Outstanding video. Thank you for a well done and informative production. Have an "upvote" and a "kudos" while I'm at it. Thanks from Texas. We're not all inbred hillbillies, but we are related to them.
Well done, sir. Thank you for helping me to understand exactly what the "nested" part of "nested hierarchy" really means. For some reason I just couldn't quite grok it previously. It's a simple concept to be sure, but I suppose I must just be a simple man. Anyhoo, thanks again, mate.
what if we find Tiktallik alive in well off the coast of antartica like the coelecanth was? And what if it swims like a fish like the coelacanth does? I think that if you apply the same rules to the development of transportation instead of superficial characteristics like cd players you could make a nested heirarchy work on autmobiles.
If we discovered a living specimen similar to the fossilized specimens of Tiktaalik (and against your Coelacanth argument, 1st: No one ever proposed the it didn't swim; and 2nd: living coelacantha have significant differences from modern ones), that would have NO BEARING on the discussion in my video. Their existence was PREDICTED, based on principles of evolution. Creationism on the other hand has NO SUCH PREDICTIVE VALUE. In other words, it still wouldn't be science.
This is one of the most well made videos on evolution I've seen in a while. Keep shoving reality in the faces of creationists. Denial is not an option.
By predicting what fossil should be found next, aren't you already presuming something about it? And is it not right to say you can't test the dna of something completely fossilized? So how do you prove what a fossil was related to? You even said in your video that similar dna can produce different morphology. And then you use that to support common descent. If they had the same morphology and diff dna you would still use that to support your views. Proving your bias. Don't fool yourself.
@CrownIdeas, no, the phenotype, the physical traits of an organism, many of which will be observable in the fossilized remains, is coded for by the genotype. Nested hierarchies can be built from a sample of physical traits alone, not to mention the fact we haven't ever found two similar species with radically different genetics, which would disprove evolution. The only bias is yours.
@Houshalter, actually that is a matter of interpretation wether or not 2 species are radically different. Many animals have five digits at the end of there extremeties. But a frog and a humans develop quite differently and are coded by different genes. Besides, when we talk about evolution we are talking about common descent for all. Most would agree that certain species are related, that doesn't mean everything is related by common descent. That is your interpretive lense, a religious view.
@CrownIdeas, No, the physical traits two oranisms share are obvious. And as long as nested heirarchies hold, and creationists gave up along time ago trying to find their version of the "missing link" that would crash nested hierarchies, common decent is essentially proven, so it's not a religion. Throw in ERVs and all the other evidence and you got yourself a scientific theory.
@Houshalter Actually you have a phylisophical paradyme for interpreting the evidence. Taxonomy was started as a way to organize living systems within ecology. Evolutionist have put their lense on nested heirarchy and called it ancestry. ERV's show how all things in the creative order have purpose and nothing is really vistigal. Evolutionist come up with their theory that hold science back like the idea of "junk dna" Hey wait, maybe junk dna does have a purpose. Maybe virus do too, like erv's.
@CrownIdeas, ERVs have no purpose, they are never activated, and they have DNA that only viruses have but isn't found anywhere else in the genome. So you fail again. Now next time don't make such outrageous claims without backing it up with evidence. The only one putthing things through a lense is you. "Evolutionists" (whatever the hell that means) only beleive in things supported by evidence. All relevant evidence supports evolution. End of story.
Creationists who use that are total morons, no matter how scientific they try to sound.
You know creationists really make me doubt evolution. Could these idiots be the product of billions of years of selection?? I think they were created by an unintelligent designer, separately from the rest of human kind.
apsolutly love your video i cant believe it has only had 530 views it should be required viewing for anybody who either apreciates the natural sciences or is interested in discusions about religeon and the way it is inpinging upon science.
And you're still a moron, no matter how scientific you try to sound.
You know creationists really make me doubt evolution. Could these people be the product of billions of years of selection?? I think they were created by god, separately from the rest of human kind.
Let's see... looking back over the comments here to date, 24 directly comment on the video quality. 23 are positive. ONE (yours) is negative. Looks like you stand corrected, whether you choose to admit it or not.
Rather than resorting to infantile personal attacks, why don't you instead refute any of the points made in the video?? Is it perhaps because you CAN'T, so playground tactics is all you have left?
What? I wasn't talking about the video, I was agreeing with it by criticizing creationists. lol you got the complete opposite of what I meant. I loved the video!
lol you're right, I should have been more clear. It's true though, I can't stand it when creationists who claim to be scientists say that an evolved fish is still a fish.
I've found the same thing - that nested hierarchies, and especially how the specific gene similarities and differences all conform to the SAME nested hierarchy, is not understood by the ANY creationist I've discussed these matters with, and also not understood by most laymen who do accept evolution, but can't really produce much of the specific evidence on which science founds it's confidence in the theory on.
A very good video, though I suspect that most still won't get it.
Brilliant. The nested hierarchy is often over looked by creationists but also overlooked by those that argue against them. It's a powerful bit of evidence.
i am so glad you are making video's again. bring it on wonderfull. educate me please. i realy get what your arguing and it is so irefutasbly argued its beutifull. hope the piano playing is comming along too
Beautifully illustrated Will, this should go a long way to addressing creationists who conflate homology with evolution. Nepilimfree, ha, more like evidencefree!
I agree, WMM sucks the fat one. I'm thinking some open source vid maker might exist for Ubuntu Linux, usually one can find them on sourceforge(.)net
Thanks! I was originally planning to go into the whole "groups within groups" idea, when it dawned on my that any member of the hierarchy that was a member of two overlapping groups on the same tier would necessarily have two paths leading back to the same progenitor. Voila, that simple method for spotting these violations emerged!
I do have more videos planned... a series on genetics, summarizing basically the first-year university curriculum, is in the scripting stage now. I hope to put up the first part later this week. These will of avoid the whole creationist side and focus mainly on the science and history.
Thank you, my friend. By the way, awesome stuff you've been putting out with TheraminTrees lately. I may not have been commenting, but I have been watching! (What video software / platform are you using? I'm about done with crappy WMM...)
Bravo my friend. That was amazing. I applaud your big brain. This is the kind of stuff that keeps the nephilimfrees, venomfangxes, and kirk camerons on the run. they won't know whether to shit or wind their wristwatches... keep it up.
Excellent presentation of Nested Hierarchies. Also many fossils are being found through prediction (whale fossils, conodont and early mammalian fossils have been found using this method, evolution ftw!).
Outstanding video. Thank you for a well done and informative production. Have an "upvote" and a "kudos" while I'm at it. Thanks from Texas. We're not all inbred hillbillies, but we are related to them.
Slip536 6 months ago
Good video
finderfinder100 7 months ago
Well done, sir. Thank you for helping me to understand exactly what the "nested" part of "nested hierarchy" really means. For some reason I just couldn't quite grok it previously. It's a simple concept to be sure, but I suppose I must just be a simple man. Anyhoo, thanks again, mate.
Memeticemetic 10 months ago
its a nice video but don't you think that these fools can be left alone to find their own fate?
alexandersydney 1 year ago
what if we find Tiktallik alive in well off the coast of antartica like the coelecanth was? And what if it swims like a fish like the coelacanth does? I think that if you apply the same rules to the development of transportation instead of superficial characteristics like cd players you could make a nested heirarchy work on autmobiles.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas
If we discovered a living specimen similar to the fossilized specimens of Tiktaalik (and against your Coelacanth argument, 1st: No one ever proposed the it didn't swim; and 2nd: living coelacantha have significant differences from modern ones), that would have NO BEARING on the discussion in my video. Their existence was PREDICTED, based on principles of evolution. Creationism on the other hand has NO SUCH PREDICTIVE VALUE. In other words, it still wouldn't be science.
phoenixshade3 1 year ago
I'm unsure how I missed your channel thus far...needless to say that situation is now rectified... subscribed.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
Excellent video.
Korkzor 1 year ago
This is one of the most well made videos on evolution I've seen in a while. Keep shoving reality in the faces of creationists. Denial is not an option.
Houshalter 1 year ago
By predicting what fossil should be found next, aren't you already presuming something about it? And is it not right to say you can't test the dna of something completely fossilized? So how do you prove what a fossil was related to? You even said in your video that similar dna can produce different morphology. And then you use that to support common descent. If they had the same morphology and diff dna you would still use that to support your views. Proving your bias. Don't fool yourself.
CrownIdeas 2 years ago
@CrownIdeas, no, the phenotype, the physical traits of an organism, many of which will be observable in the fossilized remains, is coded for by the genotype. Nested hierarchies can be built from a sample of physical traits alone, not to mention the fact we haven't ever found two similar species with radically different genetics, which would disprove evolution. The only bias is yours.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter, actually that is a matter of interpretation wether or not 2 species are radically different. Many animals have five digits at the end of there extremeties. But a frog and a humans develop quite differently and are coded by different genes. Besides, when we talk about evolution we are talking about common descent for all. Most would agree that certain species are related, that doesn't mean everything is related by common descent. That is your interpretive lense, a religious view.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas, No, the physical traits two oranisms share are obvious. And as long as nested heirarchies hold, and creationists gave up along time ago trying to find their version of the "missing link" that would crash nested hierarchies, common decent is essentially proven, so it's not a religion. Throw in ERVs and all the other evidence and you got yourself a scientific theory.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Actually you have a phylisophical paradyme for interpreting the evidence. Taxonomy was started as a way to organize living systems within ecology. Evolutionist have put their lense on nested heirarchy and called it ancestry. ERV's show how all things in the creative order have purpose and nothing is really vistigal. Evolutionist come up with their theory that hold science back like the idea of "junk dna" Hey wait, maybe junk dna does have a purpose. Maybe virus do too, like erv's.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas, ERVs have no purpose, they are never activated, and they have DNA that only viruses have but isn't found anywhere else in the genome. So you fail again. Now next time don't make such outrageous claims without backing it up with evidence. The only one putthing things through a lense is you. "Evolutionists" (whatever the hell that means) only beleive in things supported by evidence. All relevant evidence supports evolution. End of story.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas
gamesbok 1 year ago
This is brilliant. Why so few views? What's wrong with people? Don't they *want* to learn?
Guess not - ignorance is bliss. Urgh.
askegg 2 years ago
Okay that's it, subscribed.
Shalek 2 years ago
"It's still a fish!"
Creationists who use that are total morons, no matter how scientific they try to sound.
You know creationists really make me doubt evolution. Could these idiots be the product of billions of years of selection?? I think they were created by an unintelligent designer, separately from the rest of human kind.
mtanti87 2 years ago
apsolutly love your video i cant believe it has only had 530 views it should be required viewing for anybody who either apreciates the natural sciences or is interested in discusions about religeon and the way it is inpinging upon science.
ooglebydoogleby 2 years ago
"It's still a fish!"
And you're still a moron, no matter how scientific you try to sound.
You know creationists really make me doubt evolution. Could these people be the product of billions of years of selection?? I think they were created by god, separately from the rest of human kind.
mtanti87 2 years ago
Let's see... looking back over the comments here to date, 24 directly comment on the video quality. 23 are positive. ONE (yours) is negative. Looks like you stand corrected, whether you choose to admit it or not.
Rather than resorting to infantile personal attacks, why don't you instead refute any of the points made in the video?? Is it perhaps because you CAN'T, so playground tactics is all you have left?
phoenixshade3 2 years ago
What? I wasn't talking about the video, I was agreeing with it by criticizing creationists. lol you got the complete opposite of what I meant. I loved the video!
mtanti87 2 years ago
Sorry... your post didn't show up as a reply to someone else's comment. It looked like it was directed at me.
phoenixshade3 2 years ago
lol you're right, I should have been more clear. It's true though, I can't stand it when creationists who claim to be scientists say that an evolved fish is still a fish.
mtanti87 2 years ago
Comment removed
ooglebydoogleby 2 years ago
you fucking rule will. You Fucking RULE!
:-p
intelligentfalling 2 years ago
I've found the same thing - that nested hierarchies, and especially how the specific gene similarities and differences all conform to the SAME nested hierarchy, is not understood by the ANY creationist I've discussed these matters with, and also not understood by most laymen who do accept evolution, but can't really produce much of the specific evidence on which science founds it's confidence in the theory on.
A very good video, though I suspect that most still won't get it.
Stegocephalian 2 years ago
Nice explanation.
And thanks for all the work :)
ytmoog 2 years ago
Dude!
You rock!
This is beautiful!
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago
Geez, where have you been all this time (not referring to the hiatus)? This is an excellent video
ProcInc 3 years ago
Brilliant. The nested hierarchy is often over looked by creationists but also overlooked by those that argue against them. It's a powerful bit of evidence.
Beautiful explination.
Danmill23 3 years ago
Was OK until 3:00 when you get all excited and raise your voice when you want to start shooting fish in a barrel over creationism.
FGFMinfo 3 years ago
i am so glad you are making video's again. bring it on wonderfull. educate me please. i realy get what your arguing and it is so irefutasbly argued its beutifull. hope the piano playing is comming along too
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
lol 6:12 just a fish.
I wonder if he thinks a narwhal or rhino is a unicorn?
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
and to think that i found genetics the most boring thing in the world when i was at school!!!!!!!
This vid ius brilliantly done and you explain this really well!!
MORE PLEASE
arfnore 3 years ago
Genetic and evolution are often taught in a boring way. :(
Dawkins' books are inspiring.
bdf2718 3 years ago
Im a big fan, keep up the good work
truthofevolution 3 years ago
Beautifully illustrated Will, this should go a long way to addressing creationists who conflate homology with evolution. Nepilimfree, ha, more like evidencefree!
I agree, WMM sucks the fat one. I'm thinking some open source vid maker might exist for Ubuntu Linux, usually one can find them on sourceforge(.)net
agentorange20 3 years ago
God is going to be mad at you for using science you know....
Pyromonkey725 3 years ago
Wow, great job!
5 stars, favorite & subscribed
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
Brilliant video!
Minttzz 3 years ago
Excellent video. I look forward to more :-)
Squagnut 3 years ago
5 ***** and added to favorites!
lowcomedy 3 years ago
Where is the video where you discuss tiktaalik with nephilim? That transcript may be of value.
Bucketses 3 years ago
Most of it is on my "Questions for Atheists" video. (Yeah, he went far off the topic of anything discussed in that video, and I chose to follow...)
phoenixshade3 3 years ago
Wow, I'm going to sub to you based on that alone. I like the loop trick for determining faulty nested hierarchies.
Hooya2 3 years ago
Thanks! I was originally planning to go into the whole "groups within groups" idea, when it dawned on my that any member of the hierarchy that was a member of two overlapping groups on the same tier would necessarily have two paths leading back to the same progenitor. Voila, that simple method for spotting these violations emerged!
phoenixshade3 3 years ago
wow, great to see your videos back. Well worth the wait.
bshieldsbb01 3 years ago
you sir, provide a great service to the YT community. I wish you'd produce more educational videos such as this! Awesome.
lennyhipp 3 years ago
I do have more videos planned... a series on genetics, summarizing basically the first-year university curriculum, is in the scripting stage now. I hope to put up the first part later this week. These will of avoid the whole creationist side and focus mainly on the science and history.
phoenixshade3 3 years ago
Great presentation. 5 stars and favorited.
Saukko31 3 years ago
Brilliant! Excellently explained! Favorited +5 stars! It's good your back!
bCurious2 3 years ago
Thank you, my friend. By the way, awesome stuff you've been putting out with TheraminTrees lately. I may not have been commenting, but I have been watching! (What video software / platform are you using? I'm about done with crappy WMM...)
phoenixshade3 3 years ago
Thank you! I use Final Cut Express, on a Mac.
bCurious2 3 years ago
love it 5 star-ed and faved
bbugmenott 3 years ago
Bravo my friend. That was amazing. I applaud your big brain. This is the kind of stuff that keeps the nephilimfrees, venomfangxes, and kirk camerons on the run. they won't know whether to shit or wind their wristwatches... keep it up.
jambimon 3 years ago 2
Excellent presentation of Nested Hierarchies. Also many fossils are being found through prediction (whale fossils, conodont and early mammalian fossils have been found using this method, evolution ftw!).
Terrencje 3 years ago