The Best Science is Created Useless - Neil deGrasse Tyson - ABC News

[htiberian]

I am simply not smart enough to see the beauty of relgious bullshit - and it smells.

[odinata]

"Genesis in no way contradicts science"

Bullshit.

From plants being created before the Sun, to talking serpents, Genesis is in direct contradiction with reality.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Hahaha! You really are afraid of the truth. In no way does the bible say plants were created before the Sun. Talking Serpents have nothing to do with Big Bang Cosmology or the phases of bioengineering of earth life evolution. You can call it bullshit all you want. But it's not because it doesn't line up with scientific models.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Genesis says plants were created on the third day, and the sun and stars were created on the fourth day.

So, again you make a false assertion.

"In no way does the bible say plants were created before the Sun."

Bullshit.

Again.....and again and again......

These things aren't "the truth", so I am in no way "afraid" of them.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

The days of Genesis correspond to distinct periods of cosmic evolution from the perspective of whoever is having said vision and wrote it down. Plant life (bacteria & algae) starts on the 3rd day (but continues as is described over time), that's the important part. On the 4th, the atmosphere is in a condition where starts and the Sun become visible. It makes perfect sense. But again, you can't just pick up the KJV, you've gotta look at the Tora, Talmud, and ancient commentaries.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

I suggest you reread Genesis1, the whole chapter, and imagine that you are envisioning an evolutionary unfolding from the perspective of the universe but looking out from the earth. However, since you show no interest and probably won't do this, I will leave you with this one thought. It says the earth brought forth life, then God "made" creatures after their kind (in other words, at the end of the biosphere came great diversity). It's actually an interesting, condensed description.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Remember, God created the heavens (first) and the earth. He said let there be light. He said let the earth bring forth life, starting with plants (photosynthetic algae...?). The 4th day, the atmosphere becomes clear and stars and the procession of the sun become revealed. And then more and more complex creatures emerge. Every time I think deeply about it, it's actually quite incredible that someone had this vision and wrote it down long ago, well before the bible.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

It can't be any more clear, circus.

It doesn't matter "how long a Jeebus day" is.....

Genesis god created plants before the stars and the sun.

"Let the land produce vegetation: " Genesis 1:11-13

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night," Genesis 1:14-19

So your ASSERTION, again, is WRONG.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

I guess you didn't listen to a word I said. People have thought this through time and time again, way deeper than your willfully ignorant, literally superficial, purposefully pompous understanding. But enough of this. For you, it's bullshit. The fact that thousands of years ago, someone wrote down their vision, and from a visual and mystical perspective, it just happens to match the procession of the universe from a modern scientific perspective is beyond your ability to grasp.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

I read every word.

Its mostly nonsense.

The words are right there in black and whit.

It doesn't say the stars and sun that god made earlier became visible (visible to who? There were no eyes yet) on day four.

I'm glad that you aren't so stupid as to take the mythology literally--that's a step in the right direction.

But to concoct some story that has no corroboration in the writings of the mythology itself means that this fantasy eexists nowhere outside of your own head.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Visible to who? Visible to the person having the mystical vision. It makes perfect sense, even though the person who wrote this down long ago had no mental concepts of modern scientific theories. And that is the beauty. It is described mystically, as it was envisioned. Dismiss it as nonsense, I don't care.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Genesis:

Plants--day 3.

Stars and sun--day 4.

Sorry bud. good effort though--to salvage a fail...

Not a good effort at being intellectually honest.

Interesting as literature.

Bullshit as science--as Hovind and Sanford would have you believe it is.

[odinata]

@circusOF

"it just happens to match the procession of the universe from a modern scientific perspective"

Another false assertion.

You are forcing a fit that the Fundamentalists would surely reject, and that science obviously rejects.

I think its sweet that you are so generous with the mythology, but you miss the point of myth and its relevance when you try to force it like you are.

Genesis is not even CLOSE to being a "description" of anything--its power is that it is myth.

Try Joseph Campbell.

[odinata]

Unless you define "god" as "the universe, and the process of the universe--nature"

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Look, it's apparent that you are a conscious, sentient being. All humans are. We are also products of the universe. So what does that tell you about the universe? Intelligence is, at the very least, an inherent phenomenon. I personally don't identify with religious dogma. But I do understand that my consciousness/intelligenece is a fragment of a much greater intelligence. That's God. All religious descriptions are just cultural attempts at grasping their own identity in this truth.

[odinata]

Here's one point that you really need to concede:

Gods or no gods, organisms evolve.

Heritable traits are passed on with varying success, natural selection leads to speciation.

Theres not a non-Evangelical Fundamentalist in the world who denies this demonstrable, observable, testable fact.

Gods have there place--in the minds of the faithful.

They are nowhere to be seen outside of these shelters--

Gods seem to grow in the petri dish of human culture.....

We make gods--not vice versa.

Unless..

[odinata]

You are going to have to go back to a time so distant that a god might be hiding there--but you have no proof.

The best you can say is that a god could be hiding there....

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to prove God, and in particular the Christian God. All I'm trying to do is get an accurate picture of what's happening in living systems. It seems to me that there are signs of intelligence, the communication of information for a purpose.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

I'm not buying it, circus.

You've had nothing but contempt for the study of living things--Biology--and the most important scientific theory of the past 150 years (along with Einsteins Relativity).

You are a confusing person--from one side of your neck we hear that you don't have anything against common ancestry, natural selection--the heart of Darwin--but then you turn around and kiss Creationist ass by "agreeing" Darwin is a lie, bullshit, evil, idiotic....

..however....

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

No, that's what you hear, but that isn't what I am saying. Biology is biology, I have nothing but respect for science. I also respect valid scientific hypotheses. What I have a problem with is people who use Darwinian evolution as an argument against religion, or they push a biased, atheistic and materialistic agenda against metaphysics by appealing to Darwinism. You, have on more than one occasion done this yourself. Why, I don't know, but it's hypocritical.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

...your scramble to find something--someone who can affirm your disdain for the very thoroughly corroborated scientific fact of evolution has turned up some interesting ideas--Shapiro's for example.

I see them as confirmation of naturally emergent complexity--kind of like the ameobas who band together and behave completely in times of scarcity.

Your clinging to the concept of purpose is most telling--I think its why you search for a top down god.

I think thats the wrong tack.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Again, you are free to interpret it how you wish. But the way in which you reiterate it back to me implies that you haven't taken enough time to actually look at what I am saying, or what other scientists say about it. I'm not just cherry picking ideas and drawing my own conclusions. I am quite literally agreeing with Shapiro and others, and reaffirming what they are saying.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Shapiro does NOT feel that evolution is idiotic, that common ancestry is not the case, or that speciation does not occur.

Shapiro also does not appear to study multicellular organisms.

You "and others" appear to be young Earthers that have no contact with reality.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Shapiro believes, because of the evidence, that evolution proceeds in leaps which are guided by genetic systems via the complex and non-random process of natural/cellular genetic engineering, genomic acquisitions (symbiogenesis), cooperation, and so forth. He doesn't completely dismiss random mutation, but he points to many examples where random mutation has nothing to do with genetic changes. Shapiro is a molecular biologist, he studies all life, but particularly bacteria.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Everything you say about Shapiro and his work indicates that natural selection is alive and well.

"He doesn't completely dismiss random mutation"

Thank you.

Since random mutation is only a small part of the Evolution biography, we can move on now.

Evolution happens--you know it, I know it--its fact.

Yeah, chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

Shapiro's work certainly doesn't detract from that truth.......

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

I never said evolution was idiotic, I said the idea of random variation/selection accounting for biodiversity is a pseudo-scientific at best, outdated and ignorant at worst. Everything you say is either a blatant misrepresentation or simply a lie. I'm not a young earther, and the others I refer to are also evolutionists, hence the misrepresentations and lies you tell keep building. Square with me, if you have the intellectual fortitude, and you just might, don't sell yourself short.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

I haven't told a single lie--I've merely pointed out that your assertions are false.

I've got the intellectual fortitude to have demonstrated that 99% of everything you've claimed for months now is garbage.

I'm sure that must be very frustrating for you.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

"I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to prove God, and in particular the Christian God."

Can you tell me, in all honesty, that you do not support the Christian Genesis account of Creation?

In your heart, do you really understand and believe that this is mythology, metaphor, and fantasy?

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

The Bible isn't a science book, it's a metaphysical book. Genesis in no way contradicts science, but it also doesn't address any of the details. I find it fascinating, it doesn't matter to me if it is literally true or not. You can reject it, as far as I am concerned, and that in no way bothers me. But what I think is unfair is how you push your interpretation of scientific findings as if to argue against the Bible when I'm simply talking about general metaphysical implications.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

So you are saying that yo personally do not find Genesis to be an accurate description of the cause or the purpose of life, the universe, and everything.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

I'm saying that it's not an empirical, scientific account. But at the same time, as an historical narrative, prose of the sort you find nowhere else in written human language, truly epic in proportion, yet extremely short and concise, I find it extremely intriguing and worth pondering. If you don't, that's just fine. But my opinion is that you are selling yourself short not to at least explore the theological, philosophical and scientific implications. Schroeder is a good bet.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Its not a historical narrative if the accounts it describes never happened.

Whether or not you or I find it interesting is not the pressing issue.

What is of concern is that some people have decided that Evolution--that fact of nature--is an evil, despicable lie perpetrated by evil, despicable scientists, in league with Satan.

That is hardly healthy, and it does not come close to resembling a respect for the truth.

You seem to be encouraging this viewpoint in others...

[odinata]

"Simulation studies of twin pairs using simple non-linear development models characterised by chaotic or near-chaotic behavior are presented. The effect of chaotic processes on correlations is to lower them from their initial values, but high initial correlations are affected much less by chaotic and near-chaotic processes than intermediate correlations. "

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

These chaotic processes they are talking about are still systematic. What's your point? When you get down to it, chaos theory can apply to any physical system. I'm talking about the very well defined rules that are anything but chaotic. They are orderly and predictable. So instead of quote mining. Why don't you demonstrate a chaotic, emergent phenomenon that produces a coded information communication system without any intelligent guidance what so ever.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

The universities are thick with research showing complex systems arising fromnatural systems with non-linear rules--from the pattern of a sunflower to a network of neurons--to the pattern of a broccoflour head.

Why don't YOU provide the invisible programmer who you claim "dunnit"?

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

You are not thinking clearly. I'm talking about the genetic expression system itself. Not the fractality, golden ratio, unpredictable patterns that emerge from this system. I'm talking about the rules of the system itself, which you take for granted every time you duck and dodge my point.

Show me another example of a CODED informational communication system emerging out of chaos, one that you know the origin of so the natural processes can be studied, the laws derived.

[odinata]

Obviously you don't know everything there is to know about how Chaos theory applies to genetic expression.

I'm don't either, but the difference is I'm not making bold assertions that they have nothing to do with each other.

You beg the question when you claim that DNA is CODED.

DNA is inherited--there is no programmer.

DNA IS the example you are asking me for.

@circusOFprecision

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Give me another example, one that you actually can demonstrate the origin of. That's the thing about life that makes it difficult. It comes from preexisting life, it doesn't "emerge", it copies itself. You have no idea if or how it "emerged" originally. So that is why I am asking for an example that can be demonstrated. If you can find me examples of this same kind of phenomenon and articulate the natural law behind how they emerged, I just might be convinced.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

No, it emerges.

Just like the snowflake emerges from the nature of the atoms in the molecule of water.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Show me a life form emerging without instructions passed along from a previous copy. Snowflakes? Well, I will say one thing, chaos theory can explain that. The patterns are always slightly different, but the basic template is explained by physical and chemical laws. With genetics, the basic template is NOT explained this way, the rules are arbitrary, based off of a code.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecis

You are having a really difficult time grasping his concept.

Complexity builds, and entirely new properties emerge at different scales.

You seem to think that the matter in DNA, in RNA--in any organic molecule--has a choice to behave in an another way than we see it behaving.

DNA is not a "code" in the way your church tells you it is.

It is the result of a recursive process.

If you want to apply a God to it, you are going to have to go back much further than today's organisms.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

"When you get down to it, chaos theory can apply to any physical system."

--circus

"chaos theory applies to environmental systems, not genetic ones"

Christ, here we go again....

Out the both sides of the old neck again....

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

That isn't what I meant, but you are right, chaos as well as quantum mechanics applies to all physical systems (genetic systems operate in the physical world). What I meant to say is that you can easily predict the outcome of the rules of gene expression, even if chaos is still a part of some of those systems. Chaos itself is a poor explanation for the existence of genetic systems. So nice try, but fail. Go address my other comment, stop running away.

[circusOFprecision]

Science isn't free at all. It's driven by corporate interests, which give a shit about the earth itself. And then they turn around and blame humans for CO2? WTF? In order to let science be free we need to kick out the Darwinists, the materialists, and the corporate lobbyists. Then we need to say hey, what's puts us most at harmony with nature. That will be the true science, not solving imaginary unsolvable problems and creating technologies that are destructive to life.

[nakomaru]

@circusOFprecision Kick out... the "Darwinists"? This sounds a lot more like mysticism than science. Every honest learned person observes that all life on Earth undergoes random mutation and non-random death, aka evolution.

As for corporate interests, you're right. They shouldn't be allowed to affect the frontier of science. The situation in the US isn't as bad as in the UK though, where grant applications now have to include a section on market impact (google: angry chemists youtube).

[circusOFprecision]

@nakomaru

Darwinism is materialism, but worse still, it's a mystical or superstitious version of it. The popular view of evolution has it completely backwards. "Mutations" (horrible word by the way) or genetic changes are NON-RANDOM, but environmental noise (selection) is random. Of course better suited organisms survive and reproduce. But these better suited organisms get knocked off by the environment just as much.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

There is NOTHING mystical and superstitious (awww, I'm flattered--you are mimicking me now!) about the scientifically demonstrable fact that organisms have heritable traits, they pass those traits on with differential success, pheno/genotypes of populations of organisms ar dynamic over time, and organisms that one might guess are related closely by study of their morphology are indeed related--and the DNA PROVES it.

Calling it that dirty word that you are won't change it...

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Darwinism isn't science. It's a philosophy. Stop abusing science in the name of your religion. And I'm not mimicking you or being sarcastic, I'm dead serious. Stop trolling me, this is the last time I am going to warn you. Nobody cares what you have to say or enjoys your harrassment.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Biology is science, and its moved beyond Darwin--even though Darwin was spot on about certain things, ie., that organisms evolve.

You, like all other detractors, have one thing in common--your RELIGION.

God dunnit is the olnly answer your church allows.

Unfortunately, its not the right answer.

You stop making false assertions, and I won't need to point out how you are wrong.

This is a free forum, and if you think you are going to control it you are mistaken.

Your jihad ends.

[nakomaru]

@circusOFprecision Hmm, I think you've been mislead. Random mutation followed by non-random selection is very convincingly proven in both natural/artificial selection and genetically. As you say: "of course better suited organisms survive and reproduce." - this is the meaning of non-random selection.

Your last sentence is incompatible with its previous. Either the better suited tend to survive better or they do not, but not both. Cases of extinction due to noise do nothing to deflate this.

[circusOFprecision]

@nakomaru

Yeah, I get it. Survival demands fitness. But random noise isn't producing the variation. That changes the whole picture.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

No, it doesn't change the fact that organisms evolve, that speciation happens, that all organisms are related, and that it is a natural process.

That IS evolution.

Why that pisses you off so bad would be beyond me, except I know that your church does the thinking for you, and you need to obey.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

"Yeah, I get it. Survival demands fitness"

No, you don't get it.

"Fitness" is a scientific term.

Survival DEFINES fitness--technically, fitness is defined as producing offspring that in turn produce offspring.

You've got it backwards again--because you've never taken the coursework.

[circusOFprecision]

@nakomaru

It doesn't matter if the better suited tend to survive. Many less fit organisms also tend to survive. It's statistics. You are already assuming on some level a successful biological mechanism exists. No offense, but random mutation/selection is like brainwashing. It's such a simple and elegant idea in terms of it's logic. But it assumes all the necessary genetic mechanisms are already in place and that creatures are slaves to genetic determinism. Scientifically there are problems.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Why do you cling to the STRAWMAN--its not about the random.

Its about the NATURAL SELECTION.

The only part of the process that is random is the occasional mutation that adds variety to the gene pool.

Darwin recognized that individuals weren't identical, and he didn't even know about genes.

Your willful ignorance doesn't change the facts....

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Natural selection assumes a genetic expression system that is able to cope with a preexisting environmental condition. Genetic changes are not random. They are predictable mechanisms that adjust (adapt) a biological system to a randomly changing environment (chaos theory applies to environmental systems, not genetic ones). Genetic systems are at the very least intelligent algorithms. Nothing about the exterior environment is predictable in this way. Think for once, just once.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Natural selection assumes nothing.

Genotype/phenotype are determined by the members of the population that pass on their genotype/phenotype--and that depends on factors beyond preexisting environmental conditions.

Think about this JUST ONCE--your "common sense does not trump knowledge--something you decided to forgo.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

"Some implications of chaos theory for the genetic analysis of human development and variation.

Eaves LJ, Kirk KM, Martin NG, Russell RJ.

Source

Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavior Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA.

Abstract

Non-linear epigenetic processes are a potential underlying source of phenotypic differences in development."

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

I'm not talking about development, I'm talking about genetic systems that perform highly specific functions that lead to development in the first place! You are always 10 steps behind. Are you a zoologist or something? It's like you have no grasp what so ever on molecular biology, or how anything works outside of population genetics.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

You are talking about the horse leading the cart.

Instead, you should be talking about emergent properties of complex systems--but first, you should be studying the Biology you are abusing.

Instead of coming at this as a theist, why not try coming at it as someone who actually cares about the truth?

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

"Non-linear epigenetic processes are a potential underlying source of phenotypic differences in development."

Do you even understand what that means? I don't think you actually do.

[odinata]

It was simply a citation to show that your assertion that nonlinear dynamics has nothing to do with--no application in--genetics was what you specialize in:

Bunk.

@circusOFprecision

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

I never said it had nothing to do with genetics. What you are doing is applying chaos theory to molecular environment. Fine. I'm talking about the algorithms that allow genetic systems to properly function. They aren't random or unpredictable, if they were replication and/development itself would be impossible. They are information communication systems. It's good old fashioned predictable mathematics. You plug in the variable, you get the proper result.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

"Just as nature does not need to know the rules of nature to evolve an efficient genetic solution, we do not need to fully understand the problems we are seeking to solve using genetic algorithms."

Victor MacGill, Genetic Algorithms - Chaos Theory and Complexity Theory

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

I'm not talking about population genetics, the ENVIRONMENT, and the fact that we use chaos theory as a tool where the math is too complicated. Nice try though. I'm talking about the rules of genetic expression. A signal activates a genetic process which in turn activates the expression of a gene, ect. But if you really want, go find a quote that applies chaos theory to genetic expression itself.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

"Theory of Robustness of Irreversible Differentiation in a Stem Cell System: Chaos Hypothesis

CHIKARA FURUSAWA1, KUNIHIKO KANEKO

Purchase

Department of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Tokyo, Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 153, Japan

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Algorithms, short cut math in a process too complicated for us to yet understand. And I'm not saying that in denial of chaos. What I am saying is that you are giving me ideas, hypotheses and so forth (ones that you obviously agree with). You are not accounting for any of the things I have mentioned, in fact you are ignoring them.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

What yo uare positing to me isn't a scientific fact--its an idea you latched onto because for some reason you think it proves your personal Jeebus.

Show him then.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Come on odinata, quit running from the problem. You point to chaos and assert it explains order. But you take it further and assert that it explains a coded system that reads/writes/rewrites/retrieve­s/stores information and has the capacity to communicate that information from a blueprint into a final product. So just give me some examples of codes emerging out of chaotic phenomenon without intelligent guidance, something you know. You can't use life, you don't know it's true origin.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

YOu make assertions, I point out they are false, you get pissed off.

L:YOU are the one making a supernatural assertion--YOU are the one who needs to provide Casper the Friendly Ghost, Jeebus, or the Demonic UFO that you seem to think is responsible.

Otherwise, science will continue along without you--nonlinear dynamics does indeed show that patterns emerge from chaos...

You are asking for another example of DNA that isn't DNA--thats not logic--thats your fallacy.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Patterns do emerge from non-linear dynamics. But patterns aren't codes with meaningful information that transform a blueprint into a product. And I'm not sure how the term non-linear is being used with respect to gene expression, so I will have to research that. But DNA is a non-linear code. I never said Jeebus was responsible, only that intelligence is responsible. That intelligence could be cells themselves, or it could be a property of nature, or it could be a separate entity.

[circusOFprecision]

You are correct, I am largely ignorant of how scientists apply chaos theory to gene expression. I need to research that area. But again. The fact that living systems "harness" chaos doesn't address my point. Where did the genetic expression system come from? How does it actually evolve? Simply saying it emerges out of chaos is even less helpful than saying it randomly mutated until beneficial mutations were selected.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

You might be interested in Stephen Wolfram's stuff--who knows, he might even be a theis/creationis--I don't know much about him--but the idea is that simple rules can build up to create very complex designs.

I just happen to find stuff like science much less ridiculous than ladies made out of ribs.....

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

I'm not talking about ladies made out of ribs. That has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make. First, I must thank you for tipping me off to some ideas I have not looked at very much. But I was also trying to do the same for you by pointing you to Shapiro's work on non-random genetic change and how powerful the evidence is against random mutation being able to account for all the diversity we see. So how about it, check his stuff out. I will check out Wolfram.

[odinata]

Its called a feedback loop, and doesn't require leprechauns typing "code" into the DNA.

This "code" isn't what you claim it is....

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Yes, there are indeed feedback loops, just like there are feedback loops designed into electronics. If DNA is not a code, than you should be able to find other examples in nature of a system that converts stored information into physical objects that are correlated through systematic processes.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Requiring other examples is a logical fallacy, circus.

DNA is a self-replicating molecule. YOu aren't claiming that your parents "coded" it when they made you--you understand that the process was self organizing.

You can also see that it doesn't replicate itself perfectly--you aren't a clone.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

I've never heard of DNA replicating itself. I've only heard of cells replicating themselves. The process was self organizing...not exactly. It started from information stored in the DNA. Then it proceeded by rules. I will concede that some of the computation is so complex (orders of magnitude greater than linear based information) that it falls to chaos theory. So you are right about that aspect of it, but chaos itself doesn't determine the overall outcome, the blueprint does.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Also, you should watch the video Mystery of the Mind. There is a Catholic Priest on there that seems to agree with you. It's ironic, but true. He describes genetics as not being a conventional code, but as a non-linear, chaotic system, but it's still information, just not the same as a simple computer code, much more complex. But he is a theist. I'll let you figure that part of it out on your own.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

It makes NO such assumption--natural selection says nothing of the sort.

Of course, we wouldn't expect a guy who gets his science from Kento Hovind and Ken Ham to be able to understand that.....

Selection happens.

If the Jeebus Freaks don't like it, too bad.

[izaccy]

@circusOFprecision they are not blaming humans for the c02

is the old way of extracting energy from the ground that gets us in trouble

it is the dirty burning oil system that does it.. is the corporations that are fighting desperately

and funding massively in Climate skeptics..

Koch brothers are one of them. they want to pollute the earth for profit

and u think we are blaming humans ?

oh ur in for an awakening

[circusOFprecision]

@izaccy

You miss my point. And by the way, who is WE?

[Lima547]

Tyson is someone willing to spread knowledge and to help societies to develop. Thanks Tyson for your work!

[rhov233]

"(...)Science is the clear tool for our continued survival." - Sagan

[TacticusPrime]

We'll nuke ourselves before climate change does anything to us.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

everything he said is true let science be free