@bryanlopez1084 and theres nothing proving or disproving the existence of a unicorn/dragon hybrid flying around breathing ice cream and raping camels, should we be undecided about the existance of this monstrosity as well?
@FubarLikeYou The things is with mythical creatures you can see where people got their inspiration from. Have you noticed that most mythical creatures are a combination of things e.g.
@mirrorreflex what you say is true, what is your point reletive to my arguement against agnostic? just because someones bullshit was inspired by things that arnt bullshit doesnt mean we dont need evidence to beleive their bullshit is true.
@FubarLikeYou i could look at a crab then look at a galaxy and say theres such a thing as a crab the size of a galaxy made of stars???? whaat?? why???
@FubarLikeYou Also with the crab being the size of the galaxy thing I can pin point you creating this idea through your post, however I can't exactly pin point the idea of the creation of the idea of God can I? Also regarding your question on why anyone would invent a crab the size of a galaxy, I guess it must be the same reason people invented mythological creatures.
@FubarLikeYou The point is the whole concept of God isn't like a unicorn or minotaur that you can see and therefore say it does or doesn't exist. God is thought to exist outside of what we as humans are able to perceive therefore we cannot merely say God exists or he doesn't. Our planet is small compared to the whole universe there is so much we don't know. Isn't it a possibility that solid evidence of God exists outside the knowledge that we possess?
@mirrorreflex you cant see a unicorn and say it does or doesnt exist, if you see it you can say it exists if you cant see it you cant say it doesnt exist, you have to just say i cant see it, but it might be somewhere i havnt looked, thats not a reason to actually beleive you might find a unicorn one day..
@FubarLikeYou and im not disagreeing about the possibility of gods existance, im just saying a possibility of something existing isnt a good reason to actually think it does exist, to some extent its possible a meteor will smack me in the head one day and kill me, should i walk around with a hard hat every day?
@FubarLikeYou also please dont mistake me for someone who's argueing to defend his beleif, i think about if im agnostic or atheist alot, i just came to the conclusion (again based on what i know) that its much less likely that god exists, so i dont beleive god exists which is the definition of atheist..
@FubarLikeYou But as I previously discussed before I can explain how the idea of a unicorn came to exist. In the ancient myths unicorns are creatures that we'd expect to find on earth not outside of time and space like God, therefore to reject or accept whether unicorns existed all I need would be to find evidence of unicorns existence on this planet. Unless someone worshiped a golden cow as god or something then you can't exactly point and go here is god can you?
@mirrorreflex firstly not all mythology is based on things that actually exist.. whats like a balrog? and it depends how you want to define god, according to the bible we were made i his image, that would mean you could point at him and say thats god, if you want to define him as something that exists outside the universe then i suppose not.
@FubarLikeYou the point im trying to make is something like this, a theist beleives in god even though they cant prove it because they think god probly exists, not being able to prove his existence wouldnt make them agnostics just like as an atheist not being able to disprove his existence wouldnt make me agnostic
i do see your point though, but like i said, just because something is possible wether it can or cant be proved, isnt a reason to think it might be true when theres not really any reason to think it is (besides simply because its possible). its possible theres a beast 1 trillion light years wide and tall thats undetectable by any scientific instrument.. ok great... but why should i think there might actually be one?
To me the balrog looks like a dragon combined with a volcano. Anyway if you believe in a Christian God who came down to earth as a human then you can find evidence to support or reject God. If you believe in a god that has never been human like a lot of non Christians religions then you can neither reject or accept God because their existence cannot be proven or disproven.
@FubarLikeYou Also I don't understand the point you are trying to make about the meteor because if a meteor were to strike earth it wouldn't just appear out of midair and crush you, there would be early warning signs that a meteor was going to strike wouldn't there?
@mirrorreflex i was thinking about a small meteor, like one only just big enough to kill you on impact, could be wrong but i doubt there would be a warning of a meteor that small, they might not even be able to find it.
@FubarLikeYou Apparently there has never been any verified claim of anyone being hit by a meteor throughout history, so I guess that you'd probably be safe without wearing a helmet.
@FubarLikeYou I'm not sure about other religions but I do know that with Christianity there is the bible which chronicles the the beginning of humans to the time of Christ, therefore to prove the existence of a Christian God you have to check that the places mentioned actually exist (which they do- as the bible is used by archaeologists to find ancient cities) and the events actually happened (which are recorded not only in the bible but in other historical texts).
@FubarLikeYou and just because the world exists and a great flood existed (there was actually a great flood, but it was far from a global one) that doesnt prove the christain god exists it just means there book has a story in it roughly based on something that happend
@FubarLikeYou Can you point out some of these errors, most of these 'errors' are actually not errors at all. However if you plan on doing so don't just copy and paste a list of from the Internet and then assume I have enough time to reply to a very long list, just choose a few.
@mirrorreflex ok, making a woman out of a mans rib, snakes being able to talk, global flooding that wasnt global flooding, people living to nearly 1000 years old
@FubarLikeYou figuratively speaking. there could have been a lizard that had a poisonous bite, and that venom could have been the "fire", then over the years people turned it into a mythical creature. unicorns could have simply had been horses that had a mutation, and was turned into a creature. witches did exist, but they didn't have "magic". they were murderers and people couldn't believe how they could be so bad,so due to lack of education, they explained it as out of this world
@xoalaraxoxo yes and by what your saying, people could have made up god to explain things they didnt understand, so now that we believe that a unicorn could have been a horse with a mutation, why do we still believe creator had to design life? what reason do we still have to believe a god exists? just because theirs some holes in our knowlege doesnt give people the right to shove god down my throat. just because its possible the universe governed by a devine, doesnt mean it is.
@FubarLikeYou as i said, people couldn't explain things well. for the person who wrote it, a day could have been figuratively speaking for 10 million years. to them, a day could have been a certain ERA of time. like i said, stop taking such an old, corrupt piece of writing so literally. i'm christian but i don't take the bible as literally as atheists do or obsessed christians. you need to grow up and be logical about it. people had no education when it was written.
@FubarLikeYou back then, people didn't have science. they didn't understand things, couldn't reason logically. for example, "demons" were how people explained others that had disabilities or mental issues. they had no psychology, only faith. so they made things up. making someone out of their rib, is probably figuratively speaking for some other process. the point of the bible is not to take it so literally; just look at the morals of the stories...
@sacklome you proved my point. absolutely we can work out when our senses are wrong. if we had simply evolved to become the best survival machine then again, our reason would allow us, not to see the truth, but to see whatever was needed for survival. if we came about through "natural selection", (a process that values survival above all things) then at our very core of being we are just animals that can only seek to survive. In reality, this is simply not what we observe.
Therefore, we cannot trust our senses and reason to show us that Evolution or Atheism are true! If Atheism and (unguided) Evolution are both true, then you wouldn't ever know because you wouldn't be able to trust yourself to judge their truth value! So Evolution guided by a Creator so much more sense than unguided evolution, because if unguided evolution were true, then we couldn't even say it made any "sense." (sorry for 4 posts in a row...)
@fozidw Not really. You can work out when you're senses are wrong (And they are sometimes) through reasoning. We do see through a filter that promotes survival, subtle things are put at the back of your mind and suppressed by your sense of self and stimuli filters. Drugs like LSD and Psilocin inhibit these 'suppresses'. Now they do other things aswell, causing hallucinations and such, but they also bring these subtle things to life, like implied speech in conversation and such.
Also, The Theory of Evolution is actually MORE compatible with I.D. than Atheism! (or whatever you want to make the opponent of ID) Think about this: If our senses and mind evolved from the process described as "Natural Selection," then by definition, they evolved to help us survive. If our senses and mind evolved to help us survive, then they would only show us what we need to see to survive. (We don't necessarily survive be seeing the truth, but by seeing what we need to see to survive.)
And furthermore, the Theory of Evolution/Natural Selection has nothing to do with there being a creator. This theory deals with the origin of the diversity of life. And not even that, it simply states that life could start from simple organisms and "evolve" into more complex organisms by "natural selection" (think: survival of the fittest). Better organisms survive, worse ones/ones less suited to the environment die off.
I would just like to point out that the Theory of Intelligent Design doesn't have anything to do with God or theology. It just simply states that what we see in this world can only have been created by an intelligent being. It could be an alien, could be a god, could be something we haven't we thought of yet.
@drkenun I don't see what you mean. Human toes are modified ape toes. Human fingers are modified ape fingers. If you are ever under the impression that one of the greatest minds of all time is "stoupid" then you clearly don't understand. (I know you are being sarcastic, just putting this out to the dumbasses who actually think that way). Seems we both share common interests with music and DurhamrockerZ ;)
Open minds people? Just learn both, and believe what you want. However, if you were to ask me. EVOLUTION explains REALITY far better than religion and intelligent design can.
I personally believe a higher being (I dont like to say "him" or "her") caused evolution. I'm saying it started the process from when it created the first organism not that it crafts every step in the process.
I assume you mean living things as opposed to "things". You see, Some things really do last forever and cannot be created nor destroyed for example energy (look up the first law of thermodynamics.) The reason why we all must die is simple, to return vital nutrient to the soil. What would happen if this natural cycle could never occur and living thing had much longer life spans? Plants would begin to fail leading to the extinction herbivores and carnivores due to interdependence.
@ArtifexReel the earth will exist whether global warming occurs or not, so even disregarding the fact that it isn't a biological organism that can be modified by natural selection, it has no need to adapt to global warming. additionally houses collapse because they are not made of self replicating cells, the energy that keeps a house together comes from us, and we get our energy from the sun. also we as a species aren't dying so we have done quite well at avoiding extinction.
@ArtifexReel There isn't a 'direction' for evolution. If a species lives in a changing environment and doesn't have enough variation between individuals to allow some of them to survive and go on to reproduce, they become extinct. There isn't an 'end point' to evolution where an organism has reached a perfect form, that's called eugenics.
@ArtifexReel We are nothing, the planet will recover with or without us. It will just take time. Afterall the earth has had habital life for billions of years. We have barely been here for a couple 100,000 years.
Why would a god CREATE something to deteriorate and die? Evolution chooses an adaptation that is best suited to its environment (strongest) and allows them to reproduce, those which are not die. It says nothing about what happens AFTER their reproductive cycle.
Just because there are imperfections in this world doesn't mean we lack a perfect God :) One day, some of us will have perfect bodies! Rather, one should ask the question, how could something so intricate and detailed, something so complex we haven't even begun to understand it all, come about by something that just kind of.. happened? The chances of it happening are like sitting a million monkeys in front of keyboards and seeing if just one of them types out the whole book of Genesis! :)
Saying harsh things does not change facts; Sal is an educator and as such he should be able to do so with being insulted. He never said that you had to agree with him, as it is his right to express his views based on his mindset and his style of teaching. To believe or disbelieve in God is a personal choice. If you believe in God and disagree with ID design it is your choice. If I believe in ID it is my choice, no need to demean me because I don't think like you or believe in what you believe.
@Darien3954 Actually I think it's perfectly reasonable to demean people for there believes, I'd demean people for believing that murder is right, people that have delusions of grandeur and people that in general, are wrong. This is how progress works, argue your point. Only intellectual babies would mind be bothered by this.
How many times did he say "There is no god"? None. How many times did he say "There is a God"? The same, none. That wasn't the purpose of the video. He said several times that he wasn't taking sides. He made great points on both sides, so quit flaming. If you don't like it, make a better video.
I find the video a bit confusing. Until the 6th minute I understood only "There are different types of eyes and there are people who believe in God." The best part for me are the fractals :) Very interesting!
I'm a Christian but I believe evolution happened. Not species-to-species though. I mean look at a dog. I'm sure God didn't create all of the thousands of types of the same species, right? I mean based on the habitat, the creature adapts.I believe after Noah put all of the basic, first, forms of the animals on and off the Ark is when evolution occured. Once again I'm talking about species micro-evo. If you don't get what I'm talking about go to the "Natural Selection and the Owl Butterfly" video.
@DephkonOne I'm afraid i struggle to be convinced that all just two members of each species, would be able to populate the entire earth to the point that there are trillions of individual organisms.
Also, obvious question but what did the first lion do to get enough food to survive its pregnancy? Wipe out entire species by eating one gazzelle?
@amtahboub That's your choice. And that comment is so dumb, even though god creates(in YOUR opinion) everything there are other ones who think a little bit wider(try it!) so don't believe in god so why it should be called god's selection?
@amtahboub Because it can be explained completely without sticking God in there. And it's not the best package. there are things that don't make sense. Like why veins go over the surface of the eye when it would make much more sense for them to go behind and not create blind spots.
wow I've never seen so many dislikes on any of Sal's videos. Although, it is a controversial subject, viewers should rate the quality of Sal's presentation and his explanation of the science, not judge based on a personal bias.
I wouldn't really say that these arguments would last very long in a serious debate, but I'll just point some basics if you'll make a new video about this subject.
1. No one has claimed that the human eye is the supreme.
2. Pointing out the diseases and such, similar to Ad hominem fallacies, has nothing to do with the matter (design/no design).
3. Complexity does not imply design. However, specified complexity, do. Fractals are complex, but are not specified.
@PirateXzibit This video discusses intelligent design, not merely any old design. All 3 of your points are only valid if someone was criticizing non-intelligent design, but no one seriously represents that position anyway.
@IcarusTouma You are right about evolution, but how can you debunk God? To make that statement you would claim to be an allseeing God yourself = paradox... When it comes down to the existence of the universe and everything, one can only think in terms of philosophy. I, personally, can only belive in what appears most probable - as should everyone.
@Duckdo0m No, philosophy is NOT going to help you solve this mystery. You need empirical scientific proof...Now we know that abiogenesis is possible, evolution is a fact, we don't know what happened during the singularity of the Big Bang, but we can't assert that a "god" created it without scientific evidence.
@IcarusTouma The hypothesis that one should ONLY belive in what has been scientifically proven, is in itself a philosophy. Now, science helps us understand our world based on what we can see and study. Beyond that we need a bigger picture, a different perspective (or new methods). My point being: billions of people belive in a God because they have good reasons for it! Not necessarily scientific proof. You belive your parents love you, don't you?
@Duckdo0m The burden of proof is on you. I could say that there is a planet way out there in the galaxy with unicorns on it. You wouldn't be able to prove it doesn't exist. Just because I can't prove God doesn't exist doesn't make him any more real than those unicorns.
@epicmonkee One thing that seems often neglected in these discussions is that IF God exists, and the opposite can not be proven, He should very, very much be taken seriously. That being said; a belief in God is not nearly as unrealistic or ill-founded as a belief in space-unicorns (obviously). My point is quite simple: I belive in God because it makes sense to me, in many ways. There are strong apologetic arguments, historical evidence and testamonies that speak for Christianity.
@Duckdo0m Except that in any known religion, (Notably Christianity) there is direct mention of creating things like people and animals outright. Not to mention the time frames given being way off. If there is a creator, he isn't one we know anything about, or will ever it seems. So just live without it.
Thank You SOO much as a mathematical mind to add to this video the Mandelbrot Set. This is a beautiful explanation of the juxtaposed simplicity and complexity of physiology and life.! This metaphorically fulfills my questions about life.
Disagree with your comment on our needing to be humble. Literally for all intents and purposes, our perspective is all we truly own in this universe. We are everything to ourselves. We do indeed use material objects (including other humans) to fulfill our desires, and in turn to improve our happiness. However it is not truly ours from the perspective of an objective universe. Our consciousness is. Being 'humble' is a denial of self-esteem, it's kind of sickening.
@Bladenavor We do get along, there are small groups of ignorant people from both sides that makes all the fuzz. Science and religion has gone side by side without any problem for ages until now.
@eddiemc7 "Science and religion has gone side by side without any problem for ages until now." WHAT? First of all, religion has always been authoritarian and it prohibited progress of science...
@IcarusTouma I was trolling, well at least I tried =/. But I guess what I really was trying to do was implying that religion and science has always gone side by side as totally different factions without trying to implement their "theories" into the other. So prohibition and conflicts yes, People trying to explain our origins using math together with the divine and creating a new field of science, NO.
@Bladenavor People like you and me could probably get along fine, but the more zealous of the bunch might start fighting to do things to the education system that could spark conflict.
Saul is much more PC than I am. He is trying to say the ID folks are stupid to have not recognized Darwins own ideas as being the best notion of ID, and used as a more elegant argument for their own position.
My only problem with the IDesigners is that it`s so obvious that it's not about the science. These people don't care about adaptive radiation, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium, etc. In fact, it was NEVER about the science. It has always been the supposed "negative implications" of the seemingly innocent theory of evolution on kids and faith and church attendance--you name it. These are the reasons they oppose it. If they weren't, they'd be attacking things like the atomic theory as well.
How has this video received as many dislikes as likes? Has the world been filled with idiots?
Natural Selection doesn't prove or disprove god/religion, its merely a scientific method to try and explain how evolution takes place. If you don't like that notion please go read your bible some more and leave the biology/science to the big kids
Personally evolution is the argument I would use for the existence of a god. you start with a microbe then through random events its offspring get better relative to its environment. if you set the environment as a constant on a graph at 1 on the x axis and the y axis was time you'd have an curve asymptotic to 1. So after infinite time you would have one being that is, relative to its environment perfect. In life only things that are certain are that you exist and that you have an environment.
It's so funny that you americans still talk about intelligent design as if it was really a thing. And as if there was any doubt about evolution and science. The developed world laughs at you. And at the same time stares silently in horrified disbelief.
Even our christians seem to find the antics of yours ridiculous,
@DokDicer lol, you are the idiot, its obvious your stupid evoloution doesnt mean anything lol RANDOM... GOD CREATED US AND WE ARE PERFECT. We are clearly superior to all otehr animals. unfortunatley only us americans understand that whil you domb europeans and asian and shit dont even know simple math and science. intelligent design is the most important understanding. thats why einstein and all good american scientists where religious intelligent design adovactes. dumb ass rest of the world...
@karim3343 Please, as a patriotic American, don't respond to people insulting them, especially calling them "domb". Einstein was German born by the way. Europeans and Asians are just as smart as Americans, you have the dipshits, then you have the geniuses. Also, "all good american scientists" were not "religious intelligent design adovactes". Please, don't insult yourself by trying to represent the American people on YouTube. Also, go back to 3rd grade English please.
@DokDicer Im a pretty good troll right LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL
I am an atheist and I am laughing my ass off at these arrogant and ignorant Americans. Did you know they have a museum for intelligent design/creation lool
The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.
Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals
THE UNANSWERED QUESTION: We're told that evolution is fueled with random mutations some of which survive by giving a survival advantage. We're also told that complex, image-forming eyes evolved 50-100 separate times and use many of the same proteins and genetic toolkits. How can random mutations produce obviously non-random results?
@teddytarp This is due to convergent evolution and the hox genes. Body segments are controlled only by a few selected genes named the hox genes which are apparently the same in fruit flies and mice. To the point that in one research, a fruit fly grew an eye even though its gene for making eyes was removed and replace by the mice version of the same gene. We came from a common ancestor with the same body plan, so it makes sense that we'd still be using the same genes to control the diff. segments
@TheYipedo hmmm...you're saying that the genetic tool kits and genes for the proteins, the SAME in 50 to 100 separate lines of evolution for the complex image forming eye, was present in a very early common ancestor of all? No, you're saying the hox genes control the segments, but I think my question involves the segments themselves. If complex image forming eyes evolved separately that often, wouldn't the gene info have to be produced by mutations that often?
@teddytarp Could you reference where you are getting this info that there are 50 to 100 convergently evolved eyes using the same proteins or machinery that evolved independently? I don't think so.
@weisenhm ^ Haszprunar (1995). "The mollusca: Coelomate turbellarians or mesenchymate annelids?". In Taylor. Origin and evolutionary radiation of the Mollusca : centenary symposium of the Malacological Society of London. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-854980-6.
@teddytarp yipedo provides the most likely answer to your issue. Protiens are like toolkits to build machines. Or rather, protein domains are the toolkits. They are swapped, shared, conserved, and diverged to do both a variety of tasks, or the same tasks, or similar tasks with novel functions. There is nothing shocking or inconsistent in your reference with the idea of evolution by natural selection. The basic building blocks of nervous systems (ion channels) were characterized in mollusk axons.
@teddytarp Scientists are still debating about it. One scientist named Walter Gehring suggested, for example, that light-sensitive organs or eyes evolved only once in the evolutionary history of life and were subsequently modified as we go down the line (the pax-6 gene in humans, mice and fruit flies are very similar). But then again, complex organs can evolve multiple times, just like how wings evolved 4 times in the evolutionary history of life.
@teddytarp Moreover, wiki (where you got the question) also provides the answer. Light-sensitive patches probably evolved first and then independently modified by creatures to make eyes. Yes, that's not impossible. I mean, if ichthyosauri, dolphins and sharks achieved the same look despite sharing extremely different evolutionary paths, then it's not too wild to think that organisms would've evolved an organ given that they already have the necessary rudimentary parts (light-sensitive patches).
@TheYipedo I must say you are quite accomplished at imagining evolutionary pathways. You fill in the blanks as well as any I've seen. But what I was trying to imagine was how you end up with the same results (the same proteins and genetic toolkits) 50 to 100 separate times when you have to use random mutations to do it. I mean if your roulette table at Vagas did that, what would you say?
@teddytarp Firstly, please explain what you mean by "imagining evolutionary pathways." I was giving you an analogy of creatures with analogous structures despite being extremely different. Also as I mentioned, certain parts of the eye such as light-sensitive visual pigments likely share a common ancestry. It is only a matter of time for such an advantageous trait such as an eye to evolve after acquiring the necessary baggage to build it. And time we have indeed, in the form of millions of years.
@teddytarp Besides, if the fact that we arose from non-living compounds has happened at least once (obviously, or we wouldn't be alive), then how hard is it to imagine a set of genes being assembled to form complex eyes 50 to 100 times knowing that these mutations would've been heavily selected for? Not to mention that the necessary toolkit (proteins and visible pigment) were already available to each and every organism that evolved them?
He almost nailed it there, but then he let it slip through his finger. He get's it, ID is basically saying 'I can't believe this came from random processes' and 'therefore a designer/God did it... but fails to identify it as Argument from Incredulity: 'I can't believe it, therefore it isn't true'.
Plus, evolution ISN'T random. Mutation is, but natural selection, the driving pressure is deterministic, it's the opposite of random. ID is misrepresentation of evolution and preferential indulgence.
@KentRigeI He is purposely avoiding pointing out the flaws in ID because anyone who supports ID wouldn't accept them anyway. This video is basically to show that the most profound version of ID is in fact, ironically, evolution by natural selection. Persuasion isn't just about making good arguments, it's an art form that needs to take into account the psychological state of the person who is receiving the message. That's what he's doing here.
Intelligent Design is NOT science, it is merely creationism in lab coat. I don't understand why there are so many dislikes, he kept saying that he wasn't trying to offend anyone. This is science, and that is what he is teaching. If you don't like it, then gtfo.
@GollaGandaLova You shouldn't claim people to be something they haven't said themselves. This is Sal's description of his religion taken from his website:
"If you believe in trying to make the best of the finite number of years we have on this planet (while not making it any worse for anyone else), think that pride and self-righteousness are the cause of most conflict and negativity, and are humbled by the vastness and mystery of the Universe, then I'm the same religion as you."
I loved this video! Thanks for your input and honesty.
KingDcome11 1 day ago
Sal, why are you making this video if you can't pick a side!
MyVideoComments 3 days ago
the point i was trying to make was not to be obsessed with the topic sorry if i was unclear
bryanlopez1084 1 week ago
read "reinventing the sacred"
redpillreality 1 week ago
everyone should just be agnostic about this topic
there's nothing proving there is a god but
there's nothing proving there isnt one
bryanlopez1084 1 week ago
@bryanlopez1084 and theres nothing proving or disproving the existence of a unicorn/dragon hybrid flying around breathing ice cream and raping camels, should we be undecided about the existance of this monstrosity as well?
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou The things is with mythical creatures you can see where people got their inspiration from. Have you noticed that most mythical creatures are a combination of things e.g.
centaur= horse + human
minotaur= human + bull
mirrorreflex 1 week ago
@mirrorreflex what you say is true, what is your point reletive to my arguement against agnostic? just because someones bullshit was inspired by things that arnt bullshit doesnt mean we dont need evidence to beleive their bullshit is true.
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou i could look at a crab then look at a galaxy and say theres such a thing as a crab the size of a galaxy made of stars???? whaat?? why???
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou Also with the crab being the size of the galaxy thing I can pin point you creating this idea through your post, however I can't exactly pin point the idea of the creation of the idea of God can I? Also regarding your question on why anyone would invent a crab the size of a galaxy, I guess it must be the same reason people invented mythological creatures.
mirrorreflex 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou The point is the whole concept of God isn't like a unicorn or minotaur that you can see and therefore say it does or doesn't exist. God is thought to exist outside of what we as humans are able to perceive therefore we cannot merely say God exists or he doesn't. Our planet is small compared to the whole universe there is so much we don't know. Isn't it a possibility that solid evidence of God exists outside the knowledge that we possess?
mirrorreflex 1 week ago
@mirrorreflex you cant see a unicorn and say it does or doesnt exist, if you see it you can say it exists if you cant see it you cant say it doesnt exist, you have to just say i cant see it, but it might be somewhere i havnt looked, thats not a reason to actually beleive you might find a unicorn one day..
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou and im not disagreeing about the possibility of gods existance, im just saying a possibility of something existing isnt a good reason to actually think it does exist, to some extent its possible a meteor will smack me in the head one day and kill me, should i walk around with a hard hat every day?
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou or should i (based on what i know) see that being hit in the head by a meteor is highly unlikely and not beleive it will happen to me
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou also please dont mistake me for someone who's argueing to defend his beleif, i think about if im agnostic or atheist alot, i just came to the conclusion (again based on what i know) that its much less likely that god exists, so i dont beleive god exists which is the definition of atheist..
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou But as I previously discussed before I can explain how the idea of a unicorn came to exist. In the ancient myths unicorns are creatures that we'd expect to find on earth not outside of time and space like God, therefore to reject or accept whether unicorns existed all I need would be to find evidence of unicorns existence on this planet. Unless someone worshiped a golden cow as god or something then you can't exactly point and go here is god can you?
mirrorreflex 1 week ago
@mirrorreflex firstly not all mythology is based on things that actually exist.. whats like a balrog? and it depends how you want to define god, according to the bible we were made i his image, that would mean you could point at him and say thats god, if you want to define him as something that exists outside the universe then i suppose not.
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou the point im trying to make is something like this, a theist beleives in god even though they cant prove it because they think god probly exists, not being able to prove his existence wouldnt make them agnostics just like as an atheist not being able to disprove his existence wouldnt make me agnostic
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
i do see your point though, but like i said, just because something is possible wether it can or cant be proved, isnt a reason to think it might be true when theres not really any reason to think it is (besides simply because its possible). its possible theres a beast 1 trillion light years wide and tall thats undetectable by any scientific instrument.. ok great... but why should i think there might actually be one?
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
To me the balrog looks like a dragon combined with a volcano. Anyway if you believe in a Christian God who came down to earth as a human then you can find evidence to support or reject God. If you believe in a god that has never been human like a lot of non Christians religions then you can neither reject or accept God because their existence cannot be proven or disproven.
mirrorreflex 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou Also I don't understand the point you are trying to make about the meteor because if a meteor were to strike earth it wouldn't just appear out of midair and crush you, there would be early warning signs that a meteor was going to strike wouldn't there?
mirrorreflex 1 week ago
@mirrorreflex i was thinking about a small meteor, like one only just big enough to kill you on impact, could be wrong but i doubt there would be a warning of a meteor that small, they might not even be able to find it.
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou Apparently there has never been any verified claim of anyone being hit by a meteor throughout history, so I guess that you'd probably be safe without wearing a helmet.
mirrorreflex 1 week ago
@mirrorreflex exactly and theres been no verified claim of a god either, so why is it not safe to call myself atheist?
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou I'm not sure about other religions but I do know that with Christianity there is the bible which chronicles the the beginning of humans to the time of Christ, therefore to prove the existence of a Christian God you have to check that the places mentioned actually exist (which they do- as the bible is used by archaeologists to find ancient cities) and the events actually happened (which are recorded not only in the bible but in other historical texts).
mirrorreflex 1 week ago
@mirrorreflex your wrong. if the christian god was proven by the accuracy of the bible then you are just plain wrong. the bible is far from accurate.
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou and just because the world exists and a great flood existed (there was actually a great flood, but it was far from a global one) that doesnt prove the christain god exists it just means there book has a story in it roughly based on something that happend
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou Can you point out some of these errors, most of these 'errors' are actually not errors at all. However if you plan on doing so don't just copy and paste a list of from the Internet and then assume I have enough time to reply to a very long list, just choose a few.
mirrorreflex 1 week ago
@mirrorreflex ok, making a woman out of a mans rib, snakes being able to talk, global flooding that wasnt global flooding, people living to nearly 1000 years old
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou the universe being created in 6 days 6000 years ago..
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou the world being flat, earth being the centre of the universe..
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou sorry "the centre of everything"*
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou come to think of it the bible also mentions dragons, unicorns, necromancers and witches..
FubarLikeYou 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou figuratively speaking. there could have been a lizard that had a poisonous bite, and that venom could have been the "fire", then over the years people turned it into a mythical creature. unicorns could have simply had been horses that had a mutation, and was turned into a creature. witches did exist, but they didn't have "magic". they were murderers and people couldn't believe how they could be so bad,so due to lack of education, they explained it as out of this world
xoalaraxoxo 4 days ago
@xoalaraxoxo yes and by what your saying, people could have made up god to explain things they didnt understand, so now that we believe that a unicorn could have been a horse with a mutation, why do we still believe creator had to design life? what reason do we still have to believe a god exists? just because theirs some holes in our knowlege doesnt give people the right to shove god down my throat. just because its possible the universe governed by a devine, doesnt mean it is.
FubarLikeYou 4 days ago
@FubarLikeYou and im pretty sure witches were pegans labelled witches by christians and mudered for heresy.
FubarLikeYou 4 days ago
@FubarLikeYou Ok, I'll PM you because I wrote a lot.
mirrorreflex 1 week ago
@FubarLikeYou as i said, people couldn't explain things well. for the person who wrote it, a day could have been figuratively speaking for 10 million years. to them, a day could have been a certain ERA of time. like i said, stop taking such an old, corrupt piece of writing so literally. i'm christian but i don't take the bible as literally as atheists do or obsessed christians. you need to grow up and be logical about it. people had no education when it was written.
xoalaraxoxo 4 days ago
@FubarLikeYou back then, people didn't have science. they didn't understand things, couldn't reason logically. for example, "demons" were how people explained others that had disabilities or mental issues. they had no psychology, only faith. so they made things up. making someone out of their rib, is probably figuratively speaking for some other process. the point of the bible is not to take it so literally; just look at the morals of the stories...
xoalaraxoxo 4 days ago
@sacklome you proved my point. absolutely we can work out when our senses are wrong. if we had simply evolved to become the best survival machine then again, our reason would allow us, not to see the truth, but to see whatever was needed for survival. if we came about through "natural selection", (a process that values survival above all things) then at our very core of being we are just animals that can only seek to survive. In reality, this is simply not what we observe.
fozidw 1 week ago
why so many dislikes? idiotic christians?
jfusion10 2 weeks ago
You need to be pretty fucking stupid to believe in God.
crashnburn753 2 weeks ago
@crashnburn753 Way to be completely useless in light of the ongoing conversation.
europeanbamf 1 week ago
Therefore, we cannot trust our senses and reason to show us that Evolution or Atheism are true! If Atheism and (unguided) Evolution are both true, then you wouldn't ever know because you wouldn't be able to trust yourself to judge their truth value! So Evolution guided by a Creator so much more sense than unguided evolution, because if unguided evolution were true, then we couldn't even say it made any "sense." (sorry for 4 posts in a row...)
fozidw 2 weeks ago
@fozidw Not really. You can work out when you're senses are wrong (And they are sometimes) through reasoning. We do see through a filter that promotes survival, subtle things are put at the back of your mind and suppressed by your sense of self and stimuli filters. Drugs like LSD and Psilocin inhibit these 'suppresses'. Now they do other things aswell, causing hallucinations and such, but they also bring these subtle things to life, like implied speech in conversation and such.
Sacklome 1 week ago
Also, The Theory of Evolution is actually MORE compatible with I.D. than Atheism! (or whatever you want to make the opponent of ID) Think about this: If our senses and mind evolved from the process described as "Natural Selection," then by definition, they evolved to help us survive. If our senses and mind evolved to help us survive, then they would only show us what we need to see to survive. (We don't necessarily survive be seeing the truth, but by seeing what we need to see to survive.)
fozidw 2 weeks ago
And furthermore, the Theory of Evolution/Natural Selection has nothing to do with there being a creator. This theory deals with the origin of the diversity of life. And not even that, it simply states that life could start from simple organisms and "evolve" into more complex organisms by "natural selection" (think: survival of the fittest). Better organisms survive, worse ones/ones less suited to the environment die off.
fozidw 2 weeks ago
I would just like to point out that the Theory of Intelligent Design doesn't have anything to do with God or theology. It just simply states that what we see in this world can only have been created by an intelligent being. It could be an alien, could be a god, could be something we haven't we thought of yet.
fozidw 2 weeks ago
i did not come from monkeys peace
drkenun 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
dmateiovici 2 weeks ago
@drkenun Your ancestors did
gazzthompson 2 weeks ago
@drkenun that's true, but your ancestors did.
jfusion10 2 weeks ago
@jfusion10 yh but like my fingers are human and my toes are human so how can they be apes toes and finger lol see wat i meen darwin is stoupid lol
drkenun 1 week ago
@drkenun I don't see what you mean. Human toes are modified ape toes. Human fingers are modified ape fingers. If you are ever under the impression that one of the greatest minds of all time is "stoupid" then you clearly don't understand. (I know you are being sarcastic, just putting this out to the dumbasses who actually think that way). Seems we both share common interests with music and DurhamrockerZ ;)
jfusion10 1 week ago
@jfusion10 yh but I HAVE A PANCREASE, AND PANCREASEES ARE NOT REAL SO THATS WRONG
(wanna jam sometime?)
drkenun 1 week ago
He's walking on eggshells throughout this entire video, lol.
rfrantzt 2 weeks ago 12
@rfrantzt what do u mean by that? guys imm so confused why does this have so many dislikes pls explain
xoalaraxoxo 4 days ago
I know were I came from ,I know what i live for... and I know were I'm going to. The truth is a person, not what people think it might be ....
dmateiovici 2 weeks ago
I think the point that should be made here is what an amazing artist Salman is!
MetalMilitia072583 3 weeks ago 6
I would like to see Khan explain the Mandelbrot set
KillerWhaleSFl 3 weeks ago
Open minds people? Just learn both, and believe what you want. However, if you were to ask me. EVOLUTION explains REALITY far better than religion and intelligent design can.
georgiafbi 3 weeks ago
So basically what is intelligently designed is a process to generate new life forms to adapt to changing conditions.
Arxces 3 weeks ago
dont blame religion for the dislikes maybe its just idiots
TechN9ician2159 3 weeks ago
You should have avoid arguing with creationism and just explained evolution
briangunn21 4 weeks ago in playlist Más vídeos de khanacademy
Comment removed
Crazyfor2PM 1 month ago
I personally believe a higher being (I dont like to say "him" or "her") caused evolution. I'm saying it started the process from when it created the first organism not that it crafts every step in the process.
prime465 1 month ago
Comment removed
ArtifexReel 1 month ago
@ArtifexReel
I assume you mean living things as opposed to "things". You see, Some things really do last forever and cannot be created nor destroyed for example energy (look up the first law of thermodynamics.) The reason why we all must die is simple, to return vital nutrient to the soil. What would happen if this natural cycle could never occur and living thing had much longer life spans? Plants would begin to fail leading to the extinction herbivores and carnivores due to interdependence.
Grumpy587 4 weeks ago
@ArtifexReel
And just to clarify evolution only applies to living things, not "our planet."
Grumpy587 4 weeks ago
@ArtifexReel the earth will exist whether global warming occurs or not, so even disregarding the fact that it isn't a biological organism that can be modified by natural selection, it has no need to adapt to global warming. additionally houses collapse because they are not made of self replicating cells, the energy that keeps a house together comes from us, and we get our energy from the sun. also we as a species aren't dying so we have done quite well at avoiding extinction.
twiistaaa 3 weeks ago
@ArtifexReel There isn't a 'direction' for evolution. If a species lives in a changing environment and doesn't have enough variation between individuals to allow some of them to survive and go on to reproduce, they become extinct. There isn't an 'end point' to evolution where an organism has reached a perfect form, that's called eugenics.
JamieBN 3 weeks ago in playlist Biology
@ArtifexReel We are nothing, the planet will recover with or without us. It will just take time. Afterall the earth has had habital life for billions of years. We have barely been here for a couple 100,000 years.
Why would a god CREATE something to deteriorate and die? Evolution chooses an adaptation that is best suited to its environment (strongest) and allows them to reproduce, those which are not die. It says nothing about what happens AFTER their reproductive cycle.
geetarwanabe 3 weeks ago
Just because there are imperfections in this world doesn't mean we lack a perfect God :) One day, some of us will have perfect bodies! Rather, one should ask the question, how could something so intricate and detailed, something so complex we haven't even begun to understand it all, come about by something that just kind of.. happened? The chances of it happening are like sitting a million monkeys in front of keyboards and seeing if just one of them types out the whole book of Genesis! :)
ArtifexReel 1 month ago
Saying harsh things does not change facts; Sal is an educator and as such he should be able to do so with being insulted. He never said that you had to agree with him, as it is his right to express his views based on his mindset and his style of teaching. To believe or disbelieve in God is a personal choice. If you believe in God and disagree with ID design it is your choice. If I believe in ID it is my choice, no need to demean me because I don't think like you or believe in what you believe.
Darien3954 1 month ago
@Darien3954 Actually I think it's perfectly reasonable to demean people for there believes, I'd demean people for believing that murder is right, people that have delusions of grandeur and people that in general, are wrong. This is how progress works, argue your point. Only intellectual babies would mind be bothered by this.
Sacklome 1 week ago
Cat's are not able too see details as good as a human eye. They are better suited to notice motion.
cyberyamazaki 1 month ago
religion is for insecure, self-centered retards.
cyberyamazaki 1 month ago 2
any shape / equation can be substituted for z. This makes my business model application for the
Mandelbrot set complicated.
MorrisseyRT 1 month ago
Evolution has nothing to do with religion. Anyone who says otherwise is not qualified to discuss this topic.
Winstonsicle 1 month ago
evolution will get rid of creationists
ThaFacka 1 month ago
It probably got votebotted down by creationists, they seem to do this to videos with evolution content.
deffan84 1 month ago
khanacademy? 642 dislikes?
parthkohli99 1 month ago
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"
IllustriousEvent 1 month ago
@IllustriousEvent hmm, I'm religious and I find this offensive.
TheConnorian 1 month ago in playlist Biology
@IllustriousEvent
Wow, best quote I've seen in a long time
hippoyell 1 month ago
How many times did he say "There is no god"? None. How many times did he say "There is a God"? The same, none. That wasn't the purpose of the video. He said several times that he wasn't taking sides. He made great points on both sides, so quit flaming. If you don't like it, make a better video.
UberDeepG 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I find the video a bit confusing. Until the 6th minute I understood only "There are different types of eyes and there are people who believe in God." The best part for me are the fractals :) Very interesting!
moligru 1 month ago
Comment removed
moligru 1 month ago
goshhh Ima derr christian derr I like derr believe in god derrrrr.
That is what every christian sounds like to me. Thumbs up or like the video if you agree.
ArmandoSMetallica 1 month ago
I'm a Christian but I believe evolution happened. Not species-to-species though. I mean look at a dog. I'm sure God didn't create all of the thousands of types of the same species, right? I mean based on the habitat, the creature adapts.I believe after Noah put all of the basic, first, forms of the animals on and off the Ark is when evolution occured. Once again I'm talking about species micro-evo. If you don't get what I'm talking about go to the "Natural Selection and the Owl Butterfly" video.
DephkonOne 1 month ago
@DephkonOne I'm afraid i struggle to be convinced that all just two members of each species, would be able to populate the entire earth to the point that there are trillions of individual organisms.
Also, obvious question but what did the first lion do to get enough food to survive its pregnancy? Wipe out entire species by eating one gazzelle?
wedgeh05 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why don't we have an eye at the back of the head , cos is so needed ! Where was the natural selsection to select that for us ?
MrCobra811 1 month ago
It's not the best eye.. it's the best package.. best thought skills.. etc..
And why is it called natural selection? It should be called God's selection.. God creates the circumstances over which the selection occurs...
amtahboub 1 month ago in playlist Biology
@amtahboub how about god using natural processes.
halflifeproductionz 1 month ago
@amtahboub That's your choice. And that comment is so dumb, even though god creates(in YOUR opinion) everything there are other ones who think a little bit wider(try it!) so don't believe in god so why it should be called god's selection?
ThePenahi 1 month ago
@amtahboub lol why call it that, that sound dumb derrr lol noob.
ArmandoSMetallica 1 month ago
@amtahboub Because it can be explained completely without sticking God in there. And it's not the best package. there are things that don't make sense. Like why veins go over the surface of the eye when it would make much more sense for them to go behind and not create blind spots.
epicmonkee 2 weeks ago
What is the image at the top of the screen at 4:06???
gooberpal 1 month ago
@gooberpal Watch the rest of the video. It's a picture of the Mandelbrot Set.
linkfan22 1 month ago
wow I've never seen so many dislikes on any of Sal's videos. Although, it is a controversial subject, viewers should rate the quality of Sal's presentation and his explanation of the science, not judge based on a personal bias.
jumb0mumb0 1 month ago in playlist Biology
Oh I can't he's going here.
I'm thrilled. :)
8644371 2 months ago
I wouldn't really say that these arguments would last very long in a serious debate, but I'll just point some basics if you'll make a new video about this subject.
1. No one has claimed that the human eye is the supreme.
2. Pointing out the diseases and such, similar to Ad hominem fallacies, has nothing to do with the matter (design/no design).
3. Complexity does not imply design. However, specified complexity, do. Fractals are complex, but are not specified.
I really like your channel. :)
PirateXzibit 2 months ago
@PirateXzibit This video discusses intelligent design, not merely any old design. All 3 of your points are only valid if someone was criticizing non-intelligent design, but no one seriously represents that position anyway.
vicksoma 2 months ago
Comment removed
Duckdo0m 2 months ago
FUCK YOU SAL KHAN
FUCK YOU MAN
datbrayciss 2 months ago
Who came up with these "Basic/elegant ideas" ?
I Belive in God, but I can't deny evulotion - that's just HOW the creation works..
Intelligent design and evoultion shouldn't be pitted against eachother.
Duckdo0m 2 months ago 2
@Duckdo0m Umm, Intelligent Design has been debunked and Evolution has been proven to be a fact....
IcarusTouma 2 months ago
@IcarusTouma You are right about evolution, but how can you debunk God? To make that statement you would claim to be an allseeing God yourself = paradox... When it comes down to the existence of the universe and everything, one can only think in terms of philosophy. I, personally, can only belive in what appears most probable - as should everyone.
Duckdo0m 2 months ago
@Duckdo0m No, philosophy is NOT going to help you solve this mystery. You need empirical scientific proof...Now we know that abiogenesis is possible, evolution is a fact, we don't know what happened during the singularity of the Big Bang, but we can't assert that a "god" created it without scientific evidence.
IcarusTouma 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IcarusTouma The hypothesis that one should ONLY belive in what has been scientifically proven, is in itself a philosophy. Now, science helps us understand our world based on what we can see and study. Beyond that we need a bigger picture, a different perspective (or new methods). My point being: billions of people belive in a God because they have good reasons for it! Not necessarily scientific proof. You belive your parents love you, don't you?
Duckdo0m 2 months ago
@Duckdo0m People believe in god because thay were indoctrinated.
MidMASS2 1 month ago
@Duckdo0m The burden of proof is on you. I could say that there is a planet way out there in the galaxy with unicorns on it. You wouldn't be able to prove it doesn't exist. Just because I can't prove God doesn't exist doesn't make him any more real than those unicorns.
epicmonkee 2 weeks ago
@epicmonkee One thing that seems often neglected in these discussions is that IF God exists, and the opposite can not be proven, He should very, very much be taken seriously. That being said; a belief in God is not nearly as unrealistic or ill-founded as a belief in space-unicorns (obviously). My point is quite simple: I belive in God because it makes sense to me, in many ways. There are strong apologetic arguments, historical evidence and testamonies that speak for Christianity.
Duckdo0m 2 weeks ago
@Duckdo0m Except that in any known religion, (Notably Christianity) there is direct mention of creating things like people and animals outright. Not to mention the time frames given being way off. If there is a creator, he isn't one we know anything about, or will ever it seems. So just live without it.
Castlevaniac1989 3 weeks ago
Thank You SOO much as a mathematical mind to add to this video the Mandelbrot Set. This is a beautiful explanation of the juxtaposed simplicity and complexity of physiology and life.! This metaphorically fulfills my questions about life.
patkap41 2 months ago
Disagree with your comment on our needing to be humble. Literally for all intents and purposes, our perspective is all we truly own in this universe. We are everything to ourselves. We do indeed use material objects (including other humans) to fulfill our desires, and in turn to improve our happiness. However it is not truly ours from the perspective of an objective universe. Our consciousness is. Being 'humble' is a denial of self-esteem, it's kind of sickening.
DomeSwag 2 months ago
ITT: Stupid religious people who didn't watch the video.
SineFractal 2 months ago 25
lol, everybody's mad.
God1is1not1real 2 months ago
Im a hardcore scientist, my best friends family owns a church and I am a strong believer in Christianity. CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!?!?
Bladenavor 2 months ago
@Bladenavor We do get along, there are small groups of ignorant people from both sides that makes all the fuzz. Science and religion has gone side by side without any problem for ages until now.
eddiemc7 2 months ago
@eddiemc7
LOL
Phaze252 2 months ago
@eddiemc7 "Science and religion has gone side by side without any problem for ages until now." WHAT? First of all, religion has always been authoritarian and it prohibited progress of science...
IcarusTouma 2 months ago
@IcarusTouma I was trolling, well at least I tried =/. But I guess what I really was trying to do was implying that religion and science has always gone side by side as totally different factions without trying to implement their "theories" into the other. So prohibition and conflicts yes, People trying to explain our origins using math together with the divine and creating a new field of science, NO.
eddiemc7 2 months ago
@eddiemc7 My bad then..
IcarusTouma 2 months ago
@Bladenavor People like you and me could probably get along fine, but the more zealous of the bunch might start fighting to do things to the education system that could spark conflict.
Protoborn 2 months ago
Saul is much more PC than I am. He is trying to say the ID folks are stupid to have not recognized Darwins own ideas as being the best notion of ID, and used as a more elegant argument for their own position.
weisenhm 2 months ago
My only problem with the IDesigners is that it`s so obvious that it's not about the science. These people don't care about adaptive radiation, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium, etc. In fact, it was NEVER about the science. It has always been the supposed "negative implications" of the seemingly innocent theory of evolution on kids and faith and church attendance--you name it. These are the reasons they oppose it. If they weren't, they'd be attacking things like the atomic theory as well.
TheYipedo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not trying to tell you God doesn't exist, but I do ;)
CBMaster2 3 months ago
Seeing the ratio of dislikes and likes makes me dislike creationists, though i still like khan like i like to dislike creationists.
FcK2420 3 months ago
How has this video received as many dislikes as likes? Has the world been filled with idiots?
Natural Selection doesn't prove or disprove god/religion, its merely a scientific method to try and explain how evolution takes place. If you don't like that notion please go read your bible some more and leave the biology/science to the big kids
Xenocidemetal 3 months ago 68
Personally evolution is the argument I would use for the existence of a god. you start with a microbe then through random events its offspring get better relative to its environment. if you set the environment as a constant on a graph at 1 on the x axis and the y axis was time you'd have an curve asymptotic to 1. So after infinite time you would have one being that is, relative to its environment perfect. In life only things that are certain are that you exist and that you have an environment.
petscouser09 3 months ago
Salman Khan! You make Sense!
efey71alj 3 months ago
It's so funny that you americans still talk about intelligent design as if it was really a thing. And as if there was any doubt about evolution and science. The developed world laughs at you. And at the same time stares silently in horrified disbelief.
Even our christians seem to find the antics of yours ridiculous,
But thanks for the effort though, Khanacademy.
DokDicer 3 months ago 4
@DokDicer lol, you are the idiot, its obvious your stupid evoloution doesnt mean anything lol RANDOM... GOD CREATED US AND WE ARE PERFECT. We are clearly superior to all otehr animals. unfortunatley only us americans understand that whil you domb europeans and asian and shit dont even know simple math and science. intelligent design is the most important understanding. thats why einstein and all good american scientists where religious intelligent design adovactes. dumb ass rest of the world...
karim3343 3 months ago
@karim3343 Please, as a patriotic American, don't respond to people insulting them, especially calling them "domb". Einstein was German born by the way. Europeans and Asians are just as smart as Americans, you have the dipshits, then you have the geniuses. Also, "all good american scientists" were not "religious intelligent design adovactes". Please, don't insult yourself by trying to represent the American people on YouTube. Also, go back to 3rd grade English please.
Grassmonky25 3 months ago 4
@karim3343 Haha... you're cute. In a pathetic way.
DokDicer 3 months ago
@DokDicer Im a pretty good troll right LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL
I am an atheist and I am laughing my ass off at these arrogant and ignorant Americans. Did you know they have a museum for intelligent design/creation lool
karim3343 3 months ago
@karim3343 Either you trolled me, or you metatrolled me. Well played, Sir. ;)
DokDicer 3 months ago
@karim3343 I did not understand a single sentence you typed...
TheGamedogleader 3 months ago in playlist Biology
@TheGamedogleader Monkay BALLS IN MA MOUTH BITCH
karim3343 3 months ago
@karim3343 Simple minded thinking you have there..
NewOrleansboii 1 month ago
@NewOrleansboii MONKAY BALLS IN MA MOUTH BITCH
karim3343 1 month ago
Evolution > Intelligent design. Notice the full stop.
shamoil4444 3 months ago
+evolution +"we don't know" = 34,900,000
teddytarp 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mutations are Random
The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.
Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals
teddytarp 3 months ago
Comment removed
teddytarp 3 months ago in playlist THE UNANSWERED QUESTION
I consider it a high disrespect to dislike this video. Appreciate the objective view science presents or take your subjective perspective elsewhere.
PinnealGlan 3 months ago
THE UNANSWERED QUESTION: We're told that evolution is fueled with random mutations some of which survive by giving a survival advantage. We're also told that complex, image-forming eyes evolved 50-100 separate times and use many of the same proteins and genetic toolkits. How can random mutations produce obviously non-random results?
teddytarp 3 months ago
@teddytarp This is due to convergent evolution and the hox genes. Body segments are controlled only by a few selected genes named the hox genes which are apparently the same in fruit flies and mice. To the point that in one research, a fruit fly grew an eye even though its gene for making eyes was removed and replace by the mice version of the same gene. We came from a common ancestor with the same body plan, so it makes sense that we'd still be using the same genes to control the diff. segments
TheYipedo 3 months ago
@TheYipedo hmmm...you're saying that the genetic tool kits and genes for the proteins, the SAME in 50 to 100 separate lines of evolution for the complex image forming eye, was present in a very early common ancestor of all? No, you're saying the hox genes control the segments, but I think my question involves the segments themselves. If complex image forming eyes evolved separately that often, wouldn't the gene info have to be produced by mutations that often?
teddytarp 2 months ago
@teddytarp Could you reference where you are getting this info that there are 50 to 100 convergently evolved eyes using the same proteins or machinery that evolved independently? I don't think so.
weisenhm 2 months ago
@weisenhm ^ Haszprunar (1995). "The mollusca: Coelomate turbellarians or mesenchymate annelids?". In Taylor. Origin and evolutionary radiation of the Mollusca : centenary symposium of the Malacological Society of London. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-854980-6.
teddytarp 2 months ago
@teddytarp yipedo provides the most likely answer to your issue. Protiens are like toolkits to build machines. Or rather, protein domains are the toolkits. They are swapped, shared, conserved, and diverged to do both a variety of tasks, or the same tasks, or similar tasks with novel functions. There is nothing shocking or inconsistent in your reference with the idea of evolution by natural selection. The basic building blocks of nervous systems (ion channels) were characterized in mollusk axons.
weisenhm 2 months ago
@teddytarp Scientists are still debating about it. One scientist named Walter Gehring suggested, for example, that light-sensitive organs or eyes evolved only once in the evolutionary history of life and were subsequently modified as we go down the line (the pax-6 gene in humans, mice and fruit flies are very similar). But then again, complex organs can evolve multiple times, just like how wings evolved 4 times in the evolutionary history of life.
TheYipedo 2 months ago
@teddytarp Moreover, wiki (where you got the question) also provides the answer. Light-sensitive patches probably evolved first and then independently modified by creatures to make eyes. Yes, that's not impossible. I mean, if ichthyosauri, dolphins and sharks achieved the same look despite sharing extremely different evolutionary paths, then it's not too wild to think that organisms would've evolved an organ given that they already have the necessary rudimentary parts (light-sensitive patches).
TheYipedo 2 months ago
@TheYipedo I must say you are quite accomplished at imagining evolutionary pathways. You fill in the blanks as well as any I've seen. But what I was trying to imagine was how you end up with the same results (the same proteins and genetic toolkits) 50 to 100 separate times when you have to use random mutations to do it. I mean if your roulette table at Vagas did that, what would you say?
teddytarp 2 months ago
@teddytarp Firstly, please explain what you mean by "imagining evolutionary pathways." I was giving you an analogy of creatures with analogous structures despite being extremely different. Also as I mentioned, certain parts of the eye such as light-sensitive visual pigments likely share a common ancestry. It is only a matter of time for such an advantageous trait such as an eye to evolve after acquiring the necessary baggage to build it. And time we have indeed, in the form of millions of years.
TheYipedo 2 months ago
@teddytarp Besides, if the fact that we arose from non-living compounds has happened at least once (obviously, or we wouldn't be alive), then how hard is it to imagine a set of genes being assembled to form complex eyes 50 to 100 times knowing that these mutations would've been heavily selected for? Not to mention that the necessary toolkit (proteins and visible pigment) were already available to each and every organism that evolved them?
TheYipedo 2 months ago
@teddytarp Cool story bro
rarmst2 2 months ago
He almost nailed it there, but then he let it slip through his finger. He get's it, ID is basically saying 'I can't believe this came from random processes' and 'therefore a designer/God did it... but fails to identify it as Argument from Incredulity: 'I can't believe it, therefore it isn't true'.
Plus, evolution ISN'T random. Mutation is, but natural selection, the driving pressure is deterministic, it's the opposite of random. ID is misrepresentation of evolution and preferential indulgence.
KentRigeI 3 months ago
@KentRigeI He is purposely avoiding pointing out the flaws in ID because anyone who supports ID wouldn't accept them anyway. This video is basically to show that the most profound version of ID is in fact, ironically, evolution by natural selection. Persuasion isn't just about making good arguments, it's an art form that needs to take into account the psychological state of the person who is receiving the message. That's what he's doing here.
vicksoma 3 months ago
Intelligent Design is NOT science, it is merely creationism in lab coat. I don't understand why there are so many dislikes, he kept saying that he wasn't trying to offend anyone. This is science, and that is what he is teaching. If you don't like it, then gtfo.
adisa091 3 months ago
I rember this was the first video i ever saw from khanacademy. very glad i found khan.
86Ivar 3 months ago
Did you ppl here about the bombing in the magazine store thing??? Religion is crazy!!!
INMATE2468 3 months ago
Sal is a muslim! but not very religious; but I'm guessing not a very religious one..
GollaGandaLova 3 months ago
@GollaGandaLova You shouldn't claim people to be something they haven't said themselves. This is Sal's description of his religion taken from his website:
"If you believe in trying to make the best of the finite number of years we have on this planet (while not making it any worse for anyone else), think that pride and self-righteousness are the cause of most conflict and negativity, and are humbled by the vastness and mystery of the Universe, then I'm the same religion as you."
vicksoma