Why ID is Useless

[buffboynick]

This entire video (just like evolution) is a logical fallacy

Within the Intelligent Design Movement there are 3 theories (yes 3 separate theories) that explain the design

1. God

2. Aliens

3. The cells intelligently arrange themselves to form new species and have a preset plan (not evolution or random chance mutations)

Many think that ID is only creationism. Thats not the case

We all know Darwinian theory is NONSENSE though

New species arise through "gene hybridization" done by designer

[Casshyr]

@buffboynick not just 3 separate theories, but an infinite possibility...for example, it's not just Christian God that may design us, perhaps it's Allah, or Zeus, or Thor, or Nu Wa (a Chinese goddess). And perhaps we are part of the matrix designed by the machines! There are an infinite # of possibilities, but you make it sound like there are only 3. That's not correct. When you deal with the study of unknown, anything is possible, but what matters is which theory is more applicable.

[Sweence]

Great video! You heathens will enjoy my short animation "Religious Fanatic tries to convert an Atheist" on my channel. Brace yourself, and pass it along.

[LampPlaceThing]

1:04-1:13 always pisses me off. It is a picture of man evolving from former more primitive skeletal remains. I am aware of how many times scientists have lied and lied and lied in order to provide such a portrayal of human evolution. DO NOT DEBATE with me. Just send me a link to somwhere helpful so I may see REAL (not fake lies) human skeletal evolution, and NOT "speculation and hypotheses"

thank you. :D I'd love a link to credible material on this issue.

[ytjbet]

@LampPlaceThing And you will read such a reference and change your mind? I don't think so. Maybe you can go back to college and earn a degree in science and then have the tools to intelligently ascertain what is what. Though this is not a certainty. I believe some fundamentalist and Creationist went to college too.

[LampPlaceThing]

@ytjbet No helpful information? ok no problem... I will stand idly in my thoughts, while I elect officials in the government who adhere to the Christian bias faith.

I think that is the enevitable result of our society isn't it? After all, I am not taking the "sciences" so I might never know such truths.

[ytjbet]

@LampPlaceThing It is not that there is no helpful information. It is that the information is very complex. Just like advanced math or physics. Like, I wouldn't know how to 'fully' understand all the discussions about arcane Christian doctrines and diverging philosophical and theosophical strains, I would have to really study it all.

As to electing someone by the faith criteria: I'd rather elect those who actually practice a faith not wear it once a week.

[thinkpad20]

Not a fan of the robot voice, but the message is spot on.

[GallusSapien]

Great video

[SecularTalk]

these robot voices have to stop. Its harder to follow what youre saying with this shit

[Grymyrk]

The cake is a lie.

[DiminishedStudios]

I disagree. ID theorists do not try to explain who the designer is in their process. The "who" as you put it is not brought up. They use experimentation, and develop theories just like other scientists. Maybe your right about them not being able to explain how the designer did it all, but that is irrelevant to what they are doing. ID is not about finding out how a designer made it all work. The point is to see that it works in a process that is best explained by design. The "who" is secondary.

[DiminishedStudios]

Now the first phrase that came out in your video was "Why ID explains nothing" what you should of said was "Why ID explains nothing that is important to me" To say that it explains nothing is question begging. If ID theorists can show me a natural process that is best explained by design then it at the very least explains that. I realize that evolution is an attempt to explain the "how" of our origins, and it is probably the best naturalistic theory. But I believe that there is more than nature.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

The ID-proponents don't seem at all interested in explaining HOW the "designer" implemeted its designs at all. That's one reason why it's unscientific.

The fact that they don't identify the designer by name is irrelevant, and is simply a tactic to slip their ideas past the separation of church and state and into public schools.

Please explain an experiment conducted by ID-proponents to test their hypotheses and predictions.

[TheRadicalRyushin]

HOW the designer implements its designs.

Well I can inform you how such can be done.

Lets play the Matrix card. Say everything we live in is actually a virtual video game and how things are designed is simply the same as things are designed in a video. Similar processes, the only difference is the level of eccentricity and complexity, which can easily be explained by the matter of which the correlation between energy and matter being one in the same formulates a basis of programming.

[BillKiernan]

@DiminishedStudios "They use experimentation, and develop theories just like other scientists" they have not developed even 1 scientific theory to support their claims, not one.

[prffsrx]

Intentional Assembly.

Atheism is not Biology. Atheism is not Chemistry. Atheism is not Physics.  Atheism is not PBS. Atheism is not Science. The cult of Darwinism was invented 150 years ago. There is STILL no evidence for mutational advance where new benefical stuctures are formed randomly.

A belief in common ancestry of all life is not a requirement in order to discover cures and solve problems. There is a testable design Model in the link at the end of my profile.

Atheism is Dead.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Cool story, bro.

[TheRadicalRyushin]

But you know it depends on what you are willing to define as intelligent design. People who are proponents of ID normally do so on the biological level, but not the physical level. However it is important to note out that even on physical level such can be duplicated by an extremely advance computer to create a virtual world identical to our own. Virtual, but still it points out the possibility of our own world being virtual and if our world was virtual, then would it be ID?

[TheRadicalRyushin]

I can also point out that most physicists though not into the intelligent design concept as it is promoted traditionally due genuinely believe our world to be some sort of virtual computer game based on how similar computer programming is to the physical structure of this universe.

[MartBris]

LOL, Darwinism is a cult? atheism is dead?

clearly you have no idea what your talking about.

Darwinism isn't a cult, there is no Darwinism, as there's no Einsteinism, or Edisonism, such an idea is ridiculous.

Atheism is dead? by the way your an atheist, you don't believe in Thor, Zeus, and all the other countless gods out there. Atheism is simply a word to describe someone who don't believe in something. the ones you refer to just take it one god further then you.

[sabertooth1980]

God is dead. Long live the king.

[NUTCASE71733]

@prffsrx

Cute. No one said anything about those fields of science meaning one had to be athiest. And cult of darwinism? Evolution is not a religion. Besides, Christianity was considered a cult by the romans you hypocrite.

[sabertooth1980]

And no it doesn't contradict science.

Science can't say anything about there being a "designer". That is left to Theists.

But guess what? And here is the important part you keep missing here:It Explains Nothing.

Who is not the same as HOW.

How it was done is what science is all about!

Saying that "most scientists" believe in a designer is also incarcerate. Where is your evidence for that? Why not do a survey of biological scientists asking them that Very question. And they Have to be scientists.

[sabertooth1980]

I am going to do something that will drive you crazy. It will drive you crazy due to it being one of your trademark tags.

I am going to disagree with you. I am not going to say why, or what my reasons are, instead I am going to call you some childish English insult and then strut around all proud as if I accomplished something.

Then I am going to be insulted when you come back with a reasonable argument, call it unreasonable and then insult your intelligence.

Note I am being Sarcastic.

[sabertooth1980]

Ah the "there was a time when science agreed with religion" Argument, I remember those times.

What were they called again? Oh yeah. The Dark Ages. And they were rightly named. Death, plague, short life spans, lack of antibiotics? Oh yeah, I want to harken back to those days indeed.

And your last statement. Only partly true, remember the Egyptians? The ones with many gods? They set the foundations for alchemy and modern chemistry. Along with the Chinese.

[sabertooth1980]

Negative. You are using argument from authority. In all totallity, science can't say anything about there being a god. However just placing a supernatural being up there to explain anything kills science and research. It halts the questioning. If you were paying attention it promotes Banality, Stagnation, and Ignorance.

Start paying attention, and do keep up, one who likes to argue whiles sipping his tea from which he designed apparently.

[sabertooth1980]

On the contrary, it is very logical. What you are asking is a strawman of my question.

I am not asking who designed an Undesigner. I am asking who designed your designer.

Ah ending with another logical fallacy that you may not even be aware of!

It boils down to thus:

"Stan isn't a smart man. Stan is warning us that he saw a man kill another man and that there could be a dangerous person on the loose. But Stan isn't a smart man. Therefore Stan is wrong."

Even if I explain myself to you, I'm wrong

[sabertooth1980]

The Final point that I will make, and I am sure that it has been brought to your attention again and again is really simple.

"If there is a designer, then who designed the designer?"

If the universe is as incredibly complex as you are making out to be, then the designer would have to be irrefutably even *more* complex than its creation.

[sabertooth1980]

And that is a problem that many theists can't get around.

We have science for a reason. To understand the world around us. And damn are we understanding the world around us. We are making advances in biochemistry, in computer tech, in the Medical field.

Putting up an "intelligent designer" above it all will not change the outcome of what we are achieving, nor will it push us to try and achieve Better.

It leads to stagnation, banality, and worst of all, Ignorance.

[sabertooth1980]

And once again you are failing to get to the meat of the matter. Why is ID useless? Because it explains Nothing. It won't tell us why a "creator" decided to put self replicating DNA strands that would occasionally screw up sometimes and maybe cause harmful mutations to that living being. Or even How these malfunctions even happened, let alone how they can be repaired. The logic behind it boils down to simply saying "Goddidit" And leaving it at that. No investigation, no research. Just "goddidit"

[sabertooth1980]

Negative. I am arguing with someone who uses more logical fallacies than you do.

Do I need to point out that some foods don't *need* preparation?

Apples, pears, peaches, oranges(they can exist outside of Florida), peas, some kinds of fish to name a few.

And even these existed in the wild even before humans took to cultivating them for their own purposes.

As far as getting a rational explanation from this, it is simple. Human intervention. Why? Because we were hungry damn it.

[sabertooth1980]

Only if I can stand on a wall and taunt you a second time. Then I will throw a cow at you.

The video. It is about Why saying an intelligent designer doesn't do (there is the missing word) the really important thing.

Explain How it was done.

I can go to as many restaurants as possible and eat as much food as possible, but assuming that there is always a cook doesn't tell me How the food was made.

That. That is the reason ID is useless.

[sabertooth1980]

Wow. Leave for a few days and look at that. You still can't walk away can you? And yes. This could be used on me too. But guess what? I did ask those questions and I did answer them.

Am I a lonesome person? Yes.

Do I have a hollow feeling inside that requires justification to feel that I am right even when maybe I am wrong?

Maybe, but was bored.

However. This video isn't about your hot topic. Philosophy.

It is about why saying an intelligent designer doesn't one thing.

HOW was it done.

[sabertooth1980]

You could have just easily let the question hang there in the air. You could have gone and played in someone elses' sandbox, But you didn't.

Why is that?

What need is there that is being fulfilled by you retorting to my questions?

Are you a lonesome person? Do you have this hollow feeling inside that requires justification to feel that you are right, even when you just maybe wrong?

And personally I can answer my own questions.

Yes, and maybe but really I was bored.

[sabertooth1980]

Then why are you even responding?

[sabertooth1980]

You just like to argue don't you?

[sabertooth1980]

The honest thing is, You need to keep up with what is going on. Read journals, look through publications. For cripes sake, go to those many Museums that England is so famous for!

Educate yourself. Then if you feel the need to, Go Into the real world become a Teacher and not a student. And TEACH.

[sabertooth1980]

Tsk. Dogs go woof. Crazy cartoon mice go narf. And might I point out a good deal of Your "translations" seem to center around some sort of almost vaguely veiled "in the closet" response?

[sabertooth1980]

Continuing....Eldredge possesses a chart of the historical development of cornets (the musical instruments), which he uses as a comparison with that of the development of trilobites. The differences between them are meant to highlight, (and pay attention here) the failures of intelligent design by comparing a system that is definitely designed, with a system that is not designed.

[sabertooth1980]

To you I say. Narf. Narf I say.

[sabertooth1980]

Next there is Niles ELDREDGE. Eldredge was a critic of the gene-centric view of evolution and the notion that evolutionary theory can be held accountable to patterns of historical data. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain why human beings behave as they do.

This doesn't sound like a case against Evolution.

[sabertooth1980]

Now you are just putting words into my mouth. Spell check my fiend, It is your friend.

Stephen J. Gould whiles being a palaeontologist is also a science fiction writer. Even those around him called him a radical scientist. However from what I am reading he didn't seem bring up any evidence against evolution but a broader view of it.

[sabertooth1980]

DNA ect? You know, when you use "ect", there tends to be a list behind it instead of just one thing. And I disagree with the idea that fossils don't prove anything as you are suggesting.

Fossils are very important.

Using a book metaphor here, and see if you can follow... DNA is like the paragraphs and words that describe what is in the book. But some of us like looking at physical structures to get our heads around things. Fossils are the pictures in the book. M'kay?

[sabertooth1980]

See, this is were I am confused. If we agree evolution took place/is taking place. Why are you arguing it?

[sabertooth1980]

Ten shillings you don't know what a Son of Eather is.

However that isn't the point. This isn't about "schooling", this is about getting your facts straight.

Truth of the matter is, we have found transitional fossils. We have found the DNA links between humans and chimpanzees. Chromosome number two.

You on the other hand keep attacking people based on what "character" they present, other than the subject at hand.

[sabertooth1980]

'A Scientists', grammar wise is ... ouch. For being from the country were english came from, you seem to misuse it more than Americans.

Actually it was. That miss-classification was based on sensationalism, when it was later found out to be false, it was corrected and let known that it was corrected. As you are always trying to push me to do, Look It Up.

And Werner Heisenberg was a Physicist, Not a Biologist. There are different Kinds of scientists you know.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

I know that DNA evidence is superior to fossil evidence. However, you took issue with the fact that a "missing link" has been found. It has. Sorry.

I said "quote mining" because you seemed to be taking a quote out of context. The quote meant that there are gradations within a group of fossils that made defining "species" difficult. You seemed to be implying that, because of that, scientists are simply trying to fit the fossil evidence into their presuppositions to forge a "missing link."

[SeenAndNotSeen]

So, yes, DNA evidence alone proves evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, fossil evidence helps, but is not necessary and is not as strong evidence. I never suggested otherwise. However, that does not change the fact that transitional forms have been found between the major animal groups and between humans and earlier apes.

So when someone said, "the missing links have been found," instead of calling it a "bare-faced lie," you should have said, "Perhaps, but DNA evidence is stronger."

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Then why are you arguing? Do you have religious beliefs that allow humans to have evolved but which deny the possibility of fossil evidence for transitional species?

The "missing links" can never be"filled in," because once one missing link has been found, two more missing links are created.

[sabertooth1980]

He might actually be genuine in his need for trying to make points, however we've been arguing for weeks about one primary issue and that is in the realm of philosophy. I personally hope that it isn't anything that I did. But it almost seems like he is arguing because I said something.

I really hope that isn't the case however.

[sabertooth1980]

And here we go about the "Extrapolation based on a single tooth" bit again.

That was a missclassification that got into the hands of the public and then was put into an artists conception. That sounds nothing like science now does it?

And yes we question it, and it holds up to the questioning. That's how Scientific Theories work.

They don't work with chance guesses, they take the empirical evidence compile it, and ask "Here are the facts what conclusions can we draw from these?"

[sabertooth1980]

Now you sound like a crazy Son of Either.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Moreover, even if not a single transitional fossil were found linking human beings to earlier apes, the genetic evidence makes a rock-solid case for common descent.

Human beings have a a chromosome which is the fusion of two great ape chromosomes. Human beings have ERVs in the exact same places as chimps. Human beings and apes all have the remnants of the gene for Vitamin C production, which has been broken in the exact same place!

[SeenAndNotSeen]

There are more scientists named Steve that accept evolution than there are scientists, of any name, who deny evolution.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

1) All scientific evidence is debated.

2) Your quote-mine about homo habilis doesn't mean that it's not a transitional form. It just means that the specimens show gradual evolution, so that the earliest specimens don't seem to be of the same species as teh latest specimens. That's EVOLUTION!

3) Australopithecus is an extinct ape. Homo sapiens is an extant ape. Human beings ARE apes!

Moreover, australopithecus was bipedal.

[sabertooth1980]

And this isn't a philosophical debate. Whiles you are great with the exchange of philosophy, this is the realm of Hard Science.

Things that are Testable and Re testable. Things that we can prove based on radiometric dating, things that we can trace back to exactly were we should find them.

You may have found "god" up on Mount Kilimanjaro, but we have found the fossils. We have found the DNA. Checkmate.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Australopithecus afarensis

Homo rudolfensis

Homo habilis

Homo erectus

[Leehofooks]

Well that's definitely scientific evidence, isn't it?

[CiscoWes]

This video is stupid - it is like looking a complex schematic of an integrated circuit and saying the design is useless.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

This comment is stupid - it is like looking at a complex schematic of an integrated circuit and using it as a false analogy for the complexity of life.

Next time, try actually watching the video, or reading the transcript in the vid description, instead of just reading the title of the video. Then you might see what the actual thesis of the video is- not that "intelligent design" is wrong, but that merely asserting that there was a "designer" explains nothing about HOW the "design" was made.

[CiscoWes]

I don't know how to build an integrated circuit. I know they are designed, and built, even though I haven't seen the designers or builders. So I couldn't exactly tell you HOW it is made, but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Okay, so you HAVEN'T watched the video. That's not even the point the video makes. Even if we assume that all of nature had a designer, that doesn't explain HOW it was designed. That's like saying, "I know how the pyramids were constructed! They were constructed by Egyptians, duh!"

"Intelligent design theory" can't explain the mechanism by which the "design" was implemented. It can't explain HOW, which is the whole purpose of any theory.

[CiscoWes]

You are asking not if God made the universe, but how God made the universe??? I may be wrong, but I have this sneaking suspicion that it would be just a tad bit over our heads.

[Leehofooks]

So who's to say God didn't utilize The Big Bang to create the universe, and abiogenesis to create life?

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Unfortunately, some people can't comprehend that idea. For them, it's either special creation ex nihilo, or it's nothing. I don't believe in a god, but if there were a god who created the universe, the evidence clearly indicates that he must have done so with the Big Bang, abiogenesis through natural processes, and evolution.

[CiscoWes]

God created (as opposed to the belief timedidit) and it didn't need to bubble or stew for billions of years, it was perfect from the start. Maybe the Creation of the universe by God appeared as a "big bang". That's not entirely out of the question.

[Leehofooks]

How do you know? Science seems to be saying otherwise.

[devilpain22]

Since ID still proves, that Genesis is wrong, it`s a fact that this creator has never manifested himself to us. So why even thinking about it....

[sabertooth1980]

How convenient.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Using your integrated circuit example, imagine that our civilization collapses. A thousand years from now, a person finds an integrated circuit from our time period. He has no idea how to build one, but when asked how the integrated circuit iwas made, he answers, "It's obvious. Humans did it."

Does that answer further our understanding whatsoever? If you believe in God, you believe that he or it, in some sense, designed the universe. But that in itself is not an explanation of anything.

[CiscoWes]

On the integrated circuit example where someone finds one later... they say that humans did it. Realize that you would also have someone saying that it just developed on its own, over billions of years, or "evolved" from nothing.

The belief that God is the Creator of the universe actually does explain how we got here. We were created, rather than "evolved" over billions of years.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

You may not realize this, but there's kind of a big difference between an integrated circuit and an organism.

An integrated circuit cannot replicate itself and cannot pass on traits with slight variation, the more advantageous of which survive to be passed on to future generations, and so on. There are no fossils of integrated circuits and no DNA to show that one integrated cicuit shares a common ancestor with others.

Now run along.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

On the integrated circuit example where someone finds one later... they say that storks did it. Realize that you would also have someone saying that it just grew in a womb, over nine months, or "developed" from nothing.

The belief that storks are the bringers of babies actually does explain how we got here. We were dropped from the sky, rather than "developed" over nine months in our moms' bellies and forced out of their private parts.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

But seriously, no, a belief in God does not explain HOW we got here. How did he create us? With magic words, or with natural processes?

You do realize that a belief in God as "creator of the universe" does not equal creationism or that we were poofed into existence, right?

Similarly, believing that God is ultimately responsible for the weather does not necessarily mean that God is literally sitting in the clouds and dropping down rain and lightning bolts.

[CiscoWes]

"no, a belief in God does not explain HOW we got here"

What can the clay say to the potter? Our finite minds can't comprehend something infinite. We won't know "how" God created the universe. We don't need to know how in order to recognize the universe could have been created.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

In other words, you don't care about science at all. Where does lightning come from? God. Where does the rain come from? God. Where does life and its diversity come from? God.

If there is a god, then the above answers are, in a very broad sense, true, but they don't help us one bit. Knowing that God creates lightning won't help you avoid getting struck by it. Likewise, knowing that God created life won't help you counteract bacterial and viral resistance. The theory of evolution can.

[CiscoWes]

I wasn't saying that an IC can replicate itself. The point was the IC has a definite design, it can be observed, and it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible or highly unreasonable that an IC could have just evolved over billions of years. Compare an IC with living organisms. The complexity of an IC is dwarfed by the complexity of life itself. And yet we are to believe that life just "evolved"? It is a statistical monstrosity.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

The reason why an IC couldn't have evolved, while life could have, is that an IC cannot replicate itself with variation.

Life can. That's the difference.

Your example is comaprable to me saying that there is no way that I developed in a womb, because a computer, shich is less complex than I am, could not have developed in a womb. How many times and in how many ways can I explain this to you?

[moonlightbateman]

Here is my favorite question for evolutionary atheists...

Why is there something rather than nothing?

If evolution provides no answer to the origin of life, or matter, energy,space etc...

How can you put it forward as a competing world view?

You cannot.

Evolution appears to be a very narrow field (that is riddled with holes and missing links) within the discipline of biology alone.

Nothing more...nothing less

[holywaterx]

evolution is the unifying theory of biology from something as big as the nested hierarchy to something small as your DNA, if you consider biology to be a narrow field in science that's your way of looking at it.

Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, it does not explain the origin of life, matter, energy and space. Hope that cleared up some thing.

[ozpowermo]

"How can you put it forward as a competing world view?"

> Why do you require a theory which explains the diversity of life to provide anybody with a world view? LOL Evolution is not a philosophy, it's an explanation of the hierarchical distribution and diversity of life.

"Evolution appears to be a very narrow field... within the discipline of biology alone."

> YES! YES IT IS!

And that's ALL it is, so why do you want it to explain the origins of the universe? LOL

[SMSBJM1981]

You dumb ass, evolution is not meant to comment on the origin of life, that would be the theory of abiogenesis. Matter, energy and space are all part of other scientific theories. Evolution only dealing with speciation due to random mutation and natural selection. I would suggest you do your homework next time if you don't want to look academically deficient.

[moonlightbateman]

You might want to look into the Law of Biogenesis if you can break away from the Tool Academy long enough (lol)

[CiscoWes]

"You dumb ass, evolution is not meant to comment on the origin of life, that would be "

Well, somebody needs to change the "dumbass" graphic on the video at :05 because it is the same old debunked chart that has all life forms branching out from one unidentified thing at the bottom.

[sabertooth1980]

The missing links have been found.

[mxnad535]

I just realized that I am one of these guitar-playing nerds you speak of, but wait, I have a girlfriend, am attending a very reputable University, and will be in medical school shortly. I can see how studying music theory and playing the guitar would be a bad thing. You seem very close minded and unable to accept any opinion or lifestyle other than your own, it seems as if you may be the one living in futility and ignorance my friend. And the video has nothing to do with atheism.

[Zenmuron3]

I have never seen such ownage delivered into 2 comments. Nice job religious robots, you just owned your selves. It's not your fault, your religion programmed you that way. Blame your robot parents.

[CiscoWes]

"I have never seen such ownage delivered into 2 comments. Nice job religious robots, you just owned your selves. It's not your fault, your religion programmed you that way. Blame your robot parents. "

Oh ok. So you haven't been "programmed" to believe that pineapples and porcupines share a common ancestor, or humans are distant relatives of field mice? Admit it, you have been unwittingly programmed to believe this nonsense.

[sabertooth1980]

All life is related.

[ATBINTC]

Why is it when evolutionists try to show transition of fossils they usually use drawings or animation, where are the photos or video for that matter?

"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation."

(Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/palaeontologist and former evolutionist)

Evolution is science fiction like this movie!

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Have you ever tried actually looking up transitional forms and fossils? There's this new web site called "Google," which you might have heard about. Search for tiktaalik, archaeopteryx, ambulocetus, or the recently discovered epidexipteryx, just to name a few.

Or, you could just do a Google Image search for "transitional fossil."

Seriously, you have the internet. It's very easy to find photos of transitional forms. You're just too lazy to actually do it, so you come here and complain.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

PS: Nowhere in this video do I ever mention transitional forms or fossils. I don't even try to prove evolutionary theory. If you had actually bothered to watch this video (instead of complaining with righteous indignation about how you've never tried to look up photos of transitional fossils, so they therefore don't exist), you might have realized that.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

This is honestly one of the most ignorant comments anyone has ever left on my videos. There is just no excuse in the information age to be so mind-numbingly sheltered from knowledge.

[mxnad535]

Let's not be too harsh, I'm sure ATBINTC has searched plenty of Creation websites for transitional fossils. haha

[martidw]

Is that Stephen Hawking's brother narrating?

[SeenAndNotSeen]

"leave the rest of us alone, we HAVE a life."

This is very well-articulated. Instead of saying "we have lives," plural, you say "we have A life."

You perfectly sum up the conformity which organized religion brings, robbing people of individuality and demanding "groupthink."

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Very insightful comments. I'm a little confused as to why "playing the guitar" is supposed to be a negative. Aren't some of our culture's biggest celebrities rockstars?

Anyway, very entertaining word salad.

PS: Actually, I was leaving you alone before. No one had to watch the video, but you decided to comment on it. Actually, you didn't really comment ABOUT the video. You just saw the word "evolution" in the vid description and ranted about what you thought the video was about.

[787Bisurdaddy]

Cdesign proponentsists... lol.  Gotta love laziness.

[TaffyAlpha]

Cdesign proponentsists

[nookdew]

first of i think calling it intelligent design is complete bulshit, its chirstianity call it wat it is

and i beleive in god and feel sorry for the ppl to stupid to realize that god exists and it doesn't fucking matter how god made everything or even for that matter if u beleive in god all that matters is that ur here on earth and should enjoy it

[winterstellar]

nookdew. Gods cannot exist in this universe, they would break the laws of physics. And if they're outside this universe, they're irrelevant and can have no influence on anything anyway. Forget the fairy tales and embrace science/reality instead. :)

[2giveup]

laws?? you stand corrected they are theories just like this vid and have been changed over the years...we are seeded on this planet and it has been proven by science that there is no way possible we could have evolved (meaning any life form) on earth.. the elements needed to form life are not from earth. research molecular dna.smithsonian instute. also you can see that the smith has sbought up and taken all the artifacts that link it all together

[prschuster]

Here is my list of the short comings of ID:

* no way to test for its mechanisms;

* no evidence for the existence of a Designer;

* What is the intent of the Designer?

* Of what utility is design to the Designer?

* What methods did the Designer use?

* How do we confirm the hypothesis?

* ID is not falsifiable;

* ID makes no predictions about the design.

[ND066]

How does evolution explain speciation?

[loqiloqi]

When two populations of the same species are physically separated with no interbreeding for a few generations, the two populations begin to drift apart. If one of the populations is fairly small, it drifts quite rapidly.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Hey jackass, thanks for the spam. Blocked.

[rdillon7872]

Using a computer voice jackass!!!!

You cant read? You must have evolved from monkeys for sure.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

But how could I have typed the script in the first place without being able to read? Computers don't generate these videos themselves, you know. Yet.

[agg323181]

This's by far 1 f d bst vids i hav seen. U hav hit the nail n the head. Its mor important to kno d mechnism of a phenomenon so that it can be usd for further use. Who did it is immaterial. Its like knowing Laws of motion were discovrd by newton, but not knowing wat they mean. I m not biolgist so i nly undrstnd Evo roughly. But i know it is being used in genetics, making medicines etc. so evn if Evo wer not 100% proven i wud rather learn it than some theory tht has no practical use like ID.!!

[2giveup]

evolution is also a theory.. geez hey just like laws of physics huh? they are theories just like evo or adam and eve..but you can check out smithsonian institute museum in panama maybe molecular DNA can help your quest for the truth..found out the answers for yourself and who did it is is very important it is just hidden from the people should i say brushed under the rug by the powers that be..

[SpikeIncorporated]

At 1:10 where did you get that picture?

[SeenAndNotSeen]

I just found it with Google Image search.

[StrengthFromAbove83]

ok, ONE SPECIES can NOT ever change into something else. ADAPTATION is NOT evolution. We, as humans have never and will never turn into something else (evolve). If I live in a house with a very short ceiling, I'll hunch over, ADAPT. If I walk barefoot all the time, I'll develop calcium deposits in my bones, I'll ADAPT.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Your examples aren't even "adaptation." By your definition, a single grizzly bear could "adapt" to living in a snowy environment by turning white. "Adaptation" is just a euphemism for evolution, and it does not occur at an individual level. No single individual can "adapt" or "evolve." You're talking about Lamarckian evolution.

The calcium deposits in your bones, your bad posture- those are not genetic and can't be passed on to offspring.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

If you were born with a different bone structure that made it easier for you to survive and reproduce, then you would have an evolutionary advantage. You would produce more offspring than others, thus there would be more individuals with better bone structures. Evolution is just that- a change in allele frequency over time by natural selection acting upon random mutations (such as slightly different bone structure, skin color, muscle strength, in-borne immunity to disease, etc.)

[SeenAndNotSeen]

When I posted a video on evolution , I assumed that people knew what Darwinian evolution was and had a basic understanding of genetics.

Your definition of evo involves things like giraffes stretching their necks out in order to reach higher trees, and somehow passing the long neck on to its children despite not being genetic. The Darwinian model would involve a giraffe born with a mutation making a slightly longer neck. This puts that giraffe at an advantage, thus producing more offspring.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

The evolution of the wing works similarly. A mutation producing a larger flap of skin would help insulate offspring. It could also be used to break one's fall from a tree. Those born with even larger flaps would survive to reproduce more. After many generations, the flaps would be sufficient for gliding, and eventually, flying. We see that "1/2 a wing" is still useful- like the "flying" squirrel, which glides with flaps. In millions of years, it will probably be capable of flight- like bats.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

This is what we see with bird evolution. Archaeopteryx is dinosaur-like, with claws, teeth, and a tail, but also with wings and feathers. It is a clear transition from "dinosaur" to bird. As more recent species in the fossil record are found, we find fewer "dinosaur" features and more "birdlike" features- loss of tail and teeth, etc. Either birds descend from a common dinosaur ancestor or it's all just pure coincidence. My question is, "What intelligent designer would put wings on an ostrich?"

[StrengthFromAbove83]

so how about the big bang? how is that even logical OR scientific? it doesn't make sense.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

What does the Big Bang have to do with evolution? You are basically upset with science as a whole because it doesn't mention God. This video is on evolution. That is, a theory on how speciation occurs. It has nothing to do with astrophysics. Even if the Big Bang Theory were false, it says nothing about evolution.

[AngusYoung93]

protip: Read a wiki article before you make yourself look like a dipshit.

[Ch1r0nex]

Since evolution occurs when one member of a species has, through mutation, a new trait which gives them an advantage and causes them to die less quickly (thus spreading this new mutation and becoming more common), it is quite obvious that humans will indeed probably never evolve. This is because with modern medicine, a human who has (through mutation) an advantageous trait will still survive as well as those without the trait because those without it will be helped along with modern medicine.

[deslava27]

Yes this is true, the only way that trait will be benificial is if the enviorment changes. As humans our intelligence helps us adapt to the enviorment diffrently from animals, as oppposed to physical adaptaions we develop technology. Insted of better immune system, anti-biotics, and so forth, this however is not new, animals perfectly adapted to their enviorment dont need to evolve, but by vast variation in their genes posses the ability to do so.

[pandaoflove]

Theres always the possibility of sexual preference.

[prschuster]

I think humans most certainly will evolve through genetic engineering rather than by natural selection. As the technology becomes available it will be used, regardless of the ethical considerations, just as every other form of technology has been used for better or for worse. In the best case scenario, this technology will help to rid us of genetic defects, including deafness, blindness, and inherited weaknesses in other organ systems. In the worse case scenario ... it could be a nightmare.

[StrengthFromAbove83]

PROVE to me, that evolution exists. PROVE to me that Darwin is correct.

there is ZERO proof that we came from anything but other humans...

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Well, most IDers accept common descent of humans and chimps. Creationists do not. Creationists believe in God and Genesis. ID'ers don't necessarily believe in Genesis, but they believe in God, or else space aliens who created life on Earth. Unless you are proposing that aliens designed humans and all other organisms, I assume you believe in God.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Human beings and chimps share Endogenous Retroviruses- viruses which inserted themselves into one of our ancestors' DNA. One individual's ERVs can be passed on to its offspring if the ERV is in a sex cell. The ERVs serve no purpose. They are "junk DNA," the remnants of a virus. No intelligent designer would put them in our genome.

Yet humans and chimps share almost all of the same ERVs in the exact same places. The odds of even one ERV matching by mere coincidence is 1 in 3 billion.

[AngusYoung93]

Except for DNA and fossils, you're absolutely right.

[jojoinhere]

u sound like Stephen Hawking

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Shhh... you're blowing my cover.

[bazildaddy]

"And there is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution." Wow you should tell dawkins he sure thinks that there is. So does every other scientist I have read or talked with. The answer for origin doesn't erase the need for science in any area.

"Fish with legs? Tektaalik. Whale-like mammals showing various transitions" You start naming animals that you think you can prove Macro evoultion and I will show you how ignorant you are.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

You again?

No, Dawkins doesn't doesn't draw a distinction between micro (evolution over a short period) and macro (evo over a long period of time). The only difference is time.

As for the question of origins of life, there is a field of science called abiogenesis which researches how life could have emerged from self-replicating molecules and polymers. ID can't explain how any life originated, it merely asserts a supernatural cause, which is by definition immeasurable and incomprehensible.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

As for the transitions, I take it that you will never be satisfied, because you can always claim that they are merely coincidences.

Tektaalik has:

half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes

half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region

There is also: Panderychthis, Elginerpeton, Gogonasus, Ichthyostega, Eusthenopteron, and others which, when ordered according to their rock layer, show transition from fish to amphibian.

[StrengthFromAbove83]

KEY WORDS: COULD HAVE BEEN... I rest my case... NO PROOF.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

When scientists use the words "COULD HAVE BEEN," it doesn't mean "NO PROOF."

It means that scientists aren't arrogant enough to claim absolute truth. Even if they are 99.99% sure, as they are of evolution, there is still a very small possibility of error. They use inductive reasoning. Unlike mathematics, which can be deductively proven, science must judge based on evidence, like in court. Only an idiot would claim to have "absolute proof" in science. Creationists and religious people do anyway.

[Salccari]

...meaning that there's no need for a supernatural God, as science can offer a natural explanation for everything, from the formation of the very first cell to today's homo sapiens, even though there are several possibilites explaining how that happened.

[Salccari]

...meaning that there's no need for a supernatural god, as science can offer an explanation for everything from the very first cell to today's homo sapiens, even though there are several possibilites explaining how that could have happened.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

But you will never be satisfied until you see a dog give birth to a cat, or a crocoduck, or something else completely ridiculous. The fossils found show intermediaries between classes of animals predicted.

You will find many fish-amphibians, amphibian-reptiles, reptile-mammals, dinosaur-birds, etc. But never fish-mammals or amphibian-birds.

Speak to a non-CSE or Discovery scientist and he or she "will show you how ignorant you are."

Do a little research, please. You're making a fool of yourself.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Please give me just one example of an animal which has specific genes exclusive to it which cannot be altered by mutation.

That would settle the question of whether "microevolution" is any different from "macroevolution." Because according to you, microevolution can happen, but macro can't because there is some sort of wall dividing species, some kind of special DNA which can't be miscopied and passed on to the next generation.

There is simply nothing about microevo that prevents macroevo.

[ThetaOmega]

Lol... sorry, you were being serious weren't you.

[bazildaddy]

"you could at least explain how it works" How origin of life works? We have much to learn about life and how it works. You could say how evoultion works in the macro sense but it would not be science. It would not be logical, teastable, or repeatable. How ever you could put your time into science instead of a doctrine. Micro evoultion is a great idea. Stick with what you know, but don't pass this off like you know anything about it.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Scientists can take the large fossil record that they have and predict what kinds of intermediary forms would need to be found. Time and again, they do. Fish with legs? Tektaalik. Whale-like mammals showing various transitions, with nostrils receding to the top of the head (blowhole)? Found.

Scientists predict that animals with morphological similarities will have similar DNA. Time and again, these predictions come true. And not just for useful DNA, but for junk DNA and ERVs.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

And there is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. Both operate through the same mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. There is no gene exclusive to a species that is immune to mutation. All DNA is subject to mutation. Mutations "add genetic information"- ever heard of insertion and frame-shift mutation?

Yes, I can explain how evolution works. Can you explain how ID works?

I suggest you "put your time into science instead of a doctrine."

[StrengthFromAbove83]

so in other words... scientists are like weathermen... GUESSING...

[SeenAndNotSeen]

When you've found dinosaurs with feathers, fish with feet and lungs, amphibians with gills, etc., and conclude common ancestry, you are no longer "just guessing." Perhaps an ID'er/creationist would care to explain why ostriches and emu would be created with wings when they can't fly.

Even if weathermen seem to be "just guessing," you take shelter when they predict hurricanes or tornadoes. They've proven infinitely better at predicting than all the shaman, prophets, and raindancers in history.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

When human beings and chimpanzees share the same ERVs in inserted in the exact same place, when their insertion is random and passed on to future generations, there are only two possible conclusions:

a) Humans and other apes share common ancestors or

b) the all were created specially by a deceitful intelligent designer who made all of the genetic, morphological, and fossil evidence definitively point to common ancestry, just for a laugh.

Have some respect for biologists or skip your flu shot.

[StrengthFromAbove83]

so how do those animals "prove" evolution? Why couldn't those animals just have existed on their own and then died off?

[SeenAndNotSeen]

There are over a million extant species of animal. 99% of species are extinct. That means about 100 million species for Noah to fit on his Ark. Most creationists try to dodge that question, postulating that all species "superevolved" from 8000 "kinds" of animals on Noah's Ark. This of course means not that evolution is false, but that it happens at an alarmingly high rate, producing milions of species in about 4400 years.

[StrengthFromAbove83]

since when did I say anything about God or Noah?

[AngusYoung93]

Because they're in a different time period in the soil.

[bazildaddy]

This video is really dumb and the same could be said everytime you try to explian orgin of life. What a dumb conclusion. I would never draw a conclusion to anything if this logic was applied.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Now, even if you think evolution is wrong, you could at least explain how it works. You can't for ID, because no ID'er has ever even tried to explain how it works. That puts it on par with the FSM's Noodly Appendage theory.

[SeenAndNotSeen]

If you're satisfied with "God-did-it" or even "Nature-did-it," then I'm glad you're not a scientist.

So if you wanted to know how your computer functions, you would be satisfied with "Dell made it"?

If scientists had been satisfied with the idea that God made everything, there would be no progress. It's easy to say that God causes earthquakes. But this statement gives us no new knowledge. Tectonic plates converging, creating pressure is a good start.

Thanks for the insight, though.

[ThatOneQ]

Bazildady, you are a fool.

Please grow up?

[knightoftheroundvaan]

The funny thing is evolution doesn't explain the orgin of life, it explains the diversity of life.

[busymartian]

I'm going to use that Who vs How.

[neuronstorm]

Thank you very much for this. It seems like such a simple and obvious distinction now that you mention it - but I hadn't thought of it in terms of who vs how before this.