Can anyone tell me what documentary the last sentence on some of C0nc0rdance's videos are from? I mean "Every cell of each plant and animal contains genetic information coded onto the DNA molecule. The model rep..."
Anyone who quote-mines in order to attempt to prove an argument automatically forfeits the debate and should really face ridicule. I think this Jonathan M guy, were his professors or peers at the U of Glasgow to find out the unprofessional way he behaves, should be shamed for his actions.
C0nc0rdance new offical nickname, "The Notorious Atheist, C0nc0rdance"! I also think Matt Dillahunty should be known as Matt "The Machine" Dillahunty, on account of his debating skills. Finally, You really powened this Jonathan M guy, can't wait to see if he responds. Being on uncommondescentcom, it seems his reputation is on the line.
Allow me to quote the Holy Bible in the SAME WAY, usin the SAME TACTIC, that Jonathan M. uses when he quotes those scientific papers:
“…there is no God….” — The KJV Bible, a FULL DOZEN TIMES!!
(Deuteronomy 32:39; I Kings 8:23; II Kings 1:16 & 5:15; II Chronicles 6:14; Psalm 14:1 & 53:1; Isaiah 44:6&8 & 45:5,14,21! Oh, and add in Sirach 36:5 for a BAKER’s dozen if using the ORIGINAL 1611 KJV that included the Apocrypha!)
Hmmm...Thank you responding to the article but you didn't say anything really. You basically defaulted to 'we can show pathways for how these things occur....so it absolutely happened by natural processes' but there's no proof that these mutations actually DO happen given time. It's the evo default. Let's find a pathway of how it COULD happen then, without actually observing this happen in lab experiments, simply claim it DID happen via those particular pathways. Not really convincing in any way
@Equestions Go to google, enter "observation of evolution in lab", click the second link from newscientist dotcom.
Seriously, that is from 2008.
Of course, an experiment proving the pathways for all of the flagellum genes has not been done, but the basic premise which is at work is well proven.
Great insight about top-down and bottom-up design. An intelligent designer completes his project, passes the acceptance tests and he's off to something else; unless a problem is found, the solution may never be visited again. Evolution never gives up; it blindly keeps changing things even after they're good enough or even excellent, even when it results in the death of individuals, and sometimes kills off a whole species. Intelligence could simulate it, but why, unless to toy with us?
@StopSpamming1: Well, that's somewhat more civilized that AiG's resident astronomer, Jason Lisle, who hid himself so well under the basket that his adviser and friends at CU never knew that he believed few of the underpinnings of his own doctoral thesis.
@discipleoftheteapot: Mt Improbable (or at least the exposition in Dawkin's Christmas lecture) was an exercise in showing that small changes over an immense time can change a fish into a human. I don't think he got into the local maxima argument that is described here. The two are obviously related but are distinct arguments.
@discipleoftheteapot: the differences are in the axes. The vertical axis in Dawkins' model is "accomplished evolution", or perhaps "level of evolution" in the sense of some kind of complexity of the change, such as creating a giraffe (and for all we know that hill may climb further in the future). In the vid, the vertical axis is relative fitness in the current environment. In this case the surface would be multidimensional, not 2D, it's done 2D so as to be comprehensible to human brains.
2:31 Ok, so I'm never buying a sprinkler. That's just ingenuity right thar.
ID proponents try very hard to not only obfuscate what they are talking about, and their actual arguments and "hypothesis" (if they can even be called as such) to lay audiences, but appear to strain a number of intellectual muscles in order to deliberately misunderstand evolutionary theory.
What is smarter for an omnipotent designer, irreducible complexity, where one small malfunction renders something useless or slow tinkered darwinian processes that allows an organism to adapt and change through generations to fit changing circumstances? Basicly delicate or robust?
I maybe a Theist but that does not mean i reject evolution as a threat and to see people go to such lengths as the ID proponents makes me more than a little sad.
#2 point is stupid from a creationist standpoint...
Smart engineers wouldn't make as many bacteria propulsions systems as there are bacteria... they would try to incorporate one design into many of the bacteria
I guess creationists think their god is a bad engineer... Unintelligent design, anyone?
Thanks for standing up for reason and science. Maybe someday Jonathan will sit back and take a cold, hard look at what he has been doing and decide that he wants to take a different path.
Points 1 and 4 made me laugh. Does John M. really think that he can prescribe the attributes to natural phenomena of the universe just by using a certain set of terms?
It's like saying "I can use a doughnut factory analogy to explain gene expression, therefore inside all of your cells is a doughnut factory."
Points 1 and 2 make absolutely no sense to me even before watching this video... Mathematics is at its basis more or less a language, used to describe things. We use it to describe things, therefore everything would be designed? Non sequitor >.<
Point 2 basically says that even if you show a supposedly irreducably complex system actually has functional components, it still should be considered irreducable? Does not follow either... Seriously, from a grad?
I sometimes wonder if IDist/creationist ever read the papers they try to cite to support their claims. I have on occasion had one cite a paper to me and I of course did go look up the paper (I think they hope you don't because they are not honest enough to do the same) and find the paper supports my side of the argument instead of theirs. Sometimes I even thank them for pointing me to the article cause it was a really good article.
Creationists, even IF you can conclusively prove all biological life is indeed designed from top to bottom you're still unable to connect your Bronze Age myths to such a discovery. Why bother?
I mean, no matter how you slice it... in the Creationist vs. Evolution debate we're inevitably going to have to end the debate there. Why not start there instead of entertaining Creationists fake "problems" with evolution and disingenuous assertions?
These people are STILL trotting out irreducible complexity as an argument against evolution?
Seriously?
Do they have some kind of learning disability or something? I mean, I'm -forced- to grant them a few points for using arguments that have been discredited for only 'six' years instead the usual 'couple hundred', but on the other hand, this is recent, in their face, impossible to ignore stuff! Not knowing this after the Dover trial borders on intentional ignorance.
it seems jonathan was simply going for the most technical aspect of evolution he could apply irreducible complexity to in hopes of delaying his inevitable pwnage.
I think the issue may root back to just the simple point of creationism, they like the idea that humans are a perfected model. We are just the mushy conclusion of evolution, and we may still improve. I wonder if humans will evolve and they'll still be saying its god's design. "God can change his image, so now we are too" hahahah idk.
@TekLok their notion that human's are the perfect design is flawed in that we breathe out of the same hole we eat with. Not a very intelligent design if you ask me. Its also comparable to religious nuts speaking out of the same hole they defacate with.
THIS is exactly why over the last several months you, c0nc0rdance, have risen to the very top of a long list of my favorite youtubers (side by side with potholer54).
Your videos consistantly contain actual, valuable science combined with elequent, accessible presentation instead of tyrades of useless insults. Aronra and donexodus used to contribute like this but, sadly, don't any more.
my only (and very minor) complaint would be that there could be a little more humor.
The irony is that design and complexity are actually inversely related. Evolutionary algorithms tend to produce very complex, and very hard to understand, solutions to the problems they're applied to.
There are some exceptions (ie. the smaller sizes of bacterial genomes are selected for replication speed and to fit within the confines of a smaller cell size); however, RuBisCO is a phenomenal supporting example. The most abundant protein on Earth, RuBisCO is over-expressed to make up for a lower affinity for carbon dioxide at its active site. Over-expression is a quick and dirty solution.
@tskasa1 PZ Meyers called another creationist out for being dishonest!? That level of irony is almost enough to make seizuHELP!!! I can't see my elbow because there's a hamburger popscicle urinating in the zoo!!
I would assume the problem might be with the teacher. Or with them being undergrads who have yet to finish the degree and prove themselves with some work.
What i wouldn't like to observe is them finishing the degree by "lying to themselves", doing what they have to do to pass the different classes and then, with a degree, try spread their religious nonsense. That would be a serious sign of a mental problem.
just call him what he is, a guy that is getting a degree in biology to go work for the discovery institute so they can pay him lots of money to have the degree and say evolution is wrong to attempt to bring more creditability to the institue.
His request for a step-by-step explanation of the process is no different than older examples that asked for the same of the evolution of the eye or a wing, because "half an eye" or "half a wing" is useless. Of course, that overlooks the fact that a partially functional X functions significantly better than no X at all.
@SpookyFan And additionally - what they seem to overlook is that often X did not function as an x earlier in the organisms evolutionary history. For example - feathers were most certainly about thermoregulation and not flight when they first appeared. But of course we have great fossils of feather evolution in both rock and amber.
How is this JM allowed to study at the level he is at when he has this blind spot to the proof. Creationists trying to shoehorn their ideas into these theories stink.
Before viewing this vid I was watching PZ Myers destroy this same individual. Coincidence? God? Pure F....... Magic? Luck? Whatever, I enjoyed both vids.
I hope you never quit making these educational videos. They are always so "elegantly' crafted. Along with potholer54 and ProfMTH, your's is one of my favorite You Tube channels.
Wild applause from the peanut gallery, Concordance. One reason why I particularly enjoy your videos is that you are so strongly devoted to calm reasoning, rational discourse, and clear, simple arguments.
All of the most complex processes known to man in the present state of the universe are natural. Everything in cellular biology developmental biology etc so far as we have ever seen happens naturally. Its always baffled me how people say that natural processes cant account for such things when it does every day at every hour, every minute. Show me an organism arising by any means other than the natural and I will eat my shoe and become a creationist.
I started thinking... Is it possible that the creationists intentionally ignore all the non-intentional pathways to further the rift between theistic evolution and materialistic evolution?
In a sense saying that if evolution did not intentionally focus down one path that means theistic evolution seems wrong, as God did a roundabout creation, thus, to their eyes, leaving creationism and materialistic evolution as the only alternatives, a nuiscance for the american religious community?
Did anyone tell John M. that Ken Miller (notably) and others destroyed Behe's argument based upon irreducible complexity? It can be done using the examples Behe picked even.
why are creationists trying to find out who these youtubers are? Has it really come to trying to personally attack someone rather than responding to their actual VALID points.
They've been doing it for a long time, and this is just another permutation. Easier to scare dissenters into silence, or even destroy them, than to debate them, especially with how the evidence shows.
@ronocko - I imagine that they want to expose their names hoping their activity on youtube will harm them professionally, perhaps even costing them their job. How Christian of them.
C0nc0rdance, I have to give you a lot of credit for explaining these things so that the average Joe laymen like me can understand these arguments. Because of individuals like you, I have gained a greater respect for a scientific education and those who do the hard work.
I see why he thought he could doc drop you with the 'Zachary Moore' name. Your voices are similar. What must he have gone through to find this? Watching refutation after refutation of his ideas until his ears bled.
Love your vids concordance; the content is informative, concise and accessible. One of my favorite subscriptions and certainly the most educational. Rock on.
There are two kinds of Christians, Idiots and liars. These guys are the latter. That is why the DI doesn’t allow public comments on their website and offer only references that disagree with their own conclusions. BTW,, They couldn’t care less what you say or do. They are after the other kind of Christians, the idiots. There are plenty of those out there.
BTW, arrogance is often falsely assumed when one person knows more than another and pretty much everything started by scientists is made into products by engineers.
My microphone's position on the fitness landscape is at a local minima. The word was "because" as in "bacterial chemotaxis appear designed BECAUSE in a way they are... but it's bottom up design by the natural processes of diversification and competitive selection."
Oh it seemed like more was cut out so I thought it was a more complex statement. I guess it coulda just been the word "because". Btw, you can find the local minima/maxima by finding the points where the derivative are 0. And don't get me started on inflection points....
First Step find something we don't know much about. Second Step find out its "Complex". Third Step since your faith is a top down system everything else must be a top down system. Fourth Step combine.
It's hard to believe this type of shenanigans continues. It's been something like 15 years since Behe published his crappy book, IDists have made zero progress in showing that anything is unevolvable due to irreducible complexity, and yet they all refuse to admit that they could be wrong.
IDers often use irreducible complexity to mean that altering a feature does not give the same function, and ignore the fact that it might have a completely different yet beneficial function.
Why are these people so desperate to live forever?
It cannot be top down because this explanation does not take into account the diversification of bacteria, due to random mutations in the DNA and the unpredictable ways in which the alterations in the DNA are expressed in making proteins and changes in the organisms.
It has to be bottom up, not top down. This video gives a clear way of demonstrating the impossibility of designing a preconceived end result of evolution - human beings 'in the image of god' for ex.
I love how for intelligent design to work, you must actually assume god is incompetent. In all other cases he made it very clear that evolution works, now as an ID "scientist" your goal is to find the one time he failed to cover his tracks. @C0nc0rdance I just received my new book, you may know it. "Bad science" by ben goldacre ;D
@TheLivingDinosaur He has his style, you have yours. Although I suspect yours is slightly counter-productive (You get more hits, but a lot of your viewers are too busy drooling over scantily-clad women to listen to what your saying :-) )
@TheLivingDinosaur "Your counter-argument is weak sauce." is the closest to a proper FU I've ever seen from C0nc0rance. He works in a little bit more subtle ways than you do. ^^
I liked it, but I don't think, based on what little I've read of Jonathan M, that he grasps the basic concepts behind evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms and the concept of "design space." I think C0nc0rdance will need to explain far more basic concepts before he can reach ID people.
@voidCaptain I would only disagree in that, from my experience with both IDers/YECs, nothing you can say can "reach" these people. They have to decide internally to take an honest look at the evidence, and until an individual decides to do that then nothing you say or show will change their minds. That's why I've given up on being polite to these people and have settled on mocking them in my videos.
@TheLivingDinosaur Wow, this guy is studying evolutionary biology, and he's a creatard?? When a physics PhD is spouting nonsense about biology, well, it's just silly...but HIM?? How about it, TLD, wanna do an uncensored sequel to this one? ;)
@TheLivingDinosaur I was going to say, "sounds like someone enjoys TheLivingDinosaur!" Then I looked at your name, and I was like, oh, wait, that IS TheLivingDinosaur.
Just a suggestion for you, while I have you here: more hot dudes.
Did you get a response for this?
Tippitapitus 2 weeks ago
anyone interested in this subject should check out "the cell collective"
It's fun!!
ryoshi100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Can anyone tell me what documentary the last sentence on some of C0nc0rdance's videos are from? I mean "Every cell of each plant and animal contains genetic information coded onto the DNA molecule. The model rep..."
IblameBlame 1 month ago
Yup, yup, yup. Jonathan might get this, might, but we need to get the message across to the laymen... who vote.
1baldchimp 2 months ago
Anyone who quote-mines in order to attempt to prove an argument automatically forfeits the debate and should really face ridicule. I think this Jonathan M guy, were his professors or peers at the U of Glasgow to find out the unprofessional way he behaves, should be shamed for his actions.
JunkCCCP 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So who are you?
PaDCwa 2 months ago
That's just HILARIOUS that Jonathan is workiing on a masters in evolutionary biology so he can try to prove it wrong.
I don't get how someone could get educated in the feild & still think it's wrong...
Any laymen can see the ABUNDANCE of evidence just using google.
Hell, even right here on youtube thanks to people like C0nc0rdance, Aronra, potholer54 etc etc...
Keep fighting fighting ignorance fellas! =D
Zentz29 3 months ago 4
C0nc0rdance new offical nickname, "The Notorious Atheist, C0nc0rdance"! I also think Matt Dillahunty should be known as Matt "The Machine" Dillahunty, on account of his debating skills. Finally, You really powened this Jonathan M guy, can't wait to see if he responds. Being on uncommondescentcom, it seems his reputation is on the line.
TenchiJeff 3 months ago
Allow me to quote the Holy Bible in the SAME WAY, usin the SAME TACTIC, that Jonathan M. uses when he quotes those scientific papers:
“…there is no God….” — The KJV Bible, a FULL DOZEN TIMES!!
(Deuteronomy 32:39; I Kings 8:23; II Kings 1:16 & 5:15; II Chronicles 6:14; Psalm 14:1 & 53:1; Isaiah 44:6&8 & 45:5,14,21! Oh, and add in Sirach 36:5 for a BAKER’s dozen if using the ORIGINAL 1611 KJV that included the Apocrypha!)
COMALiteJ 3 months ago 7
C0nc0r(got fuckin' zeros in me name!)dance: one calm son of a bitch.
Rarae192 3 months ago
Hmmm...Thank you responding to the article but you didn't say anything really. You basically defaulted to 'we can show pathways for how these things occur....so it absolutely happened by natural processes' but there's no proof that these mutations actually DO happen given time. It's the evo default. Let's find a pathway of how it COULD happen then, without actually observing this happen in lab experiments, simply claim it DID happen via those particular pathways. Not really convincing in any way
Equestions 3 months ago
Comment removed
Superslemmet 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Equestions Go to google, enter "observation of evolution in lab", click the second link from newscientist dotcom.
Seriously, that is from 2008.
Of course, an experiment proving the pathways for all of the flagellum genes has not been done, but the basic premise which is at work is well proven.
Superslemmet 3 months ago
Great insight about top-down and bottom-up design. An intelligent designer completes his project, passes the acceptance tests and he's off to something else; unless a problem is found, the solution may never be visited again. Evolution never gives up; it blindly keeps changing things even after they're good enough or even excellent, even when it results in the death of individuals, and sometimes kills off a whole species. Intelligence could simulate it, but why, unless to toy with us?
puncheex 3 months ago
So Jonathan M is studying biology to debunk biology?
How can he debunk the truth?
Can anyone study mathematics to debunk 2+2?
StopSpamming1 3 months ago
@StopSpamming1: Well, that's somewhat more civilized that AiG's resident astronomer, Jason Lisle, who hid himself so well under the basket that his adviser and friends at CU never knew that he believed few of the underpinnings of his own doctoral thesis.
puncheex 3 months ago
3.04 oh my god - its mount improbable!
discipleoftheteapot 3 months ago
@discipleoftheteapot: Mt Improbable (or at least the exposition in Dawkin's Christmas lecture) was an exercise in showing that small changes over an immense time can change a fish into a human. I don't think he got into the local maxima argument that is described here. The two are obviously related but are distinct arguments.
puncheex 3 months ago
@puncheex I agree, but the graph at 3:04 does look like a landscape and seems to be analagous to Dawkins' metaphor
discipleoftheteapot 3 months ago
@discipleoftheteapot: the differences are in the axes. The vertical axis in Dawkins' model is "accomplished evolution", or perhaps "level of evolution" in the sense of some kind of complexity of the change, such as creating a giraffe (and for all we know that hill may climb further in the future). In the vid, the vertical axis is relative fitness in the current environment. In this case the surface would be multidimensional, not 2D, it's done 2D so as to be comprehensible to human brains.
puncheex 3 months ago
It's always delicious when you can pwn someone just by reading the very same papers the cite
danoso0931 3 months ago
You can run, but you can't hide.. from science.
slipcurve 3 months ago
2:31 Ok, so I'm never buying a sprinkler. That's just ingenuity right thar.
ID proponents try very hard to not only obfuscate what they are talking about, and their actual arguments and "hypothesis" (if they can even be called as such) to lay audiences, but appear to strain a number of intellectual muscles in order to deliberately misunderstand evolutionary theory.
dookiecheez 3 months ago
I'm ashamed that that this guy is on a degree in Evolutionary Biology and Systematics without understanding evolution.
r0galik 3 months ago
Jonathan M is an absolute idiot.
zellfalcon31 3 months ago
Oh god, I went to the same University for my post-grad as this wanker. For shame.
Scotracer1987 3 months ago
He (Johnathan M.) should know when he is being very silly. It's when people less intelligent than him (i.e. me) can laugh at him.
NoFaithNoPain 3 months ago
That's the same dork that PZ pwned in your most recent vid, isn't it?
lennyhipp 3 months ago
PWND
inadaizz 3 months ago
"Quotes he carefully excised" at 5:18 is the nicest way I've ever heard anyone say "quote mining." Very gentlemanly of you.
photodube 3 months ago
I enjoyed watching this guy have his ass handed to him by a real scientist.
photodube 3 months ago 2
What is smarter for an omnipotent designer, irreducible complexity, where one small malfunction renders something useless or slow tinkered darwinian processes that allows an organism to adapt and change through generations to fit changing circumstances? Basicly delicate or robust?
I maybe a Theist but that does not mean i reject evolution as a threat and to see people go to such lengths as the ID proponents makes me more than a little sad.
FattyMcFox 3 months ago
I don't claim to know much about evolutionary biology, however each time I tune in, I learn something I didn't before. Thanks for that. Cheers!
Hereticbooks 3 months ago
I like how you used the term "weak sauce" lol
basalisk335 3 months ago
#2 point is stupid from a creationist standpoint...
Smart engineers wouldn't make as many bacteria propulsions systems as there are bacteria... they would try to incorporate one design into many of the bacteria
I guess creationists think their god is a bad engineer... Unintelligent design, anyone?
shadesters 3 months ago
Thanks for standing up for reason and science. Maybe someday Jonathan will sit back and take a cold, hard look at what he has been doing and decide that he wants to take a different path.
b14blah 3 months ago
He describes you as a "notorious" atheist! Rock on C0nc0rdance!
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago 22
Well, at least Jonathan won't be pwned by a qualifying exam/thesis defense committee...or am I speaking too soon?
tandooriconnection 3 months ago
WEAK SAUCE!! that was great
andiconda3 3 months ago
This is exactly why we keep saying Irreducible complexity is nonsense, but they just don't *get* it.
kelarael 3 months ago
Is that really the best picture of him you could find?
adrenacrumb 3 months ago
Thanks so much for this! I love these vids, they are so informational, well explained and interesting.
lostismyconstent 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Points 1 and 4 made me laugh. Does John M. really think that he can prescribe the attributes to natural phenomena of the universe just by using a certain set of terms?
It's like saying "I can use a doughnut factory analogy to explain gene expression, therefore inside all of your cells is a doughnut factory."
Step it up, Johnny.
mazuiface 3 months ago
Comment removed
mazuiface 3 months ago
Comment removed
mazuiface 3 months ago
Comment removed
mazuiface 3 months ago
Points 1 and 2 make absolutely no sense to me even before watching this video... Mathematics is at its basis more or less a language, used to describe things. We use it to describe things, therefore everything would be designed? Non sequitor >.<
Point 2 basically says that even if you show a supposedly irreducably complex system actually has functional components, it still should be considered irreducable? Does not follow either... Seriously, from a grad?
CrimsonRefractions 3 months ago
Cogent...
veryfastpicket 3 months ago
great
AngstromJohnny 3 months ago
I sometimes wonder if IDist/creationist ever read the papers they try to cite to support their claims. I have on occasion had one cite a paper to me and I of course did go look up the paper (I think they hope you don't because they are not honest enough to do the same) and find the paper supports my side of the argument instead of theirs. Sometimes I even thank them for pointing me to the article cause it was a really good article.
vnorthru 3 months ago
Pwnt!
Tiggurix 3 months ago
Im waiting for more out of context quote grabbing on John's part.
EarlFaulk 3 months ago
I can't wait to see Jonathan's pathetic response
to this - thanks for all of your vids.
ShalomYal 3 months ago
C0nc0rdance for science documentary narrator!!
And also writer, because he manages to make everything so clear and easily understood.
Gnug215 3 months ago 3
such a sexy voice
MrTabamon 3 months ago 3
You should be happy that at least some creationists are listening to you.
Though why would they continue to cling to creationism is a mystery
viicISrotcib 3 months ago 3
Creationists, even IF you can conclusively prove all biological life is indeed designed from top to bottom you're still unable to connect your Bronze Age myths to such a discovery. Why bother?
I mean, no matter how you slice it... in the Creationist vs. Evolution debate we're inevitably going to have to end the debate there. Why not start there instead of entertaining Creationists fake "problems" with evolution and disingenuous assertions?
PainAddict666 3 months ago
what happened at about 1:45-1:50. the edit?
imashelchazona 3 months ago
These people are STILL trotting out irreducible complexity as an argument against evolution?
Seriously?
Do they have some kind of learning disability or something? I mean, I'm -forced- to grant them a few points for using arguments that have been discredited for only 'six' years instead the usual 'couple hundred', but on the other hand, this is recent, in their face, impossible to ignore stuff! Not knowing this after the Dover trial borders on intentional ignorance.
EdwardHowton 3 months ago
"very weak sauce". I lol'd ;)
bdwilson1000 3 months ago
"a local maximum" not "a local maxima" :-)
pacogoatboy 3 months ago
Why must I have the same first name as the ID proponent in this vid. It makes it sound like I'm the one making the dumb arguments :-P
crocoshocker 3 months ago
it seems jonathan was simply going for the most technical aspect of evolution he could apply irreducible complexity to in hopes of delaying his inevitable pwnage.
skaboss3178 3 months ago
I thought PZ Meyers broken mouse trap->tie clip example pretty much finished this irreducible complexity stuff. Oh well they keep trying.
TekLok 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TekLok "I thought PZ Meyers broken mouse trap->tie clip example pretty much finished this irreducible complexity stuff. Oh well they keep trying."
You've confused Jonathon Mills with Michael Behe and PZ Meyers with Kenneth Miller here but aside from that yeah
ProcInc 3 months ago
@TekLok That was Ken Miller
Gryffster 3 months ago
@Gryffster Oh sorry thanks.
TekLok 3 months ago
I think the issue may root back to just the simple point of creationism, they like the idea that humans are a perfected model. We are just the mushy conclusion of evolution, and we may still improve. I wonder if humans will evolve and they'll still be saying its god's design. "God can change his image, so now we are too" hahahah idk.
TekLok 3 months ago
@TekLok their notion that human's are the perfect design is flawed in that we breathe out of the same hole we eat with. Not a very intelligent design if you ask me. Its also comparable to religious nuts speaking out of the same hole they defacate with.
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago 3
@uknowispeaksense Oh yeah I know its so easy to see through. That point is my favorite one.
TekLok 3 months ago
Yeah, PZ Meyers totally called him out at the Glasgow event.
"Aren't you a little bit ashamed to have been responsible or this bullshit?"
Ouch.
VapidZero 3 months ago
THIS is exactly why over the last several months you, c0nc0rdance, have risen to the very top of a long list of my favorite youtubers (side by side with potholer54).
Your videos consistantly contain actual, valuable science combined with elequent, accessible presentation instead of tyrades of useless insults. Aronra and donexodus used to contribute like this but, sadly, don't any more.
my only (and very minor) complaint would be that there could be a little more humor.
stiimuli 3 months ago
@stiimuli
I accidentally clicked thumbs down, and it doesn't seem to be letting me reverse that mistake. Sorry!
JaredJosephHoag 3 months ago 36
@JaredJosephHoag I'll give him a thumbs up for ya!
Rarae192 3 months ago
IDiots are still bringing up the Irreducibly complex shitty argument.
1st def. of IC: If you remove a part it will stop working
Response: Kenneth Miller's mouse track example
2nd def. of IC: If you remove a part its current function is lost.
Response: Create a bridge placing 3 blocks next to each other and add a flat rock on top, then remove the middle block (a different type of bridge).
That wouldn't work as a bridge if you remove a part, but there was a step by step process that created it.
cperez1000 3 months ago
The irony is that design and complexity are actually inversely related. Evolutionary algorithms tend to produce very complex, and very hard to understand, solutions to the problems they're applied to.
scotthenry111 3 months ago
@scotthenry111 Excellent insight and I agree entirely.
There are some exceptions (ie. the smaller sizes of bacterial genomes are selected for replication speed and to fit within the confines of a smaller cell size); however, RuBisCO is a phenomenal supporting example. The most abundant protein on Earth, RuBisCO is over-expressed to make up for a lower affinity for carbon dioxide at its active site. Over-expression is a quick and dirty solution.
Greyclouds40 3 months ago
What!? A creationist cites a scientific paper and omits the damning bits in hopes of hoodwinking his readers?? Unheard of!
fdasherv 3 months ago
Jonathan M is a dishonest twat, at best. And I'm glad PZ Myers called him out on it too.
tskasa1 3 months ago
@tskasa1 PZ Meyers called another creationist out for being dishonest!? That level of irony is almost enough to make seizuHELP!!! I can't see my elbow because there's a hamburger popscicle urinating in the zoo!!
MultiPaulinator 3 months ago
@tskasa1 I just realized I was thinking of PP Simmons when I wrote that. My bad!
MultiPaulinator 3 months ago
Response ? Dude , that was utter pwnage. Well done.
Can't believe ID people get degrees in biology though. What's going on over there?
gaglamesh731 3 months ago
@gaglamesh731
I would assume the problem might be with the teacher. Or with them being undergrads who have yet to finish the degree and prove themselves with some work.
What i wouldn't like to observe is them finishing the degree by "lying to themselves", doing what they have to do to pass the different classes and then, with a degree, try spread their religious nonsense. That would be a serious sign of a mental problem.
transtlantic 3 months ago in playlist Liked videos
just call him what he is, a guy that is getting a degree in biology to go work for the discovery institute so they can pay him lots of money to have the degree and say evolution is wrong to attempt to bring more creditability to the institue.
KspekEvo 3 months ago
OUCH! Elegantly bitch slapped!
nontheistdavid 3 months ago
Soda bottle sprinkler, never thought I'd see one of those.
Now that is make-shift XD
VapidZero 3 months ago
Jonathan will have a long and prosperous career as a "scientist" for Creation Ministries Intl.
deepashtray 3 months ago
you are to smart 4 us.. we need to read offten just to keep up with you..... dum it down 4 us...... thank you.
nutty01 3 months ago
His request for a step-by-step explanation of the process is no different than older examples that asked for the same of the evolution of the eye or a wing, because "half an eye" or "half a wing" is useless. Of course, that overlooks the fact that a partially functional X functions significantly better than no X at all.
SpookyFan 3 months ago 11
@SpookyFan And additionally - what they seem to overlook is that often X did not function as an x earlier in the organisms evolutionary history. For example - feathers were most certainly about thermoregulation and not flight when they first appeared. But of course we have great fossils of feather evolution in both rock and amber.
ShalomYal 3 months ago
I am afraid your message will fall into deaf ears :( Nonetheless thanks for another brilliant video.
chstoney 3 months ago
whoa that bottle sprinkler is kick ass
annoythefish 3 months ago
I've always distrusted the complexity argument put forth by the »cdesign proponentsists«.
Frequent attributes of great design are elegance and simplicity, and not not complexity.
virumoz 3 months ago
How is this JM allowed to study at the level he is at when he has this blind spot to the proof. Creationists trying to shoehorn their ideas into these theories stink.
gasgas270 3 months ago
God giving such good clues to his existance as bacterial chemotaxies and pieces of toast with a vague look of robert powell cerca 1977
starofcctv94 3 months ago
Great video as always.
TheRepublicOfUngeria 3 months ago
Before viewing this vid I was watching PZ Myers destroy this same individual. Coincidence? God? Pure F....... Magic? Luck? Whatever, I enjoyed both vids.
bvwatcher2 3 months ago
I wish i could understand Biology.
BloodSweatTiers 3 months ago
0 Dislikes? Guess Jonathan M hasn't watched this video yet...lol
weeeezzll 3 months ago 2
@weeeezzll Guess he has now (1 Dislikes).
klutterkicker 3 months ago
I just checked out his article. He called you "notorious"? Too bad you're married because you could get so laid off that. ;-)
PJsCreed 3 months ago
I hope you never quit making these educational videos. They are always so "elegantly' crafted. Along with potholer54 and ProfMTH, your's is one of my favorite You Tube channels.
comingatchu 3 months ago
outstanding!
Thunderf00t 3 months ago 2
Wild applause from the peanut gallery, Concordance. One reason why I particularly enjoy your videos is that you are so strongly devoted to calm reasoning, rational discourse, and clear, simple arguments.
FiverBeyond 3 months ago
Absolutely fantastic. Well put.
zeektheawesome 3 months ago
concordance saying "weak sauce"... check
sam harris saying "fuck"...
my list of things to get
theshiznojudge 3 months ago
The Creationism vs. Evolution debates on youtube have sure come a long way since the thunderf00t vs. VFX days, excellent video!
loveofphysics 3 months ago
In other words, a creationist lied. Who would've thought that would ever happen.
blackwolf1200 3 months ago
This guy don't believe in his own evidence, how could that happen ?
Man prefers to believe what he prefer to be true (Francis Bacon)
rafaelwaa 3 months ago
This kid is getting owned all over YouTube today!
DeckthaHalls 3 months ago
All of the most complex processes known to man in the present state of the universe are natural. Everything in cellular biology developmental biology etc so far as we have ever seen happens naturally. Its always baffled me how people say that natural processes cant account for such things when it does every day at every hour, every minute. Show me an organism arising by any means other than the natural and I will eat my shoe and become a creationist.
GallusSapien 3 months ago
Don't confuse complex with artificial. Well said.
AntiCitizenX 3 months ago
I started thinking... Is it possible that the creationists intentionally ignore all the non-intentional pathways to further the rift between theistic evolution and materialistic evolution?
In a sense saying that if evolution did not intentionally focus down one path that means theistic evolution seems wrong, as God did a roundabout creation, thus, to their eyes, leaving creationism and materialistic evolution as the only alternatives, a nuiscance for the american religious community?
TheAtheologian 3 months ago
Did anyone tell John M. that Ken Miller (notably) and others destroyed Behe's argument based upon irreducible complexity? It can be done using the examples Behe picked even.
MrShysterme 3 months ago
Very nice video!
And other fine example of ID quote-mining and deliberately dishonesty...
SIC66SIC66 3 months ago
why are creationists trying to find out who these youtubers are? Has it really come to trying to personally attack someone rather than responding to their actual VALID points.
ronocko 3 months ago
@ronocko
They've been doing it for a long time, and this is just another permutation. Easier to scare dissenters into silence, or even destroy them, than to debate them, especially with how the evidence shows.
Anon11674 3 months ago
@ronocko - I imagine that they want to expose their names hoping their activity on youtube will harm them professionally, perhaps even costing them their job. How Christian of them.
tommylehman 3 months ago
love it
neil182sr 3 months ago
Nothing better than being educated and seeing ultimate pwnage at the same time. Bravo !!!!!
TheAtheistlover 3 months ago 2
Poetic !!!
C0nc0rdance, I have to give you a lot of credit for explaining these things so that the average Joe laymen like me can understand these arguments. Because of individuals like you, I have gained a greater respect for a scientific education and those who do the hard work.
jamesmaseobrown 3 months ago 44
That Joseph guy in the comment section of the original "article" might be one of the most annoying people I've ever seen on a message board.
DutchLiam84 3 months ago
delight to watch as usual :)
eran5005 3 months ago
I see why he thought he could doc drop you with the 'Zachary Moore' name. Your voices are similar. What must he have gone through to find this? Watching refutation after refutation of his ideas until his ears bled.
CATMAHAT 3 months ago
Love your vids concordance; the content is informative, concise and accessible. One of my favorite subscriptions and certainly the most educational. Rock on.
johnpatrick818 3 months ago
1 person likes to stick thier fingers in thier ears and hum really loud.
XodusFTW 3 months ago
There are two kinds of Christians, Idiots and liars. These guys are the latter. That is why the DI doesn’t allow public comments on their website and offer only references that disagree with their own conclusions. BTW,, They couldn’t care less what you say or do. They are after the other kind of Christians, the idiots. There are plenty of those out there.
itsasin1969 3 months ago
Is this the same guy that PZ Meyers responded to in a recent video (during a Q&A session)?
LeonhardEuler1 3 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1 Yes it is- you just uploaded the video. :)
LeonhardEuler1 3 months ago
Two things you always get from engineers: arrogance, and belief that all problems are fundamentally about engineering.
jessemaurais 3 months ago
@jessemaurais I take offense to this, not all of us, albeit most are, totally self absorbed.
Ohcorn 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jessemaurais "always get from engineers: arrogance, and belief that all problems are fundamentally about engineering."
But all problems really are fundamentally about engineering.
voidCaptain 3 months ago
@jessemaurais Generalizing much, aren't we?
BTW, arrogance is often falsely assumed when one person knows more than another and pretty much everything started by scientists is made into products by engineers.
ronnystoehr 3 months ago
ID is the same old fallacy stated in fancier language.
jessemaurais 3 months ago
Outstanding work
MrSamuelSpade 3 months ago
Great video, concise explaination
Exorania 3 months ago
@ the living dinosaur, I second that idea
gaving2 3 months ago
Uh there's some sort of sound cut @ 1:44, and I can't really understand what you're saying at that point.
CharBroiled04 3 months ago 4
@CharBroiled04
My microphone's position on the fitness landscape is at a local minima. The word was "because" as in "bacterial chemotaxis appear designed BECAUSE in a way they are... but it's bottom up design by the natural processes of diversification and competitive selection."
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago 18
@C0nc0rdance
Oh it seemed like more was cut out so I thought it was a more complex statement. I guess it coulda just been the word "because". Btw, you can find the local minima/maxima by finding the points where the derivative are 0. And don't get me started on inflection points....
CharBroiled04 3 months ago
Well explained. Thank you for this rebutal concordance.
Atharkas 3 months ago
Yeah but Jesus created the Grand Canyon, right? Take that C0nc0rdance, your whole video is wrong.
Atheists - 0, Jesus - .... a lot.
Anonamouse7 3 months ago
First Step find something we don't know much about. Second Step find out its "Complex". Third Step since your faith is a top down system everything else must be a top down system. Fourth Step combine.
finderfinder100 3 months ago
It's hard to believe this type of shenanigans continues. It's been something like 15 years since Behe published his crappy book, IDists have made zero progress in showing that anything is unevolvable due to irreducible complexity, and yet they all refuse to admit that they could be wrong.
antybu86 3 months ago
Bacteria are The Borg
Brascofarian 3 months ago
And another cretard bites the dust.
transtlantic 3 months ago
Thats a Great video. Very informative and understandable. Good job responding to him. I would feel shame if I was Jonathan. Favd
ONESPECIES 3 months ago
IDers often use irreducible complexity to mean that altering a feature does not give the same function, and ignore the fact that it might have a completely different yet beneficial function.
Why are these people so desperate to live forever?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
Thank you, thank you!
It cannot be top down because this explanation does not take into account the diversification of bacteria, due to random mutations in the DNA and the unpredictable ways in which the alterations in the DNA are expressed in making proteins and changes in the organisms.
It has to be bottom up, not top down. This video gives a clear way of demonstrating the impossibility of designing a preconceived end result of evolution - human beings 'in the image of god' for ex.
dewinthemorning 3 months ago
Great takedown Concordance. Jonathan clearly isn't fit enough to climb Mt Improbable.
Obviously being repeatedly punched in the face (metaphorically speaking) by PZ Myers wasn't enough for him.
Gryffster 3 months ago
I love how for intelligent design to work, you must actually assume god is incompetent. In all other cases he made it very clear that evolution works, now as an ID "scientist" your goal is to find the one time he failed to cover his tracks. @C0nc0rdance I just received my new book, you may know it. "Bad science" by ben goldacre ;D
ForYeensSake 3 months ago
Awesome video.
Ahuc899 3 months ago
Very nicely done. Could have done with a smattering of profanity and a handful of hot chicks, but that's just my opinion. ;-)
TheLivingDinosaur 3 months ago 80
@TheLivingDinosaur He has his style, you have yours. Although I suspect yours is slightly counter-productive (You get more hits, but a lot of your viewers are too busy drooling over scantily-clad women to listen to what your saying :-) )
Gryffster 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur How about profanity shouting hot chicks?
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 Now THAT is an awesome idea!
TheLivingDinosaur 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur I am nothing if not gifted ;)
falchion49 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur "Your counter-argument is weak sauce." is the closest to a proper FU I've ever seen from C0nc0rance. He works in a little bit more subtle ways than you do. ^^
Holammer 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur Couldn't agree more. If only someone was to make a video like that soon, I'd be very happy. *nudge* ;)
Brascofarian 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur "Very nicely done."
I liked it, but I don't think, based on what little I've read of Jonathan M, that he grasps the basic concepts behind evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms and the concept of "design space." I think C0nc0rdance will need to explain far more basic concepts before he can reach ID people.
voidCaptain 3 months ago
@voidCaptain I would only disagree in that, from my experience with both IDers/YECs, nothing you can say can "reach" these people. They have to decide internally to take an honest look at the evidence, and until an individual decides to do that then nothing you say or show will change their minds. That's why I've given up on being polite to these people and have settled on mocking them in my videos.
TheLivingDinosaur 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur Any chance of showing C0nc0rdance how it's done?
NoNamesLeft0102 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLivingDinosaur ". Could have done with a smattering of profanity and a handful of hot chicks, but that's just my opinion"
Can't have everything, mate. You're just on a different fitness peak than concordance is :-).
KaroKoenich 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur Wow, this guy is studying evolutionary biology, and he's a creatard?? When a physics PhD is spouting nonsense about biology, well, it's just silly...but HIM?? How about it, TLD, wanna do an uncensored sequel to this one? ;)
ronnystoehr 3 months ago
@ronnystoehr I'll bear him in mind, but there's so much to choose from. At the moment, though, I have another target already selected for HH29.
TheLivingDinosaur 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur Can't wait! Slightly sad for the poor buffoon being smoted [sic] ;)
ronnystoehr 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur Nice to go after a Brit for a change though eh?
Gryffster 3 months ago
@Gryffster Variety is the spice of life.
TheLivingDinosaur 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur I was going to say, "sounds like someone enjoys TheLivingDinosaur!" Then I looked at your name, and I was like, oh, wait, that IS TheLivingDinosaur.
Just a suggestion for you, while I have you here: more hot dudes.
puellanivis 3 months ago