I was going to torch you, because you made so many ignorant statements, but I think you are an honest person seeking answers. First off ignorance about science doesn't mean science is wrong. I don't understand much of biology, or astrophysics, that doesn't mean scientists don't know what they are talking about. I have to get my son to diving class, so I will point you to some more knowledgeable people when I get back (or tomorrow).
@veggiescrub I think that in your offer to point me to "more knowledgeable people" that you don't understand my position too well and I'm sorry I did not make it clear. I do not believe that science is wrong. I believe that science is correct. I stake my life on it and recommend all to do likewise. I think I agree with all I have heard from Dr. Ken Miller. I do not think that creationism should be taught in public schools and would not advocate attending a school that does so.
Only on a planet like earth in a universe like this could there be life, and well, here it is! I still don't see God anywhere, where is he, where, WHERE is he? New species do not just appear.
Another mistake is when you mentioned "while we witnessed extinction, we didn't witness the birth of new species".
The birth of new species isn't something to be taken lightly, it may take several thousands of years. One could say that the primordial Homo Sapiens witnessed the grey wolves evolve into dogs, and that would actually be correct. The birth of a new species involves a long series of genetic mutations, and said mutations are mostly stochastic, they don't "aim" directly at improvement.
@Gretgor666 Yes, you're right about the time frame. We frail humans live only 80 or so years and it looks really static to us. You're not the only one to mention something similar yet I thank you for your kindly correction. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
Your argument that "evolution should increase complexity" is invalid. Complexity isn't always an evolutionary advantage, and many creatures will actually become simpler upon evolution.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
While I do not believe that you have made a credible argument for the proof of creationism, you have definitely given one of the most informed and intellectual presentations that I have ever seen or heard from a creationist.
@retrofitable While it's clear that you don't like atheists, I prefer that you would make points against their arguments and logic rather than attack based on a generalization from the behavior of a non-statistically significant sample size of atheists. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion. Have a nice day.
... the members of the original group. This continues on and on over a long period of time, with slight modifications occurring, but eventually the genetics will be altered so much that they will be unable to interbreed with the original animals, and are hence classified as a new species.
Perhaps you've already been told this (I didn't read all the comments), but there is brief explanation for the emergence of new species. I encourage you to continue looking for an understanding. 祝你生活順心.
Now that there are others with this slight alteration appearing, who can also still interbreed, they spread it even further (assuming this is one of the many many mutations which are either- the most common case- neutral, or beneficial to the animal). Then, within members of this subset of the species with this alteration, another alteration might occur. And again, this alteration might not hinder the animal from breeding with the members of that subset, and most likely even with ....
... if they cannot produce viable offspring. The way in which new species emerge is a very minor change occurs within a given species (one which, for the most part, would go completely unobserved without looking at the genetic makeup), however, since the change is so minor this member of the species is still capable to interbreed successfully with other members of the species, and so it does, and this slight alteration is passed on to some of the offspring. ....
... it is a common misrepresentation by (some) theists of the proponents of the theory of evolution, and since you seem amicable enough, I'm sure you can understand why one would take objection to such a term.
2) A main point of yours seems to the question "How can evolution account for new species arising?" This is actually one of the primary aspects of evolution- it is what the theory is intended to explain. Essentially the idea is this- two animals are considered to be different species -
Two quick comments (quick simply because you seems willing to investigate things further yourself, and I think that is infinitely more valuable than me telling it to you):
1) I have to say that I don't like the use of the term "atheist evolutionists"- I think your point was meant to simply be addressing evolutionists. Basically, the only reason I bring this up is that evolution and atheism are not correlated- there are plenty of theists who are evolutionists, and even atheists who are not ...
@LeonhardEuler1 I agree with you very much that atheist and evolution are not really linked. I've just seen a lot of atheists set forth evolution as proof of the non-existence of a creator. Yes, since receiving information from thoughtful viewers like you, my thinking has "evolved" to better understand how evolution worked/works which you probably explained better than most if not all of my other viewers. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
@texaslds Fair enough- should you encounter those kinds of atheists you should point them towards some works on epistemology. :) And thank you for your kind words- as long as people stay open and continue striving to find the truth I am always happy to contribute what I can to this progression. Should you need some references on topics from mathematics or, what is probably more likely, physics- those are the areas I have explored most deeply so I would be happy to oblige. :)
@LeonhardEuler1 In your last comment, you open another consideration. What is it that ennobles you and others to seek after "truth?" How does evolution explain that advancement? You seem like a person that has moral values or who would recognize the existence and/or importance of moral values. I would be interested in what you say. Also, what are those characters I saw at the end of one of your comments? BTW, I'm a high school math teacher. I appreciate what you've had to say.
@texaslds That is an interesting consideration indeed. I suppose what I would say now would go along the lines of something Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience public broadcast show would say. My personal reason for aspiring to find truth (which could rightly be put in quotation marks, as it is quite elusive) would be that... our beliefs and our perception of reality in general influences, to a great extent, our actions, and how we treat everything around us ...
@texaslds ... and therefore, as Dillahunty says, "I want to believe as many true things as possible," and I want to know them to the best extent possible, so that I can be more assured that my actions are influenced by reality itself, and not the biases and prejudices within it. I suppose it all goes back to the moral question in some sense. And, I wouldn't say that evolution necessarily *explains* an advancement toward truth, so much as it is part of the pursuit. It is the best ...
@texaslds ... explanation we have based on the evidence uncovered so far, but that does not mean that it, in and of itself, is truth in any sense. It will certainly change as time goes on and new information is discovered, as the very mechanism of science is to locate and correct any mistakes to the best of our abilities. So evolution is simply the... most justified step to take at the moment on the path to truth, even if it turns out to be wrong, ultimately. ...
@texaslds And the issue of moral values is another interesting area, and i will certainly answer it to the best of my ability when I have some more time, but I will say that I have some concerns over whether or not having a absolute, completely objective, moral code is actually beneficial or desirable. So (once I elaborate on that more) I think that would go toward your question of the importance of moral values. As for a source of them.... I think Sam Harris' ....
@texaslds .... discussion of ”well-being" is pretty close to my own views, so if you are familiar with it, it will give you an idea until I am able to explain more. :)
Oh, that was Chinese (traditional, as apposed to simplified, in particular), and it means "may your life go well."
@texaslds *maybe I should say the direction, or a good underlying principle of how moral values should be examined and determined, rather than the source of moral values- for that there is a lot of work, but that will be for another day. :)
@LeonhardEuler1 I've seen some of Dillahunty and Harris and I have respect for their thoughtfulness, as I certainly have for you as well. I see people such as this, seemingly moral, seekers after truth, and I cannot help but see them (admittedly through believer-colored glasses) as beings of design. There is in my view a quantum leap between the complexity of man and any other organism I see. My daughter studies Chinese in college and I'm planning to use them on her in a few minutes.
@texaslds (Just a quick suggestion, since you used the word "seen" when referencing Dillahunty and Harris, I would suggest reading some of Harris' books if you have the time, since inherent in every debate/lecture is a fair amount of condensation of the material for time purposes- reading it would give you the entirety of the arguments. Again, that is if you have time, and I can certainly understand that many people can't find time for such things. :) )
@texaslds Certainly, I can understand how it might seem that way. Like I mentioned, my specialties are mathematics and physics, so when it comes to a deeply biological question such as this I'm not sure how convincing an argument I can present against the quantum leap of complexity you mentioned, so I would have to simply refer you to some of Dawkin's book, for example, which do address that issue and are targeted at non-specialists. :) However, there is something I can say ...
@texaslds ... on the appearance of design (which does follow some arguments made in some of Dawkin's books, as well as others). I would argue that appearance of something occurring is not sufficient to decide that it is, in fact, occurring. The two quintessential examples are the movement of the sun and the shape of the earth. It certainly seems reasonable when you go day by day seeing the sun move across the sky, and feel no movement of the ground beneath you ....
@texaslds .... to conclude that the earth is stationary and the sun is orbiting it. Similarly, when you look out at the ground beneath you, and it appears to be relatively flat (modulo a few mountains and valleys of course) it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that the earth is, in fact, flat. However (to use the second example since it involves a very important mathematical concept within one of the specific fields of mathematics I am interested in) upon ....
@texaslds ... further investigation we find that, not only is that not the case, but that we exist on a perfect example of something which is rather common and yet, somehow, unnoticed in nature (this "something" I am referring to is known within mathematics as a "manifold," which is an object that appears to be much like the xy-plane, for example, when observed within a small neighborhood of a point on the object, but when viewed globally you find that it actually behaves quick differently ...
@texaslds ... than the xy-plane. In the example of the earth, the point is that locally it behaves like a flat object, but globally is has curvature). So anyways, the point being that what even if it seems like humans are designed, and even if we would like to believe that it is true, that does not necessarily mean that it is true, and, as with this example, investigating the truth of it will potentially lead to a whole new understanding of other things in the universe. ....
@texaslds .... I should say one more thing. In "The God Delusion" by Dawkins he mentions an interesting argument (I don't recall if this argument has an evidence supporting it, but it is an interesting perspective nonetheless), which is more in evolutionary terms. Essentially the idea is that certain ideas (his example was quantum mechanics) seem strange and counter-intuitive to us since an understanding of them is not required for survival ...
@texaslds ... (in his example, he mentions how a prehistoric primate does not need to understand how the elementary particles which make it up interact in order to hunt, for example). So after years and years of having no necessity for such things, our brains slowly evolve to ignore them, in a certain sense. I don't know... just something to think about- I think he describes it better. :)
Cool! I am going to be going to school in Taiwan soon to pursue a PhD in physics, but ...
@texaslds ... one of the primary motivators for choosing Taiwan was that I always had the desire to learn Chinese (and somewhat later the desire to read some classics like the "The Red Chamber" in the original form). So I have been working on teaching myself traditional writing and Mandarin speech for that.... on top of studying more mathematics needed for at least a cursory understanding of string theory (or quantum gravity theories in general)... I hope she can read it!! ...
@texaslds I would imagine she would be learning simplified writing since the majority of Chinese-speaking countries use it, but I think all the characters I used are the same in both forms.... not sure.... 但是非常酷啦!!!
@LeonhardEuler1 In arguments, Occam's razor is brought up a lot. I think the "razor" cuts two ways. One way is that with all the complexities of the human being far distinguishing it from other organisms, the simpler explanation is design. When it comes to "truth", I as a believer equate truth to "what God knows" so my view is pretty deeply entrenched. You're a lot like my daughter, always wanted to learn Chinese, majors in math, will be in Nanking this fall for a "semester abroad."
@texaslds Sure, it definitely is brought up quite often. I am hesitant to use it, since it is more... axiomatic, in that it cannot be shown to be certifiably true. It's a nice thought, and it would certainly be a beautiful thing if simplicity does perpetually overcome complexity, but nevertheless there is no reason for it to be true. That is a slight digression though.... if I concede that it is true there is still something to be said of your argument. First of all, it is not ....
@texaslds ... clear that a designer is, in fact, a simpler explanation. It takes up fewer words, sure, but the explanatory power of those words is essentially nil. If such a designer exists, then the methods through which creation occur would still potentially require tremendous complexity. As a simple analogy (perhaps idealizing the situation, but what can you do with only 500 characters? ;) ) consider a magician's trick. To the audience it appears completely simple- perhaps ...
@texaslds ... something is there one second, a cloth goes over it, and it is gone. But when you investigate how this is achieved you find that it is far from simple- it involves fake doors, precise timing, misdirection, etc. So, all I am saying is that I think the claim that a designer is a simpler explanation requires some justification. The other thing I wanted to say, which is more important and addresses the issue better in my opinion, is that the simplicity of a designer ...
@texaslds ... , if I were to agree it is simple, still leads to an infinite regress. A designer sophisticated enough to design a complex being such as a human, would seemingly require an immense level of complexity itself. Then, by your own reasoning, one would necessarily conclude that this being requires a designer as well. And so on ad infintatum. As for the issue of "truth" I am certainly fine with that- you may equate the two if you feel it is justified. This, of course, is so long ...
@texaslds ... as you recognize that in order for any one else to accept you claims, you need to provide justification for the statement that truth is what god knows. If you understand that a belief, by definition, is something you don't know to be true, then more power to you. :) I think the only problems occur when people feel strongly that they do know for sure, and that everyone else should accept there claims. I would say that all the bad actions associated with religion stems ...
@LeonhardEuler1 Even as I typed in my last comment, I had thoughts pretty much like you explained, that to explain such a being who could do that introduces a necessary additional level of complexity, but so it is with most things created modernly. As for my beliefs, they are only my beliefs and I wouldn't expect or even want anyone to look at my beliefs and believe as I do without some independent experience or exploration. There are those who hold their beliefs far more ardently than I.....
@texaslds Sure, I certainly agree with it being the way things are created modernly. I think the distinction which is typically pointed out is that with a modern creation (say a painting, for example), we have multitudes of evidence to demonstrate that painting are designed and created by a painter. So, it may certainly seem reasonable that the same thing would apply to another form of creation, but the distinction is that we do not have any evidence of universes being created ...
@texaslds or designed, so the claim that it is necessary for this to be the case is not justified to the extent that the claim "a painting requires a painter" is. And, in fact, there are even alternative explanations around, which have been verified to some extent (of course, not to the extent that one can claim them to be true, in my opinion, but that is another matter), so it seems to me that the reasonable position to take is that we cannot accept the necessity of such a creator yet.
@LeonhardEuler1 and all I will do is bring up my own viewpoint and experience. I don't know how strong a proponent you are of human rights, but I have a strong feeling pretty much as declared in the Dec. of Ind. "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights", etc. If you take away the word "creator", what you have left is "endowed by man", and if "endowed by man", they can also be taken away by man. So at least the idea, if not reality, of a creator, is very helpful when...
@texaslds Of course, I am not saying that you can't believe it is true- that is perfectly fine. Like I mentioned, it is only when people profess it as an absolute truth, without the justification, that there are problems. I should mention that I realize that is not what you are doing, and I do appreciate your willingness to accept that people should not want to agree with you without independent experience or exploration. And I hope that I am giving off the same impression. :)
@texaslds I think that, by and large, humanity in general is a proponent of human rights, but sometimes give excessive and unchecked power to some who are not so concerned with it. Irregardless, yes, I very much advocate human rights. As for your question about the Dec.- it is an interesting way to phrase the moral dilemma. I would say that, first of all, the primary drafter of the Dec. (Thomas Jefferson, although I think those words "endowed by their creator" were inserted by Ben....
@texaslds ... Franklin) was a deist, so what he intended with that statement would be something along the lines of "endowed by nature" (god, in the deist sense, would be a certain kind of personification of nature), and hence they are not necessarily referring to a creator in the sense you are proposing, nor are they saying that man has endowed them. So.... I guess what I am getting at is that I don't necessarily think that there is an implication that it was endowed by man without "creator" ..
@texaslds ... being there. Nevertheless, I think that there is one important point to be made, which is that, if a creator endows us with these rights then they can still be taken away by this creator, so in either case the possibility is there. However, since (if I am not mistaken) you are a Christian, and so I would imagine you could say something in response referring to god's love of us, which might make it less likely for such a change to occur, ...
@texaslds and to that I would have to say that I don't think it is likely for it to occur in the case of man either. I would argue that there is a certain level of accountability which is being ignored there, in that we are accountable to the other (roughly) 6,000,000,000 people here. And since I think, generally, people do not want to have these rights violated, this would encourage us to adhere to them and seek to stop those who would try to take them away. ....
@texaslds ... All of this being done without requiring a creator handing them to us. I hope that was clear.... seems like I didn't say it very well.... but anyways. :)
@LeonhardEuler1 ...justifying and explaining these rights. I have yet to hear back from my daughter after giving her your Chinese characters. She doesn't check email often. My daughter really tries to seek truth herself. She tries to stay away from most popular culture "Lost, Survivor, American Idol" etc. But her beliefs are somewhat similar to mine, but always her choice. BTW. I have a math teaching channel, over 180 videos, high school level math, id "gdawgrapper". Thanks for all your
@texaslds That's good to hear, I hope that both you are her continue seeking truth. :) And I will check some out when I have a chance- although I haven't been teaching math so much lately, it is always good to see some different approaches to incorporate parts of into my approach. And thank you as well- I'm always happy to discuss it with someone who will consider it further, regardless of how persuasive my arguments may end up being. Just keeping this attitude of discussion and debate ...
@texaslds ... is healthy for any society, I think. And of course, I too will require ever more effort and study on these topics as well as others. Should you ever be investigating physics (in particular string theory, or more generally, quantum gravity), then I would be happy to supply some excellent (and not technical) references to at least get the idea of what is being proposed. :)
@LeonhardEuler1 comments over the last several days. They give me a lot to think about and research, but like anything worthwhile, it will require effort and study on my part to get all the "truth" I can out of it.
i may disagree with what you say and i could tear your arguments apart, but you sir were the first person i heard argue for a creator who didn't use the old circular god argument. where the bible is true cause its the word of god, and its the word of god cause its the bible
one can see it completely opposite as Newton. u can look at planets as the result of pieces of space dust randomly becoming attracted to each other via gravity. over time,the larger chunks dominate space,and draw in all smaller pieces of dust/rock..eventually all the clumps fuse together,and the planet is compressed into a spherical shape via gravity. the planets in a particular solar system are attracted to their much more massive star. it sorta just happens..why?..does there have to be a why?
"Speciation, when sexual reproduction is involved, requires an almost simultaneous mutation of both a male, and a female."
This isn't true. It's not that this sort of speciation wouldn't be possible, it's just astronomically unlikely. If two populations of the same species are separated environmentally from one another, each will adapt to fit their environment. After a large expanse of time, these populations may no longer be able to inter mate. This is the very definition of species.
@SuxorAoeBj You are correct. I was wrong about that. One thing that happened from making my video is that a large number of visitors, including you, have been kind enough to point out flaws in my presentation, and most in a kindly manner as you have done. This large amount of time is the thing that gets me and a lot of us. We see such a short time span in our own lives and even human history that it's tough to see the great changes evolution has wrought. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
One thing that many creationists believe, is that evolutionary theory precludes the existance of a creator. This is not true at all. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor of the univere. What it does explain is the observable diversity of life on this planet. However, if one wishes to believe in a divine creator, they will inescapably be forced to conclude that evolution was in fact this creator's method of creation.
I'm puzzled by the connection between your view that there is a creator - and that the creator is the Biblical god. There are many candidate creator gods - why did you conclude it was this particular one?
@BinkyHuckleback You make a fair observation, one that a couple other viewers have. You are right, the things I set out as "evidence" don't prefer one type of "god" over another. In fact, when I did mention the bible, I mentioned that I don't see how it can be taken literally since things in it are provably not true--not an esp ringing endorsement of a biblical god. I do believe in a version of a biblical god, but why I do is outside the scope of the video. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
Im sick of this "Finely Tuned for Life" argument. What about the 8 other planets in our solar system? Or the 500 other planets we have discovered? They werent so finely tuned were they? Our planet just happens to fall into the habitable zone. Out of a billion planets its possible there could only be 1 that would be in just the right spot for life to exist. And that one is the one we evolved on.
Circumstantial evidence helps us arrive at the most logical conclusions in the absence of direct evidence. Based on the argument you presented, the circumstantial evidence indicates an involvement of an intelligent entity in the appearance of species. Why do you jump to the conclusion that it has to be God? If you choose make your argument logical you have to eliminate other factors first before jumping to conclusions based on religion.
@mryaogee I tried to be careful during my presentation to stop short of concluding the "designer" to be any singular type of creator or "god." However, honesty requires me to confess (although it's not, I think, in the text of my presentation) that I do have beliefs that help me to see curcumstantial evidence differently than others who may not similarly predisposed. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
Isaac Newton lived centuries ago and was one of the last scientists to actually believe the universe was constructed like a machine by an intelligent personal god. He was a religious eccentric even for his own time whose obsessions with alchemy and prophecy eventually overtook his interests in science. That you would have to go that far back in history to find a "scientist" to validate you religion shows that 1) your thinking is out of date, and 2) you seek the legitimacy that science has.
@pwnUgood I think you make fair points about Newton. I could have used quotes from Einstein, more of a Deist perhaps and also perhaps not having that machine conception that Newton had. Maybe my thinking is out of date. As for the "legitimacy of science", I claim none in my presentation and freely admit that my viewpoints are influenced by my biases and experiences. But I also claim the privilege of expressing my viewpoint and I thank you for expressing yours by viewing and commenting.
Wow these religous types never cease to stop entertaining me,they will concoct all kinds of notions and corelations to make a case for the existence of their invisable man.their god a.k.a the creator as they call him.the sooner its admitted to that contact has been made with life forms outside our relm the better. all this religous malarky can be replaced with sound scientific reasoning. but guess what the ruling class will never allow that to happen they're in cohoots with the church,they LIE !
If you simply conclude there was a creator and go with a supernatural explanation you haven't answered anything. By the supernatural's very definition it is unknowable, therefore you have simply replaced one unknown with another unknown.
Look up speciation and your logical is completely flawed at 4:40 when you say that you are forced to conclude that there was a creative period. The correct answer is you don't know. No answer is always better than a bad answer.
The first thirty seconds are all fucked to hell, it's nothing but an assumption that our exact position is necessary to produce life, there are many examples of life on Earth existing in extreme conditions that could have made it if Earth was significantly closer or farther away from the Sun. Our exact position was probably quite fortunate for human life, life in general would have found a way, whether or not we would have evolved like we did is a bigger question than if Earth could sustain life
wahthwahtwhat we definitely have found new species. everyday a new insect or new fish or new mammal is found somewhere in the rain forest or coral reefs. we have also observed when species were separated, one of the species most oftened changed over a few decads. ALSO, both parents do not have to have mutations, just one of the parents gametes. That is all.
overall, a good video. i value the fact that you, as an intellectual person, can establish a difference between belief and science. from what i have gathered, you seem to understand that what you have here isn't science. youre not trying to convince people that you are in fact correct and that what you think is right for everyone else. what you seem to be doing is sharing your belief and explaining why you believe in what you believe. and theres absolutely nothing wrong with that. props.
as far as new species are concerned, i think there have always been lots and lots of species. its only recently have we started to keep track of these animals in a specific and precise way. new species are discovered every day, but it doesnt mean that they just poofed out of some other species. as environments change, species will change. sudden barriers like newly formed mountains, oceans, etc causes a separation of a population of species where upon divergence will begin. here, one becomes two
when you consider that we are incredibly lucky to have a perfect world (perfect temperature/atmosphere/water) consider the infinitely greater number of planets that dont have these luxuries. it just so happens that our earth is perfect. its like a flower pot in a room, the one place is hospitable for plant life and thus a flower grows there. life is adaptable. those that could survive and flourish under these temperatures/atmospheres/resources were able to prosper. it's why it seems so perfect
Basically you don't know how the Earth became what it is today so you point to a creator. I guess they are right when they say "the god of the gaps". Nice presentation though.
i favorited this video. There's so much atheism on youtube i'm relieved to have a video like this that shares many thoughts i have about the universe. Keep making videos i'm suprised this one doesn't have more views
you are an A...hole do some more research, "gods" are man made not vice versa and for the sake of your god be more objective, until you get to be objective you remain ignorant no further comments ........
If the gene that comes out of a mutation is dominate than the off-spring will obtain the new gene and override the old recessive gene, that is there are more brown haired people than blonde. But say for some reason that brown hair made the off-spring weaker, than they are more likely to reproduce. There is no reason why a god has to exist for this to happen. Does that mean that there is definatly no god? No... But it does mean that your argument is not valid.
All your video proves is you don't understand evolution at all. LOTS of speciation events have been observed and your ignorance of them is not an argument. You then go and commit one of the very errors King Heathen explicitly forbid--not evolution, therefore creation. That's NOT the way it works. Congratulations on making a fool of yourself.
@ProveItBro To your first sentence, there is no assumption about only one universe and there are millions, maybe billions of systems similar to our solar system. As far as you not being impressed, I'll dry my tears and try to get over it.
On your last point about the skydaddy, I have to agree with you.
never a day, when we became human, yet today we exists, ever changing to better adapt to our situation. Thats why there is in reality no human genome. There is only 7 billion genomes that are very similar. No barriers to stop the great accumulation of change in millions of years. Different human races are the beginnings of our species diverging. In time, an organism from Africa would be so different from an organism from island, that they would not be able to reproduce. For now they still can.
@Terminator4004 Good points all. The barrier comes down solidly when the two organisms become chromosonally imcompatible, incapable of combining to form offspring. Yes, the time required is long, especially compared to what we see in our short lifetimes, and historical palentology is only about 200 years old. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
@Terminator4004 we as humans can only reproduce with another quote on qoute other race(in reality we're all the same, other may be gifted in others ways for example darker skin americans or earthly humans have increased vit.D i their skin, lighters may have red hair ect.) our only hope to evolve at this point is to make marriages be cross racial. the same races Mating and baby producing is just "bottle-necking" our advancement. look it up and you'll understand
Evolution is not so easy to understand, because the time involved is so great. If you want to really understand it, you have to look at every organism individually, not species. A definition of a species is more or less based on how much difference there is between the genome of two organisms. If the difference is small, they are very similar and they can reproduce. So if you look at it like this, you see that there is no invisible barrier that would stop one species becoming another. There was
Two books I recommend "The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution" (Nick Lane) "The Greatest Show on Earth" Richard Dawkins. You really have to take into account the amount of time it takes mutations to accumulate in numbers great enough to make the sexual reproduction as well as having the populations of organisms separated in some respect. If you are expecting to see a new "kind" of animal you need to look for something new inside the cell that works good enough to compete with todays animals.
@stotlex I appreciate the reading suggestion. I will particularly look at the Lane book. I agree with your point about the accumulation over time. Even the amount of time we've seen since Darwin hasn't been even 200 years, such a minute fraction of the billion plus years life has been evolving. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
@texaslds I get where you are coming from in the video, the Lane book has been more into speculation of how life emerged within its pages, so i hope if you can get your hands on it you enjoy reading, sounds like you get the time factor that evolution takes, The other idea i learned from the Dawkin's book is how animals go from a zygote to a developed animal and i found after reading about how molecular polarity and various other factor contribute to development the miracles slowly fade away.
So do you believe in Intelligent Design? Kenneth Miller is a Roman Catholic who showed in court that Intelligent Design is wrong. The Bacterium Flagellum was the Type III Secretory System before it was the flagellum. Some Christians accept evolution but still believe in God.
straight away you demonstrate your ignorance saying that tiny increases or decreases in temperature would render the earth uninhabitable. you find life in volcanoes and at the poles.
you then say that the proportions of gasses are perfect for life, ignoring the past when they were different, yet there was life.
google documented cases of speciation, or macroevolution and you will find cases of speciation.
and they can become more complex, creating new wnzymes for example. just do some research.
All fair points. Many viewers have given me leads on speciation findings. Though there are not many convincing examples, still there are enough (one would be enough) to strongly refute my point about new species appearing. I plan to later, this summer, post a response to this video
some of which will be refuting points in this video with research findings.
New species do not appear in a single generation. New species develop through many generations. If a group of animals are separated they accumulate differences. They can always mate witch their part of the group, but after many generations of being separated from the other group they are so different from their cousins that they can no longer mate with them.
One of the great things about having posted my video is learning from informed viewers like you. I plan to make a response to my own video later this year correcting a few things about evolution and what you mentioned is at the top of my list. You're right that the evolvement is so slow that a person cannot notice them in a mortal lifetime, but some scientists have, not a lot, but enough to show it happens.
How could we have an intelligent designer? It is illogical, due to the fact that he would need to be more complex then the universe he created is. (which as you have said it is, and it was very precise) So the odds that this being could come into being over the universe would be infinitely lower then that off the big bang. More so the point of if the universe was just slightly different proof, is rather annoying. Well it had to happen some way, and it happened this way.
Got to 2:17 and noticed you used the term "survival of the fittest." You have used this term incorrectly. Herbert Spencer was drawing parallels between Darwin's work an ECONOMIC MODELS. The term "survival of the fittest" does not apply to evolution because there is no measure of "fitness." A better quotation would be to say "survival of the most responsive to change." Leading up to 3:00 you question speciation....
As to evolution, my viewers have pointed out to me instances of new species, two that I could pretty well verify happened within the last 100 years, but even one would counter my incorrect absolute statement on no new species. As you mention, the great deal of time makes it hard for us to see. It is mainly over this that I plan to make a rebuttal of some of the points I made in this video, probably this summer.
As for Spencer, he first used the term "Survival of the Fittest" in his 1864 book Principles of Biology and did apply it to biological evolution. However you are correct in that later on, he used the term to apply to social and economic institutions.
As for the rest of your comments where you go into my opinions vs science etc. I don't have much of a problem with them, except to observe that you are criticizing me for being non scientific when I took great care in stating that my opinions are not science. Consistent with that, I disagree with your comment "prove that is statistically impossible for it to happen, or don't talk about it at all." I reserve the right to talk about whatever I want to and will defend your right to do likewise.
Thank you for all the time you took. I looked at your channel and was disappointed to see no uploads, baically nothing. You have good ideas and a good way of expressing them. Why don't you get out there yourself and make videos? I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate them and could learn a lot from you.
Speciation is microevolution (which you refer to in the video, changes whithin a species) over a great deal of time. These subtle microevolutionary changes can (but do not always) lead to speciation (the development of new species unable to breed fertile offspring with species they have split from). There ARE scientifically observed instances of speciation, you can google "observed instances of speciation" to fined peer reviewed articles citing such observations.
At around 3:15 you discuss how mutation doesn't result in changes that make a species better suited to survival (you actually use the term "more complex" which isn't at all what evolution is about so I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and change it to the context of evolution). Do you fail to remember what you talked about roughly 30 seconds to 1 minute prior? Moth's whose mutations made them either better or worse for survival in an area changed by industrialization?
Firstly, stating that the probability "in your opinion" is not at all science and that is why those that accept evolution don't care what you have to say. Your opinion is irrelevant, prove that is statistically impossible for it to happen, or don't talk about it at all. Science doesn't care about opinions, it only cares about observable (empirical) data. Secondly, stating that there were periods in which speciation did not occur and some species went extinct is also irrelevant...
Species going extinct does not imply an end to all future speciation. A species can go extinct while one who doesn't will speciate maybe tens of thousands of years later, maybe millions. One species going extinct has no effect on the speciation of other species. You're drawing a conclusion that there must have been a creator is totally unfounded. You've supplied no evidence to suggest that extinction of individual species prevents other species from forming new species through evolution.
At 5:10 you discuss your view. I personally have no problem with you believing whatever you want. Lets just be clear though, your belief is not based on any empirical information. There's nothing we have ever observed with our own senses that, without making assumptions, provides evidence of a creator. Evolution, on the other hand, is based on actually observed genetic differences, mutation, and actual speciation. This makes evolution science.
At around 6:00 you discuss that a creator is "more likely." I won't argue your point at all, I'll merely point out, the likeliness or lack there of is NOT scientific. Something can be totally improbable (say, the radiation given off by nebulae), but if we can show why it happens empirically despite the low likelihood, that's science. Nebulae do give off radiation in the "forbidden transition" wavelengths for elements even though the probability of that happening is extremely remote.
o.k I'm glad you have heard it before, now what is wrong with it? I'm sorry just the way you answered just seemed to blow off the point by saying you had heard it before.
How did I "instruct" you? I simply made a counter point. Yes it was assertive, but no good argument isn't. (Again I could just be misreading but the way you put it, it sounds like what I did you view as wrong in some way. Please clear that up for me thanks.)
I'm sorry for having seemed dismissive. You have a strong logical argument. I, as others have done, just like Newton did, come along and say, with all this complexity, there had to be a creator. You up the ante and say, oh yeah? Well how did this "God" or creator do it? Whenever an intelligent being creates something, there is a technique that the creator used to make something. In the case of this universe, how did this happen? A fair question that I don't have an answer for. Thanks.
No problem(I do admit I can get annoyed when the same argument is repeated ad nausem)
However I think you misunderstood the point of the argument. It is not how god did it. The point is if the universe is complex, then the creator must be more complex then it.(I do not care how he would have gone around doing it)
So really the question is how does god make more sense(then the universe that we currently live in) just popping into being?
I really knew what you meant, but was responding to it in terms that I would be interested in. I was answering from a technical perspective, where really you were more fundamentally questioning from a logical perspective--either would have a good basis as an argument, in my opinion.
YOU may not have witnessed 1 species evolve into a new species, but there are new species of animals and insects being discovered every day. For all we know they could have evolved in the last few weeks. Coding and analysing DNA is hard work.
You expect so much of humankind and you give up on evolution because of 1 thing. At least with creationism, I have valid proof and multiple reasons to deny it.
You make a fair point. I'm assuming that new species being discovered haven't recently evolved. As for seeing new species evolve, my viewers have educated me on a couple that have been observed to evolve, and I plan to rebut some statements made in my video in a video response. As for the Hawking quote, I did not intend to quote him as a believer in God, but as someone who observed how the rate of universe expansion has a great deal to do with conditions that make life possible.
Stephen Hawkings isn't a christian or an atheist he said so himself. He told an interviewer "if by 'god' you mean that science obeys to the laws of the universe, not God than yes."
As to your first point, I agree that with the trillions of planets, there should be some capable of supporting life. However, that observation does not address the probability of life spontaneously generating . As to your second point, my viewers have educated me. There is a nylon ingesting bacteria and a bird species created recently by separation. Maybe there aren't a lot, but they rebut statements made in my video. I plan to make a response video sharing what I've learned.
Your logic is....not. There are 100 billion galaxies each containing on average 100 billion stars. That is 10,000 billion billion stars. The fact that our star and planet happen to have all the properties necessary to support life is merely statistically probably given the number of stars. And of course the life that comes about is a perfect match for those properties, it couldn't be otherwise. If there were just one star and one planet as the ancients throught then you might have an argument.
I think the kindest thing I can say is its childlike thinking is on par with its 13-17 year-old popularity. Except, I think your mixing of some sciences and facts with your belief/understanding is dangerous and wrong. It is sad and weak of intellect and knowledge. You are misguided and misguiding the young.
Of my commenters thus far, most, like you, have disagreed with me. What makes your reponse exceptional is the rather strong vehemence that seems out of proportion for someone who is quite clear in pointing out that this is only my belief and viewpoint. I would not teach nor condone teaching my or any other non scientific beliefs or viewpoints in a public school setting.
believe me, although I can be very passionate, you should reread my comments with a calm, dull, low tone--as intended. You have to review your own viewers statistics to realize you are already exposing young minds to your misinformed beliefs. I hope this helps inform you.
@MrJohnnyrace Yes, and also pre Darwin and paleontology. But Newton saw himself as he made his discoveries as one uncovering the mysteries of God, so extrapolating the way he looked at things, he may well have seen DNA as yet another instance of the magnificence of a Creator behind the creation. But we cannot know that for sure.
Who cares about Isaac Newton? He came about so long before any testing, solar evolution, the "big bang", the findings of water on any other planet, or of any other place on earth.
Isaac Newton developed the theory of gravity, it has been vastly expanded upon. I'm interested in why you think he's a suitable source for supporting creation.
@BusinessIDBAI Three reasons: He was one of the greatest minds in history. I happen to agree with him. And finally, I like that statement of his. I wonder if you would have been happier if I had quoted another, more recent believer in a creator, Einstein, for instance.
Einstein did not believe in a creator, especially not a Christian creator. He was at BEST a deist. Like the majority of the American founding fathers, almost all were deist.
Misquoting people does not justify your position if you're going for an argument from authority. Make sure that authority supports your position.
@BusinessIDBAI There are several Einstein quotes about God, one of the most famous beling "God does not play dice." But I do agree with you that Einstein seems to have been more of a deist than a theist. I also agree with you that from what I know of the American founding fathers, more were deists than theists.
I remember going to Catholic school as a kid and getting taught evolution. We also had a separate religion class (it IS Catholic school after all). I don't know why so many christians have a problem with evolution.
@LTS1287 I like the way the Jesuits do it. IMO, to teach creationism as science is bad science and bad religion (asking people to believe something that is provably false). I have a Mormon background and even though evolution is taught in the Church universities, still, there are many Mormons that believe evolution false.
I've enjoyed watching the work of Roman Catholic scientist Ken Miller.
I'm an atheist, and yes, I believe the probability of a god existing or not existing is the same. Actually I don't think probability has anything to do with it; something either does or does not exist.
The problem I find with a creator is I can't justify a number of causes that would lead to a first cause. In short, I believe everything to have always existed in some form.
Also, creating time is a paradox because it requires a time when it was created.
Consider it like this; if you accept the big bang then do you believe God was behind it? Well, what if one day science is able to show what actually happened before the big bang? God would have been behind that right? Then science discovers what happened before that, well god must have been before that then...
And on and on. Think of how many times throughout human history this has already happened. I believe it will never stop or result in a "first cause".
The most "plausible" explanation....no....the "simplest" explanation yes. The nature of science is the continuous search for knowledge and answers, just wait, don't give up that easy.
In certain portions of this vid, you fail to take into account the cause of evolution. For example, say that the area in which species A (carnivore) lives has a great deal of competition from other species for deer, the main source of meat. Those in species A with mutations that allow them to exploit other sources of meat (like fish, instead of deer) will be favored in the survival of the fittest. Over time, more and more of species A will gain that/those mutation(s).
(cont) Given many generations, the species A will have evolved into another species which could not produce offspring that can reproduce with members of the original species A (if they are still around). Beneficial mutations are fairly uncommon, but one must take into account the large spaces of generational time and the amount of offspring produced.
@altosax1st I have to agree. In my example of the peppered moth, what if the black version predominated, separated, then became a totally new species? Definitely. One thing that human primates have that more primitive monkeys don't is the ability to metabolize meat such that we don't rapidly develop (most of us) arteriosclerosis with its comsumption, which has to be seen as a beneficial change--could have been brought about by a mutation (to be cont.)
...And about the vast amount of time, I think you're right there also. In our brief mortality and even human history, there's much that we cannot comprehend, even with fossil records, with regard to evolution. For a beneficial change, viewers have brought to my attention a mutation allowing bacteria to ingest nylon. I have learned so much from viewers like you that I plan to make a video response this summer summarizing these things. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
@highintel Good and fair questions all. While I don't think we "need" housing and art environ to survive, they could only be designed by beings intel enough to do it. Also, it opens to man climates that otherwise would be uninhabitable. If we were "unintelligently designed", I don't think we could know it by factual means. One evidence we have that we were intelligently designed is that we have more intel than other organisms.
BTW, are you the guy playing the guitar? Awesome playing.
regarding the "intelligent design". Well....if you forget what you saw on hollywood, for us to have wings will demand to increase the muscular mass of our chest to 10 times what it is now. That implies a faster heart rate, increased blood volume, and a bigger heart (or maybe 2), and by consequence more food consumption...a lot....then less people, less resources....for what? to travel faster? to fall on preys? .... not a practical evolution=extinction.
Male nipples serve no specific purpose, but, like in females, they are filled with nerve endings and can be very sensitive to sexual stimulation.
That means that our main body will be the heaviest part and most of the blood has to concentrate on that area, leaving the brain with a small share ... and therefore with the inability to develop. Natural evolution for a super intelligent human will take other functions out and focus on the head/brain area.
In Fact there are a lot of things that suggest to me we are not intelligently designed.
If we were un-intelligently designed, would we know it?
Because I see how we are not, but do Creationist's?
on another logic, If the earth is 7k yrs old then why so many different races of Humans? Surely if all came from Adam and Eve we would have a New Race of humans right?
In the last documented years we have no new race of humans..only Mixed races by Sex, not divine hand.
@highintel I saw that too and was puzzled by it. You have to admit that one thumbs down isn't exactly a statistically significant sample. Blame the guy who did it, not everyone else please. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
@highintel Although your question might not be a serious one, I'll assume that it is serious.
I don't see how a God who does what I purport "he" has done doesn't have a lot in common with what might be called an alien, an individual of higher intelligence and power than we can know or understand, plus a willingness to be involved in some other sphere than "his" own.
As to your other comment on new species, I agree that it's a lot more likely.
I was going to torch you, because you made so many ignorant statements, but I think you are an honest person seeking answers. First off ignorance about science doesn't mean science is wrong. I don't understand much of biology, or astrophysics, that doesn't mean scientists don't know what they are talking about. I have to get my son to diving class, so I will point you to some more knowledgeable people when I get back (or tomorrow).
veggiescrub 3 months ago
@veggiescrub I think that in your offer to point me to "more knowledgeable people" that you don't understand my position too well and I'm sorry I did not make it clear. I do not believe that science is wrong. I believe that science is correct. I stake my life on it and recommend all to do likewise. I think I agree with all I have heard from Dr. Ken Miller. I do not think that creationism should be taught in public schools and would not advocate attending a school that does so.
texaslds 3 months ago
Only on a planet like earth in a universe like this could there be life, and well, here it is! I still don't see God anywhere, where is he, where, WHERE is he? New species do not just appear.
NilSatis1983 4 months ago
Another mistake is when you mentioned "while we witnessed extinction, we didn't witness the birth of new species".
The birth of new species isn't something to be taken lightly, it may take several thousands of years. One could say that the primordial Homo Sapiens witnessed the grey wolves evolve into dogs, and that would actually be correct. The birth of a new species involves a long series of genetic mutations, and said mutations are mostly stochastic, they don't "aim" directly at improvement.
Gretgor666 6 months ago
@Gretgor666 Yes, you're right about the time frame. We frail humans live only 80 or so years and it looks really static to us. You're not the only one to mention something similar yet I thank you for your kindly correction. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 6 months ago
Your argument that "evolution should increase complexity" is invalid. Complexity isn't always an evolutionary advantage, and many creatures will actually become simpler upon evolution.
Gretgor666 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD - Philosophia Perennis and Science.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
TatoSugiarto 6 months ago
Your incredulity is NOT "evidence".
odinata 8 months ago
Remember:
It's not earth that is created with us in mind.
That's animals that created according to earth.
So that "Life is the exact position for life" argument is invalid.
If it was somewhere else, life would be either different, or not there.
There are A LOT of earth like planets, it's not that improbable.
KeistasZmogelis 8 months ago
It wasn't clear from the video - Is it that you are aware of the observed instances of speciation and deny them, or that you are unaware?
AjnaKotobide 8 months ago
I find it odd that you bring up Newton.
He tried to prove the existence of god and failed.
He tried to force the world into 'five perfect solids' and failed.
He tried to prove the planets travel in circular orbits, as god would do it, and failed.
He was unaware that the Earth has changed it's atmosphere and climate over the years, so your quote fails.
Your title "My Belief in a Creator " should be changed to "Even smart people, when they have no evidence, reach the wrong conclusion".
PaulinaPaulino 9 months ago 3
While I do not believe that you have made a credible argument for the proof of creationism, you have definitely given one of the most informed and intellectual presentations that I have ever seen or heard from a creationist.
darkgreysuit 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
an atheist world is a world where men try to ram other men in the ass. Dry or not.
an atheist world is a homosexual world, where normal people are persecuted by bum packers
retrofitable 10 months ago
@retrofitable u are an iggnorant homophobic ass!
noein92 10 months ago
@retrofitable While it's clear that you don't like atheists, I prefer that you would make points against their arguments and logic rather than attack based on a generalization from the behavior of a non-statistically significant sample size of atheists. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion. Have a nice day.
texaslds 10 months ago 3
... the members of the original group. This continues on and on over a long period of time, with slight modifications occurring, but eventually the genetics will be altered so much that they will be unable to interbreed with the original animals, and are hence classified as a new species.
Perhaps you've already been told this (I didn't read all the comments), but there is brief explanation for the emergence of new species. I encourage you to continue looking for an understanding. 祝你生活順心.
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
Now that there are others with this slight alteration appearing, who can also still interbreed, they spread it even further (assuming this is one of the many many mutations which are either- the most common case- neutral, or beneficial to the animal). Then, within members of this subset of the species with this alteration, another alteration might occur. And again, this alteration might not hinder the animal from breeding with the members of that subset, and most likely even with ....
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
... if they cannot produce viable offspring. The way in which new species emerge is a very minor change occurs within a given species (one which, for the most part, would go completely unobserved without looking at the genetic makeup), however, since the change is so minor this member of the species is still capable to interbreed successfully with other members of the species, and so it does, and this slight alteration is passed on to some of the offspring. ....
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
... it is a common misrepresentation by (some) theists of the proponents of the theory of evolution, and since you seem amicable enough, I'm sure you can understand why one would take objection to such a term.
2) A main point of yours seems to the question "How can evolution account for new species arising?" This is actually one of the primary aspects of evolution- it is what the theory is intended to explain. Essentially the idea is this- two animals are considered to be different species -
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
Two quick comments (quick simply because you seems willing to investigate things further yourself, and I think that is infinitely more valuable than me telling it to you):
1) I have to say that I don't like the use of the term "atheist evolutionists"- I think your point was meant to simply be addressing evolutionists. Basically, the only reason I bring this up is that evolution and atheism are not correlated- there are plenty of theists who are evolutionists, and even atheists who are not ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1 I agree with you very much that atheist and evolution are not really linked. I've just seen a lot of atheists set forth evolution as proof of the non-existence of a creator. Yes, since receiving information from thoughtful viewers like you, my thinking has "evolved" to better understand how evolution worked/works which you probably explained better than most if not all of my other viewers. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 11 months ago
@texaslds Fair enough- should you encounter those kinds of atheists you should point them towards some works on epistemology. :) And thank you for your kind words- as long as people stay open and continue striving to find the truth I am always happy to contribute what I can to this progression. Should you need some references on topics from mathematics or, what is probably more likely, physics- those are the areas I have explored most deeply so I would be happy to oblige. :)
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1 In your last comment, you open another consideration. What is it that ennobles you and others to seek after "truth?" How does evolution explain that advancement? You seem like a person that has moral values or who would recognize the existence and/or importance of moral values. I would be interested in what you say. Also, what are those characters I saw at the end of one of your comments? BTW, I'm a high school math teacher. I appreciate what you've had to say.
texaslds 11 months ago
@texaslds That is an interesting consideration indeed. I suppose what I would say now would go along the lines of something Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience public broadcast show would say. My personal reason for aspiring to find truth (which could rightly be put in quotation marks, as it is quite elusive) would be that... our beliefs and our perception of reality in general influences, to a great extent, our actions, and how we treat everything around us ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... and therefore, as Dillahunty says, "I want to believe as many true things as possible," and I want to know them to the best extent possible, so that I can be more assured that my actions are influenced by reality itself, and not the biases and prejudices within it. I suppose it all goes back to the moral question in some sense. And, I wouldn't say that evolution necessarily *explains* an advancement toward truth, so much as it is part of the pursuit. It is the best ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... explanation we have based on the evidence uncovered so far, but that does not mean that it, in and of itself, is truth in any sense. It will certainly change as time goes on and new information is discovered, as the very mechanism of science is to locate and correct any mistakes to the best of our abilities. So evolution is simply the... most justified step to take at the moment on the path to truth, even if it turns out to be wrong, ultimately. ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds And the issue of moral values is another interesting area, and i will certainly answer it to the best of my ability when I have some more time, but I will say that I have some concerns over whether or not having a absolute, completely objective, moral code is actually beneficial or desirable. So (once I elaborate on that more) I think that would go toward your question of the importance of moral values. As for a source of them.... I think Sam Harris' ....
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds .... discussion of ”well-being" is pretty close to my own views, so if you are familiar with it, it will give you an idea until I am able to explain more. :)
Oh, that was Chinese (traditional, as apposed to simplified, in particular), and it means "may your life go well."
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds *maybe I should say the direction, or a good underlying principle of how moral values should be examined and determined, rather than the source of moral values- for that there is a lot of work, but that will be for another day. :)
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1 I've seen some of Dillahunty and Harris and I have respect for their thoughtfulness, as I certainly have for you as well. I see people such as this, seemingly moral, seekers after truth, and I cannot help but see them (admittedly through believer-colored glasses) as beings of design. There is in my view a quantum leap between the complexity of man and any other organism I see. My daughter studies Chinese in college and I'm planning to use them on her in a few minutes.
texaslds 11 months ago
@texaslds (Just a quick suggestion, since you used the word "seen" when referencing Dillahunty and Harris, I would suggest reading some of Harris' books if you have the time, since inherent in every debate/lecture is a fair amount of condensation of the material for time purposes- reading it would give you the entirety of the arguments. Again, that is if you have time, and I can certainly understand that many people can't find time for such things. :) )
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds Certainly, I can understand how it might seem that way. Like I mentioned, my specialties are mathematics and physics, so when it comes to a deeply biological question such as this I'm not sure how convincing an argument I can present against the quantum leap of complexity you mentioned, so I would have to simply refer you to some of Dawkin's book, for example, which do address that issue and are targeted at non-specialists. :) However, there is something I can say ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... on the appearance of design (which does follow some arguments made in some of Dawkin's books, as well as others). I would argue that appearance of something occurring is not sufficient to decide that it is, in fact, occurring. The two quintessential examples are the movement of the sun and the shape of the earth. It certainly seems reasonable when you go day by day seeing the sun move across the sky, and feel no movement of the ground beneath you ....
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds .... to conclude that the earth is stationary and the sun is orbiting it. Similarly, when you look out at the ground beneath you, and it appears to be relatively flat (modulo a few mountains and valleys of course) it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that the earth is, in fact, flat. However (to use the second example since it involves a very important mathematical concept within one of the specific fields of mathematics I am interested in) upon ....
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... further investigation we find that, not only is that not the case, but that we exist on a perfect example of something which is rather common and yet, somehow, unnoticed in nature (this "something" I am referring to is known within mathematics as a "manifold," which is an object that appears to be much like the xy-plane, for example, when observed within a small neighborhood of a point on the object, but when viewed globally you find that it actually behaves quick differently ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... than the xy-plane. In the example of the earth, the point is that locally it behaves like a flat object, but globally is has curvature). So anyways, the point being that what even if it seems like humans are designed, and even if we would like to believe that it is true, that does not necessarily mean that it is true, and, as with this example, investigating the truth of it will potentially lead to a whole new understanding of other things in the universe. ....
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds .... I should say one more thing. In "The God Delusion" by Dawkins he mentions an interesting argument (I don't recall if this argument has an evidence supporting it, but it is an interesting perspective nonetheless), which is more in evolutionary terms. Essentially the idea is that certain ideas (his example was quantum mechanics) seem strange and counter-intuitive to us since an understanding of them is not required for survival ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... (in his example, he mentions how a prehistoric primate does not need to understand how the elementary particles which make it up interact in order to hunt, for example). So after years and years of having no necessity for such things, our brains slowly evolve to ignore them, in a certain sense. I don't know... just something to think about- I think he describes it better. :)
Cool! I am going to be going to school in Taiwan soon to pursue a PhD in physics, but ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... one of the primary motivators for choosing Taiwan was that I always had the desire to learn Chinese (and somewhat later the desire to read some classics like the "The Red Chamber" in the original form). So I have been working on teaching myself traditional writing and Mandarin speech for that.... on top of studying more mathematics needed for at least a cursory understanding of string theory (or quantum gravity theories in general)... I hope she can read it!! ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds I would imagine she would be learning simplified writing since the majority of Chinese-speaking countries use it, but I think all the characters I used are the same in both forms.... not sure.... 但是非常酷啦!!!
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1 In arguments, Occam's razor is brought up a lot. I think the "razor" cuts two ways. One way is that with all the complexities of the human being far distinguishing it from other organisms, the simpler explanation is design. When it comes to "truth", I as a believer equate truth to "what God knows" so my view is pretty deeply entrenched. You're a lot like my daughter, always wanted to learn Chinese, majors in math, will be in Nanking this fall for a "semester abroad."
texaslds 11 months ago
@texaslds Sure, it definitely is brought up quite often. I am hesitant to use it, since it is more... axiomatic, in that it cannot be shown to be certifiably true. It's a nice thought, and it would certainly be a beautiful thing if simplicity does perpetually overcome complexity, but nevertheless there is no reason for it to be true. That is a slight digression though.... if I concede that it is true there is still something to be said of your argument. First of all, it is not ....
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... clear that a designer is, in fact, a simpler explanation. It takes up fewer words, sure, but the explanatory power of those words is essentially nil. If such a designer exists, then the methods through which creation occur would still potentially require tremendous complexity. As a simple analogy (perhaps idealizing the situation, but what can you do with only 500 characters? ;) ) consider a magician's trick. To the audience it appears completely simple- perhaps ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... something is there one second, a cloth goes over it, and it is gone. But when you investigate how this is achieved you find that it is far from simple- it involves fake doors, precise timing, misdirection, etc. So, all I am saying is that I think the claim that a designer is a simpler explanation requires some justification. The other thing I wanted to say, which is more important and addresses the issue better in my opinion, is that the simplicity of a designer ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... , if I were to agree it is simple, still leads to an infinite regress. A designer sophisticated enough to design a complex being such as a human, would seemingly require an immense level of complexity itself. Then, by your own reasoning, one would necessarily conclude that this being requires a designer as well. And so on ad infintatum. As for the issue of "truth" I am certainly fine with that- you may equate the two if you feel it is justified. This, of course, is so long ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... as you recognize that in order for any one else to accept you claims, you need to provide justification for the statement that truth is what god knows. If you understand that a belief, by definition, is something you don't know to be true, then more power to you. :) I think the only problems occur when people feel strongly that they do know for sure, and that everyone else should accept there claims. I would say that all the bad actions associated with religion stems ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds from this distinction. For some reason that seemed convoluted.... I hope it was somewhat clear. :)
That's cool! I wish her the best of luck. :)
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1 Even as I typed in my last comment, I had thoughts pretty much like you explained, that to explain such a being who could do that introduces a necessary additional level of complexity, but so it is with most things created modernly. As for my beliefs, they are only my beliefs and I wouldn't expect or even want anyone to look at my beliefs and believe as I do without some independent experience or exploration. There are those who hold their beliefs far more ardently than I.....
texaslds 11 months ago
@texaslds Sure, I certainly agree with it being the way things are created modernly. I think the distinction which is typically pointed out is that with a modern creation (say a painting, for example), we have multitudes of evidence to demonstrate that painting are designed and created by a painter. So, it may certainly seem reasonable that the same thing would apply to another form of creation, but the distinction is that we do not have any evidence of universes being created ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds or designed, so the claim that it is necessary for this to be the case is not justified to the extent that the claim "a painting requires a painter" is. And, in fact, there are even alternative explanations around, which have been verified to some extent (of course, not to the extent that one can claim them to be true, in my opinion, but that is another matter), so it seems to me that the reasonable position to take is that we cannot accept the necessity of such a creator yet.
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1 and all I will do is bring up my own viewpoint and experience. I don't know how strong a proponent you are of human rights, but I have a strong feeling pretty much as declared in the Dec. of Ind. "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights", etc. If you take away the word "creator", what you have left is "endowed by man", and if "endowed by man", they can also be taken away by man. So at least the idea, if not reality, of a creator, is very helpful when...
texaslds 11 months ago
@texaslds Of course, I am not saying that you can't believe it is true- that is perfectly fine. Like I mentioned, it is only when people profess it as an absolute truth, without the justification, that there are problems. I should mention that I realize that is not what you are doing, and I do appreciate your willingness to accept that people should not want to agree with you without independent experience or exploration. And I hope that I am giving off the same impression. :)
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds I think that, by and large, humanity in general is a proponent of human rights, but sometimes give excessive and unchecked power to some who are not so concerned with it. Irregardless, yes, I very much advocate human rights. As for your question about the Dec.- it is an interesting way to phrase the moral dilemma. I would say that, first of all, the primary drafter of the Dec. (Thomas Jefferson, although I think those words "endowed by their creator" were inserted by Ben....
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... Franklin) was a deist, so what he intended with that statement would be something along the lines of "endowed by nature" (god, in the deist sense, would be a certain kind of personification of nature), and hence they are not necessarily referring to a creator in the sense you are proposing, nor are they saying that man has endowed them. So.... I guess what I am getting at is that I don't necessarily think that there is an implication that it was endowed by man without "creator" ..
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... being there. Nevertheless, I think that there is one important point to be made, which is that, if a creator endows us with these rights then they can still be taken away by this creator, so in either case the possibility is there. However, since (if I am not mistaken) you are a Christian, and so I would imagine you could say something in response referring to god's love of us, which might make it less likely for such a change to occur, ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds and to that I would have to say that I don't think it is likely for it to occur in the case of man either. I would argue that there is a certain level of accountability which is being ignored there, in that we are accountable to the other (roughly) 6,000,000,000 people here. And since I think, generally, people do not want to have these rights violated, this would encourage us to adhere to them and seek to stop those who would try to take them away. ....
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... All of this being done without requiring a creator handing them to us. I hope that was clear.... seems like I didn't say it very well.... but anyways. :)
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1 ...justifying and explaining these rights. I have yet to hear back from my daughter after giving her your Chinese characters. She doesn't check email often. My daughter really tries to seek truth herself. She tries to stay away from most popular culture "Lost, Survivor, American Idol" etc. But her beliefs are somewhat similar to mine, but always her choice. BTW. I have a math teaching channel, over 180 videos, high school level math, id "gdawgrapper". Thanks for all your
texaslds 11 months ago
@texaslds That's good to hear, I hope that both you are her continue seeking truth. :) And I will check some out when I have a chance- although I haven't been teaching math so much lately, it is always good to see some different approaches to incorporate parts of into my approach. And thank you as well- I'm always happy to discuss it with someone who will consider it further, regardless of how persuasive my arguments may end up being. Just keeping this attitude of discussion and debate ...
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@texaslds ... is healthy for any society, I think. And of course, I too will require ever more effort and study on these topics as well as others. Should you ever be investigating physics (in particular string theory, or more generally, quantum gravity), then I would be happy to supply some excellent (and not technical) references to at least get the idea of what is being proposed. :)
LeonhardEuler1 11 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1 comments over the last several days. They give me a lot to think about and research, but like anything worthwhile, it will require effort and study on my part to get all the "truth" I can out of it.
texaslds 11 months ago
i may disagree with what you say and i could tear your arguments apart, but you sir were the first person i heard argue for a creator who didn't use the old circular god argument. where the bible is true cause its the word of god, and its the word of god cause its the bible
shnibly12 1 year ago
one can see it completely opposite as Newton. u can look at planets as the result of pieces of space dust randomly becoming attracted to each other via gravity. over time,the larger chunks dominate space,and draw in all smaller pieces of dust/rock..eventually all the clumps fuse together,and the planet is compressed into a spherical shape via gravity. the planets in a particular solar system are attracted to their much more massive star. it sorta just happens..why?..does there have to be a why?
itzahazylife 1 year ago
"Speciation, when sexual reproduction is involved, requires an almost simultaneous mutation of both a male, and a female."
This isn't true. It's not that this sort of speciation wouldn't be possible, it's just astronomically unlikely. If two populations of the same species are separated environmentally from one another, each will adapt to fit their environment. After a large expanse of time, these populations may no longer be able to inter mate. This is the very definition of species.
SuxorAoeBj 1 year ago
@SuxorAoeBj You are correct. I was wrong about that. One thing that happened from making my video is that a large number of visitors, including you, have been kind enough to point out flaws in my presentation, and most in a kindly manner as you have done. This large amount of time is the thing that gets me and a lot of us. We see such a short time span in our own lives and even human history that it's tough to see the great changes evolution has wrought. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 1 year ago
@texaslds
One thing that many creationists believe, is that evolutionary theory precludes the existance of a creator. This is not true at all. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor of the univere. What it does explain is the observable diversity of life on this planet. However, if one wishes to believe in a divine creator, they will inescapably be forced to conclude that evolution was in fact this creator's method of creation.
SuxorAoeBj 1 year ago
All creatures (except identical twins) have differing DNA. And they mate perfectly. It's enough that the DNA is slightly differently.
As for improving: Humans have succeeded in "improving" cattle, dogs, plants in whatever way they wanted, in mere decades.
obijan42 1 year ago
I'm puzzled by the connection between your view that there is a creator - and that the creator is the Biblical god. There are many candidate creator gods - why did you conclude it was this particular one?
BinkyHuckleback 1 year ago
@BinkyHuckleback You make a fair observation, one that a couple other viewers have. You are right, the things I set out as "evidence" don't prefer one type of "god" over another. In fact, when I did mention the bible, I mentioned that I don't see how it can be taken literally since things in it are provably not true--not an esp ringing endorsement of a biblical god. I do believe in a version of a biblical god, but why I do is outside the scope of the video. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 1 year ago
Im sick of this "Finely Tuned for Life" argument. What about the 8 other planets in our solar system? Or the 500 other planets we have discovered? They werent so finely tuned were they? Our planet just happens to fall into the habitable zone. Out of a billion planets its possible there could only be 1 that would be in just the right spot for life to exist. And that one is the one we evolved on.
LBTennis 1 year ago
Circumstantial evidence helps us arrive at the most logical conclusions in the absence of direct evidence. Based on the argument you presented, the circumstantial evidence indicates an involvement of an intelligent entity in the appearance of species. Why do you jump to the conclusion that it has to be God? If you choose make your argument logical you have to eliminate other factors first before jumping to conclusions based on religion.
mryaogee 1 year ago
@mryaogee I tried to be careful during my presentation to stop short of concluding the "designer" to be any singular type of creator or "god." However, honesty requires me to confess (although it's not, I think, in the text of my presentation) that I do have beliefs that help me to see curcumstantial evidence differently than others who may not similarly predisposed. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 1 year ago
Isaac Newton lived centuries ago and was one of the last scientists to actually believe the universe was constructed like a machine by an intelligent personal god. He was a religious eccentric even for his own time whose obsessions with alchemy and prophecy eventually overtook his interests in science. That you would have to go that far back in history to find a "scientist" to validate you religion shows that 1) your thinking is out of date, and 2) you seek the legitimacy that science has.
pwnUgood 1 year ago 9
@pwnUgood I think you make fair points about Newton. I could have used quotes from Einstein, more of a Deist perhaps and also perhaps not having that machine conception that Newton had. Maybe my thinking is out of date. As for the "legitimacy of science", I claim none in my presentation and freely admit that my viewpoints are influenced by my biases and experiences. But I also claim the privilege of expressing my viewpoint and I thank you for expressing yours by viewing and commenting.
texaslds 1 year ago
Wow these religous types never cease to stop entertaining me,they will concoct all kinds of notions and corelations to make a case for the existence of their invisable man.their god a.k.a the creator as they call him.the sooner its admitted to that contact has been made with life forms outside our relm the better. all this religous malarky can be replaced with sound scientific reasoning. but guess what the ruling class will never allow that to happen they're in cohoots with the church,they LIE !
toobigaman 1 year ago
If you simply conclude there was a creator and go with a supernatural explanation you haven't answered anything. By the supernatural's very definition it is unknowable, therefore you have simply replaced one unknown with another unknown.
MrBossnagger 1 year ago
Look up speciation and your logical is completely flawed at 4:40 when you say that you are forced to conclude that there was a creative period. The correct answer is you don't know. No answer is always better than a bad answer.
MrBossnagger 1 year ago
Fun fact:
The expansion of the universe argument ONLY deals with a spherical universe. (might not be the case, there are other shapes you know)
jazztrumpet87 1 year ago
The first thirty seconds are all fucked to hell, it's nothing but an assumption that our exact position is necessary to produce life, there are many examples of life on Earth existing in extreme conditions that could have made it if Earth was significantly closer or farther away from the Sun. Our exact position was probably quite fortunate for human life, life in general would have found a way, whether or not we would have evolved like we did is a bigger question than if Earth could sustain life
ReservoirdogEC 1 year ago
wahthwahtwhat we definitely have found new species. everyday a new insect or new fish or new mammal is found somewhere in the rain forest or coral reefs. we have also observed when species were separated, one of the species most oftened changed over a few decads. ALSO, both parents do not have to have mutations, just one of the parents gametes. That is all.
hunisbeast 1 year ago
overall, a good video. i value the fact that you, as an intellectual person, can establish a difference between belief and science. from what i have gathered, you seem to understand that what you have here isn't science. youre not trying to convince people that you are in fact correct and that what you think is right for everyone else. what you seem to be doing is sharing your belief and explaining why you believe in what you believe. and theres absolutely nothing wrong with that. props.
Likeafoxow 1 year ago
as far as new species are concerned, i think there have always been lots and lots of species. its only recently have we started to keep track of these animals in a specific and precise way. new species are discovered every day, but it doesnt mean that they just poofed out of some other species. as environments change, species will change. sudden barriers like newly formed mountains, oceans, etc causes a separation of a population of species where upon divergence will begin. here, one becomes two
Likeafoxow 1 year ago
when you consider that we are incredibly lucky to have a perfect world (perfect temperature/atmosphere/water) consider the infinitely greater number of planets that dont have these luxuries. it just so happens that our earth is perfect. its like a flower pot in a room, the one place is hospitable for plant life and thus a flower grows there. life is adaptable. those that could survive and flourish under these temperatures/atmospheres/resources were able to prosper. it's why it seems so perfect
Likeafoxow 1 year ago
Basically you don't know how the Earth became what it is today so you point to a creator. I guess they are right when they say "the god of the gaps". Nice presentation though.
BouyertheDestroyer 1 year ago
intraiging.....hah,smart word fail,
PS3GRIMREAPER91 1 year ago
i favorited this video. There's so much atheism on youtube i'm relieved to have a video like this that shares many thoughts i have about the universe. Keep making videos i'm suprised this one doesn't have more views
foreverdreamer2012 1 year ago
Your arguments are convincing... I appreciate the post, sir :)
HoraceTheClown 1 year ago
you are an A...hole do some more research, "gods" are man made not vice versa and for the sake of your god be more objective, until you get to be objective you remain ignorant no further comments ........
skaraoschi 1 year ago
If the gene that comes out of a mutation is dominate than the off-spring will obtain the new gene and override the old recessive gene, that is there are more brown haired people than blonde. But say for some reason that brown hair made the off-spring weaker, than they are more likely to reproduce. There is no reason why a god has to exist for this to happen. Does that mean that there is definatly no god? No... But it does mean that your argument is not valid.
4xThexwin 1 year ago
All your video proves is you don't understand evolution at all. LOTS of speciation events have been observed and your ignorance of them is not an argument. You then go and commit one of the very errors King Heathen explicitly forbid--not evolution, therefore creation. That's NOT the way it works. Congratulations on making a fool of yourself.
DarthServo 1 year ago
In this entire video assumes that there has only been one universe, and that we are located in the only solar system in the universe.
I am not impressed.
I have not seen new species pop out either, but that does not mean an omnipotent, invisible skydaddy made everything for the hell of it.
ProveItBro 1 year ago
@ProveItBro To your first sentence, there is no assumption about only one universe and there are millions, maybe billions of systems similar to our solar system. As far as you not being impressed, I'll dry my tears and try to get over it.
On your last point about the skydaddy, I have to agree with you.
Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 1 year ago 4
never a day, when we became human, yet today we exists, ever changing to better adapt to our situation. Thats why there is in reality no human genome. There is only 7 billion genomes that are very similar. No barriers to stop the great accumulation of change in millions of years. Different human races are the beginnings of our species diverging. In time, an organism from Africa would be so different from an organism from island, that they would not be able to reproduce. For now they still can.
Terminator4004 1 year ago
@Terminator4004 Good points all. The barrier comes down solidly when the two organisms become chromosonally imcompatible, incapable of combining to form offspring. Yes, the time required is long, especially compared to what we see in our short lifetimes, and historical palentology is only about 200 years old. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 1 year ago
@Terminator4004 we as humans can only reproduce with another quote on qoute other race(in reality we're all the same, other may be gifted in others ways for example darker skin americans or earthly humans have increased vit.D i their skin, lighters may have red hair ect.) our only hope to evolve at this point is to make marriages be cross racial. the same races Mating and baby producing is just "bottle-necking" our advancement. look it up and you'll understand
trgaoyddis 1 year ago
Evolution is not so easy to understand, because the time involved is so great. If you want to really understand it, you have to look at every organism individually, not species. A definition of a species is more or less based on how much difference there is between the genome of two organisms. If the difference is small, they are very similar and they can reproduce. So if you look at it like this, you see that there is no invisible barrier that would stop one species becoming another. There was
Terminator4004 1 year ago
Two books I recommend "The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution" (Nick Lane) "The Greatest Show on Earth" Richard Dawkins. You really have to take into account the amount of time it takes mutations to accumulate in numbers great enough to make the sexual reproduction as well as having the populations of organisms separated in some respect. If you are expecting to see a new "kind" of animal you need to look for something new inside the cell that works good enough to compete with todays animals.
stotlex 1 year ago
@stotlex I appreciate the reading suggestion. I will particularly look at the Lane book. I agree with your point about the accumulation over time. Even the amount of time we've seen since Darwin hasn't been even 200 years, such a minute fraction of the billion plus years life has been evolving. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 1 year ago
@texaslds I get where you are coming from in the video, the Lane book has been more into speculation of how life emerged within its pages, so i hope if you can get your hands on it you enjoy reading, sounds like you get the time factor that evolution takes, The other idea i learned from the Dawkin's book is how animals go from a zygote to a developed animal and i found after reading about how molecular polarity and various other factor contribute to development the miracles slowly fade away.
stotlex 1 year ago
No evidence presented, nothing to see here.
hcoll 1 year ago
So do you believe in Intelligent Design? Kenneth Miller is a Roman Catholic who showed in court that Intelligent Design is wrong. The Bacterium Flagellum was the Type III Secretory System before it was the flagellum. Some Christians accept evolution but still believe in God.
LifeIsABigPuzzle 1 year ago
straight away you demonstrate your ignorance saying that tiny increases or decreases in temperature would render the earth uninhabitable. you find life in volcanoes and at the poles.
you then say that the proportions of gasses are perfect for life, ignoring the past when they were different, yet there was life.
google documented cases of speciation, or macroevolution and you will find cases of speciation.
and they can become more complex, creating new wnzymes for example. just do some research.
mephistophile33 1 year ago
All fair points. Many viewers have given me leads on speciation findings. Though there are not many convincing examples, still there are enough (one would be enough) to strongly refute my point about new species appearing. I plan to later, this summer, post a response to this video
some of which will be refuting points in this video with research findings.
Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 1 year ago
New species do not appear in a single generation. New species develop through many generations. If a group of animals are separated they accumulate differences. They can always mate witch their part of the group, but after many generations of being separated from the other group they are so different from their cousins that they can no longer mate with them.
Hedning1390 2 years ago
One of the great things about having posted my video is learning from informed viewers like you. I plan to make a response to my own video later this year correcting a few things about evolution and what you mentioned is at the top of my list. You're right that the evolvement is so slow that a person cannot notice them in a mortal lifetime, but some scientists have, not a lot, but enough to show it happens.
Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 2 years ago
How could we have an intelligent designer? It is illogical, due to the fact that he would need to be more complex then the universe he created is. (which as you have said it is, and it was very precise) So the odds that this being could come into being over the universe would be infinitely lower then that off the big bang. More so the point of if the universe was just slightly different proof, is rather annoying. Well it had to happen some way, and it happened this way.
TheGunslingr 2 years ago
I've heard your argument before, but nevertheless appreciate the effort you took to "instruct" me.
Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 2 years ago
Got to 2:17 and noticed you used the term "survival of the fittest." You have used this term incorrectly. Herbert Spencer was drawing parallels between Darwin's work an ECONOMIC MODELS. The term "survival of the fittest" does not apply to evolution because there is no measure of "fitness." A better quotation would be to say "survival of the most responsive to change." Leading up to 3:00 you question speciation....
ialsoagree 2 years ago
As to evolution, my viewers have pointed out to me instances of new species, two that I could pretty well verify happened within the last 100 years, but even one would counter my incorrect absolute statement on no new species. As you mention, the great deal of time makes it hard for us to see. It is mainly over this that I plan to make a rebuttal of some of the points I made in this video, probably this summer.
texaslds 2 years ago
As for Spencer, he first used the term "Survival of the Fittest" in his 1864 book Principles of Biology and did apply it to biological evolution. However you are correct in that later on, he used the term to apply to social and economic institutions.
texaslds 2 years ago
As for the rest of your comments where you go into my opinions vs science etc. I don't have much of a problem with them, except to observe that you are criticizing me for being non scientific when I took great care in stating that my opinions are not science. Consistent with that, I disagree with your comment "prove that is statistically impossible for it to happen, or don't talk about it at all." I reserve the right to talk about whatever I want to and will defend your right to do likewise.
texaslds 2 years ago
Thank you for all the time you took. I looked at your channel and was disappointed to see no uploads, baically nothing. You have good ideas and a good way of expressing them. Why don't you get out there yourself and make videos? I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate them and could learn a lot from you.
Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 2 years ago
Speciation is microevolution (which you refer to in the video, changes whithin a species) over a great deal of time. These subtle microevolutionary changes can (but do not always) lead to speciation (the development of new species unable to breed fertile offspring with species they have split from). There ARE scientifically observed instances of speciation, you can google "observed instances of speciation" to fined peer reviewed articles citing such observations.
ialsoagree 2 years ago
At around 3:15 you discuss how mutation doesn't result in changes that make a species better suited to survival (you actually use the term "more complex" which isn't at all what evolution is about so I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and change it to the context of evolution). Do you fail to remember what you talked about roughly 30 seconds to 1 minute prior? Moth's whose mutations made them either better or worse for survival in an area changed by industrialization?
ialsoagree 2 years ago
Firstly, stating that the probability "in your opinion" is not at all science and that is why those that accept evolution don't care what you have to say. Your opinion is irrelevant, prove that is statistically impossible for it to happen, or don't talk about it at all. Science doesn't care about opinions, it only cares about observable (empirical) data. Secondly, stating that there were periods in which speciation did not occur and some species went extinct is also irrelevant...
ialsoagree 2 years ago
Species going extinct does not imply an end to all future speciation. A species can go extinct while one who doesn't will speciate maybe tens of thousands of years later, maybe millions. One species going extinct has no effect on the speciation of other species. You're drawing a conclusion that there must have been a creator is totally unfounded. You've supplied no evidence to suggest that extinction of individual species prevents other species from forming new species through evolution.
ialsoagree 2 years ago
At 5:10 you discuss your view. I personally have no problem with you believing whatever you want. Lets just be clear though, your belief is not based on any empirical information. There's nothing we have ever observed with our own senses that, without making assumptions, provides evidence of a creator. Evolution, on the other hand, is based on actually observed genetic differences, mutation, and actual speciation. This makes evolution science.
ialsoagree 2 years ago
At around 6:00 you discuss that a creator is "more likely." I won't argue your point at all, I'll merely point out, the likeliness or lack there of is NOT scientific. Something can be totally improbable (say, the radiation given off by nebulae), but if we can show why it happens empirically despite the low likelihood, that's science. Nebulae do give off radiation in the "forbidden transition" wavelengths for elements even though the probability of that happening is extremely remote.
ialsoagree 2 years ago
o.k I'm glad you have heard it before, now what is wrong with it? I'm sorry just the way you answered just seemed to blow off the point by saying you had heard it before.
How did I "instruct" you? I simply made a counter point. Yes it was assertive, but no good argument isn't. (Again I could just be misreading but the way you put it, it sounds like what I did you view as wrong in some way. Please clear that up for me thanks.)
TheGunslingr 2 years ago
I'm sorry for having seemed dismissive. You have a strong logical argument. I, as others have done, just like Newton did, come along and say, with all this complexity, there had to be a creator. You up the ante and say, oh yeah? Well how did this "God" or creator do it? Whenever an intelligent being creates something, there is a technique that the creator used to make something. In the case of this universe, how did this happen? A fair question that I don't have an answer for. Thanks.
texaslds 2 years ago
No problem(I do admit I can get annoyed when the same argument is repeated ad nausem)
However I think you misunderstood the point of the argument. It is not how god did it. The point is if the universe is complex, then the creator must be more complex then it.(I do not care how he would have gone around doing it)
So really the question is how does god make more sense(then the universe that we currently live in) just popping into being?
TheGunslingr 2 years ago
I really knew what you meant, but was responding to it in terms that I would be interested in. I was answering from a technical perspective, where really you were more fundamentally questioning from a logical perspective--either would have a good basis as an argument, in my opinion.
texaslds 2 years ago
Bravo... Great video
Deltastrikes 2 years ago
YOU may not have witnessed 1 species evolve into a new species, but there are new species of animals and insects being discovered every day. For all we know they could have evolved in the last few weeks. Coding and analysing DNA is hard work.
You expect so much of humankind and you give up on evolution because of 1 thing. At least with creationism, I have valid proof and multiple reasons to deny it.
AyeYirMa 2 years ago
You make a fair point. I'm assuming that new species being discovered haven't recently evolved. As for seeing new species evolve, my viewers have educated me on a couple that have been observed to evolve, and I plan to rebut some statements made in my video in a video response. As for the Hawking quote, I did not intend to quote him as a believer in God, but as someone who observed how the rate of universe expansion has a great deal to do with conditions that make life possible.
Thanks
texaslds 2 years ago
Stephen Hawkings isn't a christian or an atheist he said so himself. He told an interviewer "if by 'god' you mean that science obeys to the laws of the universe, not God than yes."
AyeYirMa 2 years ago
I can understand how one can see the Universe as designed, but I must urge you to think on the following:
1) There are trillions of planets in our Universe, there MUST be a combination like ours somewhere. Hence, we are here.
2) Scientists have seen new species in nature.
3) The video you responded to is about Young Earth Creationism, and other such ridiculous claims :)
Your opinion, while I may see it as illogical, isn't the pseudo-scientific mess of Creationism. Peace.
theneonfire 2 years ago
As to your first point, I agree that with the trillions of planets, there should be some capable of supporting life. However, that observation does not address the probability of life spontaneously generating . As to your second point, my viewers have educated me. There is a nylon ingesting bacteria and a bird species created recently by separation. Maybe there aren't a lot, but they rebut statements made in my video. I plan to make a response video sharing what I've learned.
Thanks
texaslds 2 years ago
Your logic is....not. There are 100 billion galaxies each containing on average 100 billion stars. That is 10,000 billion billion stars. The fact that our star and planet happen to have all the properties necessary to support life is merely statistically probably given the number of stars. And of course the life that comes about is a perfect match for those properties, it couldn't be otherwise. If there were just one star and one planet as the ancients throught then you might have an argument.
TheRadicalLiberal 2 years ago
I think the kindest thing I can say is its childlike thinking is on par with its 13-17 year-old popularity. Except, I think your mixing of some sciences and facts with your belief/understanding is dangerous and wrong. It is sad and weak of intellect and knowledge. You are misguided and misguiding the young.
cjeffers101 2 years ago
Of my commenters thus far, most, like you, have disagreed with me. What makes your reponse exceptional is the rather strong vehemence that seems out of proportion for someone who is quite clear in pointing out that this is only my belief and viewpoint. I would not teach nor condone teaching my or any other non scientific beliefs or viewpoints in a public school setting.
Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 2 years ago
believe me, although I can be very passionate, you should reread my comments with a calm, dull, low tone--as intended. You have to review your own viewers statistics to realize you are already exposing young minds to your misinformed beliefs. I hope this helps inform you.
cjeffers101 2 years ago
@MrJohnnyrace Yes, and also pre Darwin and paleontology. But Newton saw himself as he made his discoveries as one uncovering the mysteries of God, so extrapolating the way he looked at things, he may well have seen DNA as yet another instance of the magnificence of a Creator behind the creation. But we cannot know that for sure.
Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 2 years ago
Who cares about Isaac Newton? He came about so long before any testing, solar evolution, the "big bang", the findings of water on any other planet, or of any other place on earth.
Isaac Newton developed the theory of gravity, it has been vastly expanded upon. I'm interested in why you think he's a suitable source for supporting creation.
BusinessIDBAI 2 years ago
@BusinessIDBAI Three reasons: He was one of the greatest minds in history. I happen to agree with him. And finally, I like that statement of his. I wonder if you would have been happier if I had quoted another, more recent believer in a creator, Einstein, for instance.
Thank you for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 2 years ago
Einstein did not believe in a creator, especially not a Christian creator. He was at BEST a deist. Like the majority of the American founding fathers, almost all were deist.
Misquoting people does not justify your position if you're going for an argument from authority. Make sure that authority supports your position.
BusinessIDBAI 2 years ago
@BusinessIDBAI There are several Einstein quotes about God, one of the most famous beling "God does not play dice." But I do agree with you that Einstein seems to have been more of a deist than a theist. I also agree with you that from what I know of the American founding fathers, more were deists than theists.
Again, thanks for your comments.
texaslds 2 years ago
I remember going to Catholic school as a kid and getting taught evolution. We also had a separate religion class (it IS Catholic school after all). I don't know why so many christians have a problem with evolution.
LTS1287 2 years ago
@LTS1287 I like the way the Jesuits do it. IMO, to teach creationism as science is bad science and bad religion (asking people to believe something that is provably false). I have a Mormon background and even though evolution is taught in the Church universities, still, there are many Mormons that believe evolution false.
I've enjoyed watching the work of Roman Catholic scientist Ken Miller.
Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 2 years ago
Wow, 5 stars for honesty.
I'm an atheist, and yes, I believe the probability of a god existing or not existing is the same. Actually I don't think probability has anything to do with it; something either does or does not exist.
The problem I find with a creator is I can't justify a number of causes that would lead to a first cause. In short, I believe everything to have always existed in some form.
Also, creating time is a paradox because it requires a time when it was created.
cont.
thatisryan 2 years ago
from before.
Consider it like this; if you accept the big bang then do you believe God was behind it? Well, what if one day science is able to show what actually happened before the big bang? God would have been behind that right? Then science discovers what happened before that, well god must have been before that then...
And on and on. Think of how many times throughout human history this has already happened. I believe it will never stop or result in a "first cause".
thatisryan 2 years ago
The most "plausible" explanation....no....the "simplest" explanation yes. The nature of science is the continuous search for knowledge and answers, just wait, don't give up that easy.
jerni77 2 years ago
In certain portions of this vid, you fail to take into account the cause of evolution. For example, say that the area in which species A (carnivore) lives has a great deal of competition from other species for deer, the main source of meat. Those in species A with mutations that allow them to exploit other sources of meat (like fish, instead of deer) will be favored in the survival of the fittest. Over time, more and more of species A will gain that/those mutation(s).
altosax1st 2 years ago
(cont) Given many generations, the species A will have evolved into another species which could not produce offspring that can reproduce with members of the original species A (if they are still around). Beneficial mutations are fairly uncommon, but one must take into account the large spaces of generational time and the amount of offspring produced.
altosax1st 2 years ago
@altosax1st I have to agree. In my example of the peppered moth, what if the black version predominated, separated, then became a totally new species? Definitely. One thing that human primates have that more primitive monkeys don't is the ability to metabolize meat such that we don't rapidly develop (most of us) arteriosclerosis with its comsumption, which has to be seen as a beneficial change--could have been brought about by a mutation (to be cont.)
texaslds 2 years ago
...And about the vast amount of time, I think you're right there also. In our brief mortality and even human history, there's much that we cannot comprehend, even with fossil records, with regard to evolution. For a beneficial change, viewers have brought to my attention a mutation allowing bacteria to ingest nylon. I have learned so much from viewers like you that I plan to make a video response this summer summarizing these things. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 2 years ago
So lets say we are an intelligent design..
Why don't we have Gills, or wings, or smell like a Shark, or see like an Eagle? Or Retractable Fur like a Winter Coat?
Why do we need Housing or artificial environment to Survive on this Planet?
And if a Creature had all of those attributes, would it feel superior to us? like it is an Intelligent design and we are Flawed?
I would trade my "Intelligent male Nipples" in for a "stupid set of wings" any day.Intelligent design is perspective to intelligence.
highintel 2 years ago
@highintel Good and fair questions all. While I don't think we "need" housing and art environ to survive, they could only be designed by beings intel enough to do it. Also, it opens to man climates that otherwise would be uninhabitable. If we were "unintelligently designed", I don't think we could know it by factual means. One evidence we have that we were intelligently designed is that we have more intel than other organisms.
BTW, are you the guy playing the guitar? Awesome playing.
texaslds 2 years ago
regarding the "intelligent design". Well....if you forget what you saw on hollywood, for us to have wings will demand to increase the muscular mass of our chest to 10 times what it is now. That implies a faster heart rate, increased blood volume, and a bigger heart (or maybe 2), and by consequence more food consumption...a lot....then less people, less resources....for what? to travel faster? to fall on preys? .... not a practical evolution=extinction.
jerni77 2 years ago
@jerni77
And Nipples on a Male are a Practical evolutionary instinct? Please explain!
We would need to use extra muscles with our body weight...but An intelligent designer would know not to make us so heavy.
highintel 2 years ago
@ highintel
Male nipples serve no specific purpose, but, like in females, they are filled with nerve endings and can be very sensitive to sexual stimulation.
That means that our main body will be the heaviest part and most of the blood has to concentrate on that area, leaving the brain with a small share ... and therefore with the inability to develop. Natural evolution for a super intelligent human will take other functions out and focus on the head/brain area.
jerni77 2 years ago
In Fact there are a lot of things that suggest to me we are not intelligently designed.
If we were un-intelligently designed, would we know it?
Because I see how we are not, but do Creationist's?
on another logic, If the earth is 7k yrs old then why so many different races of Humans? Surely if all came from Adam and Eve we would have a New Race of humans right?
In the last documented years we have no new race of humans..only Mixed races by Sex, not divine hand.
So How long did it take?
highintel 2 years ago
Life exists on this planet because it is Conditioned so. Like Alaskan animals would not survive in Africa yet they are on the same planet.
If Aliens came to earth there would be no debate on this. They probably would need to be conditioned to our atmosphere like you would another planet.
There is nothing Amazing or intelligent about this to me any more than someone winning the Lotto would be an Act of God.
Intelligent design? Then Why make 2 sex's? And why Put Nipples on a Male? Wisdom teeth?.
highintel 2 years ago
The Fact that I got a Thumbs down proves to me and anyone else with a 170 IQ that you people cannot think.
THE SWINE FLUE AND OTHER EVOLVING CELLS ARE PROOF OF EVOLUTION!
highintel 2 years ago
@highintel I saw that too and was puzzled by it. You have to admit that one thumbs down isn't exactly a statistically significant sample. Blame the guy who did it, not everyone else please. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
texaslds 2 years ago
@texaslds your right. sorry bout that.
highintel 2 years ago
What if Gods an alien?
highintel 2 years ago
@highintel Although your question might not be a serious one, I'll assume that it is serious.
I don't see how a God who does what I purport "he" has done doesn't have a lot in common with what might be called an alien, an individual of higher intelligence and power than we can know or understand, plus a willingness to be involved in some other sphere than "his" own.
As to your other comment on new species, I agree that it's a lot more likely.
texaslds 2 years ago