Great presentation. Darwins publication of Origin marked the greatest leap of understanding in the biological sciences up until that point in history. it's an area of study that continues to explain natural phenomenon, and improve our understanding of life on earth. Fantastic.
Also, please consider that fossilization happens very rarely only under very specific conditions (best suited for the ocean floor), so we should not expect to find a fossilized example of every species that ever existed. The that we have so many that all fit into the evolutionary picture and tell a very consistent story about how life has evolved on this planet is awesome and we are very lucky to have it available to us.
@voncello No one takes Darwin as Faith. Faith by definition means belief without evidence. Darwinists reject iron age myths of animal creation and accept the scientifically robust theory that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life as seen today. In fact, there was a special on the science channel called "What Darwin Didn't Know" that featured the latest scientific findings that Darwin would have only dreamed about. These findings put his overall theory on even more solid ground.
@pcruze81 Complexity usually arrises from simpler forms. Self emergent complex systems are common. Language, economies, world politics, ecosystems & biology are all examples. All are highly complex systems that can give the illusion that the level of complexity could only be accomplished by some master planner, but in reality, there was no master planner. Each level of complexity was a small incremental step to solve a small local problem, but eventually evolved into the complexity we see today.
@voncello I don't disagree with that. I think my basic arguments are this: 1. Some beliefs are more valid than others. 2. Evidence-based beliefs are more likely to be true than those with no or contrary evidence. 3. Faith is a kind of belief, but belief is not necessarily a kind of faith. 4. The scientific method is good for gathering evidence. 5. The s.m. has gathered evidence for speciation. I'm totally cool with going with evol. b/c of #1,2,4 & 5, but b/c of #3, it's not "faith".
Wow! If you're still around. I appreciate your breakdown. I respect and appreciate other people's beliefs, and especially those who take the time to share and articulate what they believe (accept as) to be true.
To save anyone else from the pain of reading the inane, repetitive and unsubstantiated comments of "Mr Intelligent Design," below, I have already done it for you - and I have also researched who he is. "Mr Intelligent Design" is , in fact, the author of the book "New Intelligent Design - turning science on its head," which he is attempting to promote (like a mad thing on mad tablets), below. His name is actually Edgar A Postrado . There is no available peer - reviewed material to substantiate any of his vague claims - and the only review that I could find of his book condemns it as "shit" (the formal review is available on YT) It is also clear from his comments that he did not actually watch this vid. or consider any of its contents before posting his comments .....and on his YT channel , he actually uses the favo(u)rite old chestnut, employed by all barmy creationists ,viz "If you disagree with me, only post comments on my page if you can *prove* me wrong - or I will delete your comments") ha ha ha ! It's the total opposite of the scientific method , which requires HIM to provide substantiation for his claims I am glad to have provided a public service :))
+truthtrumpsdumbness Lol, this has got to be one of the best comments on TH-cam I have ever seen. So much win :-) Thank you for taking the time to do the research. Also, a belated Happy Lucy Anniversary Day (Shermer and the anniversary brought me here).
Aramakie98 Thank you +Aramakie98 - It makes the time used in research and the struggle against dishonesty so worthwhile (bless the internet!) - and bless you for being a smart, informed individual - you make my day!
@voncello You are 100% correct. The whale fossils do not prove evolution. They are just a few pieces in a very large jigsaw puzzle that still has many pieces missing. BUT Darwin provided the "picture on the jigsaw puzzle box". The fossils we have been finding since have been consistently fitting that picture. At this time we still have many holes in the puzzle, but we have enough pieces assembled now to tell with a very high degree of certainty which "picture on the box" we are assembling.
@shiftyjake Obviously the video is meant as an introductory look. There are much more extensive videos and books on the subject. The main point is not that Darwin "ignored" anything, but that people simply didn't know about the complexity of life on the nano level. Scientists today are amazed at how complex this is and how it appears to be designed including the use of code that is sent around the cell to construct it with other cells into even more complex organisms. It doesn't appear random.
An interesting, well presented lecture on a subject that is important because Darwin matters, and people should watch and listen to it before they comment ..... yes, before.
@pcruze81 You missed the point. It is not about intelligence, it is about very complex systems evolving from simple systems without a master plan or master planner. All complex systems evolve from simpler systems. Did you look up "Hoyles fallacy"? It says the same thing I did, that Hoyle and Chandra made the assumption that the protien poofed into existence in it's modern form without intermediate steps. It is the intermediate steps that is required to get from A to B.
I know, but it's the politest word I could think of that conveyed my meaning. Maybe the word stupidity would have been better, but sometimes people who believe ludicrous things are not actually inherently stupid, they just sound stupid. Strange really.
@pcruze81 No one claims there were no flaws in Darwin's original ideas. Modern Evolutionary Theory is a great expansion based on Darwin's original ideas. We have been adding to the knowledge of the basic Darwinian idea for over 100 years. That plus thousands of examples of independent corroborating evidence is what we now call "Evolutionary Theory" not "Darwinism". "Theory" being used in the same context as "Germ Theory", "Atomic Theory" and "Theory of Relativity".
What I keep failing to understand, is the question, why this is even an issue in a nation that has been and still is on the top list of science in the world.
People refer to evolution as a religion because they refuse to do the work required to even remotely understand it. It is easier to try to put it on the same level as religion and say "see? You are basing your beliefs on faith too and I refuse to acknowledge any difference"
Where there is Zero ThermoDynamic Difference(ZTDD) between two options, there is no entropic compulsion for either. There is ZTDD between COPYING mutation A vrs copying mutation B. There is ZTDD between CULLING mutation A vrs culling mutation B. The environment pushes and life pushes back. Complexity happens
@pcruze81 Thanks for that reference on Chandra. Turns out he worked with Fred Hoyle, the famous astronomer. Chandra and Fred both were advocates of panspermia, which does not contradict modern evolutionary theory. They also both advocated the improbable chances of spontaneous generation of a modern protein molecule. Look up "Hoyle's fallacy" in Wikipedia for an explanation of the errors in the calculation.
How do you know that? Change in what? Or it just so happens that "laws (as we call them)" is more stable than no laws at all just as empty space is unstable which gives rise to a fluctuation of virtual particles. Or you can subscribe to the multiverse theory. Thing is that we have much more reason to trust physics and mathematics rather than random guesswork. That's why we need to continue to support science and experimentation as it continues to demonstrate how wrong our intuition often is
@shiftyjake I didn't hear anyone assert that. The assertion is that life on the nano level is incredibly complex and shows signs of design. In more extensive videos they show that many parts of cells have no practical use until other parts come later. This argues against natural selection but it makes sense if we postulate a "designer" who knew the final outcome as the parts were being developed. Whether or not the "designer" is God is not something most scientists consider.
@voncello That's what the micro/macro evol. comment was about. What you call "faith" in an attempt to put science and religion on the same level is what a more scientifically minded person would call "assumptions," and the difference b/t the two is that "faith" is a no-matter-what belief whereas "assumptions" help us think through a problem and will be cast aside when they are no longer applicable. I might assume that I will live to retire and plan for it, but it's not an article of faith.
@voncello The only reason the cell seems to point to design to you is b/c you don't know the history of how different organelles evolved to their present state. Look at our infrastructure. It evolved gradually to the point that we have gas stations just waiting to gas up our cars at convenient intervals along paved roads. That happened b/c of the growing popularity of cars, not b/c someone designed the system from the top down in the 1880s.
My science education has afforded me the opportunity to design and build life support systems for hospital intensive care units. I also had personal friends of mine whose children ended up on my equipment. I indirectly helped save their lives. What do I have to show? The lives of my friends children.
@voncello Science does not need to directly observe phenomena to understand their existence. We know of hundreds of exo-planets by secondary measurements, but non has ever been directly observed. As for providing evidence contrary to Genesis, in science it is not the responsibility of science to disprove a claim, it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide sufficient evidence to stand up to peer review before it is accepted. Anything short of that is just anecdotal. Thats how it works.
@pcruze81 That is more specific than my expertise. I don't claim to know precisely how that specific proteins is made, but since proteins are part of life, non random selection could account for the present configuration. Your point is that the protein would be needed for first life and that could not be accounted for by selection. Again, I don't know that proteins but in the very simplest of life or "pre-life" could there have been a simpler agent or form that provided that function?
@pcruze81 I trust in the capacity of science to provide and accurate understanding of reality.That is the function of science and it has proved to be very effective. If you want to define truth as a proper understanding of reality, then fine. I'm just not going to be dragged into a red herring of defining some metaphysical meaning of "truth". I focus on an accurate understanding of reality.
@shiftyjake I feel it is more than possible our views will change over time. I forget the philosopher who said that we all contradict ourselves as we grow. Before Einstein the universe looked very different. Before Hawkins is looked very different. If I am sure about anything it is that it will look very different again and again as more and more information comes in.
@coolgreyoneabby I found that reference for you. Sorry I had butchered the spelling of his name in last comments. Its Chandra Wickramasinghe in his books, "The Origin of Life in the Universe", and if you're curious about him & theological convictions I can assure you that he is not a Christian.
Just to play lunatics advocate on the Roswell/transistor thing, if we went to a group of primitive aboriginal hunter gatherers, would we show them how to build an IPhone, or simple farming implements? If all they did was find the wreckage of a modern ship, what might they manage to learn from it? Perhaps the principle of the screw, or how to imitate some basic tools that were on board, etc. with the GPS, radios, and the engines would be utter mysteries to them. So us getting transistor technology from a starship? Maybe.
Pat Doyle Perhaps, they would learn to build a ship or at least dream of "what" this could be and "where" did it come from. Sadly two words, you have lost worth in. The two words that make our existence a journey of wonder and great beauty. You have taken away fro yourself, everything that God gave you. You read one book and spit in God's face.
Dr Why Actually, I have read hundreds of books, but the one that convinced me that Christianity is false was the Bible. No god gave me anything, and the wonder of the universe is revealed through science - not old fables. I have read the Pentateuch, the Bible, the Qur'an, the Baghavad Gita, and many of the, Hindu Vedas, and found little in any of them worthy of awe, respect, or wonder.
@pcruze81 Why is a simpler version of "the mind" so difficult to understand? My dog is a perfect example. She is fully conscious, has emotions, understands many English phrases, gets excited as well as sad, knows how to communicate her needs, but she is incapable of algebra, writing, creating sentence structure and creating art. Seems like a pretty good example of a "simpler form" of "mind" to me.
Actually with the advent of molecular biology Darwin's ideas are even more relevant than before. He is an excellent example of the pursuit of an unpopular idea which is the epitome of a scientific theory, easy to state (branching tree) but far reaching in its scope. It would seem your limited knowledge of Darwin and his contribution to science is what deserves the obscure label.
@shiftyjake Actually the reason the cell seems to point to design to me is because recognized scientists with PhD's from top universities have looked at the evidence in extreme detail and have come to that conclusion. I personally do not know enough to doubt them or to doubt those who oppose them with similar credentials. But I am always skeptical of any field that attempts to block off areas that are forbidden to question whether that is the divine nature of Jesus or the possibility of design.
In their books and other books in amazon.they explain the statistical experiments. On the other hand, William Tiller conducted several experiments about energies, intentionality and most important how scientist could influence their experiments and how humans can influence the ph alkaline in water by one unit.Buy his books on amazon and read all his scientific experiments.There's also research in ESP in several books and journals.But Charles Tart really tackles the psychology of scientist bias.
Why attack only the "religious right" but leave out the religious left? Are they somehow exempt from criticism because they share your political persuasion?
perhaps, but I think it more accurate to just look at the doctrines of the book/church/beliefs, etc. With culture its completely different, seeing as how a lot of it is just different regions, tbh. You can string together conclusions about religion because there is some form of logic based on it, but cultures, ethnicities and race are another matter.
"The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions."
@Sc0ttPrian Your observation points out how we are constantly being manipulated by those who seek gain at our expense. One great thing about Sabbath observance is 1 day a week you are not supposed to watch TV, read a newspaper, listen to the radio. For 1/7th of your week you should move away from society's manipulations and reach a deeper, more eternal reality. Buddhists reach for something similar though meditation. These are some of the good things that religion, used properly, brings to life.
Yes,I do. There's a difference between making claims about a religion, something which you can accurately research or at least expect certain amount of testability vs, say, a culture/ethnicity/race. Apples and oranges. I know a large number of individuals who believe in theistic evolution.
@1empathy I'm an independent thinker. I generally don't believe anything unless there is substantial evidence. I don't feel the need to take sides on issues that are not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. What is wrong with keeping an open mind? Isn't that what being a skeptic is all about?
Matthew 17 " He replied, Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” In other words, all Christians can move mountains if they feel like it. There are many mountains where I live. It is one that obscure the view from my house. Can you move it? I promise to become a Christian if you do this for me.
@pcruze81 We can save alot of time with the standard creationist arguments by first watching TH-cam: "Qualiasoup Skewed views of science" THEN the series "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism". This series goes down each of the standard creationist arguments and presents the evidence against each. This conversation is as old as astronomy vs astrology, chemistry vs alchemy, science vs magic, evidence vs superstition, fantasy vs reality. It is important to know the difference.
@voncello It's called evolutionary theory for the same reason the law of gravity isn't called "Newton's assumptions about how stuff works". It's inelegant and misleading as to its importance and level of acceptance by the scientific community at large. There's also the trouble of the meaning of the word "theory". In layman's terms, theory=hypothesis, whereas in scientific terminology, a "theory" is one step below a "law", so it's basically fact's first cousin.
@shifty One never hears about Darwin's Assumptions of Evolution. As long as you are aware that these are assumptions then assume away. But there are scientifically inclined people who confuse theory with fact. As for religion and science being on the same level; I do not see the argument as being between those disciplines but between those who glorify faith and those who glorify reason. Either discipline can be accepted on faith or can be studied with a reasoned approach. I prefer reason.
@voncello But what is sufficient proof will vary from individual to individual. Sufficiency is subjective. What do you mean "so what"? So I countered your claim.
@voncello As for viruses: They're mostly just floating bits of DNA or RNA that sometimes cause problems when they screw up some cell's DNA or RNA pattern. Other times they help increase genetic diversity. So, virus "evolution" might just be a bit of DNA that stuck with a host and stopped being a virus, which we do on purpose in labs, and occurs frequently in nature. It's called "Horizontal gene transfer".
@coolgrey Yes, but isn't it wise not to judge a book by it's cover? Many people argue with me as if I am on the side of faith and they, being "scientific", are on the side of reason. But, in fact, it is usually the opposite. I wrote a book called "Beyond Faith" and my central thesis is that many people resort to faith to bolster their beliefs whether their beliefs are religious or scientific. Moving beyond faith means not needing to feel you have "the answer" but remaining skeptical & curious.
@shifty You are the one who used the word assumptions. You said, "What you call "faith" in an attempt to put science and religion on the same level is what a more scientifically minded person would call "assumptions". Now you turn around and poke fun at me for using your word. Frankly I don't understand your hostility. I think I made a valid point, namely that there is no evidence that a virus has ever "evolved" into another life form. I would think a simple "that's true" would suffice.
No. I can say stuff I believe is true about people besides myself. People do that all the time and if your going to discuss any issue it is sorta hard to avoid. Not that there is anything wrong with it anyway. I totally miss whatever point there was to your comment.
Why are there gaps in the fossil record? Mainly because a) not every organism is preserved (only about 1% of what ever lived makes it into the fossil record) and b) weathering, erosion, and tectonic forces destroy fossils and c) 99% of fossils are in sedimentary rocks, which make up the smallest percent of rocks in the crust.
@shiftyjake I understand it's hard to be very personable in 500 characters. They should really make it 1000 characters. Anyway, I know there is friction between Christian fundamentalists and science but I'm not in that argument. I wrote a book called Beyond Faith and my point is that we shouldn't accept anything on faith including scientific theories. Those who cross the line and start "believing" in science are similar to those who "believe" in religion. I argue for skepticism in everything.
@voncello Why "faith"? B/c for our own psychological well being, we need to live in a stable world. My experiment for macroevolution is this: tag and track members of different species consistently for millions of years to see if the descendants of a single population diverge genetically to the point that they can no longer produce fertile offspring together. Inelegant, I'll admit, but it tests the hypothesis. So, what's your experiment look like?
Actually, not only are there fossil whales with legs like Balasaurous and Dorodun but even modern whales have been caught with leg atavisms and recorded by whalers over the last 2 centuries. Even some pretty recent ones by the Japanese whaling fleet. The Japanese also caught a Dolphin with a back flipper atavism as well. Something most modern dolphins have lost in return streamlining in the water.
There is a method for researching the opinions of people and it's called polling. You can find out fairly accurately if a majority of X religious group believes Y about Z.
Here's a link toe some of Dr. Singh's work. I'll go through my library sometime this and find the exact source, but here's a sample of his work. He has a doctorate's from Prune Univ. (India) in applied mathematics. Where I disagree, in general, about the discipline of science itself is that most evolutionist I meet seem to believe that science gives worth to people, but I would argue that its the other way around. It is man who gives worth to science. Does that make sense?
I have not had a chance to see that you gave me a response, since I was going through your comment and separating each or your statements out. But, I don't blame you for not wanting to read it since you know that can not give good reason for your statements.
@voncello I wasn't trying to be hostile, and I'm sorry if I came off that way. I didn't assume you were of any religious persuasion, which is why I said "some Christians" not "you". If I come off brusque please attribute it to the character limit in these posts and not to my actual attitude toward you, which is neutral.
Here are 2 out of many "macroevolutions": The Three-Spined Stickleback. Over 10,000 generations these sticklebacks show structural differences greater than those shown between different genera of fish. Faeroe Island house mouse - rapid speciation occurring in less than 250 years since man brought the species to the island.
Every fossil is an example of a transitional species. The fossil record taken as a whole provides a wonderful picture & tells a very powerful story of how life has evolved over the past billion years. If you would like to discredit the fossil record as evidence for the veracity of evolution, simply find one species fossilized in the wrong geologic stratum. So just go out & find a rabbit fossil in the cambrian rock stratum & you'll be the most famous person in the world. Good luck!
You can look it up for yourself: The fur is called Lanugo. Do a google for cat receptor Tas1r2. Another google for 'Whale Pelvic girdle' Then explain to us all why the brilliant creator would give human babies fur that falls out before we're born, cats taste genes that don't work, and whales leg bones when they'll never walk? As for darwin monkey cult, I'm actually a former creationist.
@voncello "There does come a point where the evidence should be sufficient for any rational person". Maybe I misinterpreted, but that sounded like you were making an argument for the objectivity of sufficiency.
Not quite, depending on which of the two origin theories you subscribe to. The closer you get to a singularity the more time slows down. So if we were to rewind time back to the Big Bang time would just move slower and slower and slower but we would never quite reach a point of "origin" and definitely not a "before". And this is where our knowledge stops. We need a better understanding of time as a fundamental particle. But so far as we know there never was a "creation". Why is the rest babble?
@voncello In my experiment *if* we observed speciation, my hypothesis would be supported, but not proven. If we did not, it would be disproven. Either way, experimentation would continue. I gave a method for determining the time line, and that's good enough for this thought experiment. I don't know the relevant variables, and to ask me for them sounds like you're grasping at straws.
@coolgreyoneabby I find that as I view the complexity and detail of the cell, for instance, I come into contact w/mini turbines, propellor-like machines, & what I will call "robots" that cart info around and they all have very specific tasks/jobs to perform within the cell. Logic tells me that turbines, machines, and robots have never come about in my lifetime from small malfunctions/mutations in nature. To me, personally, natural selection doesn't cut it. For something so small & complex...
@voncello Okay, I think the whole "what is faith" thing is where the confusion started. It's your and my prerogative to put the line of sufficient evidence where we feel comfortable as individuals, as long as we're actually looking at the same set of data. Cool. E-handshake?
@coolgreyoneabby I'm glad you've got me and the whole discipline of science figured out. I'm sure that those two videos along w/the dozens of other ones I was presented in college will really present the only true objective aproach on the theory. I don't believe any heavily foot-noted, aggressive statement will change my mind. If you study the technology and techniques that were available to Charles Darwin at the time he came to his conclusion you'd see the flaws in his theory.
@voncello Thing is, many Christians (b/c of a few lines in the Bible that they choose to interpret literally) purposefully confuse faith, reason and logic in an effort to undermine science with rhetoric for ideological reasons. Science runs on logic, not reason. Logic is universal and mathmatic, reason is flavored by our values and worldviews. Just read Aristotle's views on women and non-Greeks if you think reason is universal.
You missed the 12th Commandment on the Bible: "Thou shalt not confuse the Origin of Life with the Origin of the Species". The origin of life today is a mystery, but abiogenesis is a pretty likely answer. That has nothing to do with Evolution, though.
@coolgreyoneabby I was speaking specifically about " the transition of one species into another". Are you saying that scientists have observed whales becoming another species or another species becoming a whale? / Didn't Darwin discuss the "origin of species"? I was under the impression that he cited spontaneous generation as the way life originally began. If he didn't, other evolutionists have. / Genesis has been reviewed by many scientists with high credentials such as Gerald Schroeder.
It's true... but when we wake up there's so much cognitive dissonance and fear of social rejection that we spend time chasing other religions, defending creationism that we waste time going in psychological circles and being depressed because we wasted our life with religion... then the 'gospel' and the warmhearted religious communities come and 'save us' then we procreate and our kids go through the same process..
@1empathy It depends what you mean by mainstream science. I don't accept as a matter of faith that one species can become another because there is no actual evidence of this, nor have any experiments been done that prove this. But I do accept much of mainstream science. Where the evidence is extensive and conclusive I accept it. Where it is not I don't. I apply the same standard to religion and other subjects. Why is that so hard for some people to accept?
@shiftyjake If Aristotle reached an unreasonable conclusion maybe his reasoning wasn't sound. You are saying that reason is subjective and logic isn't. But the dictionary sees them as very similar. Reason - a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact
Anyone who wants to know the facts of Evolution that's easy to read should read the short paperback book : YOUR INNER FISH : A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (Vintage) [Paperback] Author is Niel Shubin.
@shiftyjake You have no idea how the arrived at their conclusions and frankly to me the how is irrelevant. If the Jews knew exactly the order of creation, if they knew how old the universe was, if they knew which animals preceded others, etc. all of which Schroeder proves they did know, that is what matters. Perhaps a time traveler wrote the Torah. Who knows? The point is incredible information exists in the book that science is only discovering 3500 years later. That deserves recognition.
But the world is exactly like that. Every single species we see today is a transitional species. Every single individual on Earth today is a step in a transition. The problem is that creationists try to create arbitrary definitions of what a "species" is so they can try to say there are no transitions going on today. But that, like everything else they say, is a fallacy. Not even creationists themselves can agree with each other on what is transitional and what is not.
@voncello Why am I arguing? B/c it's fun. I'm not trying to be a glib little shit, either. It's not about being right or wrong, or proving something. I just like the mental exercise. I understand that most people don't enjoy arguing the way I do, and often read it as hostility, and for that I'm sorry.
@coolgreyoneabby I would like you to really think on this fact during the weekend as I am leaving town & will not be able to dialogue with you: the enzyme (which is the building block of the gene) needs at least 250 proteins lining up in exact sequence to function. I wonder what the probability of the enzyme coming about by random causation is? I find that to be somewhat troubling, as I do not have that kind of faith to believe that those conjugated proteins came about by chance.
@Sc0ttPrian I agree. I don't understand how religious people and atheists allow themselves to come to such firm conclusions when there is so much they don't know.
"Again"? Evolution has never stopped. It just happens very, very slowly. Who knows what we will look like in a million more years, if we last that long.
@Mr88playmaker Finally: the big bang isn't nothing exploding into everything! It is everything exploded into everything. I don't think that science has even tried to explain what brought about everything. The only theory that I've heard that even comes close is the multiverse theory, and that still doesn't explain what started it all. And, i would agree with you on the last idea.
@Sc0ttPrian I agree. It's interesting that in the Talmud God is quoted as saying that He'd rather have people follow His laws than believe in Him. The emphasis in Judaism is on good deeds. I always found it strange that Christianity and Islam, which both claim to be advancements on Judaism, asserted that belief was more important than deeds. Seems to me that is a retrogression rather than an advance. Now secularists say deeds are all that matters but deeds without a foundation are ephemeral.
@shiftyjake Would you admit that things are sometimes quite different than how they appear? Who 100 years ago would have believed we'd be flying in space? Who a few decades ago would have taken seriously ideas like string and M theory? Multiple universes? Worm holes? Bending of space and time? So, yes, evolution seems likely but the evidence is not conclusive and we may eventually find that the story is quite a bit different. Science still cannot explain how life began and what caused it.
@voncello So, seriously, where is your experiment to test the existence of a deity? How would you design it? You said it was possible, so let's see it.
@voncello As for Aristotle: if Aristotle used reason to reach a conclusion I find unreasonable, then reason is therefore not universal. QED. Logic, on the other hand, cannot be argued with any more than one can argue that 2+2 does not equal 4 it doesn't matter if you think women have souls. 2+2 will always equal 4. Even if we were non-sentient apes, and incapable of understanding math, 2+2 would still equal 4.
I think that the fine tuning argument of the creationists actually has the implication that "god" depends on circumstances. He can't design a universe that is not finely tuned. He can only create one by twiddling some knobs in the right position. That shows that the god of the creationists is just another anthropomorphism like all other gods.
@shiftyjake You are wrong. I call the "belief" in anything a type of faith. Why this need to "believe"? I ask the same thing to you as I do to the religious person. Why can't one just admit that things seem a certain way but it is likely our views will change as we learn more? How often does a court case end much differently than first imagined. Why? Because as more information comes in the case looks different! That, to me, is keeping an open mind. And that is what I argue for in Beyond Faith.
@1empathy For the same reason I disagree with mainstream religion. I thought this was a page about Michael Shermer "the founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine". Yet you seem to have a problem with my being a skeptic.
@shiftyjake Again, there are those who seek to "accept" (your word) things. You say logic deals with what you can prove, yet you can't prove evolution. You can amass a lot of evidence that appears to point that way but you can also amass striking evidence of design, especially on the nano level. I think one can "reasonably" accept either version of reality, but I argue that it is the most reasonable to suspend judgement and keep an open mind. I have no need of accepting this or that.
@flubno I argue in my book Beyond Faith that Bible translations are so poor that what you are reading is not the real Bible. If you were to talk to an Orthodox rabbi he would tell you that it must be read in Hebrew or if one must read it in English you need a teacher or at least a book of rabbinical commentary that goes word by word explaining the various meanings of each word and each sentence. I agree that what you are reading is "anything but special" but the real Bible is amazing.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Great presentation. Darwins publication of Origin marked the greatest leap of understanding in the biological sciences up until that point in history. it's an area of study that continues to explain natural phenomenon, and improve our understanding of life on earth. Fantastic.
Also, please consider that fossilization happens very rarely only under very specific conditions (best suited for the ocean floor), so we should not expect to find a fossilized example of every species that ever existed. The that we have so many that all fit into the evolutionary picture and tell a very consistent story about how life has evolved on this planet is awesome and we are very lucky to have it available to us.
@voncello No one takes Darwin as Faith. Faith by definition means belief without evidence. Darwinists reject iron age myths of animal creation and accept the scientifically robust theory that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life as seen today. In fact, there was a special on the science channel called "What Darwin Didn't Know" that featured the latest scientific findings that Darwin would have only dreamed about. These findings put his overall theory on even more solid ground.
@pcruze81 Complexity usually arrises from simpler forms. Self emergent complex systems are common. Language, economies, world politics, ecosystems & biology are all examples. All are highly complex systems that can give the illusion that the level of complexity could only be accomplished by some master planner, but in reality, there was no master planner. Each level of complexity was a small incremental step to solve a small local problem, but eventually evolved into the complexity we see today.
@voncello I don't disagree with that. I think my basic arguments are this:
1. Some beliefs are more valid than others.
2. Evidence-based beliefs are more likely to be true than those with no or contrary evidence.
3. Faith is a kind of belief, but belief is not necessarily a kind of faith.
4. The scientific method is good for gathering evidence.
5. The s.m. has gathered evidence for speciation.
I'm totally cool with going with evol. b/c of #1,2,4 & 5, but b/c of #3, it's not "faith".
Wow! If you're still around. I appreciate your breakdown. I respect and appreciate other people's beliefs, and especially those who take the time to share and articulate what they believe (accept as) to be true.
To save anyone else from the pain of reading the inane, repetitive and unsubstantiated comments of "Mr Intelligent Design," below, I have already done it for you - and I have also researched who he is. "Mr Intelligent Design" is , in fact, the author of the book "New Intelligent Design - turning science on its head," which he is attempting to promote (like a mad thing on mad tablets), below. His name is actually Edgar A Postrado .
There is no available peer - reviewed material to substantiate any of his vague claims - and the only review that I could find of his book condemns it as "shit" (the formal review is available on YT)
It is also clear from his comments that he did not actually watch this vid. or consider any of its contents before posting his comments
.....and on his YT channel , he actually uses the favo(u)rite old chestnut, employed by all barmy creationists ,viz "If you disagree with me, only post comments on my page if you can *prove* me wrong - or I will delete your comments") ha ha ha ! It's the total opposite of the scientific method , which requires HIM to provide substantiation for his claims
I am glad to have provided a public service :))
+truthtrumpsdumbness
thanks for the heads up, i think i have encountered Edgar before.
Hari Seldon
Thanks Hari - my 15 -30 mins of torture, researching his inane bullshit claims was worth it, just for this one moment :))
+truthtrumpsdumbness Lol, this has got to be one of the best comments on TH-cam I have ever seen. So much win :-) Thank you for taking the time to do the research. Also, a belated Happy Lucy Anniversary Day (Shermer and the anniversary brought me here).
Aramakie98
Thank you +Aramakie98 - It makes the time used in research and the struggle against dishonesty so worthwhile (bless the internet!) - and bless you for being a smart, informed individual - you make my day!
truthtrumpsdumbness Thanks for the heads up!
I own one of the biggest used car yards on the West Coast, and I'd love to have this guy lead my team of salesmen.
He's a natural.
If he was my car salesman I wouldn’t hate car shopping.
@voncello You are 100% correct. The whale fossils do not prove evolution. They are just a few pieces in a very large jigsaw puzzle that still has many pieces missing. BUT Darwin provided the "picture on the jigsaw puzzle box". The fossils we have been finding since have been consistently fitting that picture. At this time we still have many holes in the puzzle, but we have enough pieces assembled now to tell with a very high degree of certainty which "picture on the box" we are assembling.
@shiftyjake Obviously the video is meant as an introductory look. There are much more extensive videos and books on the subject. The main point is not that Darwin "ignored" anything, but that people simply didn't know about the complexity of life on the nano level. Scientists today are amazed at how complex this is and how it appears to be designed including the use of code that is sent around the cell to construct it with other cells into even more complex organisms. It doesn't appear random.
An interesting, well presented lecture on a subject that is important because Darwin matters, and people should watch and listen to it before they comment ..... yes, before.
@pcruze81 You missed the point. It is not about intelligence, it is about very complex systems evolving from simple systems without a master plan or master planner. All complex systems evolve from simpler systems. Did you look up "Hoyles fallacy"? It says the same thing I did, that Hoyle and Chandra made the assumption that the protien poofed into existence in it's modern form without intermediate steps. It is the intermediate steps that is required to get from A to B.
I know, but it's the politest word I could think of that conveyed my meaning.
Maybe the word stupidity would have been better, but sometimes people who believe ludicrous things are not actually inherently stupid, they just sound stupid. Strange really.
@pcruze81 No one claims there were no flaws in Darwin's original ideas. Modern Evolutionary Theory is a great expansion based on Darwin's original ideas. We have been adding to the knowledge of the basic Darwinian idea for over 100 years. That plus thousands of examples of independent corroborating evidence is what we now call "Evolutionary Theory" not "Darwinism". "Theory" being used in the same context as "Germ Theory", "Atomic Theory" and "Theory of Relativity".
A great work by Shermer.I read it and every one should.Continue the good work.Please
I remember when this talk was being held at UCSD. I wanted to go but I had a class conflict!!!
What I keep failing to understand, is the question, why this is even an issue in a nation that has been and still is on the top list of science in the world.
People refer to evolution as a religion because they refuse to do the work required to even remotely understand it. It is easier to try to put it on the same level as religion and say "see? You are basing your beliefs on faith too and I refuse to acknowledge any difference"
Where there is Zero ThermoDynamic Difference(ZTDD) between two options, there is no entropic compulsion for either.
There is ZTDD between COPYING mutation A vrs copying mutation B.
There is ZTDD between CULLING mutation A vrs culling mutation B.
The environment pushes and life pushes back.
Complexity happens
@pcruze81 Thanks for that reference on Chandra. Turns out he worked with Fred Hoyle, the famous astronomer. Chandra and Fred both were advocates of panspermia, which does not contradict modern evolutionary theory. They also both advocated the improbable chances of spontaneous generation of a modern protein molecule. Look up "Hoyle's fallacy" in Wikipedia for an explanation of the errors in the calculation.
How do you know that? Change in what?
Or it just so happens that "laws (as we call them)" is more stable than no laws at all just as empty space is unstable which gives rise to a fluctuation of virtual particles.
Or you can subscribe to the multiverse theory.
Thing is that we have much more reason to trust physics and mathematics rather than random guesswork. That's why we need to continue to support science and experimentation as it continues to demonstrate how wrong our intuition often is
@voncello You also seem to be arguing that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. I agree wholeheartedly.
Answer this one question. Can you, explain the diversity of life without natural selection acting on genetic mutation?
@shiftyjake I didn't hear anyone assert that. The assertion is that life on the nano level is incredibly complex and shows signs of design. In more extensive videos they show that many parts of cells have no practical use until other parts come later. This argues against natural selection but it makes sense if we postulate a "designer" who knew the final outcome as the parts were being developed. Whether or not the "designer" is God is not something most scientists consider.
@voncello That's what the micro/macro evol. comment was about. What you call "faith" in an attempt to put science and religion on the same level is what a more scientifically minded person would call "assumptions," and the difference b/t the two is that "faith" is a no-matter-what belief whereas "assumptions" help us think through a problem and will be cast aside when they are no longer applicable. I might assume that I will live to retire and plan for it, but it's not an article of faith.
@voncello The only reason the cell seems to point to design to you is b/c you don't know the history of how different organelles evolved to their present state. Look at our infrastructure. It evolved gradually to the point that we have gas stations just waiting to gas up our cars at convenient intervals along paved roads. That happened b/c of the growing popularity of cars, not b/c someone designed the system from the top down in the 1880s.
I recall an animal which lived in dark Cave. The speaker announced it developed eves three times.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo.
My science education has afforded me the opportunity to design and build life support systems for hospital intensive care units. I also had personal friends of mine whose children ended up on my equipment. I indirectly helped save their lives. What do I have to show? The lives of my friends children.
@voncello Science does not need to directly observe phenomena to understand their existence. We know of hundreds of exo-planets by secondary measurements, but non has ever been directly observed. As for providing evidence contrary to Genesis, in science it is not the responsibility of science to disprove a claim, it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide sufficient evidence to stand up to peer review before it is accepted. Anything short of that is just anecdotal. Thats how it works.
@pcruze81 That is more specific than my expertise. I don't claim to know precisely how that specific proteins is made, but since proteins are part of life, non random selection could account for the present configuration. Your point is that the protein would be needed for first life and that could not be accounted for by selection. Again, I don't know that proteins but in the very simplest of life or "pre-life" could there have been a simpler agent or form that provided that function?
@pcruze81 I trust in the capacity of science to provide and accurate understanding of reality.That is the function of science and it has proved to be very effective. If you want to define truth as a proper understanding of reality, then fine. I'm just not going to be dragged into a red herring of defining some metaphysical meaning of "truth". I focus on an accurate understanding of reality.
@shiftyjake I feel it is more than possible our views will change over time. I forget the philosopher who said that we all contradict ourselves as we grow. Before Einstein the universe looked very different. Before Hawkins is looked very different. If I am sure about anything it is that it will look very different again and again as more and more information comes in.
@coolgreyoneabby I found that reference for you. Sorry I had butchered the spelling of his name in last comments. Its Chandra Wickramasinghe in his books, "The Origin of Life in the Universe", and if you're curious about him & theological convictions I can assure you that he is not a Christian.
Just to play lunatics advocate on the Roswell/transistor thing, if we went to a group of primitive aboriginal hunter gatherers, would we show them how to build an IPhone, or simple farming implements? If all they did was find the wreckage of a modern ship, what might they manage to learn from it? Perhaps the principle of the screw, or how to imitate some basic tools that were on board, etc. with the GPS, radios, and the engines would be utter mysteries to them. So us getting transistor technology from a starship? Maybe.
Pat Doyle Perhaps, they would learn to build a ship or at least dream of "what" this could be and "where" did it come from.
Sadly two words, you have lost worth in. The two words that make our existence a journey of wonder and great beauty.
You have taken away fro yourself, everything that God gave you.
You read one book and spit in God's face.
Dr Why
Actually, I have read hundreds of books, but the one that convinced me that Christianity is false was the Bible.
No god gave me anything, and the wonder of the universe is revealed through science - not old fables. I have read the Pentateuch, the Bible, the Qur'an, the Baghavad Gita, and many of the, Hindu Vedas, and found little in any of them worthy of awe, respect, or wonder.
@pcruze81 Why is a simpler version of "the mind" so difficult to understand? My dog is a perfect example. She is fully conscious, has emotions, understands many English phrases, gets excited as well as sad, knows how to communicate her needs, but she is incapable of algebra, writing, creating sentence structure and creating art. Seems like a pretty good example of a "simpler form" of "mind" to me.
Actually with the advent of molecular biology Darwin's ideas are even more relevant than before. He is an excellent example of the pursuit of an unpopular idea which is the epitome of a scientific theory, easy to state (branching tree) but far reaching in its scope. It would seem your limited knowledge of Darwin and his contribution to science is what deserves the obscure label.
@shiftyjake Actually the reason the cell seems to point to design to me is because recognized scientists with PhD's from top universities have looked at the evidence in extreme detail and have come to that conclusion. I personally do not know enough to doubt them or to doubt those who oppose them with similar credentials. But I am always skeptical of any field that attempts to block off areas that are forbidden to question whether that is the divine nature of Jesus or the possibility of design.
In their books and other books in amazon.they explain the statistical experiments. On the other hand, William Tiller conducted several experiments about energies, intentionality and most important how scientist could influence their experiments and how humans can influence the ph alkaline in water by one unit.Buy his books on amazon and read all his scientific experiments.There's also research in ESP in several books and journals.But Charles Tart really tackles the psychology of scientist bias.
Why attack only the "religious right" but leave out the religious left? Are they somehow exempt from criticism because they share your political persuasion?
perhaps, but I think it more accurate to just look at the doctrines of the book/church/beliefs, etc.
With culture its completely different, seeing as how a lot of it is just different regions, tbh. You can string together conclusions about religion because there is some form of logic based on it, but cultures, ethnicities and race are another matter.
"The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions."
@Sc0ttPrian Your observation points out how we are constantly being manipulated by those who seek gain at our expense. One great thing about Sabbath observance is 1 day a week you are not supposed to watch TV, read a newspaper, listen to the radio. For 1/7th of your week you should move away from society's manipulations and reach a deeper, more eternal reality. Buddhists reach for something similar though meditation. These are some of the good things that religion, used properly, brings to life.
Yes,I do.
There's a difference between making claims about a religion, something which you can accurately research or at least expect certain amount of testability vs, say, a culture/ethnicity/race.
Apples and oranges. I know a large number of individuals who believe in theistic evolution.
@1empathy I'm an independent thinker. I generally don't believe anything unless there is substantial evidence. I don't feel the need to take sides on issues that are not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. What is wrong with keeping an open mind? Isn't that what being a skeptic is all about?
Matthew 17 " He replied, Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” In other words, all Christians can move mountains if they feel like it.
There are many mountains where I live. It is one that obscure the view from my house.
Can you move it? I promise to become a Christian if you do this for me.
Good vid. Thanks for the upload.
@pcruze81 We can save alot of time with the standard creationist arguments by first watching TH-cam: "Qualiasoup Skewed views of science" THEN the series "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism". This series goes down each of the standard creationist arguments and presents the evidence against each. This conversation is as old as astronomy vs astrology, chemistry vs alchemy, science vs magic, evidence vs superstition, fantasy vs reality. It is important to know the difference.
@voncello It's called evolutionary theory for the same reason the law of gravity isn't called "Newton's assumptions about how stuff works". It's inelegant and misleading as to its importance and level of acceptance by the scientific community at large. There's also the trouble of the meaning of the word "theory". In layman's terms, theory=hypothesis, whereas in scientific terminology, a "theory" is one step below a "law", so it's basically fact's first cousin.
@shifty One never hears about Darwin's Assumptions of Evolution. As long as you are aware that these are assumptions then assume away. But there are scientifically inclined people who confuse theory with fact. As for religion and science being on the same level; I do not see the argument as being between those disciplines but between those who glorify faith and those who glorify reason. Either discipline can be accepted on faith or can be studied with a reasoned approach. I prefer reason.
@voncello But what is sufficient proof will vary from individual to individual. Sufficiency is subjective.
What do you mean "so what"? So I countered your claim.
@voncello As for viruses: They're mostly just floating bits of DNA or RNA that sometimes cause problems when they screw up some cell's DNA or RNA pattern. Other times they help increase genetic diversity. So, virus "evolution" might just be a bit of DNA that stuck with a host and stopped being a virus, which we do on purpose in labs, and occurs frequently in nature. It's called "Horizontal gene transfer".
@coolgrey Yes, but isn't it wise not to judge a book by it's cover?
Many people argue with me as if I am on the side of faith and they, being "scientific", are on the side of reason. But, in fact, it is usually the opposite. I wrote a book called "Beyond Faith" and my central thesis is that many people resort to faith to bolster their beliefs whether their beliefs are religious or scientific. Moving beyond faith means not needing to feel you have "the answer" but remaining skeptical & curious.
@shifty You are the one who used the word assumptions. You said, "What you call "faith" in an attempt to put science and religion on the same level is what a more scientifically minded person would call "assumptions". Now you turn around and poke fun at me for using your word. Frankly I don't understand your hostility. I think I made a valid point, namely that there is no evidence that a virus has ever "evolved" into another life form. I would think a simple "that's true" would suffice.
No. I can say stuff I believe is true about people besides myself. People do that all the time and if your going to discuss any issue it is sorta hard to avoid. Not that there is anything wrong with it anyway. I totally miss whatever point there was to your comment.
Why are there gaps in the fossil record? Mainly because a) not every organism is preserved (only about 1% of what ever lived makes it into the fossil record) and b) weathering, erosion, and tectonic forces destroy fossils and c) 99% of fossils are in sedimentary rocks, which make up the smallest percent of rocks in the crust.
@shiftyjake I understand it's hard to be very personable in 500 characters. They should really make it 1000 characters. Anyway, I know there is friction between Christian fundamentalists and science but I'm not in that argument. I wrote a book called Beyond Faith and my point is that we shouldn't accept anything on faith including scientific theories. Those who cross the line and start "believing" in science are similar to those who "believe" in religion. I argue for skepticism in everything.
@voncello Why "faith"? B/c for our own psychological well being, we need to live in a stable world.
My experiment for macroevolution is this: tag and track members of different species consistently for millions of years to see if the descendants of a single population diverge genetically to the point that they can no longer produce fertile offspring together. Inelegant, I'll admit, but it tests the hypothesis. So, what's your experiment look like?
I like how this guy has a sense of humor.
Actually, not only are there fossil whales with legs like Balasaurous and Dorodun but even modern whales have been caught with leg atavisms and recorded by whalers over the last 2 centuries. Even some pretty recent ones by the Japanese whaling fleet. The Japanese also caught a Dolphin with a back flipper atavism as well. Something most modern dolphins have lost in return streamlining in the water.
There is a method for researching the opinions of people and it's called polling. You can find out fairly accurately if a majority of X religious group believes Y about Z.
Here's a link toe some of Dr. Singh's work. I'll go through my library sometime this and find the exact source, but here's a sample of his work. He has a doctorate's from Prune Univ. (India) in applied mathematics. Where I disagree, in general, about the discipline of science itself is that most evolutionist I meet seem to believe that science gives worth to people, but I would argue that its the other way around. It is man who gives worth to science. Does that make sense?
I have not had a chance to see that you gave me a response, since I was going through your comment and separating each or your statements out. But, I don't blame you for not wanting to read it since you know that can not give good reason for your statements.
@voncello I wasn't trying to be hostile, and I'm sorry if I came off that way. I didn't assume you were of any religious persuasion, which is why I said "some Christians" not "you". If I come off brusque please attribute it to the character limit in these posts and not to my actual attitude toward you, which is neutral.
Here are 2 out of many "macroevolutions":
The Three-Spined Stickleback. Over 10,000 generations these sticklebacks show structural differences greater than those shown between different genera of fish.
Faeroe Island house mouse - rapid speciation occurring in less than 250 years since man brought the species to the island.
I love the 'Son of God' ads before these vids. Very telling.
Every fossil is an example of a transitional species. The fossil record taken as a whole provides a wonderful picture & tells a very powerful story of how life has evolved over the past billion years.
If you would like to discredit the fossil record as evidence for the veracity of evolution, simply find one species fossilized in the wrong geologic stratum. So just go out & find a rabbit fossil in the cambrian rock stratum & you'll be the most famous person in the world.
Good luck!
There is possibility for subtitles?
You can look it up for yourself:
The fur is called Lanugo.
Do a google for cat receptor Tas1r2.
Another google for 'Whale Pelvic girdle'
Then explain to us all why the brilliant creator would give human babies fur that falls out before we're born, cats taste genes that don't work, and whales leg bones when they'll never walk?
As for darwin monkey cult, I'm actually a former creationist.
@voncello "There does come a point where the evidence should be sufficient for any rational person". Maybe I misinterpreted, but that sounded like you were making an argument for the objectivity of sufficiency.
Not quite, depending on which of the two origin theories you subscribe to. The closer you get to a singularity the more time slows down. So if we were to rewind time back to the Big Bang time would just move slower and slower and slower but we would never quite reach a point of "origin" and definitely not a "before". And this is where our knowledge stops. We need a better understanding of time as a fundamental particle. But so far as we know there never was a "creation".
Why is the rest babble?
@voncello In my experiment *if* we observed speciation, my hypothesis would be supported, but not proven. If we did not, it would be disproven. Either way, experimentation would continue. I gave a method for determining the time line, and that's good enough for this thought experiment. I don't know the relevant variables, and to ask me for them sounds like you're grasping at straws.
@coolgreyoneabby I find that as I view the complexity and detail of the cell, for instance, I come into contact w/mini turbines, propellor-like machines, & what I will call "robots" that cart info around and they all have very specific tasks/jobs to perform within the cell. Logic tells me that turbines, machines, and robots have never come about in my lifetime from small malfunctions/mutations in nature. To me, personally, natural selection doesn't cut it. For something so small & complex...
@voncello Okay, I think the whole "what is faith" thing is where the confusion started. It's your and my prerogative to put the line of sufficient evidence where we feel comfortable as individuals, as long as we're actually looking at the same set of data. Cool.
E-handshake?
@coolgreyoneabby I'm glad you've got me and the whole discipline of science figured out. I'm sure that those two videos along w/the dozens of other ones I was presented in college will really present the only true objective aproach on the theory. I don't believe any heavily foot-noted, aggressive statement will change my mind. If you study the technology and techniques that were available to Charles Darwin at the time he came to his conclusion you'd see the flaws in his theory.
@shiftyjake Of course sufficiency is subjective. What do you think is my claim?
@voncello Thing is, many Christians (b/c of a few lines in the Bible that they choose to interpret literally) purposefully confuse faith, reason and logic in an effort to undermine science with rhetoric for ideological reasons. Science runs on logic, not reason. Logic is universal and mathmatic, reason is flavored by our values and worldviews. Just read Aristotle's views on women and non-Greeks if you think reason is universal.
You missed the 12th Commandment on the Bible: "Thou shalt not confuse the Origin of Life with the Origin of the Species". The origin of life today is a mystery, but abiogenesis is a pretty likely answer. That has nothing to do with Evolution, though.
@coolgreyoneabby I was speaking specifically about " the transition of one species into another". Are you saying that scientists have observed whales becoming another species or another species becoming a whale? / Didn't Darwin discuss the "origin of species"? I was under the impression that he cited spontaneous generation as the way life originally began. If he didn't, other evolutionists have. / Genesis has been reviewed by many scientists with high credentials such as Gerald Schroeder.
It's true... but when we wake up there's so much cognitive dissonance and fear of social rejection that we spend time chasing other religions, defending creationism that we waste time going in psychological circles and being depressed because we wasted our life with religion... then the 'gospel' and the warmhearted religious communities come and 'save us' then we procreate and our kids go through the same process..
@1empathy It depends what you mean by mainstream science. I don't accept as a matter of faith that one species can become another because there is no actual evidence of this, nor have any experiments been done that prove this. But I do accept much of mainstream science. Where the evidence is extensive and conclusive I accept it. Where it is not I don't. I apply the same standard to religion and other subjects. Why is that so hard for some people to accept?
@shiftyjake If Aristotle reached an unreasonable conclusion maybe his reasoning wasn't sound. You are saying that reason is subjective and logic isn't. But the dictionary sees them as very similar. Reason - a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact
Anyone who wants to know the facts of Evolution that's easy to read should read the short paperback book : YOUR INNER FISH : A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (Vintage) [Paperback]
Author is Niel Shubin.
@shiftyjake You have no idea how the arrived at their conclusions and frankly to me the how is irrelevant. If the Jews knew exactly the order of creation, if they knew how old the universe was, if they knew which animals preceded others, etc. all of which Schroeder proves they did know, that is what matters. Perhaps a time traveler wrote the Torah. Who knows? The point is incredible information exists in the book that science is only discovering 3500 years later. That deserves recognition.
But the world is exactly like that. Every single species we see today is a transitional species. Every single individual on Earth today is a step in a transition. The problem is that creationists try to create arbitrary definitions of what a "species" is so they can try to say there are no transitions going on today. But that, like everything else they say, is a fallacy. Not even creationists themselves can agree with each other on what is transitional and what is not.
@voncello Why am I arguing? B/c it's fun. I'm not trying to be a glib little shit, either. It's not about being right or wrong, or proving something. I just like the mental exercise. I understand that most people don't enjoy arguing the way I do, and often read it as hostility, and for that I'm sorry.
@coolgreyoneabby I would like you to really think on this fact during the weekend as I am leaving town & will not be able to dialogue with you: the enzyme (which is the building block of the gene) needs at least 250 proteins lining up in exact sequence to function. I wonder what the probability of the enzyme coming about by random causation is? I find that to be somewhat troubling, as I do not have that kind of faith to believe that those conjugated proteins came about by chance.
@Sc0ttPrian I agree. I don't understand how religious people and atheists allow themselves to come to such firm conclusions when there is so much they don't know.
"Again"? Evolution has never stopped. It just happens very, very slowly. Who knows what we will look like in a million more years, if we last that long.
@Mr88playmaker Finally: the big bang isn't nothing exploding into everything! It is everything exploded into everything. I don't think that science has even tried to explain what brought about everything. The only theory that I've heard that even comes close is the multiverse theory, and that still doesn't explain what started it all. And, i would agree with you on the last idea.
@Sc0ttPrian I agree. It's interesting that in the Talmud God is quoted as saying that He'd rather have people follow His laws than believe in Him. The emphasis in Judaism is on good deeds. I always found it strange that Christianity and Islam, which both claim to be advancements on Judaism, asserted that belief was more important than deeds. Seems to me that is a retrogression rather than an advance. Now secularists say deeds are all that matters but deeds without a foundation are ephemeral.
@shiftyjake Would you admit that things are sometimes quite different than how they appear? Who 100 years ago would have believed we'd be flying in space? Who a few decades ago would have taken seriously ideas like string and M theory? Multiple universes? Worm holes? Bending of space and time? So, yes, evolution seems likely but the evidence is not conclusive and we may eventually find that the story is quite a bit different. Science still cannot explain how life began and what caused it.
@voncello So, seriously, where is your experiment to test the existence of a deity? How would you design it? You said it was possible, so let's see it.
@voncello As for Aristotle: if Aristotle used reason to reach a conclusion I find unreasonable, then reason is therefore not universal. QED. Logic, on the other hand, cannot be argued with any more than one can argue that 2+2 does not equal 4 it doesn't matter if you think women have souls. 2+2 will always equal 4. Even if we were non-sentient apes, and incapable of understanding math, 2+2 would still equal 4.
I think that the fine tuning argument of the creationists actually has the implication that "god" depends on circumstances. He can't design a universe that is not finely tuned. He can only create one by twiddling some knobs in the right position. That shows that the god of the creationists is just another anthropomorphism like all other gods.
@shiftyjake You are wrong. I call the "belief" in anything a type of faith. Why this need to "believe"? I ask the same thing to you as I do to the religious person. Why can't one just admit that things seem a certain way but it is likely our views will change as we learn more? How often does a court case end much differently than first imagined. Why? Because as more information comes in the case looks different! That, to me, is keeping an open mind. And that is what I argue for in Beyond Faith.
@1empathy For the same reason I disagree with mainstream religion. I thought this was a page about Michael Shermer "the founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine". Yet you seem to have a problem with my being a skeptic.
@shiftyjake Again, there are those who seek to "accept" (your word) things. You say logic deals with what you can prove, yet you can't prove evolution. You can amass a lot of evidence that appears to point that way but you can also amass striking evidence of design, especially on the nano level. I think one can "reasonably" accept either version of reality, but I argue that it is the most reasonable to suspend judgement and keep an open mind. I have no need of accepting this or that.
@flubno I argue in my book Beyond Faith that Bible translations are so poor that what you are reading is not the real Bible. If you were to talk to an Orthodox rabbi he would tell you that it must be read in Hebrew or if one must read it in English you need a teacher or at least a book of rabbinical commentary that goes word by word explaining the various meanings of each word and each sentence. I agree that what you are reading is "anything but special" but the real Bible is amazing.
@coolgreyoneabby So the most logical thoughts such as "complex systems come from complex origins" is out of the question?
My guess is that the creationists gave this video a 👎,