Ugh. I want to burn down the Discovery Institute every time I walk by it. It's amazing they can have such a center of ignorance and bronze age myth right in the middle of downtown. If I wasn't a rational person I would do something very irrational to their building. lol
Check out the video called Ken Miller on Intelligent Design if you would like to learn a great deal about this debate from the point of view of a scientist.
I agree that Intelligent Design,(god) should not be taught in Science Class
But every speech I see Krauss make is laced with reference to his belief in No God.
I dont think the Religion of Atheism should be taught in schools any more than any other Religion. References to these subjects should be in a Philosophy Class or maybe History in the case of man created religions.
@Texmurphy51 Agnosticism is the view that knowledge about some topic is impossible to gain. It is the view that something is essentially unknowable.
I agree that there are just like ignorant christians ignorant atheists, who refuses to even consider the possibility of a god. But it is my experience that a deep examination of the god claim always leads to the conclusion that no proper evidence exists.
And I would be satisfied by a statistical effectivity of prayer, for instance.
@Texmurphy51 By your definition, would science be counted as a religion? If atheism is a religion, it is certainly one of a different breed than anything seen before; a religion that embraces scepticism and critical thought.
By creation, are you implying the action of something self-aware? If not, I agree.
I HATE "intelligent design" as a "scientific" theory, especially since I am a Christian. Such deceit interjecting faith issues into scientific teaching shows the opposite of faith and actually is heresy and blasphemy. "Intelligent design" is a political lie, it is the telling of Creation (a faith-based thing) and disguising it as science (an intellectual thing). If the scientists and the churches are one day to wage war, I would fight for science... churches are now the enemy of God.
What gets me, Whose controversy? There comes a moment when you hear arguments on a point; That point becomes so feverish that I find all the logic burnt out. ID and Creationist advocates love a sound bite... but when you rebuttal with what 'their' particular sound bite came from... they seem shocked; The so-called 'scientific hoaxes' had more details about media than peer review. I'm sure religious people tend to think the Big Questions are either unknowable or God's truth... Science is hard.
@godscuttingyoudown you must be one miserable person! I was joking with you ...and then you have to insult people that you don't even know!... you are one sorry excuse for an intellect!
@kdcox1205 you isn't gonna take my ain't, away sucka
dumb ass the English language is not even a real language, all languages are based on a script, English doesn't have one its a mix mutt of french, german, Latin, Greek, kemmetin, India, and Nordic origins
you re another pathetic believer that the English gave culture to the world when all they did was steal culture from the world
@godscuttingyoudown You missed a bit, like good English words such as anorak, an Innuit word, or boondocks, a tagalog word, commando which is Afrikaans... we're going to be here all night. Of course all these are now English, or Yankee in the Algonquin pronounciation.
@burtontool What you've said to Morgan I've already said multiple times. You'll have to try something else because he's already aware he cannot produce any peer reviewed, published articles on ID. (Its because of the giant science conspiracy....you know the one)
I will say, however that Morgan is one of the nicer, more respectful and seemingly intelligent creationists Ive had discussions with.
@burtontool "The more dramatic the analogy." Then you won't mind my comparing beliefe in abiogenesis to belief in spontaneous generation or in evolution to belief in an automobile designed by quality control.
If you wish to be honest, then you know that ID is a scientific inference based on solid evidence and specific criteria--not on a person's subjective altered recollections.
@MorganMarvinson "If you wish to be honest, then you know that ID is a scientific inference based on solid evidence and specific criteria--not on a person's subjective altered recollections"
then why was Behe (or anyone else) unable to prove this in a court of law? and why has no ID paper been able to pass the hurdles of peer review or even get published?
If it was based on solid evidence then it should have passed these tests.
@MorganMarvinson ID (just creationism renamed) has everything to do with a religious agenda and god. You have yet to present this "solid evidence" you assert exists and instead keep using philosophical arguements and attacks on evolution as your evidence.
If ID is not all about god (christian god at that) I challenge you to find a single non-religious, scientific website supporting ID that has no affiliation with Answers in Genesis or The Discovery Institute.
@MorganMarvinson "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message."
~Forword to "Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science" by Philip E. Johnson, father of Intelligent Design
yeah, that sounds like unbiased science doesn't it?
Krauss (tongue-in-cheek): "If there is a controversy in schools that we should be teaching, then it ought to be about alien abduction."
This was in peer-reviewed papers? or books published by credentialed scientists?
"Pure science" Evolution is not pure science.
Intelligent design IS indeed science--just as much as assuming that life came about by itself and designed itself. These are both inferential theories.
Quit making this a political debate. Address the science ... PLEASE!
@MorganMarvinson "This was in peer-reviewed papers? or books published by credentialed scientists?"
you're attempting to contrast this with what? Books published by credentialed scientists on intelligent design or published, peer reviewed scientific articles on intelligent design?
The massive conspiracy that you (and other creationists) continue to assert exists in the scientific community against any challenge to evolution DOES NOT exist.
@MorganMarvinson "Intelligent design IS indeed science--just as much as assuming that life came about by itself and designed itself. These are both inferential theories."
the difference is that one has been substantiated by over 100 years of rigorous observation, documentation and testing while the other has not and can not.
@stiimuli That's not quite right. Intelligent design has actually been observed for millenia--not just "over 100 years," although the last century has seen some important advances.
But, you are correct on the other--evolution has not and cannot be tested. So far there has been no direct evidence to validate its claims of all life coming from a single living cell. The fossil evidence gives no support to gradual change, nor has laboratory work shown that novel molecular machines are possible.
@stiimuli You have a lot of faith there, but these are not tests. Number 2 is number 12-13 in apes and contains more data. The loss of genetic information in cichlids goes the wrong direction for backing the evolutionary theory. The E coli haven't developed any novel molecular machines; they are still E coli. Tiktaalic POSTDATES the earliest tetrapod by 10 million evolutionary years. ...
Faulty evolutionary extrapolations have been built on these "tiny examples," but they aren't proofs.
@MorganMarvinson "The loss of genetic information in cichlids goes the wrong direction for backing the evolutionary theory"
WTF? not only have the cichlids developed new physical traits in response to their environment but they've developed new ways to perceive those traits. How is this not consistant with evolution?
I must ask you to site your source as I suspect its not a reputable scientific source.
@stiimuli You'll have to pardon me, I had cichlids confused with fish in Africa that could no longer mate because they lost genetic material. Cichlids' change of color within a population has been used to support the role of natural selection in speciation. In writing of this, the cichlid researchers candidly admit, "The role of selection in the formation of new species has yet to be fully explained in evolutionary biology."
@MorganMarvinson "In writing of this, the cichlid researchers candidly admit, "The role of selection in the formation of new species has yet to be fully explained in evolutionary biology."
The same way the weak and strong atomic forces have yet to be fully explained,.....the same way gravity has yet to be fully explained....the same way elecromagnetism, plate tectonics, weather patterns, disease, planet formation and everything else has yet to be fully explained.
@stiimuli "the same way ..." In other words, "We observe, we postulate, but we really haven't the slightest clue." Glad you included the more enigmatic forces of nature in your list of comparisons.
Now, if you had said, as many I-don't-care-what-the-counter-evidence-is evolutionists had said, that evolution has been validated to the same degree as gravity or electromagnetism, you wouldn not have spoken the truth.
@MorganMarvinson " In other words, "We observe, we postulate, but we really haven't the slightest clue."
No thats not what Im saying at all. Im saying that there are no absolutes. You cannot reach 100% certainty outside of mathematics and even there its philosophically debateable.
No scientist claims absolute certainty about any finding.....but science is the BEST method humans have devised so far of accurately explaining the universe around us.
@stiimuli Yes, we use science to measure the physical world, but we cannot use it for the most fundamental of questions. So let science deal with that which it can do ACCURATELY and leave the philosophizing about origins to someone else. The co-opting of science by naturalistic philosophy to produce evolutionary biology is fundamentally wrong.
@MorganMarvinson "Yes, we use science to measure the physical world, but we cannot use it for the most fundamental of questions."
religion does not answer these questions either. The difference is that science does not claim to....and religion just makes up whatever sounds good, will recruit new sheep and keep them under control.
How can you possibly assert as factual reality that which you admit cannot be tested for accuracy?
In this respect (and many others) religion is dishonest.
@stiimuli "How can you possibly assert as factual reality that which you admit cannot be tested for accuracy?" I cannot test for accuracy your ability to understand me. I cannot test for accuracy that a sunset sky is beautiful. I cannot test for accuracy my hopefulness for life, my joy in holding my grandson, my love for my wife. Yet these most important of things in my life are factual reality that I live by.
If you do not have similar factual realities in your life, I am sorry.
@MorganMarvinson "I cannot test for accuracy my hopefulness for life, my joy in holding my grandson, my love for my wife. Yet these most important of things in my life are factual reality that I live by"
Once again, these are all subjective mental constructs. If you're saying thats what god is I accept that description.
The problem is religious claims dont stop with such a description. They insist this subjective mental construct can do magical things and we should bow down and worship.
@stiimuli I have assumed that you are a real person, but are you really? How would I KNOW? After all, much of what you have responded has been flagged as spam.
"mental constructs" But they are the stuff of life, albeit with some subjectivity. Holding my grandson is not a subjective mental construct. If the really important things are what can be measured, then why should I feel anything when I hold him?
@MorganMarvinson " I have assumed that you are a real person, but are you really? How would I KNOW?"
because I have a measurable effect on the environment around me...the same environment you exist in and thusly you can construct a reliable test for my existance.
No such test can be devised for any deity that has ever been proposed....which makes them indistinguishable from the non-existant
@MorganMarvinson " But they are the stuff of life, albeit with some subjectivity"
this is a philosophical statement of perception. I have no use for philosophical debate. In my opinion its little more than mental masterbation with no real explanatory power that could be put to use.
If you want to wax poetic about the meaning of your existance you are obviously free to do so...but basing decisions that effect others on such unreliable postulation is irresponsible.
@MorganMarvinson "Holding my grandson is not a subjective mental construct"
Correct...this action is not....neither is the effect such stimuli has on your brain. How you consciously interpret, label and act on that stimuli, however, IS a subjective mental construct and therefor is nearly impossible to quantify (at least currently).
@MorganMarvinson "If the really important things are what can be measured, then why should I feel anything when I hold him?"
Evolution explains this quite well. In our species. Feelings of pleasure and satisfaction when caring for and being near family members (especially offspring) is intrisicly beneficial and increases the survival of those family members. This also extends to larger familial clan members and ultimately to larger communities.
@stiimuli Don't tell me that "science" doesn't claim to answer these questions. Evolutionary science pretends to tell me who I am, why I am here, and where I am going. These are philosophical questions.
Dawkins lives another day to tell people they are going to die, that they are apes, and that there life has no grander purpose than advancing human genes.
@stiimuli Whatever your real name is, you apparently aren't understanding yet. Science--real science--is great! My questioning is the pseudo-science that attaches a faulty extrapolation about what you are with what I can measure about what you are.
You are not an ape. You can think, type, figure out how to keep posting when you are given those weird little boxes with distorted type. Now I must bid you good night.
I completely agree....which is why I cannot fathom why you continue to demonize particular areas of science that result in vast amounts of knowledge and practical benefit and follow the same principles as other respected areas of science yet embrace something like ID which cannot pass these tests and provides no practical knowledge or benefit.
The only explanation is bias against that which is seen as a threat to your chosen religion.
@MorganMarvinson " My questioning is the pseudo-science that attaches a faulty extrapolation about what you are with what I can measure about what you are."
Why must there be more than what can be measured? The obvious answer here (especially to those who have messaged me about this conversation) is that unless your chosen religious beliefs can be interlaced within that understanding it makes you uncomfortable....wether its accurate or not.
according to what we know, I am...and so are you. Im sorry if this information offends you in some way but your opinion about it does not change the physical, phylogenic archeological and genetic facts on the subject.
In fact it makes it all the more wonderous. To think of how far we've come and how we got to this point is truely amazing and makes our place on the tree of life that much more awe inspiring.
Dear ape man: "... it makes it all the more wonderous [sic]." Fantasy is indeed incredible.
When have you ever witnessed assembly code designed without intelligence? When have you ever known of life ever rising from non-life? What higher state exquisite design have you ever known of arising from non-directed forces?
Use your God-given intelligence. Evolution assumes what it wants to prove and doesn't explain the complexity and exquisite design of the biosphere.
@MorganMarvinson "When have you ever witnessed assembly code designed without intelligence?"
Every day when we witness millions of species reproducing themselves with inherant genetic variation and without any concept of a deity. Could this process have been initiated by some magical being? possibly. Could every organism we know of have been poofed into existance a few thousand years ago exactly the way it looks today? The evidence does not support this.
@stiimuli "Every day ... " Begging the question. An assumption is not a proof.
"Poofed ... a few thousand years ago exactly the way it looks today? The evidence does not support this." No, it doesn't. It supports the sudden appearance of almost all basic phylla, the destruction of life on a grand scale with the burial of flora and fauna in layers with sea shells, and an inverted tree of life with greater variety at the first, narrowing down after the mass burial of organisms and plant life.
@MorganMarvinson "No, it doesn't. It supports the sudden appearance of almost all basic phylla,"
where in the bible does it mention god creating phylla?
"the destruction of life on a grand scale with the burial of flora and fauna in layers with sea shells"
wow. once again (we've been here before) please cite the published, peer reviewed scientific paper(s) citing the evidence for a global flood. You couldn't do this before and I suspect you still cannot.
@stiimuli "paper" LOL! What evolutionist in his right mind would acknowledge the evidence publicly? If all life except that which was spared in the ark was destroyed in a global flood (as in the Bible) and was buried (how anything got into the fossil record), then evolution would have had to start all over and there would never be enough time. An evolutionist is never going to acknowledge this, unless he becomes a believer. Only non-evolutionists have acknowleged and published the evidence.
@MorganMarvinson "When have you ever known of life ever rising from non-life?"
I could ask you the same question. Isnt your statement the very definition of religious creation? Every living thing suddenly popping into existance at the whim of an unknown and unknowable entity.
We have no example in nature of this occurring. What we DO have are many chemical and atomic processes which have been shown to arrange themselves into more complex structures under the right conditions.
@stiimuli "I could ask you the same question. Isnt your statement the very definition of religious creation? Every living thing suddenly popping into existance at the whim of an unknown and unknowable entity." Thank you for your honest answer, no we have no example in nature of this occuring. What you are overlooking is that, in the creation account, life arose from LIFE, and He is knowable.
"shown to arrange themselves into more complex structures" Only momentarily until they disassociate.
@MorganMarvinson "Thank you for your honest answer, no we have no example in nature of this occuring"
nice misdirection there, but what you copied and pasted was not my answer...it was me asking you the same question.
I answered in my very next sentance (which you conveniently ignored)
We already know that basal chemicals tend to polymerize into more complex structures under the right conditions. We've duplicated this and observed it happening.
@stiimuli I thought your statement (which ended with a period) was a whisp of honesty, and I lauded you for it. My mistake.
"We already know that basal chemicals" ... only momentarily arrange themselves until they quickly disassociate. They do not continue building more and more complex structures.
Yes, that is what we know, and it doesn't help your case. You can imagine that it does more, but that has never been entered into evidence.
@stiimuli "conveniently ignored" I guess you missed the fact that I incorporated your answer ("we have no example ...") in mine and went on to point out what you missed about the essense of divine creation--that it isn't LIFE from nothing, but Life (meaning God) producing life and revealing Himself to those who would know Him.
So this counters the idea that it is a poof like the spontaneous generation of abiogenesis and that God is unknown and unknowable.
@MorganMarvinson " What you are overlooking is that, in the creation account, life arose from LIFE, and He is knowable."
Im not overlooking it. I was counting on it because its such a flawed arguement.
If life MUST come from life then where did god come from? How can you show that "he" even exists much less can be classified as life (or is even a "he")? This is simply filling in gaps of knowledge with an unknown quantity...an imaginary answer....which tells us nothing.
@stiimuli He--as opposed to matter--has always existed.
You get one place to put your money--eternal matter with no beginning, which creates itself ex nihlo, or eternal God, without beginning or end, who creates out of his own self. If matter is eternal, then the whole schema of naturalism is absurd and useless.
@MorganMarvinson ""shown to arrange themselves into more complex structures" Only momentarily until they disassociate."
according to whom?? The samples from the origional Miller Urey experiments, when recently re examined, not only showed those amino acids to still be there after more than 50 years (!) but showed even MORE amino acids to be present than origionally detected!!
Subsequent experiments with a more accurate atmosphere have been even more successful.
@stiimuli According to the report from the experiments, Unless retrieved from the "soup" they associated and disassociated at will. Haven't you heard the creationists crying foul about this? Haven't you heard the explanations that somehow the united amino acids might have gotten "beached" and not been dissolved?
@stiimuli "A more accurate atmosphere"? You mean, despite the evidence of never having had a reducing atmosphere, experiments have slanted the tests even more away from that which the fossil evidence would portray.
@MorganMarvinson "Evolution assumes what it wants to prove and doesn't explain the complexity and exquisite design of the biosphere."
asserting this over and over does not change the fact that it is scientificly incorrect. Evolution is not a beginning assumption, its where the biological evidence has lead us.
Its religion that begins with an imagined assumption.
and evolution explains complex biodiversity very well. What religious proces explains this other than "poof! there it is." ?
@stiimuli "Evolution is not a beginning assumption, it's where the biological evidence has led us." Pardon my boldness, but Baloney. Darwin's theory began with a hunch. He was looking at finches on the Galapagos Islands, not human remains. The Leakeys started their work AFTER the assumption--and they're still looking for evidence to support the assumption. And the assumption fills in the gaps and slants the evidence--like putting human feet on "Lucy" and tilting her pelvis.
@MorganMarvinson " Darwin's theory began with a hunch. He was looking at finches on the Galapagos Islands, not human remains"
All scientific ideas begin in this way!
Darwin's seminal book was a HYPOTHESIS based on the data collected over 20 years spanning many continents and later confirmed and strengthened by 150 years of discovery. If he had been found wrong it all would have been discarded (as lamarkian evolution was).
@stiimuli You just gave away your point. You said it was the evidence that led. No, it was a hunch on Darwin's part with a promise that in 100 years we would find thousands of intermediate forms.
@MrMZaccone I don't need to argue--just present one. What you have IS an argument--not evidence. The argument merely redefines every organism as a transitional form. In other words, evolutionary biologists can't present the kind of transitional form Darwin predicted, so they just call everything a transitional form. Sorry, but redefining doesn't make up for the lack.
There is no neat chain of progression that "catches evolution in the act." e.g. halfway between 2 and 3 heart chambers.
@MorganMarvinson "The Leakeys started their work AFTER the assumption--and they're still looking for evidence to support the assumption"
According to what source? Once again I must insist you stop getting your science data from religious sources.
The Leakeys have made NUMEROUS contributions to the study of origins of humans uncluding (but not limited to) several specimen of Homo habilis, Australopithecus anamensis and Kenyanthropus platyops.
@stiimuli Again, the hunch came first. Darwin was long dead before the Leakeys started finding monkey remains in Africa.
But you are just as stubborn as I am, and you will not acknowledge that it was not a steady building up of evidence that led to Darwin's conclusion about the descent of man. What evidence did he have? Neanderthal wasn't even found till after Darwin's death and he interbred with homo sapiens.
@MorganMarvinson Darwin had significant evidence to support his theory from animal models and other species. The general theory applied to the human condition is certainly no stretch.
@MrMZaccone If you are saying the evidence for human evolution is as solid as Darwin's evidence for common ancestry of all living things, I would agree with you--it's pretty shaky. Darwin was operating on a hunch that was fueled by his grandfather's speculations. Looking at variation within a species one is to assume that all species came from the same organism. That's quite a stretch*!
"Stretch" = extrapolation. Evolution is a stretch of the observable evidence of variation.
@MrMZaccone Why? Variation within a species does cause speciation--by loss of data that prohibits mating.
Now, what evidence besides the assumption of naturalism, which fills in the gaps between body types by imagined intermediates, do you have that novel molecular machines or novel macromachines have been produced? When has laboratory observation ever noted such a thing? Tweeking a generalized enzyme to digest nylon isn't a novel machine.
@MrMZaccone "So you're admitting that speciation occurs?" Yes, of course. But the type of speciation you are pointing to does not support the upward path of assembly of code or novel molecular machines or macro machines. It shows the inability of a species to mate by losing function. It won't help a Pakicetus travel uphill, change its body plan, and become a whale. So, it might cause a variation of a Pakicetus to not be able to mate with other Pakicetuses, but it won't get you a whale.
@MorganMarvinson There is no "upward path" there are no "novel molecular machines". Every supposed change you refer to, including those you say would make breeding impossible are larger than single changes postulated by evolutionary theory. Variation and cumulative change are quantitatively but not qualitatively different. The answer to your question is, your view of what evolution claims is incorrect. whether you know it or not your using a straw man argument.
@MrMZaccone "There is no 'upward path' there are no 'novel molecular machines'." That is so true!
You must really think I'm stupid to buy your argument. Humans are not lateral equivalents in complexity to E. Coli. The "no upward path" argument is JUST an argument, as the "all organisms are transitional forms" argument is JUST an argument. In reality, evolutionary theory started out presenting the process as "upward" and it STILL depicts it as a progression of simple to complex.
@MorganMarvinson In addition, you haven't really answered my question. Given known variation and natural selection, what mechanism do you propose that would prevent Pakicetus from evolving into whales? The fact is even in human invention there are no "novel machines" innovation always involves modification of existing design or new application of existing design. Why would a natural process be any different. Your understanding of the processes you are criticizing is incorrect.
@MrMZaccone "haven't really answered my question" So you really weren't asking about speciation? The question was: Do I believe that a new non-mating species can derive by isolation? I answered in the affirmative. Then I pointed out that this is downhill change that takes away features, not that adds them--to which you repeated the bogus "no direction" argument. The modern examples of "evolution" wouldn't have gotten us here and evolutionists candidly agree that it isn't taking us anywhere else.
@MorganMarvinson No that wasn't the question. There is no "downhill" or "uphill" and claiming that there is proves you don't understand evolution. You're just flat wrong.
There has been one rule that evolutionary biologists felt they could cling to: the amount of complexity in the living world has always been on the increase."
Why does Dawkins call it "Climbing Mt. Improbable" if it isn't going up?
@MorganMarvinson You just misunderstand Dawkins and I suspect that you do so deliberately. Increase, decrease, meaningless terms regarding evolution, entirely meaningless.
What evidence, besides the assumption of naturalism, which fills in the gaps between body types by imagined intermediates, do you have that novel molecular machines or novel macromachines have been produced? When has laboratory observation ever noted such a thing--or even come close?
@MorganMarvinson The gaps between "body types" may never be entirely filled but that's to be expected. Fossilization can be an extremely rare event depending on environment. In fact there are environments that do not produce it at all. As for directly observing production of what you refer to as "novel molecular machines or novel macromachines" of course not. Thats not how evolution works. You're assuming irreducible complexity which is quite frankly just not in evidence anywhere.
@MorganMarvinson Sounds like you're dyslexic my friend I think you mean the god ate your homework. Nearly everything you spout is a complete misrepresentation of evolutionary theory so I see no sense in watching you dissect your straw man. Have a nice day.
@MorganMarvinson NO, amoeba to quadruped evolution isn't uphill! There is a general increase in complexity that is explained by the earth's localized condition of reverse entropy due to energy added to the system by the sun. It's that simple and your personal disbelief (a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance) is not evidence of any kind to the contrary. You can choose to ignore the clear imperfection of the geologic record all you want, there's no "hiding" involved.
@MorganMarvinson In the analogy of "mount improbable" "up" indicates alleged improbability, not any directional evolutionary methodology. Considering that this analogy was Dawkins' answer to creationist objections to the statistical likelihood of evolution, the fact that you don't understand this is either a deliberate attempt at obfuscation or idiocy at an inexcusable level. Frustrated? Try arguing with an uneducated, conflate the issues, cut and paste motherfucker like yourself!
@MrMZaccone I know it's frustrating, since your own paradigm is so very different, but, my procreative skills aside, the improbability of the face of Mt. Improbable is overcome by little steps on the back side of the mountain. What is that if it isn't a description of the evolutionary process?
"The main metaphorical treatment is of a geographical landscape, upon which EVOLUTION can only ASCEND in a gradual way, not being able to climb cliffs (this is known as an adaptive landscape)." wikipedia
@MorganMarvinson It's a description (as I've already explained) of scaling an alleged cliff of unlikelihood on the other side. If this "metaphorical treatment" causes anyone to believe that there is a direction to evolution then for one reason or another, they've misunderstood the metaphor. Perhaps it's a bad metaphor although I firmly believe anyone with a firm grasp of ACTUAL evolutionary theory, rather than the nonsensical creationist representation of it, would puzzle it out without issue.
@MrMZaccone "Perhaps it's a bad metaphor." Oh, no, it IS a good metaphor, as it attempts to explain how the simple to complex scenario is possible. That's an uphill journey, as Dawkins knows, and he mixes good science with speculation to try to make the trip to the top seem plausible.
@MorganMarvinson I'm sorry you don't understand the analogy, I really am. but your inability to grasp conceptually, a simple demonstration of progressive vs. non progressive methodology and the vast gap in likelihood between the two isn't my problem. Perhaps if you asked questions rather than making blind, useless, assertions designed to disarm arguments that have nothing to do with the subject, you'd learn something. Of course, your god doesn't like knowledge. He prefers blind faith so ...
@MrMZaccone I'm a master of analogy. That's my profession. And the best analogies work because they fit the concept. Dawkins knows that people view evolution as an uphill process or the analogy wouldn't work.
"There is none so blind as he who will not see." --Ray Stevens.
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." --Paul Simon.
@MorganMarvinson "There are none so blind as those who will not see." - John Heywood, 1546. "The problem is all inside your head", she said to me. "The answer is easy if you take it logically." - also Paul Simon. Analogy is your profession? What profession is that? Why don't you quote something relevant? Regardless of how it's viewed ... it's not. Evolution has no direction, none. I've not argued and will not ever argue anything else.
@MrMZaccone "Evolution has no direction, none. I've not argued and will not ever argue anything else." Of course, you cannot afford to acknowledge the obvious in this case. Thus, your argument ignores all the contrary evidence in the presentation of what evolution has been described to be.
If you could deviate from your argument to actually look at the evidence, we could get somewhere. But the argument is all you have, besides insults, to avoid the implications of the obvious.
@MorganMarvinson I refuse to deviate from my argument because unlike you, I have a correct understanding of evolution and evolutionary theory. There is no "obvious" evidence in any other direction. Evolution can only create change according to random variation and environmental pressure and selection. How can that combination of factors generate "direction"? A: It can't. You are the one ignoring the obvious.
@MrMZaccone "Evolution can only create change according to random variation and environmental pressure and selection. How can that combination of factors generate 'direction'?" I agree with you, how can it? And yet, that is what is obviously claimed in saying that complex organisms came from a single simple organism. That is why the evolutionary scientists of the extended synthesis are proposing other mechanisms besides RM and NS (environmental pressure is an attempt to sneak in teleology).
@MorganMarvinson Obvious to whom? Certainly not to me. Certainly not to ANY evolutionary biologist whose work I've ever heard of! The single most important factor of natural selection is environmental pressure, how could it be anything else? A general trend towards complexity can be explained by the localized condition of reverse entropy. I've already been over this. However, increased complexity is not observed nor is it to be expected in every case of evolution.
@MorganMarvinson The one thing you havent been able to get away from in the months you've been arguing under this video is that if evolution is wrong, as you claim it is, one of the following must be true:
1) the millions of highly educated scientists who fully accept it must be wholly incompetant,
or
2) the millions of highly educated scientists who fully accept it must be engaged in a massive, logistically impossible conspiracy.
@stiimuli Neither of these options is warranted. First, do all highly educated scientists FULLY accept evolution? No, a growing number are even willing to sign a petition, stating that they do not. Second, just because there are scientists who do fully accept evolution does not make them wholly incompetent. A doctor may hold to a very erroneous theory about health and do good service in the name of caring for the sick. A scientist mistaken about evolution can do the same.
@stiimuli Running around the barn doesn't help your case. The fact is that they do not FULLY accept evolution--i.e. they have reservations about its adequacy.
Revise your premise and we can go on. Run around the barn, and I'll let you get your exercise alone.
@MorganMarvinson "Running around the barn doesn't help your case."
wtf does that mean? O_o
"The fact is that they do not FULLY accept evolution--i.e. they have reservations about its adequacy"
you diudnt even watch the video did you? I suspected you wouldn't.
not only are a great percentage of the scientists on that list NOT biologists (some not even scientists) but the entire list would only constitute less than a TENTH OF A PERCENT of all american scientists.
no, they all dont. Watch the video. Some of them had asked to be taken off the list years ago.
That list is a dishonest farce (worthy of the creationist track record) in so many ways from the wording of the title to how its used to the very names on the list.
@MorganMarvinson "A doctor may hold to a very erroneous theory about health and do good service in the name of caring for the sick"
He wouldnt be doing very good work if he was rejecting a theory at the core of medical practice ....like germ theory.
This is directly analogous to biologists rejecting evolution. An understanding of evolutionary processes is at the very core of being a good biologist today.
@stiimuli You overestimate the its use in doing science. Most science doesn't depend on the evolutionary theory, so scientists can work conscientiously every day as if the theory didn't exist. It's only armchair supporters, like yourself and the high school student who testified in Texas, who consider it indispensable.
@MorganMarvinson "You overestimate the its use in doing science. Most science doesn't depend on the evolutionary theory"
I never said "in doing science"...I said understanding evolutionary principles is at the core of being a good biologist today.
This is an entirely accurate statement and , once again, I ask that you contact any 5 biologists working at accredited universities or research labs near you and ask them directly.
What have you got to lose by doing so? Knowledge is a good thing
@MorganMarvinson "It's only armchair supporters, like yourself and the high school student who testified in Texas, who consider it indispensable."
This statement is so laughable I cannot even do it justice.
Once again....I invite you to contact any 5 biologists working at accredited colleges or research labs near you and ask them directly how important understanding evolutionary principles is to being a good biologist.
@stiimuli If you are honestly mistaken about a theory that has very little bearing on your work as a scientist, it is hard to think of that individual being a party to a conspiracy.
@MorganMarvinson "If you are honestly mistaken about a theory that has very little bearing on your work as a scientist, it is hard to think of that individual being a party to a conspiracy"
This statement demonstrates how limited your understanding of biology is. I invite you to contact any 5 biologists working at accredited universities or research labs near you and ask them how important understanding evolutionary principles is to their work.
@stiimuli Two points: 1. Biology is only one branch of science. 2. Whether biologists think they can't live without their daily cup of hot evolution or not, the study of biology would do just fine without its philosophical speculation.
@MorganMarvinson "Two points: 1. Biology is only one branch of science"
and, once again....I never once claimed that evolution was integral to every field of science. I challenge you to copy and paste any sentance of mine claiming this.
@MorganMarvinson "2. Whether biologists think they can't live without their daily cup of hot evolution or not, the study of biology would do just fine without its philosophical speculation"
This is akin to saying the study of particle physics would do just fine without special relativity.
If evolution is so wrong and you know so much more about biology than biologists then why not simply publish a paper disproving it and make it go away?
@MorganMarvinson You've already stated more than once that you believe Ben Stein's claims that scientists lose their jobs or tenure if they dont accept evolution.
1) how is that not a conspiracy?
2) How is it those scientists on the list are still scientists then? According to Ben Stein they would have been fired for just signing the list!
@stiimuli There is solid evidence that their harassment as academics was solely about their publishing materials that questioned evolution. Harassment took various forms, as you would know if you watched the video.
Want to see what harassment the ones who signed the list received merely for signing a list? I believe you would find the answer to this question illuminating. Why not research it?
@MorganMarvinson " Harassment took various forms, as you would know if you watched the video."
what video? I've seen ben stein's "documentary" and it did more to discredit ben stein than science.
"Want to see what harassment the ones who signed the list received merely for signing a list?"
As I've said to you before (more than once) give me the name of a scientist who lost their job or tenure simply for not accepting evolution and we'll discuss it.
@MorganMarvinson "What I've admitted"??? The only thing I've admitted is that you've made a wonderful argument against something. I don't know what that something is but it's NOT evolution. The one with the imagination here is you. Keep imagining that you've argued against anything even remotely resembling evolution. While you're at it, don't forget to put out some cookies Christmas eve.
@MorganMarvinson "And the assumption fills in the gaps and slants the evidence--like putting human feet on "Lucy" and tilting her pelvis."
Once again....cite your source.
Do you honestly believe other scientists would be so stupid as to not recognise human feet placed with a non-human skeleton and an arbitrarily tilted pelvis? The first reconstruction proved to be faulty, as the superior pubic rami would not have been able to connect if the right ilium was identical to the left
@MorganMarvinson and your unsupported assertion that lucy was some kind of fraud or fake ignores the fact that several individuals of Australopithecus have been discovered and every one of these finds (along with every other homonid species) would have to have been faked as well....an undertaking of immense proportions that would be logistically impossible to pull off for any length of time.
the science conspiracy argument simply does not fly....at all.
@MorganMarvinson "You can think, type, figure out how to keep posting when you are given those weird little boxes with distorted type"
Some other primates can too. Every step you mentioned has been shown to be within their mental and physical capabilities. The only thing they seem to lack so far is a highly developed language, an advanced sense of self and an elaborate culture.
@stiimuli Thanks. I have yet to find a typing animal or one that can figure out how to read the text boxes that allow you to continue posting on YouTube.
@MorganMarvinson "I have yet to find a typing animal or one that can figure out how to read the text boxes that allow you to continue posting on YouTube"
Except, of course, for the fact that every person posting on youtube is an animal.
@stiimuli "Every person posting on youtube is an animal." A non sequitur. This branch of conversation began with your response "Some other primates can too" to my statement regarding *thinking, typing, and figuring out how to read the text boxes to continue post.* I am asking for another primate that can do these things--not for a greater generalization of human identity.
We know humans can do these things. What "other primates can too"?
@MorganMarvinson ""Every person posting on youtube is an animal." A non sequitur"
no, a biologically acurate statement.
The intention of my reply and subsequent goggle recomendation was to point out that chimps arent too far from being able to respond to youtube comments. Many studies have been done demonstrating chimpanzee ability to recognize and construct human sentances (in text anyway).
@stiimuli Again. That you consider the humans who post on YouTube to be animals does not add any evidence that "some other primates can" think, type, and figure out how to read text boxes.
You do realize that the chimps aren't reading, that they can't type, and that their "sentences" are considered reward responses and not actual formation of language, don't you?
Today the ape research is making monkeys out of those who took it optimistically as evidence of language .
@MorganMarvinson "Again. That you consider the humans who post on YouTube to be animals does not add any evidence that "some other primates can" think, type, and figure out how to read text boxes."
What? Primates dont think? WTF?
and again, the google search I suggested turns up many studies where chimps and bonobos CAN in fact type and read at the level equivelant to a 2 1/2 -3 year old human child.
No, they cant have youtube debates yet, but I never said they could.
@MorganMarvinson "Dawkins lives another day to tell people they are going to die, that they are apes"
What educated adult doesnt know these things already? Please demonstrate how either of these are incorrect.
"and that there life has no grander purpose than advancing human genes"
please cite any video or text where Dawkins claims this is the only purpose in our lives. At a basic level every organism is driven by this....but WE give our lives other purpose.
Dear @stiimuli, alias Ape Man (which I will continue to use since the concept doesn't offend you):
"What educated adult doesn't know these things already?" My point exactly. Either you believe you are an ape or you don't. Dawkins is preaching to the choir in this case. For those who don't believe they are ape people, he is wasting his time. Thus, his life is pointless and a waste of time.
"advancing human genes" Listen to almost any lecture by Dawkins, including the 2010 debate wtih Craig.
@MorganMarvinson " Either you believe you are an ape or you don't."
once again you're ignoring the fact that we can test claims for accuracy. Fact is independant of belief and our primate classification is testable, demonstrable scientific fact.
1. a. Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan. b. A monkey.
2. A mimic or imitator.
3. Informal A clumsy or boorish person.
How about if you tell me why you believe you are an ape and I tell you why I am a human being?
There are other unofficial definitions (like that on Wikipedia) that includes humans along with the family Pongidae, but that is a more recent innovation.
@MorganMarvinson "How about if you tell me why you believe you are an ape and I tell you why I am a human being?"
When did I ever say we were not human beings???
We are humans but we are also primates, mammals and vertebrates. The same way subsequent species of cat will never stop being a member of the felis genus. A species can never evolve out of its lineage.
For a more detailed description of this classification please see AronRa's brilliant video "Turns out we DID come from monkeys"
@stiimuli Not a very good argument for why you are an ape.
I agree we are anatomically vertebrates, mammals, and primates, so maybe you want to try again.
"Turns out" seems to be the evolutionary equivalent to the magician's "hocus pocus." It's what he says just before he performs slight of hand. David Copperfield has done some pretty brilliant magic tricks. You should see them.
@MorganMarvinson "Not a very good argument for why you are an ape. I agree we are anatomically vertebrates, mammals, and primates, so maybe you want to try again."
Wow seriously? You agree we're primates but not apes?
An ape is any member of the family Hominidae. We belong to that family along with chimps, orangutans and gorillas. Collectively we are all "great apes".
exactly what part of this classification is incorrect and why?
@stiimuli You still have not made a good argument for why you believe you are an ape. Yesterday I came across the following:
"In the journal publication Natural History, Stephen Gould, in 1986, took the same stand against the human ancestry of A. afarensis: 'In short, he [Oxnard] sees Australopithecines [Lucy] as uniquely different from apes and humans, not as imperfect people on the way up.'"
Your definition stands outside that of Stephen Gould, who distinguished apes from humans.
@MorganMarvinson ""Turns out" seems to be the evolutionary equivalent to the magician's "hocus pocus." It's what he says just before he performs slight of hand. David Copperfield has done some pretty brilliant magic tricks. You should see them."
Ok then please point out what part of that video is incorrect.
Copperfield's magic act isnt supported by 150 years of scientific research.
This has been flagged as spam show
Who is the Designer of the Universe? = 2334 (clock gematria)
God = 234 (clock)
Who invented Science? = 234 (clock)
What is the Number of Yehoshau HaMashiach = 2340 (clock gem.)
-->Jesus the Messiah
The Intelligent Designer = 301 (clock)
3:01 PM = 15:01
One, Eight, Two = 151 (clock)
--->Lord Jesus Christ = 182 (clock)
ClockNumerology 3 months ago
Ugh. I want to burn down the Discovery Institute every time I walk by it. It's amazing they can have such a center of ignorance and bronze age myth right in the middle of downtown. If I wasn't a rational person I would do something very irrational to their building. lol
ZachRose88 5 months ago
@ZachRose88 wtf u live near it?
thepalebludot 3 months ago
Check out the video called Ken Miller on Intelligent Design if you would like to learn a great deal about this debate from the point of view of a scientist.
Fand421 5 months ago
I agree that Intelligent Design,(god) should not be taught in Science Class
But every speech I see Krauss make is laced with reference to his belief in No God.
I dont think the Religion of Atheism should be taught in schools any more than any other Religion. References to these subjects should be in a Philosophy Class or maybe History in the case of man created religions.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Atheism is not a religion. It is the natural rejection of a claim that the person feels there is no reason to believe.
Religion is the opposite. It is the action of believing a claim without having proper evidence to support it.
Kabitu1 5 months ago
@Kabitu1 " It is the natural rejection of a claim that the person feels there is no reason to believe"
Thats Agnosticism. Atheism is a Belief in No God.
Atheism Believes the claim that there is No Possibility of a Creator without proper evidence.
Evidence is presented but NON will satisify the Atheist, All is rejected withouth examination.
It is like rejecting the hypothesis of dark matter/energy because there is no evidence.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Agnosticism is the view that knowledge about some topic is impossible to gain. It is the view that something is essentially unknowable.
I agree that there are just like ignorant christians ignorant atheists, who refuses to even consider the possibility of a god. But it is my experience that a deep examination of the god claim always leads to the conclusion that no proper evidence exists.
And I would be satisfied by a statistical effectivity of prayer, for instance.
Kabitu1 5 months ago
@Kabitu1 "examination of the god claim always leads to the conclusion that no proper evidence exists"
That is true of many hypothesis
First I dont talk of man made personal gods,(conventional religion). I am speaking of the possibility of creation.
How our universe was created may or may not be unknowable but it is unknown.
I contend that Organized Atheism has become a Religion because of its Belief System.
It has all the qualifications for a No God Religion like Buddism.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 By your definition, would science be counted as a religion? If atheism is a religion, it is certainly one of a different breed than anything seen before; a religion that embraces scepticism and critical thought.
By creation, are you implying the action of something self-aware? If not, I agree.
Kabitu1 5 months ago
@Kabitu1 "By your definition, would science be counted as a religion"
No because Science does not claim the "know" the results. Science is simply data, the interpretation of this data is what counts.
"a religion that embraces scepticism and critical thought"
Really? Atheists who Believe in No God are not sceptical but hard bound in their Beliefs.
No proof will change their minds any more than Theists. Thats Religion.
Creation of our Universe could have been from an intelligent being(s)
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
I HATE "intelligent design" as a "scientific" theory, especially since I am a Christian. Such deceit interjecting faith issues into scientific teaching shows the opposite of faith and actually is heresy and blasphemy. "Intelligent design" is a political lie, it is the telling of Creation (a faith-based thing) and disguising it as science (an intellectual thing). If the scientists and the churches are one day to wage war, I would fight for science... churches are now the enemy of God.
That80sGuy1972 7 months ago
Woah, that dudes neck his long as hell!
brogin 9 months ago
god bless lawrence krauss!
carpetmonk 9 months ago
What gets me, Whose controversy? There comes a moment when you hear arguments on a point; That point becomes so feverish that I find all the logic burnt out. ID and Creationist advocates love a sound bite... but when you rebuttal with what 'their' particular sound bite came from... they seem shocked; The so-called 'scientific hoaxes' had more details about media than peer review. I'm sure religious people tend to think the Big Questions are either unknowable or God's truth... Science is hard.
granddad2002 9 months ago
@godscuttingyoudown you must be one miserable person! I was joking with you ...and then you have to insult people that you don't even know!... you are one sorry excuse for an intellect!
kdcox1205 10 months ago
@jezmundberserker ain`t ain`t a word! lol
kdcox1205 10 months ago
@kdcox1205 you isn't gonna take my ain't, away sucka
dumb ass the English language is not even a real language, all languages are based on a script, English doesn't have one its a mix mutt of french, german, Latin, Greek, kemmetin, India, and Nordic origins
you re another pathetic believer that the English gave culture to the world when all they did was steal culture from the world
godscuttingyoudown 10 months ago
@godscuttingyoudown You missed a bit, like good English words such as anorak, an Innuit word, or boondocks, a tagalog word, commando which is Afrikaans... we're going to be here all night. Of course all these are now English, or Yankee in the Algonquin pronounciation.
gamesbok 7 months ago
I'll give my opinion about Intelligent Design in a language its followers might understand: Intelligent Design Ain't.
jezmundberserker 11 months ago
Theres Still a debate?
Jebus save me from the devil scientists!! Im off to marry my cousin now, and smite some atheists while I burn a cross in there yard.
buraktigin 1 year ago
The solution is fairly easy: First preach evolution in church. Then we'll teach Adam and Eve and the subsequent incest in biology class.
henkvanderlaak 1 year ago
@burtontool What you've said to Morgan I've already said multiple times. You'll have to try something else because he's already aware he cannot produce any peer reviewed, published articles on ID. (Its because of the giant science conspiracy....you know the one)
I will say, however that Morgan is one of the nicer, more respectful and seemingly intelligent creationists Ive had discussions with.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@burtontool "The more dramatic the analogy." Then you won't mind my comparing beliefe in abiogenesis to belief in spontaneous generation or in evolution to belief in an automobile designed by quality control.
If you wish to be honest, then you know that ID is a scientific inference based on solid evidence and specific criteria--not on a person's subjective altered recollections.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ""The more dramatic the analogy." Then you won't mind my comparing "
I have no idea to what analogy you're referring.
"comparing beliefe in abiogenesis to belief in spontaneous generation"
spontaneous generation deals with organisms springing forth fully formed....a creationist idea.
"evolution to belief in an automobile designed by quality control."
automobiles do not reproduce with inherant genetic variation.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "If you wish to be honest, then you know that ID is a scientific inference based on solid evidence and specific criteria--not on a person's subjective altered recollections"
then why was Behe (or anyone else) unable to prove this in a court of law? and why has no ID paper been able to pass the hurdles of peer review or even get published?
If it was based on solid evidence then it should have passed these tests.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ID (just creationism renamed) has everything to do with a religious agenda and god. You have yet to present this "solid evidence" you assert exists and instead keep using philosophical arguements and attacks on evolution as your evidence.
If ID is not all about god (christian god at that) I challenge you to find a single non-religious, scientific website supporting ID that has no affiliation with Answers in Genesis or The Discovery Institute.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message."
~Forword to "Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science" by Philip E. Johnson, father of Intelligent Design
yeah, that sounds like unbiased science doesn't it?
stiimuli 1 year ago
Krauss (tongue-in-cheek): "If there is a controversy in schools that we should be teaching, then it ought to be about alien abduction."
This was in peer-reviewed papers? or books published by credentialed scientists?
"Pure science" Evolution is not pure science.
Intelligent design IS indeed science--just as much as assuming that life came about by itself and designed itself. These are both inferential theories.
Quit making this a political debate. Address the science ... PLEASE!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "This was in peer-reviewed papers? or books published by credentialed scientists?"
you're attempting to contrast this with what? Books published by credentialed scientists on intelligent design or published, peer reviewed scientific articles on intelligent design?
The massive conspiracy that you (and other creationists) continue to assert exists in the scientific community against any challenge to evolution DOES NOT exist.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Intelligent design IS indeed science--just as much as assuming that life came about by itself and designed itself. These are both inferential theories."
the difference is that one has been substantiated by over 100 years of rigorous observation, documentation and testing while the other has not and can not.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli That's not quite right. Intelligent design has actually been observed for millenia--not just "over 100 years," although the last century has seen some important advances.
But, you are correct on the other--evolution has not and cannot be tested. So far there has been no direct evidence to validate its claims of all life coming from a single living cell. The fossil evidence gives no support to gradual change, nor has laboratory work shown that novel molecular machines are possible.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Intelligent design has actually been observed for millenia--not just "over 100 years,"
what observations have been made other than "its too complex so god did it"?
"although the last century has seen some important advances."
please name a single published, peer reviewed, scientific ID advancement.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "evolution has not and cannot be tested."
wow, seriously? Its been tested, observed and documented NUMEROUS times.
-Fused chromosome number 2 in humans
-Lake victoria cichlids
-the Michigan State 10,000 generation e coli experiment
-the prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik
-the GULO gene
-gene fusion in madeiran mice
these are just a tiny few examples. I could list many, many more.
There's a REASON evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientists.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli You have a lot of faith there, but these are not tests. Number 2 is number 12-13 in apes and contains more data. The loss of genetic information in cichlids goes the wrong direction for backing the evolutionary theory. The E coli haven't developed any novel molecular machines; they are still E coli. Tiktaalic POSTDATES the earliest tetrapod by 10 million evolutionary years. ...
Faulty evolutionary extrapolations have been built on these "tiny examples," but they aren't proofs.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "The loss of genetic information in cichlids goes the wrong direction for backing the evolutionary theory"
WTF? not only have the cichlids developed new physical traits in response to their environment but they've developed new ways to perceive those traits. How is this not consistant with evolution?
I must ask you to site your source as I suspect its not a reputable scientific source.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli You'll have to pardon me, I had cichlids confused with fish in Africa that could no longer mate because they lost genetic material. Cichlids' change of color within a population has been used to support the role of natural selection in speciation. In writing of this, the cichlid researchers candidly admit, "The role of selection in the formation of new species has yet to be fully explained in evolutionary biology."
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "In writing of this, the cichlid researchers candidly admit, "The role of selection in the formation of new species has yet to be fully explained in evolutionary biology."
The same way the weak and strong atomic forces have yet to be fully explained,.....the same way gravity has yet to be fully explained....the same way elecromagnetism, plate tectonics, weather patterns, disease, planet formation and everything else has yet to be fully explained.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "the same way ..." In other words, "We observe, we postulate, but we really haven't the slightest clue." Glad you included the more enigmatic forces of nature in your list of comparisons.
Now, if you had said, as many I-don't-care-what-the-counter-evidence-is evolutionists had said, that evolution has been validated to the same degree as gravity or electromagnetism, you wouldn not have spoken the truth.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson " In other words, "We observe, we postulate, but we really haven't the slightest clue."
No thats not what Im saying at all. Im saying that there are no absolutes. You cannot reach 100% certainty outside of mathematics and even there its philosophically debateable.
No scientist claims absolute certainty about any finding.....but science is the BEST method humans have devised so far of accurately explaining the universe around us.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli Yes, we use science to measure the physical world, but we cannot use it for the most fundamental of questions. So let science deal with that which it can do ACCURATELY and leave the philosophizing about origins to someone else. The co-opting of science by naturalistic philosophy to produce evolutionary biology is fundamentally wrong.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Yes, we use science to measure the physical world, but we cannot use it for the most fundamental of questions."
religion does not answer these questions either. The difference is that science does not claim to....and religion just makes up whatever sounds good, will recruit new sheep and keep them under control.
How can you possibly assert as factual reality that which you admit cannot be tested for accuracy?
In this respect (and many others) religion is dishonest.
stiimuli 1 year ago
1.
@stiimuli "How can you possibly assert as factual reality that which you admit cannot be tested for accuracy?" I cannot test for accuracy your ability to understand me. I cannot test for accuracy that a sunset sky is beautiful. I cannot test for accuracy my hopefulness for life, my joy in holding my grandson, my love for my wife. Yet these most important of things in my life are factual reality that I live by.
If you do not have similar factual realities in your life, I am sorry.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson "I cannot test for accuracy your ability to understand me."
Yes you can...a test can be devised to test that. "I cannot test for accuracy that a sunset sky is beautiful"
beauty is an abstract subjective mental construct. Are you saying god is the same? If so, I accept that description.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "I cannot test for accuracy my hopefulness for life, my joy in holding my grandson, my love for my wife. Yet these most important of things in my life are factual reality that I live by"
Once again, these are all subjective mental constructs. If you're saying thats what god is I accept that description.
The problem is religious claims dont stop with such a description. They insist this subjective mental construct can do magical things and we should bow down and worship.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli I have assumed that you are a real person, but are you really? How would I KNOW? After all, much of what you have responded has been flagged as spam.
"mental constructs" But they are the stuff of life, albeit with some subjectivity. Holding my grandson is not a subjective mental construct. If the really important things are what can be measured, then why should I feel anything when I hold him?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson " I have assumed that you are a real person, but are you really? How would I KNOW?"
because I have a measurable effect on the environment around me...the same environment you exist in and thusly you can construct a reliable test for my existance.
No such test can be devised for any deity that has ever been proposed....which makes them indistinguishable from the non-existant
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson " But they are the stuff of life, albeit with some subjectivity"
this is a philosophical statement of perception. I have no use for philosophical debate. In my opinion its little more than mental masterbation with no real explanatory power that could be put to use.
If you want to wax poetic about the meaning of your existance you are obviously free to do so...but basing decisions that effect others on such unreliable postulation is irresponsible.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "After all, much of what you have responded has been flagged as spam."
yes thats apparently due to my habit of citing in quotes the text at which Im directing a response.
In my experience its the best way to communicate in this limited youtube medium but apparently the youtube software doesnt like it.
A couple of your replies have also been flagged when you used quotes.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Holding my grandson is not a subjective mental construct"
Correct...this action is not....neither is the effect such stimuli has on your brain. How you consciously interpret, label and act on that stimuli, however, IS a subjective mental construct and therefor is nearly impossible to quantify (at least currently).
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "If the really important things are what can be measured, then why should I feel anything when I hold him?"
Evolution explains this quite well. In our species. Feelings of pleasure and satisfaction when caring for and being near family members (especially offspring) is intrisicly beneficial and increases the survival of those family members. This also extends to larger familial clan members and ultimately to larger communities.
We are a successful social species.
stiimuli 1 year ago
2.
@stiimuli Don't tell me that "science" doesn't claim to answer these questions. Evolutionary science pretends to tell me who I am, why I am here, and where I am going. These are philosophical questions.
Dawkins lives another day to tell people they are going to die, that they are apes, and that there life has no grander purpose than advancing human genes.
Whoopie!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Evolutionary science pretends to tell me who I am, why I am here, and where I am going. These are philosophical questions"
Is that why you demonize science? because it attempts to define you? What a crime...how dare science attempt to answer questions!
These are only philosophical questions if you chose to define them as such.
Philosophy wont tell us why heart disease occurs or why some people's brains react differently to the same stimuli.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli Whatever your real name is, you apparently aren't understanding yet. Science--real science--is great! My questioning is the pseudo-science that attaches a faulty extrapolation about what you are with what I can measure about what you are.
You are not an ape. You can think, type, figure out how to keep posting when you are given those weird little boxes with distorted type. Now I must bid you good night.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Science--real science--is great!"
I completely agree....which is why I cannot fathom why you continue to demonize particular areas of science that result in vast amounts of knowledge and practical benefit and follow the same principles as other respected areas of science yet embrace something like ID which cannot pass these tests and provides no practical knowledge or benefit.
The only explanation is bias against that which is seen as a threat to your chosen religion.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson " My questioning is the pseudo-science that attaches a faulty extrapolation about what you are with what I can measure about what you are."
Why must there be more than what can be measured? The obvious answer here (especially to those who have messaged me about this conversation) is that unless your chosen religious beliefs can be interlaced within that understanding it makes you uncomfortable....wether its accurate or not.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "You are not an ape"
according to what we know, I am...and so are you. Im sorry if this information offends you in some way but your opinion about it does not change the physical, phylogenic archeological and genetic facts on the subject.
In fact it makes it all the more wonderous. To think of how far we've come and how we got to this point is truely amazing and makes our place on the tree of life that much more awe inspiring.
stiimuli 1 year ago
Dear ape man: "... it makes it all the more wonderous [sic]." Fantasy is indeed incredible.
When have you ever witnessed assembly code designed without intelligence? When have you ever known of life ever rising from non-life? What higher state exquisite design have you ever known of arising from non-directed forces?
Use your God-given intelligence. Evolution assumes what it wants to prove and doesn't explain the complexity and exquisite design of the biosphere.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "When have you ever witnessed assembly code designed without intelligence?"
Every day when we witness millions of species reproducing themselves with inherant genetic variation and without any concept of a deity. Could this process have been initiated by some magical being? possibly. Could every organism we know of have been poofed into existance a few thousand years ago exactly the way it looks today? The evidence does not support this.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "Every day ... " Begging the question. An assumption is not a proof.
"Poofed ... a few thousand years ago exactly the way it looks today? The evidence does not support this." No, it doesn't. It supports the sudden appearance of almost all basic phylla, the destruction of life on a grand scale with the burial of flora and fauna in layers with sea shells, and an inverted tree of life with greater variety at the first, narrowing down after the mass burial of organisms and plant life.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "No, it doesn't. It supports the sudden appearance of almost all basic phylla,"
where in the bible does it mention god creating phylla?
"the destruction of life on a grand scale with the burial of flora and fauna in layers with sea shells"
wow. once again (we've been here before) please cite the published, peer reviewed scientific paper(s) citing the evidence for a global flood. You couldn't do this before and I suspect you still cannot.
stiimuli 1 year ago
1.
@stiimuli I get a bit annoyed with you when you try to twist things around.
The evidence is not what "the bible" says, but what is found in the fossil record.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
2.
@stiimuli "paper" LOL! What evolutionist in his right mind would acknowledge the evidence publicly? If all life except that which was spared in the ark was destroyed in a global flood (as in the Bible) and was buried (how anything got into the fossil record), then evolution would have had to start all over and there would never be enough time. An evolutionist is never going to acknowledge this, unless he becomes a believer. Only non-evolutionists have acknowleged and published the evidence.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "and an inverted tree of life with greater variety at the first, narrowing down after the mass burial of organisms and plant life."
really? then why does biology make no mention of this "inverted tree of life"? (I know your answer I just want to hear you say CONSPIRACY again).
Please cite the published, peer reviewed research demonstrating an inverted tree of life.
and why does all genetic evidence so far show the exact OPPOSITE of this?
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli Then you missed it. Search "Charles Darwin" & "wrong" & "tree of life"
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@stiimuli Add to this, what percentage of varieties of life are now on the planet vs. in the fossil record?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "When have you ever known of life ever rising from non-life?"
I could ask you the same question. Isnt your statement the very definition of religious creation? Every living thing suddenly popping into existance at the whim of an unknown and unknowable entity.
We have no example in nature of this occurring. What we DO have are many chemical and atomic processes which have been shown to arrange themselves into more complex structures under the right conditions.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "I could ask you the same question. Isnt your statement the very definition of religious creation? Every living thing suddenly popping into existance at the whim of an unknown and unknowable entity." Thank you for your honest answer, no we have no example in nature of this occuring. What you are overlooking is that, in the creation account, life arose from LIFE, and He is knowable.
"shown to arrange themselves into more complex structures" Only momentarily until they disassociate.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Thank you for your honest answer, no we have no example in nature of this occuring"
nice misdirection there, but what you copied and pasted was not my answer...it was me asking you the same question.
I answered in my very next sentance (which you conveniently ignored)
We already know that basal chemicals tend to polymerize into more complex structures under the right conditions. We've duplicated this and observed it happening.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli I thought your statement (which ended with a period) was a whisp of honesty, and I lauded you for it. My mistake.
"We already know that basal chemicals" ... only momentarily arrange themselves until they quickly disassociate. They do not continue building more and more complex structures.
Yes, that is what we know, and it doesn't help your case. You can imagine that it does more, but that has never been entered into evidence.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@stiimuli "conveniently ignored" I guess you missed the fact that I incorporated your answer ("we have no example ...") in mine and went on to point out what you missed about the essense of divine creation--that it isn't LIFE from nothing, but Life (meaning God) producing life and revealing Himself to those who would know Him.
So this counters the idea that it is a poof like the spontaneous generation of abiogenesis and that God is unknown and unknowable.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson " What you are overlooking is that, in the creation account, life arose from LIFE, and He is knowable."
Im not overlooking it. I was counting on it because its such a flawed arguement.
If life MUST come from life then where did god come from? How can you show that "he" even exists much less can be classified as life (or is even a "he")? This is simply filling in gaps of knowledge with an unknown quantity...an imaginary answer....which tells us nothing.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli He--as opposed to matter--has always existed.
You get one place to put your money--eternal matter with no beginning, which creates itself ex nihlo, or eternal God, without beginning or end, who creates out of his own self. If matter is eternal, then the whole schema of naturalism is absurd and useless.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ""shown to arrange themselves into more complex structures" Only momentarily until they disassociate."
according to whom?? The samples from the origional Miller Urey experiments, when recently re examined, not only showed those amino acids to still be there after more than 50 years (!) but showed even MORE amino acids to be present than origionally detected!!
Subsequent experiments with a more accurate atmosphere have been even more successful.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli According to the report from the experiments, Unless retrieved from the "soup" they associated and disassociated at will. Haven't you heard the creationists crying foul about this? Haven't you heard the explanations that somehow the united amino acids might have gotten "beached" and not been dissolved?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@stiimuli "A more accurate atmosphere"? You mean, despite the evidence of never having had a reducing atmosphere, experiments have slanted the tests even more away from that which the fossil evidence would portray.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Evolution assumes what it wants to prove and doesn't explain the complexity and exquisite design of the biosphere."
asserting this over and over does not change the fact that it is scientificly incorrect. Evolution is not a beginning assumption, its where the biological evidence has lead us.
Its religion that begins with an imagined assumption.
and evolution explains complex biodiversity very well. What religious proces explains this other than "poof! there it is." ?
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "Evolution is not a beginning assumption, it's where the biological evidence has led us." Pardon my boldness, but Baloney. Darwin's theory began with a hunch. He was looking at finches on the Galapagos Islands, not human remains. The Leakeys started their work AFTER the assumption--and they're still looking for evidence to support the assumption. And the assumption fills in the gaps and slants the evidence--like putting human feet on "Lucy" and tilting her pelvis.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson " Darwin's theory began with a hunch. He was looking at finches on the Galapagos Islands, not human remains"
All scientific ideas begin in this way!
Darwin's seminal book was a HYPOTHESIS based on the data collected over 20 years spanning many continents and later confirmed and strengthened by 150 years of discovery. If he had been found wrong it all would have been discarded (as lamarkian evolution was).
science cannot use what is incorrect.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli You just gave away your point. You said it was the evidence that led. No, it was a hunch on Darwin's part with a promise that in 100 years we would find thousands of intermediate forms.
His hunch AND his promise were wrong.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson So you're going to argue against the existence of intermediate forms?
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone I don't need to argue--just present one. What you have IS an argument--not evidence. The argument merely redefines every organism as a transitional form. In other words, evolutionary biologists can't present the kind of transitional form Darwin predicted, so they just call everything a transitional form. Sorry, but redefining doesn't make up for the lack.
There is no neat chain of progression that "catches evolution in the act." e.g. halfway between 2 and 3 heart chambers.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "The Leakeys started their work AFTER the assumption--and they're still looking for evidence to support the assumption"
According to what source? Once again I must insist you stop getting your science data from religious sources.
The Leakeys have made NUMEROUS contributions to the study of origins of humans uncluding (but not limited to) several specimen of Homo habilis, Australopithecus anamensis and Kenyanthropus platyops.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli Again, the hunch came first. Darwin was long dead before the Leakeys started finding monkey remains in Africa.
But you are just as stubborn as I am, and you will not acknowledge that it was not a steady building up of evidence that led to Darwin's conclusion about the descent of man. What evidence did he have? Neanderthal wasn't even found till after Darwin's death and he interbred with homo sapiens.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Darwin had significant evidence to support his theory from animal models and other species. The general theory applied to the human condition is certainly no stretch.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone If you are saying the evidence for human evolution is as solid as Darwin's evidence for common ancestry of all living things, I would agree with you--it's pretty shaky. Darwin was operating on a hunch that was fueled by his grandfather's speculations. Looking at variation within a species one is to assume that all species came from the same organism. That's quite a stretch*!
"Stretch" = extrapolation. Evolution is a stretch of the observable evidence of variation.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson What mechanism do you propose that would prevent "variation within a species" from resulting in speciation.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone Why? Variation within a species does cause speciation--by loss of data that prohibits mating.
Now, what evidence besides the assumption of naturalism, which fills in the gaps between body types by imagined intermediates, do you have that novel molecular machines or novel macromachines have been produced? When has laboratory observation ever noted such a thing? Tweeking a generalized enzyme to digest nylon isn't a novel machine.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson So you're admitting that speciation occurs?
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone "So you're admitting that speciation occurs?" Yes, of course. But the type of speciation you are pointing to does not support the upward path of assembly of code or novel molecular machines or macro machines. It shows the inability of a species to mate by losing function. It won't help a Pakicetus travel uphill, change its body plan, and become a whale. So, it might cause a variation of a Pakicetus to not be able to mate with other Pakicetuses, but it won't get you a whale.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson There is no "upward path" there are no "novel molecular machines". Every supposed change you refer to, including those you say would make breeding impossible are larger than single changes postulated by evolutionary theory. Variation and cumulative change are quantitatively but not qualitatively different. The answer to your question is, your view of what evolution claims is incorrect. whether you know it or not your using a straw man argument.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone "There is no 'upward path' there are no 'novel molecular machines'." That is so true!
You must really think I'm stupid to buy your argument. Humans are not lateral equivalents in complexity to E. Coli. The "no upward path" argument is JUST an argument, as the "all organisms are transitional forms" argument is JUST an argument. In reality, evolutionary theory started out presenting the process as "upward" and it STILL depicts it as a progression of simple to complex.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson No it doesn't.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson In addition, you haven't really answered my question. Given known variation and natural selection, what mechanism do you propose that would prevent Pakicetus from evolving into whales? The fact is even in human invention there are no "novel machines" innovation always involves modification of existing design or new application of existing design. Why would a natural process be any different. Your understanding of the processes you are criticizing is incorrect.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone "haven't really answered my question" So you really weren't asking about speciation? The question was: Do I believe that a new non-mating species can derive by isolation? I answered in the affirmative. Then I pointed out that this is downhill change that takes away features, not that adds them--to which you repeated the bogus "no direction" argument. The modern examples of "evolution" wouldn't have gotten us here and evolutionists candidly agree that it isn't taking us anywhere else.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson No that wasn't the question. There is no "downhill" or "uphill" and claiming that there is proves you don't understand evolution. You're just flat wrong.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone "There is no 'downhill' or uphill.'"
Quote: "Simple to complex then simple to complex
There has been one rule that evolutionary biologists felt they could cling to: the amount of complexity in the living world has always been on the increase."
Why does Dawkins call it "Climbing Mt. Improbable" if it isn't going up?
I guess Dawkins doesn't understand evolution.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson You just misunderstand Dawkins and I suspect that you do so deliberately. Increase, decrease, meaningless terms regarding evolution, entirely meaningless.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone Now it's your turn. Back to my query:
What evidence, besides the assumption of naturalism, which fills in the gaps between body types by imagined intermediates, do you have that novel molecular machines or novel macromachines have been produced? When has laboratory observation ever noted such a thing--or even come close?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The gaps between "body types" may never be entirely filled but that's to be expected. Fossilization can be an extremely rare event depending on environment. In fact there are environments that do not produce it at all. As for directly observing production of what you refer to as "novel molecular machines or novel macromachines" of course not. Thats not how evolution works. You're assuming irreducible complexity which is quite frankly just not in evidence anywhere.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone Yada yada yada ... the dog ate my homework.
"May never be entirely filled" Come on! two or three anachronistic lateral transitions hardly STARTS to fill in the gaps between "body types."
"Fossilization can be an extremely rare event" True. It happens best under rapid flood deposition. Hmm.
"That's not how evolution works." Of course not, if you saw it, it wasn't evolution.
"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. ..." (Carl Sagan).
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Sounds like you're dyslexic my friend I think you mean the god ate your homework. Nearly everything you spout is a complete misrepresentation of evolutionary theory so I see no sense in watching you dissect your straw man. Have a nice day.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone "Sounds like your dyslexic" Clever, if we weren't talking about excuses for not having evidence for evolution.
1. Understatement of the problem. The 1000s of transitional species predicted by Darwin amount to 2 or 3 indirect possibilities.
2. Hide behind the difficulty of the process.
3. Change horses when convenient. (Amoeba to quadruped evolution isn't uphill?)
"There's plenty of evidence for evolution," the man says. "The secret is in having a good enough imagination!"
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson NO, amoeba to quadruped evolution isn't uphill! There is a general increase in complexity that is explained by the earth's localized condition of reverse entropy due to energy added to the system by the sun. It's that simple and your personal disbelief (a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance) is not evidence of any kind to the contrary. You can choose to ignore the clear imperfection of the geologic record all you want, there's no "hiding" involved.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone All you've done is redefine up. But up is still up. It isn't across.
Let's see how that works: "Climbing ACROSS Mount Improbable."
Nah! It doesn't fit.
It is very frustrating having a conversation with someone who denies the obvious for the sake of argument.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson In the analogy of "mount improbable" "up" indicates alleged improbability, not any directional evolutionary methodology. Considering that this analogy was Dawkins' answer to creationist objections to the statistical likelihood of evolution, the fact that you don't understand this is either a deliberate attempt at obfuscation or idiocy at an inexcusable level. Frustrated? Try arguing with an uneducated, conflate the issues, cut and paste motherfucker like yourself!
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone I know it's frustrating, since your own paradigm is so very different, but, my procreative skills aside, the improbability of the face of Mt. Improbable is overcome by little steps on the back side of the mountain. What is that if it isn't a description of the evolutionary process?
"The main metaphorical treatment is of a geographical landscape, upon which EVOLUTION can only ASCEND in a gradual way, not being able to climb cliffs (this is known as an adaptive landscape)." wikipedia
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson It's a description (as I've already explained) of scaling an alleged cliff of unlikelihood on the other side. If this "metaphorical treatment" causes anyone to believe that there is a direction to evolution then for one reason or another, they've misunderstood the metaphor. Perhaps it's a bad metaphor although I firmly believe anyone with a firm grasp of ACTUAL evolutionary theory, rather than the nonsensical creationist representation of it, would puzzle it out without issue.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone "Perhaps it's a bad metaphor." Oh, no, it IS a good metaphor, as it attempts to explain how the simple to complex scenario is possible. That's an uphill journey, as Dawkins knows, and he mixes good science with speculation to try to make the trip to the top seem plausible.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I'm sorry you don't understand the analogy, I really am. but your inability to grasp conceptually, a simple demonstration of progressive vs. non progressive methodology and the vast gap in likelihood between the two isn't my problem. Perhaps if you asked questions rather than making blind, useless, assertions designed to disarm arguments that have nothing to do with the subject, you'd learn something. Of course, your god doesn't like knowledge. He prefers blind faith so ...
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone I'm a master of analogy. That's my profession. And the best analogies work because they fit the concept. Dawkins knows that people view evolution as an uphill process or the analogy wouldn't work.
"There is none so blind as he who will not see." --Ray Stevens.
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." --Paul Simon.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "There are none so blind as those who will not see." - John Heywood, 1546. "The problem is all inside your head", she said to me. "The answer is easy if you take it logically." - also Paul Simon. Analogy is your profession? What profession is that? Why don't you quote something relevant? Regardless of how it's viewed ... it's not. Evolution has no direction, none. I've not argued and will not ever argue anything else.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone "Evolution has no direction, none. I've not argued and will not ever argue anything else." Of course, you cannot afford to acknowledge the obvious in this case. Thus, your argument ignores all the contrary evidence in the presentation of what evolution has been described to be.
If you could deviate from your argument to actually look at the evidence, we could get somewhere. But the argument is all you have, besides insults, to avoid the implications of the obvious.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I refuse to deviate from my argument because unlike you, I have a correct understanding of evolution and evolutionary theory. There is no "obvious" evidence in any other direction. Evolution can only create change according to random variation and environmental pressure and selection. How can that combination of factors generate "direction"? A: It can't. You are the one ignoring the obvious.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone "Evolution can only create change according to random variation and environmental pressure and selection. How can that combination of factors generate 'direction'?" I agree with you, how can it? And yet, that is what is obviously claimed in saying that complex organisms came from a single simple organism. That is why the evolutionary scientists of the extended synthesis are proposing other mechanisms besides RM and NS (environmental pressure is an attempt to sneak in teleology).
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Obvious to whom? Certainly not to me. Certainly not to ANY evolutionary biologist whose work I've ever heard of! The single most important factor of natural selection is environmental pressure, how could it be anything else? A general trend towards complexity can be explained by the localized condition of reverse entropy. I've already been over this. However, increased complexity is not observed nor is it to be expected in every case of evolution.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The one thing you havent been able to get away from in the months you've been arguing under this video is that if evolution is wrong, as you claim it is, one of the following must be true:
1) the millions of highly educated scientists who fully accept it must be wholly incompetant,
or
2) the millions of highly educated scientists who fully accept it must be engaged in a massive, logistically impossible conspiracy.
neither of which have you demonstrated.
stiimuli 1 year ago
1.
@stiimuli Neither of these options is warranted. First, do all highly educated scientists FULLY accept evolution? No, a growing number are even willing to sign a petition, stating that they do not. Second, just because there are scientists who do fully accept evolution does not make them wholly incompetent. A doctor may hold to a very erroneous theory about health and do good service in the name of caring for the sick. A scientist mistaken about evolution can do the same.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "No, a growing number are even willing to sign a petition, stating that they do not"
OMG I was waiting for you to bring that up.
Yes, the list started by the Discovery Institute....hmm......couldnt possibly be any bias there!
I think Ill let a doctor with a degree in biology who actually contacted these scientists handle this one.
Please watch the video "List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution - Do They Really?" right here on youtube.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli Running around the barn doesn't help your case. The fact is that they do not FULLY accept evolution--i.e. they have reservations about its adequacy.
Revise your premise and we can go on. Run around the barn, and I'll let you get your exercise alone.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Running around the barn doesn't help your case."
wtf does that mean? O_o
"The fact is that they do not FULLY accept evolution--i.e. they have reservations about its adequacy"
you diudnt even watch the video did you? I suspected you wouldn't.
not only are a great percentage of the scientists on that list NOT biologists (some not even scientists) but the entire list would only constitute less than a TENTH OF A PERCENT of all american scientists.
watch the video.
stiimuli 1 year ago
Comment removed
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "they have reservations about its adequacy"
no, they all dont. Watch the video. Some of them had asked to be taken off the list years ago.
That list is a dishonest farce (worthy of the creationist track record) in so many ways from the wording of the title to how its used to the very names on the list.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "A doctor may hold to a very erroneous theory about health and do good service in the name of caring for the sick"
He wouldnt be doing very good work if he was rejecting a theory at the core of medical practice ....like germ theory.
This is directly analogous to biologists rejecting evolution. An understanding of evolutionary processes is at the very core of being a good biologist today.
You cannot wish this fact away.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli You overestimate the its use in doing science. Most science doesn't depend on the evolutionary theory, so scientists can work conscientiously every day as if the theory didn't exist. It's only armchair supporters, like yourself and the high school student who testified in Texas, who consider it indispensable.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "You overestimate the its use in doing science. Most science doesn't depend on the evolutionary theory"
I never said "in doing science"...I said understanding evolutionary principles is at the core of being a good biologist today.
This is an entirely accurate statement and , once again, I ask that you contact any 5 biologists working at accredited universities or research labs near you and ask them directly.
What have you got to lose by doing so? Knowledge is a good thing
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "It's only armchair supporters, like yourself and the high school student who testified in Texas, who consider it indispensable."
This statement is so laughable I cannot even do it justice.
Once again....I invite you to contact any 5 biologists working at accredited colleges or research labs near you and ask them directly how important understanding evolutionary principles is to being a good biologist.
stiimuli 1 year ago
2.
@stiimuli If you are honestly mistaken about a theory that has very little bearing on your work as a scientist, it is hard to think of that individual being a party to a conspiracy.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "If you are honestly mistaken about a theory that has very little bearing on your work as a scientist, it is hard to think of that individual being a party to a conspiracy"
This statement demonstrates how limited your understanding of biology is. I invite you to contact any 5 biologists working at accredited universities or research labs near you and ask them how important understanding evolutionary principles is to their work.
Go ahead. Ill wait.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli Two points: 1. Biology is only one branch of science. 2. Whether biologists think they can't live without their daily cup of hot evolution or not, the study of biology would do just fine without its philosophical speculation.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Two points: 1. Biology is only one branch of science"
and, once again....I never once claimed that evolution was integral to every field of science. I challenge you to copy and paste any sentance of mine claiming this.
You're being dishonest in pretending that I did.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "2. Whether biologists think they can't live without their daily cup of hot evolution or not, the study of biology would do just fine without its philosophical speculation"
This is akin to saying the study of particle physics would do just fine without special relativity.
If evolution is so wrong and you know so much more about biology than biologists then why not simply publish a paper disproving it and make it go away?
Wouldn't that be the logical discourse?
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson You've already stated more than once that you believe Ben Stein's claims that scientists lose their jobs or tenure if they dont accept evolution.
1) how is that not a conspiracy?
2) How is it those scientists on the list are still scientists then? According to Ben Stein they would have been fired for just signing the list!
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli There is solid evidence that their harassment as academics was solely about their publishing materials that questioned evolution. Harassment took various forms, as you would know if you watched the video.
Want to see what harassment the ones who signed the list received merely for signing a list? I believe you would find the answer to this question illuminating. Why not research it?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson " Harassment took various forms, as you would know if you watched the video."
what video? I've seen ben stein's "documentary" and it did more to discredit ben stein than science.
"Want to see what harassment the ones who signed the list received merely for signing a list?"
As I've said to you before (more than once) give me the name of a scientist who lost their job or tenure simply for not accepting evolution and we'll discuss it.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone "You're assuming irreducible complexity which is quite frankly ..." the best explanation, based on what you have admitted in your post.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson No, there is nothing irreducibly complex.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson "What I've admitted"??? The only thing I've admitted is that you've made a wonderful argument against something. I don't know what that something is but it's NOT evolution. The one with the imagination here is you. Keep imagining that you've argued against anything even remotely resembling evolution. While you're at it, don't forget to put out some cookies Christmas eve.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "And the assumption fills in the gaps and slants the evidence--like putting human feet on "Lucy" and tilting her pelvis."
Once again....cite your source.
Do you honestly believe other scientists would be so stupid as to not recognise human feet placed with a non-human skeleton and an arbitrarily tilted pelvis? The first reconstruction proved to be faulty, as the superior pubic rami would not have been able to connect if the right ilium was identical to the left
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli Perhpas you haven't read about the debate over the position of the pelvis.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@stiimuli Only a single fragmentary pelvis has been found.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson and your unsupported assertion that lucy was some kind of fraud or fake ignores the fact that several individuals of Australopithecus have been discovered and every one of these finds (along with every other homonid species) would have to have been faked as well....an undertaking of immense proportions that would be logistically impossible to pull off for any length of time.
the science conspiracy argument simply does not fly....at all.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli I repeat--only a single pelvis has been found.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson "You can think, type, figure out how to keep posting when you are given those weird little boxes with distorted type"
Some other primates can too. Every step you mentioned has been shown to be within their mental and physical capabilities. The only thing they seem to lack so far is a highly developed language, an advanced sense of self and an elaborate culture.
"Now I must bid you good night."
night! happy new year! =)
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli Morgan: "You can think, type, figure out how to keep posting when you are given those weird little boxes with distorted type."
Stiimuli: "Some other primates can too."
Which ones?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Stiimuli: "Some other primates can too."
google "primate speech and symbol recognition"
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli Thanks. I have yet to find a typing animal or one that can figure out how to read the text boxes that allow you to continue posting on YouTube.
Can you supply any more help?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "I have yet to find a typing animal or one that can figure out how to read the text boxes that allow you to continue posting on YouTube"
Except, of course, for the fact that every person posting on youtube is an animal.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "Every person posting on youtube is an animal." A non sequitur. This branch of conversation began with your response "Some other primates can too" to my statement regarding *thinking, typing, and figuring out how to read the text boxes to continue post.* I am asking for another primate that can do these things--not for a greater generalization of human identity.
We know humans can do these things. What "other primates can too"?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ""Every person posting on youtube is an animal." A non sequitur"
no, a biologically acurate statement.
The intention of my reply and subsequent goggle recomendation was to point out that chimps arent too far from being able to respond to youtube comments. Many studies have been done demonstrating chimpanzee ability to recognize and construct human sentances (in text anyway).
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli Again. That you consider the humans who post on YouTube to be animals does not add any evidence that "some other primates can" think, type, and figure out how to read text boxes.
You do realize that the chimps aren't reading, that they can't type, and that their "sentences" are considered reward responses and not actual formation of language, don't you?
Today the ape research is making monkeys out of those who took it optimistically as evidence of language .
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Again. That you consider the humans who post on YouTube to be animals does not add any evidence that "some other primates can" think, type, and figure out how to read text boxes."
What? Primates dont think? WTF?
and again, the google search I suggested turns up many studies where chimps and bonobos CAN in fact type and read at the level equivelant to a 2 1/2 -3 year old human child.
No, they cant have youtube debates yet, but I never said they could.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli Type at the level of a 2 1/2 year old, eh?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Dawkins lives another day to tell people they are going to die, that they are apes"
What educated adult doesnt know these things already? Please demonstrate how either of these are incorrect.
"and that there life has no grander purpose than advancing human genes"
please cite any video or text where Dawkins claims this is the only purpose in our lives. At a basic level every organism is driven by this....but WE give our lives other purpose.
stiimuli 1 year ago
Dear @stiimuli, alias Ape Man (which I will continue to use since the concept doesn't offend you):
"What educated adult doesn't know these things already?" My point exactly. Either you believe you are an ape or you don't. Dawkins is preaching to the choir in this case. For those who don't believe they are ape people, he is wasting his time. Thus, his life is pointless and a waste of time.
"advancing human genes" Listen to almost any lecture by Dawkins, including the 2010 debate wtih Craig.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson " Either you believe you are an ape or you don't."
once again you're ignoring the fact that we can test claims for accuracy. Fact is independant of belief and our primate classification is testable, demonstrable scientific fact.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli
APE.
1. a. Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan. b. A monkey.
2. A mimic or imitator.
3. Informal A clumsy or boorish person.
How about if you tell me why you believe you are an ape and I tell you why I am a human being?
There are other unofficial definitions (like that on Wikipedia) that includes humans along with the family Pongidae, but that is a more recent innovation.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "How about if you tell me why you believe you are an ape and I tell you why I am a human being?"
When did I ever say we were not human beings???
We are humans but we are also primates, mammals and vertebrates. The same way subsequent species of cat will never stop being a member of the felis genus. A species can never evolve out of its lineage.
For a more detailed description of this classification please see AronRa's brilliant video "Turns out we DID come from monkeys"
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli Not a very good argument for why you are an ape.
I agree we are anatomically vertebrates, mammals, and primates, so maybe you want to try again.
"Turns out" seems to be the evolutionary equivalent to the magician's "hocus pocus." It's what he says just before he performs slight of hand. David Copperfield has done some pretty brilliant magic tricks. You should see them.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Not a very good argument for why you are an ape. I agree we are anatomically vertebrates, mammals, and primates, so maybe you want to try again."
Wow seriously? You agree we're primates but not apes?
An ape is any member of the family Hominidae. We belong to that family along with chimps, orangutans and gorillas. Collectively we are all "great apes".
exactly what part of this classification is incorrect and why?
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli You still have not made a good argument for why you believe you are an ape. Yesterday I came across the following:
"In the journal publication Natural History, Stephen Gould, in 1986, took the same stand against the human ancestry of A. afarensis: 'In short, he [Oxnard] sees Australopithecines [Lucy] as uniquely different from apes and humans, not as imperfect people on the way up.'"
Your definition stands outside that of Stephen Gould, who distinguished apes from humans.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ""Turns out" seems to be the evolutionary equivalent to the magician's "hocus pocus." It's what he says just before he performs slight of hand. David Copperfield has done some pretty brilliant magic tricks. You should see them."
Ok then please point out what part of that video is incorrect.
Copperfield's magic act isnt supported by 150 years of scientific research.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli In answer to why are we different, this answer was given:
We have one more chromosome. We're bipedal; they're ma