By Request:
MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.
MOYERS: What do you mean it’s been observed.
DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn’t actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…
MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.
DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it’s as circumstantial as that, but it’s as true as that.
153 Comments
pkw
I spoke with a neighbor once who said he had a Master's Degree, and (me summarizing) therefore knew that God is like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny... he doesn't exist. My answer? I studied science in college, and loved the heredity and reproductions classes. I understand the processes, and how a fetus grows from conception to birth, and beyond. I was pregnant at the time I was talking to him but... I can't make a baby. The process was taking place in my body, but I cannot make it happen. I am completely ... more (178 words)jaycanadian
Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was in development for over (30) years, before it was published in the ‘On the Origin of Species’. Darwin’s actually discovered one of the driving forces of his theory, as in Natural Selection, in 1938 and took a span of (21) years of observation, deduction and accumulation of evidence to help support and prove his position and theory. He did this by actually circling the world over a (5) year period and physically investigating, observing, discussing, cataloging and witnessing the world first hand, and having all this evidence. He came to the conclusion that his Theory of Evolution fit with the facts, even at a time, where many Sciences where either incomplete or unknown; he himself couldn’t believe the final answer. The evidence he collected was so vast and detailed, but his conclusion was so simple and followed an undemanding logic. The Theory of Evolution is a change through a combination of successive, small, random changes in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These combined changes are caused by variation, reproduction, and selection. If you follow Daniel Dennett’s logic - paraphrased ‘Life exists because it can exist, not because ... lots more (366 words)ItzMeRon
Awesome video! Posted for debate: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=3&func=view&catid=6&id=50803Maddog11
This was very interesting (I had my mom explain it all in a little more detail). It would be nice to hear all these discussions in Catholic School so kids could choose their own beliefs - Adam, 12yrs. My mom's thinks this site is great!instinctualism.org
great observation that we have not yet seen bacteria etc form into a multi celled grouping . WE have seen it adapt to surrounding but grow in complexity ? has that been observed ? man and our ape cousins , we have not grown in complexity but adapted to enviroments and stresses . We the Savannha Ape the Fire plains ape has not chnged much more that the toy poodle has changed from the Great DAne .Jzyehoshua
To Xigging (guy 8 posts down): We can't explain a purely physical designer for the same reason we can't explain a purely material beginning to this universe - Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. However, that logically leaves one possibility - an immaterial beginning, and since God doesn't claim to be material or bound by material laws, then that's not a problem, correct?emmaus
You deserve a medal! This is intelligent, articulate, convincing (as well as damn entertaining!). It's good science because it's sound logic. Thanks.Nevin
This is the largest amount of comments with intelligent words I've seen on your site.carl grant
Great video. I think however only a small % of your viewers will be able to appreciate anything they don't already agree with. Still the open minded ones are worth the effort.christian
First off let me say that i love your blog www.whatyououghttoknow.com a lot now.. back to the post lol I cant say that i agree with what you typed up... care to elaberate?Eric P. Metze
Science is not a religion. As soon as he made that assertion, the rest of what he says is a non-point. What bothers me is that people continue this worthless conversation instead of seeing for what it really is: an attempt to prove the existence of God.biopunk
If he wants to talk about how long it took for bacteria to form higher lifeforms we are not talking 300 years. We are talking about the time from the appearance of the first cyanobacteria to the cambrian explosion. That's 1.5billion years. See the difference? 300 years - 1.5 billion years. This is just dumb.Meandering
You know, I'm pretty sure I posted on this already, but I can't search through the whole bunch to find it so here is my post. Lucky you.xigging
I didn't have time to read through all 139 posts up to this point, so I apologize if somebody already made this point. however, the largest problem I have with ID, is that you merely postpone the explanation. If there is an intelligent designer, then who created the designer? Either you have an infinite series of more and more complex designers, which does no good, or you can say the designer didn't need a designer, he just is. But for the second case, why should we say the designer just is, and not say that life just is. What is ... more (175 words)steph
woah does this one have the most comments... i think so. and once again i agree with this one we arent exactly sure how us humans became humans or our species came about so why do we keep arguing like this is almost worthless because both sides have an equal amount of evidence and both sides can be easy to believe we just dont have enough actual information to prove exactly that either one is true or not. so lets stop the fighting because ive been in the middle of this debate before and i wasnt sure wich side to ... more (168 words)Nospinplease
At my school they actually said all of them were theories and my bio teacher made a good point. One girl argued that how can you say that creation from god is a belief. My teacher said ok how did you learn creation at church. she said by Adam and Eve and my teacher said how do you know that is true. He finally got her to say well I believe that and he said yes you believe and doesn't that make it a belief? I keep my mind open to the answers of how we were created, but I ... more (126 words)Curtis
Great show, as I keep catching up on all those of the past. Great comment discussion, too. Seems this topic struck the greatest chord with all your viewers. Keep up the informative and open-minded shows.Joshua Zambrano
First of all, I LOVED the video. Great logical, unbiased approach to the matter. As a creationist, I'd love to see both evolution and ID presented in philosophy classes, rather than forcing either theory as fact upon students. Let them draw their own conclusions based on where the facts lead them without being told what the conclusion is. Also, I wanted to address some criticisms others are making here: Post 5, by Someone: There is an alternative concept proposed by creationists, that evolution is actually two concepts, microevolution (evolution within a species) and macroevolution (evolution between species). In short, there is no species change, just core species that adapted to their environments. Also, you say ID is different than Evolution because God can't be tested. However, the changes He makes in our universe are the same 'circumstantial evidence' that Dawkins claims supports evolution! We may not be able to see them happening (and with Evolution, that problem remains because of the vast time periods) but we can see the ensuing results. Post 6, Anonymous: Yet as the article itself admits, we can't decide on what a species is, so how we can decide that ... lots more (270 words)Rich
There is no such thing as 'devolution' evolution is not about 'complexity' or 'information' but organism / environment fit. Also, the different parts of the ring species can all have babies and even transfer genomic information through intermediaries, so genetic diversity (which YOU might take is information) has increased.Keith
X said... Take a ring species for example. These types of species had evolved across tropical islands to the point where the intermediates could interbreed, but the first form and final forms could not… that’s the definition of a new species: _______ Wouldn't that be an example of devolution - a lose of information? It's started with a ring species and ended with a ring species that can't have babies. Where is the evidence of "new" information being ADDED to the genom?AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
http://biologicinstitute.org/our-take-on-the-id-controversy/ http://biologicinstitute.org/Phil
Hey, Winn Brothers, Did you catch the Winn announcer in this "Rock the World" Youtube video, dealing with the topic at hand?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5KF56lHIDQ (If they used your video without permission, sue for millions!)José from Surin (France)
Let's just have a look at Popper's book "Logik der Vorschung". It really can helpX
scratch that.. meant to say "round": "denying the earth is flat" No comment editing option = failsauceX
Hasn't been observed while it's happening?! You can't be serious. We have seen it happen, we can prove it happened, and it's science. Ring species, Gregor Mendel and his pea pods, fruit flies, bacterium. Not to mention the great advances in bioengineering that show without a doubt that by modifying plant's DNA, new genetic traits can be given. Take a ring species for example. These types of species had evolved across tropical islands to the point where the intermediates could interbreed, but the first form and final forms could not... that's the definition of ... more (188 words)Rich
I'm not specifically attracted to any model of abiogensis, the field is very young. Evolution abiogenesis, obviously. Old earth / universe / etc. See that starlight? That's what happened millions of years ago. Or did God create false images of supernovae in transit 6k years ago? What a prankster! Carbon 14 explained: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html Don't worry about the naval gazing. Her statement of faith means she's concluded before she's investigated. And that aint science. "So why doesn’t the amoeba move when the vacuole empties" are you SURE it doesn't?Mr. G.
Rich, You most certainly do. You have book, called a biology book, that says that a cell can put itself together when operational science says that life comes only from life (biogenesis). That book claims that mutations are the source of novel and new structures that have not existed before which transform a sponge into a human being. That book claims that carbon 14 has a half life of only 5,730 years, yet we find it in coal and diamonds which are supposed to be millions of years older. That book claims that the earth put itself ... more (175 words)Rich
Mr. G, I don't have a book that I believe is infallible that makes claims about the observable universe that are obviously false. The faithful can of course use the scientific method, but they're not using their faith when they do it.Mr. G.
Rich, (and Squeezed Turnip at end!) I have read the definition of naval gazing. Please tell me the phrase(s) where Dr. Pudom was naval gazing. I couldn't tell when she was doing that specifically. Finally you admit your philosophical construct! But you still have not shown how my adherence to creation as being true knocks out my ability to be of scientific mind. Does this mean I cannot apply science to create a new technology? What does evolution have to do with applied science? One of my graduates went on to get her doctorate in oncology. ... more (177 words)dgandhi
Sorry guys, poorly researched. You bought the ID misinformation campaign against Evolution, which is all the DI, Stein, Behe and their friends seem to care about. Your counter arguments are not based on evidence, but misinformation. Science is a doctrine, a doctrine that works, if that is an article of faith, then so is everything else in life. Saying "belief" about the scientific method and its conclusion that evolution is a demonstrable fact in no way reduces the validity of the scientific conclusion. Remember Science is not a book where we look up the true facts, it's a system. 1. hypothesis 2. try to disprove 3. refine hypothesis 4. repeat steps 1-3 for 20-50 years 5. If no significant change in hypothesis is required in that time, and the topic has been widely studied, we are likely to call it a theory. Evolution is a theory just like gravity, relativity, electromagnetism. You can't "see" any of these things, only their results. If you make predictions of what results you will find in the future base on a hypothesis of how these things work, and these predictions are supported by the evidence, then your hypothesis has more credibility, until it has so much it's functionally absurd to question it ... lots more (287 words)AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
All Hail The All Powerful And All Knowing Ants!!! ;)AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
Precisely my dear fellow! (but not nearly as funny as the raucous debate [and I do mean raucous in the formal definition of the word] that's raging here) As for me, I think I may stick with the Theory (oops, I mean Doctine) Of The Forming Of Humans And All Living Things From Tiny Particles Of Colony Earth By The All Powerful All Knowing Ants etc.etc. (don't forget the Antennae part), after all, it does seem to address both the questions at hand. a. Intelligence behind design: Ants look like aliens (I'm pretty sure they are), They've been here a really really long time, there's lots and lot's and lots of them, and ants work really well together! ("really really" and "lots and lots", there's some science for you!) b. Species: There's lots of different kinds of ants, they like to make all kinds of different things! And, even better, almost no one would be stupid enough to try and argue with me about it, so I can be as "opposing-opinion averse" (how's that for politically correct) as I want to be! So, my theory (oops...,Doctrine) really solves three problems. Meanwhile, you guys keep trying to convert each other, it's fun to watch! ... lots more (209 words)Rich
As long as you think its funny, AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?). That's the main thing.AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
Humor, Awaiting moderation? Please Go look up borborygmus and Orycteropus Afer, then go back and read my humorous posts again... (The Pope, Cardinalus Primus, and Grand Inquisitor of The Church of The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened Colony said, shaking his head as he typed)... oh and by the way, (we are annnt peopllle! annnt-people-ant-people-annnt-peeeopllle..)Rich
2. I've signed no statement. I don't believe. a priori in a religious text and try to bend interpretations to fit it. I'm commented to methodological naturalism for science, because you need to be able to repeat and study. Hope this clarifies. Let my highlight the difference Bible -> Observation -> interpretation -> Bible based conjecture. Observe -> Hypothesis -> test -> theory -> continunal testing. We don't start with the assumption 'how did god do this". Arguing to concequences doesn't chage the fact of evolution / gravity / germ theory / plate techtonics... Intelligent design isn't researched. so me ANY positive evidence for design.Mr. G.
Rich, Regards to 2. Why aren't you the same way in your statements? Consider your statement of faith. No one! Nature! Billions of years! All the evidence in interpreted in the light of evolution...just like Gould said is done. (Facts are interpreted in the light of theory.) You ignored the carbon 14 facts I presented. They really ought to carbon date the next batch of soft tissue found in dino thigh bones! 3. Don Baars is an evolution-believing geologist refering to extinction theories and the theorists who make them. So what is your point? All sides of the extinction debate interpreted the facts to fit his/her own pet theory. You find what you seek, so do we. It doesn't really matter to operational science, the true and useful science which gives us medicine, technology, etc. 4. Arguing to cosequences is said to be valid if we are discussing policy. Okay. Hitler was one who based his policy upon evolution. The discrimination of science research into intelligent design is being squelched by policy, which is based upon the notion that only evolution is true. So intelligent design is researched, how does ... lots more (203 words)Rich
*also* "- Your comment is awaiting moderation." Why? This got through: "AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?) I proclaim you both evil heretics and servants of Orycteropus Afer and I rebuke you! You will be consigned to the Borborygmus of Orycteropus Afer to suffer for all eternity! (or until you are expunged onto the tortured plains by Orycteropus Afer, to be recycled into building material by the all powerful, all knowing ants)...."Rich
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navel-gazing 2. Dr. Purdom has signed AIG's statement of faith: http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith She already has all her answers: Jesus! God! 6000 years! so she's not doing science, she's trying to affirm a book. 3. You are perhaps talking around 'confirmation bias'. See point 2. 4. That would be arguing to consequences: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html reality isn't contingent on you (or I) liking its outcomes.Mr. G.
Rich, While I await Dr. Purdom's response, thank you for your patience towards me and that you have not resorted to calling me names...yet. (What an idiot) Please help me out here. 1. What is naval gazing? Not sure what this is or what you mean by it. 2. Dr. Purdom stated that much is to be learned yet in this field. You don't make any mention of this nor, apparently, do you accept that. Yet when we discussed abiogenesis, you stated that "The correct answer is we have some ideas but the field is very young." So ... more (183 words)AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
I proclaim you both evil heretics and servants of Orycteropus Afer and I rebuke you! You will be consigned to the Borborygmus of Orycteropus Afer to suffer for all eternity! (or until you are expunged onto the tortured plains by Orycteropus Afer, to be recycled into building material by the all powerful, all knowing ants) All hail the all powerfull all knowing ants! The Church of The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened Colony will pray for your souls. You must conform to the Doctrine Of Truth! (The Doctrine Of The Forming Of Humans And All Living Things From Tiny ... more (195 words)Rich
Have you actually read what she wrote? What an idiot... and what unscientific navel gazing. Appealing to her authority is clearly a mistake. She links too and uncharitably quote mines from three papers, ALL OF WHICH SUPPORT MY THESIS. I love the way how AIG tells you by clicking this link you may leave AIG and enter reality... Here's the deal. You can piece the ERV LTRs back together and get a working virus. We've done it. So they ain't "design elements", the world isn't 6000 years old and here's how we got them: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gifMr. G.
Rich, Go here. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp Dr.Purdom - her bio. is below http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_purdom.asp is qualified to respond. It wuold be interesting to get these two women together to see what is what. Note that it does not matter where these things come from. Whether I believe in evolution or creation they are still what they are and still do what they do. You have still not answered the interpretation issue yet, why it matters and how what interpretation one has will be bad for science.Rich
Mr. G. I don't know why its in every biology book you've ever taught with. The correct answer is we have some ideas but the field is very young. Let's see this creationist interpretation. I look forward to shredding it. To save you some time, here are most of the canards already debunked by Abbie Smith: http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/07/index-to-common-creationist-claims.html Now onto 'interpretations'. You have 'interpretations', I have theories and hypothesis, which are different. You can advance this PoMo pluralistic view of science, but you can't get me to think that 2+2=5 is as valid as 2+2=4. So whilst you're welcome to a creationist viewpoint, I don't ... more (114 words)Mr. G.
To Another Squeezed... For the most part I agree with your fine and respectful presentation of ideas. Now I'd like to present one for you to consider. Those I've read and one I know in person, have said that whenever the Hebrew word for day has a cardinal number before it (first, second, etc.) that the word day has no other meaning than a 24 hour day. Another fact is that the verb forms used in Genesis 1 and 2 are not poetic, but narrative. So Genesis is an historical document, not a poem at all. Besides, read ... more (136 words)Mr. G.
Rich, If abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, then why is it in every section of every Biology book I have ever taught with...including Miller's? Okay, so your viruses are your "ace-in-the-hole". What is interesting is that creationist scientists can explain those. Yup! Both sides look at the same items (viruses, proteins, DNA, stars, you name it!) What both then do is come up with what the facts are telling them...an interpretation. All interpretations are the result of using the worldview or philosophy to make an interpretation. So react to this...what we have is two differeing interpretations. ... more (140 words)AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
As a founding member of The Church of The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened Colony, (I am in fact the Pope, Cardinalus Primus, and Grand Inquisitor)I cannot concede that evolution is a fact, or that creationists really know what they are talking about, else I be brought before the Grand Inquisitor and tortured by the all powerful, all knowing ants and summarily executo-communicated. I must adhere to, have faith in, and propagate the "Doctrine Of The Forming Of Humans And All Living Things From Tiny Particles Of Colony Earth By The All Powerful All Knowing Ants And The Semblance Of Life Transmitted Into Their Lifeless Brains, Stems And Leaves Through The Twittering Antenna Of The All Powerful All Knowing Ants" I have been tempted by Orycteropus afer, I have associated with the infidels, I must now recite the litany to purge myself of the 'tain't: Harrrdcorrre Evolutionissstsss are The Greeeat Orycteropus Aaaferrrr, Harrrdcorrre Creationissstsss are The Little Orycteropus Aaaferrrr, I must not become adulterated by the heresy of the Greeeat or The Little Orycteropus Aaaferrrr, lest I be consigned to the hell that is the Borborygmi of the Orycteropus Aaaferrrr... Aaameeennn Alll Haiiil The All Powerful All Knowing Annnnts! Weee ... lots more (203 words)Rich
Sadly, you're not really getting your head around science. i don't mean that nastily, but journalistically. Let me expound, if I am. Gravity is both theory and fact. Evolution is both theory and fact. Both have been directly observed and indirectly inferred from other evidence. We do not know all the evolutionary mechanisms, *yet*, but here are a few: Sources of Heritable Variation (both genotype and phenotype) Among Individuals in Populations: Gene Structure (in DNA) 1) single point mutations 2) deletion and insertion (“frame shift”) mutations 3) inversion and translocation mutations Gene Expression in Prokaryotes 4) changes in promoter or terminator sequences (increasing or decreasing binding) 5) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to operator sites 6) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to inducers 7) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to corepressors Gene Expression in Eukaryotes 8) changes in activation factor function in eukaryotes (increasing or decreasing binding to promoters) 9) changes in intron length, location, and/or editing by changes in specificity of SNRPs 10) changes in interference/antisense RNA regulation (increasing or decreasing binding to sense RNAs) Gene Interactions 11) changes in substrates or products of biochemical pathways 12) addition or removal of gene products (especially enzymes) from biochemical pathways 13) splitting or combining ... lots more (636 words)AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
Hardcore Evolutionist = Malodorous flesh-cog, slowly turning in the massive leftist machine that spills out vomitousness, for which the uninformed proletariat masses line up to fill their cups... Hardcore Creationist = Blankly grinning robot, hobbling unsteadily through the death-tainted vapors that emanate from the frog-like mouths of the clergy… The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened Colony knowww the truuuth… Huuumans were made by the aaants, slowwwly built from the particles of Colony Earrrth, the semblance of life transmitted into their lifeless brains through the twittering antennae of the all powerful all knowing annnts! Weee arrre ANNNT PEEEOPLLLE! ant-people-ant-people-annnt-peeeopllle... (for the ultra sensitive, this is meant ... more (111 words)AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)
Thanks for the response Rich. I've read a lot of books, I'm keen to understand the universe and everything in it accurately, no matter what the truth may turn out to be. I wasn't meaning to criticize anyones understanding of science, but more to point out, through questions, that there's nothing wrong with there being a diversity of opinions, and that there should be nothing wrong with expressing and discussing them, and even considering the possibility of answers you may not believe in. It's unfortunate that an interesting theory has been elevated by some to the level of unassailable doctrinal belief. I'm often shocked at the vitriol with which both sides of the debate attack one another (I've been guilty of it myself), and the absolutism that is dished out in support of ideas that are as yet unproven. I am aware of what the theory of evolution is, and I am aware of what it isn't. I am aware that it is a theory that is meant to explain the diversity of life, not the origins of life or the universe. That's one reason it is alarming to know that many who start with the assumption that ... lots more (507 words)Rich
You are perhaps conflating the big bang with a 'big banger'. Do you think there wasn't a big bang? The universe suggests otherwise.keelhaulbill
@Rich "When you postulate an answer more fabulous than the question, you may have a problem." Big Bang?Rich
"AnotherSqueezedRadish(orTurnip?)" May I suggest you become familiar with the terms you use before criticizing people's understanding of science? Evolution is concerned with the diversity of life, not its first beginning (abiogenesis). It also doesn't addresses origins of the universe, the uniformity of nature or any other red herrings you may want to throw out there. next you might want to look at 'Occam's Razor', the scientist's friend. 'God did it' will answer a lot of questions, but not in a very satisfying way. When you postulate an answer more fabulous than the question, you may have a problem. As see you interpret some of ... more (130 words)AnotherSqueezedRadish(orTurnip?)
@“Science” Avenger (and friends) I say this with all respect: Check your scientific method, I’m serious, please, go back and study the Scientific method in detail and then think deeply about it. Also, please think about these questions calmly and objectively: In your opinion, is it ok for people who choose to, to believe in a higher intelligence, to believe there is a designer who engineered all that we see in the amazing universe around us? Or, should they not be allowed to believe that? Should those who believe that be allowed to search for evidence to support that belief, or should they be stopped from exploring that possibility or even discussing or considering it openly? Consider this as well; The evidence for evolution, (of any kind), is circumstantial at best, (it has not been demonstrated). The idea of spontaneous existence of all matter and physical systems in the universe is based on the idea put forth in the Theory Of Evolution, which is the idea that there is no designer behind biological systems, the idea that life formed spontaneously due to random, unexplained, unobservable, and so far un-re-creatable physical causes (kind of like the idea of Intelligent Design). Based on all of ... lots more (1725 words)Miguel Chavez
Well John, I didn't say creationist, or people that disagree with me are ignorant. I was just saying that the dude in the video didn't know what he was talking about. And sorry John, he didn't. And yes extinction is consistent with storms and such, but you fail to appreciate that extinction is a *risky prediction* of Darwinian evolution and not really something you would expect in an intelligently designed system. If you look at the geological record you can see that there are periods in the earth's history where almost all of the diversity of life on earth vanishes, and only a fraction of that variation survives. This is why we have clearly defined geological periods like the Cambrian, Permian, and Cretaceous, so obvious in fact that it was observed and defined well before we had the convenience of radiometric dating. Given the sheer volume of extinct species over extant species, it really strains credibility that ecosystems are harmoniously and intelligently designed. Without extinction Darwinian evolution is thrown out the window. (In fact, creationists long ago held that extinction was impossible.) So point for evolution. As for homologies you're going to have to think this through a little bit ... lots more (551 words)John Bay
Dimensio - I believe you are the one who is demonstrably ignorant of evolution. Maybe you should start by getting your facts straight. Perhaps not every scientist agrees, but "Lucy" (and I can look up her scientific name on wikipedia too) is WIDELY used to try and fill one of the many gaps in the alleged ape to human evolutionary chain. Or at least reputable sources like National Geographic and Science Magazine seem to think so. But they must be ignorant of hominid evolution, too. Right, Dimensio? Let's move on. You say "The narrator also claims that evolution is extremely improbable." Yes, that is because it is. There is plenty of estimates to support this conclusion. Most scientists understand it implicitly. Thats why it has to take billions of years to come about. Why should he have to take the time prove what everyone (except you) seems to know and accept already? I challenge you to find me ONE legitimate, scientific article that shows otherwise - that evolution (not one individual beneficial mutation) is an overwhelmingly probable event. It isn't. So show me YOUR proof. ... lots more (531 words)Rich
Mr. G. Do you know what arguing to consequences is? You might want to research it. Reality is not contingent on your approval of it or its perceived consequences. I find your mirror faulty.. but you might apply it to the rapture and make the same *bad* arguments... the arguments against old earth / old universe are legion and multidisciplinary. Starlight - it's what happened millions / billions of years ago, for example. My Favourite line of evidence (and of sommon descent) is Endogenous Retro Viruses. Have a google - fascining stuff.. and 8% of your genome.Mr. G.
Rich, Ooops! Sorry for not proof-reading my text. I should have said that "...such and such cities or persons did NOT exist..." I apologize for that benficial mutation of my earlier work.Mr. G.
Rich, I clicked on the link and was amazed to find that they did not date the artifact, but the ash deposits. Did you know that carbon-14 has been found in coal dated millions of years old by evolutionary reckoning? One of the arguemtns used against the Biblical histories, not stories, was that such and such cities or persons existed. Lo and behold, they were later discovered to exist. Rich, so if evolution is true, then why do we care at all about endangered species? According to Miller "99% of all the species on Earth have gone extinct." ... more (185 words)Dimensio
The narrator is demonstrably ignorant of evolution. He claims that it is not occurring now, however this is not the case. The narrator also claims that evolution is extremely improbable, but he cites no statistical evidence in support of the claim. He asserts that there exists no evidence in support of evolution, ignoring fossil evidence and DNA evidence. If he believes that such evidence is insufficient, then he should address inadequacies with the information. If he is unaware of such evidence, then he is not qualified to claim that the theory of evolution is not ... more (162 words)Grimmy
"DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening." PRICELESS!Rich
"Biblical Christianity, you will find that it is supported by the science of archeolgy." WRONG. Biblical Christianity says the world is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, was a mass culling of humanity followed by respeciation of life from pairs of animals and one human family. http://www.burlingtonnews.net/artifacts.html Oops. The bible makes origin claims that are incongruent with reality. Now we can say they are allegorical, but if its not all true, is any of it? Does it amaze me that we use similar solutions to nature to solve problems? No. A good solution is a good solution. Much of our design is inspired by nature. RE: ... more (126 words)Mr. G.
Alex, Yes, and no. It depends on your religion. For example if you examine Biblical Christianity, you will find that it is supported by the science of archeolgy. Religions like Mormonism are not, ie, the places mentioned in that bokk have never been found. Both sides need to consider this point. How we got here is NOT an issue of science, it is an issue of philosophy or religion. Science concerns itself with two basic areas...this is what it is, and this is what it does. This is the stuff that gives us our technology, which ... more (175 words)Alex
One thing I would like to say is this: evolution and religion don;t have to be mutually exclusive. One could believe that God put in place the principles by which evolution takes place and he used this to steer evolution in a way that he saw fit. I mean, there's a middle way. We don't all have to be enemies. There is in fact a lot about evolution that is proven. And there is a lot that we don't know. But that doesn't say anything yet.SDash
IMO I believe we should be doing what we were set out to do which is living life. Go have fun or try to make the world a better place. Sure the past helps us understand how we got where we are but that doesn't sound like it'll cure cancer sooner than something like regenerative medicine? btw great video!John Bay
Miguel, It's pretty bold to assume someone has never read or studied an issue just because they don't happen to agree with you. But bold is the wrong word. How about ignorant. But leaving that aside, what factual errors? I'd love to see a list, if you can pull one together. And please don't tell me that you really believe the only way extinction, natural distribution or intermediaries can come about is evolution. That would be sad indeed. It would seem to indicate that rather than actually studying all you did was take in what you were spoon-fed. After all, natural disasters cause extinction. People even claim manmade climate change is about to just that. Nope, no evolution there. As for genetic and structural homologies, you are going to have to be a lot more specific. I'd be happy to explain the ones that have alternate theories, but part of the reason evolutionary theory is so debatable is because it has so many holes in it. And people use it as a blanket reason for the way everything in the natural world works. Believe it or ... lots more (448 words)Miguel Chavez
You should probably spend more time reading up on evolution than making videos on a subject I'm afraid you know little about. Ignoring for the moment your factual errors, I wonder how you would explain structural homologies, geographic distribution, extinction, genetic homologies, as well as fossil intermediates, among other bits of so called circumstantial evidence which overwhelmingly support evolution. In law enforcement we just love strong circumstantial evidence. Without it we could never get the convictions that put the bad guys behind bars. In physics circumstantial evidence is their bread and butter. I suppose electrons, too, are just a matter ... more (103 words)Rich
PS Quadfather. The issue is not to define 'science' but scientific theory' - Nice try to move the goalposts. I can tell you why Astrology isn't a scientific theory - no supporting evidence. Hopefully I've cleaned up your conflation for you.Rich
Biological processes are physical processes. The organic substrate is physical. Moreover, show me 'information' without an associated physical presence...QuadFather
Rich, ` Language is constituted by *symbols* that are converted into physical states by an information processing system (or by physical states that have been converted into symbols). ` You are talking about physical interractions, not language.Rich
Mr. G. That's a lot of question begging. You could similarly argue that physics is a language that tells matter how do behave. Anything is a language. I don't want to use analogy really. It's the tentative tool of lazy minds IMHO.Mr. G.
Rich, Agreed that it is an analogy. So is nature (or do you say Nature?) the designer of the arthropod "car" series? If you want to use an analogy, then all parts of it should be able to fit. Try this. Miller describes DNA as a molecule which transmits information. It has also been described as instructions/bluprints/plans/etc. We use messages as a way to transmit information, and DNA-ese has been analogized to our alphabet-word system. So if DNA is a message, then it contains information. Show me a message with no intelligence behind it.QuadFather
Rich, ` Here's an analogy: ` My car sits in the driveway. Nothing happens. ` I call the mechanic and an engineer. They build me a new car.QuadFather
Science Avenger, Is is typically your modus operandi to attend to everything but the points that refuted your opinion? ` I guess you didn't hear about Scott Minnich testifying about his research demonstrating the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum by knocking out each of its 35 parts one by one. Rich, Good job on that stellar research! How astute of you. What a fantastic point. ` Now, just so I understand ... ` Are you saying that no proposition that is now known to be incorrect ever generated a scientific research program? Are you saying that science can only investigate propositions that turn out to be correct? And ... more (192 words)QuadFather
Alex, No need to defend yourself. I think it's great that you are making yourself aware of this controversy. ` Let me just say that I have absolutely no problem if you disagree with me, so long as you are being rational. I also apologize for lumping you with the other quacks in here, since you are obviously not like them (even if you do seem predisposed to one side - but I guess, who isn't?). ` As for the question you raised: The method(s) of evolution is the very thing that IS in question, not the end result. The end result is obvious: We're here, we're alive, we are many, and we are diverse. The entire question is, where did this end result come from? So the fact the end result exists is not proof of evolution, and the point is not thus settled. It is perfectly and absolutely rational and reasonable for Behe to require that evolution explain itself and not simply be assumed a priori. ` Now, this may seem a copious task, but it really isn't that bad - or at least, not much different from other scientific theories about past events. ` First, you should understand that nobody is ... lots more (575 words)Rich
Mr. G. It's an analogy. D'oh! Cars don't have baby cars, for example.Mr. G.
Hey all, To the lovers of Ken Miller,et al. you need to read his Biology Text "Biology" Prentice Hall (2002) on P. 716. "These gradual changes in arthropods are similar to the changes in modern cars since the Model T, the first mass produced automobile." He goes on in the paragraph to point out the many changes in design and style of cars are analogous to the modifications in arthropods producing creatures as different as a tick and a lobster. Hmmm...everyone should know that cars are not changed by mutations of the blueprints, but are changed by intelligent agents. So if ... more (151 words)Rich
Quack Quack Quack.. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html "Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct? A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well. " Primary Source. Thanks for playing.Science Avenger
The fact that Behe hadn't even read the papers killed his credibility right there. It is inexcusable for a scientist writing a controversial opinion on a subject to not be up to speed on the latest in the peer-reviewed literature. That he automatically dismissed them as not answering the questions he asked after admitting he hadn't read them branded him rightly as a crank. Behe was the best witness the plaintiffs had. Read the transcript here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html My favorite part is where he claims there are peer-reviewed papers that support his hypothesis, but that he didn't write any of them, ... more (114 words)Alex
QF: thanks, I did not know it was called the Dover case, that makes finding it very easy. (I must say in my defence that I had never heard about it, it was only very recently that I learned that people were actually serious about questioning evolution so I don;t really know much about the debate yet. I'll try to keep up) Alright, let's take a look at the passage: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html In this passage we can see that the main reason for writing off the 58 papers is the fact that they don't give a step-by-step description of how the evolution happened. Now, assuming that evolution is a series of random iterative steps would it not be impossible to give such a description? Besides, if they are in fact giving a method to arrive at the end answer the point is proven. It's just like looking at a method for counting to a million (add one until you are there) and saying that the method must be wrong as they did not in fact count to a million but they sure did describe a method that arrives there. His objection to the articles is just insane. . I think that is the point Mr. ... lots more (205 words)QuadFather
Alex, . Well you sound rational enough, and I respect that. FYI, the transcripts of the Dover case are widely available online. . Rich, . I can do that too: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/500_years_ago_geocentrism_aamp_astrology.html . What Behe actually said was that the NAS's definition of science could include astrology and geocentrism - not his own definition of science. . Any other ducks wanna set themselves up?Rich
Behe! http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178.html "Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday. Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology. ..." Quack quack quack.. The Moon over Uranus suggests this isn't science!Alex
I haven't had the chance to actually look up the case itself. The way Miller described the process was that they put one of the folders on his desk, asked if he had read it, he confirmed and then they went on to the next one. I accepted this as the truth. If Behe's version of this is different the only way to know for sure is to look it up because there is really no way to know who is right. Was this a public case? because I'm really interested. . I would also like to stress that the cours should not need to read these books and papers as the fact that they are peer-reviewed should be enough to say that these papers are considered objective and conclusive by people who have actively tried to refute them. . I resent the fact that you are saying that I would love to discredit Behe. I do admit that I could've done more research but with both our stories they way they are there is one thing we can say for certain: Either Behe or Miller is misrepresenting the proceedings of what happened there. Which one I couldn't say. I ... lots more (294 words)QuadFather
Alex, : You really need to understand what was going on, here. The most glaring point that can be made against you and Kenneth Miller is that: Only a SINGLE example was necessary in order to prove Behe wrong. Instead, a lawyer flooded the witness stand with a copious amount of information that the witness could not possibly go through during his testimony. Could the theatrics BE anymore obvious? : I will let Behe's words speak for themselves: : "I was given no chance to read them, and at the time considered the dumping of a stack of papers and books on the witness stand to be just a stunt, simply bad courtroom theater. Yet the Court treats it seriously. ... This is the most blatant example of the Court’s simply accepting the Plaintiffs’ say-so on the state of the science and disregarding the opinions of the defendants’ experts. I strongly suspect the Court did not itself read the 'fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system' and determine from its own expertise that they demonstrated Darwinian claims. How can the Court declare that a stack of publications shows anything at all if the ... lots more (388 words)Alex
After two minutes of searching I found this: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=rj06cvj0VLQ. It is a speech by Ken Miller talking about a trial of the ideas of Behe. Here apparently Behe brushed aside a huge pile of 56 scientific papers that provided evidence for the evolution of the immune system. Although this was just a small part of his theories, he had read them all and found these papers all rubbish. This should tell us at least that Behe was not keeping an open mind. I must admit that most evolutionists are not keeping an open mind but carelessly brushing aside 56 (!) proofs ... more (151 words)QuadFather
Good job Paul. It's nice to have somebody who can hold their own in these discussions. : Notice how your opponents can't even simply disagree. They have to insult other people in a million different ways. : It would be much more effective if they would just make an argument, but alas.Rich
Dissent from darwin: http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/01/dissenting_from_darwinism.php What a joke!paul
My previous post seems to be held up - perhaps because it has some links in it. So - I'm resending it without the links. Perhaps it will go through now. ScienceAvenger and others, Remember - I’m not saying I know what’s right. I’m saying there is an issue here. Check out the Dissent from Darwin list - 700+ Ph.D.’s - all cranks, willing participants in a smokescreen? (Type "dissent from Darwin into google and follow to the list of Ph.D.'s in the sciences who openly question neoDarwinism - over 700) Look into the Dean Kenyon story at SF State - how ’bout J.C. Sanford - professor at Cornell and the inventor of the “gene gun.” These guys are part of a ploy? Phil Skell, member of the NAS. Henry "Fritz" Schaefer - major computational chemistry researcher. Come-on. They may be wrong, but they are not part of some smokescreen. On another issue raised, with the exception of one fellow (Paul Nelson) everyone of the IDers that I have either talked to or read extensively about came to ID NOT from a Creationist perspective - but from an orthodox Darwinian perspective. I’ll say that again - they did not come from Creationism to ID, ... lots more (301 words)Clinky
I was sitting there listening to the narrator talk about Lucy and bacterial evolution and sort of just staring at his face when a mental image of a chimpanzee popped into my head. No offense to the gentleman but I, he, and all the rest of us aren't much more than shaved chimps with well formed noses. The differences aren't much, especially compared with the differences between humans and sharks. I was also always taught, yes taught, that evolution has to destination or height to achieve, it's just the adaptations that best allow them to survive. Now if you ... more (150 words)QuadFather
ScienceAvenger, For speaking so confidently, you sure focus an awful lot of time on motives and conspiracies than you do on debunking what ID proponents say are their scientific arguments. From your comments, it appears that you will talk about anything BUT that. This is a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument: appeal to motive. To speak nothing of the errors in your post ... Your modus operandi speaks for itself.paul
Remember - I'm not saying I know what's right. I'm saying there is an issue here. Check out the Dissent from Darwin list - 700+ Ph.D.'s - all cranks, willing participants in a smokescreen? http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660 Or if that link doesn't work - look here and click on the proper link: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ Look into the Dean Kenyon story at SF State - how 'bout J.C. Sanford - professor at Cornell and the inventor of the "gene gun." These guys are part of a ploy? Phil Skell, member of the NAS. Come-on. They may be wrong, but they are not part of some smokescreen. Oh yeah, and with the exception of one fellow (Paul Nelson) everyone of the IDers that I have either talked to or read extensively about came to ID not from a Creationist perspective - but from an orthodox Darwinian perspective. I'll say that again - they did not come from Creationism to ID, they came from orthodox neoDarwinsim to ID. Check it out yourself and see. Perhaps you'll find that the sound of one-hand clapping is a bit hard to believe. There IS an argument - but you have to be willing to look at both sides to see ... lots more (272 words)paul
I have checked out Expelled exposed site - have you checked out the counterarguments at Discovery or the Expelled site? (I didn't claim Sterberg was fired - I claimed he was discriminated against. Is he lying to promote some smokescreen? Just look at the other side on these cases. Have you done any of this? Isn't this the point of this little blog these guys did? It's fine that you think I've been conned. I'm just asking you to not simply read what one side is saying. Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Kenyon...all deceivers, I gather. Sorry - we profoundly disagree. Have ... more (135 words)Science Avenger
Sorry Paul, you have been conned. ID is not about science. It was about masking creationism enough to pass muster in courts. They literally replaced "Creationists" with "intelligent design proponents", which is how they got "cdesign proponentsists". All the flapjabber about detecting design is a smoke screen. There is no substance there, as every scientist who has tried to delve into it could tell you. What I mean is ID proponents will not publish their theories in the peer reviewed literature. They couldn't even keep their own journal going for lack of material. Its a con, plain and simple. Conspiracy theories are for people who can't accept defeat. It's the equivalent of the kid in 3rd grade who claimed he never lost because the refs always cheated. Sternberg had nothing done to him. He never worked for the Smoith., so he couldn't be fired. Gonzales wasn't graduating students or bringing in grant money, and sadly, that's what tenure is all about. Their cases have no substance whatever. Check out www.Expelledexposed.com All the ID arguments have been shredded...ALL OF THEM. All it takes is time and google to find it. ... lots more (229 words)paul
Science Avenger. Thanks for responding. My quick response tonight - grading papers and fading quickly...Don't conflate creationism with ID. Very different. ID starts only with the broad assumption that evidence of agency is possible. Creationism knows "God did it" and then goes to look how. (Darwinism, by the way, knows blind processed did it and then goes to look how it did it. Both are Cartesian rationalisms. ID isn't. Plain and simple. As to the math/physics thing - What about Gonzales being denied tenure at ISU. I'd be interested if you really think he didn't measure up. Scientism can occur in these disciplines as well. Lots of mathematicians have problems with neo-Darwinism. Berlinski and Dembski's for two of them. Dembski's "No Free Lunch" theorems, though criticized, are still out there standing. As for publishing - what happened to Sterberg when he published Meyer's article? But the larger point is this - there is no doubting most of the data out there. The issue is the interpretation of the data. For instance, take genetic similarities. Why is that considered unambiguous support for common descent. That analysis seems to offer no greater explanational power than common designer. Furthermore, as I mentioned in one of ... lots more (349 words)Science Avenger
Paul, perhaps you miss my point. I'm not arguing that evolution is true because the consensus says so. I am simply refuting the claims by ID proponents that there is growing controversy in science about ID. There isn't. The consensus view on evolution is stronger than ever. I'm not making an authoritative argument, I'm refuting their's. I am also refuting arguments like yours about "scientism". You want to claim biologists are biased for evolution, fine, that has some plausibility. But mathematicians and physicists don't. And yet the overwhelming majority of them say creationist arguments ... more (181 words)Rich
Meanwhile, back in reality... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/Jeff Long
Good summary analysis of the controversy. But...if after all is said and done evolution is still by admission too flimsily supported by the data and its interpretations, then it should be time to begin considering concurrently the possibility of PURPOSEFUL design by an Intelligent Agent of some nature. Much of the interpretation of data to support this is forensic and statistical and mathematical in nature and thus 95% of the public is lost in grasping it. However, with the advent of the supercomputing age and the capabilities now to collect and collate and interpret vast amounts of data, the ... more (149 words)paul
I thought science wasn't about arguments from authority. Shows you what I know. Sorry about all of this trouble making - I'll stop asking questions now and just go back to listening to all of those really smart people. But then what does my Ph.D. in an experimental science mean? Oh yeah, it's not in mathematics or physics. Forgot, I'll sit back down now. (I'm often amazed at the willingness of those who make the scientific method the final arbitrator of everything factual to simply stop questioning and listen to what they are being told by "consensus" science - never considering the possibility that the sociological effects that we see in every other aspect of life may also be present in science - producing a sort of "scientism." It's ironic, really. It's like the priests and the illiterate masses a few hundred years ago - just now its the scientists are wearing the robes and telling everyone "there's no controversy here - we have it all figured out".) Sorry to get so cynical - it's just so frustrating when folks step into really interesting debates and, with sneering tone, pronounce from on high (or in these cases, pronounce that they have heard ... lots more (239 words)Science Avenger
Those who actually study these issues for a living keep getting more and more certain of the validity of modern evolutionary theory (MET), not less. This is one of the many reasons pseudo arguments like those put forth in this silly video aren't treated too seriously. Consider as the most glaring example, this whole argument about how "unlikely" evolution is. People (99% of which are neither mathematicians nor biologists) have been making this claim for decades at least, the most famous being Hoyle's 747-in-a-junkyard analogy, and they always make the same mistake he did, namely, assuming all the events in question are independent, when in fact they are VERY dependent, which reduces the probability calculations by many orders of magnitude. This can be verified quite easily by surfing around the net. Talkorigins is the best summary for my money. If you still have doubts, consider this. Mathematicians and physicists, the experts in the areas touched on by these probabilistic arguments, are smarter than biologists. Just ask them. And if there were something wrong with MET that fell into their fields, no force on earth could shut them up about it. They be all over ... lots more (226 words)paul
Mike: what do you mean by the term "evolution"? It has multiple definitions. Obviously you don't mean blind processes responsible for creating major biological body plans (aka macroevolution) - or if you do mean this you have a very weak definition of the term "fact." (Show me - or even create a plausible set of steps to go from one body plan to another - none exist, I assure you.) NeoDarwinism may end up being true - but we are so far from knowing that that we could not in any way say it's a fact. (In fact, I would say ... more (134 words)paul
Alex: thanks for responding. You need to read Behe's "Edge of Evolution" - there are all kinds of selection pressures placed on those little critters (fruit flies) - and yet nothing positive has happened (selection pressures refer to what you were talking about when you said "changing environments"). You see it's one thing to agree that the theory sounds plausible (natural selection working on random errors can create) but it's another to actually look at the data and let it lead you. Darwinism, I'm afraid, is much heavier on theory and lighter on data than it's proponents would have you believe. As to your other point. I'll look into it that program. Thanks. One question I have from the outset is whether this program creates more complex systems that demonstrate reducible or irreducible complexity. Livings systems often display a form of complexity that has been termed "irreducible" - because you cannot get partially functioning systems when pieces are removed - you get zero functioning. It's either all there and it works, or it's not all there and it doesn't work at all. How do blind systems create irreducibly complex structures? A watch doesn't function as a watch unless all of the ... lots more (268 words)Mike
WARNING, WARNING!!: The agnostics feel left out! "PICK ME, PICK ME" This guy is definitely an only child. He's making an argument out of absolutely squat, creating false facts and trivializing scientific method in a condescending 'chess club' tone just to make a name for himself. As he desperately tries to glorify the title of "Fence Sitter" slamming both sides of every argument, the world goes on around him pushing the boundaries of knowledge DRIVEN by debate and threats posed by those with opposing views. The idea that we can one day "all agree to disagree" will never happen ... more (167 words)Science Avenger
Typical ignorant rambling. When he says that evolution has stopped, or that it is too improbable, he's left the realm of science and entered into denialist claptrap. Ditto with his claims of interpretation. Ignorance of science incarnate. These videos ought to be called "What You Wish Were So"Alex
Paul: (on the fruitfly experiment) I don't know about this fruitfly experiment. I'm just saying that the fact that they did not evolve could mean anything. Anything that couild evolve needs to gain an advantage by evolving, an example is a changing environment. If you keep the fruitflies in a stable environment and they have no need to change into another species they will not do so (generally). I do agree that if evolution is a naturally occurring phenomenon that it should be reproducable. But I don't think you can write off the whole theory on a single failed experiment. Evolution ... more (135 words)Alex
Paul: I am familiar with the "weasel"-experiment and I agree that it is cheating a bit. I was referring to this piece of research: http://www.karlsims.com/papers/alife94.pdf. It is a piece of research by Karl Sims that describes the process of putting virtual creatures in a virtual environment and doing nothing but giving them a greater chance of survival in future generations if the can obtain a small block (you could see this as obtaining food). This very simplified example shows many naturally ocurring phenomena that are usually only observed in nature. I see this as proof that the principles used here ... more (102 words)keelhaulbill
Doh! And now I F'ed Up just by posting that! :)keelhaulbill
To: John from NIU and others. No offense but I think you have missed the entire point of this week. These guys systematically attacked everybody. Of course they tried to piss you off and push your buttons. The point was not what they said, it was to see how you reacted to it. So in a sense you are the one that F'ed up.John from NIU
My comments are not to be mean, but because I want your show to be the best. Because it really is good. You guys are better than this. You F'ed up. Show us what you can really do.John from NIU
Winn Bros. I'm not gonna rant on this one because so many people have already done a fantastic job. But I highly encourage you brothers to redo your research on this topic. What you've presented was quite awful and you quoted Dawkins out of context alot. If you have some free time, go sit in on a real evolutionary biology course. Go check out the National Center for Science Education website as well. You better be familiar with Dr. Eugenie Scott and Dr. Ken Miller before you touch this topic. HORRIBLE arguments. Guys, try again.Dave
paul: Those are excellent questions which lead into the epistemology and metaphysics of high level science, areas of philosophy which are still very young. And your concerns about intelligence lead inexorably to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Needless to say, there are no easy answers to these lofty questions and to date, nobody has found a terribly satisfactory way to find them, save declaration of belief. The best our modern toolbox can provide is hints at the best path, in the form of AI research, brain scans, unification of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, genetics and microbiology. And these hints don't always ... more (105 words)paul
Dave: this is not my area of study, but I do understand that there are multiple levels of organization for proteins. The AA sequence itself, the 3D folding, the fit with other proteins, etc. I guess my point is that suggesting that blind processes can account for moving a living organ from the capacities of a typical primate brain to the capacities represented here of two humans carrying on a debate on the topic of origins and utilizing reason, evidence, inference, historical recollections from previous readings, hypothetical notions, etc. is a rather fantastic claim. Showing that bird beaks cyclically change or ... more (166 words)Dave
Paul, a 2% genetic change in a human would be 60 million base pairs. But what really matters is the proteins that are formed by transcribing the DNA. And protein folding is very complex stuff; it takes all the computing power we can throw at it and then some to begin to understand the subject matter. And while Lamarckian evolution is almost totally discredited, there is an element of truth to it; you inherit all of your mother's non-genetic material and proteins can influence the protein synthesis/reaction/destruction process. But we simply don't know enough about the subject to draw conclusions about ... more (110 words)paul
Ingrid: ok - fair enough. We disagree. Just for the record, I do think chimps are smart (I know of your reference to Kohler's work with chimps and so forth) but figuring out how to stack boxes or put sticks together to get a banana is a world away from designing a computer chip (to my way of thinking). (I would argue that ant behavior could be argued to be more intelligent than primate.) Can I assert that there is a bit of faith involved on your part for believing that blind processes can take a common ancestor with the chimps and ... more (191 words)Ingrid
Yes Paul, I am, how did you put it, "intellectually satisfied with the idea that a 2% difference between chimp and human genetic construction can account for the ability to..." Because all the abilities you stated derive from a more evolved brain. And I do believe a more evolved brain is possible with only 2% differenence. 2% sounds like nothing, but as I tried to explain earlier, 2% is a LOT, huge parts of DNA sequences can be the same, and still code for different things just because of very small differences. In those two percent I believe can be the difference between a less evolved brain and a more evolved brain. Besides, chimps are smarter than you think. They might not be able to build city's or computers, but they are able to solve simple problems. A lot of animals are. Give a chimp some wooden boxes, and hang up some food to high for him to reach, and he will figure out he can reach the food by making a tower of the boxes and climb on top. Now that may sound like nothing, but I think that's pretty smart and isn't that much different from a learning ... lots more (267 words)paul
Question: when's the last time someone in the Christian west got burned at the stake for questioning holy writ? Now, in terms of the shoe being on the other foot - have you seen the movie "Expelled"? Very interesting - these questions aren't going away - and there's a lot of very smart people asking them.paul
Alex: correction - I should have said "letter-generator" not number generator. Perhaps you're familiar with what I'm talking about in one of Dawkins' books back in the '80's. This most recent post from "No blind belief" is a perfect example of which side usually brings in theological arguments to make their case. In this example we have the following argument: I know God wouldn't do it this way, so therefore he didn't do it - and Darwinism is the only game left in town. Decent argument - but it's not a scientific one - it's theological. And ID isn't biblical creationism ... more (123 words)No blind belief
If the world is 4 billion years old, and it is.... Why did your god wait until the last 4 million years to put an upright bi-pedal species on it? hmmmm... Seems like an awful waste of time. Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, all fables to fill in the gaps. It has always been in mans nature to believe in god. Religion does exactly what it was designed to do, control the masses. Those who choose to think for themselves without being threatened with eternal damnation in the lake of fire and other scare tactics, ... more (152 words)paul
Alex: On your second point. Make sure the programs that claim to demonstrate movements from simple systems to more complex ones don't smuggle in information through the mechanism - much like Dawkins number generator that can supposedly construct the phrase, "Methinks it is a weasel" or whatever that phrase was he used. The mechanism smuggled in info by the selection mechanism used. Lots of stuff out there on this point. Look at it critically. Can random mutations really cross tremendous canyons of dysfunctionality? The more we learn about functional proteins the more it looks like they are little islands of functionality ... more (114 words)paul
Alex says: Saying evolution is false because we haven’t seen it is like putting a box on the floor and saying: “Well, it does not fall so gravity must not exist”. I disagree. Read Behe's "Edge of Evolution". We've had plenty of time and used tons of selection pressure to try to move fruit flies off of their basic form and get some novel development. No success. I believe the makers of this video on this site try to make this very point.paul
Ingrid: Thanks for responding. So, you are intellectually satisfied with the idea that a 2% difference between chimp and human genetic construction can account for the ability to build computers, explore the solar system, wrote sublime poetry, reflect upon our past and future, plan cities, organize governments, stage the Olympics every four years, etc. I'm not. I would actually argue that the genetic similarities found between chimps or other primates and humans make a better argument against genetic determinism. You can make a toaster and a computer out of very similar stuff - but their functionality is radically different. It's must more ... more (116 words)paul
Darron: I found some quotes in the area of systematics from researchers that, perhaps, will shed some better light on the point I'm trying to make. “When biologists talk of the 'evolution wars', they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. (“Bones, Molecules or Both” by Trisha Gura in Nature vol 406, 230 - 233 (2000).) And here's another: "New genome sequences are mystifying evolutionary biologists .. . on one front the study of evolution-the information pouring out in the genome sequences has so far proved more confusing than enlightening. Indeed, it threatens to overturn what researchers though they already knew about how microbes evolved and gave rise to higher organisms" (Science V. 280, May 1, 1998 pg. 672) I found many other similar one's and can give you references if you'd like. My point is that ... lots more (235 words)Alex
Just two things that I really wanted to say: Saying evolution is false because we haven't seen it is like putting a box on the floor and saying: "Well, it does not fall so gravity must not exist". You could disprove it only i you found evidence that contradicts this theory. Secondly: In simulations it is possible to use evolution as a way to evolve simple robots. The principles on which evolution is based are really a reproducable phenomenon. This should at least teach us that the principles are sound. If they actually happen in our world is another thing ... more (108 words)Ingrid
paul, I do believe that 2% genetic difference could make the difference between a chimp and a human being. If you have any knowledge on how DNA is built, how it is replicated and translated, you can understand that a minor change in the sequence can have a dramatical effect. Proteins are synthesysed through the information in your DNA. Nucleotides are chained together in a long sequence and every group of three next to each other codes for a aminoacid, and a chain of aminoaccids makes a protein. One little mistake while replicating your DNA (which happens all the time ... more (188 words)paul
Darron: Thanks for responding - let me clarify on the genetic similarity thing. I gave the banana reference as an example of things that surely aren't more similar but genetically are. I just pulled two things off the top of my head - not meaning that they were actually two examples (I think i mentioned "or things of that kind.") My point here is that morphological trees do not match up real well with genetic trees - in fact there is some really bizarre stuff in there. In terms of your argument that genetic similarity is strong evidence of common descent - i have two responses. First, common descent is not necessarily anti-ID. I mean Mike Behe, a prominent IDer, believes in common descent - though most don't. The issue here is mechanism. How are they linked? How do we know that selection and mutation is creative enough to do the heavy-lifting of crossing immense probability fields to get to functionality? This is a Darwin-of-the-gaps way of thinking. Secondly, common genetic material is just as consistent with common design and it is common descent. Do you see what I mean here? Suppose there is a designer - would you not expect the ... lots more (398 words)Darron S
paul, I'm sorry if my post came across as hostile. I'm simply very matter-of-fact when I exchange ideas. I thought the Ben Stein reference was humorous as a couple posts up someone was saying "go see Expelled"... I believe your statement about humans being more genetically similar to bananas than we are to mice is false. I did some quick googles but couldn't find anything on the subject. It sounds like misinformation to me. However, if you can point me to the source of any credible data that supports your statement I may very well change my position. I'm "open" to new ideas. I simply demand that those ideas be backed up with evidence and data that can be scruitinized by peers. Also, I feel that a common genetic base definitely does infer common ancestry. In fact, that's PRECISELY what it does above all else. It's better than a fingerprint if you're into forensics, and we can use mitochondrial to track back hundreds of generations (through the female). In fact, I'm watching the news right now and they're talking about using DNA to determine the paternal and maternal links to all those kids ... lots more (295 words)Dave
Paul: We see entities today with these intermediary steps, including heliotropic plants (like sunflowers), photosynthetic animals (like some anemones and corals), flat eye spots (like euglenids), cup eye spots (like planaria), pinhole camera eyes (like the nautilus), etc. This is not proof of evolution, but it does clearly demonstrate that such wide variety is at least possible. Behe's argument is much more sound if you're looking for science to discredit the theory of evolution.Shayde
Sadly, those here that are proposing that the above links giving examples of "obseved speciation" are to be validly used as some evidence of evolution are quite mistaken. Many examples there listed are deliberate attempts at speciation, not natural occerrances, either through hybridization or other artificial means of deliberately selected divergent breeding. Might we call this "Intelligent Design?" Others are possibly simple mutations or previously undiscovered species. I personally do not have a problem with Evolution. Things change. But I do have a problem with the idea that so many very logical and reproduceable biological systems can be attributed to chance. I also have a problem with "ID" proponents who claim the relative complexity of the universe, and in particular, life, as proof that there is a God. Puhleeze, people. Would my cell phone be proof of a God to the Crusaders? Would YouTube proof of a God to the early European inhabitants of Salem Mass? No, either would likely get me crucified or drowned or burned at the stake (or cause me any number of other unpleasantries) for witchcraft or making a pact with satan. Other early cultures might likely kill me or worship me depending on ... lots more (480 words)What You Ought To Know : Darwin’s Intelligent Design « Read, Think, Pray, Live
[...] from www.whatyououghttokn posted with vodpod [...]paul
Darron: Well, first of all, the genetic similarity studies aren't that cut-n-dried. There's a lot of weird stuff out there - like humans having more similarity with bananas than mice - or things of that kind. But, your point still stands - to some degree. There does appear to be a basic correlation between genetic material and apparent similarity as judged by sources independent of genes. But the problem with going from this to Darwinism is the mechanism of change. These similarities tell us nothing about how things changes might have occurred. Actually, they don't even tell us there is a common history - though I think that's at least suggested by the similarities. Here's another idea - common construction could imply common design just as logically as it could imply common descent with blind modifications. There are some interesting ideas out there on this issue. The first that comes to mind is "Message" theory. I forget the fellow's name - he's a prof at U of Minnesota. By the way, the tone of your remarks really highlight what this discussion doesn't need. Don't you agree? It represents a position of foreclosure on the issue. But clearly that is not a defendable ... lots more (213 words)Darron S
A simple question: How to you explain the distinct genomic similarity between chimps and humans, as well the divergence from species we are less "like"? We share 95-99% of our Genome (DNA) with Chimps, who are our closest relatives on the tree of life. We share less with dogs and pigs, but enough that we see stories all the time about using our genetic links with other mammals to help fight diseases. And we share much less with reptiles, and so on and so forth. So why is there this stiking genetic similarity with our closest mammal relatives, with a divergence observed in ... more (128 words)Lynoure Braakman
So, about watching bacteria evolve... How would you do that? If you keep them in a petri dish and give them bacteria food, there is absolutely nothing driving the natural selection. Nowadays you can even keep them in a petri dish full of antibiotics, and many of them will be just getting lazy and fat.William Brookfield - ICON-RIDS
Great video overall, "But at what point of complexity?... where to you draw the line?" At the.. universal probability bound. http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Universal_Probability_BoundSteve #2
I encourage anyone interested in some of the science behind ID to read Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box." Behe is a microbiologist who presents evidence for ID in biological systems. I think one of the major points Behe makes is when we look at the changes in species, and talk about evolution, we often look at it in a wide angle lens (i.e. bird develops wing, fish develops legs, etc.). What we neglect is what happens underneath the surface. The whole biochemical processes must change in system as well.paul
Some dude: how does this just-so story get you the eye in the first place? Yes, everyone agrees that loss of genetic information is a real phenomenon. But...how did it get there in the first place? Big question - and the only thing we have to go on are "just-so" stories postulating hypothetical light-sensitive spots, imaginary intermediates that we can't really even describe, etc.Some Dude
There is a cave, and in this cave there is a lizard. This lizard has a dent on it's head. My history teacher was on vacation and told us about this lizard he was. It was in like 4th grade or something, I don't know what kind this lizard is. The lizard had no eyes but it had this dent, which was a clear sign of an eye having been there at one point. It is like a crimescene, we don't know what happened, but there is a big clue that spells it out in English. I may not know who this Dawkin is, but I do know who Gauss is. Since the cave had no light, an eye didn't increase the possibilities of survival. In fact since an eye is a big vulnerable spot, having eyes would decrease you it's chance of survival. One day one lizard got a genetic mutation during conception which made it have no or smaller eyes. This gave the lizard a statistically higher chance - higher than his other eyefull friends- of passing it's genes on to the next generation And after every generations, the eyeless lizard would dominate the colony more and more, until all the lizards had no eyes. ... lots more (243 words)Ingrid
Due to a language barrier here (my english is fine, just not THAT fine) I find it hard to point out my views on this topic. I have heard you, and understood most of it ;) (here to an open mind!) but I don't agree with you. You have made some fine points, but what bothers me most is that you make it sound as if people in favour of the evolution theory state it as being fact. But I think that isn't true. During my education it has always been stated out that everything we know isn't 100% true, but that it is likely, and stated as true untill we find a better explanation. So I think pkw's college sience proffesors aren't that unusual. I've never met a sience proffessor that stated the evolution theory is true, also, most of the prof. I met stimulated me to study the different views and make up my own mind on what I believed. Although I don't complety agree with their views, I do like some of the things "critical rationalism" has to say about sience. According to the critical rationalist, you can't prove something to be true. You can only prove that ... lots more (368 words)paul
Great video - loved it! One small (maybe not so small) comment. The ID folks don't define ID the same way you did. They say ID is the study of things that are best explained by making reference to intelligent causation. ID doesn't claim to "know" it was designed. This is important as both Creationism and Darwinism already know the "truth" of the matter and their definitions of science focus on completeness (a very Cartesian understanding of science). ID folks opt for a more Baconian definition of science - one that favors accuracy over completeness. So, we may not know the total story, but what we're telling you we're pretty sure about - and that is this stuff looks designed. (By the way, I think a Cartesian definition of science, in the long run, does the most damage to the concept of science.) Furthermore, ID does lead to research questions. It can be used as a heuristic for how to figure something out. If something is designed, we look at reverse-engineering principles to help understand something. If it was cobbled together in a blind way, the questions we ask and the places we look are oftentimes very different. So, perhaps this ... lots more (235 words)SoD
A Thing that has not yet been disproved … can hold it’s reasonable assumption that it exist; And as long as a Thing remain unproven, it can maintain it’s greatest possibility of being so. Indeed in this world, Intelligent Design has faltered, but because the beautiful and shinning crystal glass was shattered when it fell to the floor, doesn’t mean it’s Superior Design didn’t exist before it’s fragments were disarranged. Knowing that the ‘We’ of an Intelligent Mind Soul, are Beings of a ‘’Complex Designed Circuitry of Intelligent Energy’; and knowing that a Soul is that ghost-like Energy which engulfs ... more (192 words)Becky
Flame on! I love this. So, oh, what's the word... RATIONAL. Yeah, that's it. Hooray for another winner..Mike
anyone told you guys how incredibly rad you are in the past few minutes? because you arechris’ random ramblings » Blog Archive » Evolution or Darwinism or Dawkinsism or Creationism or whatever its called these days…
[...] There’s a great new piece up on What You Ought to Know called Darwin’s Intelligent Design. [...]pkw
I feel my college science professors were unusual. To summarize two of them: 1) Many science teachers teach evolution as fact because they don't understand it. It is a theory. He then explained the "Theory of Evolution". Creationism, or Intelligent design, as you have termed it, is another idea of how life could have come about as we know it. Those are 2 ideas. Study them, decide for yourself. (His words, not mine) 2) Many view Evolution and Creationism as either/or options. In fact, they are points along a line, extreme ends, if you ... more (152 words)steve
Wow. You've got a real talent for summarizing rather complex issues. Keep it coming!JRie
I completely agree. Science is the study of OBSERVABLE facts, and nobody was alive at the beginning of the world. Therefore, I don't think that our "origins" should be taught in schools. Not to mention, I don't like having evolution shoved down my throat and being looked at like a fool when I bring up the problems with it.Dave
You have some fallacies that I'd like to address, but at the broadest level, your points are well expressed. 1. Natural selection IS the process of evolution and requires selective pressures and changing conditions to take place. We have no way to monitor wild populations of bacteria and their environment for 6 continuous years. Petri dish populations don't experience selective pressures. 2. We teach false theories all the time. Newtonian mechanics is the best known example, although more people learn Copernican astronomy than Kepler's model of the solar system. 3. I think most science teachers point out that evolution is a theory. But ... more (178 words)Fang
Go see the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We just saw it in the movie theater and it was disturbingly enlightening. Ben Stein did an excellent job. See what Dawkins really said about ID.Ingrid
woops, of course I meant theorY, but that's just me being Dutch ;)Ingrid
Okey, just one thing. Of course you can't really prove it, but isn't that why we call it a THEORIE. As in, not fact...Anonymous
3 things to note: 1) There are no higher forms of species. Humans are no more well evolved than cockroaches. 2) Evolution talks nothing of the origin of life. It's about how it has changed since it's inception--however that may have occurred is still a very open question in science. I don't know what Dawkins explicitly said (you didn't quote him there), but I'm guessing he wasn't talking about little green martians but lithopanspermia, the transfer of life from one place to another via meteors. To my knowledge, no one is trying to force high school students to learn about the numerous ... more (134 words)Someone
First of all i'm disappointed with the the tiny campfire that you guys have started but ok :( I wanna comment on when you said "its the best we got so we have to believe it , which is a pretty bad qualifier..." if another 'scientific' theory comes up i'm pretty sure that will find its way into text-books as well. Not every one is teaching evolution as an undeniable fact, and i'm sure if you come up with another theory that explains species change Dawkins will not hate you but congratulate you. Still if there is only one theory that can explain something why not believe it. We must admit that the scientific method requires a hypothesis to be testable and many could argue that is not the case for evolution, but is then again it is just a theory :). How much better than a theory can you get though ? Well i can call ID a theory as well and you cant disprove it , you say. let me point out a small difference ID has. It requires things that are outside our ability to comprehend or ever sense, ... lots more (276 words)Tim
I really appreciate this sort of video. So many people seem to have an opinion about this without really understanding all of the arguments on all sides. However, this video makes a very common mistake about evolution. Evolution DOES NOT lead towards 'higher' forms of life or more complex organisms. This idea has been long abandoned by modern scientists and this is one of the most common misconceptions about evolutionary theory. Also, bacteria reproduce differently than humans, and so their rate of evolution may be different. Finally, evolution may not occur constantly over time but rather in bursts, so we ... more (116 words)Random
I only just discovered you as of your last two videos, and I am knocked out by how doggone sensible they are. I mean, I can't find a thing I can really disagree with. Kudos.eric swenson
I highly recommend the book by Lee Strobel called , " the case for a Creator "Zak
A++ It's good to see more of this kind of discussion. If origin "science" was moved to the philosophy classroom where it belongs, this whole debate would be seen differently.