions of years, not even thousands, hell, not even years, but actual weeks, which demonstrates that of course given the right circumstances these kinds of things could and would form pretty rapidly. So, there's absolutely no reason to believe that they didn't, apart from if you have a really stupid world view that demands that they don't do that, when I guess you would have to think they don't. But, that's not exactly a good reason to believe God had anything, is it?

[00:08:40]>> Number three is time and chance can build life.

[00:08:43]>> Time? Sure, everything does. Chance? Not so much. I mean, specifically when it comes to evolution, the types of life that come from it, well, they don't happen because chance, they happen because selection pressures, which essentially force them to evolve in particular ways or they won't be as successful as creatures that do, so they won't be able to compete with them and they go extinct. Or even if they're not competing with something, if they become unable to acquire enough energy, again, they go extinct because you need food to want to live. I know, I was shocked when I found out I can't survive on whiskey alone. I have to at least add some beans to it sometimes. So, the theory is life basically is this one giant coincidence, and that if you wait long enough, like billions of years, the impossible eventually becomes possible. No, the theory absolutely is not that. First off, the idea that life is a coincidence only works if you think that it could only possibly exist on this planet, which is extremely unlikely when you take into account the number of potentially life-supporting planets in the known universe and give them all the same possibility of having life on them.

[00:09:53]Even if that number is quite low, it goes from potentially unlikely to near guaranteed. And that's the thing, if we ignore that she still doesn't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. The fact that life exists means that it is possible that life formed. Possible and impossible are not the same. It again is simply given enough time, the unlikely becomes an absolute certainty. And aren't you also shocked that she doesn't know anything about probability either? She'll be one of those people that thinks winning the lottery is 50/50. Well, you either win it or you don't. But in reality, this is the complete opposite. Time actually destroys things, which Mendel clearly proved in his works. I sincerely doubt you know that from actually reading anything. At best, it's probably a regurgitated tidbit from some other idiot who doesn't understand the difference between open and closed systems and how they relate to life. Cuz while sure, an object alone out in space with nothing to interact with will probably degrade over time into nothing.

[00:10:55]But in an open system, like say a planet with a nearby star, the introduction of excess energy actually allows for complex systems to grow and change. And often improve over time, allowing for, you guessed it, evolution to function and any life that formed through natural causes to be able to acquire the energy needed to do that after it forms. So for example, you have all the parts of a Ferrari piled up in a junkyard, right?

[00:11:22]If you leave them there for millions of years, will they magically assemble into a working car?

[00:11:28]Of course not.

[00:11:29]>> You've got to I the incredulous and derisive snort. even better that it's coming from an absolute dunce cap of a human being. Cuz yeah, that's got nothing to do with evolution. Now, if there was a mechanism and selection pressure that favored the formation of Ferraris over the years, like say some kind of entity like the shape of a Ferrari and would regularly come and put the pieces together, that would definitely form a Ferrari given enough time. Now, that's still not an analog for evolution like at all, but demonstrates that your idea about how things form lacks any thought whatsoever, which is so out of character for you. But yeah, it would be more like the actual fact that Ferraris do change over time. They adapt based on the selection force of engineers slowly figuring out what makes it work better or look better or just be a better car.

[00:12:21]Each new generation more or less being superior to the last, at least for its specific niche of being a fast car. I mean, I don't know if that's actually the case for Ferraris, but I'm sure some gearheads will tell me they're now or whatever, but unfortunately all I really know about them is that red car goes burr. Instead, the metal will rust, the parts will break down. The longer you wait, the worse it actually gets.

[00:12:49]Yeah, cuz metal isn't alive. It doesn't change or adapt or do anything that organic life does. There is no dynamic reaction to the environment. So, it's a terrible analogy that it doesn't do anything other than demonstrate that you don't know what evolution is or how it works, what it does, or what it is {quote} and {quote} trying to achieve.

[00:13:09]You might as well be comparing a ham sandwich to a cruise ship and complaining that the boat isn't edible enough and you're struggling to stay afloat on your goddamn lunch cuz it keeps falling apart and attracting sharks. So, time is evolution's worst enemy. This is, of course, the absolute opposite of reality, but I expect anything less of the sounds that come tumbling out of your idiotic gaping maw.

[00:13:32]Time is, in fact, incredibly helpful for evolution because, again, life isn't some inert object sat still on the floor of a garbage heap forever. It's pretty much everything around it, the grass, the trees, the creepy crawlies, and the rest. Things that often assist in the decomposition of most inert materials that will then take them into their systems and turn them into useful compounds exact kind of purpose you are pretending doesn't happen. Hell, given the right evolutionary pressures, there are, or at least could be, creatures that will happily break down the scrap metal and then create brand new things out of it, causing the very process that you believe refutes evolution to accelerate because of evolution. Imagine that. And number four is small variations today prove big evolution in the past. First off, got to give big props for you for showing that you can, in fact, count to four. Wasn't sure you could do it, but there you are, almost counting every digit on a single hand.

[00:14:30]Wow. All evolution everywhere proves is that evolution happens, big, small, medium, it's all the same process. It's like saying, "You think you can travel to the next town over, uh, but you're taking such small steps." You are literally admitting to the process that allows people to travel across vast distances while denying that it can do that because it's not as big as your dumb ass thinks it could be. If evolution happens at all, regardless of what you choose to call it, that means it happens, and unless you can demonstrate [clears throat] a mechanism that would stop the bigger changes, you got literally nothing, mate. Atheists say because there is different colored cats and different sized dogs that this proves evolution.

[00:15:11]>> Not going to lie, I have literally never heard an atheist use those small variations to demonstrate evolution, certainly not on their own. But sure, the fact that a thing can change is proof that it can change. And it is rather strange that you chose the smallest changes of size and color when full-on shapes and abilities can and do change in massive ways. But then you might accidentally make the point that if a dog can change to be so big or so small, so different from other dogs that it's no longer compatible with many other types of dogs. First, making them have mechanical difficulties breeding and even if they can, eventually being unable to produce viable offspring and ultimately no offspring at all. Well, oopsie-doopsie, you've just defined the very nature of speciation. You know, that thing that happens all the time all over the animal kingdom. But these genetic changes can only be found within one species. A cat will always be a cat, no matter what shape, size, or color it is.

[00:16:14]>> You are fundamentally wrong. Speciation is an observable fact in both nature and in the lab. So, even if we have never seen it in household pets, it is completely irrelevant to the fact that it exists and would, given the right circumstances, absolutely apply to cats, dogs, or whatever animal you want to pretend can't change because you don't have a clue how any of this works. And your book though doesn't bring it up, so it can't possibly be real. So, this definitely doesn't prove that a fish can turn into a cow.

[00:16:47]>> You know, listening to an idiot try to mock a thing they haven't got a clue how it works is both hilariously and irritatingly ironic. And I have no idea how to feel about that. So, if evolution is false, wouldn't it be more logical to say this isn't a coincidence and it's all an intelligent design? What do you guys think?

[00:17:07]>> Well, I think for anyone who watches your content unironically, using the word think is a grievous misuse of the English language, especially if they think the logical conclusion of this absolute travesty of a video is that evolution is false rather than pondering how did the world's dumbest manage to use her phone to record a video without accidentally eating the damn thing? Bye.

[00:17:42]>> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]