Evolution is a fact. I work on a hydroponics farm and have to deal with whiteflies. These are a recent species called greenhouse whitefly. The problem is they can very quickly build resistances to insecticides. Honeydew is very messy and costly. The crop is sprayed once per week. After each spray, I pay attention to how many whitefly died. When I ntoice the spray is having little effect, I know the dose needs to be doubled to reduce the infestation. That fact of evolution could cost my job!
I did, it isnt. The fallacy of composition assumes that an individual part is the same as the whole. In this context that would mean that you would be assuming that any small changes that occur can only produce a small change in the whole. That is what creationists believe and so they are the ones that are using the fallacy of composition. Scientists are saying small changes can produce a whole that is very different.
"I am open to debate the contents of this dialog between the two imaginary characters (don't get me wrong), but I take neither side entirely. ;)"
Why on earth would you wanna do that? Do you at any level find it reward giving to debate imaginary stuff? Makes no sense to me. Now, if those characters would have been real and not just just strawmen.. that's a whole different story though.
lol? gravity IS a well established scientific fact like evolution... The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are the things to be proven. Well not exactly proven, since nothing in science can be proven, but evolution is still both theory and fact so whoever u were answering with your humourous intent, tell them that :)
he is a moron...theoretical bullshit is both smarter and hotter and he's so jealous of that with his carrot top head and big fancy retard glasses...poor thing never had a chance - high five :P
no he didn't prove anything... Because descartes(a deist not an atheist) says that philosophical doubt can be cast on anything but ur own existence. So u don't know u weren't deceived or deluded into thinking something is real. Columbus could not know 100% what he was seeing was real :).. so there goes ur har har har... how cliche. Evolution is a fact because biologists and paleontologists all over the world have found overwhelming evidence of that so... yeah... fact, ask any biologist
emm...how does one say this without being insulting. There is no such thing as atheistic science. If u think there is, fine, go to some mental clinic, and they have a pill for that...or go to junior highschool , get familiar with the english vocabulary, and then maybe come back...well, not exactly the most polite way of putting it, but i can't help it...
Nothing is obvious...MAybe i'm just reasonable. If those two happen to fall in the same category then maybe.
Well, explaining your definition doesn't make it any more true. It's still fake and gay...or false and homosexual as ray would put it.
I do not reject any kind of scientific theory on which there's scientific consensus in the field under study. Evolution for example which is both theory and fact according to biologists and paleontologists.
"I do not reject any kind of scientific theory on which there's scientific consensus in the field under study." Consensus? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR That's funny you little moron. Tell me what consensus proves?
i'm not gonna be an enabler for you especially when ur talking about things u don't understand like some ignorant prick. Go search yourself...try googling for starters for example...it's all there
or..."googling for dummies" if googling for starters is not exactly for u...(yeah i made it up lol). Thing is, science does not talk in proof but in evidence, power of prediction, falsifiability, predictions among other things. If ur not even familiar with these words, there's nothing i can do to help u out of ur ignorant misery...at least towards this subject. But maybe u'll come around if u learn a bit about the things u want to discuss...
JamesTR4, you best quit while you're ahead. I see you're only 19. You have no idea what I can do to you. Go ahead. It'll be a great education for you, but don't ever say I didn't warn you.
"You have no idea what i can do to you." This is one of the funniest things i've ever heard....
I'm sorry, but my education is just fine without your religious or whatever idiotic blindness you have infecting it... Sorry but , lol, no i don't want to discuss anything with someone who claims things without the necessary evidence to support it....As Carl Sagan said(my favourite scientist)"Extraordinary proof requires extraordinary evidence" following Marcello Truzzi, he said something similar
"Evolution for example which is both theory and fact according to biologists and paleontologists."
Well that's just great dummass. That shows how much you know about science. Evolution is neither theory nor fact. It's a simple assed hypothesis for morons to believe. It's certainly not science.
The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes this point: "Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact." So there u go...The national academy of science agrees with me...There u go about "my knowledge of science"... XD
"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation" Observation? Well since evolution has not been observed you're kind of left out in the cold. Evolution cannot be tested. It hasn't happened and it makes no difference if 4 National Academies say so. Evolution is an OPINION and that's all it is.
evolution has been observed. For example in species that have a rapid succession of generations (aka breed fast enough) like fruit flies, evolution has been clearly documented. Is the earth going around the sun an opinion too? Cause evolution is a fact , given the insurmountable amount of evidence...
JimmyTurd said, "given the insurmountable amount of evidence..." HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR that's a new one asshole. It's usually mountains of evidence or tons of evidence, but like you nobody ever brings any of it out to see.
I said that : "There is a consensus within the scientific community...that proves that there is no controversy within it". This is kind of obvious..if there is controversy there is no consensus and if there's a consensus there is no controversy. Tautology not ad populum, look it up XD. Judging from ur deduction skills...i can now see why u haven't come up with an argument against evolution yet...talk about logic fail...failblog should feature u as their main protagonist... XD
It's rather sad when people deny the evidence in front of their face...Ignoring the great record of fossil history that preceded them, ignoring evolution that takes place in labs and the wild...Frantically, there's nothing i can do... I guess u don't have a phd though so u should stfu about things u know nothing about...Since ur not interested in a reasonable discussion, all that's left to say is that u foolishly deny Science because it doesn't fit ur stupid ideas...grow up
It proves that there is no controversy within the scientific community. And the amount of evidence shows that evolution is a fact. Even if you deny it, and u surely do, it doesn't make it any less of a fact. Since the people that study evolution say it's a fact, and since they provided evidence and well-established theories, don't u think ur opinion is rather obsolete?
The word fact has been defined very precisely and since what the scientific community has done can include evolution as a fact, it's simply ignorant to claim otherwise.I suggest looking up the scientific method and see what ur missing . Great shit, and makes perfect sense to intelligent people..u know, the ones with the phds that have actually observed evolution...in the contrary people like you should just leave their arrogance behind and listen to the scientists, trust me, they know better.
"trust me, they know better" HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR yeah really. Listen dummy. And if you go to the Denver Museum of Natural History you will find a display of zebras. On that display is a sign. It asks whether the zebra is white with black stripes or black with white stripes? Now any moron can look at it and see that a zebra is white with black stripes. Guess what the sign says scientists have determined? hahaha you guessed--black with white stripes. So you can see how I feel about scientists.
your laugh is more obnoxious than u urself... Em, actually zebras, against ur "common" sense are actually black! So who is the moron again? " It was previously believed that zebras were white animals with black stripes since some zebras have white underbellies. However embryological evidence shows that the animal's background color is dark and the white stripes and bellies are additions. " Just don't post ur ignorance all the time, makes u seem incredibly foolish XD
"Em, actually zebras, against ur "common" sense are actually black" YEAH thanks for proving that scientists have lost common sense. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR Embryological evidence? no dummass. Just look at the fkker. It's what you see that counts dummass not what he might have been as an embryo. HAR HAR HAR HAR No wonder you evolutionists are so fukked up. If a scientist tells you that Dalmations are really black with a white splotch with holes in it, are you going to believe that too?
That's exactly the reason you are an idiot. You are ignoring the evidence and the facts because of an extreme arrogance and inescapably what you believe is bs. I'm sorry to tell you that ur extremely unreasonable and frankly you don't know what you are talking about. It's ok if you want to express an opinion, just know that it's not equally valid with mine. Anything u have against evolution stems from your denial not your knowledge and is dismissed on grounds of extreme ignorance.
"I'm sorry to tell you that ur extremely unreasonable and frankly you don't know what you are talking about" Sorry baby boy but you don't have a clue and there is a way to settle this but I don't think you're really up for it.
"It's ok if you want to express an opinion, just know that it's not equally valid with mine." No, my opinion is far superior to your ignorant ranting and raving.
"I'm sorry, but my education is just fine without your religious or whatever idiotic blindness you have infecting it" So you're going to try and play the religious card? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR Idiot. The only reason you would have todo that is because you have nothing.
It was observed by scientists and paleontologists alike and that made it a fact. Go to wikipedia, read the article about it and u will see that evolution is both theory and fact. And if u don't believe wikipedia , then go to the references and read what scientists have to say about it. Then go to the scientific method and study a bit more. Afterwards, go to Scientific theory and study that too. Then come here and i'll be more than happy to answer ur questions, more likely not many if ur smart..
Yeah, yeah, yeah, those same scientists claim that the world is warming up, that nothing is designed, that the world is still flat, that dinos turned into birds, that zebras are black with white stripes and I am supposed to believe them? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
The world is warming up and nothing is designed. That the world is still flat...well there's a christian society that believes that...and dinos did turn into birds...There are fossils of birds with teeth which myself find to be very similar to dinos...and the thing with zebras...lol...Ur not supposed to do anything. Science doesn't care what u believe. Ur microwave works even if u don't believe it. If you claim we shouldn't trust science...well if that's ur anecdotal evidnece, it's not enough :)
"The world is warming up and nothing is designed. That the world is still flat...well there's a christian society that believes that...and dinos did turn into birds...There are fossils of birds with teeth which myself find to be very similar to dinos...and the thing with zebras.." CONGRATULATIONS ASSHOLE you just made my forum's Stupid Quotes by Evolutionists thread. Way to go......
so u've run out of arguments and started an ad hominem attack. I just hope u know that's a logical fallacy and doesn't make what i said any less true. It actually makes u seem rather unreliable and immature...
What do you mean that small changes dont necessarily result in a big change? I get that the changes might cancel each other out, but how likely is that? Or if you mean something else please explain.
Thank you! Oh, and if you check the comments, you'll notice that I had a debate with the popular YouTuber TheoreticalBullshit about something that the YEC said in this video.
I'm currently uploading a video that summarizes that debate, and asks one all-important question to the evolutionists out there.
Stay tuned for a video about my debate with TheoreticalBullshit that is in the comments of this video. It's a conversation that spawned off of the comment made by the YEC in this video about the fallacy of composition.
I think you'll enjoy it. Perhaps you could use it as a way o respond to evolutionists. ;)
So lots of small changes don't wind up to a big change over time? Who knew?
The rock record cannot support the great flood (or whatever), it just can't so if you have another way of interpreting it I'd like to hear it and fossils provide evidence for evolution because of the predictions made by evolution not circular reasoning.
e.g. transitional species (but no crocaducks), no permian poodles etc etc
I don't think ure a YEC but this character rly annoyed me sorry
The words evolution and creation are now officially stripped from the english language and banned by law. Using either one will get you sent to prison. Instead, if you wish to discuss this subject, you must use the word "Creavolution" which is some sort of cross between the two. No one is allowed to be a creationist and no one is allowed to be an evolutionist, either. You're all creavolutionists.
To compare the Theory of Evolution to the Law of Gravity is a misconception; Laws are under Theories if they are an existing mechanism that explains the process of that Theory.
The more appropriate comparison would be the Theory of Evolution to the Theory of Gravitation, and the Law of Gravity to the Law of Natural Selection.
That's why the characters had to go through tons of different definitions. When people make the statement that "calling me an evolutionist is just as silly as calling me a gravitist," they most likely aren't using the definition of "evolution" that they ended up talking about at the end of this video.
there is no debate among scientist in the field of biology about evolution...the debate is mostly one made-up out of religious ignorance and political manipulation...it would be nice for once to stop smoking pot and come to real life and deal with the FACTS!!
Nice dialog, I believe you represented both sides quite accurately except that they were willing to listen to each other points most of the time lol. However I believe that there is more evidence for the said deluge creating the fossil record, than layer forming upon layer with minimal erosion in the fossil record if each layer is to represent a large time period.
Thank you. I find it somewhat odd that all the people who say that I *didn't* represent the sides accurately are exclusively evolutionists, and they can't explain *why* I didn't give the best argument for evolution.
But I do agree with you that there are a lot of things with the geological column that are more consistent with rapid deposition than slowly forming over time. ;)
Oh, I know I'm no actor, but why is it bad writing?
Are you one of those "evolutionists" who is frustrated by this video but can't describe why the fictional characters don't present the best case for each side?
There's a troll born every minute; I'd assume somebody who registered just to insult you before I'd assume an existing commenter being intellectually dishonest for a lack of argument. It could just as easily be assumed that the vid author made a punching bag account to misrepresent his opponents, but the Troll scenario is the most common and is in good faith assumed until proven otherwise, know what I mean?
However... since I have blocked about 20 trolls in the entire time being here on YouTube, I have encountered a few that have made accounts right after they were blocked.
lol i liked this video and I somewhat agree with you npage. I have been back and forth on the evolution thing and honestly, there is good evidence for it especially if one interprets the evidence from an evo standpoint. However, for me now, it is clear that this universe and the vast amounts of information in it and all its systems are rooted in something else besides some kind of non-conscious cosmic evolution. I think a lot of people are fooling themselves so they can maintain what they believ
By systematically dismissing evidence out of hand and ignoring any evidence contrary to the magic you already believe in, you TOO can remain a creationist.
That really didnt come across in the video. But no, I agree if the only evidence we had of evolution was nylonase that would be fallacious to then say all life evolves. But thats a strawman. I can't imagine any reasonable person saying that. Its merely an example of evolution. Its the same definition just at a higher level of backwards extrapolation. You could break down the word "walking" in the same way you did.
Hmm, what is the theists' theory about the fossils already? I guess people will just have to go by what the majority of the people active in an area (paleontologists, archeologists etc) believe is true. They could be wrong but the more people accept a theory the more likely it is the better theory. Faith is probably necessary, or better call it belief, because we have to believe others in order to understand. Not everyone can be a scientist.
I would normally agree with you but not here, there is a difference between believing the many scientists from all around the world, who were working on their projects for years and believe in cold hard evidence; and the few open minded people, scientific or not, who believe in physically unprovable things. It's not like hearing a popular rumor and instantly believing it, it is trusting experienced people from the field and their work.
Wait, wait, wait... Your fallacy of composition claim is completely bogus. If I have traits A and B, and my offspring has traits B and C (a small change), and their offspring has traits C and D and so on, eventually resulting in something with traits Y and Z, you've had a VERY BIG change from A and B. That's fairly obvious.
Sorry, but a cumulative sum of billions of small changes IS a big change.
We can use the scientific method to make STUNNINGLY accurate predictions about what we should find in the record if common descent were true and macro-evolution were taking place. We can also describe exactly what we could find in the record which would disprove evolution and common descent... and in 200 years we've never found such things.
The fossil record is also not remotely consistent with what we should expect to find with the hypothesis of Creation/Flood.
Hey man... thanks for your input. However, when I read your comment it looked like you were stating an example of the fallacy of composition... and then declaring that it makes sense.
You said, "a cumulative sum of billions of small changes IS a big change."
That would be just as fallacious as saying "a cumulative sum of billions of water droplets makes a big water droplet."
When it rains, we get a vast number of water droplets falling to the ground... yet... we don't end up with a big water droplet. Most of the time they all just get absorbed into the ground.
To say, "a cumulative sum of billions of water droplets makes a big water droplet." is a fallacy of composition, but it's not a proper analogy for what I said.
Saying, "the water in a cumulative sum of billions of droplets IS EQUAL TO the water in a big droplet," is not a fallacy of composition, and that is a much more proper analogy for what I said.
(Actually in the absence of gravity, combining a billion water droplets WOULD make a giant droplet. But that's beside the point.)
You are saying that a bunch of little changes are "equal to" a big change?
That's still the fallacy of composition. Here's another analogy: I take a step to my left, then to my right... and I do that a billion times... I haven't really changed my position overall.
A bunch of little changes are not guaranteed to be overall equal to a big change... you still run into the same problem, I believe.
"I take a step to my left, then to my right..... I haven't really changed my position overall."
But that's an even worse analogy. Now you've completely departed from talking about evolution. No biologist maintains that a species will evolve back into it's ancestor, and nothing in the fossil record supports that. Evolution is progressive change, never regressive change. So if you like,
"a cumulative sum of billions of small progressive changes IS a big progressive change."
Well... no I believe you are committing the fallacy of equivocation.
In one sense (small change), the "progressive" aspect is towards goal X, and in the other sense (big change) the "progressive" aspect is towards goal Y.
So, while I do agree that a bunch of little progressive changes equals a big progressive change (steps up Mt. Improbable, for instance), if the goal in each instance of "progression" was different, then it isn't guaranteed at all.
It would be just as fallacious as saying that a bunch of small steps towards the supermarket will eventually guarantee that I get to the nearest star. That is an example of how equivocating on the meaning of "progressive" looks like in one of the most absurd examples I could think of.
"In one sense (small change), the "progressive" aspect is towards goal X, and in the other sense (big change) the "progressive" aspect is towards goal Y."
This is yet another strawman, as there are no "goals" whatsoever in natural selection. I do not mean "progressive" as in "nearer to X" or "better". I mean "distinct from what has come before". Likewise, "regressive" means "returning to a former state".
We could do this all day, but can I just give you some reading material?
This time, I don't take a step to the left, and then to the right... I take a step in a random direction, and then back... a billion times. Each pair of steps is unique...
You still have the fallacy of composition. You can not make the statement "a bunch of little distinct changes IS EQUAL TO a big change" if I can give an example where it is false.
I realize that you are tiring of the conversation (as well as me), but I don't believe reading material will be necessary.
"I take a step in a random direction, and then back... a billion times. Each pair of steps is unique..."
Ok now you're grasping at straws. That's like saying an ape evolved into man, then back to an ape, then to a cow, then back to an ape, etc. ANOTHER strawman. The fact that you have to step "back" to the original spot every time is regressive, which evolution isn't.
You still haven't shown any fallacy. I know you don't believe reading material is necessary, but I'm telling you... it is.
First of all, "man into ape," "ape into man," and "ape-ancestor into man" are all good examples of the *big* changes that we are talking about... not "little" ones.
What I'm saying is that an ape ancestor never evolved into man(for this conversation, at least), and trying to give me examples of little, "progressive" changes in no way shows that it is possible.
Now... what evidence do you have that evolution is never regressive?
Actually, since you're stuck on the "small changes" aspect, "Blind Watchmaker" would be good for you too.
I read the Bible and went to church for a year (even though I was never a Christian) before I started arguing against Christianity. It's an intellectual courtesy that I WISH was returned by critics of evolution. I can't keep explaining things about evolution to you. That's not fair to me.
I realize that there is a level of intellectual courtesy in reading some material from "the other side."
I respect your request, but it seems as though when we finally got to the point where you fully understood me (and I fully understood you), you aren't answering the one thing that would put the final nail in the coffin.
I mean... you *do* realize that you must show that all "little changes" are never going to be regressive in order for there not to be a fallacy, right?
"you must show that all "little changes" are never going to be regressive in order for there not to be a fallacy..."
That's EXTREMELY false. Even if there were a species at some point which (somehow) evolved exactly into one of it's ancestors, it wouldn't change a thing. Two steps forward and one step back would still move you forward. And walking a few inches at a time, billions of times, is the same as walking billions of inches... even if you walked an inch backwards several times.
I'm saying that the little changes to the genetic code due to mutation and natural selection are not orientated to the same goal as an organism changing its form over time.
So, if the goals of the progressive changes are not the same as the big change (steps forward, steps upward, for instance), then a bunch of those small changes (steps forward) happening does not show that the big change (steps upward) can happen.
Forward wouldn't be a direction in this instance; if you drove a car 1000 miles north and 1000 miles south, even though you've arrived back where you've started, the Mileage on the Car has moved "forward" 2000 miles.
There's no Little Goal and Big Goal; there's just one Goal.
Genetic Drift can move in any direction; Natural Selection eliminates anything that changes in a way that is contrary to moving towards the goal, and gives advantage to changes that do move towards the goal.
Evolution can only move towards adaptation to the environment. If Blue Bunnies evolve into Orange Bunnies to adapt to an Orange Grass environment, it's not regression to evolve into a Blue Bunny if the Grass becomes Blue again.
And the orange to blue bunny example is what I mean by "small change."
Those types of changes have been observed in nature all the time.
However... a blue bunny changing into an orange bunny is not evidence that an ape-like animal can change into a human. The reason for that is because the "bunny change" has its goal "adaptation."
The ape-like thing to human change doesn't have that goal. The only goal that we can reasonably say that it has is "to change its form."
To say that its goal is "adapation" (like the bunny change) would be begging the question, since we don't *know* that it does have that goal. You see?
As I mentioned below, however, there's more to adaptation than just "people who taunt the lions will be eaten, and there will be less people who taunt lions in the future".
A change that isn't a hindrance to adaptation, but is actually a boon will be encouraged by natural selection.
Remember, Genetic Drift is random, but Natural selection is not; every child is different from their parents, but whether these differences are good or bad is determined by environment.
Natural Selection sets the goal of "adaptation" to all living things. If you posses a trait that gives you an advantage over others of kind, you are better adapted to the environment. Intelligence may have been a result of a random genetic drift, but it certainly gave an advantage.
In the Blue Bunny-Orange Grass Scenario, the bunnies would probably never change fast enough to survive; radical environmental changes lead to extinctions. Change in evolution is slow but adds up.
I see your point... but you didn't address what I said.
Genetic Drift and Natural Selection does not show us that an organism can change its form... only that an accumulation of adaptations can amass, and it will end up being overall more adapted.
It is logically possible that the adaptions *could* change the organisms form, but the fact that those adaptations are possible does not tell us that a change in form over time is possible.
Well we know wolves are what we have bred what we call dogs from afaik. Do you agree to that?
Would you call the changes we have been able to produce in dogs(wolves) by natural selection by our rules (deciding for example those of a certain color/trait get to breed) small changes?
The form of certain dogs differs quite dramatically from their ancestors the wolves. I wouldnt exactly classify this change as small, and it has happened over quite a small timeperiod (< 10 000 years?)
The Law of Speciation determines that, once enough of these changes occur in a species (an adaptation is always a change of form, however small), the resulting animal will be unable to reproduce with the base species.
This would be a change in form, and experiments with plants have proved this to be accurate. The banana, for example, has undergone a larger change in "form" than would be required for humans and chimps to evolve from Hominini.
sure. easy. There has never been any case in history where a woman has given birth to her grandmother. You know how people are like snowflakes, no two the exact same? Even identicle twins have genetic dissimilarities. The genome is far too large and at about 120 mutations per zygote the chances of all those changes just happening to directly revert (keeping in mind mutations are random) is frankly astronomically low, and on an evolutionary scale its mindbogglingly lower
this is the reason that while you can breed a chihuahua from a wolf, you cant then go back and breed a wolf from a chihuahua, unless you go back codon by codon by codon (ad absurdum)
"examples of the *big* changes that we are talking about... not "little" ones."
I know. Sake of simplicity.
"and trying to give me examples of little, "progressive" changes in no way shows that it is possible."
And this is exactly why you need to educate yourself about what evolution and it's evidence actually is BEFORE you argue against it. It's been nothing but strawmen from you. Very frustrating.
Read "Greatest Show on Earth" and "Why Evolution is True". Those are good starters. Please?
Okay... you do realize that you have to show that these "little changes" are never regressive in order to demonstrate that there is no fallacy... right?
And *please* don't start making this about the whole "you need to get educated about evolution before debating it" deal. And as I really respect you as another YouTuber, that type of thing would taint that respect pretty badly.
"And *please* don't start making this about the whole "you need to get educated about evolution before debating it" deal."
It's fascinating to me that you don't see this as a perfectly legitimate request. Absolutely fascinating.
I respect you too. I like your thoughts on philosophy. But how can I respect the fact that you're trying to argue against an area of science in which you have (demonstrably) not educated yourself?
No... I see it as a legitimate request. I also can somewhat empathize with your apparent frustration.
However, you must try to see this from *my* perspective. I have got to the point (in our conversation so far) where I don't believe you, or any other evolutionary material that I have come across so far, can adequately deal with. It's that question that I asked you three times now.
Well the reason why there's no regression in Evolution is because even though the direction may change, Evolution always proceeds towards the "Goal", not away from it.
The "Goal" is to adapt generation by generation to the environment in a way that ensures the successful passing on of genes.
When the environment changes, where the "Goal" is may change, but no matter which direction evolution is heading, it's forward and towards the "Goal", wherever it happens to be at the time.
While I see what you are saying, if you go the "goal" route you get to the problem that me and TheoreticalBullshit have already discussed in these comments: the fallacy of equivocation.
Well alright, if you'd like; but I'll need you to point out the two separate tenses I used for "Goal", since I didn't consciously do it if I did so.
To disprove that Evolution is always progressive, there'd need to be a situation where a species, rather than adapting to their environment, did just the opposite; Blue Bunnies on a Prairie of Blue Grass evolving into Orange Bunnies.
If the small changes (mutation and natural selection changing the genetic code) have one goal (survive better in certain environment), and the big change has a different goal (change organisms form), then it would be equivocation to say that those little progressive changes necessarily result in the big change.
What do you mean by "form" when you say that they are "big" changes? How do you measure "form"? How do you know that "form" has no underlying genes that influence?
In any case, we think of droplets as being a particular size. A "big droplet" isn't a droplet at all, it's a lake, or a pond, or a pool... not a droplet. The amount of water makes the difference between a droplet and a pool (generally). But the word "change" does not imply a certain quantity of difference between things. "Change" can refer to any quantity of difference. A little bit of difference would be a "small change", and a lot of difference would be a "big change".
Evolution never regresses because mutation occurs at random parts of the genome, usually via transcription error, so in order to undo a mutation, the exact opposite mutation has to occur in the same spot. To undo 2 overlapping mutations over 2 generations, the exact opposite mutations have to occur in exactly the reverse order AND at the same locations as they had originally changed. The genome is big, thus the odds of this happening are so small we can describe them as impossible.
You are absolutely right. I don't believe he was saying that a bunch of small changes can't add up to a big change, he was saying that because we have seen many small changes, it doesn't actually mean that big changes occured or have to occur. We have seen mutations to make people immune to aids, and mutations that make people born without feet, does that mean we came from apes?
1.I dont really think there is much larger change needed than breeding chihuahuas from asiatic wolves. What two animals could be more different? lol
2. No that doesnt mean we came from apes nor was that evidence ever used to show we came from apes. Its our anatomical characteristics which prove that we ARE apes. And yes, prove is the right word.
theres more to it than that. We share all the common traits indicative of apes and lack all that would exclude the definition ape. This is what tells us we are apes, by definition. The reason we know we share a common ancestor however is much more in depth. Heres an overview of the data that caused scientists to arrive at said conclusion watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY
(just an overview the actual data is of course much more indepth)
I stopped at the part about identifying a plant in the wild. The narrator is using severe logical fallacies. Hes basically saying that because we have classified all living organisms thats somehow evidence of evolution?
I understand that you're not entirely taking either side here and it's a good summation of a lot of the arguments... BUT.... wouldn't 'carbon-dating' be one difficulty with the YEC alternative explanation of the (apparent) fossil record? I believe that the dating of the sedimentary layers, in which the fossils are found, also correlates with models of the climactic and ecological conditions that were prevalent at different periods. There is evidence for a deluge, about 15,000 years ago.
In using all those long words, I'd have to acknowledge, that my memories of any specifics relating to the arguments are generally vague, and I'm taking a certain amount of my beliefs about the matter on trust. That's something we all have to do, and the arguments for change over time make a lot more sense to me than the arguments for a young Earth. I'm pretty sure that I'm not being partisan, because I detest what I see as the smugness of a Dawkins-influenced fashion for reductionism.
I think there is something wrong with our current understanding of evolution, and that it largely explains a lot of dislike of the theory. I think it's more to do with the way genes are expressed, which may not be such a mechanical process as we're led to believe. I think there really may be a scientific dogma there.
Do you claim to have presented the best case for either side? You presented the YEC's view of "evolutionists" and the denialist stereotype of YECs. If you are commenting on the bickering between some particularly uninformed YouTubers then well done, you nailed it. Was that the idea? If it was then it is indeed a straw-man debate.
Remember kids: Demonstrating fallacies in, or even disproving evolution, does NOT prove the existence of any deity or supernatural power. Furthermore all other science remains valid, evolution is NOT the foundation at the bottom of the structure that is science.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't see how this relates to the subject of the video... could you perhaps connect your comment to the video by showing how it relates?
I was highlighting the limits of disprooving biological evolution, some people (not necessarily you), seem to think other's worship evolution, Darwin, and Dawkings, and that it's somehow the king-pin that will bring everything down.
Evolution is a fact. I work on a hydroponics farm and have to deal with whiteflies. These are a recent species called greenhouse whitefly. The problem is they can very quickly build resistances to insecticides. Honeydew is very messy and costly. The crop is sprayed once per week. After each spray, I pay attention to how many whitefly died. When I ntoice the spray is having little effect, I know the dose needs to be doubled to reduce the infestation. That fact of evolution could cost my job!
Cinnarbar 1 year ago 2
Just when you thought this d-bag couldn't get any more annoying.
odinata 1 year ago
You sir, are silly.
cldstrcrft 1 year ago
nice fedora, go back to looking up wikipedia
totallybogass 1 year ago
hmm.. gently skipping over the fact that the fossil record is not consistent with a giant flood.
alexkidd3d 1 year ago
You're both stupid. Cuz you're both the same person. Oh yeah, we all saw through your disguises. Try again suckah
dahwan3D 1 year ago
My post was cut off dummass. Now tell me at what point the offspring becomes infertile with the parent stock.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
@MaximusArurealius Hey babe, it's been a while.
MusicHypno 1 year ago
Its the fallacy of composition, go look it up.
I did, it isnt. The fallacy of composition assumes that an individual part is the same as the whole. In this context that would mean that you would be assuming that any small changes that occur can only produce a small change in the whole. That is what creationists believe and so they are the ones that are using the fallacy of composition. Scientists are saying small changes can produce a whole that is very different.
NoCreatorRequired 2 years ago
This is retarded.
mdiem 2 years ago
wow that "evolutionist" sucks at explaining evolution and that "creationist" is just an obnoxious ignoramous.
mattdistad 2 years ago 12
Yeah, so after reviewing your videos it's clear that you don't know what the fallacy of composition OR the equivocation fallacy is.
You're basically calling reasonable inference "fallacy of composition" or "equivocation" neither of which are accurate.
Look up inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
paulmarko 2 years ago 3
You claim these are just fictional characters, and indeed they are, but it's clear which you sympathize with more :P.
fekrbot 2 years ago
"I am open to debate the contents of this dialog between the two imaginary characters (don't get me wrong), but I take neither side entirely. ;)"
Why on earth would you wanna do that? Do you at any level find it reward giving to debate imaginary stuff? Makes no sense to me. Now, if those characters would have been real and not just just strawmen.. that's a whole different story though.
Anyways, just curious.
anmarupappa 2 years ago
gravity is not a well established scientific fact.
prove gravity right now
Ilikenuman 2 years ago 8
lol? gravity IS a well established scientific fact like evolution... The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are the things to be proven. Well not exactly proven, since nothing in science can be proven, but evolution is still both theory and fact so whoever u were answering with your humourous intent, tell them that :)
JamesTR4 2 years ago
@JamesTR4
im judging it by his own standards
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
he is a moron...theoretical bullshit is both smarter and hotter and he's so jealous of that with his carrot top head and big fancy retard glasses...poor thing never had a chance - high five :P
JamesTR4 2 years ago
"Well not exactly proven, since nothing in science can be proven" OH REALLY? You mean Christopher Columbus never proved anything?
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Oh I forgot, you're using atheistic science. Yeah, in atheistic science nothing can be proven.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
no he didn't prove anything... Because descartes(a deist not an atheist) says that philosophical doubt can be cast on anything but ur own existence. So u don't know u weren't deceived or deluded into thinking something is real. Columbus could not know 100% what he was seeing was real :).. so there goes ur har har har... how cliche. Evolution is a fact because biologists and paleontologists all over the world have found overwhelming evidence of that so... yeah... fact, ask any biologist
JamesTR4 2 years ago
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
LISTEN FOLKS JamesTurd4 thinks the world might be flat!
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR WE can't be for sure.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
emm...how does one say this without being insulting. There is no such thing as atheistic science. If u think there is, fine, go to some mental clinic, and they have a pill for that...or go to junior highschool , get familiar with the english vocabulary, and then maybe come back...well, not exactly the most polite way of putting it, but i can't help it...
JamesTR4 2 years ago
"There is no such thing as atheistic science." Obviously you're an atheist and if the science doesn't follow atheistic beliefs then you reject it.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
Nothing is obvious...MAybe i'm just reasonable. If those two happen to fall in the same category then maybe.
Well, explaining your definition doesn't make it any more true. It's still fake and gay...or false and homosexual as ray would put it.
I do not reject any kind of scientific theory on which there's scientific consensus in the field under study. Evolution for example which is both theory and fact according to biologists and paleontologists.
JamesTR4 2 years ago
"I do not reject any kind of scientific theory on which there's scientific consensus in the field under study." Consensus? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR That's funny you little moron. Tell me what consensus proves?
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
"but evolution is still both theory and fact" What made it a fact?
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
i'm not gonna be an enabler for you especially when ur talking about things u don't understand like some ignorant prick. Go search yourself...try googling for starters for example...it's all there
JamesTR4 2 years ago
or..."googling for dummies" if googling for starters is not exactly for u...(yeah i made it up lol). Thing is, science does not talk in proof but in evidence, power of prediction, falsifiability, predictions among other things. If ur not even familiar with these words, there's nothing i can do to help u out of ur ignorant misery...at least towards this subject. But maybe u'll come around if u learn a bit about the things u want to discuss...
JamesTR4 2 years ago
JamesTR4, you best quit while you're ahead. I see you're only 19. You have no idea what I can do to you. Go ahead. It'll be a great education for you, but don't ever say I didn't warn you.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
"You have no idea what i can do to you." This is one of the funniest things i've ever heard....
I'm sorry, but my education is just fine without your religious or whatever idiotic blindness you have infecting it... Sorry but , lol, no i don't want to discuss anything with someone who claims things without the necessary evidence to support it....As Carl Sagan said(my favourite scientist)"Extraordinary proof requires extraordinary evidence" following Marcello Truzzi, he said something similar
JamesTR4 2 years ago
"Evolution for example which is both theory and fact according to biologists and paleontologists."
Well that's just great dummass. That shows how much you know about science. Evolution is neither theory nor fact. It's a simple assed hypothesis for morons to believe. It's certainly not science.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][4][5][6][7]
JamesTR4 2 years ago
The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes this point: "Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact." So there u go...The national academy of science agrees with me...There u go about "my knowledge of science"... XD
JamesTR4 2 years ago
"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation" Observation? Well since evolution has not been observed you're kind of left out in the cold. Evolution cannot be tested. It hasn't happened and it makes no difference if 4 National Academies say so. Evolution is an OPINION and that's all it is.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
evolution has been observed. For example in species that have a rapid succession of generations (aka breed fast enough) like fruit flies, evolution has been clearly documented. Is the earth going around the sun an opinion too? Cause evolution is a fact , given the insurmountable amount of evidence...
JamesTR4 2 years ago
JimmyTurd said, "given the insurmountable amount of evidence..." HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR that's a new one asshole. It's usually mountains of evidence or tons of evidence, but like you nobody ever brings any of it out to see.
FLY THE FAIL PLANE TO FAIL AIRPORT
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
I said that : "There is a consensus within the scientific community...that proves that there is no controversy within it". This is kind of obvious..if there is controversy there is no consensus and if there's a consensus there is no controversy. Tautology not ad populum, look it up XD. Judging from ur deduction skills...i can now see why u haven't come up with an argument against evolution yet...talk about logic fail...failblog should feature u as their main protagonist... XD
JamesTR4 2 years ago
It's rather sad when people deny the evidence in front of their face...Ignoring the great record of fossil history that preceded them, ignoring evolution that takes place in labs and the wild...Frantically, there's nothing i can do... I guess u don't have a phd though so u should stfu about things u know nothing about...Since ur not interested in a reasonable discussion, all that's left to say is that u foolishly deny Science because it doesn't fit ur stupid ideas...grow up
JamesTR4 2 years ago
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what a consensus proves?
Hellloooooooo
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
It proves that there is no controversy within the scientific community. And the amount of evidence shows that evolution is a fact. Even if you deny it, and u surely do, it doesn't make it any less of a fact. Since the people that study evolution say it's a fact, and since they provided evidence and well-established theories, don't u think ur opinion is rather obsolete?
JamesTR4 2 years ago
"It proves that there is no controversy within the scientific community" Ad populum argument FAIL
My denial has no effect on the fact that it's not a fact and neither does you "scientific" community make something a fact that isn't.
RIDE THE FAIL TRAIN TO FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
The word fact has been defined very precisely and since what the scientific community has done can include evolution as a fact, it's simply ignorant to claim otherwise.I suggest looking up the scientific method and see what ur missing . Great shit, and makes perfect sense to intelligent people..u know, the ones with the phds that have actually observed evolution...in the contrary people like you should just leave their arrogance behind and listen to the scientists, trust me, they know better.
JamesTR4 2 years ago
"trust me, they know better" HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR yeah really. Listen dummy. And if you go to the Denver Museum of Natural History you will find a display of zebras. On that display is a sign. It asks whether the zebra is white with black stripes or black with white stripes? Now any moron can look at it and see that a zebra is white with black stripes. Guess what the sign says scientists have determined? hahaha you guessed--black with white stripes. So you can see how I feel about scientists.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
your laugh is more obnoxious than u urself... Em, actually zebras, against ur "common" sense are actually black! So who is the moron again? " It was previously believed that zebras were white animals with black stripes since some zebras have white underbellies. However embryological evidence shows that the animal's background color is dark and the white stripes and bellies are additions. " Just don't post ur ignorance all the time, makes u seem incredibly foolish XD
JamesTR4 2 years ago
"Em, actually zebras, against ur "common" sense are actually black" YEAH thanks for proving that scientists have lost common sense. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR Embryological evidence? no dummass. Just look at the fkker. It's what you see that counts dummass not what he might have been as an embryo. HAR HAR HAR HAR No wonder you evolutionists are so fukked up. If a scientist tells you that Dalmations are really black with a white splotch with holes in it, are you going to believe that too?
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
That's exactly the reason you are an idiot. You are ignoring the evidence and the facts because of an extreme arrogance and inescapably what you believe is bs. I'm sorry to tell you that ur extremely unreasonable and frankly you don't know what you are talking about. It's ok if you want to express an opinion, just know that it's not equally valid with mine. Anything u have against evolution stems from your denial not your knowledge and is dismissed on grounds of extreme ignorance.
JamesTR4 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm sorry to tell you that ur extremely unreasonable and frankly you don't know what you are talking about" Sorry baby boy but you don't have a clue and there is a way to settle this but I don't think you're really up for it.
"It's ok if you want to express an opinion, just know that it's not equally valid with mine." No, my opinion is far superior to your ignorant ranting and raving.
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
Tell me something ya little moron. At what point does the offspring become inferti
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm sorry, but my education is just fine without your religious or whatever idiotic blindness you have infecting it" So you're going to try and play the religious card? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR Idiot. The only reason you would have todo that is because you have nothing.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
It was observed by scientists and paleontologists alike and that made it a fact. Go to wikipedia, read the article about it and u will see that evolution is both theory and fact. And if u don't believe wikipedia , then go to the references and read what scientists have to say about it. Then go to the scientific method and study a bit more. Afterwards, go to Scientific theory and study that too. Then come here and i'll be more than happy to answer ur questions, more likely not many if ur smart..
JamesTR4 2 years ago
Yeah, yeah, yeah, those same scientists claim that the world is warming up, that nothing is designed, that the world is still flat, that dinos turned into birds, that zebras are black with white stripes and I am supposed to believe them? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
The world is warming up and nothing is designed. That the world is still flat...well there's a christian society that believes that...and dinos did turn into birds...There are fossils of birds with teeth which myself find to be very similar to dinos...and the thing with zebras...lol...Ur not supposed to do anything. Science doesn't care what u believe. Ur microwave works even if u don't believe it. If you claim we shouldn't trust science...well if that's ur anecdotal evidnece, it's not enough :)
JamesTR4 2 years ago
"The world is warming up and nothing is designed. That the world is still flat...well there's a christian society that believes that...and dinos did turn into birds...There are fossils of birds with teeth which myself find to be very similar to dinos...and the thing with zebras.." CONGRATULATIONS ASSHOLE you just made my forum's Stupid Quotes by Evolutionists thread. Way to go......
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
so u've run out of arguments and started an ad hominem attack. I just hope u know that's a logical fallacy and doesn't make what i said any less true. It actually makes u seem rather unreliable and immature...
JamesTR4 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"so u've run out of arguments and started an ad hominem attack" Ad hominem? Where? Do you know what an ad hominem is dummass?
MaximusArurealius 2 years ago
Definition of ignorant:
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact
npage85, you are ignorant about the topic of evolution.
thizstick 2 years ago 3
What do you mean that small changes dont necessarily result in a big change? I get that the changes might cancel each other out, but how likely is that? Or if you mean something else please explain.
pahlrosp 2 years ago
Great Debate ! :)
SavedTru8 2 years ago
Thank you! Oh, and if you check the comments, you'll notice that I had a debate with the popular YouTuber TheoreticalBullshit about something that the YEC said in this video.
I'm currently uploading a video that summarizes that debate, and asks one all-important question to the evolutionists out there.
Hopefully you enjoy it. ;)
npage85 2 years ago
Thanks man... I appreciate the support.
Stay tuned for a video about my debate with TheoreticalBullshit that is in the comments of this video. It's a conversation that spawned off of the comment made by the YEC in this video about the fallacy of composition.
I think you'll enjoy it. Perhaps you could use it as a way o respond to evolutionists. ;)
npage85 2 years ago
Hahahahahaha!
This video really took me by surprise, Good Job!
EricWoznick 2 years ago
So lots of small changes don't wind up to a big change over time? Who knew?
The rock record cannot support the great flood (or whatever), it just can't so if you have another way of interpreting it I'd like to hear it and fossils provide evidence for evolution because of the predictions made by evolution not circular reasoning.
e.g. transitional species (but no crocaducks), no permian poodles etc etc
I don't think ure a YEC but this character rly annoyed me sorry
SamNoble89 2 years ago
The words evolution and creation are now officially stripped from the english language and banned by law. Using either one will get you sent to prison. Instead, if you wish to discuss this subject, you must use the word "Creavolution" which is some sort of cross between the two. No one is allowed to be a creationist and no one is allowed to be an evolutionist, either. You're all creavolutionists.
tgz1000 2 years ago
In commentary, however, the following:
To compare the Theory of Evolution to the Law of Gravity is a misconception; Laws are under Theories if they are an existing mechanism that explains the process of that Theory.
The more appropriate comparison would be the Theory of Evolution to the Theory of Gravitation, and the Law of Gravity to the Law of Natural Selection.
---------
Oh and also.
"Evolutions is right, preciousss"
"No, YEC is right, preciousss"
:P
sciencemile 2 years ago
Err rather...a Category Error? Maybe it's a Category Error...
sciencemile 2 years ago
@sciencemile:
Yeah... it would be a Category Error.
That's why the characters had to go through tons of different definitions. When people make the statement that "calling me an evolutionist is just as silly as calling me a gravitist," they most likely aren't using the definition of "evolution" that they ended up talking about at the end of this video.
npage85 2 years ago
there is no debate among scientist in the field of biology about evolution...the debate is mostly one made-up out of religious ignorance and political manipulation...it would be nice for once to stop smoking pot and come to real life and deal with the FACTS!!
JamesTR4 2 years ago
Pot has a lot to do with ignorance, considering most people are ignorant when it comes to pot, but not in this case.
AtSoolb 2 years ago
@JamesTR4 oh dear!
allan3141 2 years ago
yes , dear...amazing comedy , they don't make those anymore...
JamesTR4 2 years ago
Nice dialog, I believe you represented both sides quite accurately except that they were willing to listen to each other points most of the time lol. However I believe that there is more evidence for the said deluge creating the fossil record, than layer forming upon layer with minimal erosion in the fossil record if each layer is to represent a large time period.
DanielAnchondo 2 years ago 2
Thank you. I find it somewhat odd that all the people who say that I *didn't* represent the sides accurately are exclusively evolutionists, and they can't explain *why* I didn't give the best argument for evolution.
But I do agree with you that there are a lot of things with the geological column that are more consistent with rapid deposition than slowly forming over time. ;)
npage85 2 years ago
Bad writing.
Worst acting.
I can understand that you're an uneducated hack, but why post this video to Youtube, so that everyone can know?
Nice graphics, by the way. 3DTEXTLOL
andmyaxe1 2 years ago
Read the video description... and be enlightened.
npage85 2 years ago
Oh, I know I'm no actor, but why is it bad writing?
Are you one of those "evolutionists" who is frustrated by this video but can't describe why the fictional characters don't present the best case for each side?
npage85 2 years ago
You say nothing new, interesting, or funny. There's no payoff at the end. It's a waste of time all around.
Proudly uneducated is what you are.
andmyaxe1 2 years ago
Alright...
How about this: explain to me why your assertion "you are proudly uneducated" is true, or be blocked for being an obvious sock-puppet troll.
npage85 2 years ago
Eat shit.
andmyaxe1 2 years ago
Awesome. You're blocked.
npage85 2 years ago
As a sidenote.... I noticed that you *just* created your account...
I think that I am responsible for a ton of people creating sock accounts. It's almost ridiculous. ;)
npage85 2 years ago
There's a troll born every minute; I'd assume somebody who registered just to insult you before I'd assume an existing commenter being intellectually dishonest for a lack of argument. It could just as easily be assumed that the vid author made a punching bag account to misrepresent his opponents, but the Troll scenario is the most common and is in good faith assumed until proven otherwise, know what I mean?
sciencemile 2 years ago 2
@sciencemile:
Yes... I see precisely what you mean.
However... since I have blocked about 20 trolls in the entire time being here on YouTube, I have encountered a few that have made accounts right after they were blocked.
npage85 2 years ago
Yeah, that's a real novice job; the professional trolls create an arsenal of alt accounts in advance.
sciencemile 2 years ago
lol i liked this video and I somewhat agree with you npage. I have been back and forth on the evolution thing and honestly, there is good evidence for it especially if one interprets the evidence from an evo standpoint. However, for me now, it is clear that this universe and the vast amounts of information in it and all its systems are rooted in something else besides some kind of non-conscious cosmic evolution. I think a lot of people are fooling themselves so they can maintain what they believ
DisforDubby 2 years ago
By systematically dismissing evidence out of hand and ignoring any evidence contrary to the magic you already believe in, you TOO can remain a creationist.
intelligentfalling 2 years ago 5
@intelligentfalling:
Dismissing evidence "out of hand?" I'd like to hear why you think that is what the character in this video is doing...
npage85 2 years ago
the Pfft "whatever" to lucy and the "oh yeah nilonase yeah. That was cool"
It was dismissive of evidence.
intelligentfalling 2 years ago
@intelligentfalling:
Apparently you don't understand what is going on in the conversation at that point.
The evolutionist is going through definition after definition... *finally* reaching the one that he is actually going for.
(cont. below)
npage85 2 years ago
(cont. from above)
Nylonase was an example of a definition of evolution that wasn't far-reaching enough.
So he then moved onto the definition everyone thinks of when they think of evolution.
However... nylonase isn't evidence for *that* definition unless you want to use the fallacy of composition.
Hopefully it's clearer now?
npage85 2 years ago
That really didnt come across in the video. But no, I agree if the only evidence we had of evolution was nylonase that would be fallacious to then say all life evolves. But thats a strawman. I can't imagine any reasonable person saying that. Its merely an example of evolution. Its the same definition just at a higher level of backwards extrapolation. You could break down the word "walking" in the same way you did.
intelligentfalling 2 years ago
NoWalkist:what is "walking"
Walkist:Well its just putting one foot infront of the other
NoWalkist:Oh well then Im a walkist.
Walkist:No no, its when you take steps to go from one place to another
NoWalkist:Oh thats just small scale walking
Walkist:No no no its like you can walk to the mall over long distances using the same method
NoWalkist: Ok so...which is it?
Walkist: *hangs self"
NoWalkist:Psh what a weak argument, that guy had a LOT of faith!
intelligentfalling 2 years ago 3
Hmm, what is the theists' theory about the fossils already? I guess people will just have to go by what the majority of the people active in an area (paleontologists, archeologists etc) believe is true. They could be wrong but the more people accept a theory the more likely it is the better theory. Faith is probably necessary, or better call it belief, because we have to believe others in order to understand. Not everyone can be a scientist.
Anonymous247n 2 years ago
@Anonymous247n:
Umm... A bunch of people accepting a theory does not make it more likely to be true. That would be the fallacy of an appeal to the masses.
npage85 2 years ago
I would normally agree with you but not here, there is a difference between believing the many scientists from all around the world, who were working on their projects for years and believe in cold hard evidence; and the few open minded people, scientific or not, who believe in physically unprovable things. It's not like hearing a popular rumor and instantly believing it, it is trusting experienced people from the field and their work.
Anonymous247n 2 years ago
@Anonymous247n:
True... but to show why a bunch of people believing something doesn't make it more likely: look at Santa Claus.
I believe the same thing applies to everything... it's a general principle. It's a well-known fallacy.
npage85 2 years ago
Evolution is the best possible explanation so far, for the diversity of life and why we are so genetically similar to other live on earth.
It's up for improvement or replacement as much as any other scientific theory. No faith necessary.
TruthBeyond 2 years ago
@ TruthBeyond:
But.... why? lol...
npage85 2 years ago
I wonder if you are a 'YEC' or an 'Evolutionist' or what else.
Kratzbyrste 2 years ago
@Kratzbyrste:
The world will never know. ;)
npage85 2 years ago
Wait, wait, wait... Your fallacy of composition claim is completely bogus. If I have traits A and B, and my offspring has traits B and C (a small change), and their offspring has traits C and D and so on, eventually resulting in something with traits Y and Z, you've had a VERY BIG change from A and B. That's fairly obvious.
Sorry, but a cumulative sum of billions of small changes IS a big change.
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago 2
As for the fossil record:
We can use the scientific method to make STUNNINGLY accurate predictions about what we should find in the record if common descent were true and macro-evolution were taking place. We can also describe exactly what we could find in the record which would disprove evolution and common descent... and in 200 years we've never found such things.
The fossil record is also not remotely consistent with what we should expect to find with the hypothesis of Creation/Flood.
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago 4
@TheoreticalBullshit:
Hey man... thanks for your input. However, when I read your comment it looked like you were stating an example of the fallacy of composition... and then declaring that it makes sense.
You said, "a cumulative sum of billions of small changes IS a big change."
(cont. below)
npage85 2 years ago
(cont. from above)
That would be just as fallacious as saying "a cumulative sum of billions of water droplets makes a big water droplet."
When it rains, we get a vast number of water droplets falling to the ground... yet... we don't end up with a big water droplet. Most of the time they all just get absorbed into the ground.
npage85 2 years ago
To say, "a cumulative sum of billions of water droplets makes a big water droplet." is a fallacy of composition, but it's not a proper analogy for what I said.
Saying, "the water in a cumulative sum of billions of droplets IS EQUAL TO the water in a big droplet," is not a fallacy of composition, and that is a much more proper analogy for what I said.
(Actually in the absence of gravity, combining a billion water droplets WOULD make a giant droplet. But that's beside the point.)
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago 2
@TheoreticalBullshit:
Yeah... the whole absence of gravity thing is besides the point... the analogy isn't meant to be scrutinized to that degree.
However, I see what you are saying with the "is equal to" line. Let me see if I understand you correctly.
(cont. below)
npage85 2 years ago
(cont .from above)
You are saying that a bunch of little changes are "equal to" a big change?
That's still the fallacy of composition. Here's another analogy: I take a step to my left, then to my right... and I do that a billion times... I haven't really changed my position overall.
A bunch of little changes are not guaranteed to be overall equal to a big change... you still run into the same problem, I believe.
npage85 2 years ago
"I take a step to my left, then to my right..... I haven't really changed my position overall."
But that's an even worse analogy. Now you've completely departed from talking about evolution. No biologist maintains that a species will evolve back into it's ancestor, and nothing in the fossil record supports that. Evolution is progressive change, never regressive change. So if you like,
"a cumulative sum of billions of small progressive changes IS a big progressive change."
Again, no fallacy.
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago 2
@TheoreticalBullshit:
Well... no I believe you are committing the fallacy of equivocation.
In one sense (small change), the "progressive" aspect is towards goal X, and in the other sense (big change) the "progressive" aspect is towards goal Y.
So, while I do agree that a bunch of little progressive changes equals a big progressive change (steps up Mt. Improbable, for instance), if the goal in each instance of "progression" was different, then it isn't guaranteed at all.
(cont. below)
npage85 2 years ago
(cont. from above)
It would be just as fallacious as saying that a bunch of small steps towards the supermarket will eventually guarantee that I get to the nearest star. That is an example of how equivocating on the meaning of "progressive" looks like in one of the most absurd examples I could think of.
npage85 2 years ago
"In one sense (small change), the "progressive" aspect is towards goal X, and in the other sense (big change) the "progressive" aspect is towards goal Y."
This is yet another strawman, as there are no "goals" whatsoever in natural selection. I do not mean "progressive" as in "nearer to X" or "better". I mean "distinct from what has come before". Likewise, "regressive" means "returning to a former state".
We could do this all day, but can I just give you some reading material?
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago 3
@TheoreticalBullshit:
Okay... well then if you do not mean "progressive" in the sense that there is a goal, but just "distinct," then I can go back to my step analogy.
(cont. below)
npage85 2 years ago
(cont. from above)
This time, I don't take a step to the left, and then to the right... I take a step in a random direction, and then back... a billion times. Each pair of steps is unique...
You still have the fallacy of composition. You can not make the statement "a bunch of little distinct changes IS EQUAL TO a big change" if I can give an example where it is false.
I realize that you are tiring of the conversation (as well as me), but I don't believe reading material will be necessary.
npage85 2 years ago
"I take a step in a random direction, and then back... a billion times. Each pair of steps is unique..."
Ok now you're grasping at straws. That's like saying an ape evolved into man, then back to an ape, then to a cow, then back to an ape, etc. ANOTHER strawman. The fact that you have to step "back" to the original spot every time is regressive, which evolution isn't.
You still haven't shown any fallacy. I know you don't believe reading material is necessary, but I'm telling you... it is.
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago 3
@TheoreticalBullshit:
First of all, "man into ape," "ape into man," and "ape-ancestor into man" are all good examples of the *big* changes that we are talking about... not "little" ones.
What I'm saying is that an ape ancestor never evolved into man(for this conversation, at least), and trying to give me examples of little, "progressive" changes in no way shows that it is possible.
Now... what evidence do you have that evolution is never regressive?
npage85 2 years ago
After all... to support your assertion that there is no fallacy, you now must demonstrate that evolution is never regressive.
If it is in some, or most, of the cases, then my analogy still holds.
npage85 2 years ago
Actually, since you're stuck on the "small changes" aspect, "Blind Watchmaker" would be good for you too.
I read the Bible and went to church for a year (even though I was never a Christian) before I started arguing against Christianity. It's an intellectual courtesy that I WISH was returned by critics of evolution. I can't keep explaining things about evolution to you. That's not fair to me.
Blind Watchmaker
Why Evolution is True
Greatest Show on Earth
...It wouldn't kill you.
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
I realize that there is a level of intellectual courtesy in reading some material from "the other side."
I respect your request, but it seems as though when we finally got to the point where you fully understood me (and I fully understood you), you aren't answering the one thing that would put the final nail in the coffin.
I mean... you *do* realize that you must show that all "little changes" are never going to be regressive in order for there not to be a fallacy, right?
npage85 2 years ago
"you must show that all "little changes" are never going to be regressive in order for there not to be a fallacy..."
That's EXTREMELY false. Even if there were a species at some point which (somehow) evolved exactly into one of it's ancestors, it wouldn't change a thing. Two steps forward and one step back would still move you forward. And walking a few inches at a time, billions of times, is the same as walking billions of inches... even if you walked an inch backwards several times.
{sigh}
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago
@TheoreticalBullshit:
Hold up... see, this is where I think we are still having some sort of disconnect between us.
You now have gone back to the "goal" argument when you talk about "steps forward."
I am not proposing that a species would somehow evolve back into one of its ancestors, just that it would never get to that point in the first place.
(cont. below)
npage85 2 years ago
(cont. from above)
I'm saying that the little changes to the genetic code due to mutation and natural selection are not orientated to the same goal as an organism changing its form over time.
So, if the goals of the progressive changes are not the same as the big change (steps forward, steps upward, for instance), then a bunch of those small changes (steps forward) happening does not show that the big change (steps upward) can happen.
npage85 2 years ago
Forward wouldn't be a direction in this instance; if you drove a car 1000 miles north and 1000 miles south, even though you've arrived back where you've started, the Mileage on the Car has moved "forward" 2000 miles.
sciencemile 2 years ago
@sciencemile:
I'm sorry, I just don't see what you are getting at. :(
npage85 2 years ago
There's no Little Goal and Big Goal; there's just one Goal.
Genetic Drift can move in any direction; Natural Selection eliminates anything that changes in a way that is contrary to moving towards the goal, and gives advantage to changes that do move towards the goal.
Evolution can only move towards adaptation to the environment. If Blue Bunnies evolve into Orange Bunnies to adapt to an Orange Grass environment, it's not regression to evolve into a Blue Bunny if the Grass becomes Blue again.
sciencemile 2 years ago
And the orange to blue bunny example is what I mean by "small change."
Those types of changes have been observed in nature all the time.
However... a blue bunny changing into an orange bunny is not evidence that an ape-like animal can change into a human. The reason for that is because the "bunny change" has its goal "adaptation."
(cont. below)
npage85 2 years ago
(cont. from above)
The ape-like thing to human change doesn't have that goal. The only goal that we can reasonably say that it has is "to change its form."
To say that its goal is "adapation" (like the bunny change) would be begging the question, since we don't *know* that it does have that goal. You see?
npage85 2 years ago
As I mentioned below, however, there's more to adaptation than just "people who taunt the lions will be eaten, and there will be less people who taunt lions in the future".
A change that isn't a hindrance to adaptation, but is actually a boon will be encouraged by natural selection.
Remember, Genetic Drift is random, but Natural selection is not; every child is different from their parents, but whether these differences are good or bad is determined by environment.
-Part One (A)-
sciencemile 2 years ago
-Part 2 (A)-
Natural Selection sets the goal of "adaptation" to all living things. If you posses a trait that gives you an advantage over others of kind, you are better adapted to the environment. Intelligence may have been a result of a random genetic drift, but it certainly gave an advantage.
In the Blue Bunny-Orange Grass Scenario, the bunnies would probably never change fast enough to survive; radical environmental changes lead to extinctions. Change in evolution is slow but adds up.
sciencemile 2 years ago
@sciencemile:
I see your point... but you didn't address what I said.
Genetic Drift and Natural Selection does not show us that an organism can change its form... only that an accumulation of adaptations can amass, and it will end up being overall more adapted.
It is logically possible that the adaptions *could* change the organisms form, but the fact that those adaptations are possible does not tell us that a change in form over time is possible.
npage85 2 years ago
Well we know wolves are what we have bred what we call dogs from afaik. Do you agree to that?
Would you call the changes we have been able to produce in dogs(wolves) by natural selection by our rules (deciding for example those of a certain color/trait get to breed) small changes?
The form of certain dogs differs quite dramatically from their ancestors the wolves. I wouldnt exactly classify this change as small, and it has happened over quite a small timeperiod (< 10 000 years?)
paroniniropa 2 years ago
The Law of Speciation determines that, once enough of these changes occur in a species (an adaptation is always a change of form, however small), the resulting animal will be unable to reproduce with the base species.
This would be a change in form, and experiments with plants have proved this to be accurate. The banana, for example, has undergone a larger change in "form" than would be required for humans and chimps to evolve from Hominini.
sciencemile 2 years ago
"Genetic Drift and Natural Selection does not show us that an organism can change its form..."
Embryology, zoology, evodevo, comparative anatomy, genetics etc. surely can.
infinit888 2 years ago
I had to send you a private message, because I couldn't post for some reason... Let's see if this works...
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago
sure. easy. There has never been any case in history where a woman has given birth to her grandmother. You know how people are like snowflakes, no two the exact same? Even identicle twins have genetic dissimilarities. The genome is far too large and at about 120 mutations per zygote the chances of all those changes just happening to directly revert (keeping in mind mutations are random) is frankly astronomically low, and on an evolutionary scale its mindbogglingly lower
intelligentfalling 2 years ago
this is the reason that while you can breed a chihuahua from a wolf, you cant then go back and breed a wolf from a chihuahua, unless you go back codon by codon by codon (ad absurdum)
intelligentfalling 2 years ago
"examples of the *big* changes that we are talking about... not "little" ones."
I know. Sake of simplicity.
"and trying to give me examples of little, "progressive" changes in no way shows that it is possible."
And this is exactly why you need to educate yourself about what evolution and it's evidence actually is BEFORE you argue against it. It's been nothing but strawmen from you. Very frustrating.
Read "Greatest Show on Earth" and "Why Evolution is True". Those are good starters. Please?
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago
@TheoreticalBullshit:
Okay... you do realize that you have to show that these "little changes" are never regressive in order to demonstrate that there is no fallacy... right?
And *please* don't start making this about the whole "you need to get educated about evolution before debating it" deal. And as I really respect you as another YouTuber, that type of thing would taint that respect pretty badly.
npage85 2 years ago
"And *please* don't start making this about the whole "you need to get educated about evolution before debating it" deal."
It's fascinating to me that you don't see this as a perfectly legitimate request. Absolutely fascinating.
I respect you too. I like your thoughts on philosophy. But how can I respect the fact that you're trying to argue against an area of science in which you have (demonstrably) not educated yourself?
Why should any evolutionist take you seriously?
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago
@TheoreticalBullshit:
No... I see it as a legitimate request. I also can somewhat empathize with your apparent frustration.
However, you must try to see this from *my* perspective. I have got to the point (in our conversation so far) where I don't believe you, or any other evolutionary material that I have come across so far, can adequately deal with. It's that question that I asked you three times now.
npage85 2 years ago
Well the reason why there's no regression in Evolution is because even though the direction may change, Evolution always proceeds towards the "Goal", not away from it.
The "Goal" is to adapt generation by generation to the environment in a way that ensures the successful passing on of genes.
When the environment changes, where the "Goal" is may change, but no matter which direction evolution is heading, it's forward and towards the "Goal", wherever it happens to be at the time.
sciencemile 2 years ago
@sciencemile:
While I see what you are saying, if you go the "goal" route you get to the problem that me and TheoreticalBullshit have already discussed in these comments: the fallacy of equivocation.
npage85 2 years ago
Well alright, if you'd like; but I'll need you to point out the two separate tenses I used for "Goal", since I didn't consciously do it if I did so.
To disprove that Evolution is always progressive, there'd need to be a situation where a species, rather than adapting to their environment, did just the opposite; Blue Bunnies on a Prairie of Blue Grass evolving into Orange Bunnies.
sciencemile 2 years ago
If you do find a Regressive Evolution example, Evolution wouldn't be a viable theory anymore. That'd definitely be a good way to falsify the theory.
sciencemile 2 years ago
@sciencemile:
What I mean about the equivocation is this:
If the small changes (mutation and natural selection changing the genetic code) have one goal (survive better in certain environment), and the big change has a different goal (change organisms form), then it would be equivocation to say that those little progressive changes necessarily result in the big change.
(cont. below)
npage85 2 years ago
(cont. from above)
It *would* be fine in *this* example though... since the goals are both the same:
Little goal: Steps forward.
Big goal: Steps forward.
So... a bunch of little steps forward would equal a huge distance forward.
Hopefully that is clearer.
npage85 2 years ago
What do you mean by "form" when you say that they are "big" changes? How do you measure "form"? How do you know that "form" has no underlying genes that influence?
Bucketses 2 years ago
In any case, we think of droplets as being a particular size. A "big droplet" isn't a droplet at all, it's a lake, or a pond, or a pool... not a droplet. The amount of water makes the difference between a droplet and a pool (generally). But the word "change" does not imply a certain quantity of difference between things. "Change" can refer to any quantity of difference. A little bit of difference would be a "small change", and a lot of difference would be a "big change".
No fallacy took place.
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago
@TheoreticalBullshit:
Sorry... I guess I posted my comment in response to yours before you posted your second one.
In any case, I think my previous comment applies to this one as well. :)
npage85 2 years ago
Evolution never regresses because mutation occurs at random parts of the genome, usually via transcription error, so in order to undo a mutation, the exact opposite mutation has to occur in the same spot. To undo 2 overlapping mutations over 2 generations, the exact opposite mutations have to occur in exactly the reverse order AND at the same locations as they had originally changed. The genome is big, thus the odds of this happening are so small we can describe them as impossible.
paulmarko 2 years ago
You are absolutely right. I don't believe he was saying that a bunch of small changes can't add up to a big change, he was saying that because we have seen many small changes, it doesn't actually mean that big changes occured or have to occur. We have seen mutations to make people immune to aids, and mutations that make people born without feet, does that mean we came from apes?
chuteleach 2 years ago
1.I dont really think there is much larger change needed than breeding chihuahuas from asiatic wolves. What two animals could be more different? lol
2. No that doesnt mean we came from apes nor was that evidence ever used to show we came from apes. Its our anatomical characteristics which prove that we ARE apes. And yes, prove is the right word.
intelligentfalling 2 years ago
So you're saying that because we are very similar to apes that, that we are(share a common ancestor with) apes?
chuteleach 2 years ago
theres more to it than that. We share all the common traits indicative of apes and lack all that would exclude the definition ape. This is what tells us we are apes, by definition. The reason we know we share a common ancestor however is much more in depth. Heres an overview of the data that caused scientists to arrive at said conclusion watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY
(just an overview the actual data is of course much more indepth)
intelligentfalling 2 years ago
I stopped at the part about identifying a plant in the wild. The narrator is using severe logical fallacies. Hes basically saying that because we have classified all living organisms thats somehow evidence of evolution?
chuteleach 2 years ago
I understand that you're not entirely taking either side here and it's a good summation of a lot of the arguments... BUT.... wouldn't 'carbon-dating' be one difficulty with the YEC alternative explanation of the (apparent) fossil record? I believe that the dating of the sedimentary layers, in which the fossils are found, also correlates with models of the climactic and ecological conditions that were prevalent at different periods. There is evidence for a deluge, about 15,000 years ago.
gerontodon 2 years ago
In using all those long words, I'd have to acknowledge, that my memories of any specifics relating to the arguments are generally vague, and I'm taking a certain amount of my beliefs about the matter on trust. That's something we all have to do, and the arguments for change over time make a lot more sense to me than the arguments for a young Earth. I'm pretty sure that I'm not being partisan, because I detest what I see as the smugness of a Dawkins-influenced fashion for reductionism.
gerontodon 2 years ago 2
I think there is something wrong with our current understanding of evolution, and that it largely explains a lot of dislike of the theory. I think it's more to do with the way genes are expressed, which may not be such a mechanical process as we're led to believe. I think there really may be a scientific dogma there.
Sorry to hog the comments btw.
gerontodon 2 years ago
That was a pointless straw-man debate.
pknvdw 2 years ago
Awesome comment. It's too bad you didn't back up that claim... I would've been interested in debating you about it.
npage85 2 years ago
Do you claim to have presented the best case for either side? You presented the YEC's view of "evolutionists" and the denialist stereotype of YECs. If you are commenting on the bickering between some particularly uninformed YouTubers then well done, you nailed it. Was that the idea? If it was then it is indeed a straw-man debate.
pknvdw 2 years ago
@pknvdw:
Do you think that I don't present the best case for either side?
If you do, then I'd like to hear why.
npage85 2 years ago
Try arguing as cdk007, DonExodus2 or Thunderf00t.
Try making a case for Creationism rather than just denying the validity of evolution, palaeontology and geology.
That is, if you want to make a serious point. If you want to make parodies try to make them funnier.
pknvdw 2 years ago
@pknvdw:
Right... because they somehow have something to say that would blow this made-up character in the vid out of the water?
The point of the vid wasn't to make a case for creationism.
The only reason you don't think this parody is funny is because you're an evolutionist.
Haha... I know... that was too low. ;)
npage85 2 years ago
Remember kids: Demonstrating fallacies in, or even disproving evolution, does NOT prove the existence of any deity or supernatural power. Furthermore all other science remains valid, evolution is NOT the foundation at the bottom of the structure that is science.
TruthBeyond 2 years ago
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't see how this relates to the subject of the video... could you perhaps connect your comment to the video by showing how it relates?
npage85 2 years ago
I was highlighting the limits of disprooving biological evolution, some people (not necessarily you), seem to think other's worship evolution, Darwin, and Dawkings, and that it's somehow the king-pin that will bring everything down.
TruthBeyond 2 years ago
Haha, that made my "I stayed up too late" night. I've always tried to say the same thing you did, but never quite organized it as accurately.
chuteleach 2 years ago 2
Thanks man!
I actually put a lot more effort into this video than my latest ones... it's nice that it is appreciated. :)
npage85 2 years ago