(3/5) Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

[Jollybear6]

whats the third element of his theory???

[animaljp3]

evolution is the best traited organisms passing down traits that are exaggerated. Why is this Hard?

[Anglican08]

Nice to see John Maynard Smith

[glitchuser4]

@darkfur35 Study More closely. I disagree, and many others do. And please do take a different look, not just affirmation of your preconceptions.

[darkfur35]

@glitchuser4 didnt have any perconceptions......always knew evolution was silly. I make up my own mind.

[glitchuser4]

@darkfur35 That's a shame. I find sharing ancestry with other species more plausible than sudden creation by theistic deities than have so many contradictions it's quite ridiculous.

[VYaCanisMajoris]

@darkfur35 no the bible is

[coolgreyoneabby]

@darkfur35 Yes, as bad a fairy tale as they come. Evolution is the only fairy tale that is measurable, verifiable and supported by science. It has entire fields of study devoted to it that explains biology and immunology. What a crappy fairy tale that is! I'm sure your favorite fairy tale is supported on much more solid ground.

[Coffeeisnecessary]

4:19 Darwin must've been like "oh shit! Damn! Shit, shit, shit, shit! This bastards going to get credit! I gotta get dis shit published!"

[6hundred3score6]

what I don't understand, maybe someone can enlighten me, is why natural selection chooses those genes best suited to survival. what is the motive driving micro organisms to want to survive?

[nolobede]

@6hundred3score6

Natural selection doesn't "choose." Simply put, natural selection is a "result" of biological changes that happen to benefit the survival of a species. example: A red frog in the same lush green swamp as a green frog, is more likely to become lunch for a predator than would be a green frog simply due to its visibilty.

Genes for red skin then become less prevalant, therefore less able to procreate in survivable numbers.

Simple enough?

[6hundred3score6]

@nolobede you didnt really answer my question, maybe I should have phrased it better, Why is the intended result survival? they seek out and destroy unbenificial mutations? why?

[nolobede]

@6hundred3score6

Not sure you phrased it better.

Nothing "seeks out" non-beneficial mutations.

Mutations happen naturally, some assist survival (like the green frogs camouflage) some dont, (red frogs visibility), and those mutations that are less likely to provide the ability to procreate do not survive.

If a frog gets eaten by a predator who sees the red frog first, then red frogs are less likely to be able to procreate. Exclude "intent," this is a natural cause and effect

[nolobede]

@6hundred3score6

As for the "survival instinct," it can be looked at the same as red or green skin. Those that have it avoid danger and survive, those that don't get digested.

If you saw your parent get eaten by a tiger, would you avoid Tigers? If you do, you may survive, if you don't you may not get to make babies. How much more simple do we have to make it?

[6hundred3score6]

@nolobede lol twice you failed to comprehend the question and twice you patronize me with rhetoric.

oh irony, how you make my life bearable.

[nolobede]

@6hundred3score6

...Likely your learning disability brought you to the questions in the first place. Obviously, you haven't a clue, we feel empathy for your lack of ability to grasp such a simple concept. Perhaps if you are actually looking for answers, rather than trolling, you should try getting an education in the matter. Its quite obvious that if you can't understand the simplicities of the fact of evolution when explained in simplistic terms, you've little chance for clarity.

[hundredandfour]

"The only thing wrong with his theory... was that it was wrong."

I lol'd

[nolobede]

Yet I am still open minded enough. But the evidence to change my mind, would have to be exactly that, actual, credible, testable viable evidence. So far so many try, but fail.

This is why the scientific method works.

[jabrightlefthook]

your attempt to characterize me as your species is a blunder you have no proof and applied a name to something you donot fully understand how unfortunate that you would do the same thing you said that i did in the messages prior

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"your attempt to characterize me as your species is a blunder "

-Then please correct me, what species are you then if not Human?

[JudgeJasper]

part 2: put in, meaning that the effort put out will be just as vitally succesfull and appreciated. because the effort put in is equal to the retainned effort put out for energy is only transferred never wasted, so when a mind focusses its energy towards a task and does so at maximum efficientcy, then it is controlled and the proccess of improving a persons(ones as a whole for the species) methodical means of completing a goal, task or mission is improved upon at the will of the practicionner.

[JudgeJasper]

at about 3:20 the dude says that mutation is random, however, darwin states that through repetiotion of ones actions a specie may learn to evolve through the innovation and more efficient recreation of ones methods and practices. smething like that anyways, so wouldnt it be true to say that our evolution may be forced and is being controlled through the practice of certain skills and fundamental motions. the more devoted we become to a practice the more focus and attention is given to the effort

[MishuTaste]

It makes me upset how religious authorities get in the way of science.

[cruiscinlan]

so, did the 'spontaneous' birth happen in one place, one pool or in several, all over the place? i've never heard discussion on this; surely we would know if it were pangaeic? if life started in the same environment, wouldn't it have evolved to a single organism responding to its environment?where comes all this diversity in the same environment?

[Xwowplaya]

It is a crying shame that Darwin was scared of persecution and did not have a chance to publicly speak about his discovery. Once again the church hinders enlightenment and progress. Without religion, I bet we would have understood evolution centuries before darwin came into the picture.

[gamesbok]

@Xwowplaya '

“I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character, by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I should have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so.'

Carl Linnaeus.

[parlock480]

There is no way that that human beings are descended from primates if it is true why are there still apes why have not the lions and elephants and wolves evolved to two legged man like creatures

[wizzilu]

@parlock480 Why would they, Why don't we have wings or an extra arm...

You fail to grasp that their is no design, we are not ascending to a higher form.

[TheNocturneMoon]

@parlock480 wow...umm the simple way to put it is that they are also modern creatures, we evolved from the same ancestor as apes, this ancestor branched out and became what we now know as modern apes on one side and us on the other. we don't see them mid evolution the same way we dont see ourselves mid-evolution, we're both modern creatures and the result of evolution from a common ancestor.

[DGAF100]

@parlock480 We are successful mutations(whatever they may be) of ape DNA. DNA doesn't replicate perfectly. Its like if your neighbor had a mutation that gave him the ability to read peoples minds. Over millions of years of replicating they would become the dominant species because of their helpful ability. We would still survive because of how versatile we are and they would become a new species although the dominant one. Then we would have humans and superhumans

[readmycomments100]

@parlock480 there are still apes simply because they are efficient at living in their environment, so they are still alive. andwhy the fuck would they evolve to be man like. they are thriving there is no need for them to change.

[nolobede]

It is embarrasing to human intellect to know that there are some that still argue against evolutions very existance.

[chh5555]

@nolobede I harbor the thought that even they know secretly that evolution is true but through stubbornness, fear and denial they outwardly refuse to agree. I cannot come to grips with the thought the people are inwardly as ignorant as they profess to be.

[nolobede]

@chh5555

They do know, but denial and introspection in the face of mortality is powerful to a week personality.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede whether u believe in evolution or creationism you have to understand that something had to cause the big bang and something had to make life spring fourth into existance something had to make this thing happen

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"something had to cause the big bang and something had to make life spring fourth into existance"

(ugh... as usual needs to be explained that the two are completely different subjects)

And I understand this as well as any human can.

The difference is that you, need to understand that there is no reason, no evidence, no proof to suggest an intelligent agent as a cause, only mans imagination and your own subjective conjecture.

It really IS as simple as that.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede whether they are two different subjects or not,give me sufficient proof as to the reason for which life even exists, now im not saying its the god of any religion but i am saying that even science cannot fully explain or understand gravity and yet they are taking on evolution and saying " here's the reason for why we are here" i think not .secondly i too believe in evolution i never said i didnt so to say " mans imagination and your own subjective conjecture" is a gross assumption

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"give me sufficient proof as to the reason for which life even exists"

- I don't need to, we know it does. How, is irrelevant to conjuring up some fairy tale god without ANY evidence whatsoever. Purely imagined.

"science cannot fully explain or understand gravity "

Yet that gravity exists, is fact. That evolution has/does/will happen, is fact. Stone cold

There is even more evidence for evolution, and we know how it works. Can't be said for gravity.

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

" here's the reason for why we are here"

-Wrong. Evolution says nothing of the sort. Evolution ONLY explains the diversity of life, NOT why or how life began. Again, you made assumptions.

" mans imagination and your own subjective conjecture" is a gross assumption

-Really? Then prove it otherwise, that a creator is anything more than conjecture. Good luck with that.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede evolution says that species evolve over a long span of time isnt that explaining why we are here hello according to science it all started with a single cell and that cell copied it self and didnt do a good job every time creating diversity and new organisms over eons so yes it does say " this is why we are here" i cannot prove nor disprove that there is a creator that doesnt mean that there isnt one . the lack of evidence doesnt disprove the existance of something

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"so yes it does say " this is why we are here"

-No. evolution only provides answers as to "How" we are here, not "why." Evolution theory doesn't care about how life started (abiogenesis). Evolution theory ONLY explains the biological diversity of life.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede ok point proven but...how and why go hand and hand something often overlooked if i say i ate because i was hungry i answer two questions why i ate in the first place and how me being hungry played a major role in me eating thus answering two question ,how and why are very similar and in this case of evolution leads to the same answer . why? is something that should be looked into with the same intensity and not only be philosophers and priest but by scientist as well and laymen

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"i cannot prove nor disprove that there is a creator that doesnt mean that there isnt one"

-And it certainly doesn't mean there IS one:

"the lack of evidence doesnt disprove the existance of something "

-What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Disproving existence isn't necessary. Burden of proof is on those making the assertion.

Your argument is a non-sequitor.

Prove I don't have an invisible elephant - See the problem?

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede just because something is invisible to you does not disprove it exists microbial life is the perfect example .you say the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion well science has not sufficiently proven evolution and the study of organisms is about 0.000001 percent of what is out there .we are one planet in one solar system out of millions of solar systems in a galaxy in this universe and yet we believe we have a grip on the truth of things maybe only a spec of knowledge

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"microbial life is the perfect example "

Nope sorry, we've seen it.

"well science has not sufficiently proven evolution "

Nope sorry, it has. Your saying it hasn't... doesn't change the facts a bit. Its as (more) proven as gravity. It wll happen without fail, and always has. It is predictable and verifiable and you cannot stop it. Ignorance of it, is benign.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede im not saying microbial life is not visible to us it surely is but at one point it wasnt and yet still existed this is my arguement meaning just cause u cant see god now doesnt mean humans wont have the capabilty to in the years to come

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede i notice you simply take what i say and do the same thing sorta like in chess if i play kings pawn will you play kings pawn as well dont take my statements and twist them you know what i mean and gravity doesnt always work sorry .... have you ever heard of reverse gravity or that some elements when combined create the oposite effect of gravity and neutralizes it

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

" just because something is invisible to you does not disprove it exists "

-You apparently didn't get it the first time... Somebody asserted microbial biology. then proved it.

So... your assertion, then prove it.

"Yet we believe we have a grip on the truth of things maybe only a spec of knowledge"

-What fools are you referring to when you say "we"? You mean those same fools who ALSO have little knowledge, without evidence whatsoever, claim a supreme creator?

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede im gonna finish my last attempt to get through to you with these words in conclusion there is no way to prove god exists just like there is no way in this life time we will develop the abilty to travel across this broad and beautiful universe we will never accomplish this feat non the less i will say that me not being able to prove god exist plays no role in his existance thats the only thing i can say bill gates once said the DNA structure of a cell capable of storing

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"there is no way to prove god exists just like there is no way in this life time we will develop the abilty to travel across this broad and beautiful universe we will never accomplish this feat "

...and again, I'll try to fish a last attempt to get through to you that your statement is invalid completely. You can either make the prediction for proving god, nor interstellar travel. You can only state with validity what is known. A god is NOT one of those things.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede and again you copy what i say ...... i believe you have proven that evolution is a scientific fact..... in your case i geuss ...... monkey see monkey do huh.

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"non the less i will say that me not being able to prove god exist plays no role in his existance"

-Finally I agree with you. Saying it is so, does not make it so. There IS nothing which plays a role in proving gods existence. Thats the point. 

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook "bill gates once said the DNA structure of a cell capable of storing"

-Did you imply a point to this? Bill was right. Since we apply a way to identify proteins by assigning a letter to them, we can store a representation of them digitally. So?

We can also digitally store representation of the chemical ingredients of a cookie. So?

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede a "cookie" was intelligently designed by humans try not to use examples that conflict with your point

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede data is 10 times as complex as a computer program created by man so when we study the cell of a living organism of a lower species than us it is highly improbable that this happened due to a series of events over a span of time i dont believe in the god of the bible but i do believe in what aristotle called ether or dark matter something without mass that is not visible and yet plays a major role in keeping things together something scientist are baffled by but still exist this is GOD

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"DNA structure of a cell capable of storing Data is 10 times as complex as a computer program created by man."

-Are you forgetting that the purpose of computer programs is to simplify complexity and translate for mankind? Your point is empty. Complexity also does not provide rationality for a creator.

"highly improbable that this happened due to a series of events over a span of time "

Yet like other highly improbable events it happened. Again - empty point

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede empty point to you an empty closed minded person .someone not willing to look at things from more then one perspective if there were more ppl like you there would be less murders solved because i geuss since theres no evidence the perp did it we wont look for any more huh

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

If there were less people relying on religion, there would be less murder in the first place (lest we forget war).

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede i never once said i believe in or support religion empty point :)

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"something without mass that is not visible and yet plays a major role in keeping things together something scientist are baffled by but still exist this is GOD"

-You can apply any term you like to it. It doesn't add validity to a deistic view.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede it is my opinion and mines only just like you choose to beleive the "facts" presented to you by scientist i believe what i want to believe i trust no man in my assertions my opinions a not based on what others say but yours are monkey see monkey do i geuss you have proven you a descendant of the primate

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

Yes, we are cousins you and I, both decendants of the great apes.

Being open minded as I am, and since I have been formerly trained to be so, if you could provide actual proof to the contrary, I'd be excited to accept it.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede i have no proof as i stated many times before but yes you are a monkey im not i never said i was human another gross assumption

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

Wrong, you and I are descendants of Great Apes, Monkeys are not.

It is a common mistake in those not versed in Mendelian genetics.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede you have no proof in your assertion because you do not know whether i am human or not until you prove that i am human than it will not be fact that i am a descendant of great apes like yourself until then you will be the monkey and i will be the unknown

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"you have no proof in your assertion because you do not know whether i am human or not "

-So then you are not human? Eureka!!! The first non-human able to form english sentences without human intervention. I can assure you though, and it is proven beyond your wildest chance of proving opposition, that you are a descendant of the great apes. Denying it does not change that proven fact. The moment you are able to accept it, will be a step toward enlightenment of truth.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede YOU MUST PROVE I AM HUMAN before you make your assertions for all you know you could have been sending messages to a computer program designed to simulate human interaction and over a period of time and collection of data learns from these interactions and creates feelings of familiar human contact with those that believe they are conversing .

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

Ah, you're one of those. Having some troubles with reality?

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede reality is only percieved by the individual there is not one reality what you see hear smell feel and taste you can only describe to me that doesnt make it definate it only makes it definate that this is how "you" as the individual is percieving your enviorenment i on the other hand have no trouble grasping the idea that reality is what your capable of understanding a blind man possess only 4 senses altering his reality from ours we see colors he does not you my monkey friend are blind

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

Try a shrink there Jabbi, you're having a reality crisis.

And you're still an ape. Same as last week, same as next week. Try a local medical university, they can give you a blood test to help you out with that ape-homonid reality perception thing too. And judging from your profile photo, you may be likely more closely related to great apes than you think. I'm just sayin.'

Sometimes truth hurts, but denial only hinders your path to reality.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede that photo is not a photo of me but a mere representation of thought assumptions assumptions how sad

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"that photo is not a photo of me "

Ah, so you are ashamed of your appearance too?... being an ape descendant has really done a job on your self esteem huh?

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede you are a fool ,and why would i be ashamed of anything. i already told you i am not human and even if that was my likeness i doubt i would be ashamed to walk down the street in that human body i doubt i would have any trouble .

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede no reality crisis here. but you are in great denial of the truth and as ive just mentioned there are multiple realtities and dimensions ,you are stuck in your own and that is fine by me i only sought to release you from the weight you carry but dont worry after your life ends you will go back to the dust from which you came and maybe a billion years from now you will have a second chance to be a monkey like you were in this time in space

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"as ive just mentioned there are multiple realtities and dimensions "

-Maybe in your mind... got any proof?... Didn't think so. You can spew bullshit all you want, but it will never be more than subjective conjecture w/out evidence. Care to cite evidence in quantum theory context as to how you come to your multi dimension hypothesis? Its ok be as technical as you want. I have 2 science degrees, I'll keep up. & I'll also know if your spewing plagiarized drivel

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede I dont have to have a degree in any subject to have common sense it seems you pride yourself on your "accomplishments" or "credentials" you may think your years of study can counter common sense but it doesnt . Your pride exceeds your very intelligence monkey you have spent years studying something you didnt have to study in a classroom to comprehend.

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"seems you pride yourself on your "accomplishments" or "credentials" you may think your years of study can counter common sense"

Nope, my accomplishements and years of study don't "counter common sense," but rather allow me to recognize, utilize and thrive on common sense by weeding out the bullshit. And you are a composite of delusion, and bullshit. You were "weeded out" pages ago.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede if i was weeded out pages ago why do you continue to weed out were you looking to tear up your entire yard over a simple conversation .

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede "common sense" is "common" for a reason, youve waisted years of your life trying to "recognize, utilize and thrive" on something you should be able to do without waisting close to an 1/8 of your life

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

If you think the ability to provide my family a very comfortable living, provide my daughter a fully funded education, and allow me to retire at age 40, and to use the rest of my time & use my business to provide water and electrical utilities to schools in undeveloped countries a waste? then I ask you, what have YOU done for others with YOUR (lack) of accomplishments. I see lots of interests in your profile, but no accomplishments. What have YOU done for the planet?

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede all you could muster up was a female child ? as for the fully funded education she will need it if she wants to thrive utilize and recognize bullshit . i do congratulate on helping your human friends in undeveloped countries .what i have done for others is simple i take away the stress of thier enviorenment at least the mental aspect . Lastly , as for my accomplishments it is certainly too long a list to even type . I dont need to divuldge any more information

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede i am aware that i have provided you entertainment worth paying for but, i must say i did not expect you to become a fan so quickly lets just say we are friends can we keep it like that sir

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

I had no other intent. As you say, you are a fan of discussion. There's nothing more than banter I see here. You are not the first one my wife refers to with that term. It's been directed at me too, and I happen to like it. it's banter.

But if you truly have the skills you say you do, I think we all expect you to pay it forward if you find success. The evolution of mankind could benefit from it.

[nolobede]

My wife and I have given without religious motiviations. It doesn't take a god to force morality. And it doesn't take a creator to explain the diversity of life. Evolution explains it very well, regardless of lifes origin.

There simply is no cogent evidence for any god.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede i geuss we will agree to disagree but i must say you are a very strong willed individual i scrutinized your every word exploiting your weaknesses and you did the same now that is truly something to be proud of you never gave up your in what you believed in, the true worth a man .

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede by the way it is widely accepted by scientist that there are multiple universes as for the evidence- Prof. Andrei Linde Stanford University

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

Sorry Jabbie, you need to be careful with your syntax. It could be widely accepted that there "MAY" be multiple universes. The Everett multiverse hypothesis is over 50 years old, you are not giving us anything new here. Unless you'd like to explain in your own words how you tie it to quantum theory?... and since you are not human and from another dimensional reality, this should be entertaining.

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

Hahahahaa..... I just asked my wife to read back several pages of your posts. She is a PhD. Psych... She says if you came to her office, she'd suggest therapy. But I asked her what she thought since you weren't an actual patient. She replied, "He's a fucknut." Hahahaha... she's just straight to the point, gotta love it.

She's also hoping you're caught up on your meds.

I think there may be a consensus on this channel. Maybe you should take a poll.

[nolobede]

... and then I explained to her that you think you are a non human, alternate dimensional being posing as a boxer.... She said, "Ah, had his head pounded a few too many times maybe... too bad."

Yup, maybe you should take your meds and lay down for a while there Jabbie.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede ok my friend no need to become irritated, when did this scientific debate turn into an adolescent verbal disagreement . No need for curses and profanity.

[Cataclysm31]

@nolobede

Read "Hyperspace" by Dr Michio Kaku.

It's certainly not infallible proof, but rather theoretical physics regarding the existence of other dimensions.

It's a good read.

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

Yup, we're ALL apes. Here an ape there an ape, everywhere an ape-ape. 6 Billion or so of us.

Buck up though, at least our lineage is termed "Great apes."

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede "The first non-human able to form english sentences without human intervention"

-wrong , anyone who is capable of solving a puzzle can learn language never spoken or heard of before , now take this a step further you and i both know that the 5 senses can be manipulated through electrical impulses to the human brain so even if you saw me does that make it proof that i am a human being no it doesnt the burden of proof is dependant on the person making the assertions

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

I'll make it easier for you so you don't have to wizzle around symantics. If you are human, you are a descendant of great apes, regardless of your wishes to the contrary.

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede it seems you cannot read or perhaps articulate that i am not a human being you are in fact a descendant of great apes as you have mentioned

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede but i must say i like you human, you have amused me greatly and it shall not be forgotten

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"i trust no man in my assertions my opinions a not based on what others say "

-Really? Your very words and ideas are not your own, you contradict your own statement. Without other mens assertions, you would not hold your current opinion. If you think being left on a deserted island since birth and no outside opinions you would come to the same conclusions, you are fooling yourself.

Your opinions ARE based on what others have said wether you admit it or not. True for all

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede i see someone is a human sociology major fair enough but i believe you know exectly what i am saying when i say i donot really on what others say there is plenty of information floating around everywhere at all times i choose to believe what is i want to believe and have proof to believe in it i wont divuldge what proof that is . that would be like telling you im batman and you say show me proof i wouldnt dare until the book is published

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede i choose to believe what i want just like you choose to believe in what scientist call "fact:" unfortunately fact is disproven with time and you will be disproven with time and more intelligence

[jabrightlefthook]

@nolobede by the way i do enjoy a great debate and have no animosity toward anyone with an oposing view

[nolobede]

@jabrightlefthook

"by the way i do enjoy a great debate and have no animosity toward anyone with an oposing view"

I agree, as this is part of the method for finding truth.

[shea333]

@nolobede it has always been obvious that no person is 100% confident in his own beliefs, but what is disturbing to me about the basis of creationism is that it says you are allowed none. Whereas science and evolution begs to be wrong and change througout time.

[nolobede]

@shea333

Yes, just one of so many reasons the scienctific process works. Science has no ego, no agenda, no motivation to control or opress. Nor does science have a motivation for power or social control.

Science eliminates ignorance, religion relies on it.

[iLLPayYou50]

Wait i watched 30 minutes of this stuff. I Still Dont Get It! WTF is Origin Of Species????

[puncheex]

@iLLPayYou50: It is the name of the book which Darwin wrote (part of the title, anyway) in which Darwin discusses a mechanism for why there are such a great number of species. A corollary of his mechanism implies that all species originate from a common single species. Thus, "The Origin of Species".

[puncheex]

At 3:10 Dawkins states: "[It is] absolutely vital to understand that Darwin[sic] is a nonrandom process - mutation is a random process; mutation is the random change in genes that offers up in each generation the raw material for natural selection. But it's natural selection that actually makes life like it is and gives it its quality of looking as though it is designed."

Rather than the word "Darwin", he probably meant to say "evolution".

[methinxaweezil]

Sounds like he actually said "DarwinISM". Like he also once said, "Darwinism is the differential survival of self-replicating genes in a gene pool".

A slightly different meaning from the creationist definition of the word, which is "Nazism"... : )

[puncheex]

In scientific circles, evolution is the proper term to cover the whole field. Darwinism is synonymous, according to most dictionaries, but in biology it usually represents the whole of Darwin's thesis as explained in his book, and not including Mendel or any of the subsequent science, most particularly the work in genetics.

But I agree with you that he probably was saying that, or meant to say it, and I agree with you on what creationists think of it.

[Skindoggiedog]

'Random mutation' is simply not necessary for evolution. I don't know why it is even mentioned in regards to it.

[Elhardt]

Skindoggiedog: I doubt anybody can understand why you would say random mutations are not necessary for evolution. In the theory, that's the design mechanism. It's why we have eyes, brains, skeletons,, wings, etc. Natural selection supposedly just picks the good design and throws away the bad. Problem with videos like this is they act as if natural selection is %100 perfect and "non-random" as Dawkins worded it. That is wrong. You have random design with weak semi-random selection.

[Skindoggiedog]

Elhardt: One of the biggest misconceptions regarding evolution is that it requires random mutations for an evolutionary process to take place. This is not the case.

Natural selection simply means that a creature with the best traits adaptive to it's environment survives and procreates.

Evolution is simply 'this guy had kids, this guy didn't' over a vast amount of time.

It is 100% "non-random", Dawkins is correct.

[Skindoggiedog]

The only thing that comes even close to being random is when a trait adapted for survival works in conjunction with another trait (or traits) and combines to perform some feature that neither previously did.

It's not a mutation, it's just a 'bonus'. These combinations can both be beneficial and harmful to the creature. Obviously the beneficial ones give an advantage to survival/procreation, and therefore get passed down the line.

[puncheex]

Not only is random mutation needful, but we to day know the mechanisms involved and how they work in precise detail; that is what Darwin didn't have. Mendel showed that traits can be passed to children from parents; Crick and Watson showed how, exactly.

You cannot posit that the nylon-eating bacteria discovered in Japan got that trait through somehow bootstrapping what they already had; something had to add a nylonase protein to the ribosomes. That addition was random.

[puncheex]

Without that little something extra, we'd all still be bacteria essentially cloned from an identical parent.

The mutations arise from:

- improper replication of DNA or tRNA;

- mechanical damage to DNA;

- ionizing damage to DNA/RNA from chemicals or radiation;

Multiple experiments verify how mutations increase in high rad environments, or when any kind of chemical or physical stress is applied. The evidence is plentiful.

What in the world is a "bonus"? Is that what you've renamed mutations?

[GamerGuy51]

bout time someone posted the truth!