Here Gould is quote-mined. Rather than placing the quote within its proper context in this comment section, I'll refer to an article which shows an indepth deconstruction of the quote:
8:55 "The problem is that transitional forms haven't been found"
Outright lie. Even answersingenesis . com cautions against the use of this argument. And responding to what answersingenesis . com has to say about the subject, the fossil evidence for transitions between larger groups is actually MORE abundant than that for transitions within groups.
Please make sense. And yes, transitional fossils have been found; in fact so many have been found that scientists have their work cut out for them for decades, simply cataloguing them and determining their exact location in the tree of life.
8:35 / 2 "The fossil record should be packed with these transitional forms"
2) Evolutionary theory says nothing about the formation of FOSSILS. Evolutionary theory predicts that such intermediates THEMSELVES must have existed. Whether or not they should have left fossil evidence of their existence is the domain of geology, not biology.
that is the stupidist thing i ever heard. i thought that when scientist thought of making a theory they would have taken into account all ascepts of the study not just on part. and that still is no excuse for the LACK OF EVIDENCE whether in science of evolution for geology. P.s and are you trying to say that ALL the intermediates did not leave any fossils at all (speaking in common sense that argument is pathetic)
It is simple fact. Biology tells us what kind of organism a fossil might belong to, but GEOLOGY determines under what circumstances a fossil might form.
« are you trying to say that ALL the intermediates did not leave any fossils at all »
Many of them did. You're just ignoring them. Tiktaalik is a transitional species. Homo erectus is a transitional species. Ardipithecus ramidus is a transitional species. Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. And so on.
8:35 / 1 "The fossil record should be packed with these transitional forms"
1) It is. This is not always immediately apparent, but becomes eminently clear when for instance the fossils morphologically linked to a specific lineage are viewed collectively. They almost invariably neatly line up with the expected diverging nested hierarchies proposed by evolutionary theory.
yeah so let me guess cause the monkey had opposable thumbs and can stand they suddenly become some how related to humans...wow...hey some scientist say that we have a tale...so should we start barking or should we try to find transistional form of a man-dog?
7:25 "Since the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics"
Categorically false, and based on a misrepresentation of that second law.
I've made a video about this myself, which I will include as a reply to this video (it's not a very good video, but it should still be of some worth):
I don't have a problem with scientific laws: you do. You don't understand them. You misrepresent them to try and support your case.
To put it short:
2LoT does NOT say everything goes from order to disorder.
2LoT DOES say that a global increase in entropy may be offset against a local decrease.
Not only do we observe order forming when entropy increases locally, we can also see ordered, SELF-MAINTAINING structures form where entropy increases maximally.
Not only is quote mining dishonest, as it distorts the opinion of the quoted person into something subscribing the opinion of the quote-miner, it is also futile: personal opinions and quotes are not science. Science is published in research papers in science jourals. Science is non-authoritative.
so let me guess only scientist that believe in evolution, can be counted as right and believable, the rest is just stupid cause they dont agree no matter how much research and proof they put into it. Science is all about opinion, it was Darwin opinion that the world started with a big bang, and he says he has proof. i know this might be hard for you to take in but there are other scientist who are just as smart who dont agree. i know you dont want 2 give them any credit but i do
The question we address is, How often does adaptation involve a major gene? We hope to encourage evolutionists to reexamine this neglected question and to provide the evidence to settle it" END QUOTE.
We hasten to add, however, that we are not 'macromutationists' who believe that adaptations are nearly always based on major genes. The neo-Darwinian view could well be correct. It is almost certainly true, however, that some adaptations involve many genes of small effect and others involve major genes.
again, if youre goanna make a theory for the book and youre going to involve the study of macromutation then i just thought that is was common sense to ASK A MACROMUTATIONST
QUOTE "We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak, and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation.
Niles Eldrige is quoted, even though he not only accepts evolutionary theory as fundamentally valid, he and Gould even introduced the Punctuated Equilibrium, which explains why transitional fossils at the species level are much scarcer than transitional fossils at the higher levels.
6:15 "And any attempts to teach other viewpoints have been suppressed"
If there were alternative SCIENTIFIC models for biological diversity, they would either get equal time in science-ed, or they would not be taught until later on, when such advanced understanding was required. As it is, there are NO scientific alternatives to evolutionary theory. Religion is NOT an alternative to science.
6:10 "Yet the theory of evolution fills the pages of textbooks..."
...? From cosmology back to evolution, as if the latter logically depends on the former. Not so: evolutionary theory does not depend on any specific model for the origin of the universe, matter, stars and planets, or life. ALL it does is model biological diversity.
6:05 "Stephen Hawking sees the universe as the product of..."
This is actually not true. Stephen Hawking is one of the scientists responsible for the formulation of the Hawking/Hartle state, a cosmological model that does away with the need for an origin of the universe altogether. He is an atheist, and no amount of quote mining will change that. We'll get back to quote mining later on in the video, I suspect.
5:36 "If the universe had a beginning, then it must have had a beginner"
1) While we know that the cosmos had a beginning, this does not mean that the universe cannot exist eternally. There are various models (cyclic cosmos, Hawking/Hartle state) that do not require the universe to have an origin.
2) Even if we conclude there must have been an origin, this does not necessitate an intelligent creator, let alone the christian god.
Why go on about the Big Bang cosmological model in a video about evolution?
5:20 "came into existence through a massive explosion"
This is actually a very inaccurate description of the Big Bang model. The "explosion" mentioned was not an explosion at all: it is the expansion of spacetime. And the Big Bang model does not include the origin of matter; it merely describes its development SINCE its origin.
This too is a strawman. Evolutionary theory does not predict that lifeforms produce offspring wildly different from itself, in fact evolutionary theory predicts the OPPOSITE: that each new generation differs only very slightly from the previous.
In fact, science has a pretty good understanding of the evolutionary pathways and pressures that lead to the evolution of intelligence. Our understanding isn't perfect, but we know at least that such pathways ARE possible.
3:34 "How is it possible that dead matter could begin to think?"
Just think about this for a while: ALL life is composed of "dead matter". There is no difference between a carbon atom that is part of a rock and one that is part of a living cell. Ultimately, all physical objects in the universe are made of the same stuff, interacting in ways we can investigate at the atomic level.
Again, this is not what abiogenesis researchers claim. They seek to understand the MECHANISMS by which life forms. Mechanisms based on laws of physics.
Incidentally, none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory. Darwin even speculated that the creator had breathed life into the first organisms, in his book "Origins".
3:20 "If brilliant scientists can't create life in laboratories"
Scientists involved in abiogenesis research AREN'T TRYING to create life from scratch. Their mission is UNDERSTANDING, not creating. And again, what scientists can or cannot reproduce is irrelevant as to their understanding of the mechanisms involved.
Nobody claims it's that simple. If it were, we'd already have a theory of abiogenesis. As it is, it is going to take decades before we even have a tentative framework.
... Life DID NOT arise through evolution, and nobody claims it did. The process referred to here is ABIOGENESIS.
2:56 "why can't scientists create life in the laboratory"
What natural processes scientists can or cannot reproduce artificially is irrelevant. We have sound knowledge of stellar formation, yet you do not see scientists create stars; we have sound knowledge of the working of volcanoes, yet you do not see scientists create volcanoes.
what do you mean irrelevant, all the theories that the scientist create support the extreme possibility of being able to create life in a lab...so why cant they
Irrelevant. Just what the word means. Whether or not scientists can recreate something in the lab has no bearing on whether or not they understand the principles involved. I already explained this, in the comment you were responding to no less.
1:50 "Since all life is just the result of the random action of evolution, there is nothing beyond life"
1) Not random action, as explained before.
2) Evolutionary theory does not claim there is nothing beyond life. Science does not comment on the existence or non-existence of an afterlife, of gods, or any other supernatural notion.
it was by random chance, like the face that the big bang started in the first place was a random chance and the molecules that were brought together to form life was random chance. Unless someone put it togerher which you do not believe then it had to happen but random chance. what other explaination chance is there
Nope. That's what YOU make of it, not what scientists claim.
« big bang started in the first place was a random chance »
Again, that's what YOU make of it. Science has not yet determined whether or not the big bang actually requires a cause, much less what that cause could have been.
« it seems that evolution ran off its mouth on a lot of areas where they dont understand »
Make sense, please. Evolutionary theory describes a very specific phenomenon: biological diversity, or how life diversifies through reproductive variation and differential reproductive success.
They are related, as everything is related. But evolutionary theory describes ONE phenomenon (ie. how new species develop from prior species), abiogenesis research tries to model ANOTHER phenomenon (ie. how life came to be in the first place).
9:45
Here Gould is quote-mined. Rather than placing the quote within its proper context in this comment section, I'll refer to an article which shows an indepth deconstruction of the quote:
talkorigins . org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3 . ht ml#quote3.2 [remove spaces]
I repeat my earlier objections to mining quotes: it is not only immoral, it is futile.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
8:55 "The problem is that transitional forms haven't been found"
Outright lie. Even answersingenesis . com cautions against the use of this argument. And responding to what answersingenesis . com has to say about the subject, the fossil evidence for transitions between larger groups is actually MORE abundant than that for transitions within groups.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
oh really cause answer...whatever is the science source of the world, i guess its my bad cause i dont see that argument anywhere else
roseblossom999 2 years ago
« oh really cause answer »
Please make sense. And yes, transitional fossils have been found; in fact so many have been found that scientists have their work cut out for them for decades, simply cataloguing them and determining their exact location in the tree of life.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
8:35 / 2 "The fossil record should be packed with these transitional forms"
2) Evolutionary theory says nothing about the formation of FOSSILS. Evolutionary theory predicts that such intermediates THEMSELVES must have existed. Whether or not they should have left fossil evidence of their existence is the domain of geology, not biology.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
that is the stupidist thing i ever heard. i thought that when scientist thought of making a theory they would have taken into account all ascepts of the study not just on part. and that still is no excuse for the LACK OF EVIDENCE whether in science of evolution for geology. P.s and are you trying to say that ALL the intermediates did not leave any fossils at all (speaking in common sense that argument is pathetic)
roseblossom999 2 years ago
« that is the stupidist thing i ever heard »
It is simple fact. Biology tells us what kind of organism a fossil might belong to, but GEOLOGY determines under what circumstances a fossil might form.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« LACK OF EVIDENCE »
What lack of evidence? You ignoring it, or misrepresenting the model it is evidence for does not make it go away, you know?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« are you trying to say that ALL the intermediates did not leave any fossils at all »
Many of them did. You're just ignoring them. Tiktaalik is a transitional species. Homo erectus is a transitional species. Ardipithecus ramidus is a transitional species. Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. And so on.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
8:35 / 1 "The fossil record should be packed with these transitional forms"
1) It is. This is not always immediately apparent, but becomes eminently clear when for instance the fossils morphologically linked to a specific lineage are viewed collectively. They almost invariably neatly line up with the expected diverging nested hierarchies proposed by evolutionary theory.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
yeah so let me guess cause the monkey had opposable thumbs and can stand they suddenly become some how related to humans...wow...hey some scientist say that we have a tale...so should we start barking or should we try to find transistional form of a man-dog?
roseblossom999 2 years ago
« they suddenly become some how related to humans »
Nested hierarchies. Go look up the words, and find out what they mean in the context of biology.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
7:25 "Since the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics"
Categorically false, and based on a misrepresentation of that second law.
I've made a video about this myself, which I will include as a reply to this video (it's not a very good video, but it should still be of some worth):
/watch?v=-Fal_M1z_v8
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
take it up with the science if you have a prob with their laws
roseblossom999 2 years ago
I don't have a problem with scientific laws: you do. You don't understand them. You misrepresent them to try and support your case.
To put it short:
2LoT does NOT say everything goes from order to disorder.
2LoT DOES say that a global increase in entropy may be offset against a local decrease.
Not only do we observe order forming when entropy increases locally, we can also see ordered, SELF-MAINTAINING structures form where entropy increases maximally.
Again, see the video I made.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
7:10 / 4
Not only is quote mining dishonest, as it distorts the opinion of the quoted person into something subscribing the opinion of the quote-miner, it is also futile: personal opinions and quotes are not science. Science is published in research papers in science jourals. Science is non-authoritative.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
so let me guess only scientist that believe in evolution, can be counted as right and believable, the rest is just stupid cause they dont agree no matter how much research and proof they put into it. Science is all about opinion, it was Darwin opinion that the world started with a big bang, and he says he has proof. i know this might be hard for you to take in but there are other scientist who are just as smart who dont agree. i know you dont want 2 give them any credit but i do
roseblossom999 2 years ago
« the rest is just stupid cause they dont agree »
No, because they value faith above evidence.
« it was Darwin opinion that the world started with a big bang »
Good gods, WOMAN! TRY and look up what it is that Darwin actually said before you continue making yourself look like an ass!
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
7:10 / 3
The question we address is, How often does adaptation involve a major gene? We hope to encourage evolutionists to reexamine this neglected question and to provide the evidence to settle it" END QUOTE.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
7:10 / 2
We hasten to add, however, that we are not 'macromutationists' who believe that adaptations are nearly always based on major genes. The neo-Darwinian view could well be correct. It is almost certainly true, however, that some adaptations involve many genes of small effect and others involve major genes.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
again, if youre goanna make a theory for the book and youre going to involve the study of macromutation then i just thought that is was common sense to ASK A MACROMUTATIONST
roseblossom999 2 years ago
« study of macromutation »
...? What the hell is "macromutation"?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
7:10 / 1
Coyne:
QUOTE "We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak, and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
6:40
And here the quote mining begins in earnest.
Niles Eldrige is quoted, even though he not only accepts evolutionary theory as fundamentally valid, he and Gould even introduced the Punctuated Equilibrium, which explains why transitional fossils at the species level are much scarcer than transitional fossils at the higher levels.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
6:15 "And any attempts to teach other viewpoints have been suppressed"
If there were alternative SCIENTIFIC models for biological diversity, they would either get equal time in science-ed, or they would not be taught until later on, when such advanced understanding was required. As it is, there are NO scientific alternatives to evolutionary theory. Religion is NOT an alternative to science.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
6:10 "Yet the theory of evolution fills the pages of textbooks..."
...? From cosmology back to evolution, as if the latter logically depends on the former. Not so: evolutionary theory does not depend on any specific model for the origin of the universe, matter, stars and planets, or life. ALL it does is model biological diversity.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
6:05 "Stephen Hawking sees the universe as the product of..."
This is actually not true. Stephen Hawking is one of the scientists responsible for the formulation of the Hawking/Hartle state, a cosmological model that does away with the need for an origin of the universe altogether. He is an atheist, and no amount of quote mining will change that. We'll get back to quote mining later on in the video, I suspect.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
5:36 "If the universe had a beginning, then it must have had a beginner"
1) While we know that the cosmos had a beginning, this does not mean that the universe cannot exist eternally. There are various models (cyclic cosmos, Hawking/Hartle state) that do not require the universe to have an origin.
2) Even if we conclude there must have been an origin, this does not necessitate an intelligent creator, let alone the christian god.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
5:00 "Big Bang Theory"
Why go on about the Big Bang cosmological model in a video about evolution?
5:20 "came into existence through a massive explosion"
This is actually a very inaccurate description of the Big Bang model. The "explosion" mentioned was not an explosion at all: it is the expansion of spacetime. And the Big Bang model does not include the origin of matter; it merely describes its development SINCE its origin.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
4:50 "they could not have just magically appeared"
That is ironic, since that is JUST what creationism claims: that atoms, and the entire universe, appeared magically from nowhere.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
4:45 "where the atoms came from that supposedly combined"
How does this relate to evolutionary theory? After all, we KNOW THAT ATOMS EXIST.
Astronomy, physics, cosmology study the nature of matter, not biology.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
4:35 "chance form into a new species"
This too is a strawman. Evolutionary theory does not predict that lifeforms produce offspring wildly different from itself, in fact evolutionary theory predicts the OPPOSITE: that each new generation differs only very slightly from the previous.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
4:00
The bit about fruitflies is deceptive.
Not only are fruitflies in the wild observed to diverge and speciate, such observations have been replicated in lab experiments as well.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
3:48 "Science has no answers to these questions"
In fact, science has a pretty good understanding of the evolutionary pathways and pressures that lead to the evolution of intelligence. Our understanding isn't perfect, but we know at least that such pathways ARE possible.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
3:34 "How is it possible that dead matter could begin to think?"
Just think about this for a while: ALL life is composed of "dead matter". There is no difference between a carbon atom that is part of a rock and one that is part of a living cell. Ultimately, all physical objects in the universe are made of the same stuff, interacting in ways we can investigate at the atomic level.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
3:25 "that it could just happen by accident"
Again, this is not what abiogenesis researchers claim. They seek to understand the MECHANISMS by which life forms. Mechanisms based on laws of physics.
Incidentally, none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory. Darwin even speculated that the creator had breathed life into the first organisms, in his book "Origins".
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
3:20 "If brilliant scientists can't create life in laboratories"
Scientists involved in abiogenesis research AREN'T TRYING to create life from scratch. Their mission is UNDERSTANDING, not creating. And again, what scientists can or cannot reproduce is irrelevant as to their understanding of the mechanisms involved.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
3:00 "According to the theory of evolution, creating life is only a matter of..."
Evolutionary theory makes no claims regarding the origin of life, as explained before.
3:03 "putting the right atoms together"
Nobody claims it's that simple. If it were, we'd already have a theory of abiogenesis. As it is, it is going to take decades before we even have a tentative framework.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
2:52 "If life arose through evolution"
... Life DID NOT arise through evolution, and nobody claims it did. The process referred to here is ABIOGENESIS.
2:56 "why can't scientists create life in the laboratory"
What natural processes scientists can or cannot reproduce artificially is irrelevant. We have sound knowledge of stellar formation, yet you do not see scientists create stars; we have sound knowledge of the working of volcanoes, yet you do not see scientists create volcanoes.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
what do you mean irrelevant, all the theories that the scientist create support the extreme possibility of being able to create life in a lab...so why cant they
roseblossom999 2 years ago
« what do you mean irrelevant »
Irrelevant. Just what the word means. Whether or not scientists can recreate something in the lab has no bearing on whether or not they understand the principles involved. I already explained this, in the comment you were responding to no less.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
2:45 "A lot of evidence and observations tell us that evolution is a false theory"
... Ah, let's have it then...
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
2:25 "Some scientists refer to the theory of evolution as the fact of evolution"
Scientists are well aware of the distinction between the theory and the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution EXPLAINS the fact of evolution.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
1:50 "Since all life is just the result of the random action of evolution, there is nothing beyond life"
1) Not random action, as explained before.
2) Evolutionary theory does not claim there is nothing beyond life. Science does not comment on the existence or non-existence of an afterlife, of gods, or any other supernatural notion.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
1:45 "According to evolutionary theory, all of this happened through random chance"
Again, false. Natural selection is thought to be responsible for evolution, not random chance.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
1:25 "Through random chance, simple cells were formed"
Nobody claims random chance formed cells. Scientists research natural mechanisms involving chemistry, governed by laws of physics, not random chance.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
it was by random chance, like the face that the big bang started in the first place was a random chance and the molecules that were brought together to form life was random chance. Unless someone put it togerher which you do not believe then it had to happen but random chance. what other explaination chance is there
roseblossom999 2 years ago
« it was by random chance »
Nope. That's what YOU make of it, not what scientists claim.
« big bang started in the first place was a random chance »
Again, that's what YOU make of it. Science has not yet determined whether or not the big bang actually requires a cause, much less what that cause could have been.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
1:10 "Long ago, matter was combined into molecules"
This describes abiogenesis, not evolution.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
it seems that evolution ran off its mouth on a lot of areas where they dont understand
roseblossom999 2 years ago
« it seems that evolution ran off its mouth on a lot of areas where they dont understand »
Make sense, please. Evolutionary theory describes a very specific phenomenon: biological diversity, or how life diversifies through reproductive variation and differential reproductive success.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
0:43 "According to Charles Darwin, the origin of life can be explained without god"
This is false: Darwin wrote of the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of life.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
they are both related for crying out loud. how can you have species if you dont got LIFE
roseblossom999 2 years ago
« they are both related for crying out loud »
They are related, as everything is related. But evolutionary theory describes ONE phenomenon (ie. how new species develop from prior species), abiogenesis research tries to model ANOTHER phenomenon (ie. how life came to be in the first place).
XGralgrathor 2 years ago