Hey all
The Evolution/Intelligent Design argument has always seemed really kind of stupid to me... I find both ends of the debate usually very extreme and stubborn, and neither who have a dog in the fight will ever budge (what's the point?). - I have my own ideas, none of which I am certain, and thus mostly tend to shy away from any such squabble.
But other paths of research have recently led me back to the issue, and I just finished watching this vid with much interest.
I had never really heard anyone debate evolution other than from a subjective/spiritual perspective (of which I find will get nowhere vs a scientist), but this guy seems to bring it.
Can he be refuted? I don't know enough about the weapons these debaters bring to their fights, but this vid all seems very logical, and would support my research on the idea that a lot of our modern scientific culture was fabricated for ulterior goals.
I even sort of liked the cheesy songs at the end
lol
Anti-Evolution video
lol
Here's a guy that would really hate the filmmaker:
(youtube vid keeps getting taken down)
http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=37317#.U2kOtI7NpUt
Here's a guy that would really hate the filmmaker:
(youtube vid keeps getting taken down)
http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=37317#.U2kOtI7NpUt
-
Edge Guerrero
- Posts: 8320
- Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:14 am
- Reputation: 3075
- Location: Smackdown Hotel at "the corner of Know Your Role Blvd
- Evolution just got they ass kicked bu The Shield this Sunday.
But they are a amazing stable to.
Btw, i was gonna post this, i think yesterday, but for some reason i totally forgot to do:
Evolution in species may reverse predator-prey population cycles
Source: Georgia Institute of Technology
Summary:Populations of predators and their prey usually follow predictable cycles. When the number of prey increases -- perhaps as their food supply becomes more abundant -- predator populations also grow. When the predator population becomes too large, however, the prey population often plummets, leaving too little food for the predators, whose population also then crashes. Co-evolutionary changes in species may reverse traditional predator-prey population cycles, creating the appearance that prey are eating the predators, according to a new study.
Rest of the read:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140505155139.htm
Like that song says:
Evolution is a mystery
Full of change that no one sees
Clock makes a fool of history
Yesterday's so long ago
Don't agree with what I know
Tomorrow becomes a place to be
But they are a amazing stable to.
Btw, i was gonna post this, i think yesterday, but for some reason i totally forgot to do:
Evolution in species may reverse predator-prey population cycles
Source: Georgia Institute of Technology
Summary:Populations of predators and their prey usually follow predictable cycles. When the number of prey increases -- perhaps as their food supply becomes more abundant -- predator populations also grow. When the predator population becomes too large, however, the prey population often plummets, leaving too little food for the predators, whose population also then crashes. Co-evolutionary changes in species may reverse traditional predator-prey population cycles, creating the appearance that prey are eating the predators, according to a new study.
Rest of the read:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140505155139.htm
Like that song says:
Evolution is a mystery
Full of change that no one sees
Clock makes a fool of history
Yesterday's so long ago
Don't agree with what I know
Tomorrow becomes a place to be
- I rent this space for advertising
Don't be selfish, preserve this world for the next generations.
I'll never long for what might have been
Regret won't waste my life again
I won't look back I'll fight to remain
Don't be selfish, preserve this world for the next generations.
I'll never long for what might have been
Regret won't waste my life again
I won't look back I'll fight to remain
I like how the filmmaker separates the terms 'Intelligent Design' from 'creationism'.
Just because some evolution theories are appearing to be horseshit does not = christianity or a biblical god.
Intelligent design does not imply who the designer is.
btw great poem Edge
bookmarked the article for later.
Just because some evolution theories are appearing to be horseshit does not = christianity or a biblical god.
Intelligent design does not imply who the designer is.
btw great poem Edge
bookmarked the article for later.
Pretty cool vid, some problems I noticed tho:
He dismisses all mutation as "harmful"(naturalistic fallacy, anyone?).
He only addresses radiometric dating and ignores all other forms(stratigraphy, ice cores, varves etc).
However the video does a great job of showing the hole in the current evolution model, that being abiogenesis. Nobody knows how a first cell would have come about.
He dismisses all mutation as "harmful"(naturalistic fallacy, anyone?).
He only addresses radiometric dating and ignores all other forms(stratigraphy, ice cores, varves etc).
However the video does a great job of showing the hole in the current evolution model, that being abiogenesis. Nobody knows how a first cell would have come about.
I was also intrigued as to his talk about horizontal evolution vs UPWARD evolution. .
Horizontal evolution being that features that give an advantage will survive and ill-favored traits will die, and thus the species will change over time according to its environment. (the beaks on that bird in the galapagos, etc). The filmmaker agrees with this and I think it is safe to assume this part of the evolution theory is correct. But this is all still dealing with traits that already exist. Thus 'horizontal' evolution; changes in the features but the same basic kind of creature (a fish doesn't turn into a bird, etc).
The filmmaker is more specifically debating the concept of UPWARD evolution, as in the appearance of a NEW trait that has never been seen before, that is MORE complex/better for the animal. Some kind of JUMP in complexity. Hence the story of all life coming from simple organisms, and over time becoming more complex...
Now unless I misunderstood, the theory states that any such UPWARD changes happen because of mutation.
Do I have that right?
But according to the video, there are NO proven/recorded cases of any such positive mutation, ever. It is 100% theory. Is this true? He states adamantly that there has never ever been a scientifically proven case of it happening. Also, he states that if the theory were true, it should be possible to re-create the phenomenon in the laboratory. Yet again the filmmaker is telling us that no such experiment has ever been achieved.
Then the vid takes it up a level, talking about the 'Law of Increasing Randomness'... meaning that when things happen by pure chance it is not likely to create something that is better than before. When you break a glass, the pieces don't form by pure luck exactly in the form of a BETTER glass... they become more random and lay in a pile of shards.
This is why I think he argues that mutations are only harmful. It seems more likely that a mutation is something that got fucked up... and that the chances that a mutation just happens to accidentally design something better for the organism are beyond astronomical.
(This also obviously points out the same points re; the abiogenesis issue Luigi mentioned)
So how then did 1-celled organisms learn to be 2, and eventually develop nervous systems, brains, eyes, etc etc etc. These are highly complex and amazing structures! Does evolution really propose that it was just random luck over many many years?
* I am not making these points for myself, I am here to learn. I'm only trying to see if I understood the arguments in the video correctly, and to see what people think of them
Horizontal evolution being that features that give an advantage will survive and ill-favored traits will die, and thus the species will change over time according to its environment. (the beaks on that bird in the galapagos, etc). The filmmaker agrees with this and I think it is safe to assume this part of the evolution theory is correct. But this is all still dealing with traits that already exist. Thus 'horizontal' evolution; changes in the features but the same basic kind of creature (a fish doesn't turn into a bird, etc).
The filmmaker is more specifically debating the concept of UPWARD evolution, as in the appearance of a NEW trait that has never been seen before, that is MORE complex/better for the animal. Some kind of JUMP in complexity. Hence the story of all life coming from simple organisms, and over time becoming more complex...
Now unless I misunderstood, the theory states that any such UPWARD changes happen because of mutation.
Do I have that right?
But according to the video, there are NO proven/recorded cases of any such positive mutation, ever. It is 100% theory. Is this true? He states adamantly that there has never ever been a scientifically proven case of it happening. Also, he states that if the theory were true, it should be possible to re-create the phenomenon in the laboratory. Yet again the filmmaker is telling us that no such experiment has ever been achieved.
Then the vid takes it up a level, talking about the 'Law of Increasing Randomness'... meaning that when things happen by pure chance it is not likely to create something that is better than before. When you break a glass, the pieces don't form by pure luck exactly in the form of a BETTER glass... they become more random and lay in a pile of shards.
This is why I think he argues that mutations are only harmful. It seems more likely that a mutation is something that got fucked up... and that the chances that a mutation just happens to accidentally design something better for the organism are beyond astronomical.
(This also obviously points out the same points re; the abiogenesis issue Luigi mentioned)
So how then did 1-celled organisms learn to be 2, and eventually develop nervous systems, brains, eyes, etc etc etc. These are highly complex and amazing structures! Does evolution really propose that it was just random luck over many many years?
* I am not making these points for myself, I am here to learn. I'm only trying to see if I understood the arguments in the video correctly, and to see what people think of them
PS: did anyone watch the dude in the link in the 2nd post?
he deserves his own thread lol
he deserves his own thread lol
Its true that there has never been a lab experiment that shows evolution in action, in fact Im pretty sure this is the reason why evolution is officially still a "theory". From what I understand you just cant cram years of evolution into one observable instance in a lab.
The issue I take with the idea that all mutations are harmful, is that by calling them harmful, you are saying there is an inherent ideal form for evolution to achieve. The problem is, "harmful" traits can often serve other ergonomic means. Because evolution is so long term, I dont have an example of this that is empirically measurable, but I can think of examples in the very clear and evident process of natural selection. For example, sickle cell anemia is a disease that is very "harmful" to people and can often result in death. Surely the author of the video would tell you a population developing sickle cell anemia would fail, yet in east Africa it was highly beneficial because it reduced your chances of catching malaria, and thus it proliferated and soon most of the populace had sickle cell anemia, a "harmful" trait.
The issue I take with the idea that all mutations are harmful, is that by calling them harmful, you are saying there is an inherent ideal form for evolution to achieve. The problem is, "harmful" traits can often serve other ergonomic means. Because evolution is so long term, I dont have an example of this that is empirically measurable, but I can think of examples in the very clear and evident process of natural selection. For example, sickle cell anemia is a disease that is very "harmful" to people and can often result in death. Surely the author of the video would tell you a population developing sickle cell anemia would fail, yet in east Africa it was highly beneficial because it reduced your chances of catching malaria, and thus it proliferated and soon most of the populace had sickle cell anemia, a "harmful" trait.
And ya that dude in video #2 was a really something lol I wonder why they took that off of youtube?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Masato and 79 guests