The best video of its kind I've seen yet. Learn a thing are two.
But if you don't know, it has to be god, end of discussion. I mean a theory is only a theory, god wrote the bible, so it is true.
Good video, because it doesn't mock or condescend. I think we (edit: "we" scientists ) need more of this kind of thing. (+rep)
oh i forgot to rep you lolol
(rectified)
It didn't tell me anything new but I watched it all because it used Rhapsody In Blue.
I don't know why, I could have just listened to the song by itself.
The only time I've ever been genuinely interested in what someone had to say about evolution, the person had a "Dr." in their name, was quite objective and I was sitting in a desk.
Sure, youtube videos inspire quite the boners and back patting, but they don't actually say anything.
Did you actually watch the video, or are you making an assumption? I think this video is exceptional in that it's not like this, and that's why I posted it.
Also, you might have to be a "Dr." to discover this stuff and to expand our knowledge of it, but you don't need a doctorate to understand and communicate the basics of knowledge that has been discovered. Unfortunately, most YouTube videos are unable to do this effectively, but this one succeeds to some degree at least.
lol, it outlined the scientific method; woopty doo.
I think it's important to keep from becoming entrenched in either side.
I mean, who's to say God didn't employ evolution? Certainly not me.
That said, some scientists have made Darwin their personal prophet, and anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot.
The prof I was talking about was wonderfully open minded and listed arguments for and against it, using facts and details the layman wouldn't understand.
My God you're a fucking idiot.
Case in point. You're a fucking idiot.I mean, who's to say God didn't employ evolution? Certainly not me.
No, it's my brand of 'shut up you fucking idiot' in action. You fucking idiot.
You don't have to be tolerant of stupidity or of things which are shitty. Anyone who disagrees with the premise of evolution is an idiot -- well, misinformed, certainly, and brainwashed, probably.
And anyone who brings up God in the context of a discussion about science is a fucking idiot and should be told so.
The assumption that an individual who studies science and an individual who believes in a deity have to be mutually exclusive is pig headed, to say the least.
EDIT: Anyway, it's too early to get into a debate with a graduate of Google university, so I'm gonna unsubscribe from this thread and go jerk off to pictures of guns
Uh...
The theory that more-or-less spontaneous mutation in hereditary genetic makeups has caused minor changes from generation to generation and that those changes which were harmful to the survival rate of the creature got those creatures killed off while the ones that promoted survival saw those creatures procreate more and more until the species tree branched out of simple organisms into increasingly complex ones?
Those ones, mostly.
And some others.
In books written by evolutionary biologists.
Well, probably.
Well that's like saying that a scientist who believes in love is hypocritical and I'm sure there are plenty of them.
Although a scientist who believes in a deity without question is very hypocritical.
Well, "love" as a physically motivated experience is perfectly plausible and not unscientific...
Well then you're getting into semantics and 'love' is a very wide concept so let's just not go there.
Also, it's perfectly possible for a scientist to say "I believe in the scientific method AND GOD, even though God is unscientific" but that's no more than acknowledging the fact that they're incompatible.
I'm hypocritical about certain things. It's not necessarily a very bad thing. I'm being matter-of-fact about it, not judgmental.
First of all...
I don't know about the other people in this thread, but this isn't about whether or not God exists. Where did you get that idea, you stupid twat?
Even when I did believe in God, I also believed in and defended evolution. When I first expressed an interest in science as a young child (despite my parents being in the humanities), my conservative Catholic father bought me books on natural history. I didn't even know about the religious debate surrounding evolution until I was like 10.
So again, this has NOTHING to do with whether God does or does not exist.
Let me quote a line for you from the movie, assmunch:lol, it outlined the scientific method; woopty doo.
This video is about why creationism is NOT science. People don't understand why it's not, and that's why it has to be differentiated from what IS science. You don't seem to get it that there's lacking a very basic understanding of what is science and what isn't science.Let's face it: most people don't know that much about science or what goes on in the scientific community
Just like some stupid physicists have made Newton their personal prophet, and anyone who disagrees with his theory of gravitation is an idiot? I know, why can't people keep an open mind and consider other alternative, untested, and completely refuted theories?That said, some scientists have made Darwin their personal prophet, and anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot.
So then what's the use of having these facts and details communicated to the lay community if they can't understand it?The prof I was talking about was wonderfully open minded and listed arguments for and against it, using facts and details the layman wouldn't understand.
Like I said, I think the basics of how science works, why we should trust scientists, and the basics of how evolution works and what proof we have for it can all be understood and grasped by the lay person.
The simple fact is that we don't understand every single detail about natural history or about the mechanism of evolution.The simple fact is that there are things wrong with the whole evolution thing.
The simple fact is that there are things right with the whole evolution thing.
The simple fact is that we don't understand everything about most things. The simple fact is that if we did, scientists wouldn't have much to do, now would they?
Yes, our understanding of evolution is incomplete. Likewise, our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, as it is fundamentally incompatible with general relativity. However, I don't see people saying that it is "wrong" like they are saying evolution is wrong.
There is one thing that is correct to say: evolution is the only way that we can even begin to explain all the empirical evidence we've accumulated. We don't understand it completely. We're getting better at understanding how it works.
But a lack of current understanding is not a fundamental "problem" with the theory, as you say it is.
See guys, that is the beautiful thing about science. It is a strength that creationist try to turn into a flaw. Science adapts to new evidence. We achieve new evidence based on new discoveries, or discovering something new due to new technology. Just because something can not be entirely explained at this time does not mean it can not be explained, and must have been a god or deity that did it. If that was the case we still wouldn't know why it rains and where fire comes from. We take evidence and known facts and form a conclusion based on available knowledge. They use this as a flaw, saying we can "change our stance" on things, and that we don't understand everything. True, but that is a strength, scientist take new evidence if it becomes available to form a new hypothesis, if a creationist comes across new evidence they mangle it to fit their conclusion.
Creationist come to a conclusion, and use pseudo-science and false logic to make the evidence "meet" their answer, and not the other way around. Anytime you are trying to make the evidence fit the conclusion, instead of making a conclusion based on the evidence is pure insanity.
The one thing I don't understand is that a lot of religious people are so entrenched in their idea, that they come up with "reasons" why we heathen science based logical people do what we do... anything from being possessed by the devil to living in sin and not wanting to admit it. It's like talking to a wall, or a magic 8-ball, they are unable to accept new information. If scientific evidence truly showed a higher deity, such as the Christian God, that would be the common consensus. They act as if we would turn down eternal bliss if the evidence was there that it existed.
So I guess bacon ops missed the fact that the video's main point was explaining why creationism and "intelligent design" are non-scientific and why their proponents arguments for inclusion in science curricula are intellectually dishonest? And instead he thought it was trying to disprove God's existence or something?
EDIT: Bacon ops, if you wander back into this thread, could you please tell us some of the things that are "wrong with the whole evolution thing"?
It's the unfortunate conflation of the support of science and evolution with support of atheism. There is nothing incompatible between evolution and a belief in god any more than there is between a belief in a round earth and a heliocentric solar system and a belief in god.
And given his earlier statements, I'm sure bacon ops would simply cop out by saying he doesn't have a doctorate in biology, so he can't say what's wrong with evolution per se.
An organism with n chromosomes cannot procreate with an organism with n + x number of chromosomes.
You can only fit so much new information on a single chromosome before it would be too much, and too prone to malfunction.
Now, I agree natural selection is proven, etc... but where in time in the development of new species, and how praytell, is the new chromosome formed?
The probability of a servicable new species of organism (A) randomly being selected for is already slim, correct?
Add to that that another organism(B) must contain a relatively similar "trait" that has to have resulted in the same number as chromosomes as the original, and the probabilities become ridiculously small.
Think of it this way:
Chromosomes are like lego blocks.
The parents each contribute n number of blocks.
If one parent somehow aquires a new trait, which results in n+1 number of chromosomes, as opposed to the species' current n, then it the blocks won't fit, and a viable offspring is highly unlikely.
get it?
http://io9.com/354136/first-proof-th...ic-engineering
For years, farmers have been growing genetically-engineered cotton plants that exude an insecticide known as Bt. But now, a pest called the bollworm moth has evolved a resistance to Bt — and the altered bugs have already spread across part of the southern United States. This is the first-known example of bugs evolving resistance to an insecticide in the wild. It proves that natural selection can outrun genetic engineering in terms of its ability to transform a species quickly.Oh hey look, evolution. A bug adapted to it's environment to ensure it's own survival... god must have did it.Another example of natural selection working this fast can be seen among elephants, who were hunted for their ivory tusks in the ninteenth and twentieth centuries. Over the course of a century, a "tuskless" mutation in a few elephants spread across the population like wildfire. While only 1% of elephants were born without tusks in 1930, in 1998 15% of female and 9% of male elephants were.
That's probably just a plasmid at work, dude.
It's been happening for a long time.
MRSA, anyone?
Developing resistance to a toxin or insecticide is a far cry from growing a new chromosome by chance, then finding another individual who has the exact same mutation and getting viable offspring.
EDIT: it's not even a plasmid: it's just a promoter and a single gene that causes the toxin to be produced in thuringeniuses.
All the bugs have to do is figure out a way to nullify the toxin crystal or avoid uptaking it. Not a big deal.
Yeah, it's natural selection.
Last edited by bacon ops; 04-05-2009 at 03:36 PM.
In the first sentence of your post, you say that two organisms with different numbers of chromosomes "cannot" procreate. Then, in the end of your post, you say that they can procreate but that a viable offspring is unlikely. Which is it?
I'll save you the effort: It's the second one. You were quite wrong when you said, early in your post, that different numbers of chromosomes prevent organisms from procreating. Organisms with different numbers of chromosomes can and do reproduce sexually and yield viable offspring. You are correct, however, insofar as viable offspring are often less likely when the parents have a mismatched number of chromosomes. That can indeed cause a problem. But of course, as any intelligent person should realize, "unlikely" isn't the same as "impossible". Bear in mind that we're talking about huge numbers of organisms mating over huge expanses of time. Even something that's "highly unlikely" to occur in any given single case becomes somewhat more likely when you give it a hundred billion chances. And in fact in many cases it's not that unlikely; it can be quite easy for organisms with different numbers of chromosomes to produce offspring that are not infertile.
As for how and when the chromosome count changes during speciation, that's no mystery either. The process of chromosomes breaking (or fusing, for that matter) is fairly well understood. In the case of breaking apart, it happens during mitosis when chromosomes with duplicated centromeres are pulled in opposite directions by the spindle fibers.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...osome_numb.php
Here's a site with a pretty easy-to-follow explanation, if you can stomach taking a science lesson from a gol'durned liberal atheist. I can't help noticing that you mocked gwahir for allegedly having a shallow grasp of the topic... but then when asked to elaborate on your objections to evolutionary theory, you chose such an elementary and easily-answered question as "where do the new chromosomes come from, huh?!"
Where did you think they come from... the invisible Hand of the Designer reaches into cell nuclei when it's time for speciation to occur and magically inserts the right number of new chromosomes?
Last edited by Syme; 04-05-2009 at 03:43 PM.
"Can't" as in 5 trillion monkeys pounding on typewriters can't write Romeo and Juliet.
So your contention is that new chromosomes found in new species are formed by screw ups in Anaphase?
EDIT: also, meiosis is the word you meant to use.
DOUBLE EDIT: SHIT, I forgot about Robertson.
Hmm, I guess I was wrong.
The point I'm making is that I observed a problem with it, and created a hypothesis on my own.
I didn't google my facts and then defend them like a religious zealout on the internet.I'm not scared to admit I was wrong though, because it was a genuine problem that apparently has a solution, albeit still an iffy one. (it's too easy to say A+N is gonna be fine when in reality there's probably 50,000 Kbase pairs in each letter.)But when they start to attack science...
...it's personal.
HOWEVER,
I still think the whole, "over huge periods of time" and "millions of generations" is a crutch that proponents need to get off of. If something is ridiculously improbable, but it looks like it happened, say so.
Wish I had a class with that guy.
Last edited by bacon ops; 04-05-2009 at 04:10 PM.
No, this is wrong. You are making stuff up. You are pulling probabilities out of your ass to try and pretend like you know what you're talking about, but you don't. Successful procreation by two organisms with different numbers of chromosomes is not as unlikely as you are pretending it is.
So your counterargument is "LOL"? Do yourself, and all of us, a favor: When you're trying to argue a point, let's have a bit less "Lol hey guys im on the internet" and a bit more "actually addressing the issue".Originally Posted by bacon ops
Yes, new chromosomes are formed due to chromosome breakage, and a major cause of that is chromosomes with duplicated centromeres breaking during mitosis. And it works the other way too; e.g. different species of rodents have different numbers of chromosomes due to centromere fusion (this is pretty well-documented). Honestly, if you want to know more about this stuff (and you definitely should know more before you try to have arguments like this), go pick up any decent cytogenetics text and give it a read. You're not the first person to wonder where new chromosomes come from, you're not the first person to think they've cleverly spotted a hole in evolutionary theory by wondering where new chromosomes come from, and you're not the first person to get shut down when it turns out that the origin of new chromosomes during speciation isn't some great mystery. Really, did you seriously think you had spotted some gaping hole in the theory that all the scientists who accept evolution had overlooked?
Last edited by Syme; 04-05-2009 at 04:14 PM.
Bookmarks