If something created us and went away why would we continue to worship it? Or if it had no consciousness why would we worship it? I don't really see any point in Deism.
This show is at its weakest when the hosts are put on the spot to explain scientific concepts in which they're not schooled. It's much better when they keep things philosophical.
Unfortunately this host has wrong idea about evolution.
it really works on individual level not on groups.
and in case with frogs and puffer fish it is side effect of another adaptations. that make these animals resistant to some poison which they receive with food infections.
I don't know any animal which specifically produces poison just for sake of being toxic.
it if was the case it would be beneficial to stop producing poison and conserve resources.
@deltaxcd Do you know of plants which produce a poison for the sake of being toxic?
It does work on groups, not individuals. Also, not all traits are passed on due to them being advantageous to the creature. Though you probably know this.
In theory it is impossible if poison is burden for individual and does not give any advantage against others in his group it will be pressured to stop producing that.
Evolution cannot work on groups because that exactly opposite of how it works.
If traits are not advantageous that creature will be less successful and it will be eliminated.
@deltaxcd That's not exactly how evolution happens, nor is it the only way traits are passed on. Some traits are not passed on due to their presence being advantageous. If you aren't aware of this, I may be able to suggest a search term.
Evolution does not work on groups - it happens to them. Individuals do not evolve, and an animal will not just adapt due to pressure. Many species are endangered and have become extinct, which is evidence of that fact.
maybe it would be better for you to search how evolution does NOT work on groups.?
this is theoretically impossible unless group itself is object of evolution.
it would be illogical to even try to explain that evolution can influence individual behavior in a way which is harmful for that individual but beneficial for whole group.
@deltaxcd Evolution does not work. It happens. It doesn't happen for the group's benefit every time. Evolution is not just passing on advantageous traits to offspring. You are oversimplifying.
Yes, evolution is visible on the whole group but it is driven by individual mutations that make individuals more competitive against other members of same group.
There is nothing to oversimplify because it is extremely simple to start with.
@deltaxcd Evolution is NOT driven by mutations that make individuals more competitive.
Firstly, evolution can lead to extinct species. It's not that all species which are alive have evolved, and the ones which are extinct failed to do so.
Secondly, not all traits are present merely due to them giving an advantage.
You have evolutionary theory confused with evolution by natural selection. Now, go do some research!
thorns are useful because it makes individual rose unattractive to those who may eat it.
thorns of individual rose have no effect on survival of other roses. If some mutant rose without thorns will appear, it has higher chances to be eaten so that trait will be eliminated over time.
Poison works in different way than thorns, because it does not protect specific individual, so it does not provide any advantage. In contrast bad taste is useful.
@deltaxcd Regadless of the function of thorns, regardless of the species which are toxic as a harmless side effect of anther function - evolution is more complicated than you had stated. It isn't just passing advantageous traits onto offspring. That is only natural selection.
What about cane toads, then? Is them being toxic just a side effect of another function, or is it an advantage to be toxic to other animals?
I newer said that evolution has anything to do with passing advantageous traits onto offspring.
O think cane toads poison has mostly deterring purpose because it tastes terrible and predator just drops the toad. It is not supposed to be deadly but it happens to be so by accident.
Puffer fish poison is tasteless so it evolved as side effect of adaptation to bacterial toxins while it has no effect on host fish.
@deltaxcd '... traits exist because they had advantage over other traits in same situations.' You did actually state that evolution has to do with passing advantageous traits onto offspring. 'If traits are not advantageous that creature will be less successful and it will be eliminated.'
It seems like hypocrisy, you ask for proof of my statements 'intead of speaking [my] opinion...' and then you say cane toads are deadly by accident?
Look at the spread of cane toads. Toxicity IS advantageous.
I have no issues with Deism as long as the person does not present theism traits into the story. I think deism is a theory but not probable. There are indeed some things out there that make you scratch your head when you think about evolution. I have answered this myself by saying that all life is related, and life somehow knows, to a certain extent, what it wants.
There are tons of poisonous plants and we humans learned, the hard way most likely, how to avoid eating them. Thousands of people probably died during this learning curve. People actually believed tomatoes were poisonous until the 1800s.
I would say that if evolution per se were shown false, i.e., life on Earth could not evolve, nor could an intelligence capable of creating it naturally evolve elsewhere, it would be evidence of something well outside our uniform understanding of natural law, and some religious myths might well become viable hypotheses, even though it would require further study.
@IoEstasCedonta - That is false because religions' views still need to meet their burden of proof. Talking about probabilities is much more efficient than talking about possibilities because there are infinite possibilities.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
I think I see what the caller is saying though, he's saying "how did it start?". The first frog with the mutation. If it's only a benefit for the group, why is that trait selected in that individual? Blind luck the first few generations? Well, not that of all the coincidences in the universe, that's not a big one, but it does side step evolution.
Of course, it just side steps evolution, doesn't refute it in any way.
...until there are so many damn yellow frogs, that some predator says, hey, we should figure out how we can eat these things.... more evolution... anyway...
This guy forgot that poison dart frogs have bright skin coloration to warn predators that they are poisonous. That is evolution right there. Poison sets an example, but bright coloration prevents need for an example, Others can have either just poison (cane toad) or just bright coloration (kingsnake), but having both poison and coloration improves survival greatly.
Once word gets around that something is good then people tend to do it. If this didn't happen, people would never do drugs after being misinformed by police and government. It's natures way of seperating the real dangers from the psychological fears you may have around the subject.
@GothicWiccan13 of course, this is assuming that the poison is already potent enough to kill off larger predators and not just parasites like bangbangbangbang said, it could have started off with much more gradual effects, maybe irritate the predator or such. But this is the more basic framework to explain.
@GothicWiccan13 also, the predator-prey cycle has been constant up to this point, the population of predators would not increase because of the poisonous frog, it would probably stay the same. Now after the poisonous frogs are slightly larger in quantity, eating those would kill off the predators that ate it. So those that didnt eat it survive, with time, those that did survive would have the gene not ot eat the poisonous frog because those with the genes that did eat the frog died out over time
@GothicWiccan13 we assume that these poisonous frogs did reproduce just like regular frogs (with regular frogs, with the poisonous gene being dominant), and some of them were eaten as well as some of the less protected frogs were eaten. Overtime, the poisonous frogs would increase in frequency while the less protected frogs would die out. Eventually, either one dies out or they become two separate species due to incompatibility in genetics.
@GothicWiccan13 pardon my lack of expertise in the field, i will explain in a very simplistic fashion which is to my knowledge of logic. Frogs that develop poison, would be assumed to have an advantage over the less protected frogs. So through time, those less protected frogs will die out, and the genetic frequency of these alleles will increase. Now, you are assuming that the first frog with the poison was eaten by the predator, that would be not be the case.
A shame that Matt and Martin got the science wrong on this one. It is really quite simple: If a predator eats a poisonous frog, it will get very sick. In some cases, the poison is released so quickly the prey will be spat out immediately. This way, the predator will remember to avoid this species in the future if the prey is distinctively colored. Experiments have shown that it often takes only a single encounter with a toxic prey species for a predator to learn to avoid it.
@Amphioxys Could you explain what M & M said that was different from what you say, and how it was different? Is it the "sure, some yellow frogs will die despite being poisonous" part?
@DuhIdiot1 Martin said that natural selection acts between populations, which is wrong. NS will always work between individuals, but in this case, apparently, kin selection is sufficient.
@rubberbaby00 How did predators learn to distinguish the first poisonous frogs from non's except by eating or trying to eat yellow frogs and either getting sick or watching their conspecifics die or get sick? If that was how they learned, then how else could the frogs' evolution have happened except to the population of frogs who got reduced predation through the martyrdom of their brethren?
You're right, "Natural Selection" does not take place among populations. But Matt is making the error that populations are the ones evolving, not the individuals within the populations.
@rubberbaby00 Whoa, now you're definitely straying way out into left field. Individuals do not evolve. You're born with a set of genes and you die with them. Only a population can undergo changes in allele frequencies.
« Matt is making the error that populations are the ones evolving »
I'm sorry, I did not hear Matt say that individuals evolve. Can you provide the minute:second where Matt says that indidivuals rather than populations evolve?
Okay, now I can't even tell if you are agreeing with me or not.
Matts example was to compare "two different species of frog" in which one out competes the other because of the poison. This is a common fallacy because it isn't the species which compete, its the individuals.
The poison frog problem is easily solved if you consider the co-evolution of the frog with the predator.
The entire species does not reproduce itself with variation and undergo natural selection as a whole.
Frogs evolve variation in color for sexual selection,
Some frogs develop poison harmful to some predators, but not to the frog, this does not spread to the entire species as it cannot harm or benefit the frogs.
A predator evolves who can see or identify the poison frog.
Natural Selection favors the acute predator.
Natural Selection favors the poison frogs with identifiable markings as the non-poison frogs are quickly eaten.
Creationists are so f**king stupid that they can't comprehend anything longer than a few thousand years and groups of more than a few hundred individuals. You people think so small, no wonder you are the minority in the top universities!
I don't like their frog analogy. Its not so much that other animals look at the frogs that cause death and decide not to eat them, it's more that the animals that eat the poisonous frogs die and don't continue their lineage (so less predators for the rest of the poisonous frogs).
The poison frogs survive better because the animals that like to eat them die and then there is nothing to eat them.
Example, every-time a enemy attacks your town somebody runs up to them with a body-bomb and detonates. The individual doesn't survive but the enemies aren't too successful at killing off your town.
I don't know why no one knows this but me (maybe I was just paying attention in biology class) but an often true rule in nature: Bright Colors = Poison.
uh, i like the atheist expierience but guys, this is not how it happened. The animals that eat poisionus frogs died, and INSTINKT (not ideas or understanding) kept those animals from continuin to eat that type of frog.
@IrelandRaven No, of course not LOL. It isnt buildt into us, its evolved into us. My view on how it happened is correct. Instinkt wasnt IN the FIRST animal. And its possible to create instinkts. Not eover one or two generations, but over millions of years.
@IrelandRaven THANK YOU! Ive been trying to explain this to people, but I end up getting so negative comments they remove my comments. Matt was wrong on this one, but only a tiny aspect of evolution. On his philosophy and morality he is a legend, but I just wanted to clarify a small bit of biology.
A better explanation: If one frog happened to have a mutation that made him poisonous and DIDN'T happen to get eaten before he reproduced, then his offspring also might have it. Then lets say one of the newly poisonous frogs gets eaten by a snake. The snake DIES. There's now one less predator in the local vicinity of this particular frog population, allowing them to survive longer and propagate the poison gene more. The individuals don't have an advantage, but the gene protects the overall group
@JailBreaker903 Many poisonous creatures are brightly colored, and most predators avoid brightly colored prey-- Which is why you have some harmless species that are ALSO brightly colored, some even looking exactly like other toxic species.
@falcoperegrinus82 Not to be confused with NORMAN Batesian mimicry, in which one wears one's dead mother's clothes and speaks in her voice while hacking young women to death with large kitchen knives.
Those that ate the poisonous frogs would die out therefore nature would select predators that did not eat poisonous frogs, therefore increasing the survival rates of these frogs...
what do u think about: although frog poison may not save a frog from being eaten by a predator, apparently frog poison can ward off parasites (and micro-organisms?) that can cause skin disease. this is clearly an evolutionary advantage. it makes sense to me that this could be how it evolved. theres a smooth gradient: if a frog even develops a mild poison i can imagine it would kill some small parasites, then it could evolve a more potent poison and kill a slightly wider range of parasites,etc
thats how poisonous populations combat predation, but you still have to explain how the poison gene gets from one frog to a large % of the population (without any individual benefit) and also how the poison gets to a be potent? there IS an individual benefit to poison, and it can be weak at first. the very first frog has an increased chance of survival if the poison can fend off the tiniest (possibly diseased) parasite. then they can evolve stronger poison and fend off a wider range of animals.
It sound more logical to assume that the frogs live because a predator eats one frog and dies, rather than eating several frogs.. It cuts down on the number of predators so the frogs can reproduce faster than they are eaten..
@GabrielFane In fact, it's fair to ask the question where any diet preferences originated from? Where along the line would the appetite evolve? Did the ones that survived carry the "appetite gene"? How did the organisms figure how to respond? How did their diets become complementary to their biological makeup? Or maybe asking questions and questioning answers is "retarded" to you. Strawmanning on the effects of poison and faith in mutations demonstrates nothing. These are legit questions.
@UC7media I know I'm late to the discussion, but it's very difficult to determine what point you are trying to make, at least to me. If you have legit questions about evolution, I would recommend taking a college course in biology or just do some self-study. Richard Dawkins has some very good books on evolution. It would be very difficult for anyone to educate you on the subject on a youtube forum because of the character limitations etc. Take care
@GabrielFane Does it really have to come to name-calling this far in the game? Everything beyond "poison kills" in this scenario, is assumption. There's much more to a populations life + development than what it becomes programmed NOT to eat. The likelihood of a remarkably specific (and relatively insignificant) change like that occurring on its own is slimmer than slim. "Before, x ate y and died. The x that survived we never see eating y, so they must have evolved that trait." Science?
@GabrielFane And here lies the fallacy that the ones that survive actually learn that aspect of what made them survive i.e. not eating certain frogs. You suppose that the ones that survived had developed the instinct to recognize and avoid. And if you don't suppose this.. well, you still have no argument. The problem with macro-evolution (the grand scheme idea) is not the idea that some survive, it's the idea that survival is the result of AND the cause of adapting at the same time.
First theists tried to brainwash people into believing in a story book version of 'god' who answers prayers and passes judgment.
When that became ridiculous in light of advancing science, they switched the 'god' to a more scientific-sounding esoteric concept, complete with science lingo, in order to sound dignified and legitimate.
When scientific understanding advances even more the next step will inevitably be the total abandonment of 'god' altogether. Patience, my friends.
Why would poisonous frogs have an advantage over non poisonous ones???
Are you a complete IDIOT!?!?!?!?!?..........Maybe to deter predators??? DUUUUHHHHH!!!!
Jesus fucking wept!!! Whenever you hear someone say that evolution "doesn't make sense to them" you KNOW they don't understand sweet fuck all about it!!!
"Could be" is incredibly shaky. And teaching, if it were an evolutionary trend, would need 1) to be learned by the teacher 2) received by the learner 3) find some genetic establishment or environmental pressure in order to simply occur. None of these are given features from single-cell origins. According to this idea it would have taken a long time to learn to teach and a long time to learn TO LEARN. With all these generations dying off, where is the guarantee of gradual gain?
Another evolutionary benefit would be with those predators that for maybe some evolutionary reason didn't find a strange colored frog appealing those that did find the frogs appealing would die and eventually that basic evolutionary trait would become submissive.
evolutions fact. everything that lived doesnt become a fossil, and we still have plenty of fossils to prove evolution, and dna. that aside. we have a tailbone, and some ppl are born with tails. dogs and cats have pads above their feet cuz their legs are still evolving. the reason trex and raptors had little useless arms is cuz they were becoming 2 legged animals. we build resistance to germs, germs build a resistance to drugs. this is evolution that even dumb people can see. theres more proof
This brilliant caller is RIGHT, EVOLUTION does NOT happen!! He is RIGHT and all of the scientists who study evolution are wrong! that means that this caller from norway is smarter than all of the biologists of the world!! he must be BRILLIANT!!
PT 2 .. using the alkaloid as a poison became more common in the frogs gene pool and were also then passed down to future off spring.
Evolution works on a genetic level. Individuals may develop a genetic mutation that may benefit the species as a whole by being passed through generations in their genes. This then obviously could benefit the group as a whole if like poisonous frogs a defence mechanism has evolved.. etc.
PT1 Over time the frogs developed a resistance to eating the alkaloids from the ant's. Clearly a lot of frogs over time died as a result of eating them but the frogs that survived had a stronger resistance to the alkaloids and so the genes for alkaloid resistance became more common in the frogs gene pool and were therefore passed on to future offspring. Then frog's that developed a capability to use the alkaloid as a poison became more common as the ones that didn't died. Again, the gene for..
The presupposition that the frog has to be eaten for the poison to be an effective means of selection is also not necessarily true. Evolution would also favor predators who are able to smell the poison and avoid it. Those predators are more likely to eat the non-poisonous frogs, increasing the percentage of frogs carrying the mutation. Conversely, the population of predators who are unable to detect the poison is likely to decrease as they are more likely to ingest poisonous frogs and die.
- "Evoluition works on the individual, and not groups."
An individual can't evolve into something else. An individual doesn't even have control over how it or its own species evolves. The changes take place in the population over a period that spans multiple generations. Whatever is left by that time is what the species has evolved into.
@TheAtheistExperience Oh sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the poisonous frog is poisonous for its own benefit, and not the benefit of other frogs as far as I know.
Self sacrifice is not very common in nature, but does still happen admittedly. it happens when the sacrifice is for a relative, or a perceived relative.
@markgg1 there's nothing beneficial for the individual to secrete poison, the only benefit that this gives is that once the predator realizes they kill you they will be left alone.
@TheSameDamnGuy hmmm. Im no expert, but I'm almost certain this cant be right. Self Sacrifice behaviour is rare, and can only happen when you sacrifice your genes for the genes of close relatives who share he sam DNA as you, otherwise whats the point? An animal would not lose its DNA by being killed just to protect distant relatives.
Unless it intends to do it for relatives, but as a byproduct dies for other frogs.
@markgg1 If i may help to clear it up, self sacrifice is never implyed this is predation prevention basically. If over time a species developes a defence for predators, that would have taken many many many years and alot of death of said species. And even after the defence is built up it still must be made clear to predators, hey dont eat me ill kill you. So in the long-run picture of this the individual frog is not benifiting from this, the species that the frog is a part of benifits from this.
@TheSameDamnGuy remembering that evolution is the benefit of the individuals genes, not the species.
Natural selection could not work on whole species, it works on individuals.
There are obvious anomalies. Why do humans help people in countries whose genes we don't share and who cant reciprocate.?
Its likely to be a 'mistake'. We are supposed to preserve our own friends and family, but our brains respond to any human being, probably as in our ancients setting we lived with close kin.
@markgg1 You are wrong on so many levels that it's not even funny. Natural selection works on POPULATIONS, NOT individuals! A single species can not evolve on it's own.
You're comparing apples to oranges. First of all, humans are all the SAME species despite the small degrees of genetic differences in the various human races. We have evolved a trait called compassion/empathy which was beneficial to our species and allowed us to survive and pass on this trait as a whole population.
@jossman25 Individuals do evolve on their own. It would be a bit of a coincidence if every member of a species had the same mutation at the same time. The first white rabbit for example, would have been born by a genetic mistake. He would than have had children passing on his white rabbit genes. In snowy conditions, this lineage would survive better and out compete the old brown ones.
@markgg1 yes you are right in saying that the whole 'for the good of the species' is not strictly speaking true. Evolution works at an even lower level than the individual and works on Genes. A gene survives because it does something that makes it's propogation more likely. Sometimes this is making its 'survival machine' < (i.e. animal/plant etc) more likely to survive and sometimes it can just piggyback on some gene combo that already works. That's why about 2/3 of our genome is 'junk'.
Many different mechanisms (i.e. genetic mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow) are responsible for the change in allele frequency of a population; this change in population demographics is what we call evolution. Ignoring epigenetics, individuals don't evolve at all: your rabbit didn't evolve white fur, it inherited it at conception from either its mother, its father, or a mutation of one of its parents' genome. The white rabbit was always white. ;)
@TheAtheistExperience Just to be fair, you can't safely say that an individual doesn't have control over how it's own species evolves. Every individual that reproduces has some influence, and if we wanted to get hypothetical, let's imagine that there was once a King who decreed that only men of royal descent could father offspring for a period of 50 years... for every generation after, that one man's conscious decision restructured the entire gene pool. Just saying, it's possible.
Yeah, I think the slight mistake is where he said that "for an individual, they're just as likely to get eaten". What he should have said would perhaps be "the first time a predator species encounters a poisonous frog, they're just as likely to get eaten".
@gphhawkins but seriously. One member of a population has a new gene variant. he obviously reproduces with someone and than passes on the 'new gene'. After time the new gene will spread via successive generations and out do the old gene (if beneficial).
The environmental pressures work on individuals within a group.
@gphhawkins Altruism for example only can develop to benefit a gene. It probably arises to help people with the same genes, or to give with the intention of getting something in return.
A human helping a poor orphan in Africa is going agaisnt his genes. This must be a 'mistake' of psychology (and thank god its there).
A gene is not interested in species survival, only its own survival.
Saying it cares for a species as a whole is somehow saying the gene has an agenda which is absurd.
@gphhawkins To clarify im not saying helping those who cannot reciprocate or family is a bad thing, Im just explaining that from a gene's point of view it is not helping.
Its likely in a primitive setting we lived in small kin groups, and helping anyone 'human' was in a way beneficial to ourselves. This may have applied to animals as well, such as looking after dogs we can use for our benefit.
I hope we don't evolve away from our compassion over a long period, which is possible.
@Apjooz and that guy sounded like a well-above average intelligence person where i live in north america haha here people are arguing for creationism :O
Evidence for an asshole of a god: Poisonous food. I like Matt's poisonous and non poinsonous frog example. That makes the god a partial asshole to give one a defence and not the others.
I don't think most predators are smart enough to see one of its fellows die and deduce that it was from a certain frog they ate. I think what happens is, in the short term, being poisonous simply reduces the number of predators who feed on the frogs, and in the long term, predators will evolve an instinct to avoid those frogs in the first place (which is why poisonous frogs are often brightly colored I think.)
@LanceDirk: Exactly, and is also the reason why some frogs evolved the bright colors but not the poison; but the predators' instincts are none the wiser. All brightly colored frogs, whether poisonous or not, have a survival advantage now.
@Celephaith Right! For this to work, the color would have had to evolve first to make the frogs distinguishable from the others. This would most likely have been through sexual selection (like peacock's tails). Being highly visible would have created a environmental pressure that enhanced the advantage of being poisonous. Initial poisons would have been weaker, but an upset stomach is also bad and it can be learned within a generation that that frog is bad food.
@leet3lite predators cant pass on knowledge of what frogs to avoid, but they can undergo selection as the predators that like the taste of poisonous frogs are quikly removed from the gene pool as they are dead.
@St00sh13 Its very common for animals to have a 'genetic' fear of other animals. Instinct is a genetically programmed component of our psychology. Pigeons fear the outline of a hawk, humans fear growling and the sight of sharp gnashing teeth (hence their appearance in so many horror movies)
I dont really know why people are being so against me when all I did was correct Matt on a small aspect of evolution. The Selfish Gene theory dismisses group selection, and in my view refutes it completely.
@St00sh13 A group of animals do not evolve together it is about individuals One individual gains a new trait, and if his trait increases reproductive success then his rivals, his trait spreads through the population replacing the old one who die out.
Altruism is not for the good of the species, but for the individual. Helping others means others may reciprocate, or are members of our family so helping them helps our gene survive. This is how evolution happens, its not really up for debate tbh
@markgg1 Yes, new traits occour in individuals, and if more successful, these individuals become dominant, but evolution of a species happens over a much longer period of time to a group (usually two groups are somehow separated).
Also, ending a comment on a scientific topic with "its not really up for debate" is pretty unscientific.
@St00sh13 Science is not about opinion, but evidence and fact. I was just trying to explain that Kin Selection has been dismissed, and is not the driving force of evolution. Selfish Gene theory has been proven to be correct, and expanded on Darwin's own work. Darwin didn't know about the unit of evolution (being the gene) and if he had, I think would have expanded his work and understood the idea of the selfish gene.
Anyone who says evolution is about benefiting the entire species is mistaken.
@markgg1 In don'k anybody is against you. You are right, variation does occour at the level of the genes and no-one is saying that the drive behind evolution is to benefit the species, but it is an outcome.
any individual has better odds to beat the casino, but the Casino had much better odds than all the individuals who place at bet any given time.
This is the danger for having Creationist make deduction of God base of natural behavior, the more interesting questions would be why Made the poison and the non poisonous frog?
@yermomsboxx Most of the callers are from the US, quite a few from the UK and not so many from other countries. I suppose you've seen mostly the youtube, hillbilly clips, but there are plenty of theists calling in who don't have an accent (well, technically we all have an accent of sorts; dialects and such).
snakes drink poison all day! they should be dead as hell, but god is keeping them around for some reason. i knoweth not of his mysterious ways
jsamari 1 month ago
If something created us and went away why would we continue to worship it? Or if it had no consciousness why would we worship it? I don't really see any point in Deism.
BottleConcreteBlond 1 month ago
I like that song at the beginning.
BottleConcreteBlond 1 month ago
This show is at its weakest when the hosts are put on the spot to explain scientific concepts in which they're not schooled. It's much better when they keep things philosophical.
ChipArgyle 1 month ago
Unfortunately this host has wrong idea about evolution.
it really works on individual level not on groups.
and in case with frogs and puffer fish it is side effect of another adaptations. that make these animals resistant to some poison which they receive with food infections.
I don't know any animal which specifically produces poison just for sake of being toxic.
it if was the case it would be beneficial to stop producing poison and conserve resources.
deltaxcd 1 month ago
@deltaxcd Do you know of plants which produce a poison for the sake of being toxic?
It does work on groups, not individuals. Also, not all traits are passed on due to them being advantageous to the creature. Though you probably know this.
57worldwide 1 month ago
@57worldwide
In theory it is impossible if poison is burden for individual and does not give any advantage against others in his group it will be pressured to stop producing that.
Evolution cannot work on groups because that exactly opposite of how it works.
If traits are not advantageous that creature will be less successful and it will be eliminated.
deltaxcd 1 month ago
@deltaxcd That's not exactly how evolution happens, nor is it the only way traits are passed on. Some traits are not passed on due to their presence being advantageous. If you aren't aware of this, I may be able to suggest a search term.
Evolution does not work on groups - it happens to them. Individuals do not evolve, and an animal will not just adapt due to pressure. Many species are endangered and have become extinct, which is evidence of that fact.
57worldwide 1 month ago
@57worldwide
maybe it would be better for you to search how evolution does NOT work on groups.?
this is theoretically impossible unless group itself is object of evolution.
it would be illogical to even try to explain that evolution can influence individual behavior in a way which is harmful for that individual but beneficial for whole group.
deltaxcd 1 month ago
@deltaxcd Evolution does not work. It happens. It doesn't happen for the group's benefit every time. Evolution is not just passing on advantageous traits to offspring. You are oversimplifying.
57worldwide 1 month ago
@57worldwide
Don't pick on details.
Yes, evolution is visible on the whole group but it is driven by individual mutations that make individuals more competitive against other members of same group.
There is nothing to oversimplify because it is extremely simple to start with.
deltaxcd 1 month ago
@deltaxcd Evolution is NOT driven by mutations that make individuals more competitive.
Firstly, evolution can lead to extinct species. It's not that all species which are alive have evolved, and the ones which are extinct failed to do so.
Secondly, not all traits are present merely due to them giving an advantage.
You have evolutionary theory confused with evolution by natural selection. Now, go do some research!
57worldwide 1 month ago
@57worldwide
I did enough research and don't need anything more if you have some specific proof give it yourself.
all mainstream traits exist because they had advantage over other traits in same situations. Traits that have no advantage are displaced in some time.
Since traits come in combos so you can get something harmful with something useful. Harmful traits only exist if they are not significant.
deltaxcd 1 month ago
@deltaxcd
intead of speaking your opinion you shoud presnet proof of which species evolved poison just for sake of being poisonous.
as I know all species get poison just as harmless side effect of some another function.
If it would be possible to get poison by evolutionary process, everything would be poisonous.
deltaxcd 1 month ago
@deltaxcd Just like roses grow thorns as a side effect of another function?
Now, look up mutation and genetic drift.
57worldwide 1 month ago
@57worldwide
thorns are useful because it makes individual rose unattractive to those who may eat it.
thorns of individual rose have no effect on survival of other roses. If some mutant rose without thorns will appear, it has higher chances to be eaten so that trait will be eliminated over time.
Poison works in different way than thorns, because it does not protect specific individual, so it does not provide any advantage. In contrast bad taste is useful.
deltaxcd 1 month ago
@deltaxcd Regadless of the function of thorns, regardless of the species which are toxic as a harmless side effect of anther function - evolution is more complicated than you had stated. It isn't just passing advantageous traits onto offspring. That is only natural selection.
What about cane toads, then? Is them being toxic just a side effect of another function, or is it an advantage to be toxic to other animals?
57worldwide 1 month ago
@57worldwide
I newer said that evolution has anything to do with passing advantageous traits onto offspring.
O think cane toads poison has mostly deterring purpose because it tastes terrible and predator just drops the toad. It is not supposed to be deadly but it happens to be so by accident.
Puffer fish poison is tasteless so it evolved as side effect of adaptation to bacterial toxins while it has no effect on host fish.
deltaxcd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deltaxcd '... traits exist because they had advantage over other traits in same situations.' You did actually state that evolution has to do with passing advantageous traits onto offspring. 'If traits are not advantageous that creature will be less successful and it will be eliminated.'
It seems like hypocrisy, you ask for proof of my statements 'intead of speaking [my] opinion...' and then you say cane toads are deadly by accident?
Look at the spread of cane toads. Toxicity IS advantageous.
57worldwide 1 month ago
Dart frogs can be detoxified through diet.
Fishingbirb 2 months ago
'god' is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
aegisgfx 2 months ago
Comment removed
Kingucktoad 2 months ago
I have no issues with Deism as long as the person does not present theism traits into the story. I think deism is a theory but not probable. There are indeed some things out there that make you scratch your head when you think about evolution. I have answered this myself by saying that all life is related, and life somehow knows, to a certain extent, what it wants.
Jeffersonwazright 2 months ago
@Jeffersonwazright Yeah, all life wants to live. Or rather, all life has to live, or it dies.
57worldwide 1 month ago
lol flying spaghetti monster on the couch
mansterj 4 months ago 3
There are tons of poisonous plants and we humans learned, the hard way most likely, how to avoid eating them. Thousands of people probably died during this learning curve. People actually believed tomatoes were poisonous until the 1800s.
RhondaH 4 months ago
I would say that if evolution per se were shown false, i.e., life on Earth could not evolve, nor could an intelligence capable of creating it naturally evolve elsewhere, it would be evidence of something well outside our uniform understanding of natural law, and some religious myths might well become viable hypotheses, even though it would require further study.
IoEstasCedonta 4 months ago
@IoEstasCedonta - That is false because religions' views still need to meet their burden of proof. Talking about probabilities is much more efficient than talking about possibilities because there are infinite possibilities.
Critic863 4 months ago
watch out where the huskies go and don't you eat the yellow FROGS!
hardinmichael1981 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Theist argument: "Something happened and I can't explain it...so there must be a god!"
mikefromwa 6 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Let me ask you this do you believed in marriage?If Not then your mom is slut and you are bastard.
teraloverno1 6 months ago
< Atheist, science lover, all that such thing
I think I see what the caller is saying though, he's saying "how did it start?". The first frog with the mutation. If it's only a benefit for the group, why is that trait selected in that individual? Blind luck the first few generations? Well, not that of all the coincidences in the universe, that's not a big one, but it does side step evolution.
Of course, it just side steps evolution, doesn't refute it in any way.
Ryakki 7 months ago
...until there are so many damn yellow frogs, that some predator says, hey, we should figure out how we can eat these things.... more evolution... anyway...
compvm33 7 months ago
This guy forgot that poison dart frogs have bright skin coloration to warn predators that they are poisonous. That is evolution right there. Poison sets an example, but bright coloration prevents need for an example, Others can have either just poison (cane toad) or just bright coloration (kingsnake), but having both poison and coloration improves survival greatly.
MunkyDrag0n 8 months ago
Wow, he brings up something(poisonous frogs) that helps provide evidence FOR evolution, thus hurting his case against it. lol
ridewave444 8 months ago
Once word gets around that something is good then people tend to do it. If this didn't happen, people would never do drugs after being misinformed by police and government. It's natures way of seperating the real dangers from the psychological fears you may have around the subject.
Revolution2pointO 8 months ago
Well there are stupid people, so if people can't explain how stupid exists in people, then I believe god put it there.
berner 8 months ago
You are not supposed to eat the frogs silly, you are just supposed to lick them.
brongarago 8 months ago
hmm.... that doesn't sound like a Norwegian accent...
faarsight 8 months ago
@GothicWiccan13 of course, this is assuming that the poison is already potent enough to kill off larger predators and not just parasites like bangbangbangbang said, it could have started off with much more gradual effects, maybe irritate the predator or such. But this is the more basic framework to explain.
swisscheesepotatochi 8 months ago
@GothicWiccan13 also, the predator-prey cycle has been constant up to this point, the population of predators would not increase because of the poisonous frog, it would probably stay the same. Now after the poisonous frogs are slightly larger in quantity, eating those would kill off the predators that ate it. So those that didnt eat it survive, with time, those that did survive would have the gene not ot eat the poisonous frog because those with the genes that did eat the frog died out over time
swisscheesepotatochi 8 months ago
@GothicWiccan13 we assume that these poisonous frogs did reproduce just like regular frogs (with regular frogs, with the poisonous gene being dominant), and some of them were eaten as well as some of the less protected frogs were eaten. Overtime, the poisonous frogs would increase in frequency while the less protected frogs would die out. Eventually, either one dies out or they become two separate species due to incompatibility in genetics.
swisscheesepotatochi 8 months ago
@GothicWiccan13 pardon my lack of expertise in the field, i will explain in a very simplistic fashion which is to my knowledge of logic. Frogs that develop poison, would be assumed to have an advantage over the less protected frogs. So through time, those less protected frogs will die out, and the genetic frequency of these alleles will increase. Now, you are assuming that the first frog with the poison was eaten by the predator, that would be not be the case.
swisscheesepotatochi 8 months ago
A shame that Matt and Martin got the science wrong on this one. It is really quite simple: If a predator eats a poisonous frog, it will get very sick. In some cases, the poison is released so quickly the prey will be spat out immediately. This way, the predator will remember to avoid this species in the future if the prey is distinctively colored. Experiments have shown that it often takes only a single encounter with a toxic prey species for a predator to learn to avoid it.
Amphioxys 8 months ago
@Amphioxys Could you explain what M & M said that was different from what you say, and how it was different? Is it the "sure, some yellow frogs will die despite being poisonous" part?
DuhIdiot1 8 months ago
@DuhIdiot1 Martin said that natural selection acts between populations, which is wrong. NS will always work between individuals, but in this case, apparently, kin selection is sufficient.
Amphioxys 8 months ago
« Martin said that natural selection acts between populationsMartin said that natural selection acts between populations »
Did he say "between" populations, or "on" populations?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor: "Did he say "between" populations, or "on" populations?"
It doesn't really matter. That actually means the same. Try to substitute populations with individuals.
Amphioxys 8 months ago
Evolution does not take place among populations.
This is a horrible falacy about evolution.
The predator need only recognize the difference between a poison frog and a non-poison frog.
rubberbaby00 8 months ago
@rubberbaby00 How did predators learn to distinguish the first poisonous frogs from non's except by eating or trying to eat yellow frogs and either getting sick or watching their conspecifics die or get sick? If that was how they learned, then how else could the frogs' evolution have happened except to the population of frogs who got reduced predation through the martyrdom of their brethren?
DuhIdiot1 8 months ago
« Evolution does not take place among populations. »
...? Evolution is DEFINED as a phenomenon in population genetics. Evolution IS the OBSERVED shifting of allele frequencies in population gene pools.
I don't know exactly what you're trying to say, but I suggest you phrase it differently.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
You're right, "Natural Selection" does not take place among populations. But Matt is making the error that populations are the ones evolving, not the individuals within the populations.
rubberbaby00 8 months ago
@rubberbaby00 Whoa, now you're definitely straying way out into left field. Individuals do not evolve. You're born with a set of genes and you die with them. Only a population can undergo changes in allele frequencies.
DuhIdiot1 8 months ago
« Matt is making the error that populations are the ones evolving »
I'm sorry, I did not hear Matt say that individuals evolve. Can you provide the minute:second where Matt says that indidivuals rather than populations evolve?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« "Natural Selection" does not take place among populations »
It takes place *within* populations. Natural selection is the effect of competition between variants.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
Okay, now I can't even tell if you are agreeing with me or not.
Matts example was to compare "two different species of frog" in which one out competes the other because of the poison. This is a common fallacy because it isn't the species which compete, its the individuals.
The poison frog problem is easily solved if you consider the co-evolution of the frog with the predator.
The entire species does not reproduce itself with variation and undergo natural selection as a whole.
rubberbaby00 8 months ago
« Matts example was to compare "two different species of frog" in which one out competes the other because of the poison. »
If he really did say that, that was a very silly mistake to make.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
Poison Frog Problem Solution:
Frogs evolve variation in color for sexual selection,
Some frogs develop poison harmful to some predators, but not to the frog, this does not spread to the entire species as it cannot harm or benefit the frogs.
A predator evolves who can see or identify the poison frog.
Natural Selection favors the acute predator.
Natural Selection favors the poison frogs with identifiable markings as the non-poison frogs are quickly eaten.
rubberbaby00 8 months ago
The accent of Petter Solberg, but the English of an American. Amazing.
PowBlock96 8 months ago
Its the world scpoople champion Fjurg Van Der Ploeg!
translucentorb 8 months ago
Skwisgaar Skwigelf had some questions and called in.
ahhhhjjjj 8 months ago
Call me racist but i chuckled when he said "Voooorld"
SeanathenII 9 months ago
Comment removed
MsNerezzaMr 9 months ago
does anyone know what song that is at the end ?
MsNerezzaMr 9 months ago
Creationists are so f**king stupid that they can't comprehend anything longer than a few thousand years and groups of more than a few hundred individuals. You people think so small, no wonder you are the minority in the top universities!
MunkyDrag0n 9 months ago 12
I don't like their frog analogy. Its not so much that other animals look at the frogs that cause death and decide not to eat them, it's more that the animals that eat the poisonous frogs die and don't continue their lineage (so less predators for the rest of the poisonous frogs).
LeeMarcelle 9 months ago
Yes, but what about... CROCODUCK?!!
electronfun 9 months ago
He's Norwegian, alright. I would know, I'm from Norway as well. It's a Norwegian accent.
juvi12321 9 months ago
The poison frogs survive better because the animals that like to eat them die and then there is nothing to eat them.
Example, every-time a enemy attacks your town somebody runs up to them with a body-bomb and detonates. The individual doesn't survive but the enemies aren't too successful at killing off your town.
Khyrid 9 months ago
Is it me just me or does this guy sound like Theologikos? A norwegian youtube comedian who goes the route of EdwardCurrent.
Iminurcomputorz 10 months ago
Comment removed
funkyleaf 10 months ago
They also missed the point that many poisons taste bad.
MrFungus420 11 months ago
I can't remember, but this may be the first episode in which the Atheist Experience used one of Bryan's songs as an opening theme.
GrahamSteeksma 11 months ago
poison does have a benefit to individual organisms
rgrannell1 11 months ago
my gut bacteria had a tough job digesting that entire pizza today. Good work little guys! Go symbiosis!
Scardy 1 year ago 26
is that the flying spaghetti monster between them on the sofa?
bresophil 1 year ago
this guy needs to read the new dawkins book
willstokes123 1 year ago
eat the frogs?
you guys are so french
DrYugoslavia 1 year ago
@DrYugoslavia Oh they would like frog's legs wouldn't they?! LOL
MunkyDrag0n 1 year ago
this guy sure as hell doesn't sound norwegian either, sounds like an american putting on a bad norewgian accent.
IrelandRaven 1 year ago
Every time a predator eats a poisonous frog and dies, that's one less predator to threaten the survival of other poisonous frogs.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
you are 'da man' , lol
mysterymediacorp 1 year ago
Matt's head is poisonous to the growth of hair!
xcellken1 1 year ago
I don't know why no one knows this but me (maybe I was just paying attention in biology class) but an often true rule in nature: Bright Colors = Poison.
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
uh, i like the atheist expierience but guys, this is not how it happened. The animals that eat poisionus frogs died, and INSTINKT (not ideas or understanding) kept those animals from continuin to eat that type of frog.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@gulbirk insticnt is built in to us, its not instictive to eat something that makes you sick and learn to stop eating it
IrelandRaven 1 year ago
@IrelandRaven No, of course not LOL. It isnt buildt into us, its evolved into us. My view on how it happened is correct. Instinkt wasnt IN the FIRST animal. And its possible to create instinkts. Not eover one or two generations, but over millions of years.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@IrelandRaven THANK YOU! Ive been trying to explain this to people, but I end up getting so negative comments they remove my comments. Matt was wrong on this one, but only a tiny aspect of evolution. On his philosophy and morality he is a legend, but I just wanted to clarify a small bit of biology.
markgg1 1 year ago
This mans theory makes no sense....
Isoscelescube 1 year ago
A better explanation: If one frog happened to have a mutation that made him poisonous and DIDN'T happen to get eaten before he reproduced, then his offspring also might have it. Then lets say one of the newly poisonous frogs gets eaten by a snake. The snake DIES. There's now one less predator in the local vicinity of this particular frog population, allowing them to survive longer and propagate the poison gene more. The individuals don't have an advantage, but the gene protects the overall group
instereovideos 1 year ago 4
A Norwegian creationist? Talk about an endangered species. (Maybe he figures life formed in the heat and dampness of the frost giant Ymir's armpit?)
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
i think whether or not a predator can tell if the prey is poisonous has to do with what kind of taste is given off as well.
JailBreaker903 1 year ago
@JailBreaker903 Many poisonous creatures are brightly colored, and most predators avoid brightly colored prey-- Which is why you have some harmless species that are ALSO brightly colored, some even looking exactly like other toxic species.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
@GoblinXXX Batesian mimicry.
falcoperegrinus82 1 year ago
@falcoperegrinus82 Not to be confused with NORMAN Batesian mimicry, in which one wears one's dead mother's clothes and speaks in her voice while hacking young women to death with large kitchen knives.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
@GoblinXXX Hahaha because it sounds like that movie. I get jokes!
falcoperegrinus82 1 year ago
Tejb
Welocy 1 year ago
Those that ate the poisonous frogs would die out therefore nature would select predators that did not eat poisonous frogs, therefore increasing the survival rates of these frogs...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago 29
what do u think about: although frog poison may not save a frog from being eaten by a predator, apparently frog poison can ward off parasites (and micro-organisms?) that can cause skin disease. this is clearly an evolutionary advantage. it makes sense to me that this could be how it evolved. theres a smooth gradient: if a frog even develops a mild poison i can imagine it would kill some small parasites, then it could evolve a more potent poison and kill a slightly wider range of parasites,etc
BANGBANGBANGBBANG 10 months ago
thats how poisonous populations combat predation, but you still have to explain how the poison gene gets from one frog to a large % of the population (without any individual benefit) and also how the poison gets to a be potent? there IS an individual benefit to poison, and it can be weak at first. the very first frog has an increased chance of survival if the poison can fend off the tiniest (possibly diseased) parasite. then they can evolve stronger poison and fend off a wider range of animals.
BANGBANGBANGBBANG 10 months ago
Random mutation happens to individuals. Natural selection then happens to populations of those individuals..
neoaeonian 1 year ago 3
It sound more logical to assume that the frogs live because a predator eats one frog and dies, rather than eating several frogs.. It cuts down on the number of predators so the frogs can reproduce faster than they are eaten..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@GabrielFane In fact, it's fair to ask the question where any diet preferences originated from? Where along the line would the appetite evolve? Did the ones that survived carry the "appetite gene"? How did the organisms figure how to respond? How did their diets become complementary to their biological makeup? Or maybe asking questions and questioning answers is "retarded" to you. Strawmanning on the effects of poison and faith in mutations demonstrates nothing. These are legit questions.
UC7media 1 year ago
@UC7media I know I'm late to the discussion, but it's very difficult to determine what point you are trying to make, at least to me. If you have legit questions about evolution, I would recommend taking a college course in biology or just do some self-study. Richard Dawkins has some very good books on evolution. It would be very difficult for anyone to educate you on the subject on a youtube forum because of the character limitations etc. Take care
isaachaze1 1 year ago
@GabrielFane Does it really have to come to name-calling this far in the game? Everything beyond "poison kills" in this scenario, is assumption. There's much more to a populations life + development than what it becomes programmed NOT to eat. The likelihood of a remarkably specific (and relatively insignificant) change like that occurring on its own is slimmer than slim. "Before, x ate y and died. The x that survived we never see eating y, so they must have evolved that trait." Science?
UC7media 1 year ago
@GabrielFane And here lies the fallacy that the ones that survive actually learn that aspect of what made them survive i.e. not eating certain frogs. You suppose that the ones that survived had developed the instinct to recognize and avoid. And if you don't suppose this.. well, you still have no argument. The problem with macro-evolution (the grand scheme idea) is not the idea that some survive, it's the idea that survival is the result of AND the cause of adapting at the same time.
UC7media 1 year ago
First theists tried to brainwash people into believing in a story book version of 'god' who answers prayers and passes judgment.
When that became ridiculous in light of advancing science, they switched the 'god' to a more scientific-sounding esoteric concept, complete with science lingo, in order to sound dignified and legitimate.
When scientific understanding advances even more the next step will inevitably be the total abandonment of 'god' altogether. Patience, my friends.
ejdf870 1 year ago
Why would poisonous frogs have an advantage over non poisonous ones???
Are you a complete IDIOT!?!?!?!?!?..........Maybe to deter predators??? DUUUUHHHHH!!!!
Jesus fucking wept!!! Whenever you hear someone say that evolution "doesn't make sense to them" you KNOW they don't understand sweet fuck all about it!!!
YaMumYaNanYaGran 1 year ago
@GabrielFane
"Could be" is incredibly shaky. And teaching, if it were an evolutionary trend, would need 1) to be learned by the teacher 2) received by the learner 3) find some genetic establishment or environmental pressure in order to simply occur. None of these are given features from single-cell origins. According to this idea it would have taken a long time to learn to teach and a long time to learn TO LEARN. With all these generations dying off, where is the guarantee of gradual gain?
UC7media 1 year ago
Another evolutionary benefit would be with those predators that for maybe some evolutionary reason didn't find a strange colored frog appealing those that did find the frogs appealing would die and eventually that basic evolutionary trait would become submissive.
robvlob 1 year ago
evolutions fact. everything that lived doesnt become a fossil, and we still have plenty of fossils to prove evolution, and dna. that aside. we have a tailbone, and some ppl are born with tails. dogs and cats have pads above their feet cuz their legs are still evolving. the reason trex and raptors had little useless arms is cuz they were becoming 2 legged animals. we build resistance to germs, germs build a resistance to drugs. this is evolution that even dumb people can see. theres more proof
420simpson 1 year ago
This brilliant caller is RIGHT, EVOLUTION does NOT happen!! He is RIGHT and all of the scientists who study evolution are wrong! that means that this caller from norway is smarter than all of the biologists of the world!! he must be BRILLIANT!!
Zurround100 1 year ago
@Zurround100 I like the satire
robvlob 1 year ago
you are just as stupid as all religions, stfu
BluntRip 1 year ago
PT 2 .. using the alkaloid as a poison became more common in the frogs gene pool and were also then passed down to future off spring.
Evolution works on a genetic level. Individuals may develop a genetic mutation that may benefit the species as a whole by being passed through generations in their genes. This then obviously could benefit the group as a whole if like poisonous frogs a defence mechanism has evolved.. etc.
berealisticdemandthe 1 year ago
PT1 Over time the frogs developed a resistance to eating the alkaloids from the ant's. Clearly a lot of frogs over time died as a result of eating them but the frogs that survived had a stronger resistance to the alkaloids and so the genes for alkaloid resistance became more common in the frogs gene pool and were therefore passed on to future offspring. Then frog's that developed a capability to use the alkaloid as a poison became more common as the ones that didn't died. Again, the gene for..
berealisticdemandthe 1 year ago
The presupposition that the frog has to be eaten for the poison to be an effective means of selection is also not necessarily true. Evolution would also favor predators who are able to smell the poison and avoid it. Those predators are more likely to eat the non-poisonous frogs, increasing the percentage of frogs carrying the mutation. Conversely, the population of predators who are unable to detect the poison is likely to decrease as they are more likely to ingest poisonous frogs and die.
mikeycooper 1 year ago
@mikeycooper I read your comment after I posted mine, which is very similar just yours sounds more scientific
robvlob 1 year ago
ADRIANMARTIN? IS THAT YOU?
yassin0808 1 year ago
How many Norwegians speak English that was impressive he communicated so well you could tell they were surprised
MrHujh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Im a big matt fan, but I don't think he's right there on the poisonous frogs.
Evoluition works on the individual, and not groups.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1
- "Evoluition works on the individual, and not groups."
An individual can't evolve into something else. An individual doesn't even have control over how it or its own species evolves. The changes take place in the population over a period that spans multiple generations. Whatever is left by that time is what the species has evolved into.
TheAtheistExperience 1 year ago 78
@TheAtheistExperience Oh sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the poisonous frog is poisonous for its own benefit, and not the benefit of other frogs as far as I know.
Self sacrifice is not very common in nature, but does still happen admittedly. it happens when the sacrifice is for a relative, or a perceived relative.
Great show by the way.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 there's nothing beneficial for the individual to secrete poison, the only benefit that this gives is that once the predator realizes they kill you they will be left alone.
TheSameDamnGuy 1 year ago
@TheSameDamnGuy hmmm. Im no expert, but I'm almost certain this cant be right. Self Sacrifice behaviour is rare, and can only happen when you sacrifice your genes for the genes of close relatives who share he sam DNA as you, otherwise whats the point? An animal would not lose its DNA by being killed just to protect distant relatives.
Unless it intends to do it for relatives, but as a byproduct dies for other frogs.
Dawkins could clear this up in 15 seconds.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 If i may help to clear it up, self sacrifice is never implyed this is predation prevention basically. If over time a species developes a defence for predators, that would have taken many many many years and alot of death of said species. And even after the defence is built up it still must be made clear to predators, hey dont eat me ill kill you. So in the long-run picture of this the individual frog is not benifiting from this, the species that the frog is a part of benifits from this.
TheSameDamnGuy 1 year ago
@TheSameDamnGuy
Ill do some more reading on this, but im positive group selection has been proven false.
Im no zoologist, so not sure though.
I am sure though that a gene that tells an animal to sacrifice itself for the benefit of the species cannot be passed on as selection kills it off.
Ill agree to disagree for now, but Ill look into it bit more.
Thanks. I always like a conversation that makes me think.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 yea man thanks for the conversation, if you do find anything else out shoot me a PM always love to discuss these things :D
TheSameDamnGuy 1 year ago
@TheSameDamnGuy remembering that evolution is the benefit of the individuals genes, not the species.
Natural selection could not work on whole species, it works on individuals.
There are obvious anomalies. Why do humans help people in countries whose genes we don't share and who cant reciprocate.?
Its likely to be a 'mistake'. We are supposed to preserve our own friends and family, but our brains respond to any human being, probably as in our ancients setting we lived with close kin.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 You are wrong on so many levels that it's not even funny. Natural selection works on POPULATIONS, NOT individuals! A single species can not evolve on it's own.
You're comparing apples to oranges. First of all, humans are all the SAME species despite the small degrees of genetic differences in the various human races. We have evolved a trait called compassion/empathy which was beneficial to our species and allowed us to survive and pass on this trait as a whole population.
jossman25 1 year ago
@jossman25 Individuals do evolve on their own. It would be a bit of a coincidence if every member of a species had the same mutation at the same time. The first white rabbit for example, would have been born by a genetic mistake. He would than have had children passing on his white rabbit genes. In snowy conditions, this lineage would survive better and out compete the old brown ones.
Evolution works on individuals.
Trust me, look it up if you disagree.
:-) Im not being an ass.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 yes you are right in saying that the whole 'for the good of the species' is not strictly speaking true. Evolution works at an even lower level than the individual and works on Genes. A gene survives because it does something that makes it's propogation more likely. Sometimes this is making its 'survival machine' < (i.e. animal/plant etc) more likely to survive and sometimes it can just piggyback on some gene combo that already works. That's why about 2/3 of our genome is 'junk'.
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago
@TheOmegajuice thanks for clearing up. Matt was a little wrong on that one. Evolution can be counter intuitive.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1
Many different mechanisms (i.e. genetic mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow) are responsible for the change in allele frequency of a population; this change in population demographics is what we call evolution. Ignoring epigenetics, individuals don't evolve at all: your rabbit didn't evolve white fur, it inherited it at conception from either its mother, its father, or a mutation of one of its parents' genome. The white rabbit was always white. ;)
ultramerton 1 year ago
@TheAtheistExperience Just to be fair, you can't safely say that an individual doesn't have control over how it's own species evolves. Every individual that reproduces has some influence, and if we wanted to get hypothetical, let's imagine that there was once a King who decreed that only men of royal descent could father offspring for a period of 50 years... for every generation after, that one man's conscious decision restructured the entire gene pool. Just saying, it's possible.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@TheAtheistExperience
Yeah, I think the slight mistake is where he said that "for an individual, they're just as likely to get eaten". What he should have said would perhaps be "the first time a predator species encounters a poisonous frog, they're just as likely to get eaten".
chebob2009 1 year ago
@markgg1
Evolution starts on an individual and then works on the group.
TheIrieviolet 1 year ago
@markgg1 not individuals GROUPS
gphhawkins 1 year ago
@gphhawkins not groups INDIVIDUALS
markgg1 1 year ago
@gphhawkins but seriously. One member of a population has a new gene variant. he obviously reproduces with someone and than passes on the 'new gene'. After time the new gene will spread via successive generations and out do the old gene (if beneficial).
The environmental pressures work on individuals within a group.
markgg1 1 year ago
@gphhawkins Altruism for example only can develop to benefit a gene. It probably arises to help people with the same genes, or to give with the intention of getting something in return.
A human helping a poor orphan in Africa is going agaisnt his genes. This must be a 'mistake' of psychology (and thank god its there).
A gene is not interested in species survival, only its own survival.
Saying it cares for a species as a whole is somehow saying the gene has an agenda which is absurd.
markgg1 1 year ago
@gphhawkins To clarify im not saying helping those who cannot reciprocate or family is a bad thing, Im just explaining that from a gene's point of view it is not helping.
Its likely in a primitive setting we lived in small kin groups, and helping anyone 'human' was in a way beneficial to ourselves. This may have applied to animals as well, such as looking after dogs we can use for our benefit.
I hope we don't evolve away from our compassion over a long period, which is possible.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 I think you mean that natural selection works on an individual.
SuperCookieluver 1 year ago
@markgg1 "Evoluition works on the individual, and not groups."
You've got that backwards.
1danyol1 1 year ago
Oh no. Norway really got represented badly here. Scandinavians aren't usually like this.
Apjooz 1 year ago
@Apjooz and that guy sounded like a well-above average intelligence person where i live in north america haha here people are arguing for creationism :O
CheStillFighting 1 year ago
Evidence for an asshole of a god: Poisonous food. I like Matt's poisonous and non poinsonous frog example. That makes the god a partial asshole to give one a defence and not the others.
clipsryan 1 year ago
I don't think most predators are smart enough to see one of its fellows die and deduce that it was from a certain frog they ate. I think what happens is, in the short term, being poisonous simply reduces the number of predators who feed on the frogs, and in the long term, predators will evolve an instinct to avoid those frogs in the first place (which is why poisonous frogs are often brightly colored I think.)
LanceDirk 1 year ago
@LanceDirk: Exactly, and is also the reason why some frogs evolved the bright colors but not the poison; but the predators' instincts are none the wiser. All brightly colored frogs, whether poisonous or not, have a survival advantage now.
Celephaith 1 year ago
@Celephaith Right! For this to work, the color would have had to evolve first to make the frogs distinguishable from the others. This would most likely have been through sexual selection (like peacock's tails). Being highly visible would have created a environmental pressure that enhanced the advantage of being poisonous. Initial poisons would have been weaker, but an upset stomach is also bad and it can be learned within a generation that that frog is bad food.
leet3lite 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leet3lite predators cant pass on knowledge of what frogs to avoid, but they can undergo selection as the predators that like the taste of poisonous frogs are quikly removed from the gene pool as they are dead.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 "cant pass on knowledge of what frogs to avoid", erm, yes they can. Parent animals teach their kids stuff all the time.
St00sh13 1 year ago
@St00sh13 Its very common for animals to have a 'genetic' fear of other animals. Instinct is a genetically programmed component of our psychology. Pigeons fear the outline of a hawk, humans fear growling and the sight of sharp gnashing teeth (hence their appearance in so many horror movies)
I dont really know why people are being so against me when all I did was correct Matt on a small aspect of evolution. The Selfish Gene theory dismisses group selection, and in my view refutes it completely.
markgg1 1 year ago
@St00sh13 A group of animals do not evolve together it is about individuals One individual gains a new trait, and if his trait increases reproductive success then his rivals, his trait spreads through the population replacing the old one who die out.
Altruism is not for the good of the species, but for the individual. Helping others means others may reciprocate, or are members of our family so helping them helps our gene survive. This is how evolution happens, its not really up for debate tbh
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Yes, new traits occour in individuals, and if more successful, these individuals become dominant, but evolution of a species happens over a much longer period of time to a group (usually two groups are somehow separated).
Also, ending a comment on a scientific topic with "its not really up for debate" is pretty unscientific.
St00sh13 1 year ago
@St00sh13 Science is not about opinion, but evidence and fact. I was just trying to explain that Kin Selection has been dismissed, and is not the driving force of evolution. Selfish Gene theory has been proven to be correct, and expanded on Darwin's own work. Darwin didn't know about the unit of evolution (being the gene) and if he had, I think would have expanded his work and understood the idea of the selfish gene.
Anyone who says evolution is about benefiting the entire species is mistaken.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 In don'k anybody is against you. You are right, variation does occour at the level of the genes and no-one is saying that the drive behind evolution is to benefit the species, but it is an outcome.
St00sh13 1 year ago
@St00sh13 Disagreeing with Matt is a blasphemy it appears....
markgg1 1 year ago
This is a Typical probability 101 homowork.
any individual has better odds to beat the casino, but the Casino had much better odds than all the individuals who place at bet any given time.
This is the danger for having Creationist make deduction of God base of natural behavior, the more interesting questions would be why Made the poison and the non poisonous frog?
JerezJulio 1 year ago
i found a video about poisonous frogs.
/watch?v=bqSeQuH_Tc4
20kilovolt 1 year ago
I'm using that image as my flag when I take over the world. The flying spaghetti monster flanked by 2 moohammeds.
ROCK ON GUYS
sum1otosh1 1 year ago
I don't know if I've ever heard a theist call in that didn't have an accent.
yermomsboxx 1 year ago
@yermomsboxx Most of the callers are from the US, quite a few from the UK and not so many from other countries. I suppose you've seen mostly the youtube, hillbilly clips, but there are plenty of theists calling in who don't have an accent (well, technically we all have an accent of sorts; dialects and such).
Jostedalsosten 1 year ago
@Jostedalsosten
(well, technically we all have an accent of sorts; dialects and such).
True enough.
yermomsboxx 1 year ago