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.
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!
@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.
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 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.
Why attack only the "religious right" but leave out the religious left? Are they somehow exempt from criticism because they share your political persuasion?
@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.
@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.
@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?
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 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.
@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.
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 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.
@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.
@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.
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"
@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.
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.
@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 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.
@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.
@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.
@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 What I don't understand is why this one little piece of information (speciation, or sometimes just natural selection) that the scientific method has helped us discover is such a big damn deal. You don't call my belief in aerodynamics faith. You don't call my belief in chemistry faith. Why is this faith and my belief in germ theory not?
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.
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
doug65536 One thing that I noticed, is that, after you click on the 'Bell' icon to see what notifications you have, then click to see what the comment was, and you realize that answering the comment immediately will take longer than the amount of time you have available before you need to leave to go somewhere, that when you get back and try to find the comment again to reply to it, it is gone. I do not like this new system.
@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.
@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.
@pcruze81 I have called you no names nor disrespected your positions. I have called you a Creationist since that is the alternate to Evolutionist. I have found that almost everyone I speak to that does not accept evolution has a religious upbringing where the idea of evolution was misrepresented and presented as a characture. Most people seek reality but our beliefs are only as good as our information sources. I looked up Dr Singh but couldn't find. Can you supply source?
@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".
@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.
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
@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.
@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.
@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
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.
@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.
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.
@IamtheMADman24 If you are commenting on my video "Slavery in the Bible... What's Up With That?" please comment on it at its page. People on this page have no idea what you are talking about and it is not related to the Shermer video.
@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?
@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 You're making a lot of classic creationist arguments like "well, it's just not enough evidence" or "but this individual agrees with me" and "science is just another kind of faith". You argue semantics instead of evidence and bring up irrelevant data in the fallacious supposition that if ancient people were right about X, it increases the odds of them being right about Y.
@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.
@CHARESTHEHAMER Church going in Louisiana is 54% and the chances of getting murdered 8 in 100,000. In Vermont the figures are 24% and 1 in 100,000. Crime rates are very low in Scandinavia, where atheism is also rampant. Check out atheism rates in US prisons, even allowing for the obvious bias that will be encountered there. Atheism forces a realisation of individual responsibility, and has no forgiving father figure.
@shiftyjake In your experiment would we actually observe one species becoming another? What would the time limit be? So far when we have observed quickly breeding insects and introduced genetic changes, the species self corrects eventually. These experiments prove the opposite of your claim. So am I to accept actual evidence from experiments or your wild speculations based on hope and faith?
@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.
@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.
@coolgreyoneabby Specifically, what do you mean when you use the term "non random selection"? What process has Science shown to be responsible for these intricate proteins without whom life would not be able to function at the most basic levels?
@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.
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.
@voncello Now, back to my experiment. To be properly done, it would require a time limit chosen by using what we know about the speed of changes in gene frequency in any given species and the predicted amount of change required to result in new species. So, what would you tag and follow to prove that God exists? Please be specific. Include which deity you are testing to reduce confusion.
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.
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.
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?
@Sc0ttPrian The idea that you can say something is wrong and do it anyway believing that God will forgive you runs contrary to Judaism which says if you know something is wrong don't do it. Some have speculated that the Christian founders purposely created a religion that would attract the maximum number of followers. How great to think you can do anything and be quickly forgiven! But how can you claim to be a fulfillment of Judaism yet go against its principles? Hence the emphasis on faith.
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.
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!
@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.
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.
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.
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 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".
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.
@pcruze81 I ask a very simple question. You say that evolution is false, yet offer no explanation of how it did happen. Instead of name calling and doing the typical "you are wrong" accusation, I simply ask you what you think happened. So I'll ask again. What do you think brought us here and why do you think that. I am perfectly willing to answer those exact questions and my video suggestions give further insight into the evidence for my position. What is your positions?
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.
@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?
@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.
"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."
No, actually evolution doesn't say that at all. In fact abiogenesis, which is about the formation of life from non life, which I believe is what your talking about, doesn't even say that life was created from molten lava. So, not only do you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, but your confusing evolution with abiogenesis, which is a different theory. And abiogenesis isn't even described as life from molten lava. So, please understand the theory before you make a comment like that.
@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 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...
@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.
@pcruze81 That is why religion has a problem with evolution. Religion always assumed that the complexity we see today could only be explained by a deity. Science discovered a naturalistic method whereby the complexity of nature can be explained by natural processes. Evidence from many separate fields of investigation independently corroborated that explanation. Today, that evidence fills warehouses and museums. Religion resists that idea since it diminishes the importance of their deity.
@Sc0ttPrian I think you misinterpreted my comment. I was responding to strangerlover who is a Muslim. He said that he laughs at people who don't accept the Koran and all that Muslim writings say. So he is the one who is laughing at people for expressing non-belief. My point was to ask him how he would feel if Christians laughed at him because he doesn't believe in Jesus. People shouldn't laugh at each other because they don't believe things that are unproven. Seeking evidence is intelligent.
@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.
@pcruze81 I've played this game before. I present evidence and the Creationists rejects it or keeps asking questions until the honest answer is: "we don't know....yet" and the Creationists believes he has supported his side. The fact is that the evidence for evolution is so vast, you couldn't review it all in the rest of your lifetime. The evidence for Creationism is nothing more than misunderstandings and cherry picking data to support a pre conceived world view.
Exactly right! And, having grown up from the same books and environment, the teachers themselves actually believe that it has been proven. So, they think that they are teaching proven ideas. I used to believe in evolution. I have since realized that evolution is false and the 'Special Creation' has to be the only other option. Bill Gates said that the DNA code is far more sophisticated than software program that man can come up with and that it took a high intelligence to write it. He should K
@shiftyjake You said, " Look, whether I'm imagining the universe or not, in my world the scientific method is good for testing hypotheses." This is a false argument for two reasons: 1. I never said you are imagining the universe, I said you are jumping to conclusions about evolution that haven't been tested with the scientific method, and 2. I am the one who is arguing for the scientific method and you are arguing that one should jump to faith based conclusions without proof.
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.
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!
@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.
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.
A great work by Shermer.I read it and every one should.Continue the good work.Please
@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 remember when this talk was being held at UCSD. I wanted to go but I had a class conflict!!!
There is possibility for subtitles?
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.
Why attack only the "religious right" but leave out the religious left? Are they somehow exempt from criticism because they share your political persuasion?
I couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo.
@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.
@strangerlover11 Where do you get your information? And how do you know it is true?
Answer this one question. Can you, explain the diversity of life without natural selection acting on genetic mutation?
@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.
@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?
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 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.
@voncello You also seem to be arguing that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. I agree wholeheartedly.
@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.
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.
Good vid. Thanks for the upload.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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"
@shiftyjake Of course sufficiency is subjective. What do you think is my claim?
@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.
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.
@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 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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
I recall an animal which lived in dark Cave. The speaker announced it developed eves three times.
@voncello What I don't understand is why this one little piece of information (speciation, or sometimes just natural selection) that the scientific method has helped us discover is such a big damn deal. You don't call my belief in aerodynamics faith. You don't call my belief in chemistry faith. Why is this faith and my belief in germ theory not?
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.
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
What happened to the 'Reply' buttons? I can't reply to comments to me.
Google switched to Google+ for TH-cam comments. All the comments that existed before the transition do not have a reply button.
OK, thanks. I wish they would have found a way to make the transition and not wipe out certain things, but I guess that's l guess that's life.
doug65536
One thing that I noticed, is that, after you click on the 'Bell' icon to see what notifications you have, then click to see what the comment was, and you realize that answering the comment immediately will take longer than the amount of time you have available before you need to leave to go somewhere, that when you get back and try to find the comment again to reply to it, it is gone. I do not like this new system.
Andrew Gulick I think most people share your dislike of the new comment system.
@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.
@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.
@pcruze81 I have called you no names nor disrespected your positions. I have called you a Creationist since that is the alternate to Evolutionist. I have found that almost everyone I speak to that does not accept evolution has a religious upbringing where the idea of evolution was misrepresented and presented as a characture. Most people seek reality but our beliefs are only as good as our information sources. I looked up Dr Singh but couldn't find. Can you supply source?
@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".
@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.
@coolgreyoneabby So the most logical thoughts such as "complex systems come from complex origins" is out of the question?
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
@voncello Oh, and I meant to ask. What would your experiment to test the hypothesis that God existed look like?
@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.
@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.
@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
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.
@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.
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.
@IamtheMADman24 If you are commenting on my video "Slavery in the Bible... What's Up With That?" please comment on it at its page. People on this page have no idea what you are talking about and it is not related to the Shermer video.
@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?
@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 You're making a lot of classic creationist arguments like "well, it's just not enough evidence" or "but this individual agrees with me" and "science is just another kind of faith". You argue semantics instead of evidence and bring up irrelevant data in the fallacious supposition that if ancient people were right about X, it increases the odds of them being right about Y.
@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.
@CHARESTHEHAMER Church going in Louisiana is 54% and the chances of getting murdered 8 in 100,000. In Vermont the figures are 24% and 1 in 100,000. Crime rates are very low in Scandinavia, where atheism is also rampant. Check out atheism rates in US prisons, even allowing for the obvious bias that will be encountered there.
Atheism forces a realisation of individual responsibility, and has no forgiving father figure.
@shiftyjake In your experiment would we actually observe one species becoming another? What would the time limit be? So far when we have observed quickly breeding insects and introduced genetic changes, the species self corrects eventually. These experiments prove the opposite of your claim. So am I to accept actual evidence from experiments or your wild speculations based on hope and faith?
@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.
@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.
I like how this guy has a sense of humor.
@coolgreyoneabby Specifically, what do you mean when you use the term "non random selection"? What process has Science shown to be responsible for these intricate proteins without whom life would not be able to function at the most basic levels?
@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.
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.
@voncello Now, back to my experiment. To be properly done, it would require a time limit chosen by using what we know about the speed of changes in gene frequency in any given species and the predicted amount of change required to result in new species. So, what would you tag and follow to prove that God exists? Please be specific. Include which deity you are testing to reduce confusion.
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.
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.
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?
@Sc0ttPrian The idea that you can say something is wrong and do it anyway believing that God will forgive you runs contrary to Judaism which says if you know something is wrong don't do it. Some have speculated that the Christian founders purposely created a religion that would attract the maximum number of followers. How great to think you can do anything and be quickly forgiven! But how can you claim to be a fulfillment of Judaism yet go against its principles? Hence the emphasis on faith.
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.
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!
@pcruze81 this "next week" I meant to say in that last comment.
@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.
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.
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.
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 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".
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.
@pcruze81 I ask a very simple question. You say that evolution is false, yet offer no explanation of how it did happen. Instead of name calling and doing the typical "you are wrong" accusation, I simply ask you what you think happened. So I'll ask again. What do you think brought us here and why do you think that. I am perfectly willing to answer those exact questions and my video suggestions give further insight into the evidence for my position. What is your positions?
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.
@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?
@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.
"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."
No, actually evolution doesn't say that at all. In fact abiogenesis, which is about the formation of life from non life, which I believe is what your talking about, doesn't even say that life was created from molten lava. So, not only do you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, but your confusing evolution with abiogenesis, which is a different theory. And abiogenesis isn't even described as life from molten lava. So, please understand the theory before you make a comment like that.
I love the 'Son of God' ads before these vids. Very telling.
@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 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...
@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.
@pcruze81 That is why religion has a problem with evolution. Religion always assumed that the complexity we see today could only be explained by a deity. Science discovered a naturalistic method whereby the complexity of nature can be explained by natural processes. Evidence from many separate fields of investigation independently corroborated that explanation. Today, that evidence fills warehouses and museums. Religion resists that idea since it diminishes the importance of their deity.
@Sc0ttPrian I think you misinterpreted my comment. I was responding to strangerlover who is a Muslim. He said that he laughs at people who don't accept the Koran and all that Muslim writings say. So he is the one who is laughing at people for expressing non-belief. My point was to ask him how he would feel if Christians laughed at him because he doesn't believe in Jesus. People shouldn't laugh at each other because they don't believe things that are unproven. Seeking evidence is intelligent.
@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.
@pcruze81 I've played this game before. I present evidence and the Creationists rejects it or keeps asking questions until the honest answer is: "we don't know....yet" and the Creationists believes he has supported his side. The fact is that the evidence for evolution is so vast, you couldn't review it all in the rest of your lifetime. The evidence for Creationism is nothing more than misunderstandings and cherry picking data to support a pre conceived world view.
Exactly right! And, having grown up from the same books and environment, the teachers themselves actually believe that it has been proven. So, they think that they are teaching proven ideas. I used to believe in evolution. I have since realized that evolution is false and the 'Special Creation' has to be the only other option. Bill Gates said that the DNA code is far more sophisticated than software program that man can come up with and that it took a high intelligence to write it. He should K
Evolution, like all of science, is to be understood, not “believed in.”
@shiftyjake You said, " Look, whether I'm imagining the universe or not, in my world the scientific method is good for testing hypotheses." This is a false argument for two reasons: 1. I never said you are imagining the universe, I said you are jumping to conclusions about evolution that haven't been tested with the scientific method, and 2. I am the one who is arguing for the scientific method and you are arguing that one should jump to faith based conclusions without proof.