It doesn't even explain micro-mutations?Zero
Bigger hoax than "religiosity".
In fact, it is the premier human religion.
Jesus Christ man, why are you wasting your valuable time on this video? You could be charging thousands of dollars to put bandaids on minor wounds.I lied, I kept watching.
At 48 min they talk about Freud and lose their mind... "FREUD HASN'T BEEN DISPROVEN! He's just been MORE proven over time."
Very ironic.
There are many kids in the world and many languages so if a kid operates in a language that doesn't refer to it as a kind of bear then they may not confuse it with one?2 minutes the first guy says that a species is well defined and "even a kid knows", "it's part of our innate understanding of the universe". But a kid would assume a Koala is a bear species.
Is it that boring on the Yacht? Maybe you can have @Wild bring you more grapes and champagne.I lied, I kept watching.
At 48 min they talk about Freud and lose their mind... "FREUD HASN'T BEEN DISPROVEN! He's just been MORE proven over time."
Very ironic.
OP, what is is it that you "never been on board with it in its entirety. "?
I tried to give this video a go...
2 minutes the first guy says that a species is well defined and "even a kid knows", "it's part of our innate understanding of the universe". But a kid would assume a Koala is a bear species. Things get even weirder with with Ctenophores which were for a long time considered to be jelly fish but recently have been found to have radically different ancestors and are NOT the same species... turns out they aren't even the same phyla
This is beyond ignorant regarding the large and constant argument about what defines a species that is constantly changing thanks to our ability to perform evolutionary biology at a genetic level now. We have moved entire species to new families with this new information. So no, it's not innate. Not for kids or for mature observers.
4 minutes in and the first guy still has no idea what he's talking about.
5 minutes "Does Darwin strike you as beautiful???" LOL
5:45 finally real criticism that the origin of species argues that Darwin was running on limited science and we are beyond that now. That's true. But they don't keep going and they ignore evolutionary biology supporting common ancestors and natural selection down to the genetic and molecular level.
7minutes cambrian explosion argument... Just because Darwin couldn't answer it doesn't mean it's been disproven. Quite the contrary, as genetics move along we see models consistent with the fossil record. Data Darwin never had, but still backs Darwin, and apparently these guys never had either. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(13)00916-0?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982213009160?showall=true
9:20. I just now realized the arguments and text on screen is the guy on the right that said species are innate by children...he is so wrong and also he got blown up by the unabomber one time David Gelernter - Wikipedia
Now he says that generating a new protein means inventing a new gene (that's not true btw)...but again they go back to the cambrian explosion argument, but now at the genetic level while referring to computers in bad analogies. Once again, it is even more answered and supported the more we learn about genetics.
11:20 philospher says that cells are so "infinitely complicated" and because every time we learn about a cell we learn more and it becomes more complex, therefore that shows we don't know anything and therefore Darwin's theory is further away from the truth and we are further away from the truth...
But that's entirely untrue. If each time you find new information and you learn more and that data point adds to the litany of data points, you are closer to the answer.
13:00 unabomber guy once again shows he has no real understanding of genetic signaling. I can take the same DNA structure and make different proteins with the same code and he doesn't understand this very basic understanding of DNA superstructure and signaling.
Pick your one million sources on this Molecular Bio 101 Alternative proteins encoded by the same gene have widely divergent functions in cells
I'm done because these guys are just talking layman philosopher and not evidence and data...Gelernter especially seems to not understand phylogenetics.
Darwin set a theory based on observation, not his own guessing. He wasn't even the first one. Darwin didn't say he was all right and he didn't explain everything. He didn't try to explain everything. He setup a theory for the basis of common ancestors and selective force as the reason for change from those common ancestors. And that is consistently shown to date with greater and greater understanding of parts that Darwin never addressed nor did he try.
YouTube.@blank where do you keep finding these goofy videos bruv?
Oh man I wish I could see your algorithmYouTube.
Are you being serious?There are many kids in the world and many languages so if a kid operates in a language that doesn't refer to it as a kind of bear then they may not confuse it with one?
But I think his point was that even a child can differentiate a cat from a bat.
Evolution is full of mercury.Does evolutionary theory cause autism?
To be fair, some of those movements have been questioned. The scientific community with DNA is like a kid with a new toy.This is beyond ignorant regarding the large and constant argument about what defines a species that is constantly changing thanks to our ability to perform evolutionary biology at a genetic level now. We have moved entire species to new families with this new information. So no, it's not innate. Not for kids or for mature observers.
fascinating clipI believe in this based on how I feel after I eat psilocybin.
nice information~ mushrooms are way to gofascinating clip
Is that you doing the art? If not you should consider doing something similar
video worth a watch @Splinty
Though previous research surmised that psilocybin decreased brain activity, the current study used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see what was really going on. The study used 15 participants with prior positive experiences with hallucinogens to avoid a bad trip inside the enclosed machine. Some of the participants received psilocybin, while the other half received a saline placebo.
Simplified illustration of the connections tracked while receiving the placebo (a) and the psilocybin (b). Image credit: Petri et al., 2014.
Surprisingly, the researchers saw that upon receiving psilocybin, the brain actually re-organized connections and linked previously unconnected regions of the brain. These connections were not random, but appeared very organized and stable. Once the drug wore off, the connections returned to normal.
I'm not even sure how I stumbled upon it but I thought I'd give it a couple minutes to see if they could make the discussion interesting enough. I enjoyed listening to it and thought I'd share.Oh man I wish I could see your algorithm
I mean, I probably wouldn’t understand it, but it would make me feel important.
Oh ffs, relax a bit, eh?Are you being serious?
These guys are roping you in because you aren't starting with a definition, but instead argue with the argument showing they don't have definition.
The question was, "Start by convincing me that you're not just defining species to Darwin's disadvantage".
To which he promptly redefines species by suggesting that species are simply differentiating by looks and "innate" understanding.
How about a definition of a species.
Now I remember!Oh man I wish I could see your algorithm
I mean, I probably wouldn’t understand it, but it would make me feel important.
Who do you think he is, Prince?Is it that boring on the Yacht? Maybe you can have @Wild bring you more grapes and champagne.
Are you trying to tell me the proteins just started folding themselves, Doc?OP, what is is it that you "never been on board with it in its entirety. "?
I tried to give this video a go...
2 minutes the first guy says that a species is well defined and "even a kid knows", "it's part of our innate understanding of the universe". But a kid would assume a Koala is a bear species. Things get even weirder with with Ctenophores which were for a long time considered to be jelly fish but recently have been found to have radically different ancestors and are NOT the same species... turns out they aren't even the same phyla
This is beyond ignorant regarding the large and constant argument about what defines a species that is constantly changing thanks to our ability to perform evolutionary biology at a genetic level now. We have moved entire species to new families with this new information. So no, it's not innate. Not for kids or for mature observers.
4 minutes in and the first guy still has no idea what he's talking about.
5 minutes "Does Darwin strike you as beautiful???" LOL
5:45 finally real criticism that the origin of species argues that Darwin was running on limited science and we are beyond that now. That's true. But they don't keep going and they ignore evolutionary biology supporting common ancestors and natural selection down to the genetic and molecular level.
7minutes cambrian explosion argument... Just because Darwin couldn't answer it doesn't mean it's been disproven. Quite the contrary, as genetics move along we see models consistent with the fossil record. Data Darwin never had, but still backs Darwin, and apparently these guys never had either. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(13)00916-0?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982213009160?showall=true
9:20. I just now realized the arguments and text on screen is the guy on the right that said species are innate by children...he is so wrong and also he got blown up by the unabomber one time David Gelernter - Wikipedia
Now he says that generating a new protein means inventing a new gene (that's not true btw)...but again they go back to the cambrian explosion argument, but now at the genetic level while referring to computers in bad analogies. Once again, it is even more answered and supported the more we learn about genetics.
11:20 philospher says that cells are so "infinitely complicated" and because every time we learn about a cell we learn more and it becomes more complex, therefore that shows we don't know anything and therefore Darwin's theory is further away from the truth and we are further away from the truth...
But that's entirely untrue. If each time you find new information and you learn more and that data point adds to the litany of data points, you are closer to the answer.
13:00 unabomber guy once again shows he has no real understanding of genetic signaling. I can take the same DNA structure and make different proteins with the same code and he doesn't understand this very basic understanding of DNA superstructure and signaling.
Pick your one million sources on this Molecular Bio 101 Alternative proteins encoded by the same gene have widely divergent functions in cells
I'm done because these guys are just talking layman philosopher and not evidence and data...Gelernter especially seems to not understand phylogenetics.
Darwin set a theory based on observation, not his own guessing. He wasn't even the first one. Darwin didn't say he was all right and he didn't explain everything. He didn't try to explain everything. He setup a theory for the basis of common ancestors and selective force as the reason for change from those common ancestors. And that is consistently shown to date with greater and greater understanding of parts that Darwin never addressed nor did he try.
Are you trying to tell me the proteins just started folding themselves, Doc?