@IrnBruFiend Completely wrong? So you deny that natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution? You deny that speciation occurs? You are of course free to do so, but you are in fact denying over a hundred years of scientific observation.
Which precisely describes yourself. It is highly likely you are not aware of the middle ground (besides Creationism & Evolution), which would mean you are the one in ignorance surrounding the full scope of evidence surrounding human origins. Enjoy!
I used to, but I realized not long ago that fully naturalistic evolution and human free will are contradictory (The Chinese Room, as an evolved human being, started out of chemical "switches," is entirely analogous to a computer for all purposes related to that thought experiment), and since much of evolution is built on the natural narrow-mindedness of science to begin with and biology is less reliable then many other aspects of science as it is among the least mathematically pure,
"I still dont believe in evolution. Unlike relativity or calculus It just wasnt a good idea.'
Nobody "believes in" evolution, they just accept its factuality or refuse to. Physicists dont "believe in" relativity either, they simply accept it as an accurate description of nature in light of overwhelming evidence; the same goes for organic evolution via selection, which was not merely a good but a great idea, ranking among the most powerful achievements ever in human understanding of the world.
"Yes, but our chance of reproducing is just as great if not better than yours."
By "our", i presume you mean "members of rationality-resistant hominid lineages", as whimsically stated in my original post. Well, i appreciate your refreshing honesty in self-recognition. But higher reproductive rates only matter with heritable traits. If your irrationality is environmentally induced, as seems likely, it will not be passed on to your offspring genetically - for which, Praise the Lord, Hallelujah!
Yes, sorry about 'prove', you are correct on that case. And when I was referring to scientists creating evolution, I was referring to a recent Scientific American where they described scientists experimenting with RNA, and making it compete for genetic 'building blocks'. By the end of the experiment, the RNA had mutated and none of the original types remained, only the mutated versions. Cool stuff.
They deserve a poem. But, we'll have to change their name, I think. Or find some other bird that does the same thing. Think on this. I'll get to work!
I think it would be great to do a video of the predictive value of Darwin's theory and how the theory of evolution has evolved (sorry) over the years. There was little fossil evidence in Darwin's time, but the theory predicted exactly what we found in the fossil record. Darwin knew nothing of DNA and could only theorize on the mechanism for passing traits, but 100 years later the discovery fit his theory and explained the mechanism for mutation and passing down traits to offspring.
Great video! These "debates" about evolution and perfect design remind me of the flat vs round debates about earth...
You know... back when scientists and philosophers knew that the earth is like a sphere and the Christian Inquisition used to torture them to death unless they agreed that the earth is flat so that people won't... fall...
"You know... back when scientists and philosophers knew that the earth is like a sphere and the Christian Inquisition used to torture them to death unless they agreed that the earth is flat so that people won't... fall... "
If that statement is true, then you should have no problem finding an inquisitor who thought the world was flat.
If I had no problem finding an inquisitor nowadays then you should have no problem bringing your God at my place for tea maybe. However I have an example of how the Christian inquisition had it all wrong. "πίστευε και μη ερεύνα" was their moto. Galileo was threatened to death to accept that our solar system's center was the earth although he knew that it was the sun. "Και όμως γυρίζει" he said when they let him go. And that is a fact.
Galileo was not threatened with death. He was charged with 'grave suspicion of heresy', and the entire matter was mostly political and personal. Heliocentrism was already taught in Jesuit colleges and Papal chartered universities as a legitimate hypothesis. There were many clergymen, including biships and cardinals, who were proponents of heliocentrism before and during the Galileo affair.
I have never heard of any such motto. Please provide source.
The flat-earth theory begins with "The Christian Topography" a book written by Cosmas (yep. he was a christian). Christian Topography was well received by the Church, whose policy at the time was to eradicate all previous knowledge and establish itself as the sole authority in religion, philosophy and science.
1) The Christian Topography was written in the 5th century AD
2) While other works of his are interesting, his appeal to a flat earth had little appeal. In fact, if you read the later parts of the book, all he's doing is refuting the other monks proposition of a spherical earth.
3) Most educated Christians disagreed with his findings, and
4) The flat earth hypothesis had remained the view of only a small educated minority since the 3rd century BC.
5) The myth that the 15th century Church thought that the earth was flat was clearly documented as an 18th century hoax propagated by a tiny group of intellectuals who wished to bring contempt and embarassment of the church. Only a small minority of educated people past the 3rd century BC believed in a flat earth. This was documented with the book, "Inventing the Flat Earth" by J.B. Russell.
actually people never really though the earth was flat. The ancient greeks had calculated the circumference thousands of years ago. A flat earth was only popular before 400 BCE. Then still many cultures (especially ones with ships) knew the earth was a spherical.
It was the scientific notion that the earth was round during the time you mentioned. One scientific notion today is that evolution is a fact but most people don't know/don't accept it. You can't really blame those who haven't got access to education but those who deliberately choose ignorance I have no patience for.
Is this a tribute to the wombat-brained Charles Darwin?
Charles Darwin hereby speaks for himself:
"I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement."
hahahaha, Darwin is dead. He died over a hundred years ago. Why would what he said he did as a child have ANY bearing on modern Evolutionary Theory? The evidence for evolution has nothing to do with whatever Darwin may have said about his childhood. Get a better argument against the Theory. That was just pathetic.
I see no point in debating. The evidence is clearly on my side. And if your idea of a "debate" is to dish out irrelevant quotes, then I have almost no doubt that I would win.
Yes, like the pointless quote you provided earlier. You wasted your time by looking for it. It didn't help your position even in the slightest.
"What kind of moron uses quotes to debate?"
Tell that to the dozens and dozens of creationists I've debated who provide Darwin quotes like the quote-mine about the eye, or his false description of whale evolution. These quotes are entirely irrelevant.
"Anyone can say that."
Right but only the evolutionists can substantialize it.
Lamarck thought that working out made your children more muscular though... he had a good concept, but his vehicle was totally wrong. Lamarckian evolution cannot be synonymous with anything we now hold true about the process.
Anaximander was sidetracked in much the same way, as was gregor mendel (not an evolutionist, but a "pre-genetics" geneticist), and many others. Give credit where credit is due: Darwin, Alfred Russell Wallace and their successors
He may not be as wrong as you think. Look at epigenetics, it is not exactly what Lamarck had in mind, but still cool that prenatal environmental pressure can influence phenotype without changing underlying DNA
This is brilliant Youtube film-making. If I spent several weeks, I don't think I could come up with something as clean, appealing, and I would not have thought of this song, but it's PERFECT.
This video is not an argument for the theory of evolution, just a tribute. And the Pope and Obama are amongst the world's most influential people regardless of what opinions people may have about them.
Darwin is the acknowledged founder of a new branch of science. In the past 150 years, his ideas have been validated in stunning ways that he could never have anticipated.
Some of his ideas have been subject to modification. And some ideas that he was less sure about himself have been invalidated.
The study of evolution didn't stop with Darwin - it BEGAN with Darwin.
Well said, middlekk, altho i would point out that evolutionary theory actually began with Lamarck a half-century before Darwin, but it was the latter who placed it on a fully materialistic footing, endowing it with the same conceptual sophistication and explanatory power as the physical sciences already possessed. Hence it was Darwin who became honored as "the Newton of biology." And yes, indeed, he was dead wrong about some things, such as (ironically) subscribing to Lamarckian inheritance!
Your historical citations are well-taken, but Anaximander's vague speculation that land animals came from fish, tho ultimately vindicated, hardly qualifies as science even by the ancients standards.
Monboddo is an interesting case, since he not only recognized evolution but even foreshadowed natural selection in a loose sense & influenced Erasmus Darwin's writings about it. But i dont think these really qualify as fully worked-out theories such as Lamarck offered, to say nothing of Charles D.
Proclnc: As for your last line "Darwin just made it impossible to continue denying" - oh, if only!!
Of course, he made it impossible for rational people familiar with the facts to deny it, but one only needs to read the comments for any YT video relating to evolution, to realize just how small a portion of the population is comprised by that elite sector.
But your own comment is quite knowledgeable & relevant, so thumbs up!
"Your historical citations are well-taken, but Anaximander's vague speculation that land animals came from fish, tho ultimately vindicated, hardly qualifies as science even by the ancients standards."
Haha very true.
I think the problem with Monboddo is that he didn't have a *theory*, just a speculative hypothesis
Excellent post, tho, im not criticizing it at all. And as you correctly observe, evolutionary biology has advanced by leaps and bounds since Darwin, especially in the past 80 years, leaving many of his original ideas outdated, as invariably happens with the growth of scientific understanding. Not a scientist has lived who hasnt made serious blunders -- but it is the scientific process ITSELF which eventually reveals and deletes those errors in the never-ceasing process of self-correction.
"but Darwin was wrong about a lot of things" And he was right on a lot more the things he was rong about were only a litle of the mark. It was a lot harder to study evolution and harder to proove then because they did not know about dna so he had to use what he got
"There is no god ...'" That may be so (i'm an atheist myself), but what does it have to do with this video, or evolution in general? Posting such a statement here just feeds believers' misconceptions that there is a specific connection between evolution and atheism. There isnt. Science doesnt address the concept of god(s), just ignores it. There are certainly philosophical reasons for atheism (which i subscribe to), but not scientific ones, because there CANNOT be any (ditto for theism).
WooT yeah! Loved it! Only one question. What is the name of that song? Oh dont get me wrong i liked the vid to, but the song was a perfect choice for it.
Irreducibly complex organisms' components in their bodies are the absolute minimum for sustaining their lives. It is simple impossible for them to have evolved.
This segways into Darwin's own fossil findings of the Cambrian Era, in which he stated later that science would vindicate him....
You can't be serious. Irreducible complexity got owned in COURT. When ID presented their case only to get blown out of the water with all the evidence. Perhaps you should read a bit more on that case.
You still haven't named anything specific that would discredit the theory of evolution, and you haven't answered any of my questions.
Now you bring up micro- and macroevolution, both of which have been observed. Can you show me an actual biological mechanism (in the DNA for example) that prevents the cumulative effects of microevolution to result in macroevolution?
that may be true, but what is also known is that it is so rare, It is impossible for evolution to have occured with such few events over the course of time, even 65- 265 million years...
Take for example the Italian wall lizards that developed cecal valves in order to digest plants. They also developed a larger head with the ability to bite harder, and there were changes in the social and behavioral structure. All this in merely 30 generations and everything is well documented.
Mutation rates are perfectly consistent with the theory of evolution.
You can go to PubMed and find 3532 scientific research articles about this "improbable speculation". So why don't publish your own article on mutation rates and subject it to peer review. We'll see how it turns out.
Study population genetics, a field which is eighty years old, and see how common new beneficial variations are and how small the selective advantage needs to be in order to spread rapidly thu a population. Once youve caught up on the last century of research, youll be able to tackle the current revolution in evolutionary developmental biology.
No, the Cambrian fossil record is vastly richer than it was in Darwin's time and vindicates his predictions. More significantly, the pre-Cambrian fossil record, which was nonexistent when he wrote Origins, has been documented and extended back to 3.5 billion years.
there's more holes in Einstein's Theory of relativity.
Anyway, I have a degree in Environmental Science, which covered evolutionary theory. Also, I would sooner trust the word of a biologist with a phd then you.
Additionally, yes there may be holes, just like any theory. But the central tenant of evolution by natural selection holds true. Also, nothing has been found that falsifies the theory.
Darwin actually was more struck by the variation and distribution of life in South America, and how it related to fossil animals there, when it came to his first inspiration for evolutionary theory than he was by the Galapagos life. He actually thought "Darwin's finches" were different types of birds and only found out that they were all finches after he got back from the trip and showed them to an ornithologist.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
EvoBiologist- yes, we all can appreciate the 200th year of Darwin. I enjoy all aspects of his journey, from birth to on his deathbed, when he admitted to a Creator. =)
Obviously someone who hasn't read his autobiography then I guess, he believed in god quite readily when he was a child and a young man on the beagle. Two instances that I've noticed in his autobiography attest to this -
The first when he attributes his great speed of running to prayer (and not being fit).
The second when he described reciting, quite seriously and often, the bible on some manner of morality aboard the beagle.
There's also the little matter of the entire Darwin family denying he did anything of the sort on his deathbed - even though there were serious rifts amongst them regarding religion.
His wife edited out some of his autobiography because it was "distasteful" etc, It wouldn't seem so out of character that she would have confirmed it had he became a "practising" christian on his death bed.
Yeah, you'd think Darwin's wife would've been eager to confirm Darwin becoming a Christian, especially since she was herself and was truly concerned for his soul.
It's amazing how long debunked rumors have such staying power.
This wearisome fable about Darwin's deathbed conversion has been a fixture of Christian literature since the story was published in 1915 (33 YEARS LATER!), at which time it was refuted by his children, and has been completely debunked by every biographer since. The source is the evangelist Lady Hope, who claimed to have met the aging naturalist in his home, but there is NO record of her visit, NO recollection of her by family or staff, and the two probably never even met. SHE MADE IT UP, OK?!
Cheers! Good point, heh heh. The Gospel of Mark was written at least 40 years after the events described (some scholars think 60) and the other Gospels followed still later. But most devout believers know as much about the history of their religion as they do about science or philosophy, or other religions, for that matter.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Of course Darwins' little bastards would try to refute it. Their is money to be lost otherwise. atheism is a spiritual ponzi scheme- leaves the investor with empty pocketbooks and a black hole of emptiness; while the secular jew such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Bernard Madoff laugh all the way to the bank...
Ah, so your rancorous defense of the faith has now ventured into racist territory, eh? "Secular Jews" indeed -- a double curse! Linking Hitchens and Harris with the shyster Madoff solely on the basis of ethnicity -- well, who can be surprised given the general tenor of your posts? As for who suffers from a black hole of emptiness, "by their fruits shall ye know them." Thankfully, your bile-filled polemics are not representative of most Christians, to whom you are a profound embarrassment.
It doesn't matter what Darwin believed. He could have been the most fundamentalist Muslim on the planet. But it still would not have changed what his findings brought to light. Do you honestly think it matters what any personal beliefs of any scientist are? All that matters to anyone is WHY we should believe what you present. And that requires physical evidence.
Nice birthday tribute, cute music. While we rightly celebrate the bicentennial of the founder of modern evolutionary science, lets recall that Lamarck was the first to offer a theory of evolution (admittedly primitive) 50 yrs earlier. Darwin & Wallace (not to be confused with Wallace & Gromit) placed the concept on a sound materialist footing thru cumulative selection acting on heritable variation, establishing evolutionary biology as a mature and evidence-based scientific field.
I want cake!!!
kysmelmonge 8 months ago
THERE IS NO CAKE!!! great video
Portal 2 is coming. Then there will be plenty of cake.
rounder421 1 year ago
"You are now subscribed to SchrodingersFinch."
TheNamelessCharacter 1 year ago
i like the song its very cute
Ironjagg 1 year ago
Darwin's theory of evolution is wonderful. Just ashame it's completely wrong.
IrnBruFiend 1 year ago
@IrnBruFiend Completely wrong? So you deny that natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution? You deny that speciation occurs? You are of course free to do so, but you are in fact denying over a hundred years of scientific observation.
SchrodingersFinch 1 year ago
@IrnBruFiend
"Just ashame it's completely wrong. "
Well, only if you ignore all the evidence.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Which precisely describes yourself. It is highly likely you are not aware of the middle ground (besides Creationism & Evolution), which would mean you are the one in ignorance surrounding the full scope of evidence surrounding human origins. Enjoy!
IrnBruFiend 1 year ago
@IrnBruFiend
"which would mean you are the one in ignorance surrounding the full scope of evidence surrounding human origins."
Oh, pray tell, what evidence might that be? I am shaking with anticipation.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@IrnBruFiend holy christ you are a fucking moron.
judoyodan 1 year ago
@IrnBruFiend It's ashame you are a fool...
TacticalAtheist 1 year ago
I used to, but I realized not long ago that fully naturalistic evolution and human free will are contradictory (The Chinese Room, as an evolved human being, started out of chemical "switches," is entirely analogous to a computer for all purposes related to that thought experiment), and since much of evolution is built on the natural narrow-mindedness of science to begin with and biology is less reliable then many other aspects of science as it is among the least mathematically pure,
maueze1 2 years ago
@maueze1 ?...
TacticalAtheist 1 year ago
This is still one of my favorite videos! Love it ! especially the song.
Euphobia1 2 years ago
Great video tribute to evolution! I've subscribed to your channel and sent a friend request =-).
heretic98 2 years ago
Excellent video. Thanks. Though, I object, to, the comma, placement at, 0:40.
But to be sure, an excellent video.
I hope we all get our cake, someday.
Kapidye29 2 years ago
Thanks.
I have no idea how that got there. I do appreciate proper grammar.
SchrodingersFinch 2 years ago
Please don't think I was playing fact-police. I really thought it was a great video: very well edited and informative.
Kapidye29 2 years ago
Inspiring video!
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
"I still dont believe in evolution. Unlike relativity or calculus It just wasnt a good idea.'
Nobody "believes in" evolution, they just accept its factuality or refuse to. Physicists dont "believe in" relativity either, they simply accept it as an accurate description of nature in light of overwhelming evidence; the same goes for organic evolution via selection, which was not merely a good but a great idea, ranking among the most powerful achievements ever in human understanding of the world.
owlcowl 2 years ago
"Yes, but our chance of reproducing is just as great if not better than yours."
By "our", i presume you mean "members of rationality-resistant hominid lineages", as whimsically stated in my original post. Well, i appreciate your refreshing honesty in self-recognition. But higher reproductive rates only matter with heritable traits. If your irrationality is environmentally induced, as seems likely, it will not be passed on to your offspring genetically - for which, Praise the Lord, Hallelujah!
owlcowl 2 years ago
awesome choice of music. i love portal. requesting source on that image at 2:41
tuseroni 2 years ago
Thanks.
If I remember correctly, it's form the January 2009 issue of Scientific American. "The Evolution of Evolution".
SchrodingersFinch 2 years ago
This fits perfectly in the nutshell, and a beautiful video/song combo too. 5 for this.
Monolith1618 2 years ago
I dressed up as Darwin for his 200th B-Day and set up a table in the middle of my college quad to celebrate Darwin Day!
CranesNotSkyHooks 2 years ago
Comment removed
NDS525 2 years ago
hmm must have just been the relgious people of the west then?
dunndudebemelol 2 years ago
now i want cake :)
Theedyy 2 years ago 3
No music could have fit this better.
boss1001 2 years ago 9
funny & creepy.
clawdfrawg 2 years ago
FFS, scientist have created Evolution IN A TEST TUBE! I think its proved by now.
Awesome video, btw.
Rotten194 2 years ago
'prove' is a mathematical term. And scientist haven't created evolution. They've observed evolution in bacterial cultures many many time though.
newusername01 2 years ago
@newusername01
Yes, sorry about 'prove', you are correct on that case. And when I was referring to scientists creating evolution, I was referring to a recent Scientific American where they described scientists experimenting with RNA, and making it compete for genetic 'building blocks'. By the end of the experiment, the RNA had mutated and none of the original types remained, only the mutated versions. Cool stuff.
Rotten194 2 years ago
That's quite an image at :49.... what kind of birds are those?
theowarner 2 years ago
I think they're Blue-footed Boobies.
SchrodingersFinch 2 years ago
They deserve a poem. But, we'll have to change their name, I think. Or find some other bird that does the same thing. Think on this. I'll get to work!
theowarner 2 years ago
But "Blue Boobies" has a nice alliteration. ;)
SchrodingersFinch 2 years ago
I think it would be great to do a video of the predictive value of Darwin's theory and how the theory of evolution has evolved (sorry) over the years. There was little fossil evidence in Darwin's time, but the theory predicted exactly what we found in the fossil record. Darwin knew nothing of DNA and could only theorize on the mechanism for passing traits, but 100 years later the discovery fit his theory and explained the mechanism for mutation and passing down traits to offspring.
jgoemat 2 years ago
Great video! These "debates" about evolution and perfect design remind me of the flat vs round debates about earth...
You know... back when scientists and philosophers knew that the earth is like a sphere and the Christian Inquisition used to torture them to death unless they agreed that the earth is flat so that people won't... fall...
Alexunder3D 2 years ago
"You know... back when scientists and philosophers knew that the earth is like a sphere and the Christian Inquisition used to torture them to death unless they agreed that the earth is flat so that people won't... fall... "
If that statement is true, then you should have no problem finding an inquisitor who thought the world was flat.
I'll be waiting for your response...
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
If I had no problem finding an inquisitor nowadays then you should have no problem bringing your God at my place for tea maybe. However I have an example of how the Christian inquisition had it all wrong. "πίστευε και μη ερεύνα" was their moto. Galileo was threatened to death to accept that our solar system's center was the earth although he knew that it was the sun. "Και όμως γυρίζει" he said when they let him go. And that is a fact.
Alexunder3D 2 years ago
Galileo was not threatened with death. He was charged with 'grave suspicion of heresy', and the entire matter was mostly political and personal. Heliocentrism was already taught in Jesuit colleges and Papal chartered universities as a legitimate hypothesis. There were many clergymen, including biships and cardinals, who were proponents of heliocentrism before and during the Galileo affair.
I have never heard of any such motto. Please provide source.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
I am still waiting for you to provide the name of one inquisitor who thought the world was flat.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
The flat-earth theory begins with "The Christian Topography" a book written by Cosmas (yep. he was a christian). Christian Topography was well received by the Church, whose policy at the time was to eradicate all previous knowledge and establish itself as the sole authority in religion, philosophy and science.
Alexunder3D 2 years ago
1) The Christian Topography was written in the 5th century AD
2) While other works of his are interesting, his appeal to a flat earth had little appeal. In fact, if you read the later parts of the book, all he's doing is refuting the other monks proposition of a spherical earth.
3) Most educated Christians disagreed with his findings, and
4) The flat earth hypothesis had remained the view of only a small educated minority since the 3rd century BC.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
5) The myth that the 15th century Church thought that the earth was flat was clearly documented as an 18th century hoax propagated by a tiny group of intellectuals who wished to bring contempt and embarassment of the church. Only a small minority of educated people past the 3rd century BC believed in a flat earth. This was documented with the book, "Inventing the Flat Earth" by J.B. Russell.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Touche. Obviously you inderstand that I was partially joking though...
Alexunder3D 2 years ago
actually people never really though the earth was flat. The ancient greeks had calculated the circumference thousands of years ago. A flat earth was only popular before 400 BCE. Then still many cultures (especially ones with ships) knew the earth was a spherical.
newusername01 2 years ago
It was the scientific notion that the earth was round during the time you mentioned. One scientific notion today is that evolution is a fact but most people don't know/don't accept it. You can't really blame those who haven't got access to education but those who deliberately choose ignorance I have no patience for.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
I think it was a egyption who calculated the circumference of the earth, and even then that doesn't mean people acepted it...
the vast morigaty of people beleaved the wprld was flat for a LONG time after 400BCE.
Europeans only really acpected it some time after columbis (can't spell him name, sorry) went to ameriac.
Still today some people beleave the world is flat.
roryoc31 2 years ago
Liked this a lot 5star and sub
I wonder when people who belive in god will be treated as mentally ill magic thinking and delusion should not be validated.
2020bane 2 years ago
I dont like the song. It made the Theory of Evolution seem like a sarcastic joke.
scj16 2 years ago
Is this a tribute to the wombat-brained Charles Darwin?
Charles Darwin hereby speaks for himself:
"I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement."
FirstFreedomFighter 2 years ago
FirstFreedomFighter, that's what little boys often do. Charles Darwin was 50 when he published On the Origin of Species, not 5.
Maybe you should follow Darwin's footsteps and grow up.
SchrodingersFinch 2 years ago
hahahaha, Darwin is dead. He died over a hundred years ago. Why would what he said he did as a child have ANY bearing on modern Evolutionary Theory? The evidence for evolution has nothing to do with whatever Darwin may have said about his childhood. Get a better argument against the Theory. That was just pathetic.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Haha this is a tribute to Darwin is it not?
That was just retarded.
FirstFreedomFighter 2 years ago
I see no point in debating. The evidence is clearly on my side. And if your idea of a "debate" is to dish out irrelevant quotes, then I have almost no doubt that I would win.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
What a sissy.
Irrelavent quotes? What kind of moron uses quotes to debate? The evidence is on your side?
Anyone can say that.
FirstFreedomFighter 2 years ago
"Irrelavent quotes?"
Yes, like the pointless quote you provided earlier. You wasted your time by looking for it. It didn't help your position even in the slightest.
"What kind of moron uses quotes to debate?"
Tell that to the dozens and dozens of creationists I've debated who provide Darwin quotes like the quote-mine about the eye, or his false description of whale evolution. These quotes are entirely irrelevant.
"Anyone can say that."
Right but only the evolutionists can substantialize it.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago 2
anyone can say that, but not everyone would be telling the truth.
I hope I'm feeding a troll btw
hmstr 2 years ago
Care to "debate" Scientia?
FirstFreedomFighter 2 years ago
Lamarck thought that working out made your children more muscular though... he had a good concept, but his vehicle was totally wrong. Lamarckian evolution cannot be synonymous with anything we now hold true about the process.
Anaximander was sidetracked in much the same way, as was gregor mendel (not an evolutionist, but a "pre-genetics" geneticist), and many others. Give credit where credit is due: Darwin, Alfred Russell Wallace and their successors
charr05 2 years ago
"totally wrong"
He may not be as wrong as you think. Look at epigenetics, it is not exactly what Lamarck had in mind, but still cool that prenatal environmental pressure can influence phenotype without changing underlying DNA
CoretezTheKiller 2 years ago
Where on earth did you find all these clips?
drunk168 2 years ago
Oh wait never mind, I read the description.
drunk168 2 years ago
This is brilliant Youtube film-making. If I spent several weeks, I don't think I could come up with something as clean, appealing, and I would not have thought of this song, but it's PERFECT.
Brilliant. Five stars and favorited.
joemarklawson 2 years ago
Thank you! I'm glad you liked it.
SchrodingersFinch 2 years ago
Using the Pope and Obama as reputable sources doesn't help. I believe in evolution, but Darwin was wrong about a lot of things.
whitl103 3 years ago
This video is not an argument for the theory of evolution, just a tribute. And the Pope and Obama are amongst the world's most influential people regardless of what opinions people may have about them.
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
Who ever said Darwin was right about everything?
Darwin is the acknowledged founder of a new branch of science. In the past 150 years, his ideas have been validated in stunning ways that he could never have anticipated.
Some of his ideas have been subject to modification. And some ideas that he was less sure about himself have been invalidated.
The study of evolution didn't stop with Darwin - it BEGAN with Darwin.
middlekk 3 years ago 8
Well said, middlekk, altho i would point out that evolutionary theory actually began with Lamarck a half-century before Darwin, but it was the latter who placed it on a fully materialistic footing, endowing it with the same conceptual sophistication and explanatory power as the physical sciences already possessed. Hence it was Darwin who became honored as "the Newton of biology." And yes, indeed, he was dead wrong about some things, such as (ironically) subscribing to Lamarckian inheritance!
owlcowl 3 years ago 2
"altho i would point out that evolutionary theory actually began with Lamarck a half-century before Darwin"
Hmm, or did it start with Anaximander, Or Lord Monboddo?
Evolution has always been around and apparent. Darwin just made it impossible to continue denying
ProcInc 2 years ago 2
Your historical citations are well-taken, but Anaximander's vague speculation that land animals came from fish, tho ultimately vindicated, hardly qualifies as science even by the ancients standards.
Monboddo is an interesting case, since he not only recognized evolution but even foreshadowed natural selection in a loose sense & influenced Erasmus Darwin's writings about it. But i dont think these really qualify as fully worked-out theories such as Lamarck offered, to say nothing of Charles D.
owlcowl 2 years ago
Proclnc: As for your last line "Darwin just made it impossible to continue denying" - oh, if only!!
Of course, he made it impossible for rational people familiar with the facts to deny it, but one only needs to read the comments for any YT video relating to evolution, to realize just how small a portion of the population is comprised by that elite sector.
But your own comment is quite knowledgeable & relevant, so thumbs up!
owlcowl 2 years ago
"Your historical citations are well-taken, but Anaximander's vague speculation that land animals came from fish, tho ultimately vindicated, hardly qualifies as science even by the ancients standards."
Haha very true.
I think the problem with Monboddo is that he didn't have a *theory*, just a speculative hypothesis
ProcInc 2 years ago
Excellent post, tho, im not criticizing it at all. And as you correctly observe, evolutionary biology has advanced by leaps and bounds since Darwin, especially in the past 80 years, leaving many of his original ideas outdated, as invariably happens with the growth of scientific understanding. Not a scientist has lived who hasnt made serious blunders -- but it is the scientific process ITSELF which eventually reveals and deletes those errors in the never-ceasing process of self-correction.
owlcowl 3 years ago
Thank you!
falcoperegrinus82 2 years ago
He didn't cite then as sources.
falcoperegrinus82 2 years ago
"but Darwin was wrong about a lot of things" And he was right on a lot more the things he was rong about were only a litle of the mark. It was a lot harder to study evolution and harder to proove then because they did not know about dna so he had to use what he got
Chill197 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Baloney. Just pure baloney.
jesusismyruler 3 years ago
Care to elaborate?
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
Great video. Weird song.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
There is no god ...
raven010891 3 years ago
There is no raven010891
NovaCoveSki 3 years ago 2
Comment removed
owlcowl 3 years ago
"There is no god ...'" That may be so (i'm an atheist myself), but what does it have to do with this video, or evolution in general? Posting such a statement here just feeds believers' misconceptions that there is a specific connection between evolution and atheism. There isnt. Science doesnt address the concept of god(s), just ignores it. There are certainly philosophical reasons for atheism (which i subscribe to), but not scientific ones, because there CANNOT be any (ditto for theism).
owlcowl 3 years ago
Excellent.
middlekk 3 years ago
this is brilliant
asuka33221109 3 years ago
great vid - thanks for sharing ^^
whisperelmwood 3 years ago
Good job, finch. Nice.
hairyreasoner 3 years ago
Well made video, thanks for sharing.
docsquee 3 years ago
Excellent.
NeenjaVanish 3 years ago
lmao, great video but i loved the song, fitted very well, makes me wanna play portal now :)
good job ^^
crazyhairball18 3 years ago
Great video dude.... I study biology and when people deny evolution I'm like OMGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!
fikujez 3 years ago
Great video. One point though. The voyage on the beagle was a ten year voyage. It got cut short to five years.
Maybe I'm quibbling. At any rate, great video.
intelligentfalling 3 years ago
Good to know that. Thanks for pointing it out.
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
OMG I LUV THIS SONG!! I was just playing Portal.
I know it off by heart. Its that good.I'm so GLaD you have it though.
Oh and the cake is not a lie.
Quionic7 3 years ago
Great video, glad I subscribed (Thanks to AndromedasWake)
SpiralOut11235 3 years ago
Thanks so much for this post! Please tell me who the singer is for the accompaning muscic.
psocidlover 3 years ago
The same voice and tune from Portal if I'm not mistaken :-)
The cake is a lie.
PaulTheHeritic 3 years ago
It is sung by the voice actor of GLaDOS, Ellen McLain.
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
That's excellent! Thanks for making me aware of that song. I hope science will reveal *everything* eventually.
LyriMetacurl 3 years ago
Thanks!
Science is headed in the right direction, but who knows if we'll ever reach the goal.
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
WooT yeah! Loved it! Only one question. What is the name of that song? Oh dont get me wrong i liked the vid to, but the song was a perfect choice for it.
Kamidake83 3 years ago
Thank you.
The song is "Still Alive" from the game Portal, written by Jonathan Coulton.
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
No. This isn't great. It's wonderful :-)
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Thanks! Your video reminded me to post this one ;)
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
Great! Thanks for making this a response to my vid, btw.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Awesome choice of music.
This made my day ^_^
doloafing 3 years ago
Just epic! The song fits so well. 5 stared and faved.
Nightmare060 3 years ago 2
no... one star for the vid, and a brown one at that.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
Care to present an actual argument as to why instead of blunt statments and ad-homenim attacks?
Nightmare060 3 years ago
Irreducibly complex organisms' components in their bodies are the absolute minimum for sustaining their lives. It is simple impossible for them to have evolved.
This segways into Darwin's own fossil findings of the Cambrian Era, in which he stated later that science would vindicate him....
....It has not to this date.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
You can't be serious. Irreducible complexity got owned in COURT. When ID presented their case only to get blown out of the water with all the evidence. Perhaps you should read a bit more on that case.
godsentyes 3 years ago 3
This is just an argument from incredulity. You still haven't named anything specific. Besides, irreducible complexity can evolve.
And what fossil findings are you talking about? Do you perhaps mean the absence of Precambrian fossils that Darwin wrote about?
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
everthing can evolve, on a micro level. that macro is more of a mutation. They usually die off.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
You still haven't named anything specific that would discredit the theory of evolution, and you haven't answered any of my questions.
Now you bring up micro- and macroevolution, both of which have been observed. Can you show me an actual biological mechanism (in the DNA for example) that prevents the cumulative effects of microevolution to result in macroevolution?
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
As stated: the mutations die off.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
Most mutations do not, and once a beneficial mutation occurs it is very likely to be passed on to the next generation.
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
that may be true, but what is also known is that it is so rare, It is impossible for evolution to have occured with such few events over the course of time, even 65- 265 million years...
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
It is very much possible.
Take for example the Italian wall lizards that developed cecal valves in order to digest plants. They also developed a larger head with the ability to bite harder, and there were changes in the social and behavioral structure. All this in merely 30 generations and everything is well documented.
Mutation rates are perfectly consistent with the theory of evolution.
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
mutation rates... is an improbable speculation, not a fact.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
You can go to PubMed and find 3532 scientific research articles about this "improbable speculation". So why don't publish your own article on mutation rates and subject it to peer review. We'll see how it turns out.
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
Study population genetics, a field which is eighty years old, and see how common new beneficial variations are and how small the selective advantage needs to be in order to spread rapidly thu a population. Once youve caught up on the last century of research, youll be able to tackle the current revolution in evolutionary developmental biology.
owlcowl 3 years ago
No, the Cambrian fossil record is vastly richer than it was in Darwin's time and vindicates his predictions. More significantly, the pre-Cambrian fossil record, which was nonexistent when he wrote Origins, has been documented and extended back to 3.5 billion years.
owlcowl 3 years ago
Not only do I love the game, Portal, but the video was well made and about an interesting subject. Great work! Darwin would have been proud :)
baronblod2003 3 years ago
I must admit, I got caught up singing along and had to watch the video twice...
Maldark404 3 years ago
thank god darwin invented evolution
mummyfunk 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
too bad evolution is a weak theory, full of holes. Sorry to burst your bubble.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
"evolution is a weak theory, full of holes. "
Such as...
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
Name some of the holes.
niiidar 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
irreducibly complex animals
failed miller-urey exp. in Chicago
and the starting point of evolution has very fuzzy explainations..
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
"irreducibly complex animals"
such as....
"failed miller-urey exp. in Chicago"
Has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
And how exactly did it fail?
"and the starting point of evolution has very fuzzy explainations.. "
Care to elaborate?
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
there's more holes in Einstein's Theory of relativity.
Anyway, I have a degree in Environmental Science, which covered evolutionary theory. Also, I would sooner trust the word of a biologist with a phd then you.
Additionally, yes there may be holes, just like any theory. But the central tenant of evolution by natural selection holds true. Also, nothing has been found that falsifies the theory.
What's your explanation.
Sorry if I cum across as being arrogant
mummyfunk 3 years ago
Marvelous choice in song! Bravo!
CroBob 3 years ago
Evolution has finally produced something capable of appreciating it.
Thank you, Charlie.
sexyloser 3 years ago 2
"Evolution has finally produced something capable of appreciating it."
Except, alas, in the case of TAXtheAtheist and millions of other members of rationality-resistant hominid lineages.
owlcowl 3 years ago 3
Honestly... that song caught me WAYYYYYYY off guard!
I just beat it for a second time this year. (Showed two different friends the addictiveness of Portal).
Absolutely hilarious!
And great video... Darwin began a legacy that is forever... literally.
Happy 200th BDay DWin!
Krumbz2003 3 years ago
but what about Adam and Eve?
mummyfunk 3 years ago
They are made up.
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
no way man, you mean the bible is one big lie.
I need to re-evaluate my entire life.
mummyfunk 3 years ago
The cake is a lie!
NuEM78 3 years ago
Nice work. Still Alive is awesome no matter what video is playing, but this was a triumph. I'd give you a cake if I could.
soulhunger1 3 years ago
Nice video!
Darwin actually was more struck by the variation and distribution of life in South America, and how it related to fossil animals there, when it came to his first inspiration for evolutionary theory than he was by the Galapagos life. He actually thought "Darwin's finches" were different types of birds and only found out that they were all finches after he got back from the trip and showed them to an ornithologist.
Keep 'em coming.
Happy 200th, Darwin!
EvoBiologist 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
EvoBiologist- yes, we all can appreciate the 200th year of Darwin. I enjoy all aspects of his journey, from birth to on his deathbed, when he admitted to a Creator. =)
cheers.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
"on his deathbed, when he admitted to a Creator"
Obviously someone who hasn't read his autobiography then I guess, he believed in god quite readily when he was a child and a young man on the beagle. Two instances that I've noticed in his autobiography attest to this -
The first when he attributes his great speed of running to prayer (and not being fit).
The second when he described reciting, quite seriously and often, the bible on some manner of morality aboard the beagle.
oilotnoM 3 years ago
There's also the little matter of the entire Darwin family denying he did anything of the sort on his deathbed - even though there were serious rifts amongst them regarding religion.
His wife edited out some of his autobiography because it was "distasteful" etc, It wouldn't seem so out of character that she would have confirmed it had he became a "practising" christian on his death bed.
oilotnoM 3 years ago 2
Yeah, you'd think Darwin's wife would've been eager to confirm Darwin becoming a Christian, especially since she was herself and was truly concerned for his soul.
It's amazing how long debunked rumors have such staying power.
EvoBiologist 3 years ago 3
This wearisome fable about Darwin's deathbed conversion has been a fixture of Christian literature since the story was published in 1915 (33 YEARS LATER!), at which time it was refuted by his children, and has been completely debunked by every biographer since. The source is the evangelist Lady Hope, who claimed to have met the aging naturalist in his home, but there is NO record of her visit, NO recollection of her by family or staff, and the two probably never even met. SHE MADE IT UP, OK?!
owlcowl 3 years ago 4
"(33 YEARS LATER!)"
Ain't that the trend for christian literature, even the bible ;)
oilotnoM 3 years ago 3
Cheers! Good point, heh heh. The Gospel of Mark was written at least 40 years after the events described (some scholars think 60) and the other Gospels followed still later. But most devout believers know as much about the history of their religion as they do about science or philosophy, or other religions, for that matter.
owlcowl 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Of course Darwins' little bastards would try to refute it. Their is money to be lost otherwise. atheism is a spiritual ponzi scheme- leaves the investor with empty pocketbooks and a black hole of emptiness; while the secular jew such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Bernard Madoff laugh all the way to the bank...
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
Ah, so your rancorous defense of the faith has now ventured into racist territory, eh? "Secular Jews" indeed -- a double curse! Linking Hitchens and Harris with the shyster Madoff solely on the basis of ethnicity -- well, who can be surprised given the general tenor of your posts? As for who suffers from a black hole of emptiness, "by their fruits shall ye know them." Thankfully, your bile-filled polemics are not representative of most Christians, to whom you are a profound embarrassment.
owlcowl 3 years ago 6
Proof? I thaught not.
Nightmare060 3 years ago
It doesn't matter what Darwin believed. He could have been the most fundamentalist Muslim on the planet. But it still would not have changed what his findings brought to light. Do you honestly think it matters what any personal beliefs of any scientist are? All that matters to anyone is WHY we should believe what you present. And that requires physical evidence.
godsentyes 3 years ago 5
Thanks EvoBiologist, it's good to know that.
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
i love that song :)
Brettah31 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins- a certified nut
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
Projecting are we?
A believe in the cake! I want cake! ;-)
ILYIAB 3 years ago
O Rly?
Nightmare060 3 years ago
yeah, really.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
No wai!
Nightmare060 3 years ago
I will never forget the first time I listened to that song after completing Portal.
Great video, great song.
arcooke 3 years ago
Indeed, I considered it the best part of the entire game. It puts a smile on my face every time I hear it
ViciousRanger 3 years ago
Excellent.
MikeOfKorea 3 years ago
Nice birthday tribute, cute music. While we rightly celebrate the bicentennial of the founder of modern evolutionary science, lets recall that Lamarck was the first to offer a theory of evolution (admittedly primitive) 50 yrs earlier. Darwin & Wallace (not to be confused with Wallace & Gromit) placed the concept on a sound materialist footing thru cumulative selection acting on heritable variation, establishing evolutionary biology as a mature and evidence-based scientific field.
Cheers, SF!
owlcowl 3 years ago
You're exactly right, let's not forget that.
SchrodingersFinch 3 years ago
THERE IS NO CAKE!!!
theMadSmashedClam 3 years ago
THE CAKE IS ALIVE
j01tz0r 3 years ago
No it isn't! The Cake is a Lie!
Nightmare060 3 years ago