Sci/Tech Not that it matters, but how convinced are you by the Theory of Evolution?

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up
1

1031

Guest
To what extent does it explain life forms, as they exist and have existed?
I've never been on board with it in its entirety. Today I was lucky enough to find an interesting conversation questioning it, sans insults.
 

sparkuri

Pulse On The Finger Of The Community
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
34,420
46,562
Zero
Bigger hoax than "religiosity".
In fact, it is the premier human religion.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
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.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
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.
 
M

member 1013

Guest
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.
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.
 
1

1031

Guest
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.
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.

You've written a lot but I'm assuming it's not necessarily addressed to me so...meh.
 

sparkuri

Pulse On The Finger Of The Community
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
34,420
46,562
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.

Gerlanter answered the way he did(as if to a child/laymens terms) because he was asked to. Gerlanter is Gerlanter, it's an arrayed panel.
He even deferred several times to Meyer, and Berlinksi, and Berlinski is Berlinski.
What you say we are doing as a species today and what we are actually doing are two ENTIRELY different things, when referring to the "creation" or "mutation" of one species to another.
Further on, it's explained that the insertion of genetic coding(protein/gene) must enter into the equation early, or the outcome is fatal.
Introduction later on only produces adaptation-type differences, which is true observable science.
What's the difference?
Your timeline.
Even the timeline given by geologists & biologists(load of crap) that is accepted, determines the playing field, or an experiment environment condition.
A "new" or "mutated" species in this context is one that lives long enough to procreate a genetic line of DNA, in other words long enough that in the scientific community, were it to live and become endangered, extinction would be considered a timeline event that now reshapes the playing field referred to.
This is why Emery explains exponents, and why the scientific community as a whole knows now that the theoretical timeline of the "Cambrian Age" is far smaller than originally thought, from 60 million to 10 million(or 5).
In other words, whatever genetic mutation is created, it cannot become a species.
We will not live long enough to see it, nor will our entire family lineage.

Mathematics now has evolution as Darwin explained it completely false; the example given as 1/10,000,000,000,000 to 10,000,000,000,000 to the 10,000,000,000,000th power.
Without conceding Intelligent Design, Berlinski says he can now argue the case after a lifetime in the field, that evolution is a false scientific doctrine that he'd prosecute for. And although he's well-known, Meyer is the brighter individual clearly.

I'm quite certain computers and mankind figured this out long ago, and will neither release it, publish it, or confirm it to the public because population control is a thing.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
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?
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.


But I think his point was that even a child can differentiate a cat from a bat.

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.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
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.
To be fair, some of those movements have been questioned. The scientific community with DNA is like a kid with a new toy.
 

Rambo John J

Eats things that would make a Billy Goat Puke
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
71,541
71,465
I believe in this based on how I feel after I eat psilocybin.
fascinating clip

Is that you doing the art? If not you should consider doing something similar

video worth a watch Splinty @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.

 
Last edited:

tang

top korean roofer
Oct 21, 2015
9,398
12,402
fascinating clip

Is that you doing the art? If not you should consider doing something similar

video worth a watch Splinty @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.

nice information~ mushrooms are way to go

Nooo... I'm thinking about investing on some drawing tablet so I can make some animations, save paper and supplies, and do some legit art work but too expensive for my budget right now.
 
1

1031

Guest
Oh man I wish I could see your algorithm

I mean, I probably wouldn’t understand it, but it would make me feel important.
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.
 
1

1031

Guest
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.
Oh ffs, relax a bit, eh?
I guess the problem is on the one hand there is a need to speak in generalities, e.g. a prairie dog is a different species than a bear. And I'm pretty sure to the extent that children can understand species, they can recognize that.
On the other hand there is a need to be precise. Many of us (least of all myself) can't be precise enough to your standards so by default you will always be able to dismiss and/or browbeat us with your level of vocabulary (which I admit is necessary) reflecting specificity.
I'll say, as far as I'm concerned, if two animals can interbreed then they are of the same species.
 
1

1031

Guest
Oh man I wish I could see your algorithm

I mean, I probably wouldn’t understand it, but it would make me feel important.
Now I remember!
I had bought the one dude's book "The Tides of Mind," and brought it with me on vacation. I'm guessing his name is the missing link (pun intended) in the algorithm.
 

IschKabibble

TMMAC Addict
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
15,829
21,573
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?
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
Are you trying to tell me the proteins just started folding themselves, Doc?

Which proteins?

Indeed, proteins do fold themselves using physical forces (hydrophobic mostly) and chaperones. But they can do it on their own.