M
member 1013
Guest
No one that works for a “think-tank” would ever obfuscate or manipulate the truth!!!!
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.
M
member 1013
Guest
One time
@Splinty took me on the yacht up to the waters of lake Minnetonka, where I purified myself
Yep I saved the pictures you guys postedOne time
no worries bro..shrinkage is shrinkage
M
member 1013
Guest
That ain’t me. I know when to hang em upYep I saved the pictures you guys posted
no worries bro..shrinkage is shrinkage
That ain’t me. I know when to hang em up
I circled you
that is you in the circle
it was -31 F
Have we observed abiogenesis in a laboratory setting? Assuming we understand these mechanisms, could we not replicate the necessary conditions?
Depends. When I was training we RNA probably existed first. So many experiments were based on trying to replicate ribosomes spontaneous synthesis. And that has been done successfully.
Take nucleobases, sugar, and phosphate. Heat it up and let it cool a few times and ribosomes are spontaneously made.
We have shown spontaneous basic cells.
Lately the focus is protein. And the same things being discovered.
So you have one by one, each of all the steps being figured out.
What I find interesting is they had the same components for decades and it didn't work. Someone figured out the heating and cooling cycles and ta-da.
So it's a little harder than understanding ingredients. You have to figure out the recipe too.
We aren't there yet for all steps but the theories continue to be supported, though we are finding reasons to think different about which step in the cell must have occured first.
Although I truly find this thread one of the most interesting topics to date, this is how I feel reading a lot of this stuff.
M
member 1013
Guest
M
member 1013
Guest
That sounds terrible
1
1031
Guest
I honestly have no idea why some people are so opinionated on this topic- it doesn't matter what any of us wants to or doesn't want to think is true. To me it's interesting to hear how some people think as long as they're not being cunts and pricks about it...which is why a few people's posts on this thread are rather disappointing.
M
member 1013
Guest
Evolution depends on time.
Religion depends on time.
Both fight with geology.
If you discredit one, you discredit foundational beliefs that help form personality & worldview.
Either way you believe, it's attacking one's "personhood" so it's a Hot Topic.
I am not gay but Fedor is Fedor.Yep I saved the pictures you guys posted
no worries bro..shrinkage is shrinkage
M
member 1013
Guest
No it’s a tree i saw in da woods where an infamous poster, may he RIP, wrestled a bull moose
I disagree with that.
I find no incompatibility with evolution and Christianity, for instance.
I do however find the argument that I or others must be thinking a certain way because of a faux-religion of science and academia offensive. That is an ad hominem used by the video to discredit anyone other than those in the video. It is indeed a personal attack.
They answer a fake interview with such accusations instead of the data points.
You know, the data like black and white math, since the only two real arguments in the entire video are math based. So that should be rather easy to show (PhD in mathematics...surely his numbers are published somewhere right??? ). But instead the aemotional data points supporting evolution are responded to by such personal accusations. Why can't they respond with the aemotional conflict data?
Don't you care to see how he got to that at least to back your view?