Darwin stated that the author of Vestiges of Creation would have us think that some plant gave birth to a misseltoe, and some bird to woodpecker perfect as we now see them, but this seems to be no explanation because it leaves the question of the case of co-adaptations untouched.
At what time even to the earliest infinitesimal moment of an emergent species is it not in a co-adaptation? Doesn't this mean that the whole of nature is connected as a plenitude from the earliest-just quoting Darwin
@uncljoedoc I'm adding back the quote you deleted because I want to answer it. "To reject a mystery simply because it is a mystery is the most besotted form of human pride. -- Edw. Forbes"
I don't reject creationism because it is a mystery. Every science is filled with mystery. The difference is that creationism asserts the mystery only and accepts no explanation. Science seeks to explain what can be observed, as well as what can be inferred from what is observed. Science is superior, IMHO.
@Largo64 I am not arguing for creationism.;Darwin deftly turned attention to another aspect of the question. The question of co-adaptations was left untouched if one were to simply assume that woodpecker and misseltoe was produced 'perfect as we now see them'. He never said creationism was stupid. I deleted the 'besotted pride' not to sound offensive. But I think the Darwinists of today do not penetrate the question and oversimplify. Darwin was highly motivated by such as Paley and Chambers.
@Largo64 just to say, we want to have a system of the universe; we find that as we understand, there is always, always the further question. There is horizon that ever recedes push as we may the envelope of what may be understood back; we always find a 'residuum' of mystery. But we want our system to be closed and thus there is a science that includes the residuum and it is metaphysics and the awe that is felt leads to theology.
Gould believed that the evidence proved Neo-Darwinian evolution to be false. And in fact it does. Evolution is a vague mechanistic process built upon metaphysical assumptions (apparent design, not actual design). The simple scientific fact is that life forms do "evolve" towards higher complexity, but it happens in huge "quantum" leaps. Life is not slave to genes. Life learns and wills itself forward through a guided, calculated process, not "random" and "lucky mistakes".
@circusOFprecision I think Gould would have been the first to acknowledge that the process is not wholly understood, and probably never will be. But I was saying here that the assertion by HISTRUTHBEKNOWN that Gould was repudiating his own and others' work was false and dishonest.
great upload. I have been talking to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN for a few days now. and he keeps talking about archeological proof. when I ask him to show it he just refers me to a creationist site which doesnt really prove anything. it just says that there is scientific evidence for creationism and it has a few articles posted about findings. but when I google these findings they prove to be out of context, fake or recognized by REAL scientists as being untrustworthy.
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
@Teghead Gould was a paleontologist who served also as a Professor of Zoology, and Professor of Geology at Harvard University, and also as curator for Invertebrate Paleontology at Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology. Where you got "snail biologist" is a mystery to me. I imagine snail biology could be part of zoology, all right. But Gould was certainly not so limited. He was more than qualified to expound upon evolution.
@Teghead You know, I just thought that a person who would be hired by Harvard University as a professor of geology could fairly be called a geologist. But that's just me. I'll just consider that this nit has been picked and defer to you. ;^)
When considering his life's work though, 'geologist' just doesn't describe him. I''m not sure why Harvard gave him a professorship of Geology, and not Paleontology. All his other titles and awards are biology/evolution. Paleontology might be kinda had to class, being on the border of biology and geology, but Gould was certainly more of a biologist, and the subject of paleontology is much more biology than it is geology.
This [misquoting science] is, and is likely to become, an increasingly problematic issue. It is a pity really, not because we seek to convert creationists or win them over (as they seek to do to us lost sheep), but because it is is deceitful and simply not true, nevermind libellous.
Thank you for trying to set the record straight. i.e. not selling something, just reminding people to do the honest thing and check their facts before blundering blindinly ahead.
I'm a strong supporter of puncuated equilibrium (in fact, I came up with the idea entirely independently and only later learnt others had named it "punctuated equilibrium"), however I find it hard to take Stephen Jay Gould seriously as an individual. His strongly politically influenced views on anthropology are widely dismissed by the scientific community. It puzzles me why people keep bringing him up as a defense for evolution...
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I brought Gould up here because someone had mined a quote that seemed to have Gould repudiating his own work. Of course, the person who posted that quote knew it was out of context and that Gould had done no such thing. This wasn't so much holding up Gould as the exemplar of biological science as it was refuting a dishonest creationist who was trying to use Gould's own words against him.
@jpkfox - whilst all of us will here concede that no-one has witnessed a monkey metamorphosing into a human, I imagine that the majority of us will disagree with your statement - evolution & speciation works on a scale of hundreds of thousands and millions of years - it is inconceivable that anyone could observe it's process. I imagine that your counter-argument to evolution is creationism. So, I'll pose this counter-question to you; Who can act as witness to the moment of divine creation?
You are confusing facts with conclusions and theories. Its A THEORY that we come from monkeys. Its a FACT that we have some similarities with monkeys. But those similarities with monkeys does NOT imply that its a "fact" that we come from monkeys. Similarity does not imply that 2 things are factually relatives. They could be, but not necessary. Data is facts, everything else is conclusions/theories. If we saw a monkey turning to a human live, THEN it would be a fact.
@jpkfox If you watched the video, Gould himself lays out what a theory is - NOT just a hypothesis, but a structure of facts - FACTS, that shows how facts fit together and create a scientific truth. I prefer Gould's truth, based on evidence. You can have your truth based on magic, and welcome.
Yes, and in the same sense, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Number Theory, the Theory of Relativity, and the Theory of Gravity are also only theories. Would you agree that atoms, germs, numbers, gravity, and relativity are not 'facts'?
"(a fact:)Human evolved from apelike ancestors ..." No, thats a CONCLUSION according to your THEORY. If your theory is false, that is obviously not a fact anymore. So you are wrong stating it as a fact. Its only a conclusion OUT OF FACTS (like similarity). Remember, theory can be TOTALLY FALSE...it is possible. Its not a fact that we come from monkeys, its a assumption based on some kind of theory.
@jpkfox Utter bunk. 4x more historians deny the holocaust than biologists deny evolution. It is *settled*, and it's time you ancient minded superstitious people figured it out.
@NightimeShadow There are many top scientists who deny evolution theory. That should tell you something... For example Isac Newton, great scientist, believed in creation and not evolution (or I have not seen him believing that).
@jpkfox "Isac [sic] Newton, great scientist, believed in creation and not evolution"
Ummm... perhaps because Newton died almost 100 years before Darwin was even born!? -- there was no evolutionary theory for him to believe in!
Besides that, Newton was a physicist not a biologist, even were we to accept your appeals to authority as somehow convincing (wrong dates aside) it still wouldn't make any sense to consider expert views from Newton or any other non-biological scientists re life ...
@jpkfox By that logic, if you don't get up every morning to watch a sunrise then the sun never rose - it simply appeared in the sky when you woke up. Observation is not the be all end all - a theory is developed by inference of data, and the data we have shows that evolution took place. If you are from a university background then you know the importance of textbooks, as such I recommend "Evolutionary Analysis" by S. Freeman and J. Herron.
@jpkfox Also, when you say "evolution theory is not even agreed inside science" I assume what you actually mean to say is "the mechanism of evolution," for you see the change of organisms over time is in fact accepted by the scientific community - the mechanism is what is under scrutiny. The real question is Natural Selection of organisms versus genes, and of the significance of Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Mutation to the Evolution of life in context of primary mechanism and background actions.
@jpkfox whilst all of us will here concede that no-one has witnessed a monkey metamorphosing into a human, I imagine that the majority of us will disagree with your statement - evolution & speciation works on a scale of hundreds of thousands and millions of years - it is inconceivable that anyone could observe it's process. I imagine that your counter-argument to evolution is creationism. So, I'll pose this counter-question to you; Who can act as witness to the moment of divine creation?
@Rob6456 I apologize for whatever schmuck marked your post as spam. I wish people would get it into their heads that statements with which they do not agree are not spam. I especially wish they would stop marking things as spam ON MY CHANNEL. Even if it were spam (it's not) on MY channel it's none of their damn business! I hope it didn't cause you any trouble.
@jpkfox: Then perhaps you would also know that some facts are onserved directly, some are inferred. In law, murder is often inferred by what is known as circumstantial evidence, but the law also has often required eye witnesses. More lately it has been argued that rather than being the best sort of evidence, eye witnesses are quite often wrong about what they see, and CE is a much better indicator of truth. While eye witnesses to science are cool, they are certainly not a requirement.
@jpkfox: I suppose then that you have to prove the falsity of the ToE. The truth is tht it has 150 years of multi-discipline circumstance behind it as well as a completelyvalidated theoretical framework. You know that Darwin, in Origins, predicted the results we found 60 years ago in genetics, that the cell has a way of both passing traits along to its descendents and that the way would involve a fairly fixed rate of errors. Darwin had no way to know what it was, but maintained it was there.
The reason that we normally see fossils only at the tips of branches and at the nodes is that fossil evidence for direct ancestor/descendant relationships are rare. We usually see close relatives to the actual line of descent leading to modern species. But they still show the the transitions which occured during evolution just the same. But you'd never realize this nuanced distinction just by the quote.
@prschuster its true that the incomplete nature of the fossil record is ONE explanation (eg Darwin's) but an alternative (IMHO way more compelling) is given by Gould and Eldredge ie ther notion of "punctuated equilibrium" or as Dawkins calls it "evolution by jerks"(he's not a fan). This implies that new life forms generally appear in rapid bursts (rapid on a geological timescale.. not talking about god clicking his fingers) - its a rather controversial debate among biologists (Gould is winning )
Thank you, Largo64. This is really interesting. I particularly enjoyed Gould's point about 'a vernacular misunderstanding of the words 'theory' and 'fact' at 4:54. Very succinct.
zzzzzzzzzz....evolution has not been observed, it is not testable. it is not even a good theory. the Gould quote is genuine.
but spoken as a frustration with the fossil record. not as as a recant of his positon. I don't think anyone is making that case. the Gould quote merely confirms the obvious- the fossil record does not support the theory. so go ahead keep posting .. waste your time...
Of course we can observe evolution. For example we can observe evolutionary responses of viruses like HIV to the human immune system. The evolution of antibiotic resistant TB is another example. These are only a few examples, there are many more.
What do you mean I know of thousands of observable cases of evolution both in the fossil record and in the living organisms of today? In fact one great example of a living transitional species is the grey wolf its decadence are modern dogs dingoes and various other wolf species. This is just a small example of many living transitional forms.
oh, you have evidence that the dingoe descended from a wolf?? is there fossil evidence of this? the dingoe, the fox, the wild dogs of africa are all original feral canines, not related to wolves. how do you know which one was the origainal protogenitor? you don't know at all...sure you can breed for charachteristics. but it won't give rise to a new species just canine. sorry these are not living transitional forms... but believe away...
No I am sorry we have actual evidence to back up my claims just do the research in the time it takes you to comment me back you could be on Google really learning what a transitional form is. We have more then200 example of living transitional forms just Google speciation. There are thousand of traditional forms in the fossil record as well just stop being a charlatan and look it up.
@stantheman42069 I've been perusing my comment sections. Again, I found that some jerk marked a comment as spam just because he didn't like what you said. I apologize for the brainless schmuck.
I am currently writing an essay on Darwinian theory which was obviously revisited and clarified by Gould in a very effective way. I read this quote myself in the texts assigned by my professors and took it to mean the same thing. The man is a doctor, he isn't going to claim to fight for creationism and then say creationism is wrong in the same work. He says several times that evolution is fact, but he does not agree 100% with how Darwin said it happened.
Some jerk marked your comment as spam. I un-marked it, but I apologize for the asshole who did it in the first place.
TO WHOEVER DID MARK A COMMENT ON MY CHANNEL AS SPAM - KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF! EVEN IF IT WERE REALLY SPAM (this one wasn't) IT'S FOR ME TO MARK IT. IT'S NONE OF YOUR GODDAM BUSINESS!
I am glad that someone takes the time to make well researched, thorough, well crafted responses, leaving emotion out of the debate. Although you, as well as many people before you, must feel that it is like throwing peas at a wall. The people who do not want to 'believe' in evolution, or the scientific method, cannot be swayed by anything less than a complete overhaul in their ways of thought (eg HelpYouHelpYou). As a result, 51% of American's still believe in creationism, as per '05 CBS survey.
I don't see a contradiction in the phrase "scientific creationism", anything can have a scientific approach.Just because someone cannot pry down the shaft of microscopes or telescopes does not disqualify their scientific efforts,or are you some type of elitist.The yogis of India have held for thousands of years that the universe is a projection from an un-knowable space that's vast and infinite,hence quantum physics holographic universe that projects from something called bulk space.
That you don't see the contradiction is irrelevant. The scientific method requires that a thesis be testable and falsifiable. Creation is magic. It is not testable. It cannot be falsified. Therefore it is not science. Creation is merely stated, and then accepted on faith. There is nothing of science in it. That should be simple enough for you to understand.
It only makes sense to those who have given up on wisdom. You know your own mind, I guess, and its limitations. Some of us, even us older ones, are still trying to grow.
I love the scientific method, along with physics, chemistry, biology. These last three break down at or before the Big Bang with anything prior being supernatural. Should we not ask what came before the creation of our universe? I'm curious about that and about God who I believe wrote himself into our world because we could not know him otherwise. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some day we will have scientific methods which show God's hand in creation. Testable thesis for nature before the Big Bang?
It's a really good point. How can there be a prior if time didn't exist before that point? Still, I'm in good company in making the assumption. There are plenty of scientists and philosophers asking these questions. We could, but not sure why you would want to throw out the questions about what if anything existed 'prior' because we have to make an assumption. Science uses assumptions in an attempt to make proofs.
Duane Gishs' book, "Evolution? The Fossil Say No!" says "...We do not know how the Creator created, for he used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe... We cannot discover by *scientific investigations* anything about the creative processes being used by the Creator." Gould's absolutely devistating question - "Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is 'scientific' creationism?" (p. 256 - 257)
You know that not more than 5 years (maybe 5 minutes) after Dawkins dies (god forbid) there's gonna be some nuts spreading the rumor of how he renounced his life's work. It makes me wish there were some Atheists spreading the rumor of how Jesus renounced his life's work on his death...wood, I guess. lol
hi largo, that was a great explanation on theory and fact was that you or gould?
i took a pass in an earlier vid explaining what a theory is as simple as possible (simple is good for creationist yet they still do not get it)but this one has to be the most cogent i've seen in recent memory. :)
He is a known troll that doesn't listen to anyone, speaks from his ass, lies constantly, contradicts himself, cheats, quote mines, twists every verse of the bible to suit his own needs, puts words in the mouth of the god he pretends to worship, and spams.
Ignore that fool, Largo, he isn't worth anyone's time. You should probably just ban him. I've watched his mindless dribble for 6+ months on another channel, and he certainly cant actually think rationally.
Gould was talking about Punctuated Equilibrium, which is a theory about the speed at which Darwinian natural selection occurs. It got picked up by the media, and in turn by creationists as a radical alternative to classical evolution, but with very little justification.
You should read chapter 9 of the Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins deals with it brilliantly. As for him being dishonest, Dawkins wrote his book in 1986, and deals with exactly this type of argument.
HTBK is a well-known bible-thumping mouth-breathing cousin-dating creationist moron. You shouldn't give him any benefit of any doubt, because he's been told many, many, many times that he's dishonest.
In other words, he's bearing false witness and continues to willfully do so.
The old adage that springs to mind in the face of such illogic is, "You cannot reason someone out of a belief that they were not reasoned into to begin with."
Gould kinda brought this on himself by going for the Templeton Prize ($500,000) in writing books intended to "bridge the gap" between science and religion. He stretched some turns of phrase to scientific breaking-point and in so doing gave theists many quotes they could use while he himself was dismissive of scripture and theology. To say he was occasionally irresponsible is being kind.
The Ronald Reagan quote at 6:21 was sneakily correct from the way I understand it. Today they don't see evolution as Darwin saw it at all. They have a new theory of evolution I have heard called: Punctuated Equillibrium. Isn't it funny how politicians and relgious people twist the truth? How can you trust anybody to tell you the truth who has a religion based on a lie?
Darwin stated that the author of Vestiges of Creation would have us think that some plant gave birth to a misseltoe, and some bird to woodpecker perfect as we now see them, but this seems to be no explanation because it leaves the question of the case of co-adaptations untouched.
At what time even to the earliest infinitesimal moment of an emergent species is it not in a co-adaptation? Doesn't this mean that the whole of nature is connected as a plenitude from the earliest-just quoting Darwin
uncljoedoc 3 months ago
@uncljoedoc I'm adding back the quote you deleted because I want to answer it. "To reject a mystery simply because it is a mystery is the most besotted form of human pride. -- Edw. Forbes"
I don't reject creationism because it is a mystery. Every science is filled with mystery. The difference is that creationism asserts the mystery only and accepts no explanation. Science seeks to explain what can be observed, as well as what can be inferred from what is observed. Science is superior, IMHO.
Largo64 3 months ago
@Largo64 I am not arguing for creationism.;Darwin deftly turned attention to another aspect of the question. The question of co-adaptations was left untouched if one were to simply assume that woodpecker and misseltoe was produced 'perfect as we now see them'. He never said creationism was stupid. I deleted the 'besotted pride' not to sound offensive. But I think the Darwinists of today do not penetrate the question and oversimplify. Darwin was highly motivated by such as Paley and Chambers.
uncljoedoc 3 months ago
@Largo64 just to say, we want to have a system of the universe; we find that as we understand, there is always, always the further question. There is horizon that ever recedes push as we may the envelope of what may be understood back; we always find a 'residuum' of mystery. But we want our system to be closed and thus there is a science that includes the residuum and it is metaphysics and the awe that is felt leads to theology.
uncljoedoc 3 months ago
Gould believed that the evidence proved Neo-Darwinian evolution to be false. And in fact it does. Evolution is a vague mechanistic process built upon metaphysical assumptions (apparent design, not actual design). The simple scientific fact is that life forms do "evolve" towards higher complexity, but it happens in huge "quantum" leaps. Life is not slave to genes. Life learns and wills itself forward through a guided, calculated process, not "random" and "lucky mistakes".
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision I think Gould would have been the first to acknowledge that the process is not wholly understood, and probably never will be. But I was saying here that the assertion by HISTRUTHBEKNOWN that Gould was repudiating his own and others' work was false and dishonest.
Largo64 3 months ago
great upload. I have been talking to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN for a few days now. and he keeps talking about archeological proof. when I ask him to show it he just refers me to a creationist site which doesnt really prove anything. it just says that there is scientific evidence for creationism and it has a few articles posted about findings. but when I google these findings they prove to be out of context, fake or recognized by REAL scientists as being untrustworthy.
AtheistScientific 3 months ago
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 5 months ago
You yourself haven't presented the facts too well! Gould was a snail biologist, not a geologist.
Man the creationism argument is so boring and their tactics so obvious, is this sort of discourse still necessary in USA?
Teghead 10 months ago
@Teghead Gould was a paleontologist who served also as a Professor of Zoology, and Professor of Geology at Harvard University, and also as curator for Invertebrate Paleontology at Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology. Where you got "snail biologist" is a mystery to me. I imagine snail biology could be part of zoology, all right. But Gould was certainly not so limited. He was more than qualified to expound upon evolution.
Largo64 3 months ago
@Largo64
I'm glad that we agree on your last point.
"Most of Gould's empirical research was based on the land snail genera Poecilozonites and Cerion" - Wiki
Steve Jones is also a snail biologist, and has some great book and public lectures on evolution and genetics.
Whatever made you think snail biologist was derogatory I'll never understand. =p
To call him a "geologist" as in the video is quite wrong though, whichever department he was associated with.
Teghead 3 months ago
@Teghead You know, I just thought that a person who would be hired by Harvard University as a professor of geology could fairly be called a geologist. But that's just me. I'll just consider that this nit has been picked and defer to you. ;^)
Largo64 3 months ago
@Largo64
Lol, great retort. =D
When considering his life's work though, 'geologist' just doesn't describe him. I''m not sure why Harvard gave him a professorship of Geology, and not Paleontology. All his other titles and awards are biology/evolution. Paleontology might be kinda had to class, being on the border of biology and geology, but Gould was certainly more of a biologist, and the subject of paleontology is much more biology than it is geology.
A snail guy through and through.
Teghead 3 months ago
They need their God(s). Religion is for people who can't face the facts.
Indigosnakes 11 months ago
Thanks Largo.
This [misquoting science] is, and is likely to become, an increasingly problematic issue. It is a pity really, not because we seek to convert creationists or win them over (as they seek to do to us lost sheep), but because it is is deceitful and simply not true, nevermind libellous.
Thank you for trying to set the record straight. i.e. not selling something, just reminding people to do the honest thing and check their facts before blundering blindinly ahead.
klenowfragment 1 year ago
I'm a strong supporter of puncuated equilibrium (in fact, I came up with the idea entirely independently and only later learnt others had named it "punctuated equilibrium"), however I find it hard to take Stephen Jay Gould seriously as an individual. His strongly politically influenced views on anthropology are widely dismissed by the scientific community. It puzzles me why people keep bringing him up as a defense for evolution...
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I brought Gould up here because someone had mined a quote that seemed to have Gould repudiating his own work. Of course, the person who posted that quote knew it was out of context and that Gould had done no such thing. This wasn't so much holding up Gould as the exemplar of biological science as it was refuting a dishonest creationist who was trying to use Gould's own words against him.
Largo64 1 year ago
@CrazyChitTV: Of course. That's why he was a professor in biology at Harvard and NYU and you are a purveyor of badly interpreted videos.
puncheex 1 year ago
@CrazyChitTV This would make you a...what? A Nazi, then, I would think.
darkprose 1 year ago
@jpkfox - whilst all of us will here concede that no-one has witnessed a monkey metamorphosing into a human, I imagine that the majority of us will disagree with your statement - evolution & speciation works on a scale of hundreds of thousands and millions of years - it is inconceivable that anyone could observe it's process. I imagine that your counter-argument to evolution is creationism. So, I'll pose this counter-question to you; Who can act as witness to the moment of divine creation?
Rob6456 1 year ago
Great Video! Thanks!
sanphaka04 1 year ago
You are confusing facts with conclusions and theories. Its A THEORY that we come from monkeys. Its a FACT that we have some similarities with monkeys. But those similarities with monkeys does NOT imply that its a "fact" that we come from monkeys. Similarity does not imply that 2 things are factually relatives. They could be, but not necessary. Data is facts, everything else is conclusions/theories. If we saw a monkey turning to a human live, THEN it would be a fact.
jpkfox 1 year ago
@jpkfox If you watched the video, Gould himself lays out what a theory is - NOT just a hypothesis, but a structure of facts - FACTS, that shows how facts fit together and create a scientific truth. I prefer Gould's truth, based on evidence. You can have your truth based on magic, and welcome.
Largo64 1 year ago
Yes, and in the same sense, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Number Theory, the Theory of Relativity, and the Theory of Gravity are also only theories. Would you agree that atoms, germs, numbers, gravity, and relativity are not 'facts'?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@jpkfox
" If we saw a monkey turning to a human live, THEN..."
...it would be either hallucination or magic.
SpeakerForrTheDead 1 year ago
...and *my* money would be on 'hallucination'!
SpeakerForrTheDead 1 year ago
"(a fact:)Human evolved from apelike ancestors ..." No, thats a CONCLUSION according to your THEORY. If your theory is false, that is obviously not a fact anymore. So you are wrong stating it as a fact. Its only a conclusion OUT OF FACTS (like similarity). Remember, theory can be TOTALLY FALSE...it is possible. Its not a fact that we come from monkeys, its a assumption based on some kind of theory.
jpkfox 1 year ago
@jpkfox You are wrong. See above.
Largo64 1 year ago
@Largo64 No, I am not wrong. I come
from university and I know the basics of science.
Facts are used in theory, not the other way around.
Facts are the data or observations. Nobody observed
monkey turning to a human,,, its not observed.
Thus it cannot be a fact. And evolution theory
is not even agreed inside science.
jpkfox 1 year ago
@jpkfox Oh, you come from university? Well, I guess that settles it. You know everything and whoever disagrees with you is just ignorant.
Largo64 1 year ago
@jpkfox Utter bunk. 4x more historians deny the holocaust than biologists deny evolution. It is *settled*, and it's time you ancient minded superstitious people figured it out.
NightimeShadow 1 year ago
@NightimeShadow There are many top scientists who deny evolution theory. That should tell you something... For example Isac Newton, great scientist, believed in creation and not evolution (or I have not seen him believing that).
jpkfox 1 year ago
@jpkfox "Isac [sic] Newton, great scientist, believed in creation and not evolution"
Ummm... perhaps because Newton died almost 100 years before Darwin was even born!? -- there was no evolutionary theory for him to believe in!
Besides that, Newton was a physicist not a biologist, even were we to accept your appeals to authority as somehow convincing (wrong dates aside) it still wouldn't make any sense to consider expert views from Newton or any other non-biological scientists re life ...
SensiStarToaster 1 year ago
@jpkfox By that logic, if you don't get up every morning to watch a sunrise then the sun never rose - it simply appeared in the sky when you woke up. Observation is not the be all end all - a theory is developed by inference of data, and the data we have shows that evolution took place. If you are from a university background then you know the importance of textbooks, as such I recommend "Evolutionary Analysis" by S. Freeman and J. Herron.
Rozonkomo 1 year ago
@jpkfox Also, when you say "evolution theory is not even agreed inside science" I assume what you actually mean to say is "the mechanism of evolution," for you see the change of organisms over time is in fact accepted by the scientific community - the mechanism is what is under scrutiny. The real question is Natural Selection of organisms versus genes, and of the significance of Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Mutation to the Evolution of life in context of primary mechanism and background actions.
Rozonkomo 1 year ago
@jpkfox whilst all of us will here concede that no-one has witnessed a monkey metamorphosing into a human, I imagine that the majority of us will disagree with your statement - evolution & speciation works on a scale of hundreds of thousands and millions of years - it is inconceivable that anyone could observe it's process. I imagine that your counter-argument to evolution is creationism. So, I'll pose this counter-question to you; Who can act as witness to the moment of divine creation?
Rob6456 1 year ago
@Rob6456 I apologize for whatever schmuck marked your post as spam. I wish people would get it into their heads that statements with which they do not agree are not spam. I especially wish they would stop marking things as spam ON MY CHANNEL. Even if it were spam (it's not) on MY channel it's none of their damn business! I hope it didn't cause you any trouble.
Largo64 10 months ago
@jpkfox: Then perhaps you would also know that some facts are onserved directly, some are inferred. In law, murder is often inferred by what is known as circumstantial evidence, but the law also has often required eye witnesses. More lately it has been argued that rather than being the best sort of evidence, eye witnesses are quite often wrong about what they see, and CE is a much better indicator of truth. While eye witnesses to science are cool, they are certainly not a requirement.
puncheex 1 year ago
@jpkfox: I suppose then that you have to prove the falsity of the ToE. The truth is tht it has 150 years of multi-discipline circumstance behind it as well as a completelyvalidated theoretical framework. You know that Darwin, in Origins, predicted the results we found 60 years ago in genetics, that the cell has a way of both passing traits along to its descendents and that the way would involve a fairly fixed rate of errors. Darwin had no way to know what it was, but maintained it was there.
puncheex 1 year ago
The reason that we normally see fossils only at the tips of branches and at the nodes is that fossil evidence for direct ancestor/descendant relationships are rare. We usually see close relatives to the actual line of descent leading to modern species. But they still show the the transitions which occured during evolution just the same. But you'd never realize this nuanced distinction just by the quote.
prschuster 2 years ago
@prschuster its true that the incomplete nature of the fossil record is ONE explanation (eg Darwin's) but an alternative (IMHO way more compelling) is given by Gould and Eldredge ie ther notion of "punctuated equilibrium" or as Dawkins calls it "evolution by jerks"(he's not a fan). This implies that new life forms generally appear in rapid bursts (rapid on a geological timescale.. not talking about god clicking his fingers) - its a rather controversial debate among biologists (Gould is winning )
SensiStarToaster 1 year ago
Thank you, Largo64. This is really interesting. I particularly enjoyed Gould's point about 'a vernacular misunderstanding of the words 'theory' and 'fact' at 4:54. Very succinct.
Sarusource 2 years ago
zzzzzzzzzz....evolution has not been observed, it is not testable. it is not even a good theory. the Gould quote is genuine.
but spoken as a frustration with the fossil record. not as as a recant of his positon. I don't think anyone is making that case. the Gould quote merely confirms the obvious- the fossil record does not support the theory. so go ahead keep posting .. waste your time...
bullviii 2 years ago
Of course we can observe evolution. For example we can observe evolutionary responses of viruses like HIV to the human immune system. The evolution of antibiotic resistant TB is another example. These are only a few examples, there are many more.
artisthespoonman 2 years ago
seriously?? these are your examples??
and there are many more??? how exciting...
bullviii 2 years ago
They sure are, and pretty good ones at that. Now you better get back to sticking your head in the sand.
artisthespoonman 2 years ago
and you can go on repeating evo-dogma ad nauseum...
bullviii 2 years ago
What do you mean I know of thousands of observable cases of evolution both in the fossil record and in the living organisms of today? In fact one great example of a living transitional species is the grey wolf its decadence are modern dogs dingoes and various other wolf species. This is just a small example of many living transitional forms.
stantheman42069 2 years ago
oh, you have evidence that the dingoe descended from a wolf?? is there fossil evidence of this? the dingoe, the fox, the wild dogs of africa are all original feral canines, not related to wolves. how do you know which one was the origainal protogenitor? you don't know at all...sure you can breed for charachteristics. but it won't give rise to a new species just canine. sorry these are not living transitional forms... but believe away...
bullviii 2 years ago
Comment removed
stantheman42069 2 years ago
No I am sorry we have actual evidence to back up my claims just do the research in the time it takes you to comment me back you could be on Google really learning what a transitional form is. We have more then200 example of living transitional forms just Google speciation. There are thousand of traditional forms in the fossil record as well just stop being a charlatan and look it up.
stantheman42069 2 years ago
@stantheman42069 I've been perusing my comment sections. Again, I found that some jerk marked a comment as spam just because he didn't like what you said. I apologize for the brainless schmuck.
Largo64 10 months ago
@Largo64 thank you
stantheman42069 10 months ago
Stephen Jay Gould is my hero and now I have another of his books to read to add to my already growing stack.
kardinalsins 2 years ago
I am currently writing an essay on Darwinian theory which was obviously revisited and clarified by Gould in a very effective way. I read this quote myself in the texts assigned by my professors and took it to mean the same thing. The man is a doctor, he isn't going to claim to fight for creationism and then say creationism is wrong in the same work. He says several times that evolution is fact, but he does not agree 100% with how Darwin said it happened.
balltender 2 years ago
Lady paleontologist explains transitionals .Video paleo lectures added monthly/ bi monthly.
"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of4"
flyingscience 3 years ago
Some jerk marked your comment as spam. I un-marked it, but I apologize for the asshole who did it in the first place.
TO WHOEVER DID MARK A COMMENT ON MY CHANNEL AS SPAM - KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF! EVEN IF IT WERE REALLY SPAM (this one wasn't) IT'S FOR ME TO MARK IT. IT'S NONE OF YOUR GODDAM BUSINESS!
Largo64 3 years ago
I love Stephen Jay Gould.
He was very instrumental in stoking my lifelong enthusiasm
for biology and evolution.
Thanks for addressing the slander and lies.
shas1814 3 years ago
Great response. I love how the people who "quote" people like Gould, Dawkins, etc., haven't even read anything by them.
sumfamousperson17 3 years ago
I am glad that someone takes the time to make well researched, thorough, well crafted responses, leaving emotion out of the debate. Although you, as well as many people before you, must feel that it is like throwing peas at a wall. The people who do not want to 'believe' in evolution, or the scientific method, cannot be swayed by anything less than a complete overhaul in their ways of thought (eg HelpYouHelpYou). As a result, 51% of American's still believe in creationism, as per '05 CBS survey.
palanski 3 years ago
I don't see a contradiction in the phrase "scientific creationism", anything can have a scientific approach.Just because someone cannot pry down the shaft of microscopes or telescopes does not disqualify their scientific efforts,or are you some type of elitist.The yogis of India have held for thousands of years that the universe is a projection from an un-knowable space that's vast and infinite,hence quantum physics holographic universe that projects from something called bulk space.
HelpYouHelpYou 3 years ago
That you don't see the contradiction is irrelevant. The scientific method requires that a thesis be testable and falsifiable. Creation is magic. It is not testable. It cannot be falsified. Therefore it is not science. Creation is merely stated, and then accepted on faith. There is nothing of science in it. That should be simple enough for you to understand.
Largo64 3 years ago
"The wisdom of man is foolishness in the eyes of God" Now this verse makes sense...
bjjkombat 3 years ago
It only makes sense to those who have given up on wisdom. You know your own mind, I guess, and its limitations. Some of us, even us older ones, are still trying to grow.
Largo64 3 years ago
I love the scientific method, along with physics, chemistry, biology. These last three break down at or before the Big Bang with anything prior being supernatural. Should we not ask what came before the creation of our universe? I'm curious about that and about God who I believe wrote himself into our world because we could not know him otherwise. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some day we will have scientific methods which show God's hand in creation. Testable thesis for nature before the Big Bang?
trafferazabu 3 years ago
go ahead and ask what happened before time existed, see how long you last. you are assuming there is a 'prior'.
yamaha893 2 years ago
It's a really good point. How can there be a prior if time didn't exist before that point? Still, I'm in good company in making the assumption. There are plenty of scientists and philosophers asking these questions. We could, but not sure why you would want to throw out the questions about what if anything existed 'prior' because we have to make an assumption. Science uses assumptions in an attempt to make proofs.
trafferazabu 2 years ago
Duane Gishs' book, "Evolution? The Fossil Say No!" says "...We do not know how the Creator created, for he used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe... We cannot discover by *scientific investigations* anything about the creative processes being used by the Creator." Gould's absolutely devistating question - "Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is 'scientific' creationism?" (p. 256 - 257)
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
THE truth be known...not A truth.
I sakute you, sir ! keep the wisdom coming, for it is the only reply to strongheaded fanatics whom do not rest in the face of evidence and fact.
Richelieu24 3 years ago
Interesting concept.
AConfusedIndiVidual 3 years ago
You know that not more than 5 years (maybe 5 minutes) after Dawkins dies (god forbid) there's gonna be some nuts spreading the rumor of how he renounced his life's work. It makes me wish there were some Atheists spreading the rumor of how Jesus renounced his life's work on his death...wood, I guess. lol
BoozyBeggar 3 years ago
booz, dawkins says sometimes that he's going to have a tape recorder switched on during his final days to prevent the theists from trying it.
jcadwell1172 3 years ago
All people lie. Thats a scientific fact. Sin is a son of a gun!
bjjkombat 3 years ago
Scientist lie because they are only human, that's why things have to be repeatable and testable by others.
Creationism can't be tested, it is religion.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Good vid.
amberview30 3 years ago
I usually wait when I see 3 or 4 part videos until I have time to watch them all at once. I'm sorry I did on this one. Interesting stuff.
eequalsfb 3 years ago
Very interesting article Largo64.
Great for evolution.
5/5
maurieer 3 years ago
You can give him all the benefit of the doubt you wish. It's useless. He'll ignore it all. As Gould himself took pains to point out.
Thank you for this. You are a wise man.
hairyreasoner 3 years ago
hi largo, that was a great explanation on theory and fact was that you or gould?
i took a pass in an earlier vid explaining what a theory is as simple as possible (simple is good for creationist yet they still do not get it)but this one has to be the most cogent i've seen in recent memory. :)
hellshade2 3 years ago
Everything I was reading was from Gould's essay. The link to the whole text is in the description box.
Largo64 3 years ago
HisTruthBeKnown is a fool.
He is a known troll that doesn't listen to anyone, speaks from his ass, lies constantly, contradicts himself, cheats, quote mines, twists every verse of the bible to suit his own needs, puts words in the mouth of the god he pretends to worship, and spams.
Ignore that fool, Largo, he isn't worth anyone's time. You should probably just ban him. I've watched his mindless dribble for 6+ months on another channel, and he certainly cant actually think rationally.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"He is a known troll that doesn't listen to anyone"
"He" is a "she". And you CANNOT reason with her.
egamble22 2 years ago
Gould was talking about Punctuated Equilibrium, which is a theory about the speed at which Darwinian natural selection occurs. It got picked up by the media, and in turn by creationists as a radical alternative to classical evolution, but with very little justification.
You should read chapter 9 of the Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins deals with it brilliantly. As for him being dishonest, Dawkins wrote his book in 1986, and deals with exactly this type of argument.
TheAtheistRising 3 years ago
HTBK is a well-known bible-thumping mouth-breathing cousin-dating creationist moron. You shouldn't give him any benefit of any doubt, because he's been told many, many, many times that he's dishonest.
In other words, he's bearing false witness and continues to willfully do so.
middlekk 3 years ago
The old adage that springs to mind in the face of such illogic is, "You cannot reason someone out of a belief that they were not reasoned into to begin with."
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
About time somebody did this.
Gould kinda brought this on himself by going for the Templeton Prize ($500,000) in writing books intended to "bridge the gap" between science and religion. He stretched some turns of phrase to scientific breaking-point and in so doing gave theists many quotes they could use while he himself was dismissive of scripture and theology. To say he was occasionally irresponsible is being kind.
philhellenes 3 years ago
I admire your optimism but my guess is that like all creationists the truth matters not a jot. They repeat the same lies ad nauseam.
Tridhos 3 years ago
The first video was packed with a punch!
'Creationists often make claims of perpetual truth'..Exactly! Going on to see the next part now.
Rhonda9 3 years ago
The Ronald Reagan quote at 6:21 was sneakily correct from the way I understand it. Today they don't see evolution as Darwin saw it at all. They have a new theory of evolution I have heard called: Punctuated Equillibrium. Isn't it funny how politicians and relgious people twist the truth? How can you trust anybody to tell you the truth who has a religion based on a lie?
KasparHauser4 3 years ago
"They have a new theory of evolution I have heard called: Punctuated Equillibrium."
Not actually a new theory. It's an addition on the old purely gradualistic theory.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
"How can you trust anybody to tell you the truth who has a religion based on a lie? "
the thing is you cannot.
hey kasper how have you been man?
hellshade2 3 years ago
Been great! Neither one of us has made a video in a long time. I guess summer has got both of us busy. Always looking for your videos though
KasparHauser4 3 years ago