Double Post Day
Don’t miss the last video from “Open Mind” week on Racism. Today was the first time we have put up two shows in one day. We heard you Mr. Q!
We are experienceing a small t-shirt problem. We'll get them back up as soon as we can.
May 2nd, 2008 
This whole week was about having an open mind.
Don’t miss the last video from “Open Mind” week on Racism. Today was the first time we have put up two shows in one day. We heard you Mr. Q!
46 Comments
Meandering
It’ll take a lot more than this to close my mind as its pretty empty already.
Beena
And will you succeed? You will indeed! (98 and 3/4 percent guaranteed.)
What does it mean???
steph
my mind is open =o its bleeding!!
Leonard
Love the open-mind week video’s - amazing work guys!
Phil
“Show me such an argument in a peer-reviewed math or science journal, and I’ll take a look at it.” — Science Avenger
Despite the shortness of the list, I suppose the following should keep you busy for a while:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640
Phil
Science Avenger, I guess, then, that Douglas Erwin’s “Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution,” Evolution and Development, Vol. 2(2):78-84, 2000) needs to be explained.
Science Avenger
Sure Steve O, the information is all over the place if you really want it. First of all, dispense with the notion that micro and macro evolution have different mechanisms. They don’t: macro is just a lot of micro.
For my money the best source is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
Steve O
Science Avenger,
You say, “…the facts decided this subject long before you and I were born.” And also, “The people who oppose evolution aren’t concerned with the evidence…”
I’m wondering if you can answer a serious (and sincere) question for me: If you accept that (macro) evolution has been proven, when did that happen and what was the proof?
Even if this is an accumulation of evidence thing, if you call tell me the nearest quarter-century that would satisfy me. If there is anyone else out there who wants to take a crack at it, please feel free.
Thanks.
Jonathan Bartlett
Great video! I thought I would clarify one thing, though. While in general the exact parameters of what is evolvable are not known, there are some parameters of what isn’t which are fairly well spelled-out. The most important one, I think, is based on Godel’s incompleteness theorem. Basically, a self-referential code should not be able to arise from a non-self-referential code without the input of a mind. See:
http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Life%20is%20not%20natural.pdf
Justin
A-Team: Your “speciation” is no more a new species than our generation is because we’re taller than our grandparents’ generation. The only mention of species in the article is dealing with the already known lizard; never stating it was new.
Shall we delve deeper? Some portion of an “intelligent” species decide it’s a good thing to move some lizards from one geographic location to another (like that’s never backfired!). An “expanded gut” with a larger head and harder bite (I’d like to see that documentation) is the result. An enlarged gut is in no way a “new” appendage. It is a larger version of something it already had. Further, being dropped into a new environment forced them to eat an herbivore’s diet rather than a carnivore’s. Perhaps they could see what happens in an observable lab experiment when one Pod Mrcaru is taken from being a strict carnivore all its life and is suddenly fed a vegetarian diet. I would imagine the cecal valves were already there but atrophied from non-use. I know my gut expands when I eat more or when I am constipated.
The indigenous lizard population didn’t fair very well did it? Is that because it was not allowed enough time to evolve? Could it be that it interbred with the Pod Mrcaru like a Siberian husky could breed with a Border collie? Did the researchers keep track of genetic traces of the indigenous lizards?
Finally, they are clearly giving preferential treatment to their “theory of evolution” in regards to the empirical data. Obviously, there is no basis for the claim that this amount of evolution (read: micro-evolution) would take “normally take millions of years to play” when their own data shows quite the opposite. The linked article “Evolution’s “Driving Force” Shifts…” even shows this result. It is very clear to anyone with common sense that, if the evolution took “millions of years” they would all be dead because the first two generation that did not evolve would be eliminated by “natural selection”. Micro-evolution has to take place very rapidly or the animal becomes extinct due to the very cause that is forcing it to evolve. Since they had to abandon the project for nearly 30 years, how do they know the changes didn’t occur in the first or second generation?
And, I have to say it. It would seem these small adaptations are well designed to keep the lizards from dying out. :P
Now stop introducing animals into new regions in attempt to try and prove something for which you should already be able to find natural examples.
theLady
Wow Brothers Winn, good week…how are you going to top this…and FrootLoop, thanks for the quotes from the good doctor, I guess you must be the only one who got the real message this week….V.V.
Science Avenger
Sorry Frootloop, but you see, there are lots of people out there who understand nothing about biology, and yet are trying to foul up science education in our schools. So no, we can’t all just get along.
And Phil, your argument makes no logical sense at all. Let people lie about you, and misrepresent what you say, and claim you are responsible for things like the holocaust, and see how nice you are. Grow up already, the world is not a Brady Bunch episode. The people who oppose evolution aren’t concerned with the evidence or this conversation wouldn’t even be happening.
Phil Walker, MD, MPH
If the neo-darwinists on this blog had the abundance of evidence that they claim they have, they wouldn’t have to use the crass and belittling language that they use and they wouldn’t even be interested in writing on this blog.
Way to go Professor. You are most eloquent (and also correct).
FrootLoopColorSorter
And to the Winn Brothers, I echo the words of the great Dr. Suess “You’ll be famous as famous can be, with the whole wide world watching you win on TV. And will you succeed? Yes! You will, indeed! (98 and 3/4 percent guaranteed)”. Good job guys. Way to create some sparks to get people thinking.
For everyone else the good doctor also has some wise advice: “You have brains in your head (hopefully!). You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You’re on your own. And YOU know what YOU know. And YOU are the guy (or girl!) who’ll decide where to go”.
FrootLoopColorSorter
Can’t we all just get along? ;) Seriously, why does everyone feel so obligated to “enlighten” everyone? IMHO, all that really matters is that YOU know what YOU believe and why.
The A-Team
Oh, and for the record, you’re going to have to update your arguments as we have observed actual speciation occur in a human lifetime:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
Oops, you lose.
The A-Team
Is this faux-agnosticism really where Evolution deniers are going to sink to now? You’ve quote mind Dawkins & removed the context. Yes, “doctrine” was an unfortunate word to have used but nobody can be seriously expected to always use the exact words they mean all of the time, and this isolated sentence taken on its own is completely antithetical to Dawkins’ otherwise consistent position. Now to call Evolution a religion is total nonsense. It’s certainly not a religion of atheist or anti-Christian, as the overwhelming majority of Evolution accepters are theists. The observable evidence exists whether you like it or not. And really, if DNA evidence isn’t good enough for you, then you should write CBS and demand they cancel CSI right now and petition the government to demand every prisoner arrested because on strictly DNA evidence be released. You can’t prove John Wilkes Booth really shot Lincoln in a lab either, but we can still be fairly certain that it happened with the physical evidence left from our ancestors and a little deductive reasoning. Thus you’re applying a phony standard and the logical fallacy known as Moving The Goalpost. You declare evolution improbable merely by fiat, w/o presenting any evidence to support this anti-science claim. And where exactly did forum user “Professor” get his degree from anyway, Devry?
Science Avenger
You referenced a creationist website and claim you aren’t making creationist argument? Whatever…
Show me such an argument in a peer-reviewed math or science journal, and I’ll take a look at it. That’s the standard for such subjects, since they are always too complicated to be debated on blog comments. Otherwise, it is just so much crank nonsense, a dime-a-dozen found all over the web. Whether you call it creationism or not is irrelevant. Whether you acknowledge that 0% of mathematical organizations in the world support such arguments is irrelevant. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, and the facts decided this subject long before you and I were born.
Scott
Wow. Am I on the wrong page? I though Darwinism was days ago. Even the Liberals vs. Conservatives flame war managed to stay on one page. I guess we know which topic people are really touchy about now. The evolution debate flared up on the Racism page too. Yikes! Deep breaths people, deep breaths.
MathDude
Science Avenger: - I’m not talking about creationist arguments, why are you? I’m talking about math. And a very small fraction of math organizations around the world have even bothered to comment on “creationist arguments” — so you are making your “100%” up.
Besides, I’m not spewing nonsense. There have been roughly the same number of human organisms in the last 2000 years as there have been pre-historic proto-humans in the last 5m years (I was using M for “billion” earlier, sorry if it caused confusion). According to neo-Darwinian thought, that means that there should be enough beneficial mutations in *recent history* to account for a similar difference as there is between chimpanzee and human. One “out” is that humans are (near) the pinnacle of evolution (i.e., beneficial mutations are much less likely for humans) — do you believe that, Science Avenger?
Science Avenger
Mathdude, if the best you can do is one crank posting on a propoganda site for ID, you make my case for me. That, and the complete lack of support from the mathematical community for the kind of nonsense you are spewing, once again makes my case.
See, you guys want to claim the biologists all reject your arguments because they are somehow biased for evolution. But you can’t make that claim against mathematicians. All they care about is the math. And they ALL, 100% of math organizations around the world, say the creationist arguments are bupkus. Now, that leaves you with only three options:
1) You somehow know the math better than all of them
2) They are all somehow magically predisposed to defend evolution
3) Creationist math is nonsense.
Any rational person can see what the answer is.
Soul Sister
I absolutely love everything that’s been discussed this week. I think it’s great to get everyone watching this show talking–even if none of us will have friends left since we’ve covered religion, politics, and beyond. :)
I’ve also had a good laugh reading all the ‘flaming’ posts. I like observing arguments, even though I am horrible at them. It’s been really interesting to see how people try to argue, defend, or rationally justify their beliefs–and do it mostly by attacking the other side’s ‘worsts’. But no one’s perfect. :)
Thanks so much for making this week so interesting. I’ve really enjoyed it. You go girls! (Or guys…..:)
kanada
This guy is making all these silly videos simply because he has no evidence. That’s just like John Corrigan Wells writing some stupid little book for sub-100 IQ types - no evidence. If our friend had evidence he wouldn’t need to to make 150 videos, just one paper would do.
Dave
There are so many flawed premises and flaws in the logic of this guy’s presentation and arguments that it’s made my head spin.
If your premises are flawed and your ‘logical’ extrapolations are illogical, then you can end up with any conclusion you feel like, and most of his conclusions are of that ilk. Lots of long scientific words, strung together and presented in a smart a** manner does not make a scientific or logical argument, and cherry picking quotes from Dawkins and then using the individual words, out of their context, to make a point is not scientific or logical.
Jim
People who think he is a idiot or moron keep you opinions to your self please.While he gives the evidence and is likely to be trusted more than the people on T.V
Ingrid
Now of all the people posting here in the last couple of days, I declare Professor the least open minded person here.
Why is it so hard for people to state their minds without insulting others. I stopped reading his post with the words “you morons”, and I don’t intend to finish it. Insulting people is not the way to make your arguments stick and I choose not to be talked to in that fashion…
SincerelyJackie
Whoa!.. i’m super late.. but whoa.. i didn’t even know there was a comment section in ur site..lol
Steve
I find the evolution die-hards quite amusing; so distraught over what they call ‘falsehoods’ in the video. This guy has put together around 150 logical and well researched videos, what have you put out? At least he has the balls to tackle such an issue, which clearly many feel passionate about. I encourage all the flamers to research and put together their own videos, or like the prof says, get a PhD, see the research for yourself, and make an informed decision.
William Wallace
Outstanding…almost exactly what I think.
1. ID is not yet science.
2. The (macro) Theory of Evolution is not yet science.
3. Female fruit flies that refuse to mate with males from a different group who eat a different diet do not make a species.
How do I embed this video? I would like to blog on it with credit to the authors.
Thank you so much for this.
William Wallace
MathDude
Yo! Science Avenger… news flash: mathematicians do, in fact, find all manner of difficulty with the probabilities implied in evolution…
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/mathematicians_and_evolution.html
Here’s an argument that even you can follow:
The current evolutionary model suggests that a stable population of around 100k over a period of 5M years with a typical generation of 20 years resulted in the evolution of human beings from a supposed human/chimp common ancestor.
With me so far? Ok.
That means that there are 250M opportunities for random mutation to get us from there to here.
So let’s compare that number to the number of human beings in the last two thousand years. Check out http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
and then we estimate the integration… and we discover that there are roughly 250M human beings in the last 200 years.
This means that there “should be” (mathematically) roughly speaking the same number of beneficial mutations in the last 2000 years as there have been in the previous 5M. The only “escape” is to consider “fixation” — i.e., to believe that the “special sauce” in the last 5M years is the “mutation-on-top-of-mutation”… but that’s why we have a science called “population genetics”… and guess what? In really doesn’t look like there is *any* hope of a mutation rate that is a) capable of resulting in the divergence between chimp and human, while b) not flying in the face of *observable* genetic divergence in the *existing* human population.
Science Avenger
Yeah Professor, that’s right, in the evolution/creation wars, its the evolution defenders screaming that the other side is going to Hell, and responsible for all the atrocities of the world, while the creationists with all their biology PhDs sit there trying to patiently explain the science.
No wait, it’s the other way around isn’t it? Yep, fact is, rounded to whole numbers, the proportion of PhD scientists around the world, and every single scientific organization, that support evolution is 100%. They all say the creationist arguments like the ones you treated us to are garbage, even the mathematicians and physicists, who’d be completely on your side if your arguments had any merit.
kanada
So does the Professor just have a PhD in Biochemistry/Biophysics or does he actually do science, advise graduate students, teach etc? Or does he work at a diploma mill? But whatever Professor has learned, his knowledge about evolution seems to have been acquired on the cheap, maybe by watching these fatuous videos, or frequenting sleazy websites like UD.com. Since you think that Darwin “meant that structural features of an organism change in adaptation to their environment” you are well informed enough to carry on a meaningful conversation on the subject. The airhead who has starred in this stupid video is simply mouthing a few talking points, none of which can withstand even a few minutes’ debate. I love to have fun at creationists’ expense. Professor you are one big laugh!
Professor
I love how supporters of evolution either 1) yell obscenities because they were indoctrinated to be both ignorant and hateful or 2) yell that evolution is true because they were just indoctrinated to be ignorant. Unlike every single one of you on this page, I have a PhD in Biochemistry/Molecular Biology/Biophysics. Now, to the evolutionists on this page, that will just incite you to yell obscenities because you are dumb enough to think all scientists believe in evolution. However, putting you morons aside, I’ll speak just to the non-ideologues. Evolution is not a fact, nor is it even a coherent theory. The poster who said speciation is not required of evolution, obviously cannot discern between Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution. Nobody believes in Darwinian evolution anymore, by which Darwin meant that structural features of an organism change in adaptation to their environment (his speculation on his one trip to the Galapagos did not even carry over through one season, but he never returned to check his theories). Neo-Darwinian evolution does in fact require speciation, and none has been observed. In all my years of performing biochemistry research under R01 grants, neither I nor my colleagues have performed, witnessed, presentated at conferences, written or read primary literature on evidence for evolution. We, unlike you, understand that evolution is indeed a philosophy that some scientists cling to because they were raised to accept only materialistic answers, regardless of what the data show. I’m not going to argue with a bunch of ignorant posters who would say something as stupid as “that’s about how obvious evolution is” in relation to gene changes in populations or that “evolution is just a few educational steps up” from the color wheel. NO legitimate scientists believe this, but many would be proud that the educational system has succeeded in making you think it is that simple and factual. Instead, I will encourage every one of you to earn a PhD in a relevant field and then, like so many of us who have already done so, see the LACK OF evidence for yourself, and realize that this theory is indeed just a militant religion. When I was a high school kid, I believed the teachers who told me humans evolved from pineapples because that’s what “scientists” said; when I was in college, I believed the professors who told me that anyone who challenges evolution is an idiot because that’s what the “scientists” said; when I went to graduate school to obtain a triple doctorate and become a “scientist,” I realized what a load of lies I had been taught and how, as a scientist, I was expected to turn around and lie to the next generation. Challenge the system. Ask your teachers for the research. There is equal evidence for the philosophy of evolution as there is for the philosophy of intelligent design. After your teachers lie to you, go to graduate school and find out the truth for yourself. Is it any wonder that the top scientists (members of the NAS) who support Intelligent Design were once ardent evolutionists? Some of us bothered to get the facts, not swallow the lies whole.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
drshorty
Although I will mention as I left an important part that evolution could easily explain speciation, it’s merely a longer process. I was more or less trying to point out that Evolution does happen. The only thing arguable about evolution is to what extent it works, speciation? Well there’s no evidence against it, there’s evidence for it. And people claim there is a lack of evidence at key points.. Well that’s a sham, because you can’t say you’ve proven it wrong, yet you just don’t have enough to justify saying it’s right. Well it works in all other instances, so in one instance it possibly might not. Why not? Because a designer stepped in? Possibly, but there’s no need if we see something that works. If a designer did step in, they’re be no need to, it was already heading that direction anyway. And by the way, what qualifies something to seem designed? Complexity? Really, think about it, what’s the most complex thing a single being has ever created… Maybe there were intelligent designers, but complexity is no indication of design, otherwise you could say ants are capable of creating life because they “designed” complex network systems.
drshorty
I don’t think he’s taken the time to understand the subjects completely, and while trying to sound neutral, he only sounds ignorant. Clearly he doesn’t understand that evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life, only its diversity. He says evolution is improbable, but doesn’t understand that would only be true if the results of evolution had to end up with all the species we have today, which they don’t(this argument has also been recycled and defeated many times, not keeping up on the debate?) It’s not an issue of statistics, and taking a statistics course would educate you on such. But to say there is no evidence of evolution–saying it doesn’t happen–is ignoring the fact that evolution was brought up to describe what was being observed. If you don’t believe in speciation, fine, but that doesn’t mean evolution isn’t happening. Evolution in the most basic sense does not require speciation, and it most definitely is observed today. We don’t witness it happening, but when you observe a controlled population’s genes changing do you assume an intelligent designer snuck into the experiment and fiddled with the results? No, and that’s about how obvious evolution is, saying the results are open to interpretation are like saying the color of my car is open to interpretation. Of course it is, but you’ll look like an idiot trying to convince people. Especially people who know their colors, evolution is just a few educational steps up. So maybe when you take the courses we’ll discuss, but for now you can’t be taken seriously for choosing to be ignorant.
Peter
Aw, c’mon Paul. Be a sport. Just one.
“What You Ought to Know About Intelligent Design” || Thinking Christian
[...] This goes along with it. [...]
Paul
Whoever wrote this needs to study less comedy and more science. So many falsehoods it’s pointless to even bother trying to counter them all.
joe
you’re an idiot. talk about something you know about.
Ingrid
I love that quote “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”
Loved the shows this week, awsome job…
Rabble of Redheads
Way to Go Brothers Winn!!
Ali
this was great … pretty darn awesome … this whole week the episodes were just way too goood
Bev
Loved the open-mind series. I think you should run for president. (well, I’m sort of not kidding. sigh )
Mr. Q
thats bloody awesome thanks and jolly good show wot-wot
Ricardo
erm isn’t flaming responsibly another dumb cow ?? (read ox-y-moron(
Christian
Haaa good point and i keep a open mind but now i cant close it you think you can come on up and close it for me