Abby Hafer: Animals That Shouldn’t Exist, According to Intelligent Design (AHA Conference 2016)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2016
- Abby Hafer is an author, scientist and public speaker. Her book debunking Intelligent Design, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer-Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not became a #1 bestseller on Amazon in the category of Theism. Abby Hafer is not averse to irony. Her public speaking has taken her all over the United States and she has given many radio interviews, including appearing on NPR and WBAI.
Her scientific career includes a doctorate in zoology from Oxford University, many research projects in physiology, and a stint monitoring fish populations on the Bering Sea. More recently, she published “No Data required: Why Intelligent Design Is Not Science”, which was published in The American Biology Teacher. She teaches human anatomy and physiology at Curry College and lives in Massachusetts with her husband, the astronomy writer Alan MacRobert.
This puts a whole new meaning to the phrase "judging a fish on its ability to climb"
i thought the same thing
me too haha
*its a fish. Climbing a tree.*
*HOW. COOL. IS THAT.*
*As cool as the birds that swim! But not as cool as humans that can live in space!*
Einstein - "If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid"
Mudskipper - "Hold my beer"
The immortal jellyfish makes a good case for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, was created in it's likeness, I tell you!
GOOD THAT YOU HAVE A GREAT ATTITUDE ,AND ALL THE BETTER THAT YOU KNOW EVERTHING AND EVEN MORE SO THAT YOUR ALWAYS RIGHT AND BLAMELESS AND HOW IF YOU WERE TO BECOME BLINDED YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR LIFE AND NOT COMMIT SUICIDE ! It's also so good that people like you are nice people and aren't jerks! Don't you just love how my sarcasm is a great thing with no charge as well as providing charity without ascended mastery for the basic person how I'm not putting myself above and trying to prove ! Like a smart alec!
It's amazing that people believe a jelly fish is immortal with no evidence of it. There's not even any evidence that it's over 300 years old, and we have trees that we know are that old from historical records. Yet nobody is calling those trees immortal. Empirical evidence is a thing, and a whole lot of "intelligent design is stupid" evidence lacks the empirical validation that would be the hallmark of science.
May He touch you with His noodly appendage. R'amen.
@@gspendlove
R'amen.
th-cam.com/video/mQaReWoUyyQ/w-d-xo.html
God must have missed this jellyfish when he was punishing creation for the first humans eating forbidden fruit.
It's not that the rest of the universe dislikes organization, it just doesn't *CARE*
Clearly, they do. But what does that have to do with my comment?
So your argument against evolution is a grammar correction?
Cliff Hanley
Do you know what it's called when an animal supports its weight on limbs and propels itself in that fission? It's called "Walking"
Granted, they usually drag themselves along, but they CAN walk, just as crocodiles do.
Cliff Hanley no: they _can_ drag/walk , but they also jump: hence 'mud _skipper_ '.
So, is *this* fish walking? th-cam.com/video/hdlHMMsP_ZI/w-d-xo.html
I felt compelled to add this comment. Could not move onto anything else until I did.
I must state as a man myself. After watching lectures from 99.9% atheist men only. Your passion and dedication climbed a tree out of water in your delivery and it was very moving with universal conviction.
Bravo and high five.
Watched in a room by myself and clapped like everybody else upon conclusion.
P.S. the voice thing was fine. It looked like you may have been in pain but pardon me for saying. It made you appear resolute and I loved it. Sorta like a speech John Adams surely gave to the continental Congress.
As Robin Williams put it - "intelligent design? Who the hell puts the entertainment center smack in the middle of a sewage outflow?"
+Robert Lockard
He also did a funny bit from a creationist angle. He said, "Do you think God has a sense of humor? Look at the platypus - I do." Then he mimed God getting high and saying, "OK, I'll take a beaver, give it a duck's bill, and it'll be a mammal, but it lays eggs! Take that, Darwin!"
Robin Williams Live at the Met - one of his better ones
+bad1dobby
True, but since it was a joke and not a biology lecture, I'll give him a pass :-)
The placement of the vagina is the optimal location, structurally, for pushing out a baby. Smh.
Courtney, you are assuming that the need of pushing it out is unavoidable. That seems a bit too unimaginative.
That fact alone contradicts intelligent design. Just think on how many times it fails, and how many problems it causes.
Simple way to disprove intelligent design. Look at cave fish, cave crickets etc. Fully developed eyes that are blind.
SO either they evolved outside a cave, then evolved to not need sight anymore inside a cave or God has a really warped sense of humor and thought giving creatures eyes but making them blind would be hilarious.
There is no such thing as macroevolution and mocroevolution. It is something you made up in a desperate attempt to make your theories stick together. Evolution is a fact that can be proven experimentally. Just as we did with dogs. Oooh explain me again about "kinds" as if we never heard about ring species. You are truly ignorant and proud of it.
I'm surprised that isn't a subgroup to be honest. We could call it "the hypothesis of Malevolent Design."
I think back to the "WTF nature?" thing where they go over the strangest animals we've found, including a video of a bird that makes its nest on massive cliffs, but the food is down at ground level, so the poor chicks have to try to slow their descent with their half-formed wings, inevitably fail, slam into every rock on the way down, and hopefully survive with most of their bones intact.
LOL Yes! Monty Python's song "All things dark and Ugly" all creatures short and squat all things rude and nasty the lord God made the lot. Uncurable cancer, aids, all things evil great and small, the Lord God made them all, etc. He invented the concept of evil. In the bible, "I am both good and evil" and of course "Blessed is he who smashes the heads of the babes against the rocks". Of course Christians will argue that I am taking that one out of context. How comforting to know he only blesses baby murderers within a certain context.
"the hypothesis of Malevolent Design"
You mean the Demiurge? It's already been invented, even before Jehova. Some christians (gnostics) believe in it.
I can't understand why not all of them do, as a religion it makes much more sense.
These idiots claims as having anything other than idiotic myth just buys into their moronic claims. Don't bother replying. It is obvious they are brainwashed and incable of original thought.
I'd love to see this lady going round the Creationist "Museum".
I don't know if it's intentional, but I love the sarcasm just oozing from her voice. She's like "yeah, I've read little your holy book and it's quite cool. But you know what's also cool? A FREAKING FISH FREAKING CLIMBING A FREAKING TREE, THAT'S WHAT!!!"
"Now. Take. Another look. At. This. Image. It is a fish. Climbing a tree. How. Cool. Is. That."
This lady is awesome! She sounds like would be a great teacher!
She is teaching, isn't she? :D That's why she's talking in front of people and puts videos on TH-cam. ;)
So a fish that climbs trees is supposed to prove that God doesn't exist? Wow. That's rich.
If there really was an intelligent designer, then birds would have to land before they could poop.
Doug - I'm just glad that cows don't fly.
Doug50pl : lol.... thanks.
Unhinged Crings: "SEI FEIN, NIE FIES!" Kind regards from GERMANY.
Doug50pl if there's no intelligent designer, the living being cant even to exist, as the abiogenesis required too many coincidences of the synergy of physics
Hello Ms.Satya, IF you were intelligently designed, you would not introduce the unknown [A]Biogenesis as a strawman, against very well KNOWN Evolution.
What a great presentation!!!
What a great dumbass presentation!!!
"if you tell a fish it should be able to climb a tree, oh, never-mind, carry on."
when you talk about humbleness with a superior voice...yeah, you make a grate point!
Somebody please tell that fish that it was specially designed to swim in water! That was great. Great upload. Thanks.
The brain of the fish is not intelligently designed. God missed to give it a proper brain for it to understand that it's supposed to swim in water -_-
Intelligent design (ID) had its day in court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and ID lost in every possible way. In fact, the some of the defendants (Dover) were thought to have committed perjury, but those charges were never pursued. Creationism and ID should be relegated to the dust bins of history once and for all.
Are you high? The judge was fooled by the lies, equivocations and a literature bluff. ID is still going strong
@@sombodysdad sure buddy
@@sombodysdad intelligent design never was going strong and never will.
@@Vivi2372 And yet it is the only viable scientific scenario for our existence.
WHO DESIGNED THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ?
franklin field That’s a silly question, do you really think someone’s going to own up ?
who designed the designer of the intelligent designer ?
la paix ou l'épée Was it Bob the Builder ?
Mart TL1000S ??
Only half as silly as believing in ID in the first place while we already have a pretty clear understanding of the evolution process.
13:47. Here we are , born to be kings - we're the princes of the Pacific ocean. I am immortal, I have inside me blood of... jelly? I have no rival, no fish can be my equal...
+uncleanunicorn One dream, one goal, one prize, one soul, one jellyfish with immortality...
Perhaps this is the true origin of the flying spaghetti monster! D=
+4hm35319hd0h5 The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a false god. The true god is the Immortal Jellyfish (IJ). Praise be to IJ!
They say IJ was birthed by the Vegan CalaMary
Of course. It was obviously a miraculous birth. I was in doctrinal error with my previous statement about the FSM. The FSM is the divine father of IJ, the only begotten of FSM. This accounts for why they both have tentacles.
Probably the best lecture I've ever watched 🙂
23:45 - Part of current thought, based on the Human Genome Project, is that hominids gained the upper hand when a genetic mutation that caused infants to have more fragile skull bones allowed us to grow bigger brains. This gave rise to a more intelligent group of related species. Hence, what could be considered a random genetic defect ended in the existence of humanity.
we are also a product of neoteny which is where animals keep traits of an infant into adulthood (eg axolotl newt), this is shown when you compare the human skull to that of a baby gorilla. at this point the two skulls are almost indistinguishable and the crest to which the jaw muscles which develops later in gorillas isn't present in the infants giving them a more rounded skull with more room inside.
in fact all it is believed that neoteny is responsible for all vertebrates through some kind of swimming sea cucumber.
Actually one of the current theories is that there was a mutation that caused our jaw muscles to grow weaker so we don't need such a strong skull to anchor our jaw muscles.
I would like to hear her thoughts on Tardigrades (water bears) They are just as amazing as some of her other examples in my opinion.
I don't understand simple scientific concepts so I have come to the conclusion that Gaaaaaaawwwwd is the only possible explanation for the world around me.
I *do* understand basic simple scientific concepts, as well as a few complex ones; I also understand basic simple philosophical concepts, as well as a few complex ones. If I come to the conclusion of God, how does that affect my understanding of the scientific and philosophical explanations?
Well DAVID, the first question I would ask you is what evidence you are following to reach the conclusion that there is a god?
Mt. Dew is delicious
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. Most children by the age of 10 can understand basic Science and it's concepts.
The Repair Shop, you understand about motors, magnets, electricity, gears, etc ... ? That IS Science and it's concepts applied in practical situations and solutions. You also listen to Joe Rogan's podcasts, so at more than one point you've heard discussions about everything from mushroom colonies configuring itself as one massive neural network to brain surgery and brain transplants, cloning, space exploration, etc.
So it's dubious that you can not understand Scientific concepts.
The Repair Shop Halle bloody lujah!!!!!
Simplicity is the whole mark of good design. Engineering 101.
That may be true but some engineers overengineer things to the point of absurdity.
Oh i had two of those mudskipper fish ;-) they had huge aquarium/terrarium, but if you let the lid open too long they still climbed out on wires and tubes, and usually you better just put in some food in and wait, and they came back themselves, they were nearly impossible to catch,and i was afraid to grab them too tight ;-)
Amazing lecture
Weird how the amount of dislikes is so low and there are so many angry ID believers in the comments
they are the vocal minority
Capt. Jack Sparrow: ... Undead Monkey. Top that.
Dr. Abby Hafer: Fish up a tree.
I had a Mud-skipper for a pet. He would hop into my hand and I could walk around the house with him. I used to tell people I was taking my fish for a walk. His favorite place to sit in the aquarium was on top of a rock just above the surface of the water. When I would feed him, he would come up to my hand and take the food right from my fingers. My fish was wild caught. Unless they figure out how to breed mud-skippers in captivity, I will not own another. That being said, they are fascinating little critters, and if you have known one, you are privileged beyond measure.
@09:50 These fish are well adapted to their environment, and if they are designed, their designer does have a very weird sense of humor.
Amazing presentation!
Great talk! Thank you!
Loved it, & thank you for doing what you do...
Well that "family tree" slide sure wasn't intelligently designed. Dark blue text on a black background?
Wonderful!
Great speech.
I love her sense of humor!!
Josh Ortiz i do too, took a while to get used to her delivery though
"Intelligent design" is just kicking the improbability can down the road to an exponentially greater improbably.
Wonderful , magnificent and so liberator speech . It was a truly pleaser to listen to. Thank you so much! Thank you...........
Lovely talk Abby, thanks so much :)
"Feeling humble yet?" I dunno, Dr Hafer, I'm too busy feeling *awe* to tell. Religious people tell us that their holy books are full of awesome stuff but nothing I've ever read in any so-called holy book matches the awesome things that science has discovered about our universe and our place in it - and even more awesome: we haven't stopped discovering stuff yet.
Reverence and a certain humility are both classical virtues. No religious claptrap needed.
"Animals that no rational creator would have come up with exist perfectly well in our evolved world"
My sides!😂They're killing me!😣😂😂😣😥😅😁😄😊😮😯😟😧😩
How did the fish evolve lungs?
My zoo always had and still has a few mudskippers and they always fascinated me. They can survive in water but still comfortably walk around on land like some kind of frog. They also look kind of weird but still cute.
Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
In all of the directions it can whiz;
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
-Monty Python, Meaning of Life, Galaxy Song
Cleopatra7Philopator
i love that song
I had it running through my head as she was discussing.
Well, another "It Can't Happen, because I Don't Understand it" proponent. Aside from it has Nothing to Do with the Song I Posted, Nothing to Do with Physics or Theology, but Nothing to Do with Sense.
Scientific Creation, or the Big Bang is an Explosion of EVERYTHING, not Nothing. Whether one's Belief system as to Cause includes a Creator, or just Natural forces. The difference is the Scientific view Admits that Humankind does not Understand ALL the Physical Laws TODAY, but what we Do Understand TODAY is Based on, and Built upon Observation, and Conjecture. Tomorrow will be Built upon Today.
You Admirably display The Problem with Your style of argument! It IS, because it Must be. The closest thing to a Fact, you must Interject non-sequitur.
Your Hypothesis is that you have an Intelligent Designer that has abilities BEYOND Human Comprehension:
So- You will Tell me How it works, the Abilities Beyond Comprehension that you Understand?
Thank You for Proving MY Point though: I Quote myself again:
"And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth! "
Fantastic speech, thanks for sharing....
Brilliant!
"Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." --quote by somebody other then Einstein.
The human head; the very centre of our being, perched on top of a spindly column of bone that requires massive muscles just to hold up straight and can be broken in a simple fall or impact, resulting in death. An entire chapter could be written on that design flaw alone.
Migraine headaches - paralysing, debilitating : top-notch design.
Creationists, start with a conclusion and work backward
I could listen to her all day.
A thought which intrigued me while watching: could the desire for immortality (and hence the proliferation of religious doctrines of an afterlife) be a rationalization of a basic biological imperative to survive?
I like trees
"Not all statements by scientists are statements of science" - Dr John Lennox.
You mean like "I gotta take a dump!"
And a doctorate in mathematics doesn’t mean you have any expertise in biology, zoology or even in theology, that grandest of all subjects without an object.
True. But every religious statement is most definitely unscientific.
Commissar Gamza trying to defend intelligent design
True just look at the "scientists" on the young earth pay roll.
This amazing video was published in 2016?! Woah - I missed out on such an awesome presentation.
Wow, it's a sad day when nobody takes the opportunity to ask the speaker questions in the Q&A....of a humanist convention.
Absolutely effing amazing!!!
you know this and can prove this or are you just arrogant? because the mountains of evidence are very hard to bury because they are so high.
Goggle products translation:
"Muh feefees"
"I'm retarded, therefore everyone is retarded."
-Nacherel Jesus
That's nice kid, go back to eating lead paint chips.
no, she demonstrated evolution, to disprove intelligent design.
you have NO valid arguments to support it, other than a book written 2000 years ago, which we KNOW was put together by a committee of men. give up!
she is a fool
Great talk!
no it isnt,,,lol,,,its proper crap
+Etothe2iPi How on earth do you think this is a "Great talk?" All she does is show the many differing animals in existence, and then claims that Intelligent Design would not accept, or there existence disprove the theory of ID. For heavens sake, the Idea that there are many differing animals is totally accepted by both ID folks, and the hated creationists. Her explanation of how these animals came from evolution (Neo-Darwinian) she just uses "just so stories". She has no understanding of the arguments against Neo-Darwinian theory. She even brings up religion for crying out loud, ID is a theory devoid of religion. In short she is an idiot.
totally agree : magnificent talk
your nick took me a couple of seconds to fathom - big smile
i rather believe that this so called fish was a result of design rather than a stupid fish evolved itself
Good stuff!
I don't know why biologists even bother with this.
The basic premise of Intelligent Design is logically flawed from the outset.
ID cannot talk about the nature of the designer without immediately rendering itself irrelevant (which is why Intelligent Design advocates always avoid the question of the designer)
People bother with intelligent design because there are people who take is seriously and educate their kids with it. There's a very deep rabbit hole of creationists apologetics and counter apologetics online. Sad to say but bad trivially false ideas can be socially relevant. Also people love to hear others agree with them so even if there was only one crazy guy who thought intelligent design made sense people would probably love to hear debunks.
If the designer worked for me, I'd sack him on the spot for incompetence.
Because dumb ass's often set policy by their belief RE. {MIKE PENCE.}
"The basic premise of Intelligent Design is logically flawed from the outset.
PROVE IT.
Ill debate all of you at the same time. Name the day and the time. Ill be there.
I will debate every single 'evolutionist' on this comment thread. Lets see how stupid Creationists are and how 'intelligent' evolutionists are. You people like
to think of yourselves as shade tree scientists. Ok. Prove it. Lets do a debate
And you can ALL prove what an idiot I am ;) - Let me ask all of you a question.
What is the mechanism of evolution? ( And if you say natural selection i will crawl through cyber space with a magic marker and write IDIOT across your
forehead!)
awesome talk
Is there an animal that has square eyes for example? There are many cases where animals could be fine without so perfect body development but yet we don't see them. I don't understand where you see randomness in life.
If someone accepts 'microevolution' or speciation and then proclaims that macroevolution isn't supported or is impossible, then it becomes incumbent on them to prove something from preventing macroevolution.
This woman is so freaking amazing!
Citpeks Tsiehta freakingly.
Around 15 minutes "Biology has taught me humility"
Sooo virtuous!
Ok, so couldnt the Mudskipper be a walking (or swimming, now Im quite confused) evidence of the process of adaptation and change (struggle to survive) that you seem not to believe?
what about niches
M’kay, it’s 2018 and people still believe in Creationism? That’s INSANE, aka “Poor Design”.
Serenade314 thats because christians campaigned as hard as they could to keep evolution out of the classrooms
Serenade314
The REAL mystery is how anyone could still believe that the mechanisms proposes by darwin, even in modified form, can sufficiently account for the development of life. It is frankly embarrassing. Even atheists (Thomas Nagel, to take just one exampl are becoming skeptics. Asserting it as truth is just a secular variety of dogmatism.
Joey Pipkorn no it isnt. It isnt dogmatic at all because dogmatism implies a disregard for evidence. Evolution is based purely on evidence. Atheists arent who we look towards to determine the validity of a scientific theory, its scientists. It doesnt matter if 80% of atheists rejected evolution, it is valid science that has been clearly demonstrated at this point.
Christopher Parks
I mention atheists simply to rebut a common but false idea that voicing skepticism about evolution is something that is only done by theists who have an axe to grind. You can't play that card these days. The darwinian/neo-darwinian mechanisms which purportedly drive evolution are increasingly thought to be unsufficient to explain all of the biological diversity, and the intricacies of that biology. Evolution is a paradigm. The early Karl Popper had it right when he said that evolution is fundamentally a metaphysical research project.
Serenade314
"It's very well understood that" what...?
Evolution is amazing!
hell fire is not
Please demonstrate that hell exists, or any god, or anything supernatural, otherwise, keep your delusions to yourself.
EVIL-lution
"human is not perfectly designed"
what about the digestive system
Is that the one that shares an opening with the respiratory system resulting in choking deaths?
Abby rocks! Read her book!
I love that fish! :'D Also, if I could, I'd like this video a hundred times. Thanks for an enlightening and funny video. :)
Creationists like to point to the holes in the evidence. At least there's evidence to have holes in.
This woman's argument: If I had created the world it would be simpler and easier to categorize. I don't understand the creator's mind or his sense of logic. I'm smart and if I can't figure it out a pattern it must be random, therefore there is no creator.
No. She is saying that an intelligent designer cannot exist simply because the designs are not really intelligent enough. A much simpler way of creating complex things would have indicated an intelligent designer. Also, if a designer does exist, you have to admit He is not very benevolent, rather sadist.
Straw man!
Veg Out ...please provide empirical evidence for the existence of a supernatural creator entity, or just stfu.
Yep.
@@humblesentiments1553 Buddy that's an absolutely ridiculous argument
What a trip it would be if we reverted to childhood when we were old... Like your parent could look like a kid when you're in your 50's, your grandma could be a teenager or 30-something? Ha... There are a lot of fictional possibilities in such a world.
She was great!
None of these species prove, or disprove, anything beyond the fact that interesting species exist. She does do an excellent job of making points that no ones disputes sound like they are disputed. All and all, this entire presentation was worthless as a slam against intelligent design.
If you don't want to believe in a Creator that is your business, but lady, your logic here is about as stupid as anything I have ever heard. One could make EXACTLY the same argument against Darwinism. In fact, when you say that Intelligent Design would never create a finned fish that climbs trees, ask yourself if Darwinism would have evolved such a thing, in fact, you should ask if Natural Selection could ever have produced such an animal. It seems to me it would REQUIRE a conscious Designer. You made one of the best arguments FOR Intelligent Design I have ever heard.
"You made one of the best arguments FOR Intelligent Design I have ever heard."
So then please describe the logic of an intelligent agent creating such a fish. You seem to be stuck in the mentality of a thinking being that creates things for reasons... evolution is not like that at all. There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish, that's the point.
Yes I got the point, and her entire presentation is based upon her personal opinion of what a Designer would or would not do. Thank you for asking. Actually you mistake my point when you say, "You seem to be stuck in the mentality of a thinking being that creates things for reasons." No, my point is that a conscious Designer would do some things that you and I would find quite illogical; done for creative and artistic purposes, and for fun, not simply for logic. This woman's problem despite her obvious vitriol, is that she attempts to make an argument that contradicts just about everything we have learned about Darwinism and Natural Selection when it is left on its own. She was literally contradicting the very processes she was defending. I am not saying that either a Conscious Designer or Evolution produces things according to logic, I am saying that her argument follows no logical hypothesis or syllogism. To make the statement that "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" cannot be based upon any fact whatsoever without knowing the mind of the Designer; it is simply an assumption based upon hatred for a belief in a Designer. I understand Darwinism very well having studied it for many years, and I can tell you that according to Darwin's Theory of Descent that evolution would not and could not have produced such a creature according to all that is taught about it. That's why I say this woman's dogma is simply a form of meta physical belief disguised as science.
"To make the statement that "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" cannot be based upon any fact whatsoever without knowing the mind of the Designer; it is simply an assumption based upon hatred for a belief in a Designer."
LOL, 'hatred for a belief in a designer'? It seems I am not the only one making assumptions here. If you prefer to call my rejection of an illogical idea 'hatred', that is your bias, not mine. When your main point is examined, you can see that when you deny the logic of the design, you are moving away from the very concept of design. When you say "No, my point is that a conscious Designer would do some things that you and I would find quite illogical; done for creative and artistic purposes, and for fun, not simply for logic." you are removing the very thing that allows people to imagine design in the first place. In other words, you are trying to suggest intelligent design by pointing to things that there is no reason to recognize design in. You are pointing to a Pollock painting and claiming 'Of course it was designed like that!'
To fix that, you personify the designer and assume that it is like us... again an unfounded assumption considering there is absolutely no evidence for the designer even existing much less the qualities it possesses. You are simply making up these qualities to force-fit your already decided upon designer to the available evidence. If you were serious about your position, you would see that YOU are the one claiming to know the mind of this designer. You are, in fact, claiming that he is like you... an extremely common theme for theists. Each individual's god just happens to want/think/do exactly what each individual believer wants, thinks, and does. An extraordinary coincidence!
I see no reason at all why descent with modification could not produce such a creature. If the conflict between the creature's existence and evolution is so distinct, you should be able to describe it in great detail rather than simply suggest it.
You completely misunderstood, I wasnt talking about YOU but about the presenter.
You said in your post:
'To make the statement that "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" cannot be based upon any fact whatsoever without knowing the mind of the Designer; it is simply an assumption based upon hatred for a belief in a Designer.'
In your statement, you are quoting someone... you quoted a statement "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" and you responded to that statement that it 'cannot be based upon any fact whatsoever without knowing the mind of the Designer; it is simply an assumption based upon hatred for a belief in a Designer'
Is that a correct summary of the exchange? The person who said "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" was me, not the presenter. You copied and pasted my quote from my post. How am I misunderstanding? Or are you talking about a different part of my post?
Nice
Was kinda hoping for more than two animals
Most of the video was not about animals that shouldn't exist according to intelligent design.. but ok.. so it hinges on two animals? A mudskipper and a jellyfish? I want more animals. I listened all the way to the end holding out hope for a third animal.
Other good examples would include seahorses, certain species of sharks that are so aggressive they try to eat their own young, pandas which are addicted to a food they can't properly digest, hummingbirds with such a hyperactive metabolism they need to almost constantly eat, and pugs who struggle to bre-- oh wait that one is intelligent design on us.
Thanks for the replies.
See I understand all that but, tide comes in tide goes out. You can't explain that. Checkmate Scientists
Right. ;)
Shubham Bhushan I, as a Doctor, have found out during my research on tides that the movement of water can be influenced by (large) chunks of cheese.
I bet I only need a few decades more to find out exactly what kind of cheese makes tides come in and also go out.
I'm already learning a little Swedish!
Ha Bill O'Reilly is a dumbass.
exactly, It's just like rain, where the hell does it come from? Noone has ever been able to answer this
Try gravity!
Dr. Hafer, if you ever read this: You are an incredible speaker, your magnificent, grandiose perspective on our place in the universe was enough to make me cry tears of wonder. Twice even. Fucking brilliant.
I am happy. I saw the first picture.
Isn't the Mudskipper a contemporary like any other land animals that are comfortable on land and the sea. It anatomy looks highly developed to me. She didn't show any examples where it was ever restricted to just land or water.
She didn't address the biology of turritopsis nutricula, but talked about it at a superficial level. Why does she think its cells undergoing transdifferentiation is evolutionary over design?
I think the intelligent design proponents would be asking her about its DNA and Gene structure.
DonswatchingtheTube. It's. A. Fish. A fish which walks on land, climbs trees, builds burrows on land, lays eggs in the air, and breathes with simple lungs. A fish, which is living on the land near the water. Which is what you'd expect to see, if fish were moving from living in water to living on land full-time. If you're implying that it's not the transitional tetrapod: congratulations! You've stated the obvious. _Here's_ the transitional tetrapods that have been found so far: evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04 - link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12052-009-0119-2
It's a fish. A fish. Deal with it.
"gene structure" yup, we've got a genius over here
We all know they wouldn't, because if anything all that "go disprove my wild claims!" crap is just a stalling tactic. And even if they were shown both the DNA *and* the Gene structure (lol?), what do you think they would do with it?
Actually there are less arbitrary definitions of what constitutes a fish, which i still fits. Also there are fish much like it, but without these features. And other creature who are better equipped to do these things.
But regardless - if you claim that all creatures were designed to be exactly what they are today, you would have to explain why many (including yourself) have vestigal or atavistic structures that serve no purpose. Is that intelligently designed?
And if you try to squirm out of that with the recent fad of "the perfect creation has degraded"... well then it would not be exactly the creature it was designed to be.
So which one is it?
I wish she didn't sound so angry!
Wow, I was just thinking about how she didn't yell enough! I thought she was way too calm. She could have thrown in some personal insults as well. Maybe she could have made some threats regarding those who don't agree with her?
I prefer my lecturers with a little more fire in their bellies.
Wait, there was lunch? I didn't get any lunch. Was this a free lunch? It must be because I never saw it.
Man, I hate when I miss lunch.
15:34 *Mikołaj Kopernik known as Nicolaus Copernicus for english speakers, then Galileo.
The ID concept was made by ignorant people, for ignorant people. Is basically saying 'I don't understand evolution, therefore I'm gonna come up with the stupid idea of an ethereal, magical being that creates and designs things out of nothing!'
Or rather "F*ck, Evolution is backed by all that science. Quick, get us something that looks like science and backs up our preconceived conclusions! And name it something fancy!"
I used to be a creationist, I woke up though.
welcome to the relm of people that base their belief on proof
I have nightmares too
You're an inspiration to all of us!
so if i win 30 times in 100 games in gambling machine that have 10:100 win possibility, there's no possibility that im cheat, because afterall i still has more lose than win?
More strength to this woman
Shs funny
Using intelligent design to disprove intelligent design?
pseudoprodigy . hmm. Explain
jesse chavez the odds of just the human DNA becoming into existence by mere chance is greater than winning the lottery a thousand times.
pseudoprodigy . I agree with the incredible odds for that to happen but that doesn't explain your first statement.
jesse chavez either by chance or design, there are no other options.
and yet someone wins the lottery almost every time...bad analogy.
also "Basics of Theological Philosophy" is about as useful as a degree in Harry Potter or Shakespeare, it doesn't prove anything
Kudos to the person who asked about super-organisms! Absulutely fascinating topic. I think this is an inevitable destiny for evolution... the new chapter in a long progression of compartmentalized special function within in the element of an organism. I predict this theory of "layers" of evolutionary development is going to gain relevance as the field of evolutionary biology advances. Check out siphonophores! An unassailable example of a "multi-bodied body". Perhaps this genetic has evolved to this level of advancement simply by merit that it is descended from one of the earliest multi-cellular creatures, thus having had the greatest opportunity to feel the effect of this "collective" modality of evolution. This is a really, really important concept and it can help us to direct human evolution with this end in mind. We are rapidly approaching a point where any organ we lack, we will be able to craft, either through gene editing or neural interface with artificial components. Telepathy may be a thing of science fiction, fantasy and pseudo science at the present time.. but once we can link directly to the internet with our minds, we may approach an organismal efficiency in communication that will allow a "meta-mind" to foment. It can be argued that human society is already a low fidelity super-organism.
i thought they found the begining of space in the speck of space photo
I believe in design, I just don't believe in intelligence. Just look at the Modernist period.
so you thing there is a god but hes a moron?
Are you not familiar with Modernist architecture?
That's funny, I believe I intelligence, but not design!
Seriously, though...
Gullet-windpipe-epiglottis is enough to convince me: what idiot would cross the fuel line with the air intake, then fit a flap valve which can fatally fail.
William Chamberlain - LOL - Well said!
Oh my God, what a amazing woman, at least what s shown in this video. I love you Hafer.
The sarcasm is real, the sarcasm is peak!