Natural Selection - Baba Brinkman - Rap Guide to Evolution Music Videos

[tacuahoms]

This guy is way better than Alpinekat

[anthropic1]

@babasword I have a new hero. Thanks mate, you made my afternoon.

[ProphetJephri]

@bikri08 "accept it without question" wrong. Textbooks report what scientists have found and teach the current evidence.

SCIENCE does not accept things without evidence. In fact, science itself does not accept anything without proper review. A text book ten years old will content factually inaccurate evidence and interoperation so a new textbook is written.

Where as the Bible, disproven historically and scientifically, is set in stone and treated as such. THAT is not how the world works.

[mizotter]

WHOA!!!! ABSOLUTELY THE most exciting & invigorating hip-hop I've heard--EVER! It blends all my favorite stuff: beats, rhymes, dance, humor, beer, Darwin, rhetoric, reason, and TRUTH! DAMN good work, Baba. I heard you on Living on Earth. You've made a fan for life! I'll be sharing your work with my high school students! Peace.

[morugatu2]

For the record, just about every really great scientist before around the 1950's believed in some form of God. Its been centuries since really great minds took the bible seriously. Even the founders of the United States didn't believe the in the traditional Christian God.

I have no problem with the concept of a God. The problem I have is when individuals shove it down other people's throats and fight progress. If nobody did that I firmly believe there would be few atheists in this world.

[morugatu2]

Nobody created gravity nor time. They are also not universally constant as was theorized by Einstein. Gravity and time can vary depending on your perspective in the Universe. Gravity and time are theorized to have evolved along with our universe. Evolution is observed in natural selection along with genetic variation in all forms of life which really supports the idea that were are the product of its code. Is this the code of God? I doubt it, but either way the bible is wrong about our origins.

[mmrugby7]

Is there a place to download this song?

[daveingels1]

What you are claiming in the name of science is only philosophy in a mask. True science must be observed. There are no experiments in existence that prove your "scientific" statements, so look closer into the philosophy of scientism and evolution and you will find it is simply philosophical interpretation of facts, and not science at all.

[ProphetJephri]

@daveingels1 well thats not true at all. what a copout statement. There is tangible physical evidence of evolution. we can track it in DNA, we can observe it in our world today, yet all you do is complain, think this idea is lame, unable to reason beyond the musings of some dead monks boozing, you're philosophical musing. What does it mean? nothing cuz you haven't said anything like where do you lean?

[ProphetJephri]

@daveingels1 all seriously though, evolution isn't philosophy. in fact it avoids philosophy by relying on fact. if you're going to make such a bold statement, back it up.

[jewbacca6497]

Darwin's dancing skills certainly have evolved lately...

[TheChrisMedico]

He looks like the ninth doctor.

[alter7181]

Simply awesome!

[hermanoglnunes]

Something similar with Frank Zappa?

[cycodevilboy]

Haha!! Great video!

[FrozenPetrolPie]

I never knew Darwin was such a great break dancer...

[wrightman690]

awesome way of doing Dead Wrong!

[daemonowner]

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

[FraggedMind]

@daemonowner I believe Thomas Jefferson said something very similar in his writings as well.

[reanimated6]

HAHA this is awesome.

[jckatz]

Important question: Do I need to purchase the 2.0 albumn when I already purchased Rap Guide?

[featheredskyblue]

@jckatz Check it out on bandcamp for free and judge for yourself.

[bikri08]

Now here you are prejudging.

Firstly, you are judging a whole group of beliefs, loosely labelled as "creationism" as one idea without being aware of all the different strands of thought. Most people reject "Creationism" without listening to proponents of Creation. Dawkins himself admits he has never studies Bible, or looked into Theology. Judging before knowing the facts is prejudism.

I think my objection is not from the word "wrong" but "dead" which includes a moral value statement.

[SuperPaininthebutt]

@bikri08 Evolution has been vetted. The Bible only retains legitimacy because of people's belief in it. Faith and fact are often at odds because facts are derived from testing, and faith springs from belief. And, I am not prejudging--I have studied the Bible, and I have studied evolution. I judge creationism as wrong. This is not prejudice. If you are worried about the semantics of the word "dead," you have not given an artist their proper artistic license--I think.

[bikri08]

@SuperPaininthebutt LOL. You're prolly right about about the artistic license. But returning to my original point, it seems that it's okay for evolutionists and "educated" people to put down beliefs and people who do not agree with them, yet this is what fundamentalists did 50 years ago to evolutionists.

To me, it seems like political advertisements: I have no trouble with people talking about themselves. I enjoy a thoughtful presentation of viewpoint whether it's evolution or Chaucer.

[SuperPaininthebutt]

@bikri08 I would argue that the vitriolic fervor has always been on the creationist side. Christianity (as one example among organized religions) has a history of violent prejudice against non-believers. It would be troublesome at best to argue that evolutionists uniquely own the current negativity in today's debate. At least evolutionists only tell people they are wrong--they do not condemn them to hell fire.

[bikri08]

@SuperPaininthebutt LOL. True enough, especially in the last 100 years "Christians", especially fundamentalists, are very able to rant, condemn, and vilify those it doesn't agree with. However, it seems that this has been taken up by an intellectual morality. The Catholic Church condemned Galileo because his research contradicted their "facts." Now some evolutionists condemn others for the same reason.

Would it be better to make vitriol a thing of the past?

[IG40kman]

@bikri08 The Catholic Church condemned Galileo because he didn't go through them, not because they originally had beef with his math & facts.

[TheSpankymonkey]

@IG40kman - Irrelevant. The charges were made irrespective of the reasons for them being made. How can you possibly make that argument? The fact remains the charges levelled against him were for his ideas and not because he did not go through the church.

[Xgya2000]

@bikri08

Would you care to point to any kind of peer-reviewed research where people are condemned for doing research?

The only peer-reviewed research ever done and published by creationists is condemned especially because it isn't subjected to peer review. All attempts to explain "Intelligent Design" through complexity has been disproven, yet the argument is still being made.

If they brought new facts, and stopped using the argument from ignorance fallacy, it'd be a different story.

[ProphetJephri]

@Xgya2000 exactly. it tends to equate to grade school reasoning. So its ignored by real scientists.

[bikri08]

@SuperPaininthebutt But in Baba's earlier raps about Chaucer did he feel it necessarily to put down people who read John Grisham and tell them that they are wrong? Yet it is acceptable in today's world to do so in the evolution/creationism divide.

Of course a point could be made that Chaucer and Grisham can stand side by side without conflict; however, I think that the evolution/creation divide is, in reality, a false dichotomy.

[ProphetJephri]

@bikri08 its rejected because its not science. it offers no evidence or explanation. just... nonsense.

[bikri08]

@ProphetJephri "It" being creationism or the Bible or ?

Just becuase something isn't "science" doesn't mean it doesn't offer an explanation. And I'm really curious as to what you mean by "nonsense"

[ProphetJephri]

@bikri08 an emotional explanation is nice. Its comforting and requires little effort by you to actually educate yourself.

[bikri08]

@ProphetJephri That argument would make sense if I wasn't educated. My University degree would disagree with you.

[ProphetJephri]

@ProphetJephri Creationism is not science. an explanation requires proof. the essence of science is proof. one can't just reason anything without evidence. Creationism is nonsense. It lacks evidence, it lacks corroborating evidence, proper peer review, proper controls, proper analysis. It always goes back to obscure scripture. AKA self fulfilling.

Evolution has physical evidence. It has rational discourse. It has plausible and explainable theories. Creationism has none of that

[bikri08]

@ProphetJephri A lot of people would disagree with you about "evidence" and "analysis." Explainable and plausible? Those are very subjective terms, outside the realm of just a youtube post conversation.

Both sides require an amount of faith, yet I will not say one side is "better" than the other (which was the original point of this thread) so I wonder why you feel the need to? Methinks he doth protest too much.

[ProphetJephri]

@bikri08 that is actually incorrect. If Isay that my God is real and all powerful, what am I supposed to give proof to that? Not one creationist has ever offered up tangible evidence, just counter arguments about missing information. They offer no explination but, "God Did It". nonsense.

Who if what created god? if something cant come from nothing (which is the flawed argument of creationists against science) then whence cometh God?

[bikri08]

@ProphetJephri Who created gravity, or time? If "God" is a universal constant, then he didn't need to be created.

And I haven't seen any "tangible" evidence of evolution. A few fossils that could be interpreted in several ways isn't evidence of a theory of unending change, they are simply evidence of difference and complexity.

[ProphetJephri]

@bikri08 no one created gravity or time. shakes head.

Just simply saying "god did it" is a cop out and pathetic. find out who or what really did.

that is science and ya, there is tangible evidence but because you dont get it, doesnt mean its not real. Your mind has been warped into believing fairy tales from some random barbaric Abrahamic religion that you cant for once step outside your comfort zone to open your mind a little to fact.

[bikri08]

@ProphetJephri You miss my point. I am not stating that "God did it". I am saying that we don't have to have a creator of God if God himself is a constant.

I'm sorry, I just disagree with your "tangible evidence." I am again confused why it is acceptable to ridicule people who disagree with the mainstream. I happen to be a rational person, who has actually studied both sides of the argument, and rationally concluded that I think one side makes more sense then the other.

[ProphetJephri]

@bikri08 well, thats a very intellectually dishonest thing to say. I'm saying the universe is the constant, and that it didn't need a creator. The universe is the space in which all things exist, and that would include any sort of "creator" where does this creator reside and why would some personal god care about you? Why don't you believe in Ra or Zeus?

[ProphetJephri]

@bikri08

A rational person would say " I need evidence to show me of such a claim." Science looks for it in the tiniest particle and the biggest telescope. IT says "we don't know, so lets investigate" You on the other hand, have declared a truth, and try to dispel fact and data that may conflict with your brand of truth. This is intellectual dishonesty and quite the opposite of rational thinking.

[bikri08]

@ProphetJephri I don't know why you keep insisting I am "intellectually dishonest." I disagree with your point of "no one made God so he can't exist" so I'm being intellectually dishonest?

Much of evolution, as an other poster here noted, is reactionary against 19th century dogmatic religion, it does not come from a state of tabula rasa. I find it quite presumptuous on your part to make accusations about my mental methodology when you have no idea what it is.

[ProphetJephri]

@bikri08 If God is real, where does God exist? within a universe. a point in space and time of its devices. If you were to use the even more esoteric construct of God, then you're admitting that God isn't real but in our own minds and we can get into an intellectual debate on the quantum mechanics of spirituality. If we were to use logic, having some vast creator making a universe 14 billion years old, massive in scale and hostile to life, doesn't make sense.

[ProphetJephri]

Furthermore, life exists in extremely hostile places on earth, and could possible exist elsewhere. OUr very bodies, and how we replicate are no different than a jelly fish or a Crystal growing in a cave. The chemistry for life is complex simply because we try to categorize a process we still need to understand better but that does not negate the science in favour of magical fairytales created by bronze aged, superstitious primitives.

[bikri08]

@ProphetJephri I still feel I need evidence. Scientists cannot reproduce in ideal conditions what supposedly happened by chance in adverse conditions (creation of amino acids and proteins). Pointing out similarities in a "progression" of skull fragments that are entirely disproportionate in size and calling it evidence is dishonest, but most science textbooks accept it without question.

[ProphetJephri]

@bikri08 no it isn't. it uses reasoning and extrapolation, as well as our understandings of biology. we have dozens of transitional hominid species. We observe and have PROOF of evolution happening now. We can recreate the fundamentals in a lab. Hell, scientists are turning a chicken into a dinosaur like creature simply because that bird has the defunct and non functioning genes of it's ancestors.

The burden of proof favours evolution and science. cherry picking specific details is dishonest.

[ProphetJephri]

@bikri08 Check out io9 they have a great article on the origins of oxygen breaking and protein folds. These are lab experiments that simulate the natural world.

Want other "impossible in nature" events? How about the discovery of Quasi Crystals, once thought in theory and then only replicated in labs under controlled situations, have been found to exist in nature!

I could spend hours linking you to proofs, evidence, millions of documents that correlate and prove science. interested in learning

[dominictemple]

Love it! Great video, but I liked best seeing you live in Denmark Street in London.

[bikri08]

I think Baba is amazing, but I really don't see how putting down the majority of mankind and calling them "dead wrong" isn't prejudiced.

The majority of people in the world believe in some sort of religion or higher power. It is ridiculous to tell them to "think deeper" as if Baba and the people he agrees with hold all the answers

[SuperPaininthebutt]

@bikri08 The majority of people on the Earth once believed it was flat.

[bikri08]

@SuperPaininthebutt Of course often in the history of humanity most people believed erroneous ideas. Hoever when the preponderance of the evidence was shown the people, false assumptions fell quite quickly (many people kept and still keep erroneous ideas living, but I'm talking whole cultures and society as a whole). When the idea of an atom with electrons and nucleus was proposed, that idea came into acceptance within a few years.

[SuperPaininthebutt]

@bikri08 I disagree. Creation myths have replaced their ilk throughout history. Modern religions don't agree oncreation. Your example of the atom and nucleus doesn't have deep religious implications. A better example would be the transition from a geocentric to heliocentric solar system. This transition took nearly 2000 years. With the science of evolution really taking flight over 100 years ago, it is still relatively early. Regardless, refuting false beliefs is not prejudice.

[bikri08]

@SuperPaininthebutt You have a good point about geocentric universe. The truth however, is that although Darwin's On the Origin of Species came out about 150 years ago, the debate over creation and spontaneous evolution actually predated Darwin quite a bit. Although non-scientific in its study, forms of evolutionary theory had been around and been debated for a minimum of 100 years prior to Darwin. Maybe we should give it another 100 years and see if the debate is still going...

[SuperPaininthebutt]

@bikri08 The debate may have begun pre-Darwin, but he presented the scientific evidence for evolution, which has only been further supported through future exploits. And, even with the presented evidence, people still cling to creationism in its many forms. This shows that people will not readily abandon their beliefs even when confronted with conflicting evidence. Realistically, neither of us will simply agree with the other because we fall into the same cognitive trappings.

[bikri08]

@SuperPaininthebutt BTW...thank you for this interesting debate which is able to continue without insults or flaming. Much appreciated! And Baba hasn't weighed in, but I hope he appreciates the extra views we're giving him, even though I'm sure he also disagress with most points I'm making.

[SuperPaininthebutt]

@bikri08 Couldn't agree more. It is refreshing in a strange way. Kudos, my friend.

[SuperPaininthebutt]

@bikri08 Prejudice is pre-judging. Now, if he said that people who believed this were unequivocally stupid in all area and were negligible human beings, that would constitute prejudice. Judging a belief as incorrect is not prejudice--it is simply judging. Just like your atom analogy, scientific evidence of evolution completely discredits creationism. If there were people who did not *believe* in atomic theory, would it be disagreeable to tell them that they are dead wrong?

[bikri08]

@SuperPaininthebutt Would it be disagreeable to tell someone who didn't believe in atomic theory that they were dead wrong. I think it would be very disagreeable in a society in which we co-exist with other individuals yes. I think it negates and minimalizes others' study, research and opinions.

Think Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory. One of the reasons the show is so comic is because of his utter lack of regard for those whom he feels are wrong.

[SuperPaininthebutt]

@bikri08 No, it would not. Would you find it difficult to judge societies' traditional rituals like female genital mutilation and blood feuds? I would hope not. What you speak of smacks of cultural relativism. If someone holds an incorrect belief, it does not mean you should honor it on par with correct ones--especially if it holds ramifications for the society's greater well being.

[bikri08]

@SuperPaininthebutt Cultural relativism? Perhaps. But better that than the new form of Eurocentrism which denigrates viewpoints which are alternative to a self appointed meritocracy.

[destinylab]

For a Creation hip hop point of view check out Destiny Lab.

[CyberDraco]

I love Baba, but his body language while rapping often seems forced and uncoordinated to me.

I doubt I would fair any better, but it seems like he tries too hard to move around and use non-verbal communication...just let it flow bro.

[Powerlifter83]

activated beast mode I see....