He read a philosopher's argument against natural selection, that was answered by biologists (he just didn't like the answer), and the only people that take the criticism seriously at all are from the Discovery Institute and stuff.
He became an atheist because he thought the secular explanation of evolution made sense? WTF? Does he even realize that many THEISTS accept the theory, too? His whole reason for calling is bizarre.
Whanna know what's wild? 1) The majority of Christians accept the theory of evolution. 2) The majority of creationists are non-Christians (the largest group is creationist Hindus)
@@whatsupinspace854 i reckon the real numbers of believers is much lower too. Considering the threats of i.e. islam or people wearing a cross but never pray or go to a church. Yet another trick from the church i found out through friends (atheists) of mine: there parents were members of the church, so they automatically were members too. And they refuse or "forget" to remove them. Been going on for 40 years now. So if they do a membership count, they count them too.... Remember no one told them they were a member neither......
It's ASTONISHING the amount of effort someone will waste trying to use science to disprove science by trying to claim that experts are all stupid and they, despite never having ever actually studied the subject, they are magically FAR more intelligent about that subject than the people who have studied it all their lives and, in some circumstances, multiple generations.
nah... because religion deals with absolute certainty. So this caller thinks that if you can find one fault that doesn't show absolute certainty of its result, it is faulty. He then also forgets thatby poking holes at it... doesn't add to his believes... just that it doesn't explain everything
"smuggling in an intelligence"..... that's exactly what he's trying to do. Natural selection is not an agent.... it is only descriptive, not proscriptive..... nature does not care whether you live long enough to pass along your genes..... natural selection does not need a "mechanism".... it IS the mechanism.
Yup! He definitely does give you an impression of a curious kindergartner but don’t be fooled - he’s a full-fledged adult with brains damaged by Sunday-school “education”…
You're being far too generous. By preschool, conscious of it or not, children have learned that the sensation of needing to poop will, unchecked, eventually EVOLVE through biological processes, into the child shitting on the floor in front of an audience. Perhaps they didn't learn about it first hand (they may have pinched their nose and made fun of the child who did learn about it first hand), but regardless, preschoolers have a firmer grasp of evolution than this floor lam-- *AHEM! -- than this "caller" ....perhaps it is more likely that there is an early version of Chat GPTH (i don't know what the fuck GPT is, but the H is absolutely for *HOMESCHOOLED)* running on a TI-85 graphing calculator....no...shit, linear functions evolve....running on a set of dominoes. it's either standing slack-jawed picking its nose, or fallen over wallowing in the shit it first took on the floor.
PZ Myers would rip this guy apart in 10 seconds. Thumping of a heart as it works is NOT a trait. Hypothesizing a T1 and T2 trait like he did is not just hypothetical, it's so complex and specific that it is created to serve his purpose. Toss it out. Oh, and it is not a "trait" to say a heart promotes fitness. The design is. Talk about overthinking this!
Philosophy majors trying to do hard science is always so precious. This guy and the millions of other people like him are a direct consequence of requiring bachelor's degrees (pick a kind any kind the more useless the major the better because then you can actually get into the major!) to get a shift manager job at McDonald's. What's interesting is we're about to see the consequences of attempting to entirely subvert natural selection in favor of artificial selection criteria we imposed that were utterly idiotic.
Yeah. Apart from the fact that Charlie is clearly a little dishonest, unfamiliar with logic and not nearly as scientifically literate as he imagines, but his speaking voice is a nightmare to listen to and his audio is hideous. Just awful.
I hate the idea that I live in a world where someone who has never touched a beaker or a microscope in their life thinks that anyone should give a fuck about their opinion on what a “proper” scientific theory is
The hosts should have done other things differently as well. The light natured format for talk heathen allows conversations to go on far too long without actually addressing the points in any timely manner and sometimes not at all. It's interesting to watch the same people on atheist experience do a much better job addressing the issues. Especially when Matt is also there.
So, is cooking a science? Please, explain what science even means, and then explain the scientific method... I see a lot of people liked this comment, and that saddens me, and to be honest, frustrates me too... I was unaware that your appeal to authority of beakers or microscopes (which, who truly hasn't touched one, honestly? Even I did back in school so long ago...) was the difference in truth? Do you all not see that, this statement alone is NOT logically sound? About as silly as me furthering it to say, since you have never manufactured a beaker or microscope means you have no claim to tell someone what scientific method means? Oh, but surely my showing you how silly it is, will be used against me? No? I predict someone will do so... Ignore how silly the first statement is, but pin mine on me... Listen, do you see how hurtful or repugnant it is to speak like this? The, "I don't care about your opinion, so I am going to say what I want, because I know it all." If no one can teach you something, unless it is what you WANT TO HEAR, what precisely are you learning? Does that not defeat the purpose of opening you ear to something? How can you be "fooled" into something, when you already widely accept it? Of course, all of these words go unheard to anyone not caring to listen, nor do these words even matter... Who am I, right? You might already negate this as well based on some other circular argument... If you take anything from this, I urge you to hear the good news... Jesus Christ came in the flesh and He died on the cross for all sin as the perfect Lamb. For all mankind, not just me or any other church goer. He rose 3 days later to defeat death. All who go to Him believing will not perish but have everlasting life... Not because they were perfect, but because He was... We wear His righteousness, not our own... I have lied, I have done a multitude of things and by myself, without Jesus, there is no way in... If you believe in the Son, you have the Father... It can happen in an instant, when you first believe this good news... That all your struggles, and working to be something you could never attain, have been bought through the blood of Jesus Christ. Where you become baptized in The Holy Spirit. Submerged until your cup runs over, and emerging a child of God. It is a beautiful thing... When it happened to me, I remember John saying in 1 John ch 4, "We love God because He first loved us." I lived that verse that day... I pray for all that read this, and that God blesses you greatly! What a blessing it truly is, to be loved and accepted for who you are. A love I had looked for my entire life... God Bless
Although this caller sounds like he knows what he's talking about, it's not clear to me that he understands the nature and properties of a 'survival trait'. He also inserted a clause into his original definition of a 'Scientific Theory' which is superfluous and would wrongly exclude perfectly valid theories, such as Darwin's original 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection'. Darwin's original theory did describe the mechanism but did not go into the full mechanics of that process because that knowledge (of genes and chromosomes and allele frequencies, etc.) was not available in Darwin's day. But his theory was still valid and held water at the time, despite not being able to fully specify exactly how the process worked at a genetic level. We have expanded and filled out many of the gaps since then (hence the term 'Neo Darwinian'), but the theory was still valid even before it could take account of our modern knowledge of genetics. Then we come to the idea that traits that are associated with others but which themselves have a neutral (or zero) impact on 'fitness' to survive somehow undermines and challenges the 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection'... and this seems entirely spurious to me. There are many, many, examples of traits that have been passed down a line of evolutionary succession that have zero impact on 'fitness' to survive but which nonetheless persist because they confer no competitive disadvantage. This is actually a validation of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection rather than a factor which throws doubt on it, and it is well-understood and can be fully accounted for in the predictive models that have been constructed by evolutionary geneticists and others (although it may sometimes be ignored because a zero impact on survival makes it irrelevant to the focus of a particular study). I think this caller is dredging up problems where they don't exist.
A bizarre argument. All that it takes for genes to get passed on is that the organism with those genes survives long enough to procreate. So if a trait has no impact on the ability of an organism to survive in the environment, it can get passed on.
@@bandito_burrito "Biologists can determine the cause of fitness because they have info about an organism and its ecology" I feel like I'm much more sympathetic and understanding to the criticism compared to the vast majority of the comments here. But I feel like having information about an organism and its ecology IS a fundamental part of Evolution by Natural Selection. If a theoretical model requires certain information to make a determination, wouldn't that information necessarily be a part of that model?
@@blabodab I agree, without an organisim in a specific ecology, you have nothing. The theory is only applicable if you have both. Which isn't a problem, because the theory was formulated exactly for that. Life in the Earth biosphere. If we find differend types of life in other biospheres, we might need additional theories of evolution for those. I do not see any problem with that.
@@bandito_burrito evolutionary theory makes many predictions. One recent discovery of note is the fossil Tiktaalik. Scientists used the theory to predict where (eastern Canada) and in which layer of strata such a specimen could be found, and it was spot on. There are now at least 10 examples that have been found. The theory makes predictions in every category of biological sciences, geology, paleontology and every other branch of related science.
I'll never understand people who can't grasp that regardless of your issues with the theory of evolution by means of natural selection it is a demonstrated fact of nature. Evolution has been tested and observed in both labs and the field, it is at the very core of our understanding on biology, medicine, and agriculture. Evolution is simply a fact.
Before OnlyFans, "to simper" was a perfectly cromulent verb, and the gerund form perfectly describes his rage-inducing voice. He has no idea what he's talking about and IS proud of how stupid he is, and I know it because he called in with this crap already and got slapped down harder than a mosquito.
The mechanism of evolution doesn't determine if a trait is useful. That's up to the selection process, and of course that depends upon the conditions at the time. When the conditions change the secondary trait might become more important. He is thinking about breeding deliberately for certain traits ...and breeders have had many failures with that. Nature doesn't do that. He wants evolution to have an objective, and that simply isn't the way it works. ( It's also dependent upon sheer chance. A thing well-adapted to living on the flanks of a volcano, for example, is in deep trouble if the volcano erupts.)
A "Thump Thump" noise is NOT A TRAIT of a heart. It is an "ARTIFACT". The heart does not actually have to make a noise to do the job required. Hell, if humans as a species simply could not hear, that would be ridiculously clear.
@James… I had to put that whole “thump, thump” theory being “a trait” to a way that my simple brain could comprehend what Charlie was talking about. Here goes: The heart pumps blood. The heart appears to be red in color, at least when I see it in a video about open heart surgery. The heart has valves. Just as engines have intake and exhaust valves, so too does the heart. The heart goes “thump, thump” because that’s what a functioning heart does. A heart that’s not going “thump, thump” is in cardiac arrest. To me, calling the noise a heart makes, a trait, is like describing that blue eyes can sing. I guess I don’t get it.
Well, suppose for the sake of discussion that the heartbeat sound IS a trait, and that it's an example of a trait that, in itself, provides no advantage to the organism. But suppose that it's closely correlated with the kind of muscular hearts that we see in many species. Is this a problem for natural selection, or for the theoretical formalism? I don't see that it would be at all. Natural selection will favor functioning hearts over nonfunctioning ones, and purely as a side effect it thereby favors heartbeats. Natural selection doesn't care that a neutral trait may be carried forward, if it comes at no cost. We see lots of these traits. The theory predicts them. It's not a problem. If it does come at some cost, then it ISN'T neutral, at least in selection events where that particular cost has an effect on survival. And that's when natural selection actively guides the process of evolution, as the theory describes. It's not a problem.
So I think what he's getting at is that he thinks evolution cannot make novel testable predictions but it can. Evolution explained and predicte the batshittery we found in giraffe nerves and veins in their throats
I believe that his argument was that not all traits are beneficial or detrimental, so how does a neutral trait get selected for. I might be wrong, but that's what it sounded like. I think his issue is that he thinks the theory says that traits are only selected for fitness. The answer to that would be that fitness isn't specifically selected for, detrimental traits are usually selected against. Neutral and beneficial traits tend to hang around because they still don't stop an organism from reaching maturity and reproducing. Ones that make it harder to survive until breeding age tends to lead to less reproduction among those with that trait so it gets selected against. Pretty sure the theory covers that, but here we are.
To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson in discussion with Ben Shapiro "Where are you going with this?" A flaw, perceived or actual in the theory of evolution, has little bearing on atheism and doesn't prove his God. It is hilarious to me when Christians think their understanding of evolution proves their God when their entire approach shows major flaws in their epistemology. Honing the discussion down to these fundamentals was the best part of the call.
I think the biggest issue with the caller is that it's much easier to predict traits we'd find in older species/decendants, but it's difficult to near impossible to predict or identify new traits outside laboratory conditions, and even then there's no guarantee. Put simply, there my be a problem with that mechanism, but either way, it's useful, and it's the best we've got atm. And we may never solve all the problems we may have until we do have as complete an understanding of genetic mutation as we can get. At least, that's my two cents on his thought process.
THANK YOU. Genetic mutation isn't predictable outside of the fact that it WILL occur in some fashion as some point. If you have a certain unfilled niche in an environment, it's virtually guaranteed to get filled thru the mechanism of natural selection over time. We just won't know what it will be, when it will arrive, and which mutations took place to allow that niche to get filled.
Wait !! This is not the first time I've heard someone affirm that the theory of evolution has no mechanisms. I wonder how is putting out the proposition and why people are swallowing it
Charlie Charlie Charlie. Your argument is bad. It doesn't matter if the ridealong traits improve fitness or not, its just as long as it doesn't cause enough of a detriment to reduce the chance of reproduction. And the mechanism is natural selection (the various selective pressures).
The caller's argument is invalid because the premise contradicts itself: he's presupposed that T1 and T2 are causally independent, yet also supposed that T1 never appears without T2, nor T2 without T1. But then that means there IS a causal relationship: "T1" implies "T2" and vice versa, and likewise "not T1" implies "not T2" and vice versa. They are logically equivalent, so they cannot be causally independent. Indeed, how would you ever determine that two traits are separate if they never appear separately? Say for example that we have a population of mammals, and that T1 is to have a heart and T2 is to have blood. Why should we consider these as separate traits if they are mutually dependent?
You're confusing correlation and causation. Since the caller's argument relies on understanding how these two phenomena are different from each other, you can't follow the argument. Your example of T1 and T2 is textbook CORRELATION. That doesn't establish that one CAUSES the other. They could, for example, be caused by some third phenomenon T0, or some nth phenomenon along two entirely distinct causal chains. Both the paint and the varnish on my sailboat deteriorate over time. These are highly CORRELATED phenomena. When the rate of deterioration is slow for one, it's also slow for the other. But one does not in any way CAUSE the other, does it? Now, the caller was trying to argue that natural selection can't distinguish between correlation and causation. That argument fails because natural selection doesn't have to make such a distinction in order for it to be effective. Natural selection only needs to distinguish between traits that are RELEVANT (to fitness with respect to a particular selection event) to those which are IRRELEVANT. And it can do that simply by producing statistically distinct survival outcomes for the relevant traits. The irrelevant traits are irrelevant, so it doesn't matter what happens to them.
Be careful not to conflate prediction with determinism. Fitness is a context sensitive criterion and evolution is statistical operation; the prediction of evolution may be more accurately represented as that which proportionally rejects changes deleterious to fitness over time and population. That is, that beneficial changes are more often carried forward than neutral changes and those more often than detrimental changes, but not absolutely so. The classic example is sickle cell trait. The blood looses some oxygenation function but the body gains protection from a fatal disease called malaria. Absent the context of malaria the sickle cell trait would diminish over generations because of imposed loss of function, but in context it increases the survival of a population. A corollary is the search for Truth. Science evolves understanding by rejecting explanations that are less functional or outright false, not by asserting positions of truth. It may even be the case that a search for Truth is a fools errand (See Godel's incompleteness theorems).
His point that the hosts didn't quite get, cuz it's dumb, is that evolution needs to have every single trait accounted for with a reason for adaptation. Meaning a spot on the trail needs a beneficial reason and not a benign one of it didn't hurt anything so it stayed. He just misunderstands the science.
It’s assuming that only traits that make a difference to survival get passed on. All traits, all variations do. The ones that make the difference in survival are the ones that change populations and become prevalent. And so, the ones we study. It’s like saying the history books left out joe schmoe born in 1659 who lived no like if consequence or import that we can track. But we all know who George Washington is.
@@bandito_burrito Well it does explain that very well. It says that if a trait is useful for the population it stays and if its useless it kinda fades away. It isnt based on a fixed environment. We are the once who say that this trait is useful to this animal because of this and that. We are the observers of the theory in action. But the theory it self is just a "rule" that all animals fallow, which is to adapt to the environment in the best way possible. And we can observe that. Its the idea of natural selection. So it dosnt matter if it can tell if a trait is useless or useful cuz it isnt looking at a fixed position, rather the whole picture that applies everywhere, no matter the environment. The theory is objective. We are the once making the subjective observations. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The vast, vast, vast majority of scientists agree with and accept evolution. So why should we question whether it's scientific? Wouldn't they know best? If you want to challenge science, go talk to scientists. Not atheists n
That would be a somewhat fallacious argument, either Argument from Authority or Argumentum ad Populism. We can always question whether a claim is scientific. It's a useful practice. Scientists have to do it all the time, but that's not to stop the rest of us. The case for evolutionary selection makes a good example because it's particularly easy to understand. Why try to understand it? Because it's always better to know how a thing works than to be ignorant.
A biologist can SOMETIMES determine if a characteristic confers greater fitness. Not always. And if we can't figure out in which way something increases fitness, that does not mean it does not. Look at sickle cell anaemia for example. I would have really liked to get down to why he thinks traits with no evolutionary benefit would in any way invalidate the theory of evolution through natural selection. The way he phrases his scenario is awkward, but aside from the fact there is no way to differentiate his T1 from the T2 it just has no real disproving ability. We have masses of examples of traits with no (known) evolutionary benefit, but even if we were sure a trait had no benefit (and we have NO way of being sure) that still would not disprove anything. The theory of evolution through natural selection has nothing to do with the god ideas. It is it's own theory, completely independent of religions.
Ahh I got this guy's take. If not all evolution is natural selection then evolution as a theory is wrong. He's wrong of course. There are multiple mechanisms for evolution. Darwin's model was the first, therefore that one specifically has the spotlight.
He called Matt and Arden on The Line about 4 days later with the exact same argument..and it went just as well as this one.. Its a pity his arguments can't evolve.
Ultimately natural selection is a function of mathematics. Traits which increase the probability of reproduction also increase the probability of passing that trait on.
@@starfishsystems Biochemistry is the function that produces genetic changes and provides the vehicle for those traits to be passed on. But probability plays a significant role in whether or not genetic changes are actually propagated. For instance, an organism with a positive reproductive trait may get eaten by a predator before it reproduces or may produce 10 offspring without passing on the trait due to pure chance. It's not probable but it's possible.
It be great if theists can start by covering dinosaurs and where they stand in their theology as oppose to complaining on what a theory is... makes the conversation more honest.
Let me give you a word of advice .to all you Christians ,and people of other religious, stop calling atheist shows trying to debunk the theory of evolution !that has nothing to do with whether a god exist or not ! If by some Twisted way you could debunk evolution[ oh by the way it's still doesn't prove a God ]get your Nobel Prize, call a scientist that are educated in the field because ,you don't do nothing but make yourself look stupid calling an atheist show about evolution🤔🙄
The heartbeat example demonstrates the caller's limited understanding. Mutation generates variation. Variations will recur and persist in a population entirely in line with their "basal" mutation rate unless and until they become "visible" to natural selection. So mutations may affect the sound of a heartbeat. There may be corresponding variation between individuals in a population, but only to the extent that this variation is consterained by natural selection. If that sound is correlated with survival/reproductive success (fitness), then some variations will become more prevalent and others less so. eg if individual mice with a noisier heartbeat are more liable to be predated by owls, the prevalence of the noisy heartbeat trait in the population will decline. I'd suggest that most biological traits that appear highly uniform are probably the result of natural selection because significant variation either impacts physiological functioning directly (a noisy heart might be a leaky heart) or produces adverse outcomes in competition with other variations.
1. Ask Charlie what his credentials are. 2. Ask Charlie if he has published papers in peer-reviewed journals in the field of Biology. 3. If not, what is his point in calling this show?
Religious blinders cause people to be unable to understand the science they’re arguing against. If they understood it, they would realize just how silly they sound.
12:37 I don't like this turn in the conversation by Kenneth. The caller actually asked at the beginning weather or not it the topic is ok with the hosts and they both agreed. When Kenneth had concern he should have brought it up from the start. This way it seem to me like a cop out.
I really don't understand why you even take calls like that. Why are you calling an atheist show about biology? Go bother a biology show. Always whining about evolution. As if it makes any difference to their god claim that evolution is a fact. Even if it wasn't a fact, that does in no way provide you with evidence for your god claim... just stop beating the dead horse. On top of that the vast majority of religious people accept evolution, so that makes it even more obvious that this is not a topic that is relevant. At all. 1:40 and you are WRONG already, the mechanism can be a description. There is no reason whatsoever why it couldn't be. In fact, how else could you explain a mechanism other than by describing how it works? Utterly ridiculous. Not that natural selection is "just a description" it's been directly observed and documented many times. And NO with your T1 and T2 story the trait that _doesn't_ affect fitness is _not_ going to be as common. Since it's not selected _for_ it can freely undergo genetic drift or even get lost all-together through another mutation. While it might be sort of equally present for a while, there is no reason why it would necessarily stick around. The fact that one is correlated and one is causal is not in any way a problem for the theory. No one ever said that each trait present must be causal for fitness. Only that IF a gene has effects on fitness negative ones will tend to reduce in number because of natural selection, and positive ones will tend to increase in number. And only as long as the selection pressures stay the same. There is _nothing_ in the theory that excludes neutral traits from being correlated with beneficial or detrimental traits, it is completely expected. And obviously you CAN distinguish between the two. E.g. being harder to see due to camouflage will make it easier to survive, we can see that e.g. insects with a different color are less often found by hunters. If at the same time they have another linked trait that has nothing to do with whether or not the insect is found by hunters, then clearly there's an obvious distinction. To suggest otherwise is just utterly ridiculous. And what is this nonsense of the theory not having a method of distinguishing between traits that are beneficial and traits that are neutral? That is utterly ridiculous. You just said scientists can make the distinction. So clearly that's nonsense. A trait that has a positive effect IS a trait that has a positive effect. A trait that has no effect, is NOT a trait that has a positive effect. OBVIOUSLY the very fact of whether or not a trait gets selected for IS the method of making the distinction...
most of these people dont really apply the scientific method. they have a conclusion they're trying to fit a certain theistic idea. this guy is reading verbatim from something like the creationist handbook. another liar who says he was an atheist
Let me cherry-pick the definition of a scientific theory so that I can use special pleading to attack the only scientific theory that explains everything in biology, that has correspondence with the Chemistry, Geology, and Physics, and has mountains of evidence... because the Bible. Is that Charlie's point? Hence, I'll call an atheist talk show, rather than submitting a paper to scientific journal or discussing his claims with actual scientists.
Charlie, you've already posited this argument to Matt on the Hang Up on the 13.10.21, albeit you did adjusted it slightly on this call, but Matt had already clearly explained to you that you have a serious misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution itself, which you STILL dont seem to understand, so you either didnt listen to Matt at all, didnt understand what he said (which seems most likely) or you did understand and you dont care about what he said and you're disingenuously continuing on with your erroneous argument becasue you think that you're right.... 🤔👎
The caller begins by questioning the ability of natural selection to distinguish between fitness caused by selectable traits versus merely correlated with them. I can appreciate the concern, fair enough. Let's suppose, as a thought experiment, that natural selection does NOT make such a distinction, because it can't. Then sometimes an "irrelevant" phenotypical trait will indeed be favored by a given natural selection event. In other words, it's not a determinant of fitness for this event, but appears coincidentally in the individual. An example might be a certain pattern of fur coloration that happens to correlate with more efficient respiration, but does not cause it. Nevertheless it's favored, so through the mechanism of natural selection it becomes slightly more common in the population. Now, we don't know what will happen during the next selection event. It will probably test for some OTHER kind of fitness, where this trait of fur coloration is either still irrelevant, advantageous, or disadvantageous. Over time, many different selection events will test for many different kinds of fitness, and on each occasion there's a chance that traits will present which ARE relevant to fitness. They don't all have to be at once, that's the point. Some will be quite irrelevant for that particular event, but so what? Let them survive to the next event, and we'll see whether they're relevant to it. If fur coloration, say, has any direct relevance to some kind of fitness, a suitable event will either favor it or disfavor it. If reality presents such events, sooner or later the trait will be tested, and natural selection will work as advertised. What will be the result, over time, of the random appearance of some trait which is genetically coupled to fitness but isn't functionally relevant ever? It too will be favorably selected, and it will appear more and more commonly in the population. That's what the theory predicts. Now, do we ever see irrelevant traits becoming common? Why yes, we do. In fact it seems to happen a lot, as in the example of fur coloration.
The explanatory vs descriptive point is complete nonsense and doesn't reflect what science is or does. The hosts really should've focused in on what the caller actually means by two terms in order to draw that distinction. For his example of co-appearing traits, science has no ability to distinguish casual relationships between things that always and necessarily appear together, so the caller is kinda right to say this applies to evolution, but it also applies to literally every other scientific theory as well. It's also fairly rare for this to happen (if it ever happens), so this is largely hypothetical, and even if it were a widespread problem, it still doesn't undermine the core theory of evolution. The only implication here is that it may be difficult for us to pin down which trait actually provides fitness, but this doesn't mean traits don't provide fitness.
Anyone who questions the validity of natural selection is also questioning the main pillar of a very well supported and long established scientific theory… his merit as a scientist within the actual scientific community would be on shaky ground and his own propositions would put him there. That is reasonable.
This is just secondhand embarrassing to watch! I mean does this guy know there’s a university level course on philosophy that deals exactly with that same question? It deals with epistemology, what makes claims scientific, what is knowledge in of itself and so on. There’s no point on discussing it on this show - just get your ass to a university or if you’re too lazy to do that let the actual specialists in the field deal with it! !
@@blarglemantheskeptic so let's boil this down for you real quick. Billions of people have been compelled for various reasons and intensities that there is a resurrection after death. Most religions tend to agree upon there being a heaven and a hell though most have strange stories. The nuts and bolts of the Bible are that you get brought back to life in the future. The Earth gets penetrated by an asteroid on the dark side of the Earth possibly all the way through, altering the trajectory and speed of the Earth toward the sun. The solution will be the New Jerusalem. Immortal or not there is no escaping the gravity of the sun. So the New Jerusalem leaves this Earth for another. But you can't have lawless ones on the ship when there are better candidates. So each person will be judged to see if they will go or stay. The saints are chosen for this purpose as they did not love their lives even unto death. All sins will be forgiven except for speaking evil if what is holy. That's called the unforgivable sin. The message we carry is so dire to humanity it is a crime to resist.
@@archangel_metatron *Argumentum Ad Populum.* Everyone used to know that meteorites were taking stars as well (even your Bible agrees) - didn't make it true. The rest is absolute NONSENSE. Any asteroid capable of changing Earth's orbit by any appreciable saving, DESTROYS it. That's because ... PHYSICS... rather than your idiotic Bronze Age goat header's myths.
@@archangel_metatron repeating what I said the last time: [Change the orbit] by how much? 3mm? 3 km? 3,000km? 300,000km? We get hit by meteors all the time, and they change the orbit, all the time. Unfortunately for your nonsense papyrus scribblings, any meteor large enough to affect the Earth's orbit by an amount sufficient to matter, even the slightest, would STERILISE THE PLANET, at a MINIMUM! - not even bacteria would survive. To make the earth just 1% closer to the sun, it would need to be struck, from directly in front, by about 1 MILLION meteors the size of the one that ended the dinosaurs, and killed off every species in the planet over 25kg (except crocodiles and turtles). 1% isn't enough to make much difference. *Science literacy isn't your friend, is it?*
Charlie intrigues me. He is like a lot of these theists that think science, or as he puts it, instrumental truth, is flawed. That it can't be trusted. All his calls are an attempt to show that instrumental truth is flawed, that it's wrong to believe in it. But it's because it doesn't include things that it doesn't include. As silly as that sentence is. Charlie's calls are all the same. Science does not include those things it does not include, therefore it's flawed. Charlie thinks thoughts exist. That the mind is a supernatural product. Therefore naturalism doesn't include it. They all shoot down naturalism. Naturalism is a joke to them. Belief in naturalism is foolish. Yet naturalism is the world they live in. They follow it too. They just want to add to it. Naturalism and science doesn't answer everything and because of that it's flawed. Charlie's of the world need to stop. You won't find technical holes in evolution. Oh and Charlie did the one thing theists love to do to justify their position. He had to say that his criticism of evolution came from an atheist. Number 1 tactic of theists when they want to add credibility to their nonsense is to claim atheism somewhere. Either it came from an atheist or they used to be an atheist. I think his point was to say it's not science because it's not predictable. Which is flawed understanding. He thinks that you can predict what a bird will change into or what the next mutation might be. But the prediction covers many areas. The prediction that it will mutate rather than what the mutation will be. Or how to predict things like where we can find transitional fossils and what it would look like. Since nature and it's survivability is what affects the changes, exact precision in the areas he thinks are flawed does not disprove anything. But see this is the problem. He isn't saying it's not true. Just that he doesn't think it fits the definition of science. What a pointless endeavor. It doesn't prove it false or prove god. Undermining science does nothing for god.
Also, for your info, i understand english very well. But my native language is italian which i speak fluently as well. How many languages do you speak lol??
Please try and see I am just a straight shooter as is my personality... Scientific method requires no biased preconceptions. Starting from 0 and conducting the experiment as it should be done to reach the same results as the original claim. Example: You would not dig up Edison to test electricity, you would follow the blueprint, without biased thought, therein conducting scientific method to get the same result. Bad example because we all know electricity exists? I would disagree, as there are many Christians who attest (myself included) to receiving the Holy Spirit. Which the Bible also backs up all scoffing and denial too... That does not make the one giving testimony burden, it gives it to the one who is too afraid to truly face God. I thought I could please God in a manner of ways, but I was also just not willing at the time to accept things. Yet, when I searched the Scriptures for myself and asked for guidance from God, He lead me to the truth of what Jesus Christ did for us all.. Not just me, but to you as well... I'm not here to call you a bunch of names, because I was those things also... You name, it, I have done it in action or in thought... I am not perfect now in action or in thought, but only through my faith in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross to atone for all sin, for all mankind, and He rose 3 days later... I know this to be true, because once I believed it to be true, that is when I was Baptized in the Holy Spirit... I am not righteous because of my actions, I am righteous because I believed in Jesus Christ. Can you deny my witness? No, but you can be skeptical... Skeptical is fine with me, but skepticism will never lead you to testing it... It is the biggest excuse in the planet, that Satan uses to hold you in the dark... If you listen to Satan to not even test it properly, that is your choice, leaving you with no excuse... The point still remains, you can test it... I don't hate you, I actually care a lot about you... I was lost too... Just as many were lost, I was lost... You don't have to be lost... You don't have to feed off of the darkness... The blue print will be given in many ways, to many different people, but the core will never change... Jesus died on the cross for all sin, for all mankind and rose 3 days later... If you believe that, then be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
God loves you just the way you are currently, and wants you to know that all have failed. That is why He sent Jesus to die on the cross and be risen 3 days later right, so that all His children may have eternal life? As it was nothing that any of us have done... I know that I have done countless things wrong, and no matter how hard I tried, that was the problem. You see, the Holy Spirit does not come on, until you realize that only Jesus can wash our sins away... No number of good deeds will ever make up for the wrong we have done... If you believe this, be baptized in the Name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, Amen. Jesus told us (after we receive the Holy Spirit) to practice righteousness and to love, as love does no harm to another, and that fulfills the law. You will not be perfect, but you have everlasting grace. Grace can teach us humility, forgiveness for others, and appreciation even. Live in the Spirit and do not hide your love for God and our Lord Jesus Christ. As if you received the Spirit, you can now testify to God's love for you, Amen?
Blessings to you. John 14:6 'Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.' I AM THE WAY: John 10:9 'I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. ' Romans 5:2 'through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. ' Ephesians 2:18 'For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.' Hebrews 9:8 'the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. ' Hebrews 10:19-20 'Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, ' THE TRUTH: John 1:14,17 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ' John 8:32 'And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”' John 18:37 'Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”' THE LIFE: John 11:25 'Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. ' NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER: I Timothy 2:5 'For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, ' EXCEPT THROUGH ME: John 10:7-9 'Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. ' Acts 4:12 'Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”' If you believe this, be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
@@tomjackson7755 another unjustified claim from you? when you can stand on your words, please feel free to speak... anything less will be ignored.. blessings to you
@@Khonflict34 What are you trying to lie about now? There are three lie filled cut and pastes of yours to justify my claim. You never justify anything why should I have to do any more than I already have?
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
i love a person that has no clue about science questions science
He read a philosopher's argument against natural selection, that was answered by biologists (he just didn't like the answer), and the only people that take the criticism seriously at all are from the Discovery Institute and stuff.
One of the hallmarks of the dangerously stupid is the consistent belief they've found great solutions that experts somehow missed.
He became an atheist because he thought the secular explanation of evolution made sense? WTF?
Does he even realize that many THEISTS accept the theory, too?
His whole reason for calling is bizarre.
He just wants to create doubt. Its a dishonest troll
Yeah... I doubt this dude is an atheist
@@Yogoretate nah sounds like a "lying for jesus" cultist
Whanna know what's wild?
1) The majority of Christians accept the theory of evolution.
2) The majority of creationists are non-Christians (the largest group is creationist Hindus)
@@whatsupinspace854 i reckon the real numbers of believers is much lower too. Considering the threats of i.e. islam or people wearing a cross but never pray or go to a church.
Yet another trick from the church i found out through friends (atheists) of mine: there parents were members of the church, so they automatically were members too. And they refuse or "forget" to remove them. Been going on for 40 years now. So if they do a membership count, they count them too....
Remember no one told them they were a member neither......
It's ASTONISHING the amount of effort someone will waste trying to use science to disprove science by trying to claim that experts are all stupid and they, despite never having ever actually studied the subject, they are magically FAR more intelligent about that subject than the people who have studied it all their lives and, in some circumstances, multiple generations.
nah... because religion deals with absolute certainty. So this caller thinks that if you can find one fault that doesn't show absolute certainty of its result, it is faulty. He then also forgets thatby poking holes at it... doesn't add to his believes... just that it doesn't explain everything
@@robinvan1983 also forgets the glaring holes the size of small moons in theirs
But... But... They read an article on a sciencey-looking magazine! That's enough to understand any topic.
Charlie has at best a preschool level of understanding about evolution.
"smuggling in an intelligence"..... that's exactly what he's trying to do. Natural selection is not an agent.... it is only descriptive, not proscriptive..... nature does not care whether you live long enough to pass along your genes..... natural selection does not need a "mechanism".... it IS the mechanism.
Yup! He definitely does give you an impression of a curious kindergartner but don’t be fooled - he’s a full-fledged adult with brains damaged by Sunday-school “education”…
You're being far too generous. By preschool, conscious of it or not, children have learned that the sensation of needing to poop will, unchecked, eventually EVOLVE through biological processes, into the child shitting on the floor in front of an audience. Perhaps they didn't learn about it first hand (they may have pinched their nose and made fun of the child who did learn about it first hand), but regardless, preschoolers have a firmer grasp of evolution than this floor lam-- *AHEM! -- than this "caller"
....perhaps it is more likely that there is an early version of Chat GPTH (i don't know what the fuck GPT is, but the H is absolutely for *HOMESCHOOLED)* running on a TI-85 graphing calculator....no...shit, linear functions evolve....running on a set of dominoes. it's either standing slack-jawed picking its nose, or fallen over wallowing in the shit it first took on the floor.
PZ Myers would rip this guy apart in 10 seconds.
Thumping of a heart as it works is NOT a trait.
Hypothesizing a T1 and T2 trait like he did is not just hypothetical, it's so complex and specific that it is created to serve his purpose. Toss it out.
Oh, and it is not a "trait" to say a heart promotes fitness. The design is.
Talk about overthinking this!
Philosophy majors trying to do hard science is always so precious.
This guy and the millions of other people like him are a direct consequence of requiring bachelor's degrees (pick a kind any kind the more useless the major the better because then you can actually get into the major!) to get a shift manager job at McDonald's.
What's interesting is we're about to see the consequences of attempting to entirely subvert natural selection in favor of artificial selection criteria we imposed that were utterly idiotic.
This conversation was exhausting.
Yeah. Apart from the fact that Charlie is clearly a little dishonest, unfamiliar with logic and not nearly as scientifically literate as he imagines, but his speaking voice is a nightmare to listen to and his audio is hideous.
Just awful.
I hate the idea that I live in a world where someone who has never touched a beaker or a microscope in their life thinks that anyone should give a fuck about their opinion on what a “proper” scientific theory is
Exactly. The very first thing the hosts should have said was "have you talked to a biologist about this? Why are you calling us?"
Ye its sad.
Yes and all to fit a biblical narrative which has no scientific basis whatsoever
The hosts should have done other things differently as well. The light natured format for talk heathen allows conversations to go on far too long without actually addressing the points in any timely manner and sometimes not at all. It's interesting to watch the same people on atheist experience do a much better job addressing the issues. Especially when Matt is also there.
So, is cooking a science? Please, explain what science even means, and then explain the scientific method... I see a lot of people liked this comment, and that saddens me, and to be honest, frustrates me too...
I was unaware that your appeal to authority of beakers or microscopes (which, who truly hasn't touched one, honestly? Even I did back in school so long ago...) was the difference in truth? Do you all not see that, this statement alone is NOT logically sound? About as silly as me furthering it to say, since you have never manufactured a beaker or microscope means you have no claim to tell someone what scientific method means?
Oh, but surely my showing you how silly it is, will be used against me? No? I predict someone will do so... Ignore how silly the first statement is, but pin mine on me... Listen, do you see how hurtful or repugnant it is to speak like this? The, "I don't care about your opinion, so I am going to say what I want, because I know it all."
If no one can teach you something, unless it is what you WANT TO HEAR, what precisely are you learning? Does that not defeat the purpose of opening you ear to something? How can you be "fooled" into something, when you already widely accept it? Of course, all of these words go unheard to anyone not caring to listen, nor do these words even matter... Who am I, right? You might already negate this as well based on some other circular argument...
If you take anything from this, I urge you to hear the good news... Jesus Christ came in the flesh and He died on the cross for all sin as the perfect Lamb. For all mankind, not just me or any other church goer. He rose 3 days later to defeat death. All who go to Him believing will not perish but have everlasting life... Not because they were perfect, but because He was... We wear His righteousness, not our own... I have lied, I have done a multitude of things and by myself, without Jesus, there is no way in...
If you believe in the Son, you have the Father... It can happen in an instant, when you first believe this good news... That all your struggles, and working to be something you could never attain, have been bought through the blood of Jesus Christ. Where you become baptized in The Holy Spirit. Submerged until your cup runs over, and emerging a child of God. It is a beautiful thing... When it happened to me, I remember John saying in 1 John ch 4, "We love God because He first loved us." I lived that verse that day...
I pray for all that read this, and that God blesses you greatly! What a blessing it truly is, to be loved and accepted for who you are. A love I had looked for my entire life...
God Bless
No doubt he'll be surprised to learn that Evolution doesn't work like Pokemon.
Although this caller sounds like he knows what he's talking about, it's not clear to me that he understands the nature and properties of a 'survival trait'. He also inserted a clause into his original definition of a 'Scientific Theory' which is superfluous and would wrongly exclude perfectly valid theories, such as Darwin's original 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection'.
Darwin's original theory did describe the mechanism but did not go into the full mechanics of that process because that knowledge (of genes and chromosomes and allele frequencies, etc.) was not available in Darwin's day. But his theory was still valid and held water at the time, despite not being able to fully specify exactly how the process worked at a genetic level. We have expanded and filled out many of the gaps since then (hence the term 'Neo Darwinian'), but the theory was still valid even before it could take account of our modern knowledge of genetics.
Then we come to the idea that traits that are associated with others but which themselves have a neutral (or zero) impact on 'fitness' to survive somehow undermines and challenges the 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection'... and this seems entirely spurious to me. There are many, many, examples of traits that have been passed down a line of evolutionary succession that have zero impact on 'fitness' to survive but which nonetheless persist because they confer no competitive disadvantage. This is actually a validation of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection rather than a factor which throws doubt on it, and it is well-understood and can be fully accounted for in the predictive models that have been constructed by evolutionary geneticists and others (although it may sometimes be ignored because a zero impact on survival makes it irrelevant to the focus of a particular study).
I think this caller is dredging up problems where they don't exist.
A bizarre argument. All that it takes for genes to get passed on is that the organism with those genes survives long enough to procreate. So if a trait has no impact on the ability of an organism to survive in the environment, it can get passed on.
@@bandito_burrito "which is the cause from which it is correlated". What?
@@bandito_burrito "Biologists can determine the cause of fitness because they have info about an organism and its ecology"
I feel like I'm much more sympathetic and understanding to the criticism compared to the vast majority of the comments here. But I feel like having information about an organism and its ecology IS a fundamental part of Evolution by Natural Selection.
If a theoretical model requires certain information to make a determination, wouldn't that information necessarily be a part of that model?
@@blabodab I agree, without an organisim in a specific ecology, you have nothing. The theory is only applicable if you have both. Which isn't a problem, because the theory was formulated exactly for that. Life in the Earth biosphere.
If we find differend types of life in other biospheres, we might need additional theories of evolution for those.
I do not see any problem with that.
@@bandito_burrito care to tell truth, you are the caller Charlie, Yes or NO ?
@@bandito_burrito evolutionary theory makes many predictions. One recent discovery of note is the fossil Tiktaalik. Scientists used the theory to predict where (eastern Canada) and in which layer of strata such a specimen could be found, and it was spot on. There are now at least 10 examples that have been found. The theory makes predictions in every category of biological sciences, geology, paleontology and every other branch of related science.
I'll never understand people who can't grasp that regardless of your issues with the theory of evolution by means of natural selection it is a demonstrated fact of nature. Evolution has been tested and observed in both labs and the field, it is at the very core of our understanding on biology, medicine, and agriculture. Evolution is simply a fact.
Before OnlyFans, "to simper" was a perfectly cromulent verb, and the gerund form perfectly describes his rage-inducing voice. He has no idea what he's talking about and IS proud of how stupid he is, and I know it because he called in with this crap already and got slapped down harder than a mosquito.
I was wondering why his voice so got to me. Simpering. Apt.
The mechanism of evolution doesn't determine if a trait is useful. That's up to the selection process, and of course that depends upon the conditions at the time. When the conditions change the secondary trait might become more important.
He is thinking about breeding deliberately for certain traits ...and breeders have had many failures with that. Nature doesn't do that. He wants evolution to have an objective, and that simply isn't the way it works.
( It's also dependent upon sheer chance. A thing well-adapted to living on the flanks of a volcano, for example, is in deep trouble if the volcano erupts.)
It is a problem that people think evolution (or selection) is an entity with a goal when it's just an occurrence
What makes the scientific method truly scientific, asks the person using a computer to send their message to people on the internet.
A "Thump Thump" noise is NOT A TRAIT of a heart. It is an "ARTIFACT". The heart does not actually have to make a noise to do the job required. Hell, if humans as a species simply could not hear, that would be ridiculously clear.
@James… I had to put that whole “thump, thump” theory being “a trait” to a way that my simple brain could comprehend what Charlie was talking about. Here goes:
The heart pumps blood. The heart appears to be red in color, at least when I see it in a video about open heart surgery. The heart has valves. Just as engines have intake and exhaust valves, so too does the heart. The heart goes “thump, thump” because that’s what a functioning heart does. A heart that’s not going “thump, thump” is in cardiac arrest. To me, calling the noise a heart makes, a trait, is like describing that blue eyes can sing. I guess I don’t get it.
Well, suppose for the sake of discussion that the heartbeat sound IS a trait, and that it's an example of a trait that, in itself, provides no advantage to the organism. But suppose that it's closely correlated with the kind of muscular hearts that we see in many species.
Is this a problem for natural selection, or for the theoretical formalism? I don't see that it would be at all. Natural selection will favor functioning hearts over nonfunctioning ones, and purely as a side effect it thereby favors heartbeats. Natural selection doesn't care that a neutral trait may be carried forward, if it comes at no cost. We see lots of these traits. The theory predicts them. It's not a problem.
If it does come at some cost, then it ISN'T neutral, at least in selection events where that particular cost has an effect on survival. And that's when natural selection actively guides the process of evolution, as the theory describes. It's not a problem.
Genetic drift has been an integral part of the theory of evolution for several decades. So what is he talking about?
America, the land where anyone with an opinion thinks they're correct just because they're breathing.
And have a heart beat
@@canbest7668 BuT aRe ThEy ReLaTeD? (Sarcasm)
So I think what he's getting at is that he thinks evolution cannot make novel testable predictions but it can. Evolution explained and predicte the batshittery we found in giraffe nerves and veins in their throats
I believe that his argument was that not all traits are beneficial or detrimental, so how does a neutral trait get selected for. I might be wrong, but that's what it sounded like. I think his issue is that he thinks the theory says that traits are only selected for fitness.
The answer to that would be that fitness isn't specifically selected for, detrimental traits are usually selected against. Neutral and beneficial traits tend to hang around because they still don't stop an organism from reaching maturity and reproducing. Ones that make it harder to survive until breeding age tends to lead to less reproduction among those with that trait so it gets selected against. Pretty sure the theory covers that, but here we are.
Darwin quote from 1871 Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge .
I don't think I have ever been this bored before.
Sorry Charlie you ain't doing nothing but throwing up a bunch of word salad with your tuna😅🤣😂
"Does that make sense?" Absolutely not. Word salad never does.
To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson in discussion with Ben Shapiro "Where are you going with this?"
A flaw, perceived or actual in the theory of evolution, has little bearing on atheism and doesn't prove his God.
It is hilarious to me when Christians think their understanding of evolution proves their God when their entire approach shows major flaws in their epistemology.
Honing the discussion down to these fundamentals was the best part of the call.
I think the biggest issue with the caller is that it's much easier to predict traits we'd find in older species/decendants, but it's difficult to near impossible to predict or identify new traits outside laboratory conditions, and even then there's no guarantee.
Put simply, there my be a problem with that mechanism, but either way, it's useful, and it's the best we've got atm. And we may never solve all the problems we may have until we do have as complete an understanding of genetic mutation as we can get.
At least, that's my two cents on his thought process.
THANK YOU. Genetic mutation isn't predictable outside of the fact that it WILL occur in some fashion as some point.
If you have a certain unfilled niche in an environment, it's virtually guaranteed to get filled thru the mechanism of natural selection over time. We just won't know what it will be, when it will arrive, and which mutations took place to allow that niche to get filled.
Wait !! This is not the first time I've heard someone affirm that the theory of evolution has no mechanisms.
I wonder how is putting out the proposition and why people are swallowing it
Charlie wants capital T truth. Thats why a magic creator is such a good alternative to science.
Charlie Charlie Charlie.
Your argument is bad. It doesn't matter if the ridealong traits improve fitness or not, its just as long as it doesn't cause enough of a detriment to reduce the chance of reproduction. And the mechanism is natural selection (the various selective pressures).
The caller's argument is invalid because the premise contradicts itself: he's presupposed that T1 and T2 are causally independent, yet also supposed that T1 never appears without T2, nor T2 without T1. But then that means there IS a causal relationship: "T1" implies "T2" and vice versa, and likewise "not T1" implies "not T2" and vice versa. They are logically equivalent, so they cannot be causally independent.
Indeed, how would you ever determine that two traits are separate if they never appear separately? Say for example that we have a population of mammals, and that T1 is to have a heart and T2 is to have blood. Why should we consider these as separate traits if they are mutually dependent?
Both great movies though 😜.
Excellently well put.
You're confusing correlation and causation. Since the caller's argument relies on understanding how these two phenomena are different from each other, you can't follow the argument.
Your example of T1 and T2 is textbook CORRELATION. That doesn't establish that one CAUSES the other. They could, for example, be caused by some third phenomenon T0, or some nth phenomenon along two entirely distinct causal chains.
Both the paint and the varnish on my sailboat deteriorate over time. These are highly CORRELATED phenomena. When the rate of deterioration is slow for one, it's also slow for the other. But one does not in any way CAUSE the other, does it?
Now, the caller was trying to argue that natural selection can't distinguish between correlation and causation. That argument fails because natural selection doesn't have to make such a distinction in order for it to be effective. Natural selection only needs to distinguish between traits that are RELEVANT (to fitness with respect to a particular selection event) to those which are IRRELEVANT. And it can do that simply by producing statistically distinct survival outcomes for the relevant traits. The irrelevant traits are irrelevant, so it doesn't matter what happens to them.
I was waiting for him to Use His Definition to explain Creationism, Observed, Mechanisms to Explain, Repeatable, Examples, etc. LOL 🤡🤡🤣🤣🤡🤡😂😂😂😂
Be careful not to conflate prediction with determinism. Fitness is a context sensitive criterion and evolution is statistical operation; the prediction of evolution may be more accurately represented as that which proportionally rejects changes deleterious to fitness over time and population. That is, that beneficial changes are more often carried forward than neutral changes and those more often than detrimental changes, but not absolutely so.
The classic example is sickle cell trait. The blood looses some oxygenation function but the body gains protection from a fatal disease called malaria. Absent the context of malaria the sickle cell trait would diminish over generations because of imposed loss of function, but in context it increases the survival of a population.
A corollary is the search for Truth. Science evolves understanding by rejecting explanations that are less functional or outright false, not by asserting positions of truth. It may even be the case that a search for Truth is a fools errand (See Godel's incompleteness theorems).
His point that the hosts didn't quite get, cuz it's dumb, is that evolution needs to have every single trait accounted for with a reason for adaptation.
Meaning a spot on the trail needs a beneficial reason and not a benign one of it didn't hurt anything so it stayed.
He just misunderstands the science.
It’s assuming that only traits that make a difference to survival get passed on. All traits, all variations do. The ones that make the difference in survival are the ones that change populations and become prevalent. And so, the ones we study.
It’s like saying the history books left out joe schmoe born in 1659 who lived no like if consequence or import that we can track.
But we all know who George Washington is.
@@bandito_burrito ya…. I was gonna say, and explained it poorly. Isn’t it nature that determines which are useful and which are not?
@@bandito_burrito ya. I’m not getting you. Though to be honest, TH-cam comment sections aren’t great venues for scientific learning.
@@bandito_burrito np
@@bandito_burrito why does it matter that the theory cant tell us which traits are useless from which are useful?
@@bandito_burrito Well it does explain that very well. It says that if a trait is useful for the population it stays and if its useless it kinda fades away. It isnt based on a fixed environment. We are the once who say that this trait is useful to this animal because of this and that. We are the observers of the theory in action. But the theory it self is just a "rule" that all animals fallow, which is to adapt to the environment in the best way possible. And we can observe that. Its the idea of natural selection. So it dosnt matter if it can tell if a trait is useless or useful cuz it isnt looking at a fixed position, rather the whole picture that applies everywhere, no matter the environment. The theory is objective. We are the once making the subjective observations. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The vast, vast, vast majority of scientists agree with and accept evolution. So why should we question whether it's scientific? Wouldn't they know best?
If you want to challenge science, go talk to scientists. Not atheists n
Yes, basically every scientist. Bar from 1 or 2 dishonest ones. 150.000+ studies prove it works and that number increases every day.
It's a bullshit debate, he's a piss poor troll trying to seed doubt on something considered established fact. They should have told him to FRO.
That would be a somewhat fallacious argument, either Argument from Authority or Argumentum ad Populism.
We can always question whether a claim is scientific. It's a useful practice. Scientists have to do it all the time, but that's not to stop the rest of us.
The case for evolutionary selection makes a good example because it's particularly easy to understand. Why try to understand it? Because it's always better to know how a thing works than to be ignorant.
Good video, nerds
.........and then my head fell off.
A biologist can SOMETIMES determine if a characteristic confers greater fitness. Not always. And if we can't figure out in which way something increases fitness, that does not mean it does not. Look at sickle cell anaemia for example.
I would have really liked to get down to why he thinks traits with no evolutionary benefit would in any way invalidate the theory of evolution through natural selection. The way he phrases his scenario is awkward, but aside from the fact there is no way to differentiate his T1 from the T2 it just has no real disproving ability. We have masses of examples of traits with no (known) evolutionary benefit, but even if we were sure a trait had no benefit (and we have NO way of being sure) that still would not disprove anything.
The theory of evolution through natural selection has nothing to do with the god ideas. It is it's own theory, completely independent of religions.
Zebras have hooves, and their hoof prints are also a trait ?
Ahh I got this guy's take. If not all evolution is natural selection then evolution as a theory is wrong.
He's wrong of course. There are multiple mechanisms for evolution. Darwin's model was the first, therefore that one specifically has the spotlight.
Does the caller have a problem with just explaining his point?
He called Matt and Arden on The Line about 4 days later with the exact same argument..and it went just as well as this one.. Its a pity his arguments can't evolve.
Ultimately natural selection is a function of mathematics. Traits which increase the probability of reproduction also increase the probability of passing that trait on.
No, it's DESCRIBED by mathematics. It's a FUNCTION of biochemistry, due in turn to material causality.
@@starfishsystems Biochemistry is the function that produces genetic changes and provides the vehicle for those traits to be passed on. But probability plays a significant role in whether or not genetic changes are actually propagated.
For instance, an organism with a positive reproductive trait may get eaten by a predator before it reproduces or may produce 10 offspring without passing on the trait due to pure chance.
It's not probable but it's possible.
It be great if theists can start by covering dinosaurs and where they stand in their theology as oppose to complaining on what a theory is... makes the conversation more honest.
I think Charlie needs to get out in the fresh air, maybe enjoy a beer, meet a nice girl, take a holiday, go scuba diving, .....
I guess this guy never heard about Tiktaalik.
Let me give you a word of advice .to all you Christians ,and people of other religious, stop calling atheist shows trying to debunk the theory of evolution !that has nothing to do with whether a god exist or not ! If by some Twisted way you could debunk evolution[ oh by the way it's still doesn't prove a God ]get your Nobel Prize, call a scientist that are educated in the field because ,you don't do nothing but make yourself look stupid calling an atheist show about evolution🤔🙄
Yeah, natural selection can't differentiate between beneficial and correlative with beneficial, so what?
The callers audio is atrocious.
The heartbeat example demonstrates the caller's limited understanding. Mutation generates variation. Variations will recur and persist in a population entirely in line with their "basal" mutation rate unless and until they become "visible" to natural selection. So mutations may affect the sound of a heartbeat. There may be corresponding variation between individuals in a population, but only to the extent that this variation is consterained by natural selection. If that sound is correlated with survival/reproductive success (fitness), then some variations will become more prevalent and others less so. eg if individual mice with a noisier heartbeat are more liable to be predated by owls, the prevalence of the noisy heartbeat trait in the population will decline. I'd suggest that most biological traits that appear highly uniform are probably the result of natural selection because significant variation either impacts physiological functioning directly (a noisy heart might be a leaky heart) or produces adverse outcomes in competition with other variations.
1. Ask Charlie what his credentials are. 2. Ask Charlie if he has published papers in peer-reviewed journals in the field of Biology. 3. If not, what is his point in calling this show?
I found Jesus. Then I found out about Jesus. Then I found reality
So the caller just flat out doesn't understand the the theory of evolution.
Religious blinders cause people to be unable to understand the science they’re arguing against. If they understood it, they would realize just how silly they sound.
When someone mentions teleology I switch off.
12:37 I don't like this turn in the conversation by Kenneth. The caller actually asked at the beginning weather or not it the topic is ok with the hosts and they both agreed. When Kenneth had concern he should have brought it up from the start. This way it seem to me like a cop out.
I really don't understand why you even take calls like that. Why are you calling an atheist show about biology? Go bother a biology show.
Always whining about evolution. As if it makes any difference to their god claim that evolution is a fact. Even if it wasn't a fact, that does in no way provide you with evidence for your god claim... just stop beating the dead horse. On top of that the vast majority of religious people accept evolution, so that makes it even more obvious that this is not a topic that is relevant. At all.
1:40 and you are WRONG already, the mechanism can be a description. There is no reason whatsoever why it couldn't be. In fact, how else could you explain a mechanism other than by describing how it works? Utterly ridiculous. Not that natural selection is "just a description" it's been directly observed and documented many times.
And NO with your T1 and T2 story the trait that _doesn't_ affect fitness is _not_ going to be as common. Since it's not selected _for_ it can freely undergo genetic drift or even get lost all-together through another mutation. While it might be sort of equally present for a while, there is no reason why it would necessarily stick around.
The fact that one is correlated and one is causal is not in any way a problem for the theory. No one ever said that each trait present must be causal for fitness. Only that IF a gene has effects on fitness negative ones will tend to reduce in number because of natural selection, and positive ones will tend to increase in number. And only as long as the selection pressures stay the same. There is _nothing_ in the theory that excludes neutral traits from being correlated with beneficial or detrimental traits, it is completely expected. And obviously you CAN distinguish between the two. E.g. being harder to see due to camouflage will make it easier to survive, we can see that e.g. insects with a different color are less often found by hunters. If at the same time they have another linked trait that has nothing to do with whether or not the insect is found by hunters, then clearly there's an obvious distinction. To suggest otherwise is just utterly ridiculous.
And what is this nonsense of the theory not having a method of distinguishing between traits that are beneficial and traits that are neutral? That is utterly ridiculous. You just said scientists can make the distinction. So clearly that's nonsense. A trait that has a positive effect IS a trait that has a positive effect. A trait that has no effect, is NOT a trait that has a positive effect. OBVIOUSLY the very fact of whether or not a trait gets selected for IS the method of making the distinction...
most of these people dont really apply the scientific method. they have a conclusion they're trying to fit a certain theistic idea. this guy is reading verbatim from something like the creationist handbook. another liar who says he was an atheist
Let me cherry-pick the definition of a scientific theory so that I can use special pleading to attack the only scientific theory that explains everything in biology, that has correspondence with the Chemistry, Geology, and Physics, and has mountains of evidence... because the Bible. Is that Charlie's point? Hence, I'll call an atheist talk show, rather than submitting a paper to scientific journal or discussing his claims with actual scientists.
Charlie, you've already posited this argument to Matt on the Hang Up on the 13.10.21, albeit you did adjusted it slightly on this call, but Matt had already clearly explained to you that you have a serious misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution itself, which you STILL dont seem to understand, so you either didnt listen to Matt at all, didnt understand what he said (which seems most likely) or you did understand and you dont care about what he said and you're disingenuously continuing on with your erroneous argument becasue you think that you're right.... 🤔👎
I suspected this person had no real understanding anything regarding science. Then i was validated in watching the video.
Oh my good. This guy was soooooo boring. He made zero sense about evolution. I think he was reading from a intelligent design website.
What makes religious apologetics a failure for thousands of years? The ways they’ve found to avoid proving any gods exist.😂
*Wants to challenge scientific ideas: I'm listening.
*Ok so this is why evolution isn't a thing: You've lost my interest.
The caller begins by questioning the ability of natural selection to distinguish between fitness caused by selectable traits versus merely correlated with them.
I can appreciate the concern, fair enough. Let's suppose, as a thought experiment, that natural selection does NOT make such a distinction, because it can't. Then sometimes an "irrelevant" phenotypical trait will indeed be favored by a given natural selection event. In other words, it's not a determinant of fitness for this event, but appears coincidentally in the individual. An example might be a certain pattern of fur coloration that happens to correlate with more efficient respiration, but does not cause it. Nevertheless it's favored, so through the mechanism of natural selection it becomes slightly more common in the population.
Now, we don't know what will happen during the next selection event. It will probably test for some OTHER kind of fitness, where this trait of fur coloration is either still irrelevant, advantageous, or disadvantageous.
Over time, many different selection events will test for many different kinds of fitness, and on each occasion there's a chance that traits will present which ARE relevant to fitness. They don't all have to be at once, that's the point. Some will be quite irrelevant for that particular event, but so what? Let them survive to the next event, and we'll see whether they're relevant to it. If fur coloration, say, has any direct relevance to some kind of fitness, a suitable event will either favor it or disfavor it. If reality presents such events, sooner or later the trait will be tested, and natural selection will work as advertised.
What will be the result, over time, of the random appearance of some trait which is genetically coupled to fitness but isn't functionally relevant ever? It too will be favorably selected, and it will appear more and more commonly in the population. That's what the theory predicts. Now, do we ever see irrelevant traits becoming common? Why yes, we do. In fact it seems to happen a lot, as in the example of fur coloration.
The explanatory vs descriptive point is complete nonsense and doesn't reflect what science is or does.
The hosts really should've focused in on what the caller actually means by two terms in order to draw that distinction.
For his example of co-appearing traits, science has no ability to distinguish casual relationships between things that always and necessarily appear together, so the caller is kinda right to say this applies to evolution, but it also applies to literally every other scientific theory as well. It's also fairly rare for this to happen (if it ever happens), so this is largely hypothetical, and even if it were a widespread problem, it still doesn't undermine the core theory of evolution. The only implication here is that it may be difficult for us to pin down which trait actually provides fitness, but this doesn't mean traits don't provide fitness.
I'm sure you can all criticize his actual theory and not his merit as a scientist?
Anyone who questions the validity of natural selection is also questioning the main pillar of a very well supported and long established scientific theory… his merit as a scientist within the actual scientific community would be on shaky ground and his own propositions would put him there. That is reasonable.
This is just secondhand embarrassing to watch! I mean does this guy know there’s a university level course on philosophy that deals exactly with that same question? It deals with epistemology, what makes claims scientific, what is knowledge in of itself and so on. There’s no point on discussing it on this show - just get your ass to a university or if you’re too lazy to do that let the actual specialists in the field deal with it!
!
Charlie is a serial atheist show caller with the same BS anti-evolution "theory".
Is that Sheldon Cooper on the phone? Big words, no sense.
Is this the same dummy from AXP?
yes
Boring
This guy needs a 3rd grade teacher. Why is he calling here?
Levels of sophistication will get you to the levels of damnation if your not careful.
Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Thanks for that. Here, have a 🥕. You sound like you need one!
May Holy Unicorn bless you, my child. *NEIGHMEN!*
@@blarglemantheskeptic so let's boil this down for you real quick. Billions of people have been compelled for various reasons and intensities that there is a resurrection after death. Most religions tend to agree upon there being a heaven and a hell though most have strange stories. The nuts and bolts of the Bible are that you get brought back to life in the future. The Earth gets penetrated by an asteroid on the dark side of the Earth possibly all the way through, altering the trajectory and speed of the Earth toward the sun. The solution will be the New Jerusalem. Immortal or not there is no escaping the gravity of the sun. So the New Jerusalem leaves this Earth for another. But you can't have lawless ones on the ship when there are better candidates. So each person will be judged to see if they will go or stay. The saints are chosen for this purpose as they did not love their lives even unto death. All sins will be forgiven except for speaking evil if what is holy. That's called the unforgivable sin. The message we carry is so dire to humanity it is a crime to resist.
@@archangel_metatron *Argumentum Ad Populum.* Everyone used to know that meteorites were taking stars as well (even your Bible agrees) - didn't make it true.
The rest is absolute NONSENSE. Any asteroid capable of changing Earth's orbit by any appreciable saving, DESTROYS it. That's because ... PHYSICS... rather than your idiotic Bronze Age goat header's myths.
@@archangel_metatron repeating what I said the last time:
[Change the orbit] by how much? 3mm? 3 km? 3,000km? 300,000km? We get hit by meteors all the time, and they change the orbit, all the time.
Unfortunately for your nonsense papyrus scribblings, any meteor large enough to affect the Earth's orbit by an amount sufficient to matter, even the slightest, would STERILISE THE PLANET, at a MINIMUM! - not even bacteria would survive.
To make the earth just 1% closer to the sun, it would need to be struck, from directly in front, by about 1 MILLION meteors the size of the one that ended the dinosaurs, and killed off every species in the planet over 25kg (except crocodiles and turtles). 1% isn't enough to make much difference.
*Science literacy isn't your friend, is it?*
@@blarglemantheskeptic physics is not an appropriate answer. F-
You are failing this class. Your arguments are vapid and irrelevant.
Charlie intrigues me. He is like a lot of these theists that think science, or as he puts it, instrumental truth, is flawed. That it can't be trusted. All his calls are an attempt to show that instrumental truth is flawed, that it's wrong to believe in it. But it's because it doesn't include things that it doesn't include. As silly as that sentence is.
Charlie's calls are all the same. Science does not include those things it does not include, therefore it's flawed.
Charlie thinks thoughts exist. That the mind is a supernatural product. Therefore naturalism doesn't include it.
They all shoot down naturalism. Naturalism is a joke to them. Belief in naturalism is foolish. Yet naturalism is the world they live in. They follow it too. They just want to add to it. Naturalism and science doesn't answer everything and because of that it's flawed.
Charlie's of the world need to stop. You won't find technical holes in evolution. Oh and Charlie did the one thing theists love to do to justify their position. He had to say that his criticism of evolution came from an atheist. Number 1 tactic of theists when they want to add credibility to their nonsense is to claim atheism somewhere. Either it came from an atheist or they used to be an atheist.
I think his point was to say it's not science because it's not predictable. Which is flawed understanding. He thinks that you can predict what a bird will change into or what the next mutation might be. But the prediction covers many areas. The prediction that it will mutate rather than what the mutation will be. Or how to predict things like where we can find transitional fossils and what it would look like. Since nature and it's survivability is what affects the changes, exact precision in the areas he thinks are flawed does not disprove anything.
But see this is the problem. He isn't saying it's not true. Just that he doesn't think it fits the definition of science.
What a pointless endeavor. It doesn't prove it false or prove god. Undermining science does nothing for god.
LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
@John Wood
How's is my comment stupid exactly?
@John Wood
You avoiding my question. How is my comment stupid????
Also, for your info, i understand english very well. But my native language is italian which i speak fluently as well. How many languages do you speak lol??
@John Wood it's Ham Bome/Joe FoneBone/Thug Life/Fester B Thuggin.
@@smy5607 4
kenneth is a false actor and needs to go back to school
Please try and see I am just a straight shooter as is my personality... Scientific method requires no biased preconceptions. Starting from 0 and conducting the experiment as it should be done to reach the same results as the original claim.
Example: You would not dig up Edison to test electricity, you would follow the blueprint, without biased thought, therein conducting scientific method to get the same result.
Bad example because we all know electricity exists? I would disagree, as there are many Christians who attest (myself included) to receiving the Holy Spirit. Which the Bible also backs up all scoffing and denial too... That does not make the one giving testimony burden, it gives it to the one who is too afraid to truly face God. I thought I could please God in a manner of ways, but I was also just not willing at the time to accept things. Yet, when I searched the Scriptures for myself and asked for guidance from God, He lead me to the truth of what Jesus Christ did for us all.. Not just me, but to you as well...
I'm not here to call you a bunch of names, because I was those things also... You name, it, I have done it in action or in thought... I am not perfect now in action or in thought, but only through my faith in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross to atone for all sin, for all mankind, and He rose 3 days later... I know this to be true, because once I believed it to be true, that is when I was Baptized in the Holy Spirit... I am not righteous because of my actions, I am righteous because I believed in Jesus Christ. Can you deny my witness? No, but you can be skeptical... Skeptical is fine with me, but skepticism will never lead you to testing it...
It is the biggest excuse in the planet, that Satan uses to hold you in the dark... If you listen to Satan to not even test it properly, that is your choice, leaving you with no excuse... The point still remains, you can test it... I don't hate you, I actually care a lot about you... I was lost too... Just as many were lost, I was lost... You don't have to be lost... You don't have to feed off of the darkness... The blue print will be given in many ways, to many different people, but the core will never change... Jesus died on the cross for all sin, for all mankind and rose 3 days later... If you believe that, then be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
God loves you just the way you are currently, and wants you to know that all have failed. That is why He sent Jesus to die on the cross and be risen 3 days later right, so that all His children may have eternal life? As it was nothing that any of us have done... I know that I have done countless things wrong, and no matter how hard I tried, that was the problem. You see, the Holy Spirit does not come on, until you realize that only Jesus can wash our sins away... No number of good deeds will ever make up for the wrong we have done... If you believe this, be baptized in the Name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, Amen.
Jesus told us (after we receive the Holy Spirit) to practice righteousness and to love, as love does no harm to another, and that fulfills the law. You will not be perfect, but you have everlasting grace. Grace can teach us humility, forgiveness for others, and appreciation even. Live in the Spirit and do not hide your love for God and our Lord Jesus Christ. As if you received the Spirit, you can now testify to God's love for you, Amen?
Blessings to you.
John 14:6
'Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'
I AM THE WAY:
John 10:9
'I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. '
Romans 5:2
'through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. '
Ephesians 2:18
'For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.'
Hebrews 9:8
'the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. '
Hebrews 10:19-20
'Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, '
THE TRUTH:
John 1:14,17
'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. '
John 8:32
'And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”'
John 18:37
'Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”'
THE LIFE:
John 11:25
'Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. '
NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER:
I Timothy 2:5
'For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, '
EXCEPT THROUGH ME:
John 10:7-9
'Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. '
Acts 4:12
'Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”'
If you believe this, be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
@@Khonflict34 Oh look more cut and pastes of lies.
@@tomjackson7755 another unjustified claim from you?
when you can stand on your words, please feel free to speak... anything less will be ignored.. blessings to you
@@Khonflict34 What are you trying to lie about now? There are three lie filled cut and pastes of yours to justify my claim. You never justify anything why should I have to do any more than I already have?