Evolution: Human Beings ARE Primates- Ken Miller

[0debug]

From an outsider's (non-American's) perspective, it is sometimes funny and sometimes scary to reflect over the fact that there is still a "debate" over evolution in the USA in 2011. Or even a debate about things such as the age of the universe.

With today's knowledge in biology, genetics, evolutionary psychology (e.g. studies of morality or social behavior among other primates or other animals), geology, astrophysics etc., it is mostly scary though.

[ImAnotherZang]

By the way, we know we are primates because we sahre common ancestors and genes with alot of the primates, as well as having alot of the phenotypical attributions that would undoubtedly lead us to the conclusion that we are primates, not because Linneaus said it.

[gamesbok]

I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so.

Carl Linnaeus 1747

[greatgulffixed]

How small-minded can you get? A man makes a wording mistake and the mob pounces on him with glee.

Everyone knows what he meant.

Just another example of sick evolutionist bigotry.

[kaminarigaston]

Mr.Huckabee, just between you an me, you are also a Homo.

I'm talking about the genus.

[procommenter]

The best performance of "Beat It" was by Teresa Teng at her 1984 concert in Taipei.

[Imaginefree69]

Ecclesiastes 3:

18 As for men, God tests them

so that they may see that THEY ARE LIKE THE ANIMALS.

19 Man's fate is like that of the animals;

THE SAME FATE AWAITS THEM BOTH: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath;

MAN HAS NO ADVANTAGE OVER THE ANIMAL.

20 All go to the same place;

all come from dust,

and to dust all return.

[procommenter]

For those who present THEORY as FACT:

theory [Gr. "theoria" speculation as opposed to practice] 1. the doctrine or the principles underlying an art as distinguished from the practice of that particular art. 2. a formulated hypothesis, or, loosely speaking, any hypothesis or opinion not based upon actual knowledge. {Fr. p. 1824 of the 29th Edition of "Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary" -- 1994}

[0HI0STATE18]

Idiot... A scientific Theory is not the same as the word "Theory" used in every day speech. In science, a theory is the highest form of proof outside of mathematics. Theories explain a set of facts, they are not just some "opinion".

[procommenter]

Here sister is a definition from a science book:

-- theory [Gr. "theoria" speculation as opposed to practice] 1. the doctrine or the principles underlying an art as distinguished from the practice of that particular art. 2. a formulated hypothesis, or, loosely speaking, any hypothesis or opinion not based upon actual knowledge. {Fr. p. 1824 of the 29th edition of Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary -- 1994}

[jigoku66]

Like Newton's theory of gravitation or the theory of general relativity. They aren't based upon actual knowledge, right?

[Jambando]

You can find whatever definition you want, but scientists and the scientific community do not attribute the word theory to an idea without rigorous testing and retesting. A scientific theory explains an observed set of facts.

[Gilmaris]

Oh jebus. Dictionary definition? Ok, I can play that game. Here's one from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed. 2003:

the·o·ry

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

[Tony07UK]

@0HI0STATE18 The 'theory of evolution' is just .. opinion. Not all scientists, biologists etc. are in agreement with this opinion.

[Tony07UK]

According to the dictionary definition of 'theory' - 'evolution' can't even be classified as a theory. Every speculation is merely an opinion without a shred of scientific plausibility. The theory of gravity is testable and predictable - we can build aircraft and rockets with basic design criteria that do not change. The so-called 'theory of evolution' has never been established, it's going nowhere - it's simply propaganda.

[MrColuber]

@Tony07UK I was under the impression that the theory of Evolution explains quite a few facts - like way some animals are more related to each other than to others (like why animals that are mammals are more closely related to each other than to birds), and why the fossil record shows ever changing ecosystems. And from what I understand, speciation has been observed, so I don't know why people keep saying Evolution is speculation when it has more evidence for it than any other scientific theory.

[Tony07UK]

@MrColuber No scientific theory supports claims that one species can change into a different species - genetics proves that offspring remain the same species as the parents. Humans are descended from .. humans, always have been. We are related to all other humans irrespective of height, skin colour, nationality .. there is variety within species. Variety among cats, dogs etc. yet each species only reproduces according to its own kind. 'Evolution' explains something imagined, not facts.

[MrColuber]

@Tony07UK The theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that supports the claim that speciation does occur. Genetics proves this by showing how different species of animals are related to one another. Humans are the descendents of Hominid apes (and we still are apes). You should see Potholer54's videos. He does a much better job at explaining how speciation can occur. Check out his video on Ring Species, and you'll see how one species of animal, over time, can originate many species.

[Tony07UK]

@MrColuber There is no evidence for evolution - biology doesn't support it, the fossil record discredits it, the scientific method cannot be applied to it, it is not observable in the real world, it cannot be tested or replicated in any modern laboratory .. it is a failed theory. 'Survival of the fittest' = common sense, not unique in the support of evolution. 'Natural selection' = explains nothing - what does the selecting? 'Random mutations' = never produce any additional new information.

[MrColuber]

@Tony07UK Please tell me how biology does not support evolution, and how it is not observable in the real world. I know of a new species of mouse found in Madeira, and I also know of an observed instance of a herbiverous lizard evolving from an insectivorous lizard. What does the selecting - how about predation, or faster prey animals, or an environment that can't allow an animal with given characteristics to survive. As for random mutations, well, new information can be added.

[Venaloid]

Facts are observations, theories are scientific explanations to those facts. Evolutionary Theory, for example, will never be updated to Evolutionary Fact NOT because we can't prove 100% that it happens, but because facts are not the next step up from theories.

[rjohnson1984]

primates have opposable thumbs for one

[JohnTraviss]

Ken Miller or Men Killer?

It's a joke.

[LOKAL93]

Humans did not come from apes LOL dumass people

[truthformeandyou]

You're correct. Homo sapiens descended from the "Great Ape" along with chimpanzees, bonabos, orangutans, and gorillas. The split from the Great Ape was around 7 million years ago. There were several lines of human-like lines that went extinct. Our most recent ancestors were probably Cro-Magnons. Like it or not, your ancestors were Great Apes.

[LOKAL93]

no our ancestors were humans not apes man were created along with other animals thats just like saying the ape came from a monkey but it didn't we were just there just like the chicken before the egg.

[rjohnson1984]

have you ever seen a human skeletal system? what about a gorillas skeletal system? compare them sometime

[lizardman77]

Miller is the best debater the Darwinians have for sure, he doesn't take a hard edged view like Dawkins, etc. He's very reasonable and makes reasonable arguments, too bad  some of his colleagues are not.

[infalliblle]

no disrepect to Dawkins, but Ken Miller is the best voice for understanding of evolution and for debate in its defense.

[Manofest]

"no disrepect to Dawkins, but Ken Miller is the best voice for understanding of evolution and for debate in its defense."

I can definitely understand this sentiment. People who are convinced of the truth of creationism will simply look at Dawkins as "another atheist" and simply stop listening. Ken Miller, on the other hand, is hard to discount.

[intigfx]

Another of those who fell for the "it's just a theory" bullshit.

A theory, as a scientific term, is different from the layman's term. A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

That's it. A theory doesn't need validation nor belief. After all you don't doubt nor believe in the theory of gravity don't you? It simply is.

[intigfx]

I tried to copy-paste that but there's a shitload of classifications (from lemurs to tarsiers and from squirrel monkeys to baboons, etc)

Go lookup 'primate' in wikipedia.

[avalsonline]

i do not have faith in gravity. i know it is there because i feel it's effects on me. it is not so much that i believe in gravity as much as i know it is there

[avalsonline]

no no no. nothing is taken on faith. we call it a theory because it is supported by the est evidense available. however it is still possible to disproove it if there is evidense to contradict it. kinda like the theory of gravity and round earth

[chyrd]

I agree... however, this is such a common mistake... laypeople don't understand that scientific theory and laypeople theory are different things. They think that since it's a theory, scientists probably came up with the idea over some beers and darts. Unfortunately, scientists were never great at PR, so the masses, just don't get what a scientific theory is. That goes for politicians as well.

[csadler]

I highly recomend his book, Finding Darwin's God.

Excellent.

[ngarey]

sigh... It dosn't have to be taken on faith alone, it's backed up by mountains of evidence.

[Tony07UK]

@ngarey 'Evolution' has no scientific evidence .. it's all absurd fabrication, as real observable science shows that we have giraffes, elephants, snails, butterflies, monkeys, penguins, crocodiles, shrimps, whales, sharks .. with plenty of variety within species - but no intermediary forms as 'evolution' predicts gradual change. There are no ape-men or any half-way animal. Animals exist with long necks, short necks, 2 legs, 4 legs, many legs - there is no convergence towards one design.

[DonExodus2]

Yea, same...

[tuscaloosatanning]

@DonExodus2

He's just probably never studied it in depth so he is what I was to politics before I found out about him!

[rouey]

I fail to understand how Ken Miller reconciles his area of (deep) knowledge with his (deep) religious beliefs, but he sure is an admirable person, and I more than respect him for his wit and intelligence.

[Elcristoph]

Don where did you find this vid, I know its a lecture he did in Texas Uni, but Ive done a search on google and YT and cant find the whole thing..

[DonExodus2]

tinyurlDOTcom/6lor7b

[Elcristoph]

cheer..:)

[hanzo138]

I love how the producers of Expelled said that they didn't want to interview Ken Miller because he would have "complicated" the film.

[Ravenspeech7]

Where did you get this from, DonExodus2? I would love to see more of it.

[DonExodus2]

His lecture at U of Texas at Austin.

[agentorange20]

dagger in the heart of the creationist talking point on 'primates classification'.

[Desertphile]

"Both parties?" The USA had dozens of political parties.

I love these Miller videos--- he's brillianet.

[jebus6kryst]

Ken Miller is such an amazing person. I wish he would come lecture at my university. I would love to hear him live. He is so articulate.

[Paxmax]

Hahaha!! I really ought to have known that Carl von Linné was a creationist!! doh!

But what a fantastic point Ken miller does...

Ken FTW! this time too...

[DonExodus2]

Its not surprising that many famous scientists did not accept evolution 300 years before it was discovered :)

[Tony07UK]

@DonExodus2 'Evolution' has not been discovered - the theory has been created with no scientific evidence to back it up. The whole theory rests on suppositions and speculation, none of which can be verified in any scientific manner. The gaps in the fossil record prove more and more that different species are distinct and separate - they do not change over time so that their offspring 'morph' into something different.

[hanzo138]

Ken Miller wins again!

[busymartian]

Why are we catagorized at all? Creationists tend to think that humans reside outside of the animal kingdom despite similarities to great apes.

[DeadMindWorking]

Miller's lectures must be amazing....The man knows how to give a speech.

[sweatytoothmadman]

It's interesting that creationists do not like being categorized as a primate but they have no problem with being categorized as vertebrates or mammals.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"It's interesting that creationists do not like being categorized as a primate but they have no problem with being categorized as vertebrates or mammals."

Or a handful of dust, for that matter.

[chstoney]

Absolutly *!?@#@?!*ing amazing to see orthodox catholic to say this :-D.

[Lacolith]

Miller has a new book "Just A Theory" due in June. Can't wait!

[ThatOneQuestion]

"Miller has a new book "Just A Theory" due in June. Can't wait!"

Awesome-that should be good!

[kirafan68]

Brilliant! I like Ken Miller.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Always amusing!