Responding to the "scientific dissent from darwinism"

[Kpmuelle]

hello

[bigfilmhat]

These asswipe evolution deniers are gaining any sort of scientific acceptance, nor are they trying to. The crux of this document is to create the impression that there is another side.

Not to gain genuine scientific acceptance, not even to win a debate but to pretend that there is a debate at all.

[daddypriam]

This is a very boring video.

[mnewf2002]

ever watch trailer park boys dave? you look like the character "bubbles" a little bit

[myjizzureye]

I love your hair dude

[bigboyvernon]

They're trying to show that there really is no compelling evidence to whole heartedly embrace evolution (except for microevolution) as a scientific truth.

[baxtar1963]

Research the so called scientist. The "God theory" is dumb in the modern world. Check your ego at the door and wake up. Death is final but don't worry you won't know that you are dead. Have you ever gone under anesthesia, it's great until you wake up in pain. My sister, non religious but still believes the spirit goes somewhere. People refuse to accept the end of themselves. This is the fear that religion is founded on. As a people we have a long way to go. We are our brains period.

[mejc2]

try to get scientists to sign a paper stating they are skeptical of gravity.

There are now over 700 scientists on the list.

[bigboyvernon]

mejc2,

Gravity is different - it can be measured and observed (i.e. can be subject to the scientific method). Gravity, having gained universal acceptance in the scientific community, is now accepted as law.

[Darkgravx12]

Thanks big, smart people like you own. =)

[TheSpankymonkey]

He isn't that smart, he just fed you a spoon load of ignorance.

[IaintNoGood]

biboy you truly have no idea what you are talking about. Gravity is both theory & law. A scientific law does not become a law when it recieves universal acceptance nor is it a scientific theory which has grow up. You truly need to stop playing scientist online & actually read up on that which you speak about, objectively. Stop reading apologetic nonsense which cannot pass any scientific method or peer review.

:-D

[davethecat27]

Brilliant! I'd say the statements of the 'scientific dissent' document reads better with some punctuation; it's "signed" by 300 "scientists" with "doctorates" from... etc.

[carminethewolf]

Great comments on a loony document; well done.

[andhbom]

You make a very good point. Well done.

[wightboy12345]

Is it me or does Lee Strobel just radiate 'douchebag'?

[Timbul53525253]

No, it's not just you...

[winterstellar]

Well, it's great that millions and millions of scientists support evolution, some 99.9 percent or something, Even if you can find 300 fucktards to make fucktarded comments, evolution is still a fact. Even The Pope and The Catholic Church have admitted that evolution is a fact now. Check it out, both evolution and The Big Bang have been accepted by The Roman Catholic Church and The Pope. Creationism seems to mostly be popular among american hillbillies now, haha! : )

[LotusGreenX]

"Creationism seems to mostly be popular among american hillbillies now, haha! : )"

Since 60%+ of America don't believe or are unsure if evolution is true that would make most of the United States hillbillies.

[billfred51]

yes ... yes it would. Anyone with two brain cells and a half decent education would accept evolution over creationism.

[LotusGreenX]

If they were given the knowledge scientists do. But even still some scientiests cannot gulp the counter intuitive idea of evolution and put God in the gaps of the fossil record and difficult systems. Not many though.

[billfred51]

True, but the God of the gaps thoery is just stupid within itself, counter intuitive as you say. The 'gaps' in the fossil record don't really exist tbh. Yes we might expect to see more in some transectant fossil lines but lets not forget how difficult and improbable it is for an organism to become fossilised. Along with paleontologists discovering new species fairly regularly.

[Timbul53525253]

Even with gaps, the fossil record still blows the idea of special creation out of the water. Evolution may be wrong as well (though I doubt it), but creation is DEFINITELY, PROVABLY CRAP.

[ubrew12]

There would be something suspicious about evolution if 300 scientists worldwide WEREN'T skeptical about it. That's how science works, even though its difficult for religious dogmatics to understand that. Most scientists believe that Darwins 'Origin of Species' does in-fact explain the 'Origin of Species'. Yet they do so through gritted teeth, since the scientist who shows the inadequacies of evolution gets to join Darwin as an original scientific mind through history.

[benthemiester]

Why is it so hard to admitt that some secular scientist even if the minority may just have a diferrent view point about this theory if they were all christians you would have no problem writting them off as fanatics but then again Cleopatra was the queen of Denial.

[benthemiester]

You would make a shitty scientist but if you were a lawyer id hire you in a second, blue is really green and black is really grey. Its called adding to or redefining the context, or in other words denial. The national Academy of Science say's there is no skeptisism about undirected natural causation in producing modern living things sorry but you cant have it both ways, that is unless you lke it both ways?

[StutteringDave]

And the definition of skepticism is never contextually defined here.Why should we think that it is being used in anything other than its normal definition in a scientific context. The way that i defined skepticism is the same way that many of the scientists who signed the list defined it, see Donexodus' video: /watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=c­hannel_page

[benthemiester]

This is a very simple question to answer, what would be the motive to risk allienation hostility possible loss of research grants to reafirm something that goes without saying, again the spokes men and women of the National Academy of Sciences who claim to speak for the scientific academia have stated that there is no skeptism in natural unguided processes accounting for the living things, people like Eugene Scott, & Fransico Ayala why would they subject themselves to ridicule.

[billfred51]

wtf, blue is a prime colour lol, its just green on a CRT screen.

[benthemiester]

you sure you got the right guy? i dont really know what your talking about

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester Skepticism is like saying your agnostic about something. There's a whole range from rejecting to not being 100% sure but accepting a claim. That was what he said when he brought up donexodus2's video which shows that most accept common descent and many accept evolution, but are doubtful with the current modals of the theory.

They aren't skeptical because they have more then sufficient evidence for evolution and one should be skeptical until skepticism is unreasonable.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic Your first paragraphs may or not be true but that's irrelevant because the modern Darwinian synth is what is taught as gospel and irrefutable, and being done with the help of American tax dollars, and those who are openly critical of this theory have been punished, some with denial of tenure and others by being fired and blacklisted. The last paragraph of your thread makes no sense to me. Sorry but I've heard them all. The Dissent list is a clear message & should be taken seriously.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "The Dissent list is a clear message & should be taken seriously."

If less than 1% of the scientific community should be taken seriously what about the other 99%? Ben Stein's movie is flawed and even if there were so many creationists hiding in the closet we have good arguments to say they aren't helping progress biology through using creationist methods.

There is only evolution and evolutionary theory. Theories always try to explain as many facts as they can.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "If less than 1% of the scientific community should be taken seriously what about the other 99%?"

Science is no respecter of democracy. Most people believe in evolution because that's what their taught. This includes scientist and there are many testimonials to this fact. Those who have taken the time to research the subject and in this case 800 + scientist from around the world who are involved in the earth science have now gone on record as disputing the assumptions of theory.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester How are you any different? You take what creationists tell you or what scientists tell you in order to dispute evolution. We are doing the same thing unless your actually physically doing investigation in the field yourself.

In fact it's more likely that a teacher is correct than reading off a random website.

But if you're actually finding all this evidence against evolution from peer reviewed journals please share.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic Your the one that brought up creationism so don't accuse me of bringing it up or even making a statement about creationist. I don't know what your talking about. What does science have to do with theology? Why cant a scientific theory be explored using critical thinking? Your using the word creationism as a derogatory word yet you treat evolution like a sacred cow. I was speaking of critical thinking which should be encouraged in science. If you have overwhelming proof please cite it.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "Your the one that brought up creationism "

Don't tell me your another one of those cop out artists. I am just critical of evolution or I reject it all but I don't have any alternative. If Evolution is false then Creationism is the only alternative anyone has come up with unless they are being silly. Also, you need to define your view because while I'm skeptical at times of how evolution happened I still think it's demonstrably evident we descended from a common ancestor.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic U don't seem to understand that what is being critiqued is the modern synthesis. Who knows? maybe someday a better theory will be proposed, but sometimes its OK to say, we just don't know at this time, instead of pretending to know because of personal world views or the implications of an alternative means. I have not put myself in a position to cop out to anything. Its is u who believes what your told without question. If u want to talk about the actual science please don't be shy.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "U don't seem to understand that what is being critiqued is the modern synthesis"

Yeah, I've heard this story billions of times by IDers, but the thing your missing is by denying the modern synthesis you still have to account for the genetic evidences of commonality in a nested hierarchy with Erv's and gene duplications and psuedogenes ext. Can't through out darwinism without calling into question the other evidence.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic ERV's are no longer considered junk or random & non specific. We now know that this part of the genome once referred to as junk DNA is very specific and even beneficial. In the case of ERV's, female mammals produce massive amounts during embryological development to protect fetus from mothers immune system. I'm speaking of current 21 century data. If your going to talk science don't just throw out words, please be specific. What about gene duplication? What about psuedogenes?

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "ERV's are no longer considered junk"

ERV's are viruses that if they were activated they would severely hurt you. The fact that some of them are beneficial has nothing to do with my point. The fact that they are inserted showing that the only plausible explanation for why we share the same ERV's in the same location as other primates is common descent. I've heard your propaganda. It's not convincing.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester Ok psuedogenes. Most of them have no benefit because we can take them out and the animal is pretty much the same. Evolution doesn't say psuedogenes have no functionality. Evolution uses things. What psuedogenes show is remanents of gene strands very similar to other animals that perform functions we don't have because ours have been mutated away. For example we need vitamin C and part of the genes are mutated away.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic For years people were taught that these sequences were junk. In the words of Ken Miller in 96 "mindless scribble". People like Ohno who 30 years ago said there maybe some function, but they were ignored because it didn't fit the theory and now Encode has changed all that. Francis Collins recently said we have to rethink everything we thought we knew about the genome. . Even WIKI has said that this paradigm set us back 30 years. Please research a little more then hit me back

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "Please research a little more then hit me back"

How does this contradict what I said? Also how do you believe all psuedogenes are beneficial when we've taken them out of mice and they've shown negligible results for instance? This arguments sounds like the one where people say that scientists used to think the earth was eternal and look us God believers thought it came from nothing. Therefore we are on sciences side! Uh, no, neither were scientific ideas before the evidence.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic If you want to know more about where were at in genetics right now, Jerry Coyne has a video lecture entitled The Locust of evolution. He is an evolutionist who despises Intelligent design and half way through the lecture on genes, even he admits that in spite of the popular media we still don't' know how these genes work. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the new current data of post Encode period and emergent gene regulatory systems.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "The Locust of evolution."

Maybe I'll look at it later when I have time. I'm not a biologist and I don't think you are, so I think it's better not to discuss things that aren't well understood. This applies to anything we discuss. Because you could tell me X,Y, or Z doesn't make sense and you may not really fully understand it yourself, but it seems to be a smokescreen if it either doesn't prove evolution wrong or debunk the evidence for evolution or uniquely support design.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic Your last few threads have become a little pity patty. The example about Newton was never even specified by you. I'm assuming you're speaking of the dynamics of planetary moment but not sure since you don't even cite specifics. There are many scientist who don't reach their intended goals but nevertheless accomplish a lot. This man gave us Newtonian physics and you're belly aching. Cite the example that you claim of Newton Mr smarty pants. I would love to hear this one.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "This man gave us Newtonian physics and you're belly aching."

That's not the point. And I am talking about planetary motion. The point is when people haven't met their goals they often attribute the unknown to God. Perhaps God ultimately did everything or did one thing in particular, but to claim with certainty exactly what God did directly is silly.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic If you don't have a basic understand biology then speak for yourself.

The difference between us is you have a lot of faith in men of science but are not willing to learn a little about it. Judging by some of your responses your just repeating things you have heard as talking points. What happened to study about truncated genome in mouse? Can you cite any of these examples you're speaking of.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "What happened to study about truncated genome in mouse?"

No, I've read about it and I can't find it, but this isn't like a proof that psuedogenes are useless anyways. I never made the argument that because psuedogenes are useless it is evidence for evolution. Are you not having faith in your Creationist friends? What mainstream scientists actually hold to your positions on ERV's, Cytochrome C, or psuedogenes as not being strong evidence for evolution?

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "No, I've read about it and I can't find it, but this isn't like a proof that psuedogenes are useless anyways."

Then I'm not sure what your point was?

For future debates if you really want to get serious about this subject make a categorized file and save all the relevant studies to your HD so that you can access and produce them when called on claims that you have made, or you will not be taken seriously.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "claims that you have made, or you will not be taken seriously."

You're the one pressing the claim and you've admitted you've heard something like that. I don't expect you to take something as gospel proof that I never claimed was proof or gave you a resource to see for yourself. I'm sure you've already made up your mind that you got to see the how of evolution to believe it, which I think is an impossible demand to expect anybody to do.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester I'm willing to be humble and say I don't know, are you?

Here's what I do. Unless I am very knowledgeable about the specific topic I accept evidence that is well accepted and is reasonable and doesn't have many problems that I can tell. So I read about it knowing I am probably naive about all the possible problems but the experts who have this thing reviewed have more chance of being correct than not. Facts aren't a matter of interpretation. I then formulate my own conclusion.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic I'm willing to be humble and say I don't know, are you?

Being humble is always nice and appreciated but sensibilities and science are two different things. My whole point is exactly that. We just don't know yet concerning molecule to man evolution. I am not against Darwinism. I think it should be taught. He did great work. It is the assumptions & great leaps of faith of the modern synthesis that are disputed and challenged, and rightfully so. Gould did and he was an evolutionist.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "We just don't know yet concerning molecule to man evolution."

Ok. I agree and that's why I'm agnostic about whether the mechanisms we have can account for the diversity of life. But let's pretend punctuated equilibrium was correct and the genetic and fossil evidence points towards evolution, which I think it does. How exactly are we supposed to take today's mutations and prove how exactly a complex structure did arise? The only thing possible is to speculate.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester Calling me blind to follow scientists is just a pure ad hominem attack and hypocritical as well. You follow scientists and historians all the time without much question I would assume if you've actually went to school and believed half the stuff. I've questioned and criticized evolution more than anything else I've learned in school. I leave it up to people actually qualified to deal with the facts. I'd love to talk about implications but your just disputing facts.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic If you wish to leave it up to other people to tell you what is the truth then that is your prerogative. I'd rather try to find out for myself on subjects that interests me, in the case of evolution, ever since I was a kid. When I was a kid my outdated schoolbooks taught that piltdown man was transitional. The museum they took me to used skeletons made by artist in the descent of man display. When I later found they were fake & based on imagination rather than evidence I was angry.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "If you wish to leave it up to other people to tell you what is the truth then that is your prerogative."

Straw man.

"When I later found they were fake & based on imagination rather than evidence I was angry."

Wow your school was retarded. That was debunked a long time ago.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester Sorry for making so many comments, but I must bring in philosophical reasons to combat a judgment on someone that is naive a lot of science making an evaluation on what scientists present to them.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic

"That's not the point. And I am talking about planetary motion. The point is when people haven't met their goals they often attribute the unknown to God"

The same can be said in reverse. Scientist like Stanly Miller weren't able to meet there goals and attributed it to evolution. Whats your point? Now please cite who was able to prove Newton wrong about this specific conundrum? Please give names and details. If you cant, your just parroting something you have heard.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "...Please give names and details."

I've heard about it but if you don't believe me Idc. I didn't say it was a conundrum. My point is that people often attribute things to God when they could go one step further.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "I hope your not accusing scientists of having conformation bias in most of their experiments"

Now who is being naive. Do you think by putting a title in front of someones name that they are no longer subject to human nature? You could have said I hope your not accusing humans of bias. Some humans are honest and trust worthy. Others are not so honest or take the easy way. This is why critical thinking is important and faith is meaningless in science.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "This is why critical thinking is important and faith is meaningless in science."

So you admit that most scientists have conformation bias? That's a bold claim. Saying people have biases or make mistakes and most biologists use circular reasoning in determining their evidence are two completely different things. I constantly see articles on pubmed that say they intentionally didn't bias by looking at current evolutionary trees in order to be accurate.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic" I've heard about it but if you don't believe me Idc"

Give specifics. Newton said a lot of things about the planets and anomolies. Your the one that mentioned it. I'm not going on a wild goose chase with something you cant even cite accurately. Again who proved him wrong? I was right. You parroted something you don't even understand.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "You parroted something you don't even understand."

How do you know that? Why don't you explain Newton and tell me my misconception. It would only be curtious to correct my mistake if it is so important. You're trying to corner me on a red herring to a pointless issue for which I don't have a link to nor do I want to spend time finding it.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "The only thing possible is to speculate." Without a cohesive fossil record or until we can get to the point were molecular homology can actually be a precise science and conformable across all species, then all we really have is speculation. Maybe the new extended synthesis may answer some of these great questions a few decades from now which need to be answered in order for there to be a law of evolutionary development but today we don't have it.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "Without a cohesive fossil record"

Where is the evidence that it doesn't fit a punctuated equilibrium system? Creationists throw all these "big problems" but don't have a scientifically rigours method of criticism. Exactly how many of what kind of fossils are we expected to find and in what era?

How does imprecision in the mechanisms for how evolution occur put any question into the evidence that it did occur and that evolution is occurring?

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "So you admit that most scientists have conformation bias?"

I did not say that. The fact that your brain has interpreted my statements to mean that, is very revealing to me, and may explain were your trouble lies in processing information.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "I did not say that."

That's what you said when you said the affirmative to my question. It doesn't matter what you meant to say.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester The burden of proof is on you to discredit evolution. Otherwise you can personally dismiss it but you have no grounds of telling me i'm wrong. This isn't explained or I can't figure it out isn't an argument.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic Your brain has an interesting way of processing info. It is not up to me to prove PE isn't sufficient. Its up to the proponents to prove that it is. This is all speculative. If PE is true and evolution is a process of long periods of stasis and then short periods of rapid macro evolutionary change, then we should have an observable example. Can yo provide one? We all know about artificial breeding and cultivation but I am speaking PE.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "But the theory of evolution is built upon an induction of facts as can be seen quite strongly in genetic evidence"

How do you know this if your not even willing to research and cite evidence? Is this like the Newton Mouse study? I have to tell you your inability to back up your words seems to be a pattern here. Even you admit the Haeckels drawings were exaggerated yet they are still in textbooks today. Bio genetic law is considered a discredited hypothesis. Wiki

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "You haven't come up with an idea of what we should expect. Btw, punctuated equilibrium is supported by tests, it's not just a guess"

Really please provide the data or test that you speak of. Or did you just take someones word for it? Why should I tell you what we should see? I can only tell you what we don't see. Where is the universe of transitional Darwin said we would someday find? If I propose a theory then I am responsible to give evidence. I cant simply tell u disprove it.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "That's what you said when you said the affirmative to my question"

Please look through the threads and tell me were I made that statement. Please don't make stuff up. I said that some people are honest and some are not and that all are subject to human nature. If you cant understand these simple statements, then again your brain has an interesting way of processing information.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "Why don't you explain Newton and tell me my misconception"

How can I comment on something that you offer no specifics on. Newton said a lot of things about planetary motion. Give the specifics. You said he was proven wrong and said it with much conviction. I have heard others make this claim but so far no one has been able to cite evidence or source. I have cited or given links to verify my claims. You have provided nothing but parroting.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester speculation with evidence to support it for now. But the theory of evolution is built upon an induction of facts as can be seen quite strongly in genetic evidence. Your just demanding that it be shown how exactly it all occurred in order to accept it. That's like demanding the prosecution to prove all the events of the murder scene in order to conclude that the dna and circumstantial evidence and finger print evidence isn't good enough.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic I gave links because I like to back up what I say. In this case concerning corruption in science. I have been stern but more than fair and have not resorted to profanity or attacks. I believe your statement to me was "did I pull this out my ass" and I'm a cop out. Did I shrivel up in fetal position and cry foul? No I didn't. If you want to dish it out then be willing to be critiqued yourself.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "Wow your school was retarded. That was debunked a long time ago"

Yes many schools teach retarded thing concerning evolution. Agreed. Today there are textbooks that still have Haeckels embryos. There are textbooks today that show life slowly evolving step by step and ignore the Cambrian explosion. Ken Miller was forced under pressure to remove fraudulent data from textbooks that he had contributed to. Ider's were the first to critique him then latter his own fellow evo's.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "Haeckels embryos"

More creationist propoganda. Of course they aren't accurate because they are drawings that exaggerate a truth.

"ignore the Cambrian explosion"

What textbook on evolution ignores the Cambrian explosion? Is this just an assertion you expect me to believe? How does the increase in complexity of animals even support your "theory" of creationism to begin with? Why don't you just dig up a rat from the permian era.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "But your skepticism assumes there isn't difficulties on your part explaining the evidence without evolution."

All I have been talking about are the major problems. What are you talking about? Its not my fault that this theory is being questioned, disputed and challenged. Again Gould challenged the modern synth ala Punctuated EQ and many have accepted it it on faith. Then you have the Neo Darwinist like Richard Dawkins who disputed Gould. These are all speculative. I require more.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "These are all speculative. I require more."

No, because you haven't demonstrated why this is a problem for evolution. These are speculations to explain why we don't see more fossils or transitionals. You haven't come up with an idea of what we should expect. Btw, punctuated equilibrium is supported by tests, it's not just a guess.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester The scientific method demands that you don't bias stuff. Those are called mistakes not the norm of science. People will interpret it in light of their bias and their understanding that evolution is true, I totally agree. But biasing the data is called dishonest science. They often find trees incorrect because they use independent data.

I don't think you can just dismiss the pattern of common descent just by pointing out difficulties or flaws in particular scientists.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic Quantum physics is not my field of interest although it is a fascinating subject. No one can know everything but we can make opinions on things we are interested in. There is no reason you cant study, research or write to a prominent scientist and ask question. They do write back. You shouldn't think of yourself as to puny to form an opinion just because the field is science. Everyone is entitled to there opinion.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "There is no reason you cant study, research or write to a prominent scientist and ask question."

I agree. That's good that you care. But again, just like the discovery institute your standard of evidence or proof is not something scientists will be able to provide. You want to see how it occurred. Scientists will continue to find new evidence and solutions that will make the molecular clock work with the evidence, but you want to see the mechanisms at work through the process.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "So I read about it knowing I am probably naive about all the possible problems but the experts who have this thing reviewed have more chance of being correct than not"

Democracy and science have one great thing in common, they are not based on trust. The fox guarding the hen house, doesn't work as long as humans are involved in the process.

This why science is meant to be looked at critically, no exceptions.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "This why science is meant to be looked at critically, no exceptions."

Sure. But your skepticism assumes there isn't difficulties on your part explaining the evidence without evolution.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester Btw, I don't know if God exists and he's kind of irrelevant because if there needed to be a god for science then I'd have no problem believing in one.

"Francis Collins recently said we have to rethink everything we thought we knew about the genome."

I hope you aren't using this as a quote mine because if you really want to find "compelling" quotes to challenge my "blind faith in Darwinism" try quoting Steven Jay Gould.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic Most animal if not all, have ERV's. They are not specific to any species and their chromosomal location has recently been disputed & are no longer considered random by most. Humans have around 30,000 ERV's, out of that 30,000. We share 7 with chimps in a chromosomal location. Not exactly a slam dunk.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "We share 7 with chimps in a chromosomal location. Not exactly a slam dunk."

You might want to check your sources because I think that's 7 that we've found that are unique to chimps and humans.

"their chromosomal location has recently been disputed & are no longer considered random by most."

Did you pull that out of your ass? Btw I know what your talking about. It isn't completely random but within the biased location areas it is very much random.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic Your understanding of quote mining is as bad as your understanding of cosmology in your belief that the singularity is responsible for the formation of the earth. The hypothetical singularity is thought to be responsible for the beginning of the Universe, not the earth 7BY later. Quote mining is quoting something out of context which I have not done. Unfortunately many have tried to redefine quote mining as any quote that is critical of the constructs of evolutionary theory.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "singularity is responsible for the formation of the earth."

Ultimately yes, but where did I say the earth poofed out of the big bang?

"have tried to redefine quote mining"

Not really. I mean sometimes people may do that but most of the time people misapply peoples words. It's deceptive more than blatantly a lie. To say we have to rethink our understanding of evolution means something completely different to a biologist than to a creationist.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic " Many great scientists including Newton have given up and said God did it only for later scientists to find an answer"

Many great scientist have given up & have said evolution did it. How many EVOS are working on chemical evolution? or Cvalue enigma I doubt u would find more than a dozen. Newton never said we should give up, he merely came to the end of his rope in reference to the question of the precise intervals & dynamics of known planetary systems which are still a mystery.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "Newton never said we should give up"

He did give up as a scientist. He said God did it instead of saying I give up and we will eventually find a physical explanation.

"How many EVOS are working on chemical evolution?...or Cvalue enigma"

How does this specifically pose a problem for evolution? Hasn't the discovery of psuedogenes at least help solve this problem a lot. The fact that primitive organisms have huge genomes seems to go against a careful designer.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic Tree building problematic. There are tons of data on this. Ill send when I have time. As for mice study, please cite work I'm aware of a few studies but not sure which one your speaking of. I know of one recent study which truncated large amounts of genome but when I read the entire article the researcher said all he could say was that they were alive and he never tested for any neg affects. They never cited whether any off spring were healthy I cant comment on study I haven't seen.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "Tree building problematic"

I'm not a pro at the details, but I don't see how problems somehow discredits the pattern between independent methods. Unless things are created in some sort of nested hierarchy for some particular reason to look indistinguishable from evolution.

"They never cited whether any off spring were healthy I cant comment on study I haven't seen. "

Idk where it is. But functionality of vestigial structures is not evidence against evolution.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "I'm not a pro at the details, but I don't see how problems somehow discredits the pattern between independent methods"

If you don't take the time to research the problems with molecular homology then of course you're not going to see. These problems are not so incomprehensible that anyone with a serious interest in the subject cant understand.

Science is never wrong, unfortunately the humans that interpret it can sometimes be. Thats why I stick to empirical testable evidence.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "Science is never wrong, unfortunately the humans that interpret it can sometimes be"

Do you think because you can google quantum physics you really have something to say to scientists studying the field? Yes you can draw your own inferences but it's silly to say that it is merely interpretation. No, if those scientists are correct about the evidence for evolution for example, it's not even close to reasonable to just interpret it away.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "These problems are not so incomprehensible ."

They are even more incomprehensible if you aren't a biologist who has done serious study. If you want to dispute facts or evidence that's fine I'm not going to pretend to be an expert about subjects I don't know. But don't go around and say I'm trusting scientists interpretations. No, I'm evaluating what they are presenting as observed facts. I hope your not accusing scientists of having conformation bias in most of their experiments

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic How do you know that I haven't done serious study? Coyne is an expert, and even he admits in the lecture I cited, (which is a student lecture) that even science today is still trying to figure out our how these process work. Current data is overwhelming. Many people are doing great work on discovery but still little is known.

This was my point. There is no reason a bright high school kid could not understand what was being said in this lecture. No excuses for being lazy.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "How do you know that I haven't done serious study?"

A. your critiques or lack of critiques of my evidences so far doesn't display that you are well versed in the field.

B. You haven't really given me any reason since you are a creationist who keeps on referencing problems you never actually specifically say what they are.

"No excuses for being lazy."

Not lazy. Just running out of time answering and reading crap. I'd love to watch 1 hour videos.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic You can call me naive if it makes you feel better but on this particular subject I don't think I am.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "You can call me naive if it makes you feel better but on this particular subject I don't think I am."

I don't like retorting to ad hominem attacks, but your comment about how I have faith but you don't was way over the top. I could be wrong at my assesement of what I understand to be the evidence just as you could be. But I really haven't been given reason to doubt the evidence I see for evolution in order for me to deserve such an attack.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester Again, psuedogenes can be used to build a tree of nested hierarchy based on similarities and differences between species. Hypothetically, If one strand is AAAAT and their is a AAAGT and a ATAGT. How are they related? We can construct a tree of which one most plausibly was inherited from the other based on similarities and small differences and we get a tree the same as through all the other methods.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic In all honesty I'm not sure its worth the effort. You didn't seem to be aware that Aristotle and biogenesis were theories that lasted much longer than the modern Darwinian synthesis. This is 101. The simple nucleotide sequence you copied are not genes they are nucleotides. So please tell me how non protien coding genes produce macro evolutionary change. Do yourself a favor key in "phylogenetic trees problematic" on GSCHOLAR There's tons of data speaking of the problems of phylo trees

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "The simple nucleotide sequence you copied"

I didn't copy and I know they aren't genes. Sorry did I misspeak?

"hat Aristotle and biogenesis were theories that lasted"

Yeah I am aware. Quit being pretentious. Pre-dark age science counts when your talking about complex biology?

"So please tell me how non protien coding genes produce macro evolutionary change"

Evidence, not they produce macro evolution. Huge ignorance alert.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester ""phylogenetic trees problematic" on GSCHOLAR There's tons of data speaking of the problems of phylo trees"

Didn't find it. Can you give a specific article? Also don't bother if you're talking about horizontal gene transfer or instances of where scientists have misplaced something. As if problems or mistakes equal evolution is wrong. If not I would love to hear it. I would also love to see you actually address the positive evidence as well.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester But I'm not a scientist and there's a lot better people who explain the issue. If you've looked at the evidence for evolution you should already know about this.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "instead of pretending to know"

You are pretending to know you know what could or couldn't have happened.

"the implications of an alternative means."

Implications are important. If we didn't have to worry about implications than why accept any weird or crazy conclusion about the origin or nature of anything? We could just deny anything weird in hopes of something nice and fluffy that will magically come along.

"Its is u who believes what your told without question."

Nope.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic I'm not pretending to know anything in fact I have said, sometimes its OK to say we don't know yet. The theory of Aristotle mechanics was taught for from 322 bc up until a few short of centuries ago. Then Newtonian gravity until Einstein came along hundreds of years later with relativity. Abiogenesis was taught for many centuries years until Redi & later Pasteur proved it false. Where have you been? It kind of saddens me that so many people live in a bubble.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "I'm not pretending to know anything"

I'd like to take your word for it but you also said,

"Again the Altenberg summit was a major paradigm shift & best kept secret. Darwinism is dead."

So how is Darwinism aka the theory of evolution "dead" if you are agnostic about it?

"It kind of saddens me that so many people live in a bubble."

There's a big difference between most scientists before believe the earth is eternal and most scientists believe it began from a singularity.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester Also Newtonian physics is a useful paradigm. But if you were really consistent about this notion why believe Einsteins relativity? So what if it works, Newtons theory seemed to work. Yeah science is incomplete about the whole story, but it usually isn't completely wrong when there is a lot of evidence backing it up. Evolution may be revised? Sure, why couldn't it be? Through it all out as useless, hell no. The assumptions that it's correct have led to tons of discoveries.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester What's funny is you're telling me I accept evolution without question and you are attacking evolution without hesitation. In fact I still am skeptical about how evolution occurred. I can stand talking about the problems with darwinian evolution. I can't stand people flinging feces and dodging any sort of burden of proof by not accounting for all the evidence of evolutionary theory.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "How are you any different? You take what creationists tell you or what scientists tell you in order to dispute evolution"

I do neither. I don't just believe in things just because someone tells me. I research & study for myself. Science gets updated every few years or decades. To write any scientific theory in stone when even universal laws are sometimes challenged or reevaluated with new empirical data is kind of silly to me. Encode changed the world of biology & view of genome.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "laws are sometimes challenged or reevaluated with new empirical data is kind of silly to me."

Yes, but how many theories in science have been tested and challenged for as long as evolution and then turned completely false? Yeah evolutionary theory may have problems or be wrong, but evolution happened and there's definitely Darwinian mechanisms at work in the past and today. In fact things like Newtonian physics which are wrong are just as useful as they were a long time ago.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester I see zero evidence that evolution is going to be overthrown scientifically or otherwise. If you want to argue common descent lets go for it. If you want to argue against darwinian evolution working almost nothing at all in the past let's go for it. If you want to just criticize the mechanisms and have no plausible alternative or an attempt to try to see how it could work there's no reason to talk about it.

Why do you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[benthemiester]

@RuinSon "I still think it's demonstrably evident we descended from a common ancestor"

How do random unguided mutations produce specific macro evolutionary change? I'm not speaking of inference but actual data, & why are evo devos now questioning the modern synth & proposing a new extended synth based on epigenetic models that are still relatively unknown for a theory that is supposed to be air tight? Again the Altenberg summit was a major paradigm shift & best kept secret. Darwinism is dead.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester "I'm not speaking of inference but actual data"

Data is how we get inference. We see Erv's being inserted randomly and we share Erv's in a nested hierarchy for example. We do other trees and they give us matching results. How are we supposed to "see" macro evolution? How do you prove anything in history has occurred under your notion of data?

"for a theory that is supposed to be air tight?"

Evolution is air tight. Darwinism as the be all is not.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester Quite frankly I'm sick of you straw manning my position as if I am a staunch blind darwinist (whatever that means). I never said I was sure the mechanisms we have now accounts for all the diversity of life. You seem to be sure that it doesn't account for barely any and your pretty certain we haven't descended from a common ancestor. Why are you questioning me about Darwinism? Why don't we talk about evolution in general.

[benthemiester]

@RuinSonic "Why are you questioning me about Darwinism? Why don't we talk about evolution in general"

If you have a better theory please publish it. I would be glad to hear about it. I have spoken of the extended synth proposed in Austria but Its being rejected by people like Eugenie Scott because she is a staunch Darwinist & she thinks self organization models will be confused with intelligent design Encode opened up a universe of data that will require a universal effort to decipher.

[RuinSonic]

"If you have a better theory please publish it."

Wow. Seriously? Did I ever say I reject evolutionary theory? I said I'm skeptical and it could be incomplete. I never said it was so horrible as you claim. In fact it probably is correct because the main thing it says about the mechanisms of evolution is natural selection is the driving force of design in evolution.

Let me put it this way. I'm begging for someone to make scientifically rigourous and presentable claims against evolution.

[RuinSonic]

@benthemiester But the only IDers worth listening to for me are the ones arguing about population genetics IMO. It needs to be talked about more and the problems addressed and the field blows over my mind so I am too ignorant to know what is solved, being solved or what is really a big problem. They seem to still jump for conclusions. Many great scientists including Newton have given up and said God did it only for later scientists to find an answer.

[kirke420]

Very good video. And I loved you in Superbad! :)

[messiahjonz]

lol

[gamerolled]

It says it should be examined, not rejected. You are right. About this call to examine the evidence that supports evolution theory carefully, BRING IT ON! I'm not complaining. Except about how creationists misrepresented the list.

[freedom0f5peech]

I came back to watch this one again. Great Job Dave!

[GBart]

ALL scientists should be skeptical of EVERYTHING, but evidence controls its possible extent. Also, for every name on that list, there are 10,000 more who would never make any such statement.

I would say that skepticism regarding the shape of the Earth and careful examination of the evidence is a good idea.

[annosdomum]

*correction* they are close to EITHER the alpha OR omega.

[BentBlueMetal]

annosdomum

"How does this imply that you shouldnt examine other theories?"

Name just one other scientific theory that is competing with evolution. There is no other and the truth certainly is not in that book of bullshit you call the Bible, that much I am completely certain of!

[annosdomum]

look. they are putting it on a pedistal becasue its truth or falsehood has greater implications with regard to people's personal lives than any other scientific theory. No, they are saying you souldnt just blindly accept this theory. How does this imply that you shouldnt examine other theories? If they are being taught! Nobody in school I have seen is being shown in action the scientific theory with respect to evolution. the news is gay anyway so dont lump IDers in with propoganda machine. ty

[4096x]

I think the feeling is that evolution is being given a little more creedence than it deserves. If everyone can just keep calm and we look into it a bit more then we shall see...

[BentBlueMetal]

Since there is no serious competing theory to Evolution, are they saying Intelligent Design is? An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason? Is that the "scientific model" that they are proposing?

[annosdomum]

did the scientific method come up with punctuated equillibrium?  It doesnt go

make observations

formulate hypothesis to explain observations

find evidence against hypothesis

make new hypothesis without any observations to explain observations contradictory to original hypothesis

promote new conglomerate as having more clout than a hypothesis.

sorry. the baseless explanations for huge amounts of contradictory evidence means you cant expect people to just believe the hypothesis.

[StutteringDave]

Yes, the scientific method did come up with punctuated equilibrium. It started with the observations in the fossil record and continued on from there.

[annosdomum]

yes, the observation that gradualism is not a continuous process that leads to organisms undergoing a major overhaul in body form, say from fish to amphibian. Punctuated equilibrium is based on the lack of evidence for gradualism. Additionally I havnt been convinced by any evidence that what scientists refer to as gradualism is anything more than variation and speciation. everytime I see an example of "gradualism" its almost always some varient of squirles or flies separated by breeding barriers

[StutteringDave]

Yes, the fossil record is not distributed in such a way that we would expect from gradualism. However, we still find transitional fossils, indicating punctuated equilibrium.

"everytime I see an example of "gradualism" its almost always some varient of squirles or flies separated by breeding barriers"

And just what level of change are you expecting to see?

[annosdomum]

I am expecting to see what I in fact do see. all that can be duduced from observed gradualism is that living things speciate. It would be more appropriate to refer to gradualism as just speciation becasue gradualism doesnt do any work for the "molecules to man" theory. As for t-fossils?

I think the problem is that there are so few cases. take the cambrian explosion for example. Also, as I have seen it presented, the supposed t-fossils are often very close to the supposed alpha and omega

[StutteringDave]

"all that can be duduced from observed gradualism is that living things speciate."

But things speciate at often wildly different rates, depending on surrounding circumstances. That is part of punctuated equilibrium, as I understand it. The cambrian explosion was a result of the surrounding circumstances.

[StutteringDave]

We have actually found transitionals from the Cambrian explosion: Lobopods, transitionals between arthropods and worms.

How is it that small changes could not lead to large ones? What barrier can you present?

[Mahoogin]

Love it, bro! Keep up the good work.

[genghisishippie]

Cheers, Dave.

[Spectre11B]

I rarely see this level of articulation in a youtube video. Great work...keep it up.

[russjumps4fun]

Love the ending!

[sandman83jmw]

Hahaha, I agree with your point about which fields of science should we not be skeptical of! :D

[Hooya2]

Oh and I agree. Project Steve has a really hilarious take on this.

[DonExodus2]

Nice work!

[Hooya2]

Don, do you have a subscription to "evolution"?

[DonExodus2]

Nah, what is it?

[Hooya2]

Uh evolution as a tag, I mean--so every new video titled evolution gets on your subscribed list. It's how I found this video XD.

Just go to your subscription page and type it into the "Subscribe to tag" box if you're interested. Should warn you though, most of it seems to be about soccer...

[DonExodus2]

Oh cool, hmm, I forsee spam though!