Simmons is making the typical mistake that a person of religion makes. He thinks unless an idea or fact comes from an authority figure, it doesn't deserve a serious look. It doesn't matter at all if Darwin got his theory right or wrong. What matters is that the evidence we have collected since Darwin's time, and what we have learnt since then. Theory of evolution could have been made by Charlie Chaplin, it doesn't matter who came up with the idea, what matters is if that idea has any truth.
PZ is being so polite going the route that does not know about the issue. Because the knowledge is freely availible Simmons is knowingly lying to mislead people.
Geoffrey Simmons, your ignorance and incredulity are not support for your position. Assuming that because you do not understand something means that it is not understood is appallingly arrogant.
MAKING UP THE FACTS??? EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE BEEN BUSTED SO MANY TIMES FOR MAKING UP THE FACTS, and INTENTIONALLY LYING, and SCHOOL SCIENCE BOOKS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, STILL CONTAIN MAJOR, KNOWN FALSE CLAIMS- Yet the pages of crap haven't been retracted, and NO, science does NOT mention the flaws, and shortcomings that the evolutional model has! THAT is a LIE- What a Hypocrite! A great example is the Big Bang Theory NEVER MENTION the enormous amount of contradictions within the inner workings
@TheWayandWordofLife you refuse to see that evolution is a fact that has been proven in many ways. I'm assuming that you do believe that eve was tricked into original sin ( eating an apple !?! ) by a talking snake. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!
Maybe my highschool teachers and college professors just may have been good,but they DID mention flaws in hopes that one day the next generation (us) would help explain or find new things to fill the holes.Our science books never made up facts,they simply stated the THEORIES of the time,which change almost every couple years.Of course the evolution model has short comings-the world is gigantic and incredibly deep, and constantly moving.It's very possible much has been lost.
Lost or simply not yet found. The reason theories change so much (and any good scientist will say science does not have facts, but only theories to answer the riddles of life. Simmons got destroyed.
You can't even make a distinction between evolution and Big Bang cosmology. This is exactly the kind of abject ignorance one comes to expect from creationists.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Do some studying before you spew, or at least have the courtesy to shut the hell up.
The argument that Simmons uses against Darwin here would kill the Bible,and unlike Darwin's works the Bible was supposedly an ultimate book of morals inspired by God. The Bible is VERY unfair in it's treatment of women and slaves (particularly foreign/captured slaves). And it's full of scientific misunderstandings.
Religious people attack Darwin like he is a special anointed prophet. In that they reflect their own faulty reasons for believing.
The creationist is a fricking moron and he’s just lied through the whole debate. Anyone with even a mild interest in biology can prove he’s full of shit, and the radio presenter is pandering to him like he actually has an argument.
This "debate" was a complete joke, unprofessional on the hosts' part and the same disingenuous scripted creationist rambling out of Simmons. This is why the scientific community discourages participating in debates with creationists.
Simmons' closing statement sounded so rehearsed, like he just read it off a sheet of paper; he didn't have anything to close with that was the least bit relevant to anything PZ said. The first half of it continued the ad-hominem attacks, which, might they'd even been accurate, don't have anything to do with Darwin's theory let alone the CURRENT theory. Then he went on to say Science should be open to criticism when he had yet to provide any the entire debate.
That was the least intellectually satisfying "debate" I've ever heard. I've seen a better anti-science/pro-ID position argued by first year undergrads in Biology II. This guy is a total huckster- if I could be as immoral as Simmons and live with myself, I would get myself a 'fellowship' at the Discovery Institute. If I could live with being this immoral, I could make so much money!
He was very peer reviewed, he had to present his theory to a large number of fellow scientists. And stop calling it fucking Darwinism, it is about the idea not the man - which also goes against Simmons claim that he was horrible about women and blacks (which also isn't true). Evolution has developed masiively since Darwin, and covers many scientific fields. Scientists have worked their asses off to develop this whereas creationists have done nothing to verify their hypothesis.
"I am so astonished by the complexity of life that I cannot see how it's possible for evolution to be true."
Just because you can't comprehend how it's true doesn't mean it's false. In fact, there is so much evidence for evolution, that it is academically dishonest to deny that it is the foundational theory of Biology. That being said, incredible complexity arises out of hundreds of millions of years or change. It is truly astonishing.
It was obvious that Dr. Simmons read a prepared statement when given his final 3 minutes. What a tool. PZ, on the other hand, can fly by the seat of his pants just fine.
See I feel very bad for PZ right now because I am not a scientist and I have stopped doing my regular debates with creationists because of the fact that I have to educate them when we are talking. It is the most annoying thing in the world when someone will challenge me then I have to teach them about my defense so they understand why it is my defense. It is so depressing that I have to teach basic stuff I can’t even imagine having studied like he has and having to talk to idiots!
PZ almost taught them something. But they refuse to learn. They simply refuse to admit someone might actually have learned something that doesn't point directly to god.
he shouldn't have said that it was infantile... He should have said that he was very sorry for his very youthful lack of knowledge and that he hopes with time (at the least more time given to the already given time that he has apparently wasted) he would gain more solid knowledge on Evolution that even Darwin didn't have... and improve on the reality of the world as we know it now.
PZ Myers is a great debater, but he is basically a pretentious asshole during debates. He can't choke down his disgust for ignorance, so he insults the other side of the debate. One must be nice to the opposition while beating the shit out of their arguments.
Wait, wait, wait. How can Simmons be an MD and don't understand how brain forms? It's one of the things he should have learned in Embryology. Chemical gradient FTW!
Who the FUCK does that Jesus-DJ think he is calling down Dr. Myers for saying that Mr. Simmons doens't know anything about evolutionary theory or the fossil record? Simmons demonstrated MOST CLEARLY that he's woefully uninformed and willfully ignorant yet those minimum wage air whores just accepted his piffle as valid even though a preeminent scientist in the field of EB explained how the medical doctor (quack) was wrong.
Darwin was wrong because he hated blacks ,women ,and molested children.The fact that his theory although different than he originally thought,has held up to the test of time. Did I mention Darwin was also Hitler
Darwin's work, "The Origin of Species" published his notes about his observations regarding genetic characteristics in natural phenomena. His theory however was a combination of monism and monkey god metaphysics. This made his book a mixture of scientific observation and false metaphysical speculation that ultimately supported hyper-aggression in human society. The theory of evolution has become the theory of evolutionary aggression.
I listened to this debate with clenched teeth and resisting an urge to seek the Creationist out so I could hit him round the head with an especially large book on Evolution and Evolutionary biology. GoodChuck the man is a moron.
Myers is just saying what is obvious when he says Simmons is ignorant. The "doctor" (it bleeds me to call him one) does not even know anything about evolution (or what a scientific theory is), YET he writes books about it. Unbelievable. Just saddens me that intelligent productive people actually have to stoop so low just to debate irrational creationists =/
The doublethink is astounding. I particularly like the way they claim there was no bait-and-switch while describing the textbook bait-and-switch they pulled.
Ignorance wasn't being used in a perjorative sense. It was being used in the literal sense. One shouldn't get offended when told you are ignorant about a subject. The appropriate response is to open a book and read.
The only thing i'm wondering is: What triggers the body to evovle? I know that it is adaption, but how does the body know how to evolve? For example, a bird beak.. Some are long to get worms bugs, etc out of trees, but what triggerd the bird to evolve exactly that type of beak, who is perfect for getting bugs etc out of trees? How does evolution know which way to evolve?
@trymvg That's actually quite easy. It is not adaptation. Because of mistakes in DNA replication, sometimes you get a new feature, purely by accident. Picture a species of birds, one has a mutation resulting in a longer beak, one has a smaller beak. If these birds eat worms, the longer beak is an advantage, resulting in a bigger chance for that bird to reproduce, the smaller beak will cause that bird to eventually die because of starvation, since ressources (food) are limited.
@trymvg The results of mutation are random, so, in this example, many different types of beaks will occur, but only those forms of beaks beneficial to the survival and reproduction of the bird will be passed on, leading, as time goes by, to the existence of birds with beaks optimized for aquiring food. It is very important to notice that evolution is driven by two "engines". The RANDOM occurence of new forms and the NON RANDOM selection for the ones that are beneficial. I hope that helps =)
@trymvg Natural selection does know, because it will favor those whose mutation gives and advantage to survive, so they breed and pass this mutation on to their progenie. And so on.
@LesPaul2006 what?and you've seen this happen? give an example not bred in a test tube. No finches allowed. If you need ammo go to talk origins...then let's talk origins in so much as it pertains to any of your findings. You may want to look up Coyne and Orr - or Rainey, Oxford U. Make sure you know what definition of speciation you're using and be sure your siting a positive mutation. Now if you're just repeating something you've heard, I forgive you and you have no burden to respond.
you posted almost exactly the same comment to me. complete with pompous declarations about what I've read and what I've not and offensive nonsense about "running at the mouth".
@mcmanustony because it is the same sad story of folks who are convinced of something they know knowing, or at least present themselves as knowing nothing about. If you're offended it is either because you're wrong or because your ego won't allow you to be skeptical of something you've prematurely chosen to so fervently defend. You said macroevolution has been observed and documented several. You're wrong. If not, lead me there Tony. Still waiting for an example. Stop crying and go study.
happy to have a conversation. I'd advise you to drop the pompous attitude. your arrogance is vulgar to the point of being repulsive. given that your position is flatly contradicted by the entire life science community with a tiny handful of exceptions that one serious amount of people you have to show dont know what they're talking about.
so lets have no more of your drivel about my ego which I can guarantee you know absolutely nothing about,
on the assumption that you'll accept the standard definition of macro evolution as change at or above the species level, speciation is an example of macro evolution which can take thoudands of generations or it can take 1. an example of the latter would be speciation by an increase of ploidy in plants. a doubling of chromosome number leads to reproductive isolation and a new species.
"Stop crying and go study"- stop being an arrogant prick and grow up.
@mcmanustony I like you Tony and I appreciate your music. I just don't see your evidence, if you have any, which might prove you're bent. You have a belief and you are entitled to it. But you may not spout about without putting forth any science and pass it off as fact. There are too many innocents reading here. I think you're a bit brainwashed and my hope is that you'll look into your beliefs and test them for yourself. If you do, it is likely that you'll henceforth be delivered from them.
" I just don't see your evidence"- it's right there sunshine- 7 posts and one week ago. you claim, contrary to the entire life science community, that macro evolution has never been observed. I gave you an example.
the one spouting would be you with your arrogant assumptions aobut matters you can't possible know anything about (my ego for example) delivered in such a pompous manner.
I have looked at a lot of evidence. I think the biologists are right about biology. why do you not?
@mcmanustony "you claim, contrary to the entire life science community"
This is a fallacy. The entire scientific community talks about a "Theory" of evolution. They imply that it is truth, but if you ask any college PHD of Biology, they will not say that they know anything for sure. It is a theory and thus open to scrutiny. The fact that you can't handle that is proof that you do not know what you're talking about and that you blindly believe and that you practice a religion rather than science
barely out the gate and you've dropped the biggest creationist clunker possible. you don't understand the word "theory" as it's used in science- hence I think the chances of you making good your arrogant claims about what I dont understand and what you can "help" me with are nil. YES they talk of the "theory" of evolution, also the germ"theory" of disease, atomic "theory" and so on. they also talk about the fact of evolution- it is a fact. the theory is an explanation of the facts.
"This is a fallacy"- wrong. you don't seem to know what a fallacy is. it is simply a fact that the theory of evolution is held by all but a negligible handful among tens of thousands of zoologists, micro biologists, geneticists, paeleontologists, botanists etc.
they dont need you to tell them its open to scrutiny- you are ignorant not only of the meanings of very basic terms but of how science works. were it not open to scrutiny it would be unchanged since darwin. it has moved on.
@mcmanustony ...and what was your evidence, Tony? Present it and the link to it and allow me to dismantle it for you. Confident, yes. Arrogant, not a chance. An arrogant claim is one that has no basis or backing. The only thing I am debating is the claim that macroevolution has been proven to have taken place. It has not and my assumption is that it never will be. If you claim it has been proven, you have neither read the papers nor understood the findings. I could help you with that.
you falsely pronounced I dont know the difference between speciation and macroevolution. I gave you the definition as used in science- change at or above the specied level- whether you accept that definition is not my concern. I gave you the example of plants undergoing entire genome duplication- ploidy doubling. the diploid plants are reproductively isolated from the haploid ancestors. this is a speciation event and has been observed many times. save your dismantling for your ego.
" If you claim it has been proven, you have neither read the papers nor understood the findings"- I've said before I find you pompous attitiude to be arrogant and repulsive in the extreme. is this really how you normally engage in adult conversation? you claim that 1000s of highly trained, highly qualified professional scientists are wrong and you, an amareur with no grasp of even basic terms like "theory" are right. till you make your case spare me your condescending bullshit.
care to drop your pompous bullshit and address speciation through chromosome doubling. as it involves change at the species level it\s an example of macroevolution that has been observed and documented.
for all your arrogant bluster about your command of the literature and your supernatural knowledge of what copmplete strangers know and dont know and have read and not read....all the comments of yours I've read accross a number of videos only ever mention two books. good for you!
@mcmanustony Go on, name your books. and then we can talk of Chromosome doubling and hash out what it's all about. What do you know of Chromosome Doubling? Name your source and henceforth we shall debate. And calm down. It's only a bit of fencing and you should be able to quite handle yourself. Now then, let's hear what your "proof" of macroevolution is? But nobody within the evolutionary science community claims "proof" exists. Evidence which may point to something is a far cry from proof.
when you get to the end of your drum roll.......explain why reproductive isolation following chromosome doubling is not a speciation event and hence an observed, documented evolutionary change at the species level and hence an example of macroevolution.
@mcmanustony It is evolution, but not macroevolution. You are not getting a different kind of plant or animal, merely one with some different traits. No primary speciation is observed or documented to my knowledge. If you have a paper link that you think says otherwise, please send it my way. Evolution is a term to describe change in an organism. Speciation, depending on which definition you are using (of 25) is merely adaptive changes or mutations within the genome; generally causing harm.
"but not macroevolution"- WRONG. I'll stick to the accepted definition of the term. you might have some fantasy definition- not my concern. the emergence of a new species is by definition macroevolution. an increase in ploidy leads not just to different traits but repreoductive isolation. tetraploid plants cannot reproduce with diploid ancestors- ie new species.
"a different kind of plant or animal"- ahh "kinds". this is over, sunshine. I've not the slightest interest in "kinds"
" No primary speciation is observed or documented to my knowledge"- then drop the pretentious tripe and learn than your knowledge is weaker than you pretend.
"Evolution is a term to describe change in an organism"- wrong. evolution says nothing about an idividual organism. it applies to populations of organisms. a haircut is a change in an organism. a change in alelle frequencies over time is evolution. this is seen in every population ever studied. science has an explanation- you do not.
"mutations within the genome; generally causing harm."- WRONG. mutations generally do nothing, either form occuring in non coding DNA or because of the redundancy in transcribing codons to amino acids- GAA and GAG both specify glutamic acid- a G to A error in the third base in this codon will have absolutely no effect at all
please dont start chanting slogans about loss of information- your chances of a coherent definition of information are no better than the last 254 creationists
@mcmanustony still not macro-evolution. you passed over the entire comment and it's basis. However, mutations that "do something" are generally harmful. Copy and paste some stuff that actually answers the question in balance. "Creationist" is the byword for people who believe that life is a design by a Designer, right? That's ok, you can use it. It's also an accurate explanation of how things came into being. Remember, speciation was the topic. Lastly, what is information?
it is macrevolution according to the definition accepted by the scientific community. you are welcome to pretend otherwise but no one is all that interested.
I passed over nothing. your comment was nonsense
speciation is an example of macroevolution- as you've been told repeatedly. plant speciation by allopolyploidy has been obeserved and documented.
your cut and past accusation is false. a decent person would withdraw it. are you?
"That's ok, you can use it"- thanks. touching of you to think I needed your permission.
speciation has been addessed. all we've had since from you is more noise.
you seem to think that having read 2 books- whose titles you drop for no reason-and learned some creationist talking points that no one else could possibly be educated beyond you in biology.
the fact that you still dont know that your question has been answered makes it clear you didn't understand it to begin with.
you remind me of the character in monty python, super confident in his claim to have written all of shakespeare's plays (and the wife and I wrote the sonnets)
question 1 "how could you have written plays known to have been performed hundreds of years before you wer born?"
"ah, I was hoping you weren't going to ask that"
I gave you an example of precisely what you asked for. "....and I'll dismantle it". dream on, sparky. you might have a few devotees at sunday school, not here.
@Rofamily6 You seem not to realize that macroevolution is simply microevolution on a larger scale. If a single species is divided into two populations, they WILL develop differently, and, given enough time, they WILL get to the point where it becomes impossible for one group to mate with the other. It's a simple fact.
And the assumption that most mutations are harmful is simply not an issue. Harmful mutations don't get passed on; beneficial ones do. That's the definition of natural selection.
@mrx0066600 The man he was talking to was either a bold faced liar or a blathering idiot and a dispenser of false information and ignorance. Either way he deserved whatever insulting remarks PZ's large vocabulary could dish out.
Simmons is a doctor? Doctor of what? And an ad hominem attack on Darwin? Really?
He shows his complete lack of understanding of primate biology by saying that we can't explain why monkeys are born feet first whereas humans are born head first. It's called position and flexibility of the shoulders Dr. Simmons. Quadruped vs biped. Look it up.
its funny that simmons tries to say darwin was a racist just to ruin his credibility. what simmons probably didnt know is that darwin and his family were quakers, which was a group that helped to abolish slavery. maybe its just me, but i dont see people wanting to get rid of slavery hating black people...
@SYLFan2008 They used to call SYLFan "sexylegs" in high school 'cuz he used to shave his legs and only wore extra short, short shorts! Those were the sexiest legs that ever ran the hundred meter dash. Those were some "sexylegs" indeed! :O
If the brain was formed by design, then we wouldn't need to be taught anything! There would be no need for anyone to be educated in anything! Actually, that makes sense from the creationist pov.
5. Both men have a right to form his own conclusions based on the evidence and write books about those conclusions. If those conclusions happen to be wrong they should be judged by the evidence not by launching personal attacks. Regardless of who is right in terms of the facts, Simmons destroyed Myers during the debate by taking the moral high road.
@roont What's wrong with being moral? Who's making up facts? I think they just disagree on the conclusiveness of those facts. I don't think Simmons is arguing from Creationism or denying that mutations exist - just that he is not convinced that there is enough evidence to support inter-species evolution. From a Creationist standpoint it would make little difference in debunking that argument. Even if Myers turns out to be right, he has a lot to learn about how to act in a debate.
@crazycatlady667: "Simmons destroyed Myers during the debate by taking the moral high road."
That's what scientists rely on...the MORAL HIGH ROAD. Crazycatlady is it? Your stupidity befits your moniker. Your brain cannot comprehend what A THEORY in science is or what STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS, ARGUMENTS FROM IGNORANCE, or INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE fallacies are. You're a cretarded moron and you ought to be subjected to ridicule. Go pound some sand!
So all this fuck can do is attack darwin, does not know the people that think wouls see through his bullshit, and i allways question even what science and all people feeds me, you rotten prick LOL darwin after getting rid of religion, knew we are all connected to all life
This was HORRIBLE! I live in a family of creationists and I will tell you, everybody listening on the air at that moment sided with Dr. Simmons. Debates can catch you off guard, but PZ was bombarded with utter bullshit. They allowed Simmons to keep chiming in during the intermediate period and, since none of the listeners will check facts, he got to ransack the theory of evolution with absolute lies. The hosts and Dr. Simmons are totally unaware of their ignorance and stupidity.
@LukeShetler : I'm not sure folks like "Doctor" Simmons are unaware of their ignorance and stupidity. Maybe they're just intentionally deceptive. Anyway, the problem with these ID or Creationist guys is that, regardless of what they know or don't know, they know how to appeal to the ignorance and prejudice of religious zealots and therefore will sound more convincing to those people, in spite of scientists like Dr Myers actually providing far better arguments and showing far more insight.
I love how, in the other clips, Simmons complained about PZ calling him "ignorant" (quite aptly), but starts off his summary with an immature ad hominem attack on Darwin. I guess it's okay to insult a guy who's dead.
I also noticed after it was Simmons' turn for the second time, after PZ had blatantly told him that he was wrong on a number of things (calmly and politely I might add) that he became agitated and upset. He talked faster and louder with a more hostile tone. It was amusing, though unprofessional.
@twilightguardian He also tried to talk over PZ while he was presenting evidence. He tried to school PZ in his own field about brain developement. If he was an "evolutionist", funny many ignorant creationists say that, he should be able to understand what PZ was talking about. I haven't even taken college biology courses yet and I understood every thing PZ said.
@twilightguardian I think he represented the christians perfectly - they have nothing intelligent or interesting to say, and he said nothing intelligent or interesting.
Well, then again it isn't black and white. There are many denominations of what people believe. There are the flat-out Young-Earthers who believe the bible to a T, then the Old-Earth Creationists who don't believe that the Earth is young but still believe in Creation, then there are christians who believe in micro but not macro evolution (for some odd reason), then christians who do believe in evolution. So in a sense he's trying to support the majority's hypothesis.
Good grief. This idiot Simmons read one article in Scientific American and he suddenly knows more than a man who's been studying biology his entire life? And presumes to tell him what the state of his science is?
Is narcissic ignorance a required trait of Creationists?
To Mr. Simmons...instead of using "God" as the reason for the gaps...I say that scientist just put Santa Claus in there instead. It is exactly the same difference.
...but god is real and the bible is true...why?...cause the bible says its true.
And...round and round we go in the circular logic wheel.
Holy shit, this was worse than I expected it to be. I mean, I wasn't expecting much from Simmons as soon as I heard he was a DI hack, but fuck, I was at least expecting him not to parrot things you'd hear from a Christian troll on Yahoo! Answers.
In the Origin of Species, Darwin states quite clearly that he doesn't have a bibliography because the book is an abstract of his work as a whole. How can you attack Darwin's ideas without reading his f*****g book?!?!?!?!?
@Adhemar05 Our eyes? Yea, they could probably be much better, but if you want to find stuff to "complain" about then just look at our teeth and plumbing. They have massive problems, generally for mot mammals, but spesifically even worse for humans than most others. The only reason your teeth haven't fallen out by the time your 30 is because of scientific advanced and modern dentistry. Thats something to think about parents who are lax about teaching their children good dental hygiene by the way.
@TheStigma Just adding to your point that you briefly made about eyes and more indepth about teeth.
I'd say a good 30% of humans would be non-functional by the time they were 20 because of their eyes. I can see big blobs coming at me, but my vision isn't that bad, lol.
Then compare us to 'inferior' animals like birds. They have INSANE vision compared to ours, since we don't NEED it. Either God gives us exactly what we need for the land and era we live in, or our attributes were shaped.
@LukeShetler Certainly in a world where you would have to look for predators and hunt for prey, having even a glasses prescription at even about 3 or 4 would render you at a really big disadvantage. it dosnt take much more than that before you can't even see the faces of people clearly until they are well within the range required to impale you with a spear ;)
Long ago - we didn't really live long past 20-30, so our bad eyes were somewhat "good enough" even if very bad compared to many animals.
Like telling him NOT to call his opponent "ignorant" and "infantile" and accuse him of "negative campaigning" for attacking theories instead of people... what a bunch of assholes! :O
They should have let him continue take the moral low road and behave like a hypocrite instead of acting like they were having a debate about actual differences of opinion about theories based on "facts". :O
This wasn't a debate. This was Myer's teaching Simmons basic shit that he could have learned from a 5 second google search with 5 minutes or so reading. What Simmons is doing is equivalent to using Windows 3.5 to tell you how and why Windows 7 sucks. Outdated information.
Simmons is certainly an ignorant idiot, but PZ should have refrained from attacking him personally, because it made him look bad to people who know nothing about the subject.
@gupsphoo that's not fair, in descibing or talking about the other man's fallacies, lies, ignorance it's nearly not possible and incorrect to not use disparaging words
@gupsphoo When someone constantly claims that 2+2=5, it's hard to correct them without telling them that they're wrong and that continuing to make that claim will make them seem uneducated, childish, dumb, etc. They're not really personal attacks when they just point out obvious things. If someone's wrong, they're wrong, no matter how mean that might sound to them.
It's scary to think that creationists will hear simmon's mumbling about monkey births and will feel validated in their belief in a creator of the universe.
Simmons is making the typical mistake that a person of religion makes. He thinks unless an idea or fact comes from an authority figure, it doesn't deserve a serious look. It doesn't matter at all if Darwin got his theory right or wrong. What matters is that the evidence we have collected since Darwin's time, and what we have learnt since then. Theory of evolution could have been made by Charlie Chaplin, it doesn't matter who came up with the idea, what matters is if that idea has any truth.
sufian2k6 1 week ago
Host essentially says: "Had I know you'd actually present facts here, I'd have warned my other guest."
-.-
Lugh314 2 weeks ago
Simmons is a medical doctor?
I don't want him cutting on me!
Retrieverman1 2 weeks ago
PZ is being so polite going the route that does not know about the issue. Because the knowledge is freely availible Simmons is knowingly lying to mislead people.
xxxxxrandom 1 month ago 2
..and PZ lays the smack down!
Embrigh 1 month ago
It sounds like the bullshit was getting caught in Simmons' throat half way through his retarded wrap up.
ptango101 2 months ago 3
Geoffrey Simmons, your ignorance and incredulity are not support for your position. Assuming that because you do not understand something means that it is not understood is appallingly arrogant.
burlapshire 2 months ago 4
Scientists have recently found evidence that suggests there may be intelligent life on Earth.
1fotcn 2 months ago
@1fotcn problem is they are not sure it's human lol
JEL625 2 months ago
Btw for all of the commentators here arguing that evolutionists have falsified evidences and finds throughout the history to prove their claims -
YES, of course there HAVE been scientists who went along and made up stuff for their 15 minutes of fame, BUT SO DID THE CREATIONISTS!!!
However as the time went on and more fossils were discovered, the proof turned out to be that the evolution was the right answer.
Even without Darvin, somebody would have noticed this sooner or later.
DarkRockslizer 3 months ago 2
Comment removed
Brushles83 3 months ago
MAKING UP THE FACTS??? EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE BEEN BUSTED SO MANY TIMES FOR MAKING UP THE FACTS, and INTENTIONALLY LYING, and SCHOOL SCIENCE BOOKS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, STILL CONTAIN MAJOR, KNOWN FALSE CLAIMS- Yet the pages of crap haven't been retracted, and NO, science does NOT mention the flaws, and shortcomings that the evolutional model has! THAT is a LIE- What a Hypocrite! A great example is the Big Bang Theory NEVER MENTION the enormous amount of contradictions within the inner workings
TheWayandWordofLife 3 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife you refuse to see that evolution is a fact that has been proven in many ways. I'm assuming that you do believe that eve was tricked into original sin ( eating an apple !?! ) by a talking snake. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!
peterwetton 3 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife
Maybe my highschool teachers and college professors just may have been good,but they DID mention flaws in hopes that one day the next generation (us) would help explain or find new things to fill the holes.Our science books never made up facts,they simply stated the THEORIES of the time,which change almost every couple years.Of course the evolution model has short comings-the world is gigantic and incredibly deep, and constantly moving.It's very possible much has been lost.
1Sky1 3 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife
Lost or simply not yet found. The reason theories change so much (and any good scientist will say science does not have facts, but only theories to answer the riddles of life. Simmons got destroyed.
1Sky1 3 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife
You can't even make a distinction between evolution and Big Bang cosmology. This is exactly the kind of abject ignorance one comes to expect from creationists.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Do some studying before you spew, or at least have the courtesy to shut the hell up.
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife Once again, caps lock doesn't mean you know anything.
Ironman1o1 3 months ago
P.Z. Myers is the fucking Boss!
TheAmericanCthulhu 3 months ago
The argument that Simmons uses against Darwin here would kill the Bible,and unlike Darwin's works the Bible was supposedly an ultimate book of morals inspired by God. The Bible is VERY unfair in it's treatment of women and slaves (particularly foreign/captured slaves). And it's full of scientific misunderstandings.
Religious people attack Darwin like he is a special anointed prophet. In that they reflect their own faulty reasons for believing.
mrpayne123 3 months ago
The creationist is a fricking moron and he’s just lied through the whole debate. Anyone with even a mild interest in biology can prove he’s full of shit, and the radio presenter is pandering to him like he actually has an argument.
thinkasecond 3 months ago 2
And he has to end the sentence with "god bless you" ...
zauii89 4 months ago
FATALITY!
Feralus69 4 months ago 3
This "debate" was a complete joke, unprofessional on the hosts' part and the same disingenuous scripted creationist rambling out of Simmons. This is why the scientific community discourages participating in debates with creationists.
skeetergreen 4 months ago in playlist PZ Myers destroys Simmonds in evolution debate 3
Simmons' closing statement sounded so rehearsed, like he just read it off a sheet of paper; he didn't have anything to close with that was the least bit relevant to anything PZ said. The first half of it continued the ad-hominem attacks, which, might they'd even been accurate, don't have anything to do with Darwin's theory let alone the CURRENT theory. Then he went on to say Science should be open to criticism when he had yet to provide any the entire debate.
Percavius 5 months ago 3
That was the least intellectually satisfying "debate" I've ever heard. I've seen a better anti-science/pro-ID position argued by first year undergrads in Biology II. This guy is a total huckster- if I could be as immoral as Simmons and live with myself, I would get myself a 'fellowship' at the Discovery Institute. If I could live with being this immoral, I could make so much money!
ideologger 5 months ago
Darwin not peer reviewed ? What ? His work has been peer reviewed for 150 fucking years. Simmons is an idiot.
nolobede 5 months ago 6
He was very peer reviewed, he had to present his theory to a large number of fellow scientists. And stop calling it fucking Darwinism, it is about the idea not the man - which also goes against Simmons claim that he was horrible about women and blacks (which also isn't true). Evolution has developed masiively since Darwin, and covers many scientific fields. Scientists have worked their asses off to develop this whereas creationists have done nothing to verify their hypothesis.
biggingeryeti 5 months ago
Di in reverse is ID
mzola22 5 months ago
At this point my brain is on the verge of exploding in a gooey spray of utter incredulity.
Simmons summary:
Darwin lived at a time when people believed really silly shit, therefore evolution is false.
Darwin was a racist and sexist, therefore evolution is false.
Humans could not have evolved from monkeys because monkeys are born feet first instead of head first and it can't be explained so don't even try!
Lists of scientific ethical principles that are 180° of everything he said.
Guitcad1 5 months ago
I wish NephilimFree would see this entire video series and actually get it.
Ital21 6 months ago
@Ital21
Nephy... Get it? It'll never happen, it is against any laws of intellectual possibility.
nolobede 5 months ago
@nolobede
The only miracles are that Nephy has managed to make a youtube account, and figured out how to use a webcam.
WaltonSauce 5 months ago
The ID argument: Argument from Astonishment
"I am so astonished by the complexity of life that I cannot see how it's possible for evolution to be true."
Just because you can't comprehend how it's true doesn't mean it's false. In fact, there is so much evidence for evolution, that it is academically dishonest to deny that it is the foundational theory of Biology. That being said, incredible complexity arises out of hundreds of millions of years or change. It is truly astonishing.
chuckinator0 6 months ago
I think Simmons destroys Simmons.
sopiandrei 6 months ago 5
ID people are starting to sound like Ray Comfort "I will scientifically proof the existance of god" yes dude by quoting the bible.
what a waste of time
MrLuiS3rd 6 months ago
So we have another "debate" no evidence offered for intelligent design and when Simmons was corrected he repeated his misinformation.
Zontor2 6 months ago 2
It was obvious that Dr. Simmons read a prepared statement when given his final 3 minutes. What a tool. PZ, on the other hand, can fly by the seat of his pants just fine.
Turandot29 6 months ago
PZ myers has now usurped Dawkins as my favourtie atheist.
Plus he looks like my uncle,so that's cool. :)
1878EFC2008 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
0:15 - A beautifully eloquent maelstrom of red herrings. Fantastically put, Simmons, you imbecile.
LawngCat 7 months ago 2
This debate is like a debate between a tenured theoretical physics professor and a middle school dropout over the validity of quantum mechanics.
"The math doesn't explain the motion of electrons."
"I'm astounded you'd even say that. The math fits perfectly. You know nothing about the math."
"How DARE you insult me!"
I mean seriously. wtf?
Ripley747 7 months ago 55
See I feel very bad for PZ right now because I am not a scientist and I have stopped doing my regular debates with creationists because of the fact that I have to educate them when we are talking. It is the most annoying thing in the world when someone will challenge me then I have to teach them about my defense so they understand why it is my defense. It is so depressing that I have to teach basic stuff I can’t even imagine having studied like he has and having to talk to idiots!
LiveFreeFromFallacy 7 months ago
PZ almost taught them something. But they refuse to learn. They simply refuse to admit someone might actually have learned something that doesn't point directly to god.
rrpostalagain 7 months ago
I learned something here. You cannot discuss with a liar. It's simply impossible. You can try of course but it will cost you nerves.
137P0359997 7 months ago 3
Sooo. Simmons is a total fucking retard. Or at least thats what he looks like.
alianchild 7 months ago 36
Monkey birth is impossible to explain, eh? Impossible?
I just...this is why people who study science avoid talking to these idiots.
TBlake34 7 months ago 3
Where did Geoffrey Simmons do really well? At what point did he say anything true?
Mglosk 7 months ago
he shouldn't have said that it was infantile... He should have said that he was very sorry for his very youthful lack of knowledge and that he hopes with time (at the least more time given to the already given time that he has apparently wasted) he would gain more solid knowledge on Evolution that even Darwin didn't have... and improve on the reality of the world as we know it now.
mrx0066600 7 months ago
PZ Myers is a great debater, but he is basically a pretentious asshole during debates. He can't choke down his disgust for ignorance, so he insults the other side of the debate. One must be nice to the opposition while beating the shit out of their arguments.
Andy32268 7 months ago
Wait, wait, wait. How can Simmons be an MD and don't understand how brain forms? It's one of the things he should have learned in Embryology. Chemical gradient FTW!
hejcoze 8 months ago
Who the FUCK does that Jesus-DJ think he is calling down Dr. Myers for saying that Mr. Simmons doens't know anything about evolutionary theory or the fossil record? Simmons demonstrated MOST CLEARLY that he's woefully uninformed and willfully ignorant yet those minimum wage air whores just accepted his piffle as valid even though a preeminent scientist in the field of EB explained how the medical doctor (quack) was wrong.
Stupid should hurt.....a lot.
ciaochowbella 8 months ago 2
Darwin was wrong because he hated blacks ,women ,and molested children.The fact that his theory although different than he originally thought,has held up to the test of time. Did I mention Darwin was also Hitler
yourfullofsheite 8 months ago
PZ should debate more creationotards. He doesn't take any of their bullshit like some people and has a huge amount of knowledge to draw upon.
nick260682 8 months ago
Darwin's work, "The Origin of Species" published his notes about his observations regarding genetic characteristics in natural phenomena. His theory however was a combination of monism and monkey god metaphysics. This made his book a mixture of scientific observation and false metaphysical speculation that ultimately supported hyper-aggression in human society. The theory of evolution has become the theory of evolutionary aggression.
sbkidde 8 months ago in playlist Cool Science Stuff 2
@sbkidde You're a big fat liar, did you know that?
LesPaul2006 8 months ago
@sbkidde
His theory was neither monism, nor metaphysics. You haven't read it have you?
If you have read it, you are either unbelievably stupid, or a massive liar.
It's about BIOLOGY.
No metaphysics of philosophy involved.
What a strange comment to make. Pseudo intellectual sophistry.
nick260682 8 months ago
0:56 Oh I'm sorry Doctor. Do you have some bullshit in your throat?
gamingguy90 8 months ago
I listened to this debate with clenched teeth and resisting an urge to seek the Creationist out so I could hit him round the head with an especially large book on Evolution and Evolutionary biology. GoodChuck the man is a moron.
whisperelmwood 8 months ago
Myers is just saying what is obvious when he says Simmons is ignorant. The "doctor" (it bleeds me to call him one) does not even know anything about evolution (or what a scientific theory is), YET he writes books about it. Unbelievable. Just saddens me that intelligent productive people actually have to stoop so low just to debate irrational creationists =/
TheYipedo 8 months ago
The doublethink is astounding. I particularly like the way they claim there was no bait-and-switch while describing the textbook bait-and-switch they pulled.
brpierce 8 months ago
djarm67 i still love your video thanks dear friend still doing a great job keep on going
mystisme 8 months ago
The commercials were hilarious.
RagingPygmy 9 months ago
Ignorance wasn't being used in a perjorative sense. It was being used in the literal sense. One shouldn't get offended when told you are ignorant about a subject. The appropriate response is to open a book and read.
dramlee01 9 months ago
and this is y real scientists hesitate to "debate"with creationists. simmons flat out lied every chance he got,typical for the discovery institute.
pandorachild 9 months ago
The only thing i'm wondering is: What triggers the body to evovle? I know that it is adaption, but how does the body know how to evolve? For example, a bird beak.. Some are long to get worms bugs, etc out of trees, but what triggerd the bird to evolve exactly that type of beak, who is perfect for getting bugs etc out of trees? How does evolution know which way to evolve?
trymvg 9 months ago
@trymvg That's actually quite easy. It is not adaptation. Because of mistakes in DNA replication, sometimes you get a new feature, purely by accident. Picture a species of birds, one has a mutation resulting in a longer beak, one has a smaller beak. If these birds eat worms, the longer beak is an advantage, resulting in a bigger chance for that bird to reproduce, the smaller beak will cause that bird to eventually die because of starvation, since ressources (food) are limited.
diekerze 9 months ago
@trymvg The results of mutation are random, so, in this example, many different types of beaks will occur, but only those forms of beaks beneficial to the survival and reproduction of the bird will be passed on, leading, as time goes by, to the existence of birds with beaks optimized for aquiring food. It is very important to notice that evolution is driven by two "engines". The RANDOM occurence of new forms and the NON RANDOM selection for the ones that are beneficial. I hope that helps =)
diekerze 9 months ago
@trymvg Natural selection does know, because it will favor those whose mutation gives and advantage to survive, so they breed and pass this mutation on to their progenie. And so on.
LesPaul2006 8 months ago
@LesPaul2006 what?and you've seen this happen? give an example not bred in a test tube. No finches allowed. If you need ammo go to talk origins...then let's talk origins in so much as it pertains to any of your findings. You may want to look up Coyne and Orr - or Rainey, Oxford U. Make sure you know what definition of speciation you're using and be sure your siting a positive mutation. Now if you're just repeating something you've heard, I forgive you and you have no burden to respond.
Rofamily6 8 months ago
@Rofamily6 Italian wall lizards? Ring any bells?
LesPaul2006 8 months ago
@Rofamily6
you posted almost exactly the same comment to me. complete with pompous declarations about what I've read and what I've not and offensive nonsense about "running at the mouth".
you seem to have issues,
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@mcmanustony because it is the same sad story of folks who are convinced of something they know knowing, or at least present themselves as knowing nothing about. If you're offended it is either because you're wrong or because your ego won't allow you to be skeptical of something you've prematurely chosen to so fervently defend. You said macroevolution has been observed and documented several. You're wrong. If not, lead me there Tony. Still waiting for an example. Stop crying and go study.
Rofamily6 8 months ago
@Rofamily6
happy to have a conversation. I'd advise you to drop the pompous attitude. your arrogance is vulgar to the point of being repulsive. given that your position is flatly contradicted by the entire life science community with a tiny handful of exceptions that one serious amount of people you have to show dont know what they're talking about.
so lets have no more of your drivel about my ego which I can guarantee you know absolutely nothing about,
deal?
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@Rofamily6
on the assumption that you'll accept the standard definition of macro evolution as change at or above the species level, speciation is an example of macro evolution which can take thoudands of generations or it can take 1. an example of the latter would be speciation by an increase of ploidy in plants. a doubling of chromosome number leads to reproductive isolation and a new species.
"Stop crying and go study"- stop being an arrogant prick and grow up.
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@Rofamily6
good, well I'm glad we sorted that out.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
you've gone a bit quiet. working on your manners I hope.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony I like you Tony and I appreciate your music. I just don't see your evidence, if you have any, which might prove you're bent. You have a belief and you are entitled to it. But you may not spout about without putting forth any science and pass it off as fact. There are too many innocents reading here. I think you're a bit brainwashed and my hope is that you'll look into your beliefs and test them for yourself. If you do, it is likely that you'll henceforth be delivered from them.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
" I just don't see your evidence"- it's right there sunshine- 7 posts and one week ago. you claim, contrary to the entire life science community, that macro evolution has never been observed. I gave you an example.
the one spouting would be you with your arrogant assumptions aobut matters you can't possible know anything about (my ego for example) delivered in such a pompous manner.
I have looked at a lot of evidence. I think the biologists are right about biology. why do you not?
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony "you claim, contrary to the entire life science community"
This is a fallacy. The entire scientific community talks about a "Theory" of evolution. They imply that it is truth, but if you ask any college PHD of Biology, they will not say that they know anything for sure. It is a theory and thus open to scrutiny. The fact that you can't handle that is proof that you do not know what you're talking about and that you blindly believe and that you practice a religion rather than science
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
barely out the gate and you've dropped the biggest creationist clunker possible. you don't understand the word "theory" as it's used in science- hence I think the chances of you making good your arrogant claims about what I dont understand and what you can "help" me with are nil. YES they talk of the "theory" of evolution, also the germ"theory" of disease, atomic "theory" and so on. they also talk about the fact of evolution- it is a fact. the theory is an explanation of the facts.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
"This is a fallacy"- wrong. you don't seem to know what a fallacy is. it is simply a fact that the theory of evolution is held by all but a negligible handful among tens of thousands of zoologists, micro biologists, geneticists, paeleontologists, botanists etc.
they dont need you to tell them its open to scrutiny- you are ignorant not only of the meanings of very basic terms but of how science works. were it not open to scrutiny it would be unchanged since darwin. it has moved on.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony ...and what was your evidence, Tony? Present it and the link to it and allow me to dismantle it for you. Confident, yes. Arrogant, not a chance. An arrogant claim is one that has no basis or backing. The only thing I am debating is the claim that macroevolution has been proven to have taken place. It has not and my assumption is that it never will be. If you claim it has been proven, you have neither read the papers nor understood the findings. I could help you with that.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
you falsely pronounced I dont know the difference between speciation and macroevolution. I gave you the definition as used in science- change at or above the specied level- whether you accept that definition is not my concern. I gave you the example of plants undergoing entire genome duplication- ploidy doubling. the diploid plants are reproductively isolated from the haploid ancestors. this is a speciation event and has been observed many times. save your dismantling for your ego.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
" If you claim it has been proven, you have neither read the papers nor understood the findings"- I've said before I find you pompous attitiude to be arrogant and repulsive in the extreme. is this really how you normally engage in adult conversation? you claim that 1000s of highly trained, highly qualified professional scientists are wrong and you, an amareur with no grasp of even basic terms like "theory" are right. till you make your case spare me your condescending bullshit.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
care to drop your pompous bullshit and address speciation through chromosome doubling. as it involves change at the species level it\s an example of macroevolution that has been observed and documented.
for all your arrogant bluster about your command of the literature and your supernatural knowledge of what copmplete strangers know and dont know and have read and not read....all the comments of yours I've read accross a number of videos only ever mention two books. good for you!
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony Go on, name your books. and then we can talk of Chromosome doubling and hash out what it's all about. What do you know of Chromosome Doubling? Name your source and henceforth we shall debate. And calm down. It's only a bit of fencing and you should be able to quite handle yourself. Now then, let's hear what your "proof" of macroevolution is? But nobody within the evolutionary science community claims "proof" exists. Evidence which may point to something is a far cry from proof.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
could you explain how reproductive isolation following chromosome doubling is not a speciation event?
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
I'm perfectly calm. the pompous bluster is coming from you- and it's offputing to say the very least.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony drum roll... and your proof claim is?
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
when you get to the end of your drum roll.......explain why reproductive isolation following chromosome doubling is not a speciation event and hence an observed, documented evolutionary change at the species level and hence an example of macroevolution.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony It is evolution, but not macroevolution. You are not getting a different kind of plant or animal, merely one with some different traits. No primary speciation is observed or documented to my knowledge. If you have a paper link that you think says otherwise, please send it my way. Evolution is a term to describe change in an organism. Speciation, depending on which definition you are using (of 25) is merely adaptive changes or mutations within the genome; generally causing harm.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
"but not macroevolution"- WRONG. I'll stick to the accepted definition of the term. you might have some fantasy definition- not my concern. the emergence of a new species is by definition macroevolution. an increase in ploidy leads not just to different traits but repreoductive isolation. tetraploid plants cannot reproduce with diploid ancestors- ie new species.
"a different kind of plant or animal"- ahh "kinds". this is over, sunshine. I've not the slightest interest in "kinds"
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Ro
" No primary speciation is observed or documented to my knowledge"- then drop the pretentious tripe and learn than your knowledge is weaker than you pretend.
"Evolution is a term to describe change in an organism"- wrong. evolution says nothing about an idividual organism. it applies to populations of organisms. a haircut is a change in an organism. a change in alelle frequencies over time is evolution. this is seen in every population ever studied. science has an explanation- you do not.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
"mutations within the genome; generally causing harm."- WRONG. mutations generally do nothing, either form occuring in non coding DNA or because of the redundancy in transcribing codons to amino acids- GAA and GAG both specify glutamic acid- a G to A error in the third base in this codon will have absolutely no effect at all
please dont start chanting slogans about loss of information- your chances of a coherent definition of information are no better than the last 254 creationists
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony still not macro-evolution. you passed over the entire comment and it's basis. However, mutations that "do something" are generally harmful. Copy and paste some stuff that actually answers the question in balance. "Creationist" is the byword for people who believe that life is a design by a Designer, right? That's ok, you can use it. It's also an accurate explanation of how things came into being. Remember, speciation was the topic. Lastly, what is information?
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
it is macrevolution according to the definition accepted by the scientific community. you are welcome to pretend otherwise but no one is all that interested.
I passed over nothing. your comment was nonsense
speciation is an example of macroevolution- as you've been told repeatedly. plant speciation by allopolyploidy has been obeserved and documented.
your cut and past accusation is false. a decent person would withdraw it. are you?
you dont seem to understand your own question.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
"That's ok, you can use it"- thanks. touching of you to think I needed your permission.
speciation has been addessed. all we've had since from you is more noise.
you seem to think that having read 2 books- whose titles you drop for no reason-and learned some creationist talking points that no one else could possibly be educated beyond you in biology.
the fact that you still dont know that your question has been answered makes it clear you didn't understand it to begin with.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony who's we?
Rofamily6 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rofamily6
"who's we?"- what are you rerring to?
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
you remind me of the character in monty python, super confident in his claim to have written all of shakespeare's plays (and the wife and I wrote the sonnets)
question 1 "how could you have written plays known to have been performed hundreds of years before you wer born?"
"ah, I was hoping you weren't going to ask that"
I gave you an example of precisely what you asked for. "....and I'll dismantle it". dream on, sparky. you might have a few devotees at sunday school, not here.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
you didn't apologise for your cut and paste smear yet. you should- as it was false.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony I'm sorry Tony
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
you've still to address the example of macroevolution you've been given.
autopollyploidy has not been observed?
they're not a new species?
they're not reprodictively isoltated from the original population?
botanists are wrong about the chromosome number?
which??
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Rofamily6
so you should be. apology accepted.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 You seem not to realize that macroevolution is simply microevolution on a larger scale. If a single species is divided into two populations, they WILL develop differently, and, given enough time, they WILL get to the point where it becomes impossible for one group to mate with the other. It's a simple fact.
And the assumption that most mutations are harmful is simply not an issue. Harmful mutations don't get passed on; beneficial ones do. That's the definition of natural selection.
PetercAW 7 months ago
@mcmanustony
I'd trade manners for scientific knowledge of our world any day... You should to. it is petty.
And for good manners. I'm sorry if this offends you... Happy? :)
mrx0066600 7 months ago
@mrx0066600 The man he was talking to was either a bold faced liar or a blathering idiot and a dispenser of false information and ignorance. Either way he deserved whatever insulting remarks PZ's large vocabulary could dish out.
jacobrperry 7 months ago
Simmons is a doctor? Doctor of what? And an ad hominem attack on Darwin? Really?
He shows his complete lack of understanding of primate biology by saying that we can't explain why monkeys are born feet first whereas humans are born head first. It's called position and flexibility of the shoulders Dr. Simmons. Quadruped vs biped. Look it up.
chriskraska 10 months ago
its funny that simmons tries to say darwin was a racist just to ruin his credibility. what simmons probably didnt know is that darwin and his family were quakers, which was a group that helped to abolish slavery. maybe its just me, but i dont see people wanting to get rid of slavery hating black people...
liamgr 10 months ago
This was on a "Christian" radio station. 'Nuff said. The hosts and the creationist are in cahoots, blatantly.
puffin02 10 months ago
Will creationism ever evolve some legs and hit the ground running?
Barkeroni 11 months ago
@Barkeroni They should evolve brains first.
ProfoundReality2 10 months ago
@Barkeroni
They tried...and failed. And since they don't believe in a repetitive trial and error method, their first attempt was their last one.
Timmay123456789 10 months ago
@Timmay123456789 Agreed. Timmay, we unfortunately live in a time where full blown morons have a voice.
Barkeroni 10 months ago
@SYLFan2008 They used to call SYLFan "sexylegs" in high school 'cuz he used to shave his legs and only wore extra short, short shorts! Those were the sexiest legs that ever ran the hundred meter dash. Those were some "sexylegs" indeed! :O
crazycatlady667 11 months ago
Every time I think Christians can't get any dumber, they prove me wrong.
judoyodan 11 months ago
If the brain was formed by design, then we wouldn't need to be taught anything! There would be no need for anyone to be educated in anything! Actually, that makes sense from the creationist pov.
greyeyed123 11 months ago
5. Both men have a right to form his own conclusions based on the evidence and write books about those conclusions. If those conclusions happen to be wrong they should be judged by the evidence not by launching personal attacks. Regardless of who is right in terms of the facts, Simmons destroyed Myers during the debate by taking the moral high road.
crazycatlady667 11 months ago
@crazycatlady667
HA! Who gives a fuck about moral high ground. this guy doesn't deserve any respect. He's pisspoor at what he's trying to do.
like pz said, you dont get to make up your facts.
roont 11 months ago
@roont What's wrong with being moral? Who's making up facts? I think they just disagree on the conclusiveness of those facts. I don't think Simmons is arguing from Creationism or denying that mutations exist - just that he is not convinced that there is enough evidence to support inter-species evolution. From a Creationist standpoint it would make little difference in debunking that argument. Even if Myers turns out to be right, he has a lot to learn about how to act in a debate.
crazycatlady667 11 months ago
@crazycatlady667: "Simmons destroyed Myers during the debate by taking the moral high road."
That's what scientists rely on...the MORAL HIGH ROAD. Crazycatlady is it? Your stupidity befits your moniker. Your brain cannot comprehend what A THEORY in science is or what STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS, ARGUMENTS FROM IGNORANCE, or INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE fallacies are. You're a cretarded moron and you ought to be subjected to ridicule. Go pound some sand!
SYLFan2008 11 months ago
@SYLFan2008 I know I'm ignorant. I like being ignorant but I love ridicule even better. = )
crazycatlady667 11 months ago
@crazycatlady667
I didn't hear any personal attacks. I heard the term "ignorant" being described as an insult, but it wasn't, it was a description.
You don't win debates because you are the most polite one.
nick260682 8 months ago
@nick260682 I have a secret, I can prove it too, "The truth is given to the world by the mouth of the most persuasive - not the most correct" ~Mary
"You are correct, and so you have failed to persuade me" ~Ariloeu Laleelae
P.S. You don't win debates by being an asshole either! :O
crazycatlady667 7 months ago
So all this fuck can do is attack darwin, does not know the people that think wouls see through his bullshit, and i allways question even what science and all people feeds me, you rotten prick LOL darwin after getting rid of religion, knew we are all connected to all life
krapptacular 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@krapptacular All this proves is your own ignorance about religion. No need to reply. I know a troll when I see one.
crazycatlady667 11 months ago
LOL, that wasn't a debate, it was a public execution. Meyers crucified the retard...
GjVj 1 year ago 2
This discovery institute dropout (lol) Has no business arguing with anyone about any subject of any complexity.
pumpstations 1 year ago
It's still a mystery to me how people can fall for bullshit talkers like that.
narutofan9999 1 year ago
I hated that "god bless you both" at the end,
what a cunt
funkyleaf 1 year ago 7
Once again PZ lays waste.
bloodties1 1 year ago 2
This was HORRIBLE! I live in a family of creationists and I will tell you, everybody listening on the air at that moment sided with Dr. Simmons. Debates can catch you off guard, but PZ was bombarded with utter bullshit. They allowed Simmons to keep chiming in during the intermediate period and, since none of the listeners will check facts, he got to ransack the theory of evolution with absolute lies. The hosts and Dr. Simmons are totally unaware of their ignorance and stupidity.
LukeShetler 1 year ago 2
@LukeShetler : I'm not sure folks like "Doctor" Simmons are unaware of their ignorance and stupidity. Maybe they're just intentionally deceptive. Anyway, the problem with these ID or Creationist guys is that, regardless of what they know or don't know, they know how to appeal to the ignorance and prejudice of religious zealots and therefore will sound more convincing to those people, in spite of scientists like Dr Myers actually providing far better arguments and showing far more insight.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
I love how, in the other clips, Simmons complained about PZ calling him "ignorant" (quite aptly), but starts off his summary with an immature ad hominem attack on Darwin. I guess it's okay to insult a guy who's dead.
reasonformirrors 1 year ago 2
I also noticed after it was Simmons' turn for the second time, after PZ had blatantly told him that he was wrong on a number of things (calmly and politely I might add) that he became agitated and upset. He talked faster and louder with a more hostile tone. It was amusing, though unprofessional.
twilightguardian 1 year ago
@twilightguardian He also tried to talk over PZ while he was presenting evidence. He tried to school PZ in his own field about brain developement. If he was an "evolutionist", funny many ignorant creationists say that, he should be able to understand what PZ was talking about. I haven't even taken college biology courses yet and I understood every thing PZ said.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
Crap, I learn about this stuff FOR FUN and was able to understand everything that PZ said. I've never even taken Biology.
But yeah... That guy didn't represent Christians very well. PZ was very awesome.
twilightguardian 1 year ago
@twilightguardian I think he represented the christians perfectly - they have nothing intelligent or interesting to say, and he said nothing intelligent or interesting.
jomahubo 11 months ago
@jomahubo
Well, then again it isn't black and white. There are many denominations of what people believe. There are the flat-out Young-Earthers who believe the bible to a T, then the Old-Earth Creationists who don't believe that the Earth is young but still believe in Creation, then there are christians who believe in micro but not macro evolution (for some odd reason), then christians who do believe in evolution. So in a sense he's trying to support the majority's hypothesis.
twilightguardian 11 months ago
I take offense that a Christian's brain is the same as a monkey's brain. The Christian brain is much much smaller.
movieklump 1 year ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@movieklump "I take offense that a Christian's brain is the same as a monkey's brain. The Christian brain is much much smaller."
Christian brains are larger - but they suffer retarded development.
messianicrogue 1 year ago
@movieklump amazing comment
Rofamily6 8 months ago
Comment removed
movieklump 1 year ago
Good grief. This idiot Simmons read one article in Scientific American and he suddenly knows more than a man who's been studying biology his entire life? And presumes to tell him what the state of his science is?
Is narcissic ignorance a required trait of Creationists?
Bookwyrm86 1 year ago
And this is why scientists don't debate creationists
Alakrit 1 year ago 2
I found it painful listening to Dr. Simmons. How did he manage to become a physician? He's a colossal idiot.
Bagkaa 1 year ago 9
To Mr. Simmons...instead of using "God" as the reason for the gaps...I say that scientist just put Santa Claus in there instead. It is exactly the same difference.
...but god is real and the bible is true...why?...cause the bible says its true.
And...round and round we go in the circular logic wheel.
djkoch65 1 year ago 2
Simmon's topic hopping was painfully annoying!
mczeljk 1 year ago
Holy shit, this was worse than I expected it to be. I mean, I wasn't expecting much from Simmons as soon as I heard he was a DI hack, but fuck, I was at least expecting him not to parrot things you'd hear from a Christian troll on Yahoo! Answers.
lordlacolith 1 year ago 3
In the Origin of Species, Darwin states quite clearly that he doesn't have a bibliography because the book is an abstract of his work as a whole. How can you attack Darwin's ideas without reading his f*****g book?!?!?!?!?
thelighteningbolt519 1 year ago
If our eye was designed by a creator, then I'm not impressed!
Adhemar05 1 year ago 3
@Adhemar05 Our eyes? Yea, they could probably be much better, but if you want to find stuff to "complain" about then just look at our teeth and plumbing. They have massive problems, generally for mot mammals, but spesifically even worse for humans than most others. The only reason your teeth haven't fallen out by the time your 30 is because of scientific advanced and modern dentistry. Thats something to think about parents who are lax about teaching their children good dental hygiene by the way.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma Just adding to your point that you briefly made about eyes and more indepth about teeth.
I'd say a good 30% of humans would be non-functional by the time they were 20 because of their eyes. I can see big blobs coming at me, but my vision isn't that bad, lol.
Then compare us to 'inferior' animals like birds. They have INSANE vision compared to ours, since we don't NEED it. Either God gives us exactly what we need for the land and era we live in, or our attributes were shaped.
LukeShetler 1 year ago
@LukeShetler Certainly in a world where you would have to look for predators and hunt for prey, having even a glasses prescription at even about 3 or 4 would render you at a really big disadvantage. it dosnt take much more than that before you can't even see the faces of people clearly until they are well within the range required to impale you with a spear ;)
Long ago - we didn't really live long past 20-30, so our bad eyes were somewhat "good enough" even if very bad compared to many animals.
TheStigma 1 year ago
Christiaan radio program? Not biased in the slightest then?
huntmatuk 1 year ago
Hey, hosts ... Cringe much?
joeypolanski 1 year ago
The host are frigging biased.
ma049 1 year ago 2
The hosts are shit. They interrupt Myers and tell him what he can and cannot say.
tml4873 1 year ago 38
@tml4873 I know right!? = D
Like telling him NOT to call his opponent "ignorant" and "infantile" and accuse him of "negative campaigning" for attacking theories instead of people... what a bunch of assholes! :O
They should have let him continue take the moral low road and behave like a hypocrite instead of acting like they were having a debate about actual differences of opinion about theories based on "facts". :O
crazycatlady667 11 months ago
@tml4873 They tell PZ that because they like Simmons are creationists. The radio station is christian lol.
mythicalhell 9 months ago
This wasn't a debate. This was Myer's teaching Simmons basic shit that he could have learned from a 5 second google search with 5 minutes or so reading. What Simmons is doing is equivalent to using Windows 3.5 to tell you how and why Windows 7 sucks. Outdated information.
Shyhalu 1 year ago 8
Comment removed
Shyhalu 1 year ago
Simmons was schooled by a master.
Sloan001962 1 year ago 3
@umborriquitocomotu I am saying it was very clear that PZ won this so called debate. So to say they both well is not only shocking but very dishonest
123columbo123 1 year ago
Simmons is certainly an ignorant idiot, but PZ should have refrained from attacking him personally, because it made him look bad to people who know nothing about the subject.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
@gupsphoo that's not fair, in descibing or talking about the other man's fallacies, lies, ignorance it's nearly not possible and incorrect to not use disparaging words
Nilaikx 1 year ago
@gupsphoo
"PZ should have refrained from attacking him personally"
PZ did no such thing. He merely pointed out Simmons' egregious lack of knowledge.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago 2
@gupsphoo When someone constantly claims that 2+2=5, it's hard to correct them without telling them that they're wrong and that continuing to make that claim will make them seem uneducated, childish, dumb, etc. They're not really personal attacks when they just point out obvious things. If someone's wrong, they're wrong, no matter how mean that might sound to them.
iSOBigD 1 year ago 21
Simmons is such a douchebag moron. Creationists are beyond stupid.
bary1234 1 year ago 5
"you both did very well" I think i just pissed myself! oh then irony!
123columbo123 1 year ago
It's scary to think that creationists will hear simmon's mumbling about monkey births and will feel validated in their belief in a creator of the universe.
jazz4 1 year ago