Came in here to post this.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.
Protein and RNA often self-fold in aqueous environments. That's the foundation of biochemistry.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjt1Q2ZZVjA
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5gN-IK6uKs
M
member 3289
Guest
Rapid Evolution On The Galapagos Islands Leads To A New Species Of Finch
When we can see it happening literally before our very eyes, it makes it very hard to question it
When we can see it happening literally before our very eyes, it makes it very hard to question it
M
member 1013
Guest
That’s like, not gonna happen.
Bacteria study show this all the time. my antibiotic usage induces horizontal gene transfer regularly and is a major problem.
There's a famed scientist that has had a continual E Coli study going since the '80s.
Some of the bacteria spontaneously started using different energy sources for food. And that's without any significant selective forces being added.
To be clear for the layman, the problem with all of the arguments by the mathematicians in this video is that they're being quite disingenuous in what causes evolution. The great majority of evolution is driven by selective forces and genetic drift. It is not due to random mutation alone as the bad math implies. The bad math gets even worse because it's never giving in context and rarely is the work shown. When the work is showing that use singular events such as a single allele switching due to a single DNA pair. This is analogous to flipping one coin over and over and over. But that's not how your genetics work. Things are happening in parallel, continuously, billions of times a day in every person... And at similar rates in a great many animals. In animals that the replication process is happening less, they have simpler chromosomes such as the E coli example above where random mutation and selective forces can be shown in real time to cause evolution.
There's something called the breeders equation...
R =h^2S
Essentially the response to selection is equal to the heritability (a scaling factor) times the selection differential (the difference between the mean of the population and the mean of the individuals that are reproducing in that population).
Using known animals and plants that are of major interest to breeders and farmers, we can predict changes per generation and do models for time to selective outcomes. There's not just a lot of science in this but also a lot of money. To be very clear this math is not BS with billions of dollars riding on it. This is not some academic scientist has the video proports defending some pseudo religion. Instead it's also private industry with major interest and real outcomes. I almost feel stupid having to address that, given the huge body of work that continues to support evolution.
Regardless when you start to look at how rapid changes occur in vivo, math continues to work out that evolution as we theorize remains both possible and currently the most likely answer to the compendium of life on the planet at the moment.
The main area that Darwin got wrong was in group selection versus kin selection. He was on the right path but not as sophisticated due to his timing.
Likewise Darwin believed in blended inheritance even though he had some evidence right in front of him that mendellian inheritance patterns were the cause.
Beyond this of course Darwin couldn't consider the multifactorial input of more advanced genetics.
None of this changes that Darwin's theory on selective forces on common ancestry continue to be born out all the way to the genetic level.
M
member 1013
Guest
It was bad enough when You shilled for big pharma. Now you’re shilling for big biochemistry!!!
I would love to hear his thoughts on that Paul staments video above...I realize it is science mixed with speculation...but it is rather interesting IMO@Splinty, do you entertain any theories on how human consciousness evolved past lower animals?
I also realize doctors often don't want to comment on illegal substances while they are still practicing medicine...doctors I know hold off on openly engaging in that type of discussion until retirement
Do you mind if I forward this to Berlinski, Meyer, and Gerlernter?
Please paste the link to where they publicly show their math
Show me a new species and I'm on it
A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It HappenShow me a new species and I'm on it
And again I can show you thousands of data points that are fall in line with a Darwin's theory.
So the mathematician that goes and puts out large numbers can't show his math?
2 generations(in bird talk) does not a species make.
You know Berlinski, right?
M
member 1013
Guest
David Berlinski
David Berlinski is an American philosopher and intelligent design advocate. He is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.[1]He has also written on mathematics, including a rather well-received introduction to calculus, though his books “Newton's Gift” and “The Advent of the Algorithm”, his only two books to be reviewed on MathSciNet, were criticized for containing historical and mathematical inaccuracies. It is worth noting that his books on mathematics are popular books. Although often referred to as a “mathematician”, Berlinski has done no research in mathematics.[2] He has also written several books of fiction - cynics would probably claim that he’s written more of these than he thinks - and has a PhD in philosophy from Princeton University.
He claims to be a secular Jew and agnostic, and denies that he is an advocate of intelligent design but rather claims to be a skeptic on the matter of evolution. However, his articles and books are filled with religiously-based creationistarguments.[3] Although he officially refuses to speculate about the origins of life, critics argue that he is pretty obviously a shill for intelligent design.[4] Berlinski is a signatory to A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
David Berlinski - RationalWiki
David Berlinski is an American philosopher and intelligent design advocate. He is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.[1]He has also written on mathematics, including a rather well-received introduction to calculus, though his books “Newton's Gift” and “The Advent of the Algorithm”, his only two books to be reviewed on MathSciNet, were criticized for containing historical and mathematical inaccuracies. It is worth noting that his books on mathematics are popular books. Although often referred to as a “mathematician”, Berlinski has done no research in mathematics.[2] He has also written several books of fiction - cynics would probably claim that he’s written more of these than he thinks - and has a PhD in philosophy from Princeton University.
He claims to be a secular Jew and agnostic, and denies that he is an advocate of intelligent design but rather claims to be a skeptic on the matter of evolution. However, his articles and books are filled with religiously-based creationistarguments.[3] Although he officially refuses to speculate about the origins of life, critics argue that he is pretty obviously a shill for intelligent design.[4] Berlinski is a signatory to A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
David Berlinski - RationalWiki
While this is true, and I was waiting for a mathematician to publish his math to prove he's not a snake oil contrarian, I watched a bunch of the guy's videos:
These aren't scientists. They are philosophers barely cognizant of the topics they are discussing.
No, that statement isn't true. It's comically false.
M
member 1013
Guest
He did a post doctorate in molecular biology some howWhile this is true, and I was waiting for a mathematician to publish his math to prove he's not a snake oil contrarian, I watched a bunch of the guy's videos:
These aren't scientists. They are philosophers barely cognizant of the topics they are discussing.
No, that statement isn't true. It's comically false.
Then he's worse. He's being intentional.
At first he's just waxing poetic but when he states something as wrong and stupid as that screen text, and there are many, he's just intentionally misleading people. He surely has the basic physics foundation to understand what he is doing in mixing layman's terms and misunderstanding of concepts with philosophy.