great response, i hope that douche realises his question doesnt make sense and gives up on trying to make it make sense. i'm glad theoreticalbullshit didnt respond to it, his intelligence is superior and should be focused elsewhere. again, great video, you basically put together the pieces of a jigsaw that where floating around in my head on this debate, spot on.
let me just rephrase my first comment. What i think you mean is that you think that the question "why does something exist?" is different from "how did that thing came to be?" or "What are the causes that combined created the environment for X to exist?" right?
@goncass14 Completely missed these comments, sorry champ. Still, better a late response than no response at all, eh. Yeah, I think were on the same page here - npage85 was trying to ask the simple q "how do we know evolutionary transitions are possible", but for reasons we can only guess at ended up asking "why are those transitions possible" - which translates to asking 'why?' of existence, a nonsense. And yes, I do think that those two questions ask different things. Hope that helps.
also, i don't want to get technical here lol, but the questions "why do existence exist is impossible to answer because we are inside the system we are trying to study. In order to understand and answer a "why" question like that, you'd need to get out of the universe (what that means i have no idea). If you did that, that questions is answerable
i need to ask you something, when you say that its not possible to answer the questions why is existence capable of existing, you woudln't take an answer that would explain how the universe was created or what made the big bang happen right? In other words, you think that this only answers the question "how did existence came to exist? right?
Cause that is what i think you mean and that is what i believe in. In that sence, asking why is existence capable of existing is utter nonsence
great video! I honestly hope npage85 will respond and either clarify his statement or admit that his question is simply pointless.
Until your video I didn't understand why he wouldn't accept the evidence provided by the scientific community, but hopefully your answer will answer the question he appeared to be asking.
Forgive my interjection, but isn't that exactly what the debate is about? He's asked the question (which I will reword here for the satisfaction of semantic nit-pickers) "Why do you believe that a land-based mammal evolved into a whale?" You've given him the answer "Because it did." To make your argument, which I will admit is beautifully worded, are you not presupposing that your position is correct?
If that were his question then yes, my answer would be circular, but I don't think his question can be reworded in the way you have, otherwise I'd have left it to others to expound the evidence for evolution. Rather he's asking "why is it possible that...", which I tried to show is a silly question and so occasions a silly answer. His question amounts to asking why (not how) evolution exists, which should have no bearing on ones acceptance of the theory.
Understood. I guess I just gave him the benefit of the doubt. Does not the evidence for evolution only point to microevolution? In other words, we've exposed the mechanisms (natural selection, mutation, etc.) by which evolution works, but have we not been hasty in assuming they apply to the extent we think they should? Macroevolution is considerably less documented than micro, and it is also much more of a philosophical stance rather than scientific.
I can only answer this tentatively since I'm no scientist, let alone biologist, let alone evolutionary theorist. As I understand it, none of the latter (who, after all, are the only ones properly qualified to assess this point) make any distinction between micro- and macro- evolution, "macro-evolution" being merely the aggregate of "micro-evolution" over a larger time-frame. So the evidence for the both of them is the same, surely?
Nor am I an expert. There are obviously evolutionary changes within a species, but I don't think it has ever been proven that one class has or can become another. Perhaps I am wrong, it's more than likely, but a mechanism can have limitations. So, I don't think it is safe to say that evidence for one is evidence for the other.
Great Video, between you and JasperAvi, all the points that I wanted to express have been covered, and stated much better than I could have. Thank you for saying it better than I could have.
wow, this was amazing! seriously, i was planning on making a response but i mean the way you answer this was great.
you actually explained why the rhetorical question i asked as an answer to a question made by creationist is rhetorical.
the question is why does something exist instead of nothing. and i answer by asking i don't know, you tell me, why does god exist instead of not existing.
seriously this was real good, i am subscribing! ihope you make more vids like this.
If I understand correctly, he's using "ontologically possible" to mean "metaphysically possible". If it was metaphysically impossible for natural selection and mutations to change one sequence of (what are essentially) characters in a language to another, then... well it's obviously not!
great response, i hope that douche realises his question doesnt make sense and gives up on trying to make it make sense. i'm glad theoreticalbullshit didnt respond to it, his intelligence is superior and should be focused elsewhere. again, great video, you basically put together the pieces of a jigsaw that where floating around in my head on this debate, spot on.
mick4dennis 2 months ago
let me just rephrase my first comment. What i think you mean is that you think that the question "why does something exist?" is different from "how did that thing came to be?" or "What are the causes that combined created the environment for X to exist?" right?
goncass14 1 year ago
@goncass14 Completely missed these comments, sorry champ. Still, better a late response than no response at all, eh. Yeah, I think were on the same page here - npage85 was trying to ask the simple q "how do we know evolutionary transitions are possible", but for reasons we can only guess at ended up asking "why are those transitions possible" - which translates to asking 'why?' of existence, a nonsense. And yes, I do think that those two questions ask different things. Hope that helps.
eddrebrab 1 year ago
also, i don't want to get technical here lol, but the questions "why do existence exist is impossible to answer because we are inside the system we are trying to study. In order to understand and answer a "why" question like that, you'd need to get out of the universe (what that means i have no idea). If you did that, that questions is answerable
goncass14 1 year ago
i need to ask you something, when you say that its not possible to answer the questions why is existence capable of existing, you woudln't take an answer that would explain how the universe was created or what made the big bang happen right? In other words, you think that this only answers the question "how did existence came to exist? right?
Cause that is what i think you mean and that is what i believe in. In that sence, asking why is existence capable of existing is utter nonsence
goncass14 1 year ago
great video! I honestly hope npage85 will respond and either clarify his statement or admit that his question is simply pointless.
Until your video I didn't understand why he wouldn't accept the evidence provided by the scientific community, but hopefully your answer will answer the question he appeared to be asking.
spacewolf5462 2 years ago
Excellent video! 5* and I'm subbing.
Largo64 2 years ago 2
A very coherent response. I could have done without jumping out of my chair at 5:04 though. ;)
rbairos1 2 years ago
"It just is possible because it happened."
Forgive my interjection, but isn't that exactly what the debate is about? He's asked the question (which I will reword here for the satisfaction of semantic nit-pickers) "Why do you believe that a land-based mammal evolved into a whale?" You've given him the answer "Because it did." To make your argument, which I will admit is beautifully worded, are you not presupposing that your position is correct?
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
Semantic nit-pickers like me :)
If that were his question then yes, my answer would be circular, but I don't think his question can be reworded in the way you have, otherwise I'd have left it to others to expound the evidence for evolution. Rather he's asking "why is it possible that...", which I tried to show is a silly question and so occasions a silly answer. His question amounts to asking why (not how) evolution exists, which should have no bearing on ones acceptance of the theory.
eddrebrab 2 years ago
Understood. I guess I just gave him the benefit of the doubt. Does not the evidence for evolution only point to microevolution? In other words, we've exposed the mechanisms (natural selection, mutation, etc.) by which evolution works, but have we not been hasty in assuming they apply to the extent we think they should? Macroevolution is considerably less documented than micro, and it is also much more of a philosophical stance rather than scientific.
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
I can only answer this tentatively since I'm no scientist, let alone biologist, let alone evolutionary theorist. As I understand it, none of the latter (who, after all, are the only ones properly qualified to assess this point) make any distinction between micro- and macro- evolution, "macro-evolution" being merely the aggregate of "micro-evolution" over a larger time-frame. So the evidence for the both of them is the same, surely?
But I'm keen to reinforce, I'm no expert here.
eddrebrab 2 years ago
Nor am I an expert. There are obviously evolutionary changes within a species, but I don't think it has ever been proven that one class has or can become another. Perhaps I am wrong, it's more than likely, but a mechanism can have limitations. So, I don't think it is safe to say that evidence for one is evidence for the other.
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
Ouch! You cut him in half with Occam's razor. Good old Occam.
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
Dude, that face thing freaked me out!
Theophage 2 years ago
Well done, eddrebrab. PLEASE feel free to hijack this debate.
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago 7
Great Video, between you and JasperAvi, all the points that I wanted to express have been covered, and stated much better than I could have. Thank you for saying it better than I could have.
Chris63084 2 years ago
Fantastic response! 5 stars.
Occam99 2 years ago
lol ... beautiful. That was great dude. I'll sub for more. Well done!
Danmill23 2 years ago
Slam! 5 stars.
urbanelf 2 years ago
I am subscribing in hopes that you may make more videos in the future...this was really well done keep it up
lypse14 2 years ago
Great video!
JasperAvi 2 years ago
wow, this was amazing! seriously, i was planning on making a response but i mean the way you answer this was great.
you actually explained why the rhetorical question i asked as an answer to a question made by creationist is rhetorical.
the question is why does something exist instead of nothing. and i answer by asking i don't know, you tell me, why does god exist instead of not existing.
seriously this was real good, i am subscribing! ihope you make more vids like this.
vision4DaY 2 years ago
I learned something from this video.
onotheo 2 years ago
novice though you may be... you have good camera quality lol. just thought id let you know =] good points 5stars
EgyptianRocker 2 years ago
If I understand correctly, he's using "ontologically possible" to mean "metaphysically possible". If it was metaphysically impossible for natural selection and mutations to change one sequence of (what are essentially) characters in a language to another, then... well it's obviously not!
poop
goop
good
gold!
Great video btw.
fekrbot 2 years ago