All one needs to understand is that Macro Evolution FAILS the scientific method because Macro Evolution cannot be duplicated or predicted, which is the most basic requirement of science.
I side with Shermer on the argument, but Wells did a very good job by not invoking religion or the Bible into the debate and admitting when he didn't have an answer. This is how a debate should be done, forget Ray Comfort and the like.
80% dont accept. Well it doesnt matter what u accept - if science proves something and u cant prove it wrong AND REPLACE IT with something equally legitimate, u simply have to believe what the science says or u turn to religion and become a fundamentalist.
private school would be divisive to society. imagine each school teaching it's own version of creation, ID or evolution. i think it would create more problems and threaten secularism.
"you don't need evidence for evolution once you have that philosophy. It's simply a logical deduction from your philosphy."
This was well said. They've already presupposed probability over a nearly infinite amount of time. The philosophy need only address possible natural causes 'given enough time'. Rendering the theory unfalsifiable. Otherwise it would have been falsified every time some part of the theory had to be 'refined'. What the atheists called 'moving the goal posts'. Stifling dissent.
@Andy32268 But we can't ignore all the body of evidence because of 1 misplaced fossil. We would have to come up with a new theory that still encompasses all the data that we have.
@Moh5Itachi1 Well yes, but it is doubtful that the new theory could be considered Darwinian Evolution. Frankly, to our current knowledge, a Pre-Cambrian chicken would be an impossibility; one of the greatest anomalies of our millenium.
this is why we need christopher hitchens and dawkins, this idiot cannot lack a lot of knowledge to defende evolution and does not counter attacks the creationist arguments.
Both men have their belief philosophy and that should be respected. Ridiculing one side or the other never creates useful discourse, it only shows the person doing the ridiculing doesn't have a secure enough grasp on their own view of things to treat any person they meet with respect. And I thought this presentation came off very respectfully. great upload
My money is on, the creationist eats lunch alone in that crowd.
A small retort to him. If the public were ask to decide if it should be taught in schools the world were flat 1,000 years ago. The answer would have been yes. That is why we teach people, then they teach others, etc, etc. and do not ask for popular opinion and run with it.
At the end of it all,its ridiculous,there should be no debate,there is no controversy,its just these id'ers conjuring up pathetic non reviewed crap to try to sneak GOD into the equation.Science works and spending time and money on debating an unproven GOD agenda instead of using the time and resources on ACTUAL science is a complete waste of space DIRECTLY caused by these time and resource -wasting id retards,this crap needs sweeping STRAIGHT off the planet now.
@shark69 Modern evolutionary theory is not a logical consequence of materialism. There are multiple theories of evolution, Lamark had a theory of evolution that is decidedly not Darwinian, for one example. The success of Darwin's theory is its agreement with observation, not its logical consistency with some philosophy.
Wells is correct. Fossil trilobites in hominid bedding planes would not falsify evolution. Just like the discovery of living coelacanths didn't falsify it. The Darwinists just made more excuses for the fossil problem. And it's a BIG problem for them.
@9pt9 There is no fossil problem. Evolution has been observed. It is the only theory that explains all the facts in a cohesive manner. DNA is the strongest evidence for descent with modification or common ancesty. Retro-virus DNA markers can only be explained by evolution. All animals have more similiarities than differences. I think people have a tendency to focus on the differences. Evolutionary theory even explains why people get annoying hiccups. Surely a designer doesn't explain it.
Great debate, I just have one problem with the last question that Michael Shermer answered. Evolution wouldn't be proven false if we found fossil trilobites near human fossils; it'd just say that trilobites went extinct more recently than we thought. Now, if we found a homo sapien fossil in the Jurassic, that would disprove evolution. Other than that, I enjoyed this debate :)
Darwinism is a set of movements and concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin. The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term. In the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for evolutionary theory.
"They are proving evolution in labs all the time." I believe their findings are faulty. This is a great debate, but neither side should be taught in science class. That is for FACTS not THEORIES. These points are philosophical in nature. FACT: humans have 46 chromosomes. THEORY: humans evolved from chimps (42 chromosomes). These points should be presented to older children so they don't grow up learning crap like "the earth is billions of years old" Only God can prove that.
Wells puts up a excellent point. Evolution proves how things work, and until we figure out where things come from, no need to make science spill out garbage like there is no god! Sure maybe not a personal god, but who cares the theist have moved from that position along time ago to avoid extinction! I'm an atheist, but i believe a creator might exist, just as much as i believe that girl might like me. Let it be! F*cken human's and our biases. The real issue is indoctrination of any kind!
Respond to this video... IDK Mr. Wells was very articulate but it seems that his hypothesis is based on opinion. Just because something seemed design does not mean that it is. We once believed that the earth stood still as the sun went around (or across it for flat earthers) our planet. Just because a theory has holes you can't fill them up with opinions. Show me human tools and fossils in the pre-cambrian.
@Killjeser Articulate? To ME, he comes across as someone who got REALLY lucky to get a Ph.D. All he does is defer questions to the "Darwinists", as he loves to call us. He never provides any arguments of his own, and his various evidences are predicated on faulty data and/or faulty reasoning.
They actually found a hammer in cretaceus rock Actually, if human tools were to be found in precambrian rock, evolutionists would just say that it is a hoax or try to explain it away. After all, it is impossible for there to be tools in precambrian rock. Why? Well because there is no evidence of human existence that far back!!! So that hammer in precambrian rock has to be FAKE!!!
IT JUST HAS TO BE!!!!!
And by the way, just because a computer seems designed, I cannot logically infer that it is?
If 80% of the poorly educated public in America don't believe in "Darwinism", it must be false. That is some piss-poor logic Mr. Wells. This coming from a guy that doesn't believe AIDS comes from HIV.
Evolution gets taught in schools because it is the leading theory in biology and there is no real argument about it in the scientific community. Yes there are fossils missing. It would be much stranger if there were a complete fossil record. The fact of the nested tree and that nothing has been found to contradict it, the studiess of DNA all support the theory of evolution.
Listen, I hope Americans become exquisitely more aware that they can very easily get left behind by much of the world. Your future is in a properly educated and informed populous. Science is the fulcrum of the true progress, insights and innovations that the human species can achieve. I worry when I hear statistics like that, I think of the ancient Arab world as it crossed from open rationalism and science to religious dogmatism.
I'm confused, he just did? There are many things that would easily falsify Darwinism. Finding multiple hominid fossils in Silurian sediments would be quite the Darwin killer, for example. Finding a genetic function that effectively puts a cap on how far a genome can evolve through "microevolution" would be another thing. But there are no observed caps, it just goes on and on and on and on as far as we can tell. Just to mention a few things.
Finding anachronistic fossils have never yet falsified Darwinism. Scientists are merely puzzled for a little while, then they rework the tree of life.
Mention one "anachronistic" fossil that has been found, will ya? The tree of life is constantly reworked, yes, that's how science functions. Science adapts to available evidence, thus it keeps changing, it's no absolute truth in any way. If you want absolute truths you have to adhere to various religious beliefs and what not, but the problem there is that they are lacking in objective evidence.
I've already mentioned the fact that there are many "living fossils," species which are supposed to have gone extinct many millions of years ago but which are caught in fishing nets today and appear unchanged over the eons.
Somehow, they escaped the laws of Darwin.
In spite of vast changes in their environment, which led all other species to branch into completely different iterations of species, these guys were unaffected.
But I think the best fossil evidence against Darwinism is not what's in the fossil record but what's missing, trillions of transitional species and specific body parts.
Let's start with the Cambrian explosion. The transitional forms which must have preceded these species are missing.
Where is the transitional fossils for wings? For eyes? Every explanation is a supposition. "Evolution accelerated!" How? Why? What is the "normal" rate of evolution? "We don't know!"
To date, no fossils that contradict evolution have been found as far as I know. You'd need something quite extraordinary there, like the aforementioned examples. But the attacks on evolution don't stop there, of course. If geology and the distribution of fossils in sediments support an old earth and an evolving life, then the dating methods and the geology must be wrong. Of course.
@Ianmcgregorable 'The repeated deposition of sediments by volcanic lahars and sediment filled rivers not only created innumerable polystrate trees, but also “polystrate” telephone poles, churches, and houses, over a period a few years.'
Wikipedia
There are NO ploystrate trees spanning millions of years.
Wow! So Dr. Wells's explanation for falsifying ID is (and he never directly stated this) find something that happened by chance or by natural causes? um...ok. Rain occurs by vaporous water molecules condensing, forming heavier than air masses that fall toward the Earth. About 5 seconds and I've completely disproven ID. Now was that hard? Can we drop ID now?
If the majority of people didn't believe in evolution, the eight members of the Dover Pennsylvania school board in favor of teaching I.D. in the school would not have been replaced in a popular vote. A lot of people profess to be religious, but do so only for appearances. They know the reality, but don't want to face the critisim of being labeled a non-believer. In the countrys that have the highest atheist % this does not happen. In 200 yrs. I predict the fall of religion from maistream society
@ 2:20 he mentions only 15% believe in "Darwinism" aka Evolution, Many people 500 years ago thought the earth was the centre of the universe, majority belief does not account for anything in science, only what can be summised and predicted by math+observation. If he turly believes what he says he does he sould turn away from medical science as well and get himself a witch doctor and some leeches. He is I'm sure a leading 15th century mind, but its the 21st century.
Evolution by all standards of peer-review should have failed scientific scrutiny.
It is completley persuaded with political and financial motives. Moreover their failure, fuels the arrogance and denial within the scientific community.
With the CRU emails, we saw just how corrupted scientific peer-review can be.
By the way, many respected scientists agree with me on that one.
And if you unaware of the corruption of peer review (and the persecution of skeptical scientists) vis-a-vis Evolution science, then you've been living under a rock.
Oh, and "skeptical scientists" are usually persecuted, frankly, because they are horrible scientists who make claims without any evidence to back them up. If they actually did scientific experiments then real scientists might actually listen to them.
Johnathon Wells keeps criticizing science for not allowing the supernatural. Seriously, how old is he? There's no fairies or ghosts or supernatural. If you allow for the supernatural in science then it is just whatever you can dream up.
Really, what if you found say a modern animal like a lion, tiger, or rabbit in the soil sample dated to be millions of years old, that contained fossils of animals long dead millions of years ago. Wouldn't that disprove evolution. What if you DNA sequences for certain proteins of animals predicted to have a recent common anscestor that were vastly different. Wouldn't that disprove evolution?
Wow. I'm really quite impressed with the way both of them presented their arguments. Very civilized, coherent, and neither side erected straw men to throw down. Very good.
When ever they have these debates, is it always the evolution proponent who has to prove anything? Just once I would like to see the evolutionist ripe these wackos apart.
@Kuartus So evolution -- both phenomenon & theory -- is false? So genes do not determine the structural, behavioural & physiological traits of an organism? Genes are not inherited? And genes do not suffer mutations over generations of replication? So what's the mechanism that allowed 300+ breeds of dog to descend from grey wolves? What are the mechanistic differences between this and turkey / ostrich-sized therapods developing feathers and becoming as such? Ye Olde Bible?
The proposition that ALL living organisms,the 2+ million known species alive and extinct, have descended with modification from a universal common ancestor is false. No one denies that organisms change and that offspring are different than parents. Im different from my parents. But there is a demonstrable barrier to change that has been empirically observed in organisms so that the type of changes that would enable micobes to give rise to microbiologists cannot occur.
@Kuartus The proposition is false? How confident of you. "No one denies organisms change & offspring differ from parents". There ya go, that's evolution. "But there's a demonstrable barrier" -- ooh, what is it?
Microbiologists do initially start out as microbes. Could you please answer my questions, in my previous post too. Thanks, champ.
@Boy192 I guess Im an evolutionist then!Hahaha! Equivocation. Typical evolutionist practice. The horizontal changes we observe in organisms are not proof of the alleged vertical changes that supposedly have happened for the past 3.5 billion years. If you want to label all observed instances of change "evolution" go right ahead, but the fact remains that the types of changes that would enable a microorganism to turn into microbiologists have NEVER been observed.
Kua, the types of changes that would allow a microbe to become a human have been observed. But the evolution of a microbial population to a human one is something that could never be observed. But to make the point that something needs to be observed to be accepted as fact is a flawed one. Science does not rely on eyewitness accounts, like the fairytales of Jesus healing lepers and walking on water; science is far more sophisticated than that.
Okay, cite an example of a documented case of a change that would allow a microbe to become a human. But the thing is that in science OBSERVATION is imperative. It is a basic step in the scientific method. So if the evolution of bacteria to humans can never be observed, then how could you justify calling it a scientific fact?
#1 Kua, Mutations are "the type of change that would enable" one species to give rise to another, not matter the form, because it's mutations that produce variation, and that's what natural selection requires to act upon. It doesn't guarantee a population will evolve in this way or that, but the point is that the mechanisms for evolution are there. Isolated populations of P. sicula have developed cecal valves n' larger heads to adapt to a total plant diet. Degradation?
As i have said before, mutations randomize the base sequence. The base sequence already specify functional specific protein molecules and many proteins are very intolerant to any change in amino acid sequence so that a random change would render the protein non functional. Thats far from gaining new specific functions. The cecal valves you address were merely an enlargement of existing muscles. Again no new genetic codes.
@Kua Mutations don't randomise the base sequence, they alter a portion of it. A point mutation replaces one nucleotide with another; a frameshift mutation inserts a new base or even gene into the sequence. Most mutations are neutral as far as their impact on fitness is concerned, far from deleterious. Cecal valves are _valves_ formed by modifying surrounding tissue — and that's how evolution works. It required genetic changes — i.e. "new genetic codes" — mutations.
The reason mutations randomize the base sequence is because mutations are RANDOM! No real leap in logic here. During replication, an exact copy of the dna molecule is passed on to the daughter cell. The purpose of such a thing would be so that the daughter cell is able to produce the specific proteins it needs to continie operating. Random mutations can only randomize the sequence because the new sequence created does nothing to specify a particular protein molecule for any particular function.
Kua, Again, mutations just alter a portion of the sequence, they don't completely shuffle it like a deck of cards. Just because a nucleotide is inserted or supplanted randomly, does not mean the whole gene sequence is thrown into disarray. And stop being redundant and saying things which are irrelevant — cell replication? In many cases it doesn't produce an exact copy and the cell gets on just fine.
I never said that a single mutation would throw the entire gene into disarray. But the thing is that mutations continue to occur. And as they continue to occur, well obviously they accumulate. So the genes can eventually become disabled not gain a completely novel function.
Kua, yes genes can become disabled. Again... natural selection blah, blah, blah. Genes can also duplicate, and thus a spare can be opened up for further adaptation. Generational genetic change, whether accumulative or not will typically be subtle.
As I said before, There is only a very small range of amino acid sequences which allow the formation of functioning proteins compared to all the possible arrangement of amino acids which are possible and would be completely useless. The types of changes that would have to occur would have to be very specific, and again mutations are not specific since they are random. It is extremely unlikely that undirected mutations would form an amino acid sequence of any biological function.
Kua, in groups of 3, it's 64 possible combinations. Only a few serve as start & stop functions, the rest provide redundancy. Of course, amino acids come in polypeptide chains, which makes the difference and opens up the potential for evolution. There's no limit to how long and varied these chains can be. Again... natural selection; genetic drift isn't a major factor in forming functional polypeptides — it's natural selection that guides their formation.
#1a Of course what you're really asking me to do is literally describe 3 billion years of evolution. Again, direct observation isn't the best source of evidence: "I saw it, so it happened" doesn't cut it. There's certain things we understand about the Universe that we need to take into account in coming to a conclusion about an event that happened only once. Evolution has been documented, the mechanisms are there, the evidence supports, so the conclusions are very probable. Alternative idea? No?
Kua. People can be easily deceived. I went to the circus a couple of weeks ago and saw — in company of many others — that a woman disappeared. Did we really, literally, see a woman disappear before our very eyes — real magic? Or were we deceived by our own eyes? Was it an illusion? Often times things can't be directly observed and we must rely on other forms of evidence. It has its limitations, and it isn't absolutely necessary. A dead possum in the woods that no one saw alive, did it once live?
@Boy192 Yes, its true. Microbiologists do start out as a single cell which rapidly divides and starts to grow. But that single cell is not a microbe, its a zygote. A microbe is a unicellullar organism like a bacteria or amoeba. You asked what barrier. The principle of degradation of information. The information in the genome is currupted by every mutation and becomes more randomized as time goes by. It does not increase in information content, which would be necessary for vertical evolution.
Kua Well, a zygote is still a micro-organism: it's small, it's living, and it's organised. Micro-organisms can also be multicellular. "Information" in biology is just a metaphor for the layman, it's not something which can be measured or taken into account. Genes can become degraded through mutations, but if they affect fitness negatively, those mutations likely won't be selected. Overall, organisms remain organised, as it's required for their function & reproduction.
Some multicellular organisms are microscopic. So is a human zygote.I was simply referring to prokaryotes and other unicellular organisms. Actually, information in the cell is a very real thing. And of course information in itself is not a material entity. But it is vital for life. Information exists in the form of the genetic code and genetic blueprint for the organization and function of the organism
Well the genetic code is actually a molecule, so it's chemistry. Information is "vital for life"? So information is vitality? Or is information the "genetic code"? Are the terms "information" and "genetic code" synonymous? What is it? What, in bio-molecular terms would a unit of information be?
Actually no. The genetic code is not a molecule. It is a correspondence between triple base sequences and an amino acid which is not determined by the properties of the nucleotides or the properties of the protein monomers, so no. Its not just chemistry. The DNA molecule is the control center of the cell, so yeah the information CONTAINED in the genetic code is essential for directing the life processes of the cell.And I said that information is not a material entity but you ignored it
Kua, Oh, you changed the definition of "genetic code" to suit yourself? I thought you were just contradicting yourself when said "information" wasn't material, but was the genetic code. Because in biology, "genetic code" refers to DNA, which is a molecule. "Correspondence" between triplets and blah, blah...? So you summarise transcription, translation & the other stages of protein synthesis as information? They appear to be chemical reactions to the biologists trained in this.
No the genetic code does not refer to DNA.This is from wiki"The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells"
Information refers to the blueprint for biological structure and function laid out in the genetic sequence.
Kua, So, it's more precisely referring to the order of bases in codons to specify amino acids? Well, I think it's implied that there's a sequence to it by the term "code". That's fair enough. So using the analogy, a unit of "information" would be a codon — a grouping of three bases which is capable of producing an amino acid? At the end of the day it's still chemistry, so codons are codes to make amino acids, like H2O is a code to make water.
Well, the codons dont make the amino acids. They merely specify which amino acids among the 20 others. The codons dont participate in a chemical reaction to produce the amino acids, which means that the codons specify amino acids apart from any chemical necessity.
You are missing the point entirely. The nucleic acids themselves are not involved in chemically producing the amino acids. Moslty, the amino acids are acquired through absorption from the digestive tract and the others are merely modified by cellular enzymes into other amino acids. But there is no chemical necessity by which a codon MUST specify a particular amino acid. The genetic code is quite arbitrary. There is no chemical propensity involved.
Kua, honestly, that garble really makes no sense. What is the point of it? DNA is synthesised into m-RNA by an enzyme, t-RNA binds to m-RNA, which attach to ribosomes, a peptide bond is formed between amino acids, catalysed by an enzyme... how is this not chemistry? Biochemistry? Biomolecular science? As much fun as it is to play semantics & debunk creationist articles, my GF is pretty sick ATM and I gotta work early tomorrow, and y'know, get on with life.. Go claim your Nobel prize or something
Kua, then what was your point to all that? Aren't they chemicals? Isn't chemistry concerned with the behaviour of chemicals? Evolution doesn't require an increase in "information" or some intangible nonsense like that; it requires variation — and nature has proven very prolific on that count. You haven't actually made a valid point against the evidence or the mechanisms of evolution. You're a time waster.
I thought I had made my signing off clear. I can see that this is a little too over your head for you to grasp. It would be a waste of time to continue trying to explain it to you.
I recommend that you read the peer reviewed article written by Stephen Meyer that appeared in the biology journal PROCEEDINGS. Read it thouroughly,dont just skim through it. Read all of it, not just the first paragraph. Here's a link:
Yes, I will read it. Peer reviewed? What, one of the two peer-reviewed articles by ID proponents? I'm sure it'll be a huge waste of time. Airy-fairy ideas grounded in religion tend to go over my head and fail to make a point, doesn't mean I don't understand them. I was simply asking how the mechanism changed to prevent the evolutionary events that you were denying happened, and your answer was the unsubstantive "information" argument, and "no new codes". What bullshit.
If you're arguing what Meyer is arguing in this article, and I assume you are, or why else would you have presented it to me, then yes, I do understand your argument. These are things I think about myself -- I want to know the finest details of biological evolution. The difference is: unlike Meyer and yourself, I don't come to some cowardly resolution to perpetuate the primitive, Biblical protagonist. And this article was not peer-reviewed, it was retracted from the journal it was published in.
Lies. The article was peer reviewed by three independent referees which were in fact evolutionary biologists. The reason it was retracted was because of intense pressure from materialistic bigots like yourself.
Oh, okay, so it was read by a few biologists and found not to be of scientific standard. Sorry, I thought that would go without saying. Why else would it be retracted so quickly? We're not bigots, there's just no utility in fairyology. No one denies molecular biology is complex, Meyer wasn't bringing anything new to light.
Found out not to be of scientific standard? who found it no to be of scientific standard? The darwinist bigots? Certaintly not the referees who recommended it for publication and certaintly not the journal editor who is himself an evolutionist. Of course the darwinist bigots are not going to find it pleasing. It brings a huge problem to light. They certaintly arent going to like that. Which is why they became so furious and tried to get the journal editor fired. Hey, if you cant rebut, retaliate
Ah, the publisher retracted it. Sternberg was the editor, and was seen as having a conflict of interest for his affiliation -- as a fellow -- of ISCID, that promotes intelligent design. ID isn't science. Sternberg may accept evolution moreso than ID, but he is a Catholic, and he is sympathetic toward ID, and this was seen as the reason for why he accepted the paper to begin with. Every theory has problems, magic doesn't fix them.
And the only way your term "information" can be applied to biology is by "variation". Otherwise, what on Earth are you referring to when you say "information"? What evolution requires is variation, and then natural selection will "choose" which variants propagate most successfully, if at all. And yes, genetic mutations are known to provide variation among populations. See Lenski's long term experiments on Escherichia coli.
Of course mutations provide variation among populations. Those variations come in the form of increased randomization of the base sequence in dna. A two headed cow certaintly is a new variety. Lenski's experiments involved no knew specified genetic sequence,i.e no knew information.
Kua, It's not increased randomisation amongst the active genes — the genes which matter and are subject to natural selection. The only way for Ara-3 in Lenski's experiments to metabolise citrate was through mutations. A lot of mutant variety was produced. So, their genetic sequences did change and favoured accordingly by natural selection — i.e. they evolved. Sorry you weren't around to _observe_ it; you'll never believe it.
What actually happened was that e coli had the ability to metabolize citrate in non oxygen enviroments.A mutation occured that disabled the active suppresion of citrate metabolism in oxygenated conditions. Yes variety was produced. No one denies it. But such variety was a result of the corruption of a suppressor gene,not the result of novel genetic instructions.
To answer your questions genes do not suffer mutations over generations of replication? yes they do what's the mechanism that allowed 300+ breeds of dog to descend from grey wolves? Artificial selection of existing traits and subsequent degraded features from mutation.
Where is the evidence that feathers evolved? As far as I know all speciments of feathered theropods already have feathers not halfway feathers. And the evidence suggests that maniraptors were not dinosaurs but birds.
#3 Kua, So all features of dogs which differ from wolves are "degraded"? "Existing traits", yes, the traits must exist if they are to be selected. What you described is evolution via artificial selection. The inclusion of "degradation" is debatable. A great dane's longer legs are a degraded feature? A husky's thicker coat too?
I would argue that the wiener dog is a degraded form and so is the bulldog and chihuaha. In the bulldog, the continued selection of specific traits has led to overexpression and well deformity and disease. The wiener dog has a mutation hindering the production of growth hormone. the prominent features of dog breed dont involve any new genetic codes.
#3a But if you meant all the varying traits found in the 300 breeds of dog already existed in wolves, then we should be able to compare the genomes of wolves and see them to be the same as the dogs, but this is not the case. What else would you be basing that assertion on?
#4 Kua, There is evidence that feathers evolved. Fossils have been found containing therapods that had more hair-like feathers -- similar to the down of a chick. Maniraptora is a clade which includes both dinosaurs and birds, so could you be more specific? Try Archaeopteryx, Jinfengopteryx, Microraptor, V. mongoliensis, D. Antirrhopus.
Again, downy feathers are just that. FEATHERS! There is no evidence of transition between scales and feathers, of which they supposedly evolved from. Actually, I just said that the maniraptors including dromeosaurs and troodontids are not dinosaurs but birds.
Kua, the fluff found on some theropods illustrates a very primitive stage in feather evolution. If you reduce the fluff "feather" beyond that stage, then you're really not gonna have much at all beyond the scales. So, Velociraptor & Deinonychus aren't dinosaurs... they're birds? So theropods are all just birds? So a bird doesn't need to have a beak to be a bird by definition? Birds can also have large, distinguished, clawed digits on their forearms? Birds can also have teeth? Feathered = bird?
The fluff you reffer to most is most probably frayed collagen fibers and not protofeathers. Dinosaurs like compsognathus and sinosauropteryx are actual theropods I NEVER said theropod dinosaurs are all birds. I merely said that maniraptors, which are classified as theropods, are not theropods, but birds.
Since the only living animals that posses the genetic instructions for feathers are birds then it seems reasonable that yes feathered=bird.
Kua, Frayed collagen? Despite the melanosomes? And you said dromeos & troods were birds, despite the fact they had vertebrate tails, teeth, distinguished digits on their forelimbs, and no beaks.
Right, so your definition of a bird is just an organism that has feathers. So, a dinosaur that had feathers = a bird. I don't care how you want to label them, taxonomy doesn't matter much to me either. But the fact remains, some species of dinosaur had feathers.
Well, i said that it would be reasonable to say that the species of dinosaurs you say are feathered are actually birds. But Im not dogmatic about it. They could be dinosaurs, which have many birld like characteristics. But again we could classify them anyway we want. Its possible that dinosaurs had feathers. Its possible certain pterosaurs had feathers.
@Boy192 Again, the evidence suggests that the breathing mechanism of theropods like saurosinopteryx and scipionyx was analogous to that of a crocodile and completely unlike that of birds.
Michael Shermer should just stop debating. He has no understanding of what it means to debate, and is only helping the causes he argues against by his weak stage presence and inability to understand how to provide verbal rebuttals strategically. He should just stick to his magazine.
Intelligent Design is equivalent to applying science to the easter bunny or santa clause. At least Evolution tries to explain life's diversity, while Intelligent Design just puts the label "MYSTERIOUS CREATION" on the subject. Most pathetic pile of bullshit I've ever heard thats in a competition against a fact so brilliant such as Evolution.
@booste30 I dont think you have been paying attention to the debates, or the side of Wells. The issue is not science or Evolution, the issue is how Darwinism is presented to be the absolute doctrine of science, where in fact there are many holes in the theories methodology and its even debated amongst scientist. Wells made a good point how surveys/polls show that most Americans do not believe in Darwinism yet millions of tax dollars are spent to teach it in classrooms.
@booste30 Evolution has never been proved. You are correct in calling it a fact, for the definition of fact is something that can be proved or disproved. It is not truth. This is a theory with as much backing as I.D. Probably less. Sure there are tall people and short ones, but there are no humans that have developed gills, even people who have fished for generations. Dogs are always dogs, cats are always cats, diciduous trees are never evergreens and some flora need a bee to polinate.
Out of all these ID and evolution "debates", ID has not even been explained as to what its scientific explanation is. WTF does ID say about life? Does Intelligent Design honestly represent what I think it does? That organisms of today just spawned out of thin air in the same form they're in now? If thats so, the where is their evidence for it? All I hear is creationists trying so hard to find some gap in Darwinism but they never give a shred of info on what exactly they're explanation is...
I would simply ask, 'if evolution has so many holes, and is false, and if ID is such a strong theory, and 80% of Americans believe in ID, then why is evolution being taught in schools? how did it win the initial battle?'
We all know how it won, it got peer reviewed, and underwent 150 years of studying and criticism.
I would just love to see a creationist admit that.
if they actually proved then there wouldnt be a debate..problem is there saying its real and nobody sees any solid evidence just little scraps here and there ... trying trying to put the scraps together and make the puzzle..problem is you need alot more peaices just to see the picture..why should we just open wide and swollow they evolution crap :) cant we ask questions? instead of sit down shut up and accept because most scientists say so? ..
No one is saying sit down and shut up, instead, they're saying: "what, you have a new theory? Sweet! lets see it.... oh.... ID... " -"God designed the animals.."
why do i have to prove a theory in order to discredit yours? ..how about we realize evolution cant happen because of the mountain of evidence missing to explain it..then we use our resources and figure out another theory together...not seperate...i wanna work with everyone to find a answer..but debating an issue thats been case closed for the last 10 years is pointless arrogance on a disprove theory
I strongly disagree that no one is saying sit down and shut up. When teachers are being fired and students are not allowed into PhD programs because they admit they want to research Intelligent Design, that is a resounding voice from the community to "sit down and shut up." It's sad when legitimate contradictions to a flawed theory are not allowed to be thoroughly researched. Even if there was no alternative theory, shouldn't we still be concerned with the accuracy of darwinism? -- cont.
cont. -- Or is it in our best interest to simply stake our understanding of life on the "next best thing"? That's really what Darwinism is amounting to. It's not true -- and people are getting closer and closer to proving that. Yet, there's no better theory out there at the moment, so instead of spending our precious time coming up with a better theory, we are wasting it bickering over the old one. I think the ironic part is that Darwinists have become just as defensive and dogmatic as religion.
So you really think all the Harvard/Yale/MIT/etc... PhD's know the theory is false, but decide to teach it anyways? If the theory wasn't extremely credible and if it didn't have mountains of evidence supporting it scientists would be the first to admit it. If it was disproved, science would admit it and move on, that's was science does, science is about finding answers, regardless of what they are, as long as their right. But you seem the think 90% of scientists are bias.
No, I'm not saying that all the PhD's know the theory is false. I said there are people getting closer to proving it is false. However, there are a lot of PhD's out there who deny evidence against the theory just as Christians deny evidence against their religion. There's a lot of politics and dogma involved in this sort of debate that I think you are naively ignoring. No one has completely proven or disproven Darwinian evolution as of yet, but we would be a lot closer to the truth without bias.
Evolution is fact. Natural Selection is the Theory. A theory that has survived 150 years of peer-review which consists of over 200,000 papers. Do you think there are any peer-reviewed papers falsifying this theory? That's right, not a single one. Where is this evidence proving it false, or evidence proving any other claim you made?
The theory is credible in a very non-credible way. It's so much like Christianity that it makes me laugh. It's not that the theory is so amazingly accurate that nobody can disprove it -- it's nearly impossible to disprove. How are people supposed to go back and prove anything against evolution? Can we go back in time and show the PhD's that it didn't happen that way? No. We can point out what we feel are holes in the theory, but until they discover physical evidence, logic doesn't matter at all.
Lol - Evolution can be extremely easily disproven, go google what it would take, one thing that proves the theory wrong, would end it, and there are plenty of things out there that could. You're comment is just a clear example of a total lack of research.
If that were the case, evolution would already be in the trash. The rhetoric of the scientists pretty much negates any proof you think can be brought against the theory. It's easy to debate, the bottom line is, none of us are going to be able to prove anything until we discover much more about our universe and how it operates. The next step for science will have to be the discovery of the mind -- not the brain -- but the mind. Without acknowledging the mind as independent, all is lost.
umm what the fuck are you talking about? i mean where are you getting this shit? are you in prison with kent hovind? the same cell or something? i am sorry you don't understand evolution and it's subsequent theories and TESTABLE ideas, so i guess i'm saying before you exemplify hubris on a massive scale do some fucking research, look in a book written by a REAL biologist, say someone outside the discovery institute, thanks don't comment back i don't care what your personal opinion is of me, K?
I really don't even care if Intelligent Design is accepted. I don't believe in their version of life either. What I do believe is simply this. Everyone should be allowed to sit at the same table and ask questions without being ridiculed. It's one thing for religious zealots and other nuts to debate faith instead of science. I don't care for that. What I do want is for their questions of evolution to be asked. It benefits humanity as a whole to have opposing forces, just like Reps and Dems.
i see what you're saying all i'm saying is science isn't by consensus, common man consensus through common man debate, ID claims aren't on the same scientific level so to speak as evolution, people can discuss it sure i don't care but that doesn't mean anything to the ideas validity, what's true is independent of what we want to be true in science, opposition is good within confines of testability not layman god hypothesis the questions of ID have been answered they ignore it do i make sense?
Right. That's all I care about. Even if the ID hypothesis is false, the questions they come up with to try and shoot down evolution are often legit questions. Their theory doesn't have to be correct for them to ask tough questions about the other theory. I just don't want evolution being the scientific dictator. In my personal opinion there's about a 90% chance we'll find out sooner than later that evolution is only part of the story. The less we doubt it, the longer that discovery will take.
The high school classroom is not the place for debate. High school is the place for you to learn the fundamental basics. So as adults you can question and critique ideas, hypothesis', and theories. High school should be a place you can trust, so you should be taught the most proven ideas. This doesn't mean kids should ask question or attempt to understanding things better, it only means children shouldn't be exposed to undeveloped idea's until they have a bullshit meter in place......
"Instead, the information contained in DNA fit perfectly with the established (Darwinian) models." Hogwash. Try doing a search on "Junk" DNA once thought to be evolutionary vestiges.
"'Instead, the information contained in DNA fit perfectly with the established (Darwinian) models.' Hogwash. Try doing a search on "Junk" DNA once thought to be evolutionary vestiges."
Ummm...
How, exactly, do pseudogenes and retrotransposons not fit into an evolutionary model?
Please, enlighten me.
The conservative nature of the genome actually fits rather nicely, don't you think?
Or do you just misunderstand the concept of selective pressure?
This has been flagged as spam show
All one needs to understand is that Macro Evolution FAILS the scientific method because Macro Evolution cannot be duplicated or predicted, which is the most basic requirement of science.
parasitesarefunny 1 month ago
I side with Shermer on the argument, but Wells did a very good job by not invoking religion or the Bible into the debate and admitting when he didn't have an answer. This is how a debate should be done, forget Ray Comfort and the like.
thewetflarp 3 months ago
80% dont accept. Well it doesnt matter what u accept - if science proves something and u cant prove it wrong AND REPLACE IT with something equally legitimate, u simply have to believe what the science says or u turn to religion and become a fundamentalist.
aaqucnaona94 3 months ago
private school would be divisive to society. imagine each school teaching it's own version of creation, ID or evolution. i think it would create more problems and threaten secularism.
lhurien 4 months ago
"you don't need evidence for evolution once you have that philosophy. It's simply a logical deduction from your philosphy."
This was well said. They've already presupposed probability over a nearly infinite amount of time. The philosophy need only address possible natural causes 'given enough time'. Rendering the theory unfalsifiable. Otherwise it would have been falsified every time some part of the theory had to be 'refined'. What the atheists called 'moving the goal posts'. Stifling dissent.
knowwaie 5 months ago
All you need to disprove Darwinian Evolution is a Pre-Cambrian chicken.
Andy32268 7 months ago
@Andy32268 But we can't ignore all the body of evidence because of 1 misplaced fossil. We would have to come up with a new theory that still encompasses all the data that we have.
Moh5Itachi1 5 months ago
@Moh5Itachi1 Well yes, but it is doubtful that the new theory could be considered Darwinian Evolution. Frankly, to our current knowledge, a Pre-Cambrian chicken would be an impossibility; one of the greatest anomalies of our millenium.
Andy32268 5 months ago
Wells is a fat disgusting liar
Brushles83 8 months ago
this is why we need christopher hitchens and dawkins, this idiot cannot lack a lot of knowledge to defende evolution and does not counter attacks the creationist arguments.
ventura433 9 months ago
Both men have their belief philosophy and that should be respected. Ridiculing one side or the other never creates useful discourse, it only shows the person doing the ridiculing doesn't have a secure enough grasp on their own view of things to treat any person they meet with respect. And I thought this presentation came off very respectfully. great upload
eslubin 11 months ago
@eslubin "Both men have their belief philosophy and that should be respected"
I disagree. I wouldn't respect a flath-earther, why on earth would I respect a creationtard?
ScientificBob 11 months ago
My money is on, the creationist eats lunch alone in that crowd.
A small retort to him. If the public were ask to decide if it should be taught in schools the world were flat 1,000 years ago. The answer would have been yes. That is why we teach people, then they teach others, etc, etc. and do not ask for popular opinion and run with it.
pumpstations 1 year ago
At the end of it all,its ridiculous,there should be no debate,there is no controversy,its just these id'ers conjuring up pathetic non reviewed crap to try to sneak GOD into the equation.Science works and spending time and money on debating an unproven GOD agenda instead of using the time and resources on ACTUAL science is a complete waste of space DIRECTLY caused by these time and resource -wasting id retards,this crap needs sweeping STRAIGHT off the planet now.
VaiRoth 1 year ago
@shark69 Modern evolutionary theory is not a logical consequence of materialism. There are multiple theories of evolution, Lamark had a theory of evolution that is decidedly not Darwinian, for one example. The success of Darwin's theory is its agreement with observation, not its logical consistency with some philosophy.
shishkabobby 1 year ago
Wells is correct. Fossil trilobites in hominid bedding planes would not falsify evolution. Just like the discovery of living coelacanths didn't falsify it. The Darwinists just made more excuses for the fossil problem. And it's a BIG problem for them.
9pt9 1 year ago
@9pt9 I agree that Wells had a valid point here.
RichardJNotturno 11 months ago
@9pt9 There is no fossil problem. Evolution has been observed. It is the only theory that explains all the facts in a cohesive manner. DNA is the strongest evidence for descent with modification or common ancesty. Retro-virus DNA markers can only be explained by evolution. All animals have more similiarities than differences. I think people have a tendency to focus on the differences. Evolutionary theory even explains why people get annoying hiccups. Surely a designer doesn't explain it.
Fishqueen1972 9 months ago
The last questioner is right. If you are a materialist then Darwinist Evolution naturally follows.
sharka69 1 year ago
Why do people ask pointless questions that could be answered with 30 seconds of research?
TheFifthGreatApe 1 year ago
Great debate, I just have one problem with the last question that Michael Shermer answered. Evolution wouldn't be proven false if we found fossil trilobites near human fossils; it'd just say that trilobites went extinct more recently than we thought. Now, if we found a homo sapien fossil in the Jurassic, that would disprove evolution. Other than that, I enjoyed this debate :)
amaiDT 1 year ago
@amaiDT dont forget the young trilobyte would need to be radioisotope dated to a more recent date, which they are consistently not.
alexhamster1134 1 year ago
Darwinism is a set of movements and concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin. The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term. In the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for evolutionary theory.
Entropy56 1 year ago
"They are proving evolution in labs all the time." I believe their findings are faulty. This is a great debate, but neither side should be taught in science class. That is for FACTS not THEORIES. These points are philosophical in nature. FACT: humans have 46 chromosomes. THEORY: humans evolved from chimps (42 chromosomes). These points should be presented to older children so they don't grow up learning crap like "the earth is billions of years old" Only God can prove that.
1776bricks 1 year ago
Wells puts up a excellent point. Evolution proves how things work, and until we figure out where things come from, no need to make science spill out garbage like there is no god! Sure maybe not a personal god, but who cares the theist have moved from that position along time ago to avoid extinction! I'm an atheist, but i believe a creator might exist, just as much as i believe that girl might like me. Let it be! F*cken human's and our biases. The real issue is indoctrination of any kind!
architect333 1 year ago
Why didn't wells answer the question about how it is his goal to destroy evolution for his cult leader?
diekerze 1 year ago
Respond to this video... IDK Mr. Wells was very articulate but it seems that his hypothesis is based on opinion. Just because something seemed design does not mean that it is. We once believed that the earth stood still as the sun went around (or across it for flat earthers) our planet. Just because a theory has holes you can't fill them up with opinions. Show me human tools and fossils in the pre-cambrian.
Killjeser 1 year ago
@Killjeser Articulate? To ME, he comes across as someone who got REALLY lucky to get a Ph.D. All he does is defer questions to the "Darwinists", as he loves to call us. He never provides any arguments of his own, and his various evidences are predicated on faulty data and/or faulty reasoning.
Sigil23 1 year ago
They actually found a hammer in cretaceus rock Actually, if human tools were to be found in precambrian rock, evolutionists would just say that it is a hoax or try to explain it away. After all, it is impossible for there to be tools in precambrian rock. Why? Well because there is no evidence of human existence that far back!!! So that hammer in precambrian rock has to be FAKE!!!
IT JUST HAS TO BE!!!!!
And by the way, just because a computer seems designed, I cannot logically infer that it is?
Kuartus 1 year ago
@Kuartus Hammer in pre-cambrian? I'd like to see that. Do you have a link?
Killjeser 1 year ago
10:0 about inteligent design ;)
milevski21 1 year ago
If 80% of the poorly educated public in America don't believe in "Darwinism", it must be false. That is some piss-poor logic Mr. Wells. This coming from a guy that doesn't believe AIDS comes from HIV.
justonefyx 1 year ago
Evolution gets taught in schools because it is the leading theory in biology and there is no real argument about it in the scientific community. Yes there are fossils missing. It would be much stranger if there were a complete fossil record. The fact of the nested tree and that nothing has been found to contradict it, the studiess of DNA all support the theory of evolution.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
80 to 90% of Americans don't accept evolution?
Listen, I hope Americans become exquisitely more aware that they can very easily get left behind by much of the world. Your future is in a properly educated and informed populous. Science is the fulcrum of the true progress, insights and innovations that the human species can achieve. I worry when I hear statistics like that, I think of the ancient Arab world as it crossed from open rationalism and science to religious dogmatism.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
Very civilized all the way through. Almost too civilized, but still, to both of their benefit.
infideluxe 1 year ago 2
is there more to this debate? I really enjoyed this.
keith101guitar 1 year ago
There's no such thing as intelligent design. It's creationism masquerading as science. I am a bit .. confused why this even needs to be said.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago 2
oh man. i have no idea how shermer was able to shake that guy's hand after all that
chupacabra 1 year ago
If this guy can't give a single example of what would falsify Darwinism, can ANYONE else?
Ianmcgregorable 2 years ago
I'm confused, he just did? There are many things that would easily falsify Darwinism. Finding multiple hominid fossils in Silurian sediments would be quite the Darwin killer, for example. Finding a genetic function that effectively puts a cap on how far a genome can evolve through "microevolution" would be another thing. But there are no observed caps, it just goes on and on and on and on as far as we can tell. Just to mention a few things.
joeceph 2 years ago
@joeceph
Finding anachronistic fossils have never yet falsified Darwinism. Scientists are merely puzzled for a little while, then they rework the tree of life.
Isn't that correct?
Ianmcgregorable 2 years ago
@Ianmcgregorable
Mention one "anachronistic" fossil that has been found, will ya? The tree of life is constantly reworked, yes, that's how science functions. Science adapts to available evidence, thus it keeps changing, it's no absolute truth in any way. If you want absolute truths you have to adhere to various religious beliefs and what not, but the problem there is that they are lacking in objective evidence.
joeceph 2 years ago
@joeceph
I've already mentioned the fact that there are many "living fossils," species which are supposed to have gone extinct many millions of years ago but which are caught in fishing nets today and appear unchanged over the eons.
Somehow, they escaped the laws of Darwin.
In spite of vast changes in their environment, which led all other species to branch into completely different iterations of species, these guys were unaffected.
Millions of generations and no changes.
Hmmm...
Ianmcgregorable 2 years ago
But I think the best fossil evidence against Darwinism is not what's in the fossil record but what's missing, trillions of transitional species and specific body parts.
Let's start with the Cambrian explosion. The transitional forms which must have preceded these species are missing.
Where is the transitional fossils for wings? For eyes? Every explanation is a supposition. "Evolution accelerated!" How? Why? What is the "normal" rate of evolution? "We don't know!"
Darwinism is a "fact"? Hmm..
Ianmcgregorable 2 years ago
I'll take this with you in a private message as the character limit on here does not allow for sufficiently long responses.
joeceph 2 years ago
@Ianmcgregorable - There are living transitional forms for wings, for eyes. Do some fucking research, man. Christ.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago 6
@Ianmcgregorable
To date, no fossils that contradict evolution have been found as far as I know. You'd need something quite extraordinary there, like the aforementioned examples. But the attacks on evolution don't stop there, of course. If geology and the distribution of fossils in sediments support an old earth and an evolving life, then the dating methods and the geology must be wrong. Of course.
joeceph 2 years ago
@joeceph
Of course, there are questions about the geologic dating methods.
But these were dismissed decades ago because Darwinism hangs on the fossil record, and nothing can falsify Darwinism.
For example, polystrate fossils, the fossil trees which stand across millions of years of rock layer.
That's a death blow to the whole damn enterprise. Well, assuming one is still open minded enough to question theories.
Ianmcgregorable 2 years ago
@Ianmcgregorable 'The repeated deposition of sediments by volcanic lahars and sediment filled rivers not only created innumerable polystrate trees, but also “polystrate” telephone poles, churches, and houses, over a period a few years.'
Wikipedia
There are NO ploystrate trees spanning millions of years.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@Ianmcgregorable
yes, kirk cameron's crocoduck.
If that existed, then ALL of evolution is wrong.
Oddly, the idiot he is, he thinks that is what evolution predicts.
WisdomVendor 1 year ago 5
Shermer could not find a single example which would falsify Darwinism.
FASCINATING
Ianmcgregorable 2 years ago
Wow! So Dr. Wells's explanation for falsifying ID is (and he never directly stated this) find something that happened by chance or by natural causes? um...ok. Rain occurs by vaporous water molecules condensing, forming heavier than air masses that fall toward the Earth. About 5 seconds and I've completely disproven ID. Now was that hard? Can we drop ID now?
Ripley747 2 years ago
If the majority of people didn't believe in evolution, the eight members of the Dover Pennsylvania school board in favor of teaching I.D. in the school would not have been replaced in a popular vote. A lot of people profess to be religious, but do so only for appearances. They know the reality, but don't want to face the critisim of being labeled a non-believer. In the countrys that have the highest atheist % this does not happen. In 200 yrs. I predict the fall of religion from maistream society
boneshelley 2 years ago
@ 2:20 he mentions only 15% believe in "Darwinism" aka Evolution, Many people 500 years ago thought the earth was the centre of the universe, majority belief does not account for anything in science, only what can be summised and predicted by math+observation. If he turly believes what he says he does he sould turn away from medical science as well and get himself a witch doctor and some leeches. He is I'm sure a leading 15th century mind, but its the 21st century.
Cougar139tweak 2 years ago
Evolution by all standards of peer-review should have failed scientific scrutiny.
It is completley persuaded with political and financial motives. Moreover their failure, fuels the arrogance and denial within the scientific community.
goshawker07 2 years ago
Bull!
1) The papers are peer-reviewed by multiple experts.
2) They are done ananymously.
3) The reviewers have NO vested interested in "passing" the paper.
4) Their "motives" are not political/financial except in that no one would give grant money to a scientific illterate. =Reputation.
5) Name ONE ID paper that has undergone the SAME scutiny that a paper on evolution has undergone and passed.
6) Name ONE ID paper that has FAILED the same scrutiny complete w/ reviewer's comments. Just 1.
Ripley747 2 years ago
@Ripley747
With the CRU emails, we saw just how corrupted scientific peer-review can be.
By the way, many respected scientists agree with me on that one.
And if you unaware of the corruption of peer review (and the persecution of skeptical scientists) vis-a-vis Evolution science, then you've been living under a rock.
Ianmcgregorable 2 years ago
Are there corrupt scientists? Yes. Are they all corrupt? No.
The peer review process is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to weed out the corrupt scientists.
Have you seen potholer54's vid's on the climate change emails? They are good. I recommend watching them.
Btw, I worked as a professional scientist. I worked in a lab durring the summers in college and the 1st 5 years after graduation.
Advice - News is a horrible way to determine what's going on in the scientific community.
Ripley747 2 years ago
Oh, and "skeptical scientists" are usually persecuted, frankly, because they are horrible scientists who make claims without any evidence to back them up. If they actually did scientific experiments then real scientists might actually listen to them.
Ripley747 2 years ago
Johnathon Wells keeps criticizing science for not allowing the supernatural. Seriously, how old is he? There's no fairies or ghosts or supernatural. If you allow for the supernatural in science then it is just whatever you can dream up.
jimbrown257 2 years ago
The last chap's question hit the nail on the head. Darwinism is a materialistic philosophy that is unfalsifiable. It's absolutely correct.
athlete117 2 years ago
Really, what if you found say a modern animal like a lion, tiger, or rabbit in the soil sample dated to be millions of years old, that contained fossils of animals long dead millions of years ago. Wouldn't that disprove evolution. What if you DNA sequences for certain proteins of animals predicted to have a recent common anscestor that were vastly different. Wouldn't that disprove evolution?
Leones44 2 years ago
yeah haha, but we never find anything like that. so doesnt that support evolution:)
fcdog555 2 years ago
@ Athlete 117
Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian would disprove Darwinism. That's why it's scientific--because it's falsifiable.
cyranothe2nd 2 years ago
Wow. I'm really quite impressed with the way both of them presented their arguments. Very civilized, coherent, and neither side erected straw men to throw down. Very good.
eklektos777 2 years ago
When ever they have these debates, is it always the evolution proponent who has to prove anything? Just once I would like to see the evolutionist ripe these wackos apart.
rns13 2 years ago 6
@rns13
They can't.
The evidence is NOT on the evolutionists side.
Kuartus 1 year ago
@Kuartus
only if you ignore, all the evidence.
but hey decades of research versus blind faith, i can see where it might be difficult.
rns13 1 year ago
@rns13
thats exactly how evolutionists manage to keep their worldview.
By ignoring ALL the evidence. Sorry but the blind faith is in your side of the court.
Kuartus 1 year ago
@Kuartus
your a national treasure of comedy. don't ever change (as if you could).
rns13 1 year ago
@rns13
Open your eyes kid. The theory of evolution is crumbling before our very eyes.
Kuartus 1 year ago
@Kuartus
lol sure chief, whatever you say.
rns13 1 year ago
@Kuartus So evolution -- both phenomenon & theory -- is false? So genes do not determine the structural, behavioural & physiological traits of an organism? Genes are not inherited? And genes do not suffer mutations over generations of replication? So what's the mechanism that allowed 300+ breeds of dog to descend from grey wolves? What are the mechanistic differences between this and turkey / ostrich-sized therapods developing feathers and becoming as such? Ye Olde Bible?
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
The proposition that ALL living organisms,the 2+ million known species alive and extinct, have descended with modification from a universal common ancestor is false. No one denies that organisms change and that offspring are different than parents. Im different from my parents. But there is a demonstrable barrier to change that has been empirically observed in organisms so that the type of changes that would enable micobes to give rise to microbiologists cannot occur.
Kuartus 1 year ago
@Kuartus The proposition is false? How confident of you. "No one denies organisms change & offspring differ from parents". There ya go, that's evolution. "But there's a demonstrable barrier" -- ooh, what is it?
Microbiologists do initially start out as microbes. Could you please answer my questions, in my previous post too. Thanks, champ.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 I guess Im an evolutionist then!Hahaha! Equivocation. Typical evolutionist practice. The horizontal changes we observe in organisms are not proof of the alleged vertical changes that supposedly have happened for the past 3.5 billion years. If you want to label all observed instances of change "evolution" go right ahead, but the fact remains that the types of changes that would enable a microorganism to turn into microbiologists have NEVER been observed.
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua, the types of changes that would allow a microbe to become a human have been observed. But the evolution of a microbial population to a human one is something that could never be observed. But to make the point that something needs to be observed to be accepted as fact is a flawed one. Science does not rely on eyewitness accounts, like the fairytales of Jesus healing lepers and walking on water; science is far more sophisticated than that.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
Okay, cite an example of a documented case of a change that would allow a microbe to become a human. But the thing is that in science OBSERVATION is imperative. It is a basic step in the scientific method. So if the evolution of bacteria to humans can never be observed, then how could you justify calling it a scientific fact?
Kuartus 1 year ago
#1 Kua, Mutations are "the type of change that would enable" one species to give rise to another, not matter the form, because it's mutations that produce variation, and that's what natural selection requires to act upon. It doesn't guarantee a population will evolve in this way or that, but the point is that the mechanisms for evolution are there. Isolated populations of P. sicula have developed cecal valves n' larger heads to adapt to a total plant diet. Degradation?
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
As i have said before, mutations randomize the base sequence. The base sequence already specify functional specific protein molecules and many proteins are very intolerant to any change in amino acid sequence so that a random change would render the protein non functional. Thats far from gaining new specific functions. The cecal valves you address were merely an enlargement of existing muscles. Again no new genetic codes.
Kuartus 1 year ago
@Kua Mutations don't randomise the base sequence, they alter a portion of it. A point mutation replaces one nucleotide with another; a frameshift mutation inserts a new base or even gene into the sequence. Most mutations are neutral as far as their impact on fitness is concerned, far from deleterious. Cecal valves are _valves_ formed by modifying surrounding tissue — and that's how evolution works. It required genetic changes — i.e. "new genetic codes" — mutations.
Boy192 1 year ago
The reason mutations randomize the base sequence is because mutations are RANDOM! No real leap in logic here. During replication, an exact copy of the dna molecule is passed on to the daughter cell. The purpose of such a thing would be so that the daughter cell is able to produce the specific proteins it needs to continie operating. Random mutations can only randomize the sequence because the new sequence created does nothing to specify a particular protein molecule for any particular function.
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua, Again, mutations just alter a portion of the sequence, they don't completely shuffle it like a deck of cards. Just because a nucleotide is inserted or supplanted randomly, does not mean the whole gene sequence is thrown into disarray. And stop being redundant and saying things which are irrelevant — cell replication? In many cases it doesn't produce an exact copy and the cell gets on just fine.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
I never said that a single mutation would throw the entire gene into disarray. But the thing is that mutations continue to occur. And as they continue to occur, well obviously they accumulate. So the genes can eventually become disabled not gain a completely novel function.
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua, yes genes can become disabled. Again... natural selection blah, blah, blah. Genes can also duplicate, and thus a spare can be opened up for further adaptation. Generational genetic change, whether accumulative or not will typically be subtle.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
As I said before, There is only a very small range of amino acid sequences which allow the formation of functioning proteins compared to all the possible arrangement of amino acids which are possible and would be completely useless. The types of changes that would have to occur would have to be very specific, and again mutations are not specific since they are random. It is extremely unlikely that undirected mutations would form an amino acid sequence of any biological function.
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua, in groups of 3, it's 64 possible combinations. Only a few serve as start & stop functions, the rest provide redundancy. Of course, amino acids come in polypeptide chains, which makes the difference and opens up the potential for evolution. There's no limit to how long and varied these chains can be. Again... natural selection; genetic drift isn't a major factor in forming functional polypeptides — it's natural selection that guides their formation.
Boy192 1 year ago
#1a Of course what you're really asking me to do is literally describe 3 billion years of evolution. Again, direct observation isn't the best source of evidence: "I saw it, so it happened" doesn't cut it. There's certain things we understand about the Universe that we need to take into account in coming to a conclusion about an event that happened only once. Evolution has been documented, the mechanisms are there, the evidence supports, so the conclusions are very probable. Alternative idea? No?
Boy192 1 year ago
Comment removed
Kuartus 1 year ago
@Boy192
Direct observation isnt the best source of evidence in science?!!!
WOW!!!!!
Just, WOW!!!
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua. People can be easily deceived. I went to the circus a couple of weeks ago and saw — in company of many others — that a woman disappeared. Did we really, literally, see a woman disappear before our very eyes — real magic? Or were we deceived by our own eyes? Was it an illusion? Often times things can't be directly observed and we must rely on other forms of evidence. It has its limitations, and it isn't absolutely necessary. A dead possum in the woods that no one saw alive, did it once live?
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 Yes, its true. Microbiologists do start out as a single cell which rapidly divides and starts to grow. But that single cell is not a microbe, its a zygote. A microbe is a unicellullar organism like a bacteria or amoeba. You asked what barrier. The principle of degradation of information. The information in the genome is currupted by every mutation and becomes more randomized as time goes by. It does not increase in information content, which would be necessary for vertical evolution.
Kuartus 1 year ago
#1
Kua Well, a zygote is still a micro-organism: it's small, it's living, and it's organised. Micro-organisms can also be multicellular. "Information" in biology is just a metaphor for the layman, it's not something which can be measured or taken into account. Genes can become degraded through mutations, but if they affect fitness negatively, those mutations likely won't be selected. Overall, organisms remain organised, as it's required for their function & reproduction.
Boy192 1 year ago
Some multicellular organisms are microscopic. So is a human zygote.I was simply referring to prokaryotes and other unicellular organisms. Actually, information in the cell is a very real thing. And of course information in itself is not a material entity. But it is vital for life. Information exists in the form of the genetic code and genetic blueprint for the organization and function of the organism
Kuartus 1 year ago
@Kua
Well the genetic code is actually a molecule, so it's chemistry. Information is "vital for life"? So information is vitality? Or is information the "genetic code"? Are the terms "information" and "genetic code" synonymous? What is it? What, in bio-molecular terms would a unit of information be?
Boy192 1 year ago
Comment removed
Kuartus 1 year ago
@Boy192
Actually no. The genetic code is not a molecule. It is a correspondence between triple base sequences and an amino acid which is not determined by the properties of the nucleotides or the properties of the protein monomers, so no. Its not just chemistry. The DNA molecule is the control center of the cell, so yeah the information CONTAINED in the genetic code is essential for directing the life processes of the cell.And I said that information is not a material entity but you ignored it
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua, Oh, you changed the definition of "genetic code" to suit yourself? I thought you were just contradicting yourself when said "information" wasn't material, but was the genetic code. Because in biology, "genetic code" refers to DNA, which is a molecule. "Correspondence" between triplets and blah, blah...? So you summarise transcription, translation & the other stages of protein synthesis as information? They appear to be chemical reactions to the biologists trained in this.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
No the genetic code does not refer to DNA.This is from wiki"The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells"
Information refers to the blueprint for biological structure and function laid out in the genetic sequence.
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua, So, it's more precisely referring to the order of bases in codons to specify amino acids? Well, I think it's implied that there's a sequence to it by the term "code". That's fair enough. So using the analogy, a unit of "information" would be a codon — a grouping of three bases which is capable of producing an amino acid? At the end of the day it's still chemistry, so codons are codes to make amino acids, like H2O is a code to make water.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
Well, the codons dont make the amino acids. They merely specify which amino acids among the 20 others. The codons dont participate in a chemical reaction to produce the amino acids, which means that the codons specify amino acids apart from any chemical necessity.
Kuartus 1 year ago
A nucleotide is a molecule, a codon is three nucleotides. So how do three nucleotides become one amino acid if not via a chemical reaction?
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
You are missing the point entirely. The nucleic acids themselves are not involved in chemically producing the amino acids. Moslty, the amino acids are acquired through absorption from the digestive tract and the others are merely modified by cellular enzymes into other amino acids. But there is no chemical necessity by which a codon MUST specify a particular amino acid. The genetic code is quite arbitrary. There is no chemical propensity involved.
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua, honestly, that garble really makes no sense. What is the point of it? DNA is synthesised into m-RNA by an enzyme, t-RNA binds to m-RNA, which attach to ribosomes, a peptide bond is formed between amino acids, catalysed by an enzyme... how is this not chemistry? Biochemistry? Biomolecular science? As much fun as it is to play semantics & debunk creationist articles, my GF is pretty sick ATM and I gotta work early tomorrow, and y'know, get on with life.. Go claim your Nobel prize or something
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
Boy, you are clueless. Its like you think Im denying there is chemistry involved. But anyway, nice talking to ya. Hope your GF gets better.
Peace.
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua, then what was your point to all that? Aren't they chemicals? Isn't chemistry concerned with the behaviour of chemicals? Evolution doesn't require an increase in "information" or some intangible nonsense like that; it requires variation — and nature has proven very prolific on that count. You haven't actually made a valid point against the evidence or the mechanisms of evolution. You're a time waster.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
I thought I had made my signing off clear. I can see that this is a little too over your head for you to grasp. It would be a waste of time to continue trying to explain it to you.
I recommend that you read the peer reviewed article written by Stephen Meyer that appeared in the biology journal PROCEEDINGS. Read it thouroughly,dont just skim through it. Read all of it, not just the first paragraph. Here's a link:
discovery(dot)org/a/2177
It will probably go over your head, but try it
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua
Yes, I will read it. Peer reviewed? What, one of the two peer-reviewed articles by ID proponents? I'm sure it'll be a huge waste of time. Airy-fairy ideas grounded in religion tend to go over my head and fail to make a point, doesn't mean I don't understand them. I was simply asking how the mechanism changed to prevent the evolutionary events that you were denying happened, and your answer was the unsubstantive "information" argument, and "no new codes". What bullshit.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
HEY SIR!!!
WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE!!!
HAHAHAH!
Kuartus 1 year ago
"I dont understand your argument, therefore its bull"
Ha, good comeback.
Kuartus 1 year ago
If you're arguing what Meyer is arguing in this article, and I assume you are, or why else would you have presented it to me, then yes, I do understand your argument. These are things I think about myself -- I want to know the finest details of biological evolution. The difference is: unlike Meyer and yourself, I don't come to some cowardly resolution to perpetuate the primitive, Biblical protagonist. And this article was not peer-reviewed, it was retracted from the journal it was published in.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
Lies. The article was peer reviewed by three independent referees which were in fact evolutionary biologists. The reason it was retracted was because of intense pressure from materialistic bigots like yourself.
Kuartus 1 year ago
Oh, okay, so it was read by a few biologists and found not to be of scientific standard. Sorry, I thought that would go without saying. Why else would it be retracted so quickly? We're not bigots, there's just no utility in fairyology. No one denies molecular biology is complex, Meyer wasn't bringing anything new to light.
Boy192 1 year ago
Found out not to be of scientific standard? who found it no to be of scientific standard? The darwinist bigots? Certaintly not the referees who recommended it for publication and certaintly not the journal editor who is himself an evolutionist. Of course the darwinist bigots are not going to find it pleasing. It brings a huge problem to light. They certaintly arent going to like that. Which is why they became so furious and tried to get the journal editor fired. Hey, if you cant rebut, retaliate
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua,
Ah, the publisher retracted it. Sternberg was the editor, and was seen as having a conflict of interest for his affiliation -- as a fellow -- of ISCID, that promotes intelligent design. ID isn't science. Sternberg may accept evolution moreso than ID, but he is a Catholic, and he is sympathetic toward ID, and this was seen as the reason for why he accepted the paper to begin with. Every theory has problems, magic doesn't fix them.
Boy192 1 year ago
Comment removed
Boy192 1 year ago
@Kuartus Well, hey, if I've just been Knighted to "Sir", then I suppose I will have to watch my language; if not, then "Bullshit!" :B
Boy192 1 year ago
Comment removed
Boy192 1 year ago
Comment removed
Boy192 1 year ago
Comment removed
Boy192 1 year ago
Comment removed
Boy192 1 year ago
#2 @Kuartus
And the only way your term "information" can be applied to biology is by "variation". Otherwise, what on Earth are you referring to when you say "information"? What evolution requires is variation, and then natural selection will "choose" which variants propagate most successfully, if at all. And yes, genetic mutations are known to provide variation among populations. See Lenski's long term experiments on Escherichia coli.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
Of course mutations provide variation among populations. Those variations come in the form of increased randomization of the base sequence in dna. A two headed cow certaintly is a new variety. Lenski's experiments involved no knew specified genetic sequence,i.e no knew information.
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua, It's not increased randomisation amongst the active genes — the genes which matter and are subject to natural selection. The only way for Ara-3 in Lenski's experiments to metabolise citrate was through mutations. A lot of mutant variety was produced. So, their genetic sequences did change and favoured accordingly by natural selection — i.e. they evolved. Sorry you weren't around to _observe_ it; you'll never believe it.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
What actually happened was that e coli had the ability to metabolize citrate in non oxygen enviroments.A mutation occured that disabled the active suppresion of citrate metabolism in oxygenated conditions. Yes variety was produced. No one denies it. But such variety was a result of the corruption of a suppressor gene,not the result of novel genetic instructions.
Kuartus 1 year ago
To answer your questions genes do not suffer mutations over generations of replication? yes they do what's the mechanism that allowed 300+ breeds of dog to descend from grey wolves? Artificial selection of existing traits and subsequent degraded features from mutation.
Where is the evidence that feathers evolved? As far as I know all speciments of feathered theropods already have feathers not halfway feathers. And the evidence suggests that maniraptors were not dinosaurs but birds.
Kuartus 1 year ago
#3 Kua, So all features of dogs which differ from wolves are "degraded"? "Existing traits", yes, the traits must exist if they are to be selected. What you described is evolution via artificial selection. The inclusion of "degradation" is debatable. A great dane's longer legs are a degraded feature? A husky's thicker coat too?
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
I would argue that the wiener dog is a degraded form and so is the bulldog and chihuaha. In the bulldog, the continued selection of specific traits has led to overexpression and well deformity and disease. The wiener dog has a mutation hindering the production of growth hormone. the prominent features of dog breed dont involve any new genetic codes.
Kuartus 1 year ago
#3a But if you meant all the varying traits found in the 300 breeds of dog already existed in wolves, then we should be able to compare the genomes of wolves and see them to be the same as the dogs, but this is not the case. What else would you be basing that assertion on?
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
The thing is that mutation certaintly have happened which would result in variations of existing alleles
Kuartus 1 year ago
#4 Kua, There is evidence that feathers evolved. Fossils have been found containing therapods that had more hair-like feathers -- similar to the down of a chick. Maniraptora is a clade which includes both dinosaurs and birds, so could you be more specific? Try Archaeopteryx, Jinfengopteryx, Microraptor, V. mongoliensis, D. Antirrhopus.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
Again, downy feathers are just that. FEATHERS! There is no evidence of transition between scales and feathers, of which they supposedly evolved from. Actually, I just said that the maniraptors including dromeosaurs and troodontids are not dinosaurs but birds.
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua, the fluff found on some theropods illustrates a very primitive stage in feather evolution. If you reduce the fluff "feather" beyond that stage, then you're really not gonna have much at all beyond the scales. So, Velociraptor & Deinonychus aren't dinosaurs... they're birds? So theropods are all just birds? So a bird doesn't need to have a beak to be a bird by definition? Birds can also have large, distinguished, clawed digits on their forearms? Birds can also have teeth? Feathered = bird?
Boy192 1 year ago
The fluff you reffer to most is most probably frayed collagen fibers and not protofeathers. Dinosaurs like compsognathus and sinosauropteryx are actual theropods I NEVER said theropod dinosaurs are all birds. I merely said that maniraptors, which are classified as theropods, are not theropods, but birds.
Since the only living animals that posses the genetic instructions for feathers are birds then it seems reasonable that yes feathered=bird.
Kuartus 1 year ago
Kua, Frayed collagen? Despite the melanosomes? And you said dromeos & troods were birds, despite the fact they had vertebrate tails, teeth, distinguished digits on their forelimbs, and no beaks.
Right, so your definition of a bird is just an organism that has feathers. So, a dinosaur that had feathers = a bird. I don't care how you want to label them, taxonomy doesn't matter much to me either. But the fact remains, some species of dinosaur had feathers.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
Well, i said that it would be reasonable to say that the species of dinosaurs you say are feathered are actually birds. But Im not dogmatic about it. They could be dinosaurs, which have many birld like characteristics. But again we could classify them anyway we want. Its possible that dinosaurs had feathers. Its possible certain pterosaurs had feathers.
Kuartus 1 year ago
@Boy192 Again, the evidence suggests that the breathing mechanism of theropods like saurosinopteryx and scipionyx was analogous to that of a crocodile and completely unlike that of birds.
Kuartus 1 year ago
if 80% of the people in the US thought that burning witches was a good idea does that mean it should be the way to go?
The answer is no. Wells is playing to peoples ideals not what matters.
ThieleM 2 years ago
Majority rules
I hope you're not a witch
LOL
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Michael Shermer should just stop debating. He has no understanding of what it means to debate, and is only helping the causes he argues against by his weak stage presence and inability to understand how to provide verbal rebuttals strategically. He should just stick to his magazine.
ainefairygoddess 2 years ago
weak debate.
perfecto25 2 years ago
They weren't debating. They were having a talk with a little Q&A afterwords.
Ripley747 2 years ago
Intelligent Design is equivalent to applying science to the easter bunny or santa clause. At least Evolution tries to explain life's diversity, while Intelligent Design just puts the label "MYSTERIOUS CREATION" on the subject. Most pathetic pile of bullshit I've ever heard thats in a competition against a fact so brilliant such as Evolution.
booste30 2 years ago 7
@booste30 I dont think you have been paying attention to the debates, or the side of Wells. The issue is not science or Evolution, the issue is how Darwinism is presented to be the absolute doctrine of science, where in fact there are many holes in the theories methodology and its even debated amongst scientist. Wells made a good point how surveys/polls show that most Americans do not believe in Darwinism yet millions of tax dollars are spent to teach it in classrooms.
enemay 1 year ago
@booste30 Evolution has never been proved. You are correct in calling it a fact, for the definition of fact is something that can be proved or disproved. It is not truth. This is a theory with as much backing as I.D. Probably less. Sure there are tall people and short ones, but there are no humans that have developed gills, even people who have fished for generations. Dogs are always dogs, cats are always cats, diciduous trees are never evergreens and some flora need a bee to polinate.
1776bricks 1 year ago
Out of all these ID and evolution "debates", ID has not even been explained as to what its scientific explanation is. WTF does ID say about life? Does Intelligent Design honestly represent what I think it does? That organisms of today just spawned out of thin air in the same form they're in now? If thats so, the where is their evidence for it? All I hear is creationists trying so hard to find some gap in Darwinism but they never give a shred of info on what exactly they're explanation is...
booste30 2 years ago 2
That was pretty lame. I think I've outgrown live debates.
vonflowers 2 years ago
I would simply ask, 'if evolution has so many holes, and is false, and if ID is such a strong theory, and 80% of Americans believe in ID, then why is evolution being taught in schools? how did it win the initial battle?'
We all know how it won, it got peer reviewed, and underwent 150 years of studying and criticism.
I would just love to see a creationist admit that.
AndrewDewittBaker 2 years ago
if they actually proved then there wouldnt be a debate..problem is there saying its real and nobody sees any solid evidence just little scraps here and there ... trying trying to put the scraps together and make the puzzle..problem is you need alot more peaices just to see the picture..why should we just open wide and swollow they evolution crap :) cant we ask questions? instead of sit down shut up and accept because most scientists say so? ..
yourboycal 2 years ago
No one is saying sit down and shut up, instead, they're saying: "what, you have a new theory? Sweet! lets see it.... oh.... ID... " -"God designed the animals.."
AndrewDewittBaker 2 years ago
why do i have to prove a theory in order to discredit yours? ..how about we realize evolution cant happen because of the mountain of evidence missing to explain it..then we use our resources and figure out another theory together...not seperate...i wanna work with everyone to find a answer..but debating an issue thats been case closed for the last 10 years is pointless arrogance on a disprove theory
yourboycal 2 years ago
I strongly disagree that no one is saying sit down and shut up. When teachers are being fired and students are not allowed into PhD programs because they admit they want to research Intelligent Design, that is a resounding voice from the community to "sit down and shut up." It's sad when legitimate contradictions to a flawed theory are not allowed to be thoroughly researched. Even if there was no alternative theory, shouldn't we still be concerned with the accuracy of darwinism? -- cont.
xnoumenon 2 years ago
cont. -- Or is it in our best interest to simply stake our understanding of life on the "next best thing"? That's really what Darwinism is amounting to. It's not true -- and people are getting closer and closer to proving that. Yet, there's no better theory out there at the moment, so instead of spending our precious time coming up with a better theory, we are wasting it bickering over the old one. I think the ironic part is that Darwinists have become just as defensive and dogmatic as religion.
xnoumenon 2 years ago
So you really think all the Harvard/Yale/MIT/etc... PhD's know the theory is false, but decide to teach it anyways? If the theory wasn't extremely credible and if it didn't have mountains of evidence supporting it scientists would be the first to admit it. If it was disproved, science would admit it and move on, that's was science does, science is about finding answers, regardless of what they are, as long as their right. But you seem the think 90% of scientists are bias.
AndrewDewittBaker 2 years ago 3
No, I'm not saying that all the PhD's know the theory is false. I said there are people getting closer to proving it is false. However, there are a lot of PhD's out there who deny evidence against the theory just as Christians deny evidence against their religion. There's a lot of politics and dogma involved in this sort of debate that I think you are naively ignoring. No one has completely proven or disproven Darwinian evolution as of yet, but we would be a lot closer to the truth without bias.
xnoumenon 2 years ago
Evolution is fact. Natural Selection is the Theory. A theory that has survived 150 years of peer-review which consists of over 200,000 papers. Do you think there are any peer-reviewed papers falsifying this theory? That's right, not a single one. Where is this evidence proving it false, or evidence proving any other claim you made?
jarjarbinks77 2 years ago
The theory is credible in a very non-credible way. It's so much like Christianity that it makes me laugh. It's not that the theory is so amazingly accurate that nobody can disprove it -- it's nearly impossible to disprove. How are people supposed to go back and prove anything against evolution? Can we go back in time and show the PhD's that it didn't happen that way? No. We can point out what we feel are holes in the theory, but until they discover physical evidence, logic doesn't matter at all.
xnoumenon 2 years ago
Lol - Evolution can be extremely easily disproven, go google what it would take, one thing that proves the theory wrong, would end it, and there are plenty of things out there that could. You're comment is just a clear example of a total lack of research.
AndrewDewittBaker 2 years ago
If that were the case, evolution would already be in the trash. The rhetoric of the scientists pretty much negates any proof you think can be brought against the theory. It's easy to debate, the bottom line is, none of us are going to be able to prove anything until we discover much more about our universe and how it operates. The next step for science will have to be the discovery of the mind -- not the brain -- but the mind. Without acknowledging the mind as independent, all is lost.
xnoumenon 2 years ago
umm what the fuck are you talking about? i mean where are you getting this shit? are you in prison with kent hovind? the same cell or something? i am sorry you don't understand evolution and it's subsequent theories and TESTABLE ideas, so i guess i'm saying before you exemplify hubris on a massive scale do some fucking research, look in a book written by a REAL biologist, say someone outside the discovery institute, thanks don't comment back i don't care what your personal opinion is of me, K?
marcligon1 2 years ago 3
I really don't even care if Intelligent Design is accepted. I don't believe in their version of life either. What I do believe is simply this. Everyone should be allowed to sit at the same table and ask questions without being ridiculed. It's one thing for religious zealots and other nuts to debate faith instead of science. I don't care for that. What I do want is for their questions of evolution to be asked. It benefits humanity as a whole to have opposing forces, just like Reps and Dems.
xnoumenon 2 years ago 2
i see what you're saying all i'm saying is science isn't by consensus, common man consensus through common man debate, ID claims aren't on the same scientific level so to speak as evolution, people can discuss it sure i don't care but that doesn't mean anything to the ideas validity, what's true is independent of what we want to be true in science, opposition is good within confines of testability not layman god hypothesis the questions of ID have been answered they ignore it do i make sense?
marcligon1 2 years ago 2
Right. That's all I care about. Even if the ID hypothesis is false, the questions they come up with to try and shoot down evolution are often legit questions. Their theory doesn't have to be correct for them to ask tough questions about the other theory. I just don't want evolution being the scientific dictator. In my personal opinion there's about a 90% chance we'll find out sooner than later that evolution is only part of the story. The less we doubt it, the longer that discovery will take.
xnoumenon 2 years ago
The high school classroom is not the place for debate. High school is the place for you to learn the fundamental basics. So as adults you can question and critique ideas, hypothesis', and theories. High school should be a place you can trust, so you should be taught the most proven ideas. This doesn't mean kids should ask question or attempt to understanding things better, it only means children shouldn't be exposed to undeveloped idea's until they have a bullshit meter in place......
jarjarbinks77 2 years ago
.... evolution is a developed idea.
*I made a typo in the first part, it should read:
"This doesn't mean kids shouldn't ask question or attempt to understanding things better"
jarjarbinks77 2 years ago
"Instead, the information contained in DNA fit perfectly with the established (Darwinian) models." Hogwash. Try doing a search on "Junk" DNA once thought to be evolutionary vestiges.
RTyp06 3 years ago
"'Instead, the information contained in DNA fit perfectly with the established (Darwinian) models.' Hogwash. Try doing a search on "Junk" DNA once thought to be evolutionary vestiges."
Ummm...
How, exactly, do pseudogenes and retrotransposons not fit into an evolutionary model?
Please, enlighten me.
The conservative nature of the genome actually fits rather nicely, don't you think?
Or do you just misunderstand the concept of selective pressure?
TheHatefulDead 2 years ago
Wells definition of evolution is a straw f-ing man.
okapitheif 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I predict the end of fundamentalist christianity is near.
The mantle of ignorance they support with young earth and denial of evolution is an untennable assertion.
Eventually nature will take its course and eliminate the weaker(dumber) of the species.
Christianity's days are numbered, and not a mintue too soon I might add.
Good riddance.
judoyodan 3 years ago