This comment has received too many negative votesshow
We have Written proof and a history book written in detail of the creation of the earth and spells out in detail how it was created.
Then the Evolutionist have 5 Theory on how the earth was created with no written proof and only 5 theory to go by and expect the worlds people to take a theory over written proof of the earth being formed. Give me the written proof and you take the 5 theorys and study them somemore.
There is 5 total different theorys of evolution ! Which one you believe ?
Do you really believe in what you just said? The theory of evolution is also written down. In a book. I can write it down also. Do you understand where the problem lays now?
How is anything written down proof? Proof is by repeatable experimental results. There is no proof in the bible or about the existence of God but only opinion. How can you mistake that for proof. Is the Davinci Code proof of Church Conspiracy? By your logic you should condsider evolution to be true because of the mere fact Darwin has written a book, even if you disregard the actual evidence presented within it.
@turtle4aire Writing isn't proof. Its evidence. Evidence can be fabricated or altered.
I could write 'I am a fish' millions of times, spread it over the world, and force everyone to read it from birth and then continue doing so for thousands of years (by proxy from my disciples, obviously). Would that make me a fish?
Creationists have tried to explain why evolution appears to work . . . by inventing international conspiracy theories that just make them look even dumber
In their own feeble little way . . . they have tried
Then how is it that living cells formed from non-living elements? Earth started as a planet of molten lava, too hot to support life. Even after earth cooled, all that was there were non-living elements. How did these elements somehow create living simple cells? It is impossible, and nothing more than a fairy tale.
Non living chemicals will not produce living cells, no matter how many other non living chemicals you mix together, OR how much electricity you zap your new concoction with. It is not possible, or there would be numerous scientists trying to do it first, not one guy, and maybe one competitor. Aminies, which are non-living, can build up to create amino acids, which are non living, and amino acids can only build up to create non-living proteins.
In order for proteins to become anything more than a non-living chemical, they have to be introduced to living cells of some sort. Otherwise, they will only keep producing non-living chemicals. Even introducing the proteins to carbon, another non-living element, it does not create living cells, no matter how much electricity you zap it with. Why am I being reminded of a guy named Victor, a brain in a jar, and a lightning storm? Does it sound familiar to anyone else, or is it just me? Hmm.......
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes, and I even went so far as to check out the Miller/Ursey experiments, and two more after theirs. All that Miller/Ursey created were amino acids, again, non-living chemicals. They created 22 of them, which is impressive, yes, but none of the 22 amino acids they created were living cells, they were still lifeless chemicals. Ask yourself why Dr. Jack is using fatty acids as half the base of his cell. Fat only comes from either living or once living things.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
YOU are wrong, moron. Szostak is using both fatty acids AND nucleic acids for his base of the synthetic cell. Go back and read about it again. If I'm wrong about fatty acids, name one thing that has never been alive that creates fatty acids. It doesn't happen, idiot, because something that isn't alive has no need for fat. What is the fat content of gold, or lead, or water, or hydrogen, or oxygen, etc.? Name one thing that has never been alive that makes fatty acids!
ALL you need to make fatty acids is carbon and some other atoms like hydrogen and oxygen, heat, cool, repeat--EXACTLY as happens in these convection currents.
Look, fatty acids don't make cells, they accumulate INSIDE of cells. Ok, so you can make fatty acids, which are non-living chemicals, from other elements, but that doesn't mean you can make a cell from those acids, because again , non-living things don't make or even form into cells. They can only accumlate inside of pre-existing cells. As for Dr. Jack, he has done some great things, but this particular venture has no other outcome than failure. But hey, two out of three ain't bad, right?
Dr. Szostak proved in his lab that fatty acids can spontaneously form lipid membranes, and that these are permeable to monomers but not polymers. That's ALL he needed them to do.
It's still not creating a living cell, now is it? It's not even a cell, it's a membrane, but from I read, he was supposed to be creating a synthetic cell, but the last time I checked, a cell and a membrane are two different things. Catch ya later!
It's a proto-cell, subject to mutation and natural selection and thus evolution. Cells as we know them are the result of billions of years of evolution.
He still didn't create a living cell. Care to hang around for a few billion years to find out if Dr. Jack's experiment suddenly springs to life? How about hooking up the jumper cables to it while he waits to throw the switch? Think of the oil that goes in a car. You can either use refined oil or synthetic. One of them is the real thing, one isn't. Something in occurring nature is one thing, trying to create it in a lab is something different, and you'll never get it exactly like the original.
So we are talking semi permeable membranes here are we not?
I don't know the actual science but this is very important,this semi permiability,is it not? Does it not give an organism the ability to absorb certain things in its environment whilst excluding others? Or to concentrate things available within the environment within said organism?
It's basically a sieve; anything smaller than the holes can get through but not bigger. So the monomers move through, combine with each other to form polymers, and get stuck inside.
Cheers shanedk for confirming that but although its analogous to a sieve it doesn't work with the properties of a sieve does it?
I'm thinking that chemical attraction or expulsion(I know this sounds very crude-not a chemist)thing,meaning the very properties of chemicals as they come into intimate contact with each other by there very nature might pass through a membrane because of of their chemistry,not physical size?
Awesome. Another level of fractal wrongness exposed, and in a manner more articulate than anything I've ever tried. You've earned all the five-star ratings I've been giving your videos.
#1 is correct in principle but you have to take into account that there are many ways in which experiments can go wrong and will then produce bad observations, of course the statistical methods aren't exactly fullproof either. And we can't always know what data is bad and what is good.
That's why a theory is formed of converging evidence... But we might be dealing with semantics here.
Can you expound on #1? If I'm not mistaken, every NEW theory posited violates #1 since it inevitably posits new information that will contradict one or more previous conclusions. Was Copernicus' theory of the motion of the planets consistent with the previous observations that the sun revolved around the earth? And yet, would you call his theory flawed?
If a theory is consistent with all previous observations, it is not a new theory but just the old one.
Um, so when Copernicus said the earth revolved around the sun and it contradicted the unanimous observation that the sun revolved around the earth, it should have been rejected on that basis? If so, we'd still be in the dark ages. Me thinks you don't understand how #1 is clearly wrong and should be removed from your vid.
No, because the Copernican model explains WHY the sun appears to move around the Earth. Therefore the observation is completely compatible with the theory.
OH, okay. I'm with you now. It has to fit all the facts w/o contradicting anything we can observe or do as an experiment. Like the earth is round but it seems flat because it is so large.
You got the point: if you made a theory based on the wrong observation, your theory may appear to work, but your observation was wrong :). Therefore any new theory that comes along and conforms to the CORRECT observation will not be obliged neither to carry the previous theory forward, but it would rather just have to point out why that theory was wrong.
So? The point is that according to Coding DNA chimps are more similar to humans than they are form gorillas, and retroviral DNA shows the opposite, chips look more similar to gorillas, opposing the evolutionist prediction.
The fusion was not predicted it was incorporated in your believe system after it was discovered, besides not finding the apparent fusion would not falsify evolution
You must be completely logically deficient if you don't understand how humans can be more like chimps than gorillas and yet chimps can be more like gorillas than humans.
The fusion was ABSOLUTELY predicted. It was predicted in the 1970s if not earlier. It wasn't confirmed until the late 1990s. And yes, not finding the fusion WOULD have falsified evolution, at least as far as common descent between apes and humans is concerned.
If you'll bother to do two minutes of research, you'll see that chimps and humans have many retroviral markers in common. Since these ERV changes are essentially random, the ONLY explanation that makes sense is that humans and chimps have a common ancestor who also had these particular genes.
ERVs are functional, and proteins can only be functional if they are attached in specific places, therefore the insertion was not random, besides most ervs do not have an infectious counterpart meaning that there is not even evidence that most ERVs where in fact insertions
"therefore the insertion was not random," Coming across the virus that inserted them was random. And it stands to reason that, since humans were living where chimps and gorillas did not and ate things that chimps and gorillas did not, that they would come across retroviruses that apes and chimps didn't.
No, evolution predicts the possibility of chromosomes suddenly appearing or disappearing without a fusion therefore according to evolution a chromosome in apes could appear,
´´No, it doesn't. If our ape ancestors were to lose an entire pair of genomes, the resulting offspring wouldn't even make it past the zygote phase!!!´´
well acording to evolutio our far far far ansestor had only 2 chromosomes, therefore all the other chromosomes had to appear some how.
Yes, and we KNOW about genetic drift and genetic duplication. Look at cdk007's videos about how evolution increases information. We KNOW it happens; we've SEEN it happen.
But you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT lose an entire pair of genes in ANY ape or ape precursor and expect it to survive past the zygote stage.
Now, as to why chimps and gorillas would have retroviral sequences in common that humans don't, the answer is again very simple: after the human line split off they got retroviruses that gorillas and chimps didn't get. Duh.
Nope the argument on ERVs is not testable, therefore it is not scientific, please give a potential falsification for ERVs
And you are wrong, finding ERVs in gorillas and chimps but not in humans falsify evolution because chimps and humans where suppose to split after ancient gorillas and ancient chimps. Chimps are suppose to be closely related to humans that to gorillas.
"Nope the argument on ERVs is not testable" It absolutely is! We can test how retroviruses work, examine how they affect DNA, and look at the results in the genomes!
"And you are wrong, finding ERVs in gorillas and chimps but not in humans falsify evolution because chimps and humans where suppose to split after ancient gorillas and ancient chimps." That's completely STUPID. Yes, humans and chimps split after gorillas, but all you need is retroviruses in the human line AFTER the split!!! DUH!!!
No, if a chimp and a gorilla have an ERV in common then humans should also have this erv, but this is not always the case, so if chimpsand gorillas share an erv this means the incertion ocurred before humans and chimps where a different specie, therefore if chimps and gorillas share an ERV humans most have it, and please tell me exactly what would falsify the claim and why?
No, I'm not. YOU'RE the one who brought up ERVs (and lied about them). I mentioned the chromosomal fusion as complete evidence for common descent that, if it had turned out to be at all different, would have falsified the theory.
1) Evolution is consistent with EVERY observation on the subject. In fact, it's the most confirmed theory in all of science.
2) Evolution makes a LOT of testable predictions, like the nature of genetics and the fusion of 2 ape chromosome in humans. These predictions have borne out.
3) Evolution could absolutely be falsified by finding, say, cambrian bunny-rabbits.
Just another know-nothing creationist speaking from ignorance and bias...
1) wrong for example coding DNA shows that humans and apes are more similar than apes and gorillas, and retroviral DNA show that apes are more similar to gorillas than to humans ¿which one is the correct one?
2) no, Chromosome fusion was predicted after the apparent fusion was discovered, the prediction was not made before the discovery
3) there is pollen in the precambiran, dinosaur bones with C-14, man made tools that are dated to be older that humans,etc
Um, gorillas ARE apes, so your first sentence is nonsensical.
You are wrong--the fusion was predicted BEFORE. I know the filthy lying creationists say otherwise, but they're just wrong. In fact the fusion wasn't actually found until the genomes were sequenced.
3 is just more creationist lies. You have NOTHING, so you have to LIE. It's all false, and you don't care, because you and the other creationists are nothing but a bunch of amoral egomaniacs.
If we compare the theory of evolution and ID with the lives of people, evolution is a young lad who has survived a bullet rain which made him stronger and ID is covered by 3 feet of dirt.
Awesome presentation! 5 stars! However, instead of using the word "supplanted" to describe what Einsteins theory did to Newtons, I think the word "encompassed" would have been more precise. This was aptly demonstrated by the next clip showing Newtons theory imbedded within Einsteins.
Spoiler: Albert Einstein described himself as an agnostic athiest, and anytime he used such terms as god or soul was not talking about a God or a Soul at all but using colourful metaphor's. Stephen Hawking does the same in some of his books. Neither of this proves either are spiritual, just that they like metaphors.
I'd actually say that creationism isn't too far off here, they can say that evolution was right in that MICROevolution works, but MACROevolution fails because...well, they still need to end that sentence :)
As much as I am opposed to creationist thinking in this day and age, I'm not sure the correspondence principle is applied correctly here. First of all, it doesn't need to explain why the previous theory WORKED. The previous theory might actually not have worked, but only appeared to. The new theory must explain the elements the previous theory tried to explain.
Second, creationism was there BEFORE evolution, so evolution must correspond to creatonism (and it does). Third, and most importantly, the correspondence principle is NOT a requirement for a scientific theory. If there is no previous valid theory, then there is no correspondence. But that doesn't mean the new theory has no validity.
So the use of the correspondence principle is not really applicable with creationists, as they don't recognize the validity of evolutionary theory, but rather would reduce to OTHER previous theories. Of which there are none. This is not the reason creationism is unscientific, however. It is unscientific because it categorically denies any evidence of evolution and postulates unprovable claims why evolutionary evidence is to be discarded.
The closest thing they've got to science is their "irreducible complexity" thing, which perished in a horrible way under scientific scrutiny. They have nothing. THAT's why creationism is unscientific. If they HAD something, and if evolution was unevidenced, they could indeed present their case without referring to evolution.
And if there is no previous theory, then likewise there is nothing to explain as well.
The thing is, evolution IS a well-established theory based on overwhelming physical evidence. If ID is to overturn it, it MUST explain why evolution works so well.
I did say worked, as far as it did. If it didn't work, there's obviously nothing to explain. Newton's theory didn't work with the speed of light, but it still worked for other things. Same concept.
"If it didn't work, there's obviously nothing to explain."
Exactly, and it is the creationists' position that evolutionary theory doesn't work. They have no evidence for saying so except childish stubbornness (which is itself a reason to disqualify creationism; total lack of objectivity), but because they are of that mind, the correspondence principle does not apply. They simply haven't reached that level yet.
And if I may add, I don't think it is likely that creationism will ever get past that first hurdle of admitting that evolution does, in fact, offer sound explanations of the variety of life. If they were to surprise me and DO admit that, however, THEN they would have to take the correspondence principle into consideration. But until that happens, well, it's sort of like when we first learned subtractions: until we learned about negative numbers, we were allowed to write 5-7=0.
Cool. Very interesting. One question, why didn't Einstein get a Noble prize for the theory of relativity, only for the photo-effect (or something, I don't remember)?
Boo, debunkin creationism is kinda old. Why bother debunking something that is withering away as it is. These days even creationists believe in evolution (micro and/or super), though it will take some time before they actually admit evolution is right as it is.
Because they're still a powerful force on the political scene. Hardly a year goes by without several stories of science being eroded in the schools yet again, and if that keeps happening, then it WON'T wither and die; it'll be science that does.
Just think about it. Creationists are giving away. Debunking might work, if people would find out new areas of creationism to debunk. Suddenly just calling all science a lie, isn't enough, so they seek for science to help them, and it makes creationism lean little bit towards theory of evolution all the time.
AS shan has already said music is very subjective. ''Make a better choice next time'' What does that even mean, better for who? You? Yes, the whole world is out here to attend to your every whim.
A theory doesn't HAVE to explain everything. If that were the case, there would be NO theories at all, at least until we come up with the Theory of Everything.
And it's like Einstein said, EVERY theory is abandoned eventually; a good theory has its goodness embodied and continued in the next theory.
I do see Intelligent Design as a interesting theory. Even as there isn't enough evidence for it. In my opinion it should be taught at school also along side other theories for what it is: A theory.
There isn't enough in-between fossils from the transformation of specie to specie. The development of the eye, wings and etc.. evolving over millions of years to finally become something what is actually beneficial is a big leap of faith. How did Darwinism conform to the Correspondence Principle? In my opinion if the old theory doesn't work as well then there is no need for new theories to try to fit in to the old theories. How does flat Earth theory fit into the round Earth theory ?
Micro-evolution is in intelligent design. It is just the big leaps of faith of a species turning into a completely new species what is questioned in Intelligent Design. Can't you even admit that Intelligent Design is a interesting theory ?
"There isn't enough in-between fossils from the transformation of specie to specie."
Look at cdk007's "Blind Watchmaker" video. Fossilization is a rare event, and often changes happen too fast to be preserved in the fossil record. Also, Bogosity Episode 2 covers how rare fossilization is.
Einstein's theory of relativity is absurd, and so is anyone who cites it to support his argument. Einstein is a like a homeless person draped in purple velvet whom ignorant people call their king.
Special relativity only refers to ether drag. Einstein can't account for ether in "his" theories, but admits ether is necessary. Anyway, look to Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity for real physics and understanding of how the universe operates. Then, creationism is highly probable (not to be confused with religion).
Oh, come on! Ether was debunked a long time ago--even way before Einstein! In fact, Relativity absolutely rejects the idea of the ether, contrary to what you say.
I'd really like to know where you got this crap...was it from a creationist site? If so, well, at least they're finally trying to come up with new material.
any flaws in relativity are ironed out with quantum theory which happily obeys the correspondance principle in exactly the same way as einsteins theory did.
I gave you suggestions on the researching the truth, my good deed for the day, if you will. If you want to fall into this Bible vs evolution/psuedo-physics propaganda debate, then that is your decision. Ether: Michelson-Morely? They're apparatus (which didn't account for solar system velocity) for testing ether was debunked (1887), not the ether. They retested in 1925 with new parameters and guess what?
The ONLY reason people were positing an ether was because they couldn't figure out any other way time and distance could be constant. Relativity shows quite well that they are NOT constants, but relative to the speed of light. This very video is an example of that.
Ether is what provides the force for all movement in the universe. How do you think the earth spins around and revolves around the sun??? How do you think lightning comes into existence? On gasoline? Ether was killed to maintain the status quo for big business.
Your explanations are based on pseudo science and propaganda, but I can't blame you for attempting to be "academic" in your replies. If this were a high school school test, you'd do well. As far as explaining how the universe actually operates, you'd fail. When you are ready, look into Tesla's patents, physics and lectures.
Oh, I'm a big fan of Tesla and I know all about him. I also know all about the pseudoscience and conspiracy theories spread around by people who have no hope of ever comprehending his work (that includes you, by the way).
Tesla dismantled special and general relativity theory, so you can't possibly be a big fan of his works or claim to understand them and continue to respect "Einstein's" theories. Tesla recognized Einstein's errors and called him "absurd".
Tesla on Einstein: "The[relativity]theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king...I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties."
Well, I own and have read all Tesla's patents, lectures, biographies and essays, and I make direct references from them with quotes from Tesla. So you can continue to believe the "laws" of thermodynamics, relativity and other propaganda to engage in a phony debate of christianity vs. evolution.
omg if im not mistaken shane this guy during your little discussion here has argued against the theory of relativity special relativity gravity and whatever theory lightning falls under using only the words of a mad scientist (brillient but still mad) from 100 years ago to support it hehe
Tesla made a LOT of wild conjectures. Some turned out to be right, others not so much. He was right so often, though, that I think we have to consider his contributions right up there with Darwin and Einstein.
Einstein and Darwin do NOT even come close to Tesla in contributing to science or humanity. Maybe da Vinci would be considered a peer of Tesla. Tesla invented wireless communication, radio, x-ray, radar, alternating current, remote control, robot, car ignition, speedometer, wireless transmission of electricity, weather control, earthquake stimulator, etc--all this because he understood how the universe operates. What did Einstein invent with his understanding?
Thanks to Einstein, we not only have obvious things like nuclear power, we have indirect accomplishments as well. Without Einstein, we'd be wondering why our communication satellites won't stay in orbit, for example.
We owe the entire modern age of information communication to Tesla, but we also owe it every bit as much to Einstein.
dont forget how he contributed to the understanding of matter as energy (thats kinda a big one) without einstein its not just nuclear fusion and fission we would not understand but annialation as well
Don't forget that accurate clocks were flown out into space and compared to clocks left on Earth. The one left on Earth was detected to be slower by gravity. Light from stars also was warped by gravity of the sun as proven by that solar eclipse experiment.
Well, it wasn't gravity, but relativistic speeds. They put atomic clocks on supersonic airlines and compared it to atomic clocks on the ground. The difference is EXACTLY what Einstein said it would be.
Shane, I don't know why you spent so much time on the Correspondence Principle. The crazy bible-literalists are just going to say that their theory existed before Darwin's evolution and therefore, it is evolution's job to show correspondence with THEIR young-earth theory. They could also show correspondence by saying something like "it's just a coincidence" or "that's how God made it". White on black lettering belongs in an essay, not a You-Tube video.
While I like the CDK007 format, I have to admit that seeing your yell "bogosity" makes my day. So, don't switch exclusively to this format, mmmkay?
I guess this format makes a lot less work.
That said, seeing that formula again and reducing it back to the newtonian form, was great. It was just bein back in highschool physics :-D (Which I enjoyed, of course... mainly because I had a *great* teacher)
It's not exclusive, but as you say it's easier, and it's better when you want to focus on one point in detail. Bogosity just can't go into this level of detail.
Yeah, and it was a damned good choice... I'm still humming it.
Too bad iTunes only has it in the DRM format. No sale for me, oh, well.
The normal format has another advantage (even though you're not going to like it) You can listen to it... At work that's a plus: keep on coding while you do your funny show in the background.
Thanks. Torchwood's great, but they're making us hold out until 2008! Oh well, I guess the Sarah Jane Adventures should be starting up sometime soon, shouldn't they? I enjoyed the first episode of that.
waiting on torchwood? oh heavens, they already fubarred the series then. After all, the end of first season corresponds to the end of 3rd season of doc who
Yeah, but I guess Series 2 just takes place after Last of the Time Lords, once Jack gets back. There's supposed to be some Martha Jones crossover stuff, so maybe that's why they're waiting.
Hi, thanks for bringing us yet another great video!
I'm almost ashamed to be such a nitpicker, but someone had to mention it: both "vw" and "c²" should be m²/s², and not m/s. A very minor issue in an excellent video. Please keep them coming!
Did you know? Christianity is an ancient Latin word translating to "stupid."
Science OWNS.
silentzorah 11 months ago
Great vid!
jib1000 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
We have Written proof and a history book written in detail of the creation of the earth and spells out in detail how it was created.
Then the Evolutionist have 5 Theory on how the earth was created with no written proof and only 5 theory to go by and expect the worlds people to take a theory over written proof of the earth being formed. Give me the written proof and you take the 5 theorys and study them somemore.
There is 5 total different theorys of evolution ! Which one you believe ?
turtle4aire 2 years ago
WTF are you talking about?
shanedk 2 years ago 4
@shanedk
I agree, turtle4aire sounds like he's high on something.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
/facepalm
excandersham 2 years ago 4
if you are referencing the bible and think that fantasy account is a detailed account you need help.
unless you have verifiable testable evidence to support your claims they will be ignored as the rubbish they are
excandersham 2 years ago
Evolution doesn't make any claims to how the earth was created...
And what is this written proof of creation? The Bible? You realize that the Bible is not a reliable source of evidence, right?
leifey 2 years ago 3
The bible is not a valid source of scientific knowledge; or any knowledge at all.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago 3
Do you really believe in what you just said? The theory of evolution is also written down. In a book. I can write it down also. Do you understand where the problem lays now?
Kan2209 2 years ago 2
@turtle4aire Yeah, what the crap are you talking about? How is written proof, um well, proof?
I can write down, evolution = truth.
That doesn't make it true.
The facts, tests, observations, etc. make it true.
jib1000 1 year ago
@turtle4aire
How is anything written down proof? Proof is by repeatable experimental results. There is no proof in the bible or about the existence of God but only opinion. How can you mistake that for proof. Is the Davinci Code proof of Church Conspiracy? By your logic you should condsider evolution to be true because of the mere fact Darwin has written a book, even if you disregard the actual evidence presented within it.
To quote shanedk, 'WTF are you talking about?'
artspooner 1 year ago
@turtle4aire Writing isn't proof. Its evidence. Evidence can be fabricated or altered.
I could write 'I am a fish' millions of times, spread it over the world, and force everyone to read it from birth and then continue doing so for thousands of years (by proxy from my disciples, obviously). Would that make me a fish?
No. It wouldn't.
andromidius 5 months ago
Oh, and good video. I actually understood and learned something! Yay!
andromidius 5 months ago
@turtle4aire
Wow. Please learn to write coherently and then come back.
June28July 2 weeks ago
Creationists have tried to explain why evolution appears to work . . . by inventing international conspiracy theories that just make them look even dumber
In their own feeble little way . . . they have tried
technologysucks 2 years ago 3
Oh My non-existent god!!!
I just loved this video.
Great work!!
zcharif 2 years ago 2
What a superb video Shanedk.You beautifully laid out the correspondence principle with Newtons laws and Einsteins general relativity.
Not that I had heard of this principle before but having been explained it can see its an integral part of the philosophy of science.
Thankyou Shanedk,my cup indeed doth runneth over.
Massive respect brother.
Rockster969 2 years ago
Then how is it that living cells formed from non-living elements? Earth started as a planet of molten lava, too hot to support life. Even after earth cooled, all that was there were non-living elements. How did these elements somehow create living simple cells? It is impossible, and nothing more than a fairy tale.
chadcy75 2 years ago
"Then how is it that living cells formed from non-living elements?"
See the work of Dr. Jack Szostak; cdk007 has a good video on it.
And by the way, that's abiogenesis, not evolution.
shanedk 2 years ago
Non living chemicals will not produce living cells, no matter how many other non living chemicals you mix together, OR how much electricity you zap your new concoction with. It is not possible, or there would be numerous scientists trying to do it first, not one guy, and maybe one competitor. Aminies, which are non-living, can build up to create amino acids, which are non living, and amino acids can only build up to create non-living proteins.
chadcy75 2 years ago
In order for proteins to become anything more than a non-living chemical, they have to be introduced to living cells of some sort. Otherwise, they will only keep producing non-living chemicals. Even introducing the proteins to carbon, another non-living element, it does not create living cells, no matter how much electricity you zap it with. Why am I being reminded of a guy named Victor, a brain in a jar, and a lightning storm? Does it sound familiar to anyone else, or is it just me? Hmm.......
chadcy75 2 years ago
You didn't look up my reference at all, did you?
shanedk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, and I even went so far as to check out the Miller/Ursey experiments, and two more after theirs. All that Miller/Ursey created were amino acids, again, non-living chemicals. They created 22 of them, which is impressive, yes, but none of the 22 amino acids they created were living cells, they were still lifeless chemicals. Ask yourself why Dr. Jack is using fatty acids as half the base of his cell. Fat only comes from either living or once living things.
chadcy75 2 years ago
Szostak is ONLY using fatty acids for the lipid membrane. GO READ ABOUT IT!
"Fat only comes from either living or once living things."
Wrong, idiot.
shanedk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
YOU are wrong, moron. Szostak is using both fatty acids AND nucleic acids for his base of the synthetic cell. Go back and read about it again. If I'm wrong about fatty acids, name one thing that has never been alive that creates fatty acids. It doesn't happen, idiot, because something that isn't alive has no need for fat. What is the fat content of gold, or lead, or water, or hydrogen, or oxygen, etc.? Name one thing that has never been alive that makes fatty acids!
chadcy75 2 years ago
ALL you need to make fatty acids is carbon and some other atoms like hydrogen and oxygen, heat, cool, repeat--EXACTLY as happens in these convection currents.
shanedk 2 years ago
Look, fatty acids don't make cells, they accumulate INSIDE of cells. Ok, so you can make fatty acids, which are non-living chemicals, from other elements, but that doesn't mean you can make a cell from those acids, because again , non-living things don't make or even form into cells. They can only accumlate inside of pre-existing cells. As for Dr. Jack, he has done some great things, but this particular venture has no other outcome than failure. But hey, two out of three ain't bad, right?
chadcy75 2 years ago
Dr. Szostak proved in his lab that fatty acids can spontaneously form lipid membranes, and that these are permeable to monomers but not polymers. That's ALL he needed them to do.
CONFIRMING IT IN THE LAB IS NOT FAILURE!
shanedk 2 years ago
It's still not creating a living cell, now is it? It's not even a cell, it's a membrane, but from I read, he was supposed to be creating a synthetic cell, but the last time I checked, a cell and a membrane are two different things. Catch ya later!
chadcy75 2 years ago
It's a proto-cell, subject to mutation and natural selection and thus evolution. Cells as we know them are the result of billions of years of evolution.
shanedk 2 years ago
He still didn't create a living cell. Care to hang around for a few billion years to find out if Dr. Jack's experiment suddenly springs to life? How about hooking up the jumper cables to it while he waits to throw the switch? Think of the oil that goes in a car. You can either use refined oil or synthetic. One of them is the real thing, one isn't. Something in occurring nature is one thing, trying to create it in a lab is something different, and you'll never get it exactly like the original.
chadcy75 2 years ago
It's self-replicating, and subject to mutation and natural selection. In what way is it not alive?
shanedk 2 years ago
"permeable to monomers but not polymers"
So we are talking semi permeable membranes here are we not?
I don't know the actual science but this is very important,this semi permiability,is it not? Does it not give an organism the ability to absorb certain things in its environment whilst excluding others? Or to concentrate things available within the environment within said organism?
Rockster969 2 years ago
It's basically a sieve; anything smaller than the holes can get through but not bigger. So the monomers move through, combine with each other to form polymers, and get stuck inside.
shanedk 2 years ago
Cheers shanedk for confirming that but although its analogous to a sieve it doesn't work with the properties of a sieve does it?
I'm thinking that chemical attraction or expulsion(I know this sounds very crude-not a chemist)thing,meaning the very properties of chemicals as they come into intimate contact with each other by there very nature might pass through a membrane because of of their chemistry,not physical size?
Osmosis?
Scuse for being such a dullard ole bean.
Rockster969 2 years ago
In this case, I think it is physical size.
shanedk 2 years ago
ok mate,thanks for clearing that up shanedk,much apreesh.
Rockster969 2 years ago
good stuff!
lertime8088 2 years ago
Awesome. Another level of fractal wrongness exposed, and in a manner more articulate than anything I've ever tried. You've earned all the five-star ratings I've been giving your videos.
TheBronzeDog 3 years ago
I'd never heard of the Correspondence Principle before. I have learned stuff. Thank you very much indeed! :)
quasarsphere 3 years ago 5
#1 is correct in principle but you have to take into account that there are many ways in which experiments can go wrong and will then produce bad observations, of course the statistical methods aren't exactly fullproof either. And we can't always know what data is bad and what is good.
That's why a theory is formed of converging evidence... But we might be dealing with semantics here.
But a kickass video, good stuff.
Spathever 3 years ago
You had me at "I can't decide" by the Scissor Sisters.
RageTreb 3 years ago
Can you expound on #1? If I'm not mistaken, every NEW theory posited violates #1 since it inevitably posits new information that will contradict one or more previous conclusions. Was Copernicus' theory of the motion of the planets consistent with the previous observations that the sun revolved around the earth? And yet, would you call his theory flawed?
If a theory is consistent with all previous observations, it is not a new theory but just the old one.
Please explain.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
"every NEW theory posited violates #1 since it inevitably posits new information that will contradict one or more previous conclusions"
But not the OBSERVATIONS. There's a difference. If there's an observation that the new theory doesn't fit, it doesn't get accepted. Nor should it.
shanedk 3 years ago
Um, so when Copernicus said the earth revolved around the sun and it contradicted the unanimous observation that the sun revolved around the earth, it should have been rejected on that basis? If so, we'd still be in the dark ages. Me thinks you don't understand how #1 is clearly wrong and should be removed from your vid.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
No, because the Copernican model explains WHY the sun appears to move around the Earth. Therefore the observation is completely compatible with the theory.
shanedk 3 years ago
OH, okay. I'm with you now. It has to fit all the facts w/o contradicting anything we can observe or do as an experiment. Like the earth is round but it seems flat because it is so large.
TruthSurge 3 years ago 6
Yes :)!
You got the point: if you made a theory based on the wrong observation, your theory may appear to work, but your observation was wrong :). Therefore any new theory that comes along and conforms to the CORRECT observation will not be obliged neither to carry the previous theory forward, but it would rather just have to point out why that theory was wrong.
ozpowermo 3 years ago
Now THAT'S the the winning argument right there.....Perfect.. Great Job... Thumbs up
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
whats the names of that song its awsome and good points
thenollie3 3 years ago
"I Can't Decide" by Scissor Sisters.
shanedk 3 years ago
thank you
thenollie3 3 years ago
So? The point is that according to Coding DNA chimps are more similar to humans than they are form gorillas, and retroviral DNA shows the opposite, chips look more similar to gorillas, opposing the evolutionist prediction.
The fusion was not predicted it was incorporated in your believe system after it was discovered, besides not finding the apparent fusion would not falsify evolution
a01011399 3 years ago
You must be completely logically deficient if you don't understand how humans can be more like chimps than gorillas and yet chimps can be more like gorillas than humans.
The fusion was ABSOLUTELY predicted. It was predicted in the 1970s if not earlier. It wasn't confirmed until the late 1990s. And yes, not finding the fusion WOULD have falsified evolution, at least as far as common descent between apes and humans is concerned.
shanedk 3 years ago
If you'll bother to do two minutes of research, you'll see that chimps and humans have many retroviral markers in common. Since these ERV changes are essentially random, the ONLY explanation that makes sense is that humans and chimps have a common ancestor who also had these particular genes.
shanedk 3 years ago
ERVs are functional, and proteins can only be functional if they are attached in specific places, therefore the insertion was not random, besides most ervs do not have an infectious counterpart meaning that there is not even evidence that most ERVs where in fact insertions
a01011399 3 years ago
"therefore the insertion was not random," Coming across the virus that inserted them was random. And it stands to reason that, since humans were living where chimps and gorillas did not and ate things that chimps and gorillas did not, that they would come across retroviruses that apes and chimps didn't.
Have you even THOUGHT about this at all???
shanedk 3 years ago
No, evolution predicts the possibility of chromosomes suddenly appearing or disappearing without a fusion therefore according to evolution a chromosome in apes could appear,
a01011399 3 years ago
"evolution predicts the possibility of chromosomes suddenly appearing or disappearing without a fusion"
No, it doesn't. If our ape ancestors were to lose an entire pair of genomes, the resulting offspring wouldn't even make it past the zygote phase!!!
But go on, keep showing people how pathetic the scientific knowledge of creationists is...
shanedk 3 years ago
´´No, it doesn't. If our ape ancestors were to lose an entire pair of genomes, the resulting offspring wouldn't even make it past the zygote phase!!!´´
well acording to evolutio our far far far ansestor had only 2 chromosomes, therefore all the other chromosomes had to appear some how.
a01011399 3 years ago
Yes, and we KNOW about genetic drift and genetic duplication. Look at cdk007's videos about how evolution increases information. We KNOW it happens; we've SEEN it happen.
But you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT lose an entire pair of genes in ANY ape or ape precursor and expect it to survive past the zygote stage.
shanedk 3 years ago
Now, as to why chimps and gorillas would have retroviral sequences in common that humans don't, the answer is again very simple: after the human line split off they got retroviruses that gorillas and chimps didn't get. Duh.
It's easy when you THINK!!!
shanedk 3 years ago
Nope the argument on ERVs is not testable, therefore it is not scientific, please give a potential falsification for ERVs
And you are wrong, finding ERVs in gorillas and chimps but not in humans falsify evolution because chimps and humans where suppose to split after ancient gorillas and ancient chimps. Chimps are suppose to be closely related to humans that to gorillas.
a01011399 3 years ago
"Nope the argument on ERVs is not testable" It absolutely is! We can test how retroviruses work, examine how they affect DNA, and look at the results in the genomes!
"And you are wrong, finding ERVs in gorillas and chimps but not in humans falsify evolution because chimps and humans where suppose to split after ancient gorillas and ancient chimps." That's completely STUPID. Yes, humans and chimps split after gorillas, but all you need is retroviruses in the human line AFTER the split!!! DUH!!!
shanedk 3 years ago
No, if a chimp and a gorilla have an ERV in common then humans should also have this erv, but this is not always the case, so if chimpsand gorillas share an erv this means the incertion ocurred before humans and chimps where a different specie, therefore if chimps and gorillas share an ERV humans most have it, and please tell me exactly what would falsify the claim and why?
a01011399 3 years ago
"No, if a chimp and a gorilla have an ERV in common then humans should also have this erv,"
I really don't know how many times I can explain this, but...NOT IF THE ERV WAS MODIFIED BY A LATER RETROVIRUS IN HUMANS!!!
How DENSE do you have to be not to get that???
shanedk 3 years ago
but you are making the argument on ERVs on falsifiable
a01011399 3 years ago
No, I'm not. YOU'RE the one who brought up ERVs (and lied about them). I mentioned the chromosomal fusion as complete evidence for common descent that, if it had turned out to be at all different, would have falsified the theory.
shanedk 3 years ago
1) evolution is not consistent with other observations
2) evolution does not make testable predictions
3) evolution is not falsifiable
a01011399 3 years ago
1) Evolution is consistent with EVERY observation on the subject. In fact, it's the most confirmed theory in all of science.
2) Evolution makes a LOT of testable predictions, like the nature of genetics and the fusion of 2 ape chromosome in humans. These predictions have borne out.
3) Evolution could absolutely be falsified by finding, say, cambrian bunny-rabbits.
Just another know-nothing creationist speaking from ignorance and bias...
shanedk 3 years ago
1) wrong for example coding DNA shows that humans and apes are more similar than apes and gorillas, and retroviral DNA show that apes are more similar to gorillas than to humans ¿which one is the correct one?
2) no, Chromosome fusion was predicted after the apparent fusion was discovered, the prediction was not made before the discovery
3) there is pollen in the precambiran, dinosaur bones with C-14, man made tools that are dated to be older that humans,etc
a01011399 3 years ago
Um, gorillas ARE apes, so your first sentence is nonsensical.
You are wrong--the fusion was predicted BEFORE. I know the filthy lying creationists say otherwise, but they're just wrong. In fact the fusion wasn't actually found until the genomes were sequenced.
3 is just more creationist lies. You have NOTHING, so you have to LIE. It's all false, and you don't care, because you and the other creationists are nothing but a bunch of amoral egomaniacs.
shanedk 3 years ago
1) my mistake, I meant chimps not apes
2)sure ¿and who predicted that?
3)this are not lies, if I prove to you that I am not lieing would you make a video admiting that evolution is wrong and/or not testable?
a01011399 3 years ago
Chimps are apes, too.
It was predicted for DECADES before the genome was sequenced.
And yes, they ARE lies, and they can be refuted just by looking them up. They're not just lies, they're pathetically bad ones.
I'll bet you're misrepresenting the cases of scientists finding C14 in coal near uranium deposits where we would expect it to be.
shanedk 3 years ago
I have one thing to say about this video...
Play track 3.
thkaal 4 years ago
Just a wee mistake noticed.
The unit of the product of two velocities or of a velocity squared is (m/s)^2 not m/s.
Great vid though, I look forward to trying the argument on my creationist friends asap.
Venator70 4 years ago
Yes, it's one of several typos.
shanedk 4 years ago
If we compare the theory of evolution and ID with the lives of people, evolution is a young lad who has survived a bullet rain which made him stronger and ID is covered by 3 feet of dirt.
Portiadude 4 years ago
Awesome presentation! 5 stars! However, instead of using the word "supplanted" to describe what Einsteins theory did to Newtons, I think the word "encompassed" would have been more precise. This was aptly demonstrated by the next clip showing Newtons theory imbedded within Einsteins.
twothlesswonder 4 years ago 2
More from Albert Einstein:
"True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness."
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." notice the small g.
StandingNext2Her 4 years ago
Spoiler: Albert Einstein described himself as an agnostic athiest, and anytime he used such terms as god or soul was not talking about a God or a Soul at all but using colourful metaphor's. Stephen Hawking does the same in some of his books. Neither of this proves either are spiritual, just that they like metaphors.
Silvermane21a 4 years ago
I'd actually say that creationism isn't too far off here, they can say that evolution was right in that MICROevolution works, but MACROevolution fails because...well, they still need to end that sentence :)
kurisu313 4 years ago
excellent!!! ty very much. great vid. 5stars
damianpoirier 4 years ago
As much as I am opposed to creationist thinking in this day and age, I'm not sure the correspondence principle is applied correctly here. First of all, it doesn't need to explain why the previous theory WORKED. The previous theory might actually not have worked, but only appeared to. The new theory must explain the elements the previous theory tried to explain.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
Second, creationism was there BEFORE evolution, so evolution must correspond to creatonism (and it does). Third, and most importantly, the correspondence principle is NOT a requirement for a scientific theory. If there is no previous valid theory, then there is no correspondence. But that doesn't mean the new theory has no validity.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
So the use of the correspondence principle is not really applicable with creationists, as they don't recognize the validity of evolutionary theory, but rather would reduce to OTHER previous theories. Of which there are none. This is not the reason creationism is unscientific, however. It is unscientific because it categorically denies any evidence of evolution and postulates unprovable claims why evolutionary evidence is to be discarded.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
The closest thing they've got to science is their "irreducible complexity" thing, which perished in a horrible way under scientific scrutiny. They have nothing. THAT's why creationism is unscientific. If they HAD something, and if evolution was unevidenced, they could indeed present their case without referring to evolution.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
And if there is no previous theory, then likewise there is nothing to explain as well.
The thing is, evolution IS a well-established theory based on overwhelming physical evidence. If ID is to overturn it, it MUST explain why evolution works so well.
shanedk 4 years ago
I did say worked, as far as it did. If it didn't work, there's obviously nothing to explain. Newton's theory didn't work with the speed of light, but it still worked for other things. Same concept.
shanedk 4 years ago
"If it didn't work, there's obviously nothing to explain."
Exactly, and it is the creationists' position that evolutionary theory doesn't work. They have no evidence for saying so except childish stubbornness (which is itself a reason to disqualify creationism; total lack of objectivity), but because they are of that mind, the correspondence principle does not apply. They simply haven't reached that level yet.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
It's sort of like an obstacle course: obstacle #2 doesn't really apply if you can't get past obstacle #1 yet.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
And if I may add, I don't think it is likely that creationism will ever get past that first hurdle of admitting that evolution does, in fact, offer sound explanations of the variety of life. If they were to surprise me and DO admit that, however, THEN they would have to take the correspondence principle into consideration. But until that happens, well, it's sort of like when we first learned subtractions: until we learned about negative numbers, we were allowed to write 5-7=0.
Gilmaris 4 years ago
(Just to avoid confusion, that was when we first had started learning maths in grade school :p )
Gilmaris 4 years ago
Which is actually the whole point of the video.
shanedk 4 years ago
Cool. Very interesting. One question, why didn't Einstein get a Noble prize for the theory of relativity, only for the photo-effect (or something, I don't remember)?
And what's the song name? It's very catchy :p
Megasroxlol 4 years ago
Because the Nobel Prize is given to actual discoveries, not theoretical work.
The song is "I Can't Decide" by the Scissor Sisters.
shanedk 4 years ago
Boo, debunkin creationism is kinda old. Why bother debunking something that is withering away as it is. These days even creationists believe in evolution (micro and/or super), though it will take some time before they actually admit evolution is right as it is.
Retardretroguy 4 years ago
Because they're still a powerful force on the political scene. Hardly a year goes by without several stories of science being eroded in the schools yet again, and if that keeps happening, then it WON'T wither and die; it'll be science that does.
shanedk 4 years ago
Just think about it. Creationists are giving away. Debunking might work, if people would find out new areas of creationism to debunk. Suddenly just calling all science a lie, isn't enough, so they seek for science to help them, and it makes creationism lean little bit towards theory of evolution all the time.
Retardretroguy 4 years ago
Oh yeah, if you don't already have one, get a Darwin fish asap. In my experience, it actually works as it should.
Retardretroguy 4 years ago
I actually have a science fish on my car.
shanedk 4 years ago
:D
I love the song, along with the video explanations. I am being inspired.
n2teaching 4 years ago
please
autisticgrannyINC 4 years ago
this is terrible music make a better choice next time
autisticgrannyINC 4 years ago
Well, you can't please everybody. Some people didn't like Vangelis in the Speed of Light video. I try to do a variety.
shanedk 4 years ago
AS shan has already said music is very subjective. ''Make a better choice next time'' What does that even mean, better for who? You? Yes, the whole world is out here to attend to your every whim.
lostrules4815162342 4 years ago
Hmm.. Darwinism can't (at least yet) explain everything so with your criteria it neither would be considered a scientific theory ??
Finn001abd 4 years ago
A theory doesn't HAVE to explain everything. If that were the case, there would be NO theories at all, at least until we come up with the Theory of Everything.
And it's like Einstein said, EVERY theory is abandoned eventually; a good theory has its goodness embodied and continued in the next theory.
shanedk 4 years ago
I do see Intelligent Design as a interesting theory. Even as there isn't enough evidence for it. In my opinion it should be taught at school also along side other theories for what it is: A theory.
Finn001abd 4 years ago
If it is a theory, then:
What observations support it?
What testable predictions does it make?
How can it be falsified?
How does it conform to the Correspondence Principle?
If you can't answer those questions, then you just don't have a theory.
shanedk 4 years ago
There isn't enough in-between fossils from the transformation of specie to specie. The development of the eye, wings and etc.. evolving over millions of years to finally become something what is actually beneficial is a big leap of faith. How did Darwinism conform to the Correspondence Principle? In my opinion if the old theory doesn't work as well then there is no need for new theories to try to fit in to the old theories. How does flat Earth theory fit into the round Earth theory ?
Finn001abd 4 years ago
Micro-evolution is in intelligent design. It is just the big leaps of faith of a species turning into a completely new species what is questioned in Intelligent Design. Can't you even admit that Intelligent Design is a interesting theory ?
Finn001abd 4 years ago
"Can't you even admit that Intelligent Design is a interesting theory?"
No, because I can't even tell that it's a theory AT ALL, and won't be able to unless and until someone can answer the four above questions.
shanedk 4 years ago
"There isn't enough in-between fossils from the transformation of specie to specie."
Look at cdk007's "Blind Watchmaker" video. Fossilization is a rare event, and often changes happen too fast to be preserved in the fossil record. Also, Bogosity Episode 2 covers how rare fossilization is.
shanedk 4 years ago
Another brilliant video from shane. Although i don't think you'll ever best your one on Chadow
Chadow: "astrology is one of the most interesting sciences in the world"
Chadow: "astrology has NOTHING to do with science"
BeforeTheNoose 4 years ago
Did my ears suddenly fail me, or did I hear the f-word a few times in that song? It doesn't offend me, but it did surprise me.
WareSquirrel 4 years ago
Once, and again when I repeated it. There's also the B-word. I didn't think it was enough to worry about.
shanedk 4 years ago
Einstein's theory of relativity is absurd, and so is anyone who cites it to support his argument. Einstein is a like a homeless person draped in purple velvet whom ignorant people call their king.
theoshow2 4 years ago
Relativity has been confirmed numerous times in a plethora of ways. What about it do you find absurd?
shanedk 4 years ago
Special relativity only refers to ether drag. Einstein can't account for ether in "his" theories, but admits ether is necessary. Anyway, look to Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity for real physics and understanding of how the universe operates. Then, creationism is highly probable (not to be confused with religion).
theoshow2 4 years ago
Oh, come on! Ether was debunked a long time ago--even way before Einstein! In fact, Relativity absolutely rejects the idea of the ether, contrary to what you say.
I'd really like to know where you got this crap...was it from a creationist site? If so, well, at least they're finally trying to come up with new material.
shanedk 4 years ago
any flaws in relativity are ironed out with quantum theory which happily obeys the correspondance principle in exactly the same way as einsteins theory did.
oggjy 4 years ago
I gave you suggestions on the researching the truth, my good deed for the day, if you will. If you want to fall into this Bible vs evolution/psuedo-physics propaganda debate, then that is your decision. Ether: Michelson-Morely? They're apparatus (which didn't account for solar system velocity) for testing ether was debunked (1887), not the ether. They retested in 1925 with new parameters and guess what?
theoshow2 4 years ago
The ONLY reason people were positing an ether was because they couldn't figure out any other way time and distance could be constant. Relativity shows quite well that they are NOT constants, but relative to the speed of light. This very video is an example of that.
shanedk 4 years ago
Ether is what provides the force for all movement in the universe. How do you think the earth spins around and revolves around the sun??? How do you think lightning comes into existence? On gasoline? Ether was killed to maintain the status quo for big business.
theoshow2 4 years ago
"How do you think the earth spins around and revolves around the sun???" Inertia and gravity.
"How do you think lightning comes into existence?" An imbalance of charged particles in the atmosphere.
"On gasoline?" Highly compressed potential energy from the photosynthesis of sea life millions of years ago.
There are explanations for ALL of these, and they don't have ONE THING to do with the ether.
shanedk 4 years ago
Your explanations are based on pseudo science and propaganda, but I can't blame you for attempting to be "academic" in your replies. If this were a high school school test, you'd do well. As far as explaining how the universe actually operates, you'd fail. When you are ready, look into Tesla's patents, physics and lectures.
theoshow2 4 years ago
Oh, I'm a big fan of Tesla and I know all about him. I also know all about the pseudoscience and conspiracy theories spread around by people who have no hope of ever comprehending his work (that includes you, by the way).
shanedk 4 years ago
Tesla dismantled special and general relativity theory, so you can't possibly be a big fan of his works or claim to understand them and continue to respect "Einstein's" theories. Tesla recognized Einstein's errors and called him "absurd".
theoshow2 4 years ago
"Tesla dismantled special and general relativity theory"
Tesla's work PREDATED Special and General Relativity. YOU are the one with no understanding.
shanedk 4 years ago
Tesla on Einstein: "The[relativity]theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king...I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties."
theoshow2 4 years ago
Actually, Tesla believed that space and time COULD be warped, and that it could be warped by electricity. He was right, just with the wrong force.
shanedk 4 years ago
Tesla discounted all "space" and "time" references. I don't know where you got that false information.
theoshow2 4 years ago
I got it from reading Tesla, as opposed to conspiracy theorist misinformation.
shanedk 4 years ago
Well, it sure wasn't NIKOLA Tesla whom you were reading.
theoshow2 4 years ago
Yes, it most certainly was.
You're just wrong, and can't admit it, just like all the other conspiracy woos.
shanedk 4 years ago
Well, I own and have read all Tesla's patents, lectures, biographies and essays, and I make direct references from them with quotes from Tesla. So you can continue to believe the "laws" of thermodynamics, relativity and other propaganda to engage in a phony debate of christianity vs. evolution.
theoshow2 4 years ago
your right about the debate being phony lol and its not christianity v evolution its religion v science
removal of evolution destroys most of science since its all supplementary
as for relativity as propaganda id love to see you or a guy who died 100 years ago prove it wrong.
also you realise that these have been tested now and they kinda work
oggjy 4 years ago
omg if im not mistaken shane this guy during your little discussion here has argued against the theory of relativity special relativity gravity and whatever theory lightning falls under using only the words of a mad scientist (brillient but still mad) from 100 years ago to support it hehe
oggjy 4 years ago
Maybe you have to be a bit mad to be brilliant.
Tesla made a LOT of wild conjectures. Some turned out to be right, others not so much. He was right so often, though, that I think we have to consider his contributions right up there with Darwin and Einstein.
shanedk 4 years ago
Einstein and Darwin do NOT even come close to Tesla in contributing to science or humanity. Maybe da Vinci would be considered a peer of Tesla. Tesla invented wireless communication, radio, x-ray, radar, alternating current, remote control, robot, car ignition, speedometer, wireless transmission of electricity, weather control, earthquake stimulator, etc--all this because he understood how the universe operates. What did Einstein invent with his understanding?
theoshow2 4 years ago
Thanks to Einstein, we not only have obvious things like nuclear power, we have indirect accomplishments as well. Without Einstein, we'd be wondering why our communication satellites won't stay in orbit, for example.
We owe the entire modern age of information communication to Tesla, but we also owe it every bit as much to Einstein.
shanedk 4 years ago
dont forget how he contributed to the understanding of matter as energy (thats kinda a big one) without einstein its not just nuclear fusion and fission we would not understand but annialation as well
oggjy 4 years ago
Don't forget that accurate clocks were flown out into space and compared to clocks left on Earth. The one left on Earth was detected to be slower by gravity. Light from stars also was warped by gravity of the sun as proven by that solar eclipse experiment.
joesub007 4 years ago
Well, it wasn't gravity, but relativistic speeds. They put atomic clocks on supersonic airlines and compared it to atomic clocks on the ground. The difference is EXACTLY what Einstein said it would be.
shanedk 4 years ago
Shane, I don't know why you spent so much time on the Correspondence Principle. The crazy bible-literalists are just going to say that their theory existed before Darwin's evolution and therefore, it is evolution's job to show correspondence with THEIR young-earth theory. They could also show correspondence by saying something like "it's just a coincidence" or "that's how God made it". White on black lettering belongs in an essay, not a You-Tube video.
hugesinker 4 years ago
"it is evolution's job to show correspondence with THEIR young-earth theory."
Which it actually does, insofar as it describes very well why life forms appear to be so perfect and designed.
shanedk 4 years ago
yeh but their theory never encompassed all the evidence it was not a scientific theory
oggjy 4 years ago
Yeah, there was never much to encompass, but it does explain nicely the effects that creationists attribute to a creator.
shanedk 4 years ago
Thank you for expounding on the Correspondence Principle. I'll have to admit I wasn't familiar with it.
I have to imagine the creationists conclude any equation with
"... + G"
Where G = god, permitting anything to equal anything.
punnet2 4 years ago
he he.. that was cool
MonsterMozz 4 years ago
Classic!
subach 4 years ago
While I like the CDK007 format, I have to admit that seeing your yell "bogosity" makes my day. So, don't switch exclusively to this format, mmmkay?
I guess this format makes a lot less work.
That said, seeing that formula again and reducing it back to the newtonian form, was great. It was just bein back in highschool physics :-D (Which I enjoyed, of course... mainly because I had a *great* teacher)
jawtheshark 4 years ago
It's not exclusive, but as you say it's easier, and it's better when you want to focus on one point in detail. Bogosity just can't go into this level of detail.
shanedk 4 years ago
Cool! But whats up with the ABBA music? ;-)
Snowball99 4 years ago
That's not ABBA; that's the Scissor Sisters.
shanedk 4 years ago
"That's not ABBA; that's the Scissor Sisters."
I was just going to ask if it were them.
NermalsChannel 4 years ago
Yeah, and it was a damned good choice... I'm still humming it.
Too bad iTunes only has it in the DRM format. No sale for me, oh, well.
The normal format has another advantage (even though you're not going to like it) You can listen to it... At work that's a plus: keep on coding while you do your funny show in the background.
It's like talk radio just better...
jawtheshark 4 years ago
"Too bad iTunes only has it in the DRM format. No sale for me, oh, well."
iTunes now sells high quality DRM free music for a little more $.
macman13 4 years ago
>iTunes now sells high quality DRM free music for a
>little more $.
I'm well aware of that, but it is restricted to certain songs. This song is not one of those.
At least not in my country. I already upgraded all songs I could to Plus, but I now refuse to buy non-Plus sonsg.
jawtheshark 4 years ago
Speaking of Dr. Who I can't wait for the next season of Torchwood!
On the video, good job Shane!
FTLNewsFeed 4 years ago
Thanks. Torchwood's great, but they're making us hold out until 2008! Oh well, I guess the Sarah Jane Adventures should be starting up sometime soon, shouldn't they? I enjoyed the first episode of that.
shanedk 4 years ago
waiting on torchwood? oh heavens, they already fubarred the series then. After all, the end of first season corresponds to the end of 3rd season of doc who
thkaal 4 years ago
Yeah, but I guess Series 2 just takes place after Last of the Time Lords, once Jack gets back. There's supposed to be some Martha Jones crossover stuff, so maybe that's why they're waiting.
shanedk 4 years ago
Oh, and Sara Jane (the pilot was great, especially the sonic lipstick and Mr. Jones) was several par better than the 80's spinoff.
thkaal 4 years ago
Ugh, K-9 & Company...don't remind me.
shanedk 4 years ago
Hi, thanks for bringing us yet another great video!
I'm almost ashamed to be such a nitpicker, but someone had to mention it: both "vw" and "c²" should be m²/s², and not m/s. A very minor issue in an excellent video. Please keep them coming!
ArchMageZeratuL 4 years ago