that guy on the end who tried to explain the grand canyon with noah's flood as well as talk about the 2nd law of thermodynamics is completely intellectually bankrupt. He has no clue what he's talking about. It's hard to watch that sort of ignorance.
you dont even know the whole truth on Hovie for one. what does that have to do with his debating skills? Hovie is not the biggest fraud you've seen,it's just you over stating the case.
Well if there is anything youd like to know about it then ask here, I will try and answer you.
The starting answer is that the premise of the question is wrong. Asexual reproduction is good for single celled and very simple animals. It is NOT good for more complex ones, in facts its much much worse.
We do :) Sorry thats a facetious answer. Seriously a simple animal in THIS context would be one with undifferentiated organs. If an animal is broadly undifferentiated then it can reproduce asexually better than sexually. Amoeba, some plants and some multicellular animals fit into this.
But as soon as its differentiated then asexual reproduction becomes too costly. Imagine trying to asexually reproduce lungs, kidney, liver and so on. The energy and complexity required is huge
I know what you mean. Like most words "complex" is relative. All life is complex relative to.. a digital watch. DNA is highly complex compared to anything we build
However if you set complex as meaning multicellular triploblast organisms then amoebas etc become "simple"
This is where theists make an error by calling the universe and life complex. This is only a relative complexity compared to what we are capable of understanding. Maybe the universe is exceedingly "simple"!
Hmmm not sure how to answer without repeating what I just say. Its a relative statement. "Complex" is only a word that makes sense when compared to something else AND when considering the person saying it.
For example to a 4 year old basic algebra is "complex". To a 20 year old its "Simple". Its all about the observer.
The universe therefore is only "complex" because we are viewing it like a 4 year old. Maybe it is "simple" and we are just children at this time.
True, but he is VERY impressive on a superficial basis. The way he never lets anyone's more learned arguments throw him and keeps coming back with impressive-sounding rejoinders--I'm worried that a lot of scientifically illiterate viewers will think that he really knows what he is talking about, and listen to him.
I loved those BOGOSITY debunking videos by a man named Killian. In one, he said that Hovind bought a bogus degree, then he (Killian) has also bought a degree in "bogosity," and thus can, like "Bogus" Dr. Hovind, be addressed as "Bogus" Dr. Killian.
Hovind doesn't even understand evolution. I watched his CS101 class thing and he couldn't even talk about genes, dna, codons, or chromosomes correctly. He mixed them all up.
that guy on the end who tried to explain the grand canyon with noah's flood as well as talk about the 2nd law of thermodynamics is completely intellectually bankrupt. He has no clue what he's talking about. It's hard to watch that sort of ignorance.
chuckinator0 1 year ago
Im working on classical guitar myself,but still a hovie dovie fan! LOL
porkyo123 2 years ago
I will run down to jail today and give him a spanking. keep practicing your guitar
porkyo123 2 years ago
Haha, sure thing
tommyk77 2 years ago
you dont even know the whole truth on Hovie for one. what does that have to do with his debating skills? Hovie is not the biggest fraud you've seen,it's just you over stating the case.
porkyo123 2 years ago
All Right Hovie
porkyo123 2 years ago
Im impressed with Dr.Shermer but i wish he would have answered the question on reproduction.
Dtrainx33 3 years ago
Well if there is anything youd like to know about it then ask here, I will try and answer you.
The starting answer is that the premise of the question is wrong. Asexual reproduction is good for single celled and very simple animals. It is NOT good for more complex ones, in facts its much much worse.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
and what defines a simple animal?
Dtrainx33 3 years ago
We do :) Sorry thats a facetious answer. Seriously a simple animal in THIS context would be one with undifferentiated organs. If an animal is broadly undifferentiated then it can reproduce asexually better than sexually. Amoeba, some plants and some multicellular animals fit into this.
But as soon as its differentiated then asexual reproduction becomes too costly. Imagine trying to asexually reproduce lungs, kidney, liver and so on. The energy and complexity required is huge
irishmauddib 3 years ago
thats a good enough answer for me..even though i think every organism is complex but i see how you could say smaller ones are simple.
Dtrainx33 3 years ago
I know what you mean. Like most words "complex" is relative. All life is complex relative to.. a digital watch. DNA is highly complex compared to anything we build
However if you set complex as meaning multicellular triploblast organisms then amoebas etc become "simple"
This is where theists make an error by calling the universe and life complex. This is only a relative complexity compared to what we are capable of understanding. Maybe the universe is exceedingly "simple"!
irishmauddib 3 years ago
how would consider the universe simple?
Dtrainx33 3 years ago
Hmmm not sure how to answer without repeating what I just say. Its a relative statement. "Complex" is only a word that makes sense when compared to something else AND when considering the person saying it.
For example to a 4 year old basic algebra is "complex". To a 20 year old its "Simple". Its all about the observer.
The universe therefore is only "complex" because we are viewing it like a 4 year old. Maybe it is "simple" and we are just children at this time.
Hope that helps.
irishmauddib 3 years ago 2
True, but he is VERY impressive on a superficial basis. The way he never lets anyone's more learned arguments throw him and keeps coming back with impressive-sounding rejoinders--I'm worried that a lot of scientifically illiterate viewers will think that he really knows what he is talking about, and listen to him.
jamesjeffreypaul 3 years ago
Is that Hovind you are talking about? I agree.
He relies entirely on charisma and delivery. He pulls off the presentations quickly and smoothly, but his facts are non-existent
tommyk77 3 years ago
Yes, I meant "Dr." Hovind.
I loved those BOGOSITY debunking videos by a man named Killian. In one, he said that Hovind bought a bogus degree, then he (Killian) has also bought a degree in "bogosity," and thus can, like "Bogus" Dr. Hovind, be addressed as "Bogus" Dr. Killian.
jamesjeffreypaul 3 years ago
Im sure he could explain eacn one if had time!
porkyo123 2 years ago
This really is a superb presentation of different points of view.
I'm a believer, but I feel sorry for poor Dr. Shermer, having to deal with "Dr." Hovind's insults and nonsense!
jamesjeffreypaul 3 years ago
I'm sure you will back up the second part of that statement.
Saxking2005 3 years ago
Hovind doesn't even understand evolution. I watched his CS101 class thing and he couldn't even talk about genes, dna, codons, or chromosomes correctly. He mixed them all up.
He is truly a fool.
HumanStrategy 3 years ago