Jerry Coyne, author of “Why Evolution is True”, explains…well…exactly that! Great information contained in this video! Links to purchase Jerry’s book in the description!
Should you happen to be perusing this posting and its related comments:: I was adopted as an infant by what I've come to describe as a post Mennonite family (in fact, just one generation removed from the horse and buggy); and I have a few horror stories concerning religious child rearing. (no pun intended) that may prove useful in some way. I know first hand and far too intimately how people who profess and propagate the cowardly and willful ignorance at the heart of the creationist comments posted below treat their fucking children. I survived such a childhood although not unscathed. (quite damaged actually). I suspect many children will not be so fortunate.
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science I wrote this incredible article about the mind of an evolutionist. Everyone should go read it and see how I absolutely destroyed evolution. Come refute me on there. www.freeamericanmedia.com/evolutionist/
Look. I will not refute your tired old inaccurate micro-vs macro-evolution argument. As this species becomes more informed and scientifically literate, people like you who propagate such willfully ignorant memes will be increasingly deselected from the online environment. Like or not, we live in a Darwinian reality. Good bye.
Sean Coleman No. I don't mind. My biological parents had rocky relationship. They splitting up and then getting back together and having more children. There was a lot alcoholism involved as well. From there I went to my biological grandmother's house and was soon after taken by the Children's Aide and placed in the Mennonite foster home at 14 months of age and was eventually adopted by them at 5 years of age.
@@Randy-p2e7j Don't stress yourself putting people in false categories just because you dislike him middle fingering what, creationists? From my firsthand experience, They're the ones fucking people up. I second the motion for middle fingers😂
A quote from down below... "There are lots of questions to ask about evolution. Evolution is a thing that happens, that is settled. But how things evolve and the mechanisms that drive it are largely unknown." Well, let's put it under a spotlight. Here is an analogy to start. On the first day of the baseball season in 2023, a professional baseball player hits a single between third base and shortstop. Is it evidence he will lead the majors in home runs for the year? No. Conversely, are theorized evolution's little 'singles' evidence of it causing 'home runs' to be called instances of macroevolution? Are little 'singles' such as ERVs, loss of offspring capability [speciation], and DNA mutations evidence of evolutionary homeruns? How about the chance-arguments of homologous structures, homologous organs, analogous organs, vestigial organs, and DNA similarities evidence of the macroevolution mind-constructs? These suppose to be predictive of the evolutionary theory. Let's look at the biggest evidence of evolutionary 'singles'. They are adaptations to changed environments, new threats, or diets. These are observable such as the Darwin Finch beaks, butterfly color change to brown in offspring due to droughts, lizard's footpad or elongation of the gut changes. The problem with these singles? In 2014, it was found it is an already existing biological system called the epigenome with pre-ability for adaptations WITHOUT ToE's 'engine' of DNA mutations into new DNA sequences being involved into any of the macroevolution mind-constructs. Epigenome-derived adaptation abilities were not credited for passing new traits and adaptations hundreds of generations until 2014. The sleuthing by scientific method by Dr. Michael Skinner proved these adaptations had correlation to epigenetics and NOT to natural selection of beneficial DNA mutations. This turns out to be the THIRD ASPECT of the epigenome in which has gene expression modifications within it and putting a fetus together. This fits the predictive power of the intelligent design model, not the mindless evolution model. What happens with a baseball player who hits a double or a triple but misses the first base bag as he rounds it? He can be called out by an appeal to first base with the baseball. Even with a home run! It's all disallowed. Conversely, with the evolutionary theory...epigenome-derived adaptations results in ToE missing the first place bag. The macroevolution homeruns becomes a false equivocation and sleight of hand. All of the chance-argument 'evidences' such as vestigial organs, homologous organs/structures, vestigial organs, and ERVs become moot and laid out to be framed evidence with a bias to a conclusion of desired evolution. Evolution is not happening. Academic studies have a found-wrong precept standing at first base as evidence as 'microevolution'. It is memorizing all of the framed evidence points and all of the rescue excuses used to explain away pro-intelligent design evidence. If you are going to get into the field of evolution, take a course on story writing, too. The only evolution that is occurring is the story of it thru the years. Polished and honed to become more and more convincing. Don't go thru life being fooled. It is so much fun and rewarding to know the truths.
@@TheMickeymental Evolution was a figment of Charles Darwin's imagination. The evidence was against him when he wrote his book and he knew it. Chapter 6: "But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed." He basically repeated himself in chapter 10, but the issue here is that Darwin somehow assumes there should be less transition fossils than there are non-transitional fossils. There should be a number of transitional fossils that equal the number of species. We don't find them because they may not exist. Evolutionists get around the fact that evolution is falsified by repeating "evolution is true" incessantly.
"I feel like I'm preaching to the choir so much, I ask myself...why am I doing this, I like it." You are doing it because in preaching to the choir this video was produced, which will be seen by honest searchers who may have just stumbled on all the evidence they need to finally free themselves of superstitious nonsense.
Christopher Fernandez, you wrote, "I feel like I'm preaching to the choir so much, I ask myself...why am I doing this, I like it." You are doing it because in preaching to the choir this video was produced, which will be seen by honest searchers who may have just stumbled on all the evidence they need to finally free themselves of superstitious nonsense." I suspect the reason you feel like you are preaching to the choir is because you have been tricked into believing that evolution is true. Dan
@@BibleResearchTools One doesn't get tricked into thinking evolution is true. I was tricked into thinking creationism is true. Then I noticed the lies, more lies then the fact that there is very little truth at all in creationism. So I had no consideration. ID was a flop, a farce and a fake. So where to? I studied and learned and it took a long time to understand the science. And I am still learning. But creationism? It's a scam.
ozowen wrote, "@Bible Research Tools One doesn't get tricked into thinking evolution is true." If you believe evolution is true, you have been hoodwinked, ozowen. ozowen wrote, "I was tricked into thinking creationism is true. Then I noticed the lies, more lies then the fact that there is very little truth at all in creationism." Creationism has boatloads of data supporting it, including: evidence in the fossil record of abrupt appearance followed by stasis, and disparity before diversity; evidence in the geologic column of thick, homogenous, laminated, uneroded, unbioturbated, marine-fossil-laden sedimentary rock layers stacked on top of each other, world-wide; evidence of total stasis in observable living organisms; evidence within organisms of widespread symbiotic relationships; evidence in the living cells of the most complex factories on earth, complete with molecular machines that keep the cell operational; a hierarchal gene regulatory network that controls the cellular operations, including reproduction; and this miraculous chicken-and-egg feature -- proteins are made by molecular machines which themselves are made of proteins. So, which came first: the proteins that are used as building blocks for the molecular machines, or the molecular machines that make those protein building blocks? Evolution has this "evidence" supporting it: time, and dumb luck! ozowen wrote, "I studied and learned and it took a long time to understand the science. And I am still learning. But creationism? It's a scam." Is it too late to get your money back? Dan
@@BibleResearchTools LOL "Creationism has boatloads of data supporting it, including: evidence in the fossil record of abrupt appearance followed by stasis" You mean the kind of stop start that had the earlier scientists convinced that God was wiping out whole species and creating new ones? The problem with your amusing "evidence" is that it still has changes- constantly. And less static than you claimed. However, the fossil record is also a robust record of trait appearances. Funny thing is that the animals/ insect and plants (as well as the other kingdoms) align. For example, the earliest fossils of plants are minus roots. Then rooting plants- but self cloning. Then by spores (a form of self cloning) then finally by seeds. Meanwhile you have animals with no spines, then spines appearing in proto form, then in advanced and diversifying forms. Then hip and shoulder girdles, fins, necks, digits, wings and so on. The traits are in a clear order that cannot be explained by creationism except by outrageous nonsense and some very laughable lies. My personal favourite was that the order reflects the speed of escape to higher ground. Not sure how that explains the arrangement of flora in order as well. But always good for a chuckle. But I think the most interesting thing to notice about creationism is this: It straddles geology and Biology. Two hugely lucrative fields of science. My son in law is an evolutionary Biologist. He works for a research facility that is in a huge financial consortium with an agricultural business. The money is used to further research and of course, the business itself uses the science gained to improve crop outcomes. Why are creationist "institutes" not engaged in such deals? They don't need government money, so they can't spin that yarn. They have the "truth" so fossil fuel exploration or agriculture, or neuropsychology, or epidemiology or medicine would be more lucrative and more of benefit to humankind than.... what is it they run on? Donations, ticket sales, DVD and book sales? It's almost like creationism is as functional as a chocolate frypan.
ozowen wrote, "@Bible Research Tools LOL "Creationism has boatloads of data supporting it, including: evidence in the fossil record of abrupt appearance followed by stasis" You mean the kind of stop start that had the earlier scientists convinced that God was wiping out whole species and creating new ones? The problem with your amusing "evidence" is that it still has changes- constantly. And less static than you claimed." That is not true, ozowen. The fossil record is a record of discontinuities that reveals the abrupt appearance of fully-formed species, which remain that way until they disappear from the fossil record. There is no continuity, and there are no exceptions. Any honest paleontologist will tell you the same thing. ozowen wrote, "However, the fossil record is also a robust record of trait appearances." I have no idea what that means. I do know that all major phyla alive today appeared very early in the fossil record, and fully formed. Paleontologists call that "disparity before diversity," which is the opposite of what Darwin predicted. ozowen wrote, "Funny thing is that the animals/ insect and plants (as well as the other kingdoms) align. For example, the earliest fossils of plants are minus roots. Then rooting plants- but self cloning. Then by spores (a form of self cloning) then finally by seeds. Meanwhile you have animals with no spines, then spines appearing in proto form, then in advanced and diversifying forms. Then hip and shoulder girdles, fins, necks, digits, wings and so on. The traits are in a clear order that cannot be explained by creationism except by outrageous nonsense and some very laughable lies. My personal favourite was that the order reflects the speed of escape to higher ground. Not sure how that explains the arrangement of flora in order as well. But always good for a chuckle." That is meaningless, ozowen. Homology can never be evidence of evolution. It can be a consequence of evolution, if evolution were true, but never evidence. Besides, all species in the fossil record appear fully-formed with no obvious evolutionary history. Richard Dawkins made a similar statement about the earliest appearances: _"[T]he Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." [Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design." W. W. Norton & Company, 1987, Chap 9, p.229]_ That is true throughout the fossil record. However, if you have a vivid imagination, you can imagine, say, an ambulocetus is an ancestor to the whale, or an archaeopteryx is a descendant of a dinosaur; but that is not science. ozowen wrote, "But I think the most interesting thing to notice about creationism is this: It straddles geology and Biology. Two hugely lucrative fields of science. My son in law is an evolutionary Biologist. He works for a research facility that is in a huge financial consortium with an agricultural business. The money is used to further research and of course, the business itself uses the science gained to improve crop outcomes." There is no evolution to be found in the development of agricultural plants or products, ozowen, nor in the development of pharmaceuticals, biochemicals, or any other product. You will find intelligent design everywhere you look in those industries, but no evolution. Even Jerry Coyne admits that, sort of: _"As far as I know, there have been only two genuine commercial applications of evolutionary theory. One is the use of 'directed evolution' to produce commercial products (such as enzymes to protect crop plants from herbicides). The other is the clever use of insecticide-free 'pest refuges' to stop herbivorous insects evolving resistance to herbicides containing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins, a strategy derived from principles of population genetics. There will certainly be more of these to come. And evolutionary algorithms are used in designing computer programs, and may have uses in engineering and economics." [Jerry A. Coyne, "Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?". Nature, Vol 442, Aug 31, 2006, p.983]_ Now, the phrase "directed evolution" is just a fancy way of describing "intelligent scientists, in intelligently-designed laboratories, using intelligently-designed laboratory equipment and procedures to create new products." That is all it means. ozowen wrote, "Why are creationist "institutes" not engaged in such deals? They don't need government money, so they can't spin that yarn." Scientists, who also happen to be creationists, are engaged in all types of applied sciences and engineering, ozowen. Some work side-by-side with evolutionists. There is no need for them to be evolutionists since evolution is useless in the applied sciences, and is never discussed. I was an evolutionist my entire career in the applied sciences, and not once was evolution ever mentioned. We were too busy trying to make everything work. Evolution is useful only in academia and book publishing. I have noticed that some of the more vocal evolutionists have complained that scientists in some fields are not mentioning "evolution" in their research, or not often enough. I have personally noticed that when "evolution" or "Darwin" are inserted into scientific papers, they rarely serve any purpose other than to add unnecessary speculation. ozowen wrote, "They have the "truth" so fossil fuel exploration or agriculture, or neuropsychology, or epidemiology or medicine would be more lucrative and more of benefit to humankind than.... what is it they run on? Donations, ticket sales, DVD and book sales? It's almost like creationism is as functional as a chocolate frypan." The creation sciences have exactly the same "application" as the evolutionary sciences -- to present their version of a historical narrative. Nothing else. Dan
Some lineages of single celled organisms may, under specific circumstances, evolve a tendency to group together and form colony-organisms, which could be seen as a stage intermediary between single celled organisms and true multicellular organisms.
I love this guy. He makes evolution so easily understood by the laymen like me. I love science and as an avid science fan, I do not cling to religious dogma. That is all fucking bullshit. Science in the end will always work because it has numerous implications to improving our technological industry to making medical advances.
Migrako, in response to this statement by @jplogsdon, "God can create life any way He wants to," you replied, "Please provide evidence for this assertion." Perhaps I can shed some light. First, let's see what God said about life: _"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind... Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen __1:11__-12, 20-21, 24-25 KJV_ A careful analysis reveals that God created every plant and animal as we see them today, for example, herbs, fruit, grasses, whales, fowl, cattle, etc.., which God called "kinds;" and God told the plants and animals to multiply after their "kinds." Linnaeus identified the biblical "kind" as a group of species with common characteristics, with the species sub-grouped into genus. So we have organisms ordered by kind, genus, and species, which, under the modern naming convention, would be family, genus, and species. If the Bible is correct, that grouping is what we would expect to see in living organisms and in the fossil record, with no exceptions. So, the question is, are there exceptions? Do we see species in one family gradually migrating (or transitioning, or evolving) into another family? The answer is no. At the time Coyne wrote his book, "Why Evolution is True" (2009,) paleontologists understood that it took a vivid imagination, combined with circular reasoning to "see" evolution in the fossil record -- some brave ones plainly stated that evolution was not seen in the rocks. Therefore, the hope of the evolutionist was that the genome would reveal evolution, or at least a mechanism for evolution. Beginning in 2008, it became reasonably clear from secular research that it was virtually impossible for two coordinated mutations to occur in humans: _"Our previous work has shown that, in humans, a new transcription factor binding site can be created by a single mutation in an average of 60,000 years, but, as our new results show, a coordinated pair of mutations that first inactivates a binding site and then creates a new one is very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale." [Durrett & Schmidt, "Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution." Genetics, Vol.180, No.3; Nov 1, 2008, p.1507]_ www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501 It would take hundreds, even thousands of coordinated mutations to build a protein for a new physical novelty (i.e., a new body part,) not to mention the new regulatory information to render it functional. Therefore, we can rightly assume that human evolution never occurred. But what about more populous organisms, such as bacteria? Well, thanks to over 30 years of E. coli research by Richard Lenski at Michigan State, we now have a historical record of 70,000+ generations of E. coli, without the occurrence of any evolution whatsoever. There is evidence of devolution -- the breaking of genes via mutation, some resulting in adaptation -- but no evolution. For the record, modern genetic research reveals that the genus and species exist due to a reshuffling and mutation of their respective family genomes, and that there is a genetic barrier at the family level, as alluded to in this 2018 report by science writer Marlowe Hood: _"And yet-another unexpected finding from the study-species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. "If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space." The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said." [Hood, Marlowe, "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution." __Phys.Org__, May 28, 2018]_ phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html It appears that God is right, and Darwin was wrong. Dan
@@BibleResearchTools Your argument goes: a book says that god says that god is correct and Darwin is wrong. Conclusion: god is correct and Darwin is wrong. Can you not see the lack of logic here?
Mee Hee, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Your argument goes: a book says that god says that god is correct and Darwin is wrong. Conclusion: god is correct and Darwin is wrong. Can you not see the lack of logic here?" Not at all. Can you present scientific evidence that Charlie Darwin is right? Not a chance. LOL! There is only one logical alternative: a creator God. For the record, the great scientists of the Scientific Revolution were convinced that God was the creator and designer. Their mission in life was to figure out how God did it. Dan
Some random Weeb, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools there is evidence, you just don't want to see/accept it." I have been asking evolutionists for scientific evidence of evolution for years, and none have been able to present any. If you know of any evidence, please present it. I eagerly await. Dan
I did not even mention that petition. There are plenty of scientists who openly say that Darwinism is just plain wrong. I recently met with a PhD Geneticist from Cornell who believes in a Young Earth, John Sanford. There is also the MRI inventor Dr. Raymond Damadian. There is a physics professor who has a masters, has worked with NASA, and goes to m Church etc. All three have put their academic careers on the line. They are not getting rich, as some accuse them of doing.
Quite the contrary, it is quite amazing and fulfilling that we "in this day and age" even know what starts are made of. Conversely, it is saddening that with all the discoveries we've made about ourselves and our surroundings via scientific method that there are still people who would believe what a man in a funny robe tells them was secretly whispered to him behind closed doors. WITHOUT QUESTION!
I'm all for critical thinking. But I wonder just how critically thought out the idea that life happened by accident was? Those who are fans of abiogenesis apparently are unaware that it has never been proven to work. I'll bet the best biologists and biochemists could replicate an ameba from scratch, and never get it to come alive. Never mind "accident", "life" is more than a collection of its parts. It has intelligence or it would not be able to adapt to its environment. That intelligence is not an innate property of matter. Religion, or more accurately spirituality, is another supermaterial phenom similar to life. No one "needs" it in order to live this life. But if becoming perfect is your goal, you're going to need help from a mental add-on called a Thought Adjuster, which is our guide to becoming more perfect.
I posted a video response to just a few of his claims (particularly the one about the whale leg). The title is "Whale Leg Discovery - Initial Thoughts..." He claims that Creationists in general teach that species do not change. This is simply not the case. He also claims that the Discovery Institute teaches that species do not change, this is also just plain not true. Edward Blyth (a Creationist) was the first person to describe Natural Selection. Creationists do believe in Natural Selection.
@@smithappiah3949 Evolution is based on facts, if you want something that is based on assumptions then choose one of the 10,000 known gods. Zeus was also very popular at one time. Do you believe in Zeus? No, why not?
*A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that evolution should lead to some particular trait,* such as a large brain. There is no "goal' to evolution; not speed, not strength, not intelligence and certainly not 'humanity'. Evolution is about one thing: survival. Evolution occurs at the molecular level. Mutations occur with every cell division and replication in every living species. Those mutations are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. It is the then current environment which wields the pruning shears, favoring those mutations that best suit the organism for that environment and apes were very well suited for their forest environment.. Millions of years ago, when forests covered much of Africa, those forests harbored 30 or more species of apes, but as the climate of east Africa changed becoming dryer, the forests diminished and grasslands expanded. Competition among apes apecies increased and many went extinct. One population of apes that opted for life on the open savanna stood on two feet and faced different evolutionary pressures that set their descendants on an evolutionary trajectory that culminated in us. The populations of apes that stayed in the forests became today's chimps, bonobos, orangs and gorillas. The modern human brain is about 2% of total body mass, yet is requires fully 20% of total caloric consumption. I think you can understand that for most animals it is a daily challenge to consume enough calories just to survive, and a larger brain would be more of a burden than an asset. It is also the case that the larger human brain requires that babies be born at a less advanced stage of neural development placing an additional burden primarily on the mother. Japanese researchers have compared brain scans of baby macaques, chimps and human children and found that brain volume for both chimp and human babies increase at three times the rate of infant macaques, however, during early childhood, human brain expansion was twice that of chimpanzees due to rapid growth of connections between brain cells. In the human infant, fully 60% of caloric intake go into neuronal development. For just about any other species, the necessity for such a long childhood would place them at a survival disadvantage. We are just now beginning to understand the environmental pressures that lead to a larger brain; increasingly complex social networks, the development of language that enabled a culture built around tool manufacture and use and cooperative hunting no doubt played a role. The challenges of a rapidly changing climate may also have been a contributing factor. But if it had not been for the development of language, humanity would have had to continuously re-invent the Acheulian Hand Axe. Two factors allowing human speech are the hyoid bone, also present in Neanderthals, to which the muscles of the tongue are attached, and a particular variant of the FOXP2 gene found in other mammals that allows for complex speech. Humans share this variant with both Neanderthal and Denisovans, indicating that it was inherited from a common ancestor. Neither chimps, bonobos or other apes have that variation, indicating that it arose sometime after the species diverged. So, yes, the human evolutionary history is indeed complex, but as Richard Feynman said, "Science is the joy of finding things out.". We are getting a lot of clues as to the expansion of the human brain from embryology and comparative genomics, but we see a progression in brain size from early mammals to primates, to monkeys, to apes and to humans. It may be of interest to you to know that while most mammal brains are smooth, primate brains have convolutions which increase the surface area of the cortex. we see increased convolutions from monkeys to apes and more in humans. See: "Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language". Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002) www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6900/full/nature01025.html ------------------ "The increase in total cerebral volume during early infancy and the juvenile stage in chimpanzees and humans was approximately three times greater than that in macaques," the researchers wrote in the journal article. But human brains expanded much more dramatically than chimpanzee brains during the first few years of life; most of that human-brain expansion was driven by explosive growth in the connections between brain cells, which manifests itself in an expansion in white matter. Chimpanzee brain volumes ballooned about half that of humans' expansion during that time period. Human Intelligence Secrets Revealed by Chimp Brains By Tia Ghose, Senior Writer | December 18, 2012 07:01pm www.livescience.com/25655-chimp-brains-reveal-human-intelligence.html
Coyne fails to mention several important points: 1. Evolution is not the cause for existence of life, it is a mechanism by which life comes into existence. 2. Coyne completely misses the opportunity to discuss the conditions in the universe that were required for Darwinian evolution to begin and be a sustained dynamical process, i.e., fine-tuning of physical parameters, precise setting of initial conditions that gave us a spatially homogeneous and isotropic universe which by Einstein's equations only can allow for a stable dominant matter distribution in the universe at late times. 3. Coyne also completely misses the fact (as many biologists do) that evolution occurs because it is governed by underlying laws of physics -> thermodynamics (Boltzmann's equation, reaction-diffusion equations on local scales, etc...), electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and of course quantum mechanics. These processes work together in a bottom-up causation fashion combined with a top-down causation through cosmological effects to set the correct setting for Darwinian evolution. Another key point that Coyne completely misses is the whole process of evolution can occur because we have a thermodynamic arrow of time. This arrow of time was seeded in the early universe through elementary particle processes such as: neutron -> proton + electron + electron neutrino. My main point is that you cannot even begin to explain "Why Evolution is True" without examining the underlying laws of physics, and more importantly the precise initial conditions that must be imbued upon the local variational principles and partial differential equations which in turn govern these laws of physics and allow a dynamic process to begin and to be sustained. So at best, this book gives a very narrow view on evolution, very much from a biologist's perspective which is not sufficient in any sense if one truly wishes to understand how evolution truly works. Sincerely, Dr. Ikjyot Singh Kohli
Ikjyot Singh Kohli No, none of that is necessary to discuss evolution."Evolution is not the cause for existence of life, it is a mechanism by which life comes into existence." - this sentence is false and self-contradictory.
mdiem From a mathematical standpoint, evolution describes a system that changes its state over time, i.e., it is a dynamical system. If none of this is necessary to understand evolution, please explain: 1. What are the initial conditions for evolution? 2. What are the conditions of free parameters that govern bifurcations, etc... 3. What governs the properties of the dynamical system so as to have uniqueness and existence of solutions?
Ikjyot Singh Kohli "Another key point that Coyne completely misses is the whole process of evolution can occur because we have a thermodynamic arrow of time. This arrow of time was seeded in the early universe" Yes, clearly evolution is dependent on a universe that has an arrow of time that only points forward. In fact, one of the explanations for life and homeostasis is that it is a form of reverse or inverse entropy. I find this idea very compelling. In a way, evolution on our planet may be considered as inevitable as the passage of time itself. Although it is interesting to me that life follows certain blueprints over and over and can reinvent itself with similar structures independently and sometimes separated by millions of years. But this presumably is the result of certain existing conditions including gravity, atmosphere and, of course, lots of water.
I've read Jerry Coyne's book, and highly recommend it. I've read a TON of popular science books, and Coyne's book, I think, is the best book I've read who's specific purpose is to explain the evidence upon which the theory's acceptance as a central theory of biology is based. Most creationists aren't swayed by evidence, but not all are that way. For those that aren't, this would be a good book to learn why the theory is so universally accepted in biology.
*EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - The Transition from oviperous (egg laying) vertebrates to Placental Mammals.* Clues to how it happened are revealed by studying Monotremes, one of the three classifications of mammals; the other two being Marsupials (Metatherians) and Placentals (Eutherians). Monotremes were an early branch of mammalian evolution and still retain several reptilian traits, one of which is laying eggs. The word 'Monotreme' means 'one hole', referring to the fact that the bodily functions of urination, defecation and sex are performed through a single orifice, aptly called a 'cloaca', Latin for 'sewer'. It too, was inherited from the Amniote common ancestor of reptiles and birds. Today, the only surviving monotremes are the Australian Platypus and the four species of Echidna of Australia/New Guinea (the ancient continent Sahul). It is the yolk of an egg that provides nutrition for a developing embryo, which would originate from a small white spot on the yolk called the germinal disc. Birds have 3 genes producing the protein Vitelogenin that is the major component of the yolk. Placental mammals, including humans, do not produce yolk but still have those 3 genes in their genomes but they are pseudo genes, disabled by mutations that created a premature 'stop' codon or a 'frame shift' that scrambled the following DNA. Monotremes retain just one of those vitelogenin genes and produce an egg about the size of a dime with very little yolk. Those eggs are placed in the mother's pouch where they soon hatch and gain further nutrition from milk which is secreted from a patch of the mother's skin. In placental mammals, the embryo is attached to a tiny yolk sac in the early weeks of a pregnancy which provides nourishment. It is the outer layer of this sac that develops into the placenta. The placenta then forms hairlike projections that extend into the wall of the uterus. Blood vessels from the embryo, which pass through the umbilical cord to the placenta, develop in those projections. When the placenta is fully formed it will take over the transfer of nutrients to the embryo from the mother's body. If the placenta does not attach to the uterine wall, the ovum is flushed out at the next menstrual cycle. Reference: Loss of Egg Yolk Genes in Mammals and the Origin of Lactation and Placentation journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060063
For anyone who is interested, I put together a series of videos responding to this lecture starting about two years ago. Interestingly Dr. Coyne makes several factual errors in this video (about what embryologists actually say about embryology etc.) and he commits several straw man errors in talking about Creationists.
@heymanhmm Do you live close to DC. There is a Reason Rally on March 24th 2012. The there is an Atheist convention on the 25th I believe. It may be interesting for you.
One is operations science and one is origins science. There is a major difference between these two concepts, and it is important to keep in mind. I am not saying that makes one or the other invalid, just that they are not parallel with each other. There is a scientist out there who has his students hold a pencil in front of themselves and drop it, and he says "good" and then asks the students to make the bacteria on their desks become human. One can be observed directly, but the other cannot.
i do not know if we are in the same page, i did not become atheist over night, was like i finally put togheter a lot of information or data and i got my eureka moment, this is the only life i will have so i plan to enjoy it so you should thanks
BTW, my degree is in Biotechnology. I have heard both sides. I do not mean to wave a piece of paper around, but it means something - it means that I understand science and am not just believing what I do because I do not understand science.
Wow, I am impressed with this reply. I did not know enough about economics or politics to be that specific, but it seemed like a slanted curve to me (no pun intended).
@TheAdawon 1) radiometric dating of igneous rock 2) symmetry breaking 3) cern is working on it 4) what? anyway, mere chance or guided chance makes a huge difference
@SoulsResonance I'm glad to see you're on the right track. As far as the creationism vs evolution is concerned, it stems from a religious need to view the biblical creation myths as literal histories and reject the notion that humans are part of the animal kingdom. There are shades beyond this, but the core of the arguments is the same. Creationists feel that if evolution is true then Adam and Eve are false and so loosens the grip of original sin and therefore makes people immoral.
Actually yes, and with good reason. What we see in molecular genetics is similarities between different organisms. How those similarities got there is a different question. Evolutionists believe that it is due to common ancestor, while Creationists believe that it is due to a common designer (and to a lesser extent, common ancestor - dogs and wolves for example). Sometimes similarities follow the taxonomic diagrams, and sometimes they don't. Eyes of octopi and mice for example.
i like the kid at the end's question about how life began. way back in the '70s at the ontario science centre they would do a live show to illustrate one theory. they took an aquarium and simulated the chemistry (not the rest) of earth atmosphere +1.5B years and shot a static charge through it. after they tested the sides of the chamber to find elements of RNA. they did this show for every grade school class, that's how i saw it. too bad now its all about lego.
I am an atheist because I am not an idiot. Additionally, I have no need of gods, devils, magicians, fairies. I know that the purpose of my life is to add to the sum total of humanity, whatever I am able to. I know that in my work as a teacher, I have helped shape the minds just a little, of hundreds of children and this will impact to a small extent - even on their children. That has given and continues to give, great meaning to my life.
There are three very serious problems with Radiometric dating, though. You must assume that: 1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past. 2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known. 3) The sample has remained in a closed system. There is no way of knowing these factors precisely and we have seen problems with Radiometrics in the past. Furthermore, if heat is involved in the fossilization of creatures the dates become even more erroneous.
ie He misrepresented what Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents says. AnswersinGenesis and also groups like the Discovery Institute never argue that species don't change, quite the opposite.
@MegaFloyd100 From his book: In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium,
You have to consider that this is a process which occurs over a extremely large scale of time and not on all members of a species at the same time. One has the modification, breeds (if its able to), shares its genom and so on. All the explanations of the world exist, but I'm no studied expert. I've read a lot, and forgotten much of it. But I know anytime where to look, and thats worth something. ;-) Like I said, check out Richard Dawkins. He is a genious on this field and will answer all Qs.
Once upon a time, there were 2 frogs sitting by a random pond in a random forrest. One said to the other: "look at how perfect this pond is for us to live! we have all the food we need, the water is exactly the right tempurature, that piece of rock there provides a great shadow, ... surely this pond was made by the causeless immaterial outside-of-space-time frog in who's image we were made so that we could enjoy it..." It's called the teleological fallacy.
@seeheers The specimen at 20:24 is NGMC 91, in 2004 relegated from being a relative of Sinornithosaurus millenii to being a relative of Microraptor. It's still classified as having feathers. Do try to inform yourself.
Biological evolution is essentially two observable natural processes, firstly, the change in traits across generations and, secondly, natural selection. Genetic mutations (copying errors) in offspring produces genetic diversity and natural selection is the process that selects the fittest for survival, because animals with harmful mutations tend to die before they can reproduce. The conclusion, based on the facts of biological evolution, is common descent.
The reason we assume the around 6000-10000 years of existence is because of factors such as the salinity of the ocean, the composer of the moons surface etc. Would you please tell me your method of dating or how you determine 250 million years? Thank you.
Good stuff. He and Dawkins are always a pleasure to hear. Reading Darwin is also very worthwhile. The Descent of Man in my opinion is more interesting but both that and Origin of Species are both wonderful. And anything by Dawkins is always worthwhile. I hope in 100 years if we are still around science will become common sense.
The term "missing link" is a creationist red herring. The real question is--are there transitional CHARACTERISTICS (intermediate structures) between species? "Missing link" concentrates on the total creature, but it's the characteristics of a species that change over time. And there are countless examples. The fact that some forms survive long periods of time is not inconsistent with evolution. Change is not mandatory, if a body form works best within the environment, change isn't produced.
How do we know it was a billion years? Where did matter come from if it can neither be created or destroyed? How was the big bang produced? How is it that every little detail of matter could be created out of chance?
cont... The non-existence of fossils doesn't mean that the animal wasn't alive during that erra, it simply means that either A. the fossils don't exist or B. We haven't found them yet. Since it was first discovered that the coelacanth fish was still alive today (if a little different) more fossil discoveries have been made. There are specimens from 410MYA, 240MYA, and 75MYA. Clearly there are huge gaps between our fossil finds, so we should expect some gaps between then and today.
@Kursinphists To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English The scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
I said there are no homologous layers that are consistent with a world-wide flood. There are plenty that are consistent with an old earth and evolutionary change. And they can be cross referenced. Floods leave specific signs that are very different from normal sedimentation processes.
@MegaFloyd100 which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . .
When the flooding occurred it would not (likely) affect the deepest layers and it is likely that (as it was one of the top layers) years of more flooding, burning, and crop developmental would have made it less noticeable as it continued to get built on top of. And the short answer to your question "...Did the dinosaurs just appear?" is yes. As they were created along with other animals, but they would have likely been the most affected by world wide flooding.
So wouldn't you agree with me that coelacanth fish and the tadpole shrimp are pristine examples of inconsistency in the fossil record? Both supposedly extinct because the never appeared in a fossil layer with humans, but were both recently discovered to still be living among us?
My bad, didn't mean to twist your words. Would like to reference the layers you think are vital points of evolutionary change? That would be helpful. Also, wouldn't you agree these signs left by floods would eventually begin to change as the years went by? (More specifically about 6000 years.)
Kids rebel against their parents. Adults rebel against their maker. Unsurprising. Makes complete sense. The thing that doesn't make sense is the notion that people think they can pick a belief and that belief is then real because they chose it. It's akin to staring at you irl and closing their eyes and saying 'I'm going to believe, rather, that you are elvis.' The thought that you then become elvis doesn't seem to ocurr, just that you cease. As long as the eyes stay closed you're gone.
@Kursinphists " My DNA can look similar to my best friend's DNA, doesn't mean we share the same great-great-grandfather." ERVs can only be passed on to offspring. Humans sure several ERVs. Now the Kicker is that these ERVS are in the same LOCATIONS in our DNA.The Question is why would two species share the same ERVs at the same locations?. It is almost mathematical impossible for this to occur.The ERV's accrued at these locations in our DNA before we speciated.
@Kursinphists For example Aristoltle believed Emprdocles theory that everything was made out of four elements earth, air, fire, and water. This was a simple enough but did not make any definite predictions. On the other hand Newton's theory of gravity was based on an even simpler model in which bodies attracted each with a force that was proportional to a quantity called their mass and invertible proportional to the square of the distance between them.
From a Jerry Coyne review in the NYtimes: " My response is that while evolutionary biology can explain, for example, the origin of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, we shouldn’t see evolution as a cure for human woes. Its value is explanatory: to tell us how, when and why we got here..." Uhhh, right, why we got here? Is that a question that evolution and scientists ask, why we got here? Why we are here? These guys have nobody editing them that is for sure. Duh. We are too stupid to understand.
When the last drop is finished we then look at the glass thinking that was great, is that it. Then we assert the cycle of time and move on to try and recreate that same experience in our lives. Only after many attempts of failure doing so, do we realise that everything is temporary. Nothing ever lasts.
there are many priests and religious people who came up with the most useful scientific principles we use today (Newton, Lemaitre etc.) Lemaitre of course was the priest who came up with the expansion of the universe. Science and faith do not conflict as Coyne and Dawkins assert. Some pastors may lie and twist theories but so do scientists. Does Haeckel and Stanley-Miller mean anything to you? And, I have been to the Natural History Museum many time by the way many times.
History is always repeating itself. Outlook on life changes with time. Oil is a priceless commodity. But when it is all dried up it is likened to the analogy of a strawberry smoothy. When the last drop is finished we then look at the glass thinking that was great, is that it. Then we assert the cycle of time and move on to try and recreate that same experience in our lives. Only after many attempts of failure doing so, do we realise that everything is temporary. Nothing ever lasts.
I don't get why people find evolution hard to grasp or why people say it's "counter-intuitive." Evolution is just the combination of natural selection, mutation, and heredity. If you've ever noticed that a fast rabbit is less likely to be eaten by a fox than a slow rabbit, you understand natural selection. If you've ever noticed that you look more like your parents than random strangers off the street, you understand heredity.
You would like some of the Creation videos that I uploaded. I am a Young Earth Creationist. I agree that Evolution is impossible, however you should consider that it would not have been man that developed the blood clotting pathway, but an ancient ancestor that probably was more like a sponge, if Evolution were true. I do not know when they claim that blood clotting evolved though. Biochemist, Michael Behe did an excellent Job when he used blood clotting as Intelligent Design evidence though.
@theaccousticaddict (2) mate choice, heart rate regulation, sleep management, or predator vigilance,and each is activated by a different set of cues from the environment. How did emotions arise and assume their distinctive structures? Fighting, falling in love, escaping predators, confronting sexual infidelity, experiencing a failure-driven loss in status, responding to the death of a family member (and so on) each involved conditions, contingencies, situations, cont..
I am an open minded Christian and I am watching this video to try to understand where evolutionists are coming from and I am kind of disappointed how he unprofessionally bashes non-evolutionists and religious people. But I suppose he is entitled to his opinion.
Good presentation, except I guess I need to hear it in details to be persuaded. In a Q&A session, Jerry couldn't answer the question on origin of life. "we are making a lot progress on that" was Jerry's best answer. Why? Because that's when science hits impasse. I need something more concrete. Is there a youtube video that would walk me through from point A to point Z on evolution theory. If so, please recommend me one, thanks.
Actually monkeys are NOT our ancestors. Monkeys and humans are descended from a common ancestor - so it is more correct to say that they are our distant cousins.
The alternative is we just do science. We study, we observe, we explore and we keep advancing the margins of what we know. And where we don't know, we say we don't know. I'm not aware of anything particularly bad in doing that and it isn't the end of science.. it's the continuation of what the sciences were meant to do.
As Santayana said, Bacon forgot to say that the God one believes in after having studied science does not have much to do with the one believed in before. Spinoza's God or sive Natura seems to be a perfect example--from a personal God to an impersonal Nature.
"What does evolution have to do with healthcare?" Coyne gave a graph correlating a functional society with an acceptance of evolution, and conversely, a dysfunctional society with a belief in God and creationism. A functional society was measured my how well the society interacts, takes care of each other, standard of living, incarceration rates, public health care etc. Does that answer your question? Also why do you believe that more liberals don't believe in evolution?
If you have transitional form that coexists pre and post transition then to claim them as transition forms you have read into it a story. If you have a computer programmer who uses a library of routines. He may have all the routines in every piece software. By his own discretion he uses or activates certain aspects of some routine while even not using some routines. If you cross compare programs you can have similarities between some even if one is not a copy that is modified of another.
would develop in just that direction. In his view, the only problem facing his theory in the fossil record was a lack of fossil discoveries. He hoped that future research would unearth countless fossils to support his theory. However, subsequent scientific discoveries have actually proved Darwin's dreams to be totally unfounded.
@wowamonn I've already read a lot of books and papers on the subject--I am a scientist by the way. You mentioned Stephen Hawking and the big bang--how did the original particles begin--how did space itself and time begin? Would you like me to recommend a book for you to read?
"Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chpater 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together." The Blind Watchmaker P. 27 "Some species of the unjustly called "primitive" amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopedia Britannicas." The Blind Watchmaker P. 164 It does require intelligence to create information.
First, what do you mean a gap in the fossil record means nothing? That means absolutely everything. It means that the record is imperfect and if the fish could have been missing from certain layers, then so could other creatures.
So much on the way for you: the science community is no united conspiracy. Scientists try all the time to disproof theories of their collegues. Thats a big part of the game. So if there would be flaws or real "weak spots" about evolution, there would be a vast number of (real) scientists on the rise to comment on that. Endless scientific theories go into the trash every week on all branches of science. Evolution is consistent - and thats for a reason.I thank you honestly for this talk :) friend.
@Kursinphists Therefore since faith has a broad range of usage. It is better to use it within the context of the discussion. Now science can only be done using the scientific method. Having faith in the religious use of the word is not valid. Do you understand the difference or would you like me to re-post the definition of the word Faith once again?
Jerry Coyne, author of “Why Evolution is True”, explains…well…exactly that! Great information contained in this video!
Links to purchase Jerry’s book in the description!
Should you happen to be perusing this posting and its related comments:: I was adopted as an infant by what I've come to describe as a post Mennonite family (in fact, just one generation removed from the horse and buggy); and I have a few horror stories concerning religious child rearing. (no pun intended) that may prove useful in some way. I know first hand and far too intimately how people who profess and propagate the cowardly and willful ignorance at the heart of the creationist comments posted below treat their fucking children. I survived such a childhood although not unscathed. (quite damaged actually). I suspect many children will not be so fortunate.
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science I wrote this incredible article about the mind of an evolutionist. Everyone should go read it and see how I absolutely destroyed evolution. Come refute me on there. www.freeamericanmedia.com/evolutionist/
Look. I will not refute your tired old inaccurate micro-vs macro-evolution argument. As this species becomes more informed and scientifically literate, people like you who propagate such willfully ignorant memes will be increasingly deselected from the online environment. Like or not, we live in a Darwinian reality.
Good bye.
+John Clapp Do you mind me asking why your natural parents didn't bring you up?
Sean Coleman No. I don't mind.
My biological parents had rocky relationship. They splitting up and then getting back together and having more children. There was a lot alcoholism involved as well. From there I went to my biological grandmother's house and was soon after taken by the Children's Aide and placed in the Mennonite foster home at 14 months of age and was eventually adopted by them at 5 years of age.
Liked it. Practical, middlefingerish, and straight to the facts. There should be more of this.
Genius doesn't describe him. A better term would be bum.
@@Randy-p2e7j Don't stress yourself putting people in false categories just because you dislike him middle fingering what, creationists?
From my firsthand experience,
They're the ones fucking people up.
I second the motion for middle fingers😂
Thank you, RDFRS, for this video. I was taught most of my life (for religious reasons) that evolution was a lie. I'm thankful for videos like this.
A quote from down below...
"There are lots of questions to ask about evolution. Evolution is a thing that happens, that is settled. But how things evolve and the mechanisms that drive it are largely unknown."
Well, let's put it under a spotlight. Here is an analogy to start.
On the first day of the baseball season in 2023, a professional baseball player hits a single between third base and shortstop. Is it evidence he will lead the majors in home runs for the year? No. Conversely, are theorized evolution's little 'singles' evidence of it causing 'home runs' to be called instances of macroevolution?
Are little 'singles' such as ERVs, loss of offspring capability [speciation], and DNA mutations evidence of evolutionary homeruns? How about the chance-arguments of homologous structures, homologous organs, analogous organs, vestigial organs, and DNA similarities evidence of the macroevolution mind-constructs? These suppose to be predictive of the evolutionary theory.
Let's look at the biggest evidence of evolutionary 'singles'. They are adaptations to changed environments, new threats, or diets. These are observable such as the Darwin Finch beaks, butterfly color change to brown in offspring due to droughts, lizard's footpad or elongation of the gut changes. The problem with these singles? In 2014, it was found it is an already existing biological system called the epigenome with pre-ability for adaptations WITHOUT ToE's 'engine' of DNA mutations into new DNA sequences being involved into any of the macroevolution mind-constructs.
Epigenome-derived adaptation abilities were not credited for passing new traits and adaptations hundreds of generations until 2014. The sleuthing by scientific method by Dr. Michael Skinner proved these adaptations had correlation to epigenetics and NOT to natural selection of beneficial DNA mutations. This turns out to be the THIRD ASPECT of the epigenome in which has gene expression modifications within it and putting a fetus together. This fits the predictive power of the intelligent design model, not the mindless evolution model.
What happens with a baseball player who hits a double or a triple but misses the first base bag as he rounds it? He can be called out by an appeal to first base with the baseball. Even with a home run! It's all disallowed. Conversely, with the evolutionary theory...epigenome-derived adaptations results in ToE missing the first place bag. The macroevolution homeruns becomes a false equivocation and sleight of hand. All of the chance-argument 'evidences' such as vestigial organs, homologous organs/structures, vestigial organs, and ERVs become moot and laid out to be framed evidence with a bias to a conclusion of desired evolution.
Evolution is not happening. Academic studies have a found-wrong precept standing at first base as evidence as 'microevolution'. It is memorizing all of the framed evidence points and all of the rescue excuses used to explain away pro-intelligent design evidence. If you are going to get into the field of evolution, take a course on story writing, too. The only evolution that is occurring is the story of it thru the years. Polished and honed to become more and more convincing. Don't go thru life being fooled. It is so much fun and rewarding to know the truths.
It is a lie.
@@martylawrence5532 Evolution is a lie, and your statements are not true.
@@TheMickeymental Evolution was a figment of Charles Darwin's imagination. The evidence was against him when he wrote his book and he knew it. Chapter 6: "But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed." He basically repeated himself in chapter 10, but the issue here is that Darwin somehow assumes there should be less transition fossils than there are non-transitional fossils. There should be a number of transitional fossils that equal the number of species. We don't find them because they may not exist. Evolutionists get around the fact that evolution is falsified by repeating "evolution is true" incessantly.
@@TheMickeymental🤡
Brilliant presentation and lecture, I learned a lot.
Great speech Jerry !
Thanks alot.
I recommend to read the book. Fantastic!
"I feel like I'm preaching to the choir so much, I ask myself...why am I doing this, I like it." You are doing it because in preaching to the choir this video was produced, which will be seen by honest searchers who may have just stumbled on all the evidence they need to finally free themselves of superstitious nonsense.
Christopher Fernandez, you wrote, "I feel like I'm preaching to the choir so much, I ask myself...why am I doing this, I like it." You are doing it because in preaching to the choir this video was produced, which will be seen by honest searchers who may have just stumbled on all the evidence they need to finally free themselves of superstitious nonsense."
I suspect the reason you feel like you are preaching to the choir is because you have been tricked into believing that evolution is true.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools
One doesn't get tricked into thinking evolution is true. I was tricked into thinking creationism is true. Then I noticed the lies, more lies then the fact that there is very little truth at all in creationism.
So I had no consideration.
ID was a flop, a farce and a fake.
So where to?
I studied and learned and it took a long time to understand the science. And I am still learning.
But creationism?
It's a scam.
ozowen wrote, "@Bible Research Tools One doesn't get tricked into thinking evolution is true."
If you believe evolution is true, you have been hoodwinked, ozowen.
ozowen wrote, "I was tricked into thinking creationism is true. Then I noticed the lies, more lies then the fact that there is very little truth at all in creationism."
Creationism has boatloads of data supporting it, including: evidence in the fossil record of abrupt appearance followed by stasis, and disparity before diversity; evidence in the geologic column of thick, homogenous, laminated, uneroded, unbioturbated, marine-fossil-laden sedimentary rock layers stacked on top of each other, world-wide; evidence of total stasis in observable living organisms; evidence within organisms of widespread symbiotic relationships; evidence in the living cells of the most complex factories on earth, complete with molecular machines that keep the cell operational; a hierarchal gene regulatory network that controls the cellular operations, including reproduction; and this miraculous chicken-and-egg feature -- proteins are made by molecular machines which themselves are made of proteins. So, which came first: the proteins that are used as building blocks for the molecular machines, or the molecular machines that make those protein building blocks?
Evolution has this "evidence" supporting it: time, and dumb luck!
ozowen wrote, "I studied and learned and it took a long time to understand the science. And I am still learning. But creationism? It's a scam."
Is it too late to get your money back?
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools
LOL
"Creationism has boatloads of data supporting it, including: evidence in the fossil record of abrupt appearance followed by stasis"
You mean the kind of stop start that had the earlier scientists convinced that God was wiping out whole species and creating new ones? The problem with your amusing "evidence" is that it still has changes- constantly. And less static than you claimed.
However, the fossil record is also a robust record of trait appearances.
Funny thing is that the animals/ insect and plants (as well as the other kingdoms) align. For example, the earliest fossils of plants are minus roots. Then rooting plants- but self cloning. Then by spores (a form of self cloning) then finally by seeds.
Meanwhile you have animals with no spines, then spines appearing in proto form, then in advanced and diversifying forms.
Then hip and shoulder girdles, fins, necks, digits, wings and so on.
The traits are in a clear order that cannot be explained by creationism except by outrageous nonsense and some very laughable lies. My personal favourite was that the order reflects the speed of escape to higher ground. Not sure how that explains the arrangement of flora in order as well. But always good for a chuckle.
But I think the most interesting thing to notice about creationism is this:
It straddles geology and Biology. Two hugely lucrative fields of science.
My son in law is an evolutionary Biologist. He works for a research facility that is in a huge financial consortium with an agricultural business. The money is used to further research and of course, the business itself uses the science gained to improve crop outcomes.
Why are creationist "institutes" not engaged in such deals? They don't need government money, so they can't spin that yarn. They have the "truth" so fossil fuel exploration or agriculture, or neuropsychology, or epidemiology or medicine would be more lucrative and more of benefit to humankind than.... what is it they run on? Donations, ticket sales, DVD and book sales?
It's almost like creationism is as functional as a chocolate frypan.
ozowen wrote, "@Bible Research Tools LOL "Creationism has boatloads of data supporting it, including: evidence in the fossil record of abrupt appearance followed by stasis" You mean the kind of stop start that had the earlier scientists convinced that God was wiping out whole species and creating new ones? The problem with your amusing "evidence" is that it still has changes- constantly. And less static than you claimed."
That is not true, ozowen. The fossil record is a record of discontinuities that reveals the abrupt appearance of fully-formed species, which remain that way until they disappear from the fossil record. There is no continuity, and there are no exceptions. Any honest paleontologist will tell you the same thing.
ozowen wrote, "However, the fossil record is also a robust record of trait appearances."
I have no idea what that means. I do know that all major phyla alive today appeared very early in the fossil record, and fully formed. Paleontologists call that "disparity before diversity," which is the opposite of what Darwin predicted.
ozowen wrote, "Funny thing is that the animals/ insect and plants (as well as the other kingdoms) align. For example, the earliest fossils of plants are minus roots. Then rooting plants- but self cloning. Then by spores (a form of self cloning) then finally by seeds. Meanwhile you have animals with no spines, then spines appearing in proto form, then in advanced and diversifying forms. Then hip and shoulder girdles, fins, necks, digits, wings and so on. The traits are in a clear order that cannot be explained by creationism except by outrageous nonsense and some very laughable lies. My personal favourite was that the order reflects the speed of escape to higher ground. Not sure how that explains the arrangement of flora in order as well. But always good for a chuckle."
That is meaningless, ozowen. Homology can never be evidence of evolution. It can be a consequence of evolution, if evolution were true, but never evidence. Besides, all species in the fossil record appear fully-formed with no obvious evolutionary history. Richard Dawkins made a similar statement about the earliest appearances:
_"[T]he Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." [Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design." W. W. Norton & Company, 1987, Chap 9, p.229]_
That is true throughout the fossil record. However, if you have a vivid imagination, you can imagine, say, an ambulocetus is an ancestor to the whale, or an archaeopteryx is a descendant of a dinosaur; but that is not science.
ozowen wrote, "But I think the most interesting thing to notice about creationism is this: It straddles geology and Biology. Two hugely lucrative fields of science. My son in law is an evolutionary Biologist. He works for a research facility that is in a huge financial consortium with an agricultural business. The money is used to further research and of course, the business itself uses the science gained to improve crop outcomes."
There is no evolution to be found in the development of agricultural plants or products, ozowen, nor in the development of pharmaceuticals, biochemicals, or any other product. You will find intelligent design everywhere you look in those industries, but no evolution. Even Jerry Coyne admits that, sort of:
_"As far as I know, there have been only two genuine commercial applications of evolutionary theory. One is the use of 'directed evolution' to produce commercial products (such as enzymes to protect crop plants from herbicides). The other is the clever use of insecticide-free 'pest refuges' to stop herbivorous insects evolving resistance to herbicides containing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins, a strategy derived from principles of population genetics. There will certainly be more of these to come. And evolutionary algorithms are used in designing computer programs, and may have uses in engineering and economics." [Jerry A. Coyne, "Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?". Nature, Vol 442, Aug 31, 2006, p.983]_
Now, the phrase "directed evolution" is just a fancy way of describing "intelligent scientists, in intelligently-designed laboratories, using intelligently-designed laboratory equipment and procedures to create new products." That is all it means.
ozowen wrote, "Why are creationist "institutes" not engaged in such deals? They don't need government money, so they can't spin that yarn."
Scientists, who also happen to be creationists, are engaged in all types of applied sciences and engineering, ozowen. Some work side-by-side with evolutionists. There is no need for them to be evolutionists since evolution is useless in the applied sciences, and is never discussed. I was an evolutionist my entire career in the applied sciences, and not once was evolution ever mentioned. We were too busy trying to make everything work. Evolution is useful only in academia and book publishing.
I have noticed that some of the more vocal evolutionists have complained that scientists in some fields are not mentioning "evolution" in their research, or not often enough. I have personally noticed that when "evolution" or "Darwin" are inserted into scientific papers, they rarely serve any purpose other than to add unnecessary speculation.
ozowen wrote, "They have the "truth" so fossil fuel exploration or agriculture, or neuropsychology, or epidemiology or medicine would be more lucrative and more of benefit to humankind than.... what is it they run on? Donations, ticket sales, DVD and book sales? It's almost like creationism is as functional as a chocolate frypan."
The creation sciences have exactly the same "application" as the evolutionary sciences -- to present their version of a historical narrative. Nothing else.
Dan
Jerry Coyne is brilliant, i wish he was my teacher, i would never miss a lecture.
Jerry C. is always fantastic.
New Zealand is another "de novo" island that has no indigenous mammals other than 2 or 3 species of bat (that presumably flew there).
as is Fiji which also only has bats.
We did produce Ray Comfort though, a mammal, though not a particularly well advanced one.
@heymanhmm " to try to explain away God."
You are begging the question. You first have to demonstrate that a god exists.
Some lineages of single celled organisms may, under specific circumstances, evolve a tendency to group together and form colony-organisms, which could be seen as a stage intermediary between single celled organisms and true multicellular organisms.
I love this guy. He makes evolution so easily understood by the laymen like me. I love science and as an avid science fan, I do not cling to religious dogma. That is all fucking bullshit. Science in the end will always work because it has numerous implications to improving our technological industry to making medical advances.
@jplogsdon " God can create life any way He wants to."
Please provide evidence for this assertion.
Migrako, in response to this statement by @jplogsdon, "God can create life any way He wants to," you replied, "Please provide evidence for this assertion."
Perhaps I can shed some light. First, let's see what God said about life:
_"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind... Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen __1:11__-12, 20-21, 24-25 KJV_
A careful analysis reveals that God created every plant and animal as we see them today, for example, herbs, fruit, grasses, whales, fowl, cattle, etc.., which God called "kinds;" and God told the plants and animals to multiply after their "kinds."
Linnaeus identified the biblical "kind" as a group of species with common characteristics, with the species sub-grouped into genus. So we have organisms ordered by kind, genus, and species, which, under the modern naming convention, would be family, genus, and species. If the Bible is correct, that grouping is what we would expect to see in living organisms and in the fossil record, with no exceptions.
So, the question is, are there exceptions? Do we see species in one family gradually migrating (or transitioning, or evolving) into another family? The answer is no.
At the time Coyne wrote his book, "Why Evolution is True" (2009,) paleontologists understood that it took a vivid imagination, combined with circular reasoning to "see" evolution in the fossil record -- some brave ones plainly stated that evolution was not seen in the rocks. Therefore, the hope of the evolutionist was that the genome would reveal evolution, or at least a mechanism for evolution.
Beginning in 2008, it became reasonably clear from secular research that it was virtually impossible for two coordinated mutations to occur in humans:
_"Our previous work has shown that, in humans, a new transcription factor binding site can be created by a single mutation in an average of 60,000 years, but, as our new results show, a coordinated pair of mutations that first inactivates a binding site and then creates a new one is very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale." [Durrett & Schmidt, "Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution." Genetics, Vol.180, No.3; Nov 1, 2008, p.1507]_
www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501
It would take hundreds, even thousands of coordinated mutations to build a protein for a new physical novelty (i.e., a new body part,) not to mention the new regulatory information to render it functional. Therefore, we can rightly assume that human evolution never occurred.
But what about more populous organisms, such as bacteria? Well, thanks to over 30 years of E. coli research by Richard Lenski at Michigan State, we now have a historical record of 70,000+ generations of E. coli, without the occurrence of any evolution whatsoever. There is evidence of devolution -- the breaking of genes via mutation, some resulting in adaptation -- but no evolution.
For the record, modern genetic research reveals that the genus and species exist due to a reshuffling and mutation of their respective family genomes, and that there is a genetic barrier at the family level, as alluded to in this 2018 report by science writer Marlowe Hood:
_"And yet-another unexpected finding from the study-species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. "If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space." The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said." [Hood, Marlowe, "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution." __Phys.Org__, May 28, 2018]_
phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
It appears that God is right, and Darwin was wrong.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools Your argument goes: a book says that god says that god is correct and Darwin is wrong. Conclusion: god is correct and Darwin is wrong. Can you not see the lack of logic here?
Mee Hee, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Your argument goes: a book says that god says that god is correct and Darwin is wrong. Conclusion: god is correct and Darwin is wrong. Can you not see the lack of logic here?"
Not at all. Can you present scientific evidence that Charlie Darwin is right? Not a chance.
LOL!
There is only one logical alternative: a creator God.
For the record, the great scientists of the Scientific Revolution were convinced that God was the creator and designer. Their mission in life was to figure out how God did it.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools there is evidence, you just don't want to see/accept it.
Some random Weeb, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools there is evidence, you just don't want to see/accept it."
I have been asking evolutionists for scientific evidence of evolution for years, and none have been able to present any. If you know of any evidence, please present it. I eagerly await.
Dan
I did not even mention that petition. There are plenty of scientists who openly say that Darwinism is just plain wrong. I recently met with a PhD Geneticist from Cornell who believes in a Young Earth, John Sanford. There is also the MRI inventor Dr. Raymond Damadian. There is a physics professor who has a masters, has worked with NASA, and goes to m Church etc. All three have put their academic careers on the line. They are not getting rich, as some accuse them of doing.
Quite the contrary, it is quite amazing and fulfilling that we "in this day and age" even know what starts are made of.
Conversely, it is saddening that with all the discoveries we've made about ourselves and our surroundings via scientific method that there are still people who would believe what a man in a funny robe tells them was secretly whispered to him behind closed doors. WITHOUT QUESTION!
Bravo!
If critical thinking was was taught from a early age, there’d be no need for religion.
Critical thinking should be taught incrementally year by year starting from pre-school to the graduate and postdoc level.
Bravo!
I'm all for critical thinking. But I wonder just how critically thought out the idea that life happened by accident was? Those who are fans of abiogenesis apparently are unaware that it has never been proven to work. I'll bet the best biologists and biochemists could replicate an ameba from scratch, and never get it to come alive. Never mind "accident", "life" is more than a collection of its parts. It has intelligence or it would not be able to adapt to its environment. That intelligence is not an innate property of matter. Religion, or more accurately spirituality, is another supermaterial phenom similar to life. No one "needs" it in order to live this life. But if becoming perfect is your goal, you're going to need help from a mental add-on called a Thought Adjuster, which is our guide to becoming more perfect.
Read Aquinas my guy you tell me if you can even follow along
Religion is mankind trying to save itself..
Faith... is truttig God sollution.
I posted a video response to just a few of his claims (particularly the one about the whale leg). The title is "Whale Leg Discovery - Initial Thoughts..." He claims that Creationists in general teach that species do not change. This is simply not the case. He also claims that the Discovery Institute teaches that species do not change, this is also just plain not true. Edward Blyth (a Creationist) was the first person to describe Natural Selection. Creationists do believe in Natural Selection.
Wendy Wright needs to see this
EVOLUTION = FACT
How? Evolution, an assumption, is proved by a bunch of assumptions.
@@smithappiah3949 Evolution is as much of a fact as gravity and the theory of relativity,and god is as much of a fact as Santa or elves
@@butterskywalker8785 well said
@@smithappiah3949No, you would know that it's proofed in many ways if you studied on that thing
@@smithappiah3949 Evolution is based on facts, if you want something that is based on assumptions then choose one of the 10,000 known gods. Zeus was also very popular at one time. Do you believe in Zeus? No, why not?
Thanks, man :) I'll look into. Its refreshing to talk to someone of different belief who isn't insulting and is willing to reason. :)
*A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that evolution should lead to some particular trait,* such as a large brain. There is no "goal' to evolution; not speed, not strength, not intelligence and certainly not 'humanity'. Evolution is about one thing: survival. Evolution occurs at the molecular level. Mutations occur with every cell division and replication in every living species. Those mutations are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. It is the then current environment which wields the pruning shears, favoring those mutations that best suit the organism for that environment and apes were very well suited for their forest environment..
Millions of years ago, when forests covered much of Africa, those forests harbored 30 or more species of apes, but as the climate of east Africa changed becoming dryer, the forests diminished and grasslands expanded. Competition among apes apecies increased and many went extinct.
One population of apes that opted for life on the open savanna stood on two feet and faced different evolutionary pressures that set their descendants on an evolutionary trajectory that culminated in us. The populations of apes that stayed in the forests became today's chimps, bonobos, orangs and gorillas.
The modern human brain is about 2% of total body mass, yet is requires fully 20% of total caloric consumption. I think you can understand that for most animals it is a daily challenge to consume enough calories just to survive, and a larger brain would be more of a burden than an asset. It is also the case that the larger human brain requires that babies be born at a less advanced stage of neural development placing an additional burden primarily on the mother. Japanese researchers have compared brain scans of baby macaques, chimps and human children and found that brain volume for both chimp and human babies increase at three times the rate of infant macaques, however, during early childhood, human brain expansion was twice that of chimpanzees due to rapid growth of connections between brain cells. In the human infant, fully 60% of caloric intake go into neuronal development. For just about any other species, the necessity for such a long childhood would place them at a survival disadvantage.
We are just now beginning to understand the environmental pressures that lead to a larger brain; increasingly complex social networks, the development of language that enabled a culture built around tool manufacture and use and cooperative hunting no doubt played a role. The challenges of a rapidly changing climate may also have been a contributing factor. But if it had not been for the development of language, humanity would have had to continuously re-invent the Acheulian Hand Axe. Two factors allowing human speech are the hyoid bone, also present in Neanderthals, to which the muscles of the tongue are attached, and a particular variant of the FOXP2 gene found in other mammals that allows for complex speech. Humans share this variant with both Neanderthal and Denisovans, indicating that it was inherited from a common ancestor. Neither chimps, bonobos or other apes have that variation, indicating that it arose sometime after the species diverged.
So, yes, the human evolutionary history is indeed complex, but as Richard Feynman said, "Science is the joy of finding things out.". We are getting a lot of clues as to the expansion of the human brain from embryology and comparative genomics, but we see a progression in brain size from early mammals to primates, to monkeys, to apes and to humans. It may be of interest to you to know that while most mammal brains are smooth, primate brains have convolutions which increase the surface area of the cortex. we see increased convolutions from monkeys to apes and more in humans.
See: "Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language". Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002) www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6900/full/nature01025.html
------------------
"The increase in total cerebral volume during early infancy and the juvenile stage in chimpanzees and humans was approximately three times greater than that in macaques," the researchers wrote in the journal article.
But human brains expanded much more dramatically than chimpanzee brains during the first few years of life; most of that human-brain expansion was driven by explosive growth in the connections between brain cells, which manifests itself in an expansion in white matter. Chimpanzee brain volumes ballooned about half that of humans' expansion during that time period.
Human Intelligence Secrets Revealed by Chimp Brains
By Tia Ghose, Senior Writer | December 18, 2012 07:01pm
www.livescience.com/25655-chimp-brains-reveal-human-intelligence.html
Coyne fails to mention several important points:
1. Evolution is not the cause for existence of life, it is a mechanism by which life comes into existence.
2. Coyne completely misses the opportunity to discuss the conditions in the universe that were required for Darwinian evolution to begin and be a sustained dynamical process, i.e., fine-tuning of physical parameters, precise setting of initial conditions that gave us a spatially homogeneous and isotropic universe which by Einstein's equations only can allow for a stable dominant matter distribution in the universe at late times.
3. Coyne also completely misses the fact (as many biologists do) that evolution occurs because it is governed by underlying laws of physics -> thermodynamics (Boltzmann's equation, reaction-diffusion equations on local scales, etc...), electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and of course quantum mechanics. These processes work together in a bottom-up causation fashion combined with a top-down causation through cosmological effects to set the correct setting for Darwinian evolution. Another key point that Coyne completely misses is the whole process of evolution can occur because we have a thermodynamic arrow of time. This arrow of time was seeded in the early universe through elementary particle processes such as: neutron -> proton + electron + electron neutrino.
My main point is that you cannot even begin to explain "Why Evolution is True" without examining the underlying laws of physics, and more importantly the precise initial conditions that must be imbued upon the local variational principles and partial differential equations which in turn govern these laws of physics and allow a dynamic process to begin and to be sustained. So at best, this book gives a very narrow view on evolution, very much from a biologist's perspective which is not sufficient in any sense if one truly wishes to understand how evolution truly works.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ikjyot Singh Kohli
Ikjyot Singh Kohli No, none of that is necessary to discuss evolution."Evolution is not the cause for existence of life, it is a mechanism by which life comes into existence." - this sentence is false and self-contradictory.
mdiem From a mathematical standpoint, evolution describes a system that changes its state over time, i.e., it is a dynamical system.
If none of this is necessary to understand evolution, please explain:
1. What are the initial conditions for evolution?
2. What are the conditions of free parameters that govern bifurcations, etc...
3. What governs the properties of the dynamical system so as to have uniqueness and existence of solutions?
Ikjyot Singh Kohli
Great points
vicachcoup Thanks!
Ikjyot Singh Kohli "Another key point that Coyne completely misses is the whole process of evolution can occur because we have a thermodynamic arrow of time. This arrow of time was seeded in the early universe"
Yes, clearly evolution is dependent on a universe that has an arrow of time that only points forward. In fact, one of the explanations for life and homeostasis is that it is a form of reverse or inverse entropy. I find this idea very compelling. In a way, evolution on our planet may be considered as inevitable as the passage of time itself. Although it is interesting to me that life follows certain blueprints over and over and can reinvent itself with similar structures independently and sometimes separated by millions of years. But this presumably is the result of certain existing conditions including gravity, atmosphere and, of course, lots of water.
I've read Jerry Coyne's book, and highly recommend it. I've read a TON of popular science books, and Coyne's book, I think, is the best book I've read who's specific purpose is to explain the evidence upon which the theory's acceptance as a central theory of biology is based.
Most creationists aren't swayed by evidence, but not all are that way. For those that aren't, this would be a good book to learn why the theory is so universally accepted in biology.
Summary 37:50
Thanks for the reference. Its a shame the description text rarely include indexing for these longer videos.
*EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - The Transition from oviperous (egg laying) vertebrates to Placental Mammals.*
Clues to how it happened are revealed by studying Monotremes, one of the three classifications of mammals; the other two being Marsupials (Metatherians) and Placentals (Eutherians). Monotremes were an early branch of mammalian evolution and still retain several reptilian traits, one of which is laying eggs. The word 'Monotreme' means 'one hole', referring to the fact that the bodily functions of urination, defecation and sex are performed through a single orifice, aptly called a 'cloaca', Latin for 'sewer'. It too, was inherited from the Amniote common ancestor of reptiles and birds. Today, the only surviving monotremes are the Australian Platypus and the four species of Echidna of Australia/New Guinea (the ancient continent Sahul).
It is the yolk of an egg that provides nutrition for a developing embryo, which would originate from a small white spot on the yolk called the germinal disc. Birds have 3 genes producing the protein Vitelogenin that is the major component of the yolk. Placental mammals, including humans, do not produce yolk but still have those 3 genes in their genomes but they are pseudo genes, disabled by mutations that created a premature 'stop' codon or a 'frame shift' that scrambled the following DNA. Monotremes retain just one of those vitelogenin genes and produce an egg about the size of a dime with very little yolk. Those eggs are placed in the mother's pouch where they soon hatch and gain further nutrition from milk which is secreted from a patch of the mother's skin.
In placental mammals, the embryo is attached to a tiny yolk sac in the early weeks of a pregnancy which provides nourishment. It is the outer layer of this sac that develops into the placenta. The placenta then forms hairlike projections that extend into the wall of the uterus. Blood vessels from the embryo, which pass through the umbilical cord to the placenta, develop in those projections. When the placenta is fully formed it will take over the transfer of nutrients to the embryo from the mother's body. If the placenta does not attach to the uterine wall, the ovum is flushed out at the next menstrual cycle.
Reference:
Loss of Egg Yolk Genes in Mammals and the Origin of Lactation and Placentation
journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060063
What I mean by that is that octopi and mice have very similar eyes, but no one think that they have a common ancestor with an eye like that.
Woooh the Netherlands
For anyone who is interested, I put together a series of videos responding to this lecture starting about two years ago. Interestingly Dr. Coyne makes several factual errors in this video (about what embryologists actually say about embryology etc.) and he commits several straw man errors in talking about Creationists.
@heymanhmm Do you live close to DC. There is a Reason Rally on March 24th 2012. The there is an Atheist convention on the 25th I believe. It may be interesting for you.
One is operations science and one is origins science. There is a major difference between these two concepts, and it is important to keep in mind. I am not saying that makes one or the other invalid, just that they are not parallel with each other. There is a scientist out there who has his students hold a pencil in front of themselves and drop it, and he says "good" and then asks the students to make the bacteria on their desks become human. One can be observed directly, but the other cannot.
i do not know if we are in the same page, i did not become atheist over night, was like i finally put togheter a lot of information or data and i got my eureka moment, this is the only life i will have so i plan to enjoy it so you should thanks
BTW, my degree is in Biotechnology. I have heard both sides. I do not mean to wave a piece of paper around, but it means something - it means that I understand science and am not just believing what I do because I do not understand science.
Wow, I am impressed with this reply. I did not know enough about economics or politics to be that specific, but it seemed like a slanted curve to me (no pun intended).
@TheAdawon 1) radiometric dating of igneous rock 2) symmetry breaking 3) cern is working on it 4) what? anyway, mere chance or guided chance makes a huge difference
@SoulsResonance I'm glad to see you're on the right track. As far as the creationism vs evolution is concerned, it stems from a religious need to view the biblical creation myths as literal histories and reject the notion that humans are part of the animal kingdom. There are shades beyond this, but the core of the arguments is the same. Creationists feel that if evolution is true then Adam and Eve are false and so loosens the grip of original sin and therefore makes people immoral.
Great lecture, very interesting!!! :)))
Actually yes, and with good reason. What we see in molecular genetics is similarities between different organisms. How those similarities got there is a different question. Evolutionists believe that it is due to common ancestor, while Creationists believe that it is due to a common designer (and to a lesser extent, common ancestor - dogs and wolves for example). Sometimes similarities follow the taxonomic diagrams, and sometimes they don't. Eyes of octopi and mice for example.
Does anyone know when he talks about the 5 points of evolution? I am trying to find that part of the video.
It is early in the video and quite early in the book too!
i like the kid at the end's question about how life began.
way back in the '70s at the ontario science centre they would do a live show to illustrate one theory. they took an aquarium and simulated the chemistry (not the rest) of earth atmosphere +1.5B years and shot a static charge through it. after they tested the sides of the chamber to find elements of RNA.
they did this show for every grade school class, that's how i saw it. too bad now its all about lego.
I am an atheist because I am not an idiot. Additionally, I have no need of gods, devils, magicians, fairies. I know that the purpose of my life is to add to the sum total of humanity, whatever I am able to. I know that in my work as a teacher, I have helped shape the minds just a little, of hundreds of children and this will impact to a small extent - even on their children. That has given and continues to give, great meaning to my life.
There are three very serious problems with Radiometric dating, though. You must assume that:
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system.
There is no way of knowing these factors precisely and we have seen problems with Radiometrics in the past. Furthermore, if heat is involved in the fossilization of creatures the dates become even more erroneous.
ie He misrepresented what Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents says. AnswersinGenesis and also groups like the Discovery Institute never argue that species don't change, quite the opposite.
@MegaFloyd100 From his book:
In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium,
You have to consider that this is a process which occurs over a extremely large scale of time and not on all members of a species at the same time. One has the modification, breeds (if its able to), shares its genom and so on.
All the explanations of the world exist, but I'm no studied expert. I've read a lot, and forgotten much of it. But I know anytime where to look, and thats worth something. ;-) Like I said, check out Richard Dawkins. He is a genious on this field and will answer all Qs.
There used to be a great channel called "WhyEvolutionIsTrue"; where is it gone?? :(
Once upon a time, there were 2 frogs sitting by a random pond in a random forrest.
One said to the other: "look at how perfect this pond is for us to live! we have all the food we need, the water is exactly the right tempurature, that piece of rock there provides a great shadow, ... surely this pond was made by the causeless immaterial outside-of-space-time frog in who's image we were made so that we could enjoy it..."
It's called the teleological fallacy.
@seeheers The specimen at 20:24 is NGMC 91, in 2004 relegated from being a relative of Sinornithosaurus millenii to being a relative of Microraptor. It's still classified as having feathers. Do try to inform yourself.
Biological evolution is essentially two observable natural processes, firstly, the change in traits across generations and, secondly, natural selection. Genetic mutations (copying errors) in offspring produces genetic diversity and natural selection is the process that selects the fittest for survival, because animals with harmful mutations tend to die before they can reproduce. The conclusion, based on the facts of biological evolution, is common descent.
You have access to the internet. Also, do you have a public library in your area? The greatest knowledge can be obtained through reading.
The reason we assume the around 6000-10000 years of existence is because of factors such as the salinity of the ocean, the composer of the moons surface etc. Would you please tell me your method of dating or how you determine 250 million years? Thank you.
Good stuff. He and Dawkins are always a pleasure to hear. Reading Darwin is also very worthwhile. The Descent of Man in my opinion is more interesting but both that and Origin of Species are both wonderful. And anything by Dawkins is always worthwhile. I hope in 100 years if we are still around science will become common sense.
You say: "...by accident."
Do you believe that raindrops fall
a) with purpose
b) by accident
c) as determined by natural laws (gravity, etc.)
@Casshyr btw,someone flagged some of your comments to morrisdecat as spam-i un flagged them in the name of fair play.
The term "missing link" is a creationist red herring. The real question is--are there transitional CHARACTERISTICS (intermediate structures) between species? "Missing link" concentrates on the total creature, but it's the characteristics of a species that change over time. And there are countless examples.
The fact that some forms survive long periods of time is not inconsistent with evolution. Change is not mandatory, if a body form works best within the environment, change isn't produced.
55:00 Even he says "I am not a politician, I am a scientist" then don't try to be one.
How do we know it was a billion years? Where did matter come from if it can neither be created or destroyed? How was the big bang produced? How is it that every little detail of matter could be created out of chance?
How is it that snakes can talk?
cont... The non-existence of fossils doesn't mean that the animal wasn't alive during that erra, it simply means that either A. the fossils don't exist or B. We haven't found them yet. Since it was first discovered that the coelacanth fish was still alive today (if a little different) more fossil discoveries have been made. There are specimens from 410MYA, 240MYA, and 75MYA. Clearly there are huge gaps between our fossil finds, so we should expect some gaps between then and today.
@Kursinphists To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English The scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
what i loved the most is that mr. coyne passed by those stupid "laws" of science philosophers with that definition of what scientific knowledge is.
I said there are no homologous layers that are consistent with a world-wide flood. There are plenty that are consistent with an old earth and evolutionary change. And they can be cross referenced. Floods leave specific signs that are very different from normal sedimentation processes.
@MegaFloyd100 which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . .
Take A Moment
Sir,
Your work is needed for the world.
Genius doesn't begin to describe you.
What are we fighting for?
Stay Safe
Stay Free 🌐
@heymanhmm What is the Religious beliefs of an Atheist? Love to hear your version of this.
When the flooding occurred it would not (likely) affect the deepest layers and it is likely that (as it was one of the top layers) years of more flooding, burning, and crop developmental would have made it less noticeable as it continued to get built on top of. And the short answer to your question "...Did the dinosaurs just appear?" is yes. As they were created along with other animals, but they would have likely been the most affected by world wide flooding.
So wouldn't you agree with me that coelacanth fish and the tadpole shrimp are pristine examples of inconsistency in the fossil record? Both supposedly extinct because the never appeared in a fossil layer with humans, but were both recently discovered to still be living among us?
My bad, didn't mean to twist your words. Would like to reference the layers you think are vital points of evolutionary change? That would be helpful. Also, wouldn't you agree these signs left by floods would eventually begin to change as the years went by? (More specifically about 6000 years.)
Kids rebel against their parents. Adults rebel against their maker. Unsurprising. Makes complete sense. The thing that doesn't make sense is the notion that people think they can pick a belief and that belief is then real because they chose it. It's akin to staring at you irl and closing their eyes and saying 'I'm going to believe, rather, that you are elvis.' The thought that you then become elvis doesn't seem to ocurr, just that you cease. As long as the eyes stay closed you're gone.
@Kursinphists " My DNA can look similar to my best friend's DNA, doesn't mean we share the same great-great-grandfather."
ERVs can only be passed on to offspring. Humans sure several ERVs. Now the Kicker is that these ERVS are in the same LOCATIONS in our DNA.The Question is why would two species share the same ERVs at the same locations?. It is almost mathematical impossible for this to occur.The ERV's accrued at these locations in our DNA before we speciated.
@Kursinphists For example Aristoltle believed Emprdocles theory that everything was made out of four elements earth, air, fire, and water. This was a simple enough but did not make any definite predictions. On the other hand Newton's theory of gravity was based on an even simpler model in which bodies attracted each with a force that was proportional to a quantity called their mass and invertible proportional to the square of the distance between them.
@jplogsdon " Many atheists argue that "who created God"."
Its a valid question.
From a Jerry Coyne review in the NYtimes: " My response is that while evolutionary biology can explain, for example, the origin of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, we shouldn’t see evolution as a cure for human woes. Its value is explanatory: to tell us how, when and why we got here..." Uhhh, right, why we got here? Is that a question that evolution and scientists ask, why we got here? Why we are here? These guys have nobody editing them that is for sure. Duh. We are too stupid to understand.
When the last drop is finished we then look at the glass thinking that was great, is that it. Then we assert the cycle of time and move on to try and recreate that same experience in our lives. Only after many attempts of failure doing so, do we realise that everything is temporary. Nothing ever lasts.
there are many priests and religious people who came up with the most useful scientific principles we use today (Newton, Lemaitre etc.) Lemaitre of course was the priest who came up with the expansion of the universe. Science and faith do not conflict as Coyne and Dawkins assert. Some pastors may lie and twist theories but so do scientists. Does Haeckel and Stanley-Miller mean anything to you? And, I have been to the Natural History Museum many time by the way many times.
History is always repeating itself. Outlook on life changes with time. Oil is a priceless commodity. But when it is all dried up it is likened to the analogy of a strawberry smoothy. When the last drop is finished we then look at the glass thinking that was great, is that it. Then we assert the cycle of time and move on to try and recreate that same experience in our lives. Only after many attempts of failure doing so, do we realise that everything is temporary. Nothing ever lasts.
@St00sh13 hi.tookme ages to find the thread.What unfalsifiable hypothesis are you referring to?
I don't get why people find evolution hard to grasp or why people say it's "counter-intuitive."
Evolution is just the combination of natural selection, mutation, and heredity. If you've ever noticed that a fast rabbit is less likely to be eaten by a fox than a slow rabbit, you understand natural selection. If you've ever noticed that you look more like your parents than random strangers off the street, you understand heredity.
Your right there is not ONE single shred, its in EVERY cell of every human's body. DNA!
You would like some of the Creation videos that I uploaded. I am a Young Earth Creationist. I agree that Evolution is impossible, however you should consider that it would not have been man that developed the blood clotting pathway, but an ancient ancestor that probably was more like a sponge, if Evolution were true. I do not know when they claim that blood clotting evolved though. Biochemist, Michael Behe did an excellent Job when he used blood clotting as Intelligent Design evidence though.
evolution is true tho
@theaccousticaddict (2) mate choice, heart rate regulation, sleep management, or predator vigilance,and each is activated by a different set of cues from the environment. How did emotions arise and assume their distinctive structures? Fighting, falling in love, escaping predators, confronting sexual infidelity, experiencing a failure-driven loss in status, responding to the death of a family member (and so on) each involved conditions, contingencies, situations, cont..
@LukieBoss221 Did you watch or are you just commenting on the title?
I am an open minded Christian and I am watching this video to try to understand where evolutionists are coming from and I am kind of disappointed how he unprofessionally bashes non-evolutionists and religious people. But I suppose he is entitled to his opinion.
Good presentation, except I guess I need to hear it in details to be persuaded. In a Q&A session, Jerry couldn't answer the question on origin of life. "we are making a lot progress on that" was Jerry's best answer. Why? Because that's when science hits impasse. I need something more concrete. Is there a youtube video that would walk me through from point A to point Z on evolution theory. If so, please recommend me one, thanks.
Actually monkeys are NOT our ancestors. Monkeys and humans are descended from a common ancestor - so it is more correct to say that they are our distant cousins.
I am surprised (in a very positive way): I usualy don't see many religous people that are not at war with evolution here on youtube.
read coynes blog, he talks about visiting a high school and talks about atheism to the class.
The alternative is we just do science. We study, we observe, we explore and we keep advancing the margins of what we know. And where we don't know, we say we don't know. I'm not aware of anything particularly bad in doing that and it isn't the end of science.. it's the continuation of what the sciences were meant to do.
As Santayana said, Bacon forgot to say that the God one believes in after having studied science does not have much to do with the one believed in before. Spinoza's God or sive Natura seems to be a perfect example--from a personal God to an impersonal Nature.
"What does evolution have to do with healthcare?" Coyne gave a graph correlating a functional society with an acceptance of evolution, and conversely, a dysfunctional society with a belief in God and creationism. A functional society was measured my how well the society interacts, takes care of each other, standard of living, incarceration rates, public health care etc. Does that answer your question? Also why do you believe that more liberals don't believe in evolution?
If you have transitional form that coexists pre and post transition then to claim them as transition forms you have read into it a story. If you have a computer programmer who uses a library of routines. He may have all the routines in every piece software. By his own discretion he uses or activates certain aspects of some routine while even not using some routines. If you cross compare programs you can have similarities between some even if one is not a copy that is modified of another.
would develop in just that direction. In his view, the only problem facing his theory in the fossil record was a lack of fossil discoveries. He hoped that future research would unearth countless fossils to support his theory. However, subsequent scientific discoveries have actually proved Darwin's dreams to be totally unfounded.
@wowamonn I've already read a lot of books and papers on the subject--I am a scientist by the way. You mentioned Stephen Hawking and the big bang--how did the original particles begin--how did space itself and time begin? Would you like me to recommend a book for you to read?
In a million years, if we look no different what will evolutionist speculate about that? We've reached perfection?
@heymanhmm What is your field in Science and what Grad school did you attend?
"Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chpater 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together." The Blind Watchmaker P. 27
"Some species of the unjustly called "primitive" amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopedia Britannicas." The Blind Watchmaker P. 164
It does require intelligence to create information.
First, what do you mean a gap in the fossil record means nothing? That means absolutely everything. It means that the record is imperfect and if the fish could have been missing from certain layers, then so could other creatures.
also lived during that time period?
So much on the way for you: the science community is no united conspiracy. Scientists try all the time to disproof theories of their collegues. Thats a big part of the game. So if there would be flaws or real "weak spots" about evolution, there would be a vast number of (real) scientists on the rise to comment on that. Endless scientific theories go into the trash every week on all branches of science. Evolution is consistent - and thats for a reason.I thank you honestly for this talk :) friend.
@Kursinphists Therefore since faith has a broad range of usage. It is better to use it within the context of the discussion. Now science can only be done using the scientific method. Having faith in the religious use of the word is not valid. Do you understand the difference or would you like me to re-post the definition of the word Faith once again?
@jackkatez I was just trying to point out that being rude shouldnt come with the idea of evolution.