Is the universe a product of Intelligent Design?

@merodobson

4 ай бұрын

100% The Signature can be seen everywhere. And felt if one is willing to open their heart.

@eenkjet

4 ай бұрын

The best argument I can make is one from universality. Iff a worldline is encoded by the UWF and that worldline contains particle positions for a brain, by universality the UWF must be equal to or greater in computability than that brain. Brains are Godel/Lobian class, thus we must assign Godel/Lobian machine class to the UWF.

@JackSmith-kp2vs

4 ай бұрын

The mature answer to this question is we just don’t know

@CreationMyths

4 ай бұрын

No.

@carefulcarpenter

4 ай бұрын

_Synchronistic Mathematics_ will reveal truths to the sincerely curious. G and W have censored my topic of independent research of 23 years. Cassini Death is one of my favorite data sets. Another is the Great Pyramid. In messageboards my comments are mostly ignored, and not one challenge has been willing to use an online scientific calculator to verify my calculations. 😊

Newton was very devout though heterodox. Considering he's had a bigger impact on mathematics and science than any scientist since him, I don't think religious scientists are a problem. The bigger problem, considering the scandals of the last few years at Harvard's biology department, is falsification of results, herd mentality within the community, inadequate peer review, and money. Lots of money. As in "I will never see that much money in my entire lifetime." Some of these scientists are wearing different hats while boarding their own departments making a serious conflict of interest.

@DavidLoveMore

4 ай бұрын

Thinking peer review is some kind of method of determining truth is exactly the kind of stupidity needed to belong to this ridiculous sect.

@paulaustinmurphy

4 ай бұрын

Almost every scientist in Newton's day was a Christian in Europe. That is just a sociological and historical fact. So this only has interest and relevance in a sociological and psychological context. In terms of scientific theories and their justification, it is virtually irrelevant.

@DavidLoveMore

4 ай бұрын

@@AquaFyrre What is your evidence for this, and so what?

@DavidLoveMore

4 ай бұрын

Euler had a bigger impact on mathematics. He thought the bible was God's greatest gift to mankind. Newton had a more diverse range of achievements. But Euler was ridiculously prolific mathematically.

@DavidLoveMore

4 ай бұрын

Euler also wrote about the aether. In Hebrew the word for heaven is literally 300-water. 300Mm/s is approximately the speed of light on earth.

"A new scientific truth does not generally triumph by persuading its opponents and getting them to admit their errors, but rather by its opponents gradually dying out and giving way to a new generation that is raised on it." Max Planck (translated)

@mikev4621

3 ай бұрын

" Science advances funeral by funeral"

@johntim3491

3 ай бұрын

Sometimes the new generation is raised on errors and scientific truth dies out.

@MrSeedi76

3 ай бұрын

@@johntim3491 also true. Like when physicians did away with handwashing for a while, disregarding germ theory.

@sharonwickens6921

3 ай бұрын

Science can go dark when it has something it doesn't want seen out in the open sxx bravo Juliett j9f experimentation of the time 1960 s

@edus9636

3 ай бұрын

So true! A great example of the opposite was the Piltdown Man, a hoax knowingly defended by the atheist Establishment for 40 years, until it was "finally discovered" to be one of the biggest lies in the history of science (but now cleverly made "forgotten"). But the damage was done and the new generations had been well indoctrinated into Darwinism.

There is also funding bias! When you pay people to find something, they will find what they are paid to find.

@zorot3876

3 ай бұрын

Spot on hence the climate hoax.

@mikefromspace

3 ай бұрын

Yes, the climate hoaxers wont tell you about the red Saharan sand layers found by Kenny Broad in a Bimini blue hole, split by 12,900 years matching the earth's 120 degree equator flip cycle tied to both the Sirius ion storm cycle and the solar system motion cycle through the galactic axis (which NASA denied btw even though we have super clear evidence of it) @@zorot3876

@insaaanestuff

3 ай бұрын

And if they don’t, then you hire new ones

@edus9636

3 ай бұрын

Exactly, see the mass media telling that Covid spread to the world from a bat-soup in Wuhan and that the mRNA-vaccines would stop the virus from infecting people...

@mbradley274

3 ай бұрын

and bury every study that disproves what you want to prove.

I am a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design. I can't see how things could have come to be the way they are without an intelligent designer. Nevertheless, I agree with Eric Weinstein that God/Jesus should not be "smuggled" into every discussion. I believe we have to let the scientists do their work and not hijack the discussion prematurely into religion or apologetics. Faith and the theological discipline that it engenders are separate disciplines and fields of study from science. Being different, however, does not have to mean that they are at enmity with each other. In fact, science blossomed in the context of the university which itself blossomed in Christian culture where the desire was to come to a deeper understanding of God's creation. Everything, therefore, is worthy of study and must be done so with objectivity. That objectivity, however, must go both ways. Science must be allowed to investigate without putting a Christian template on everything, but scientist must not be allowed to foist the template of their own "religion", e.g., Darwinism, onto the field of study.

@jasonvance4801

27 күн бұрын

Design automatically smuggles in God, because design is de facto evidence of a Creator.

Every scientist is vulnerable to confirmation bias OR falsification bias. We should be EQUALLY concerned and watchful for scientists who might be motivated to create false data that pushes a religious narrative or falsification narrative for targeted beliefs.

@bradsmith9189

4 ай бұрын

Agreed. The false pursuit of atheism has taken science down many false dead end roads…

@Kyle906-Q8

4 ай бұрын

Absolutely!

@aidanya1336

4 ай бұрын

Yup, no exception for religious scientists because it makes them feel persecuted.

@bmoobe

4 ай бұрын

As a Christ follower I completely agree!

@michael-4k4000

4 ай бұрын

I'm a Scientologist which is the best of both worlds 🌎! Plus we have Tom Cruise!

Pseudo-copulation; that pretty much sums up a good chunk of my adolescence.

@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098

4 ай бұрын

Come again?

@kwg5044

4 ай бұрын

Low-hanging fruit, really

@ColdHawk

3 ай бұрын

Japanese robot manufacturer says, “Please, give us a few years gentlemen.”

@PrimePhilosophy

3 ай бұрын

Like dry humping?

@MaxMBJ

3 ай бұрын

Still funny.

I've always wondered how statistically possible it was to evolve complicated life - it just can't be totally random

@ecyranot

2 ай бұрын

It requires a lot of time, which we had.

@jeonrickmarcushipolito9711

2 ай бұрын

Natural selection is not random

@KieranLeCam

2 ай бұрын

Try to see it this way: you can look back on evolution through time and notice what appears to be a straight beeline from simple to complex. There's always some organism that evolves and survives. But from any one period you cannot predict which organism will be the one to survive into the future. What looks like a designed evolution, is on the moment, just the strongest, smartest, toughest, best at hiding, etc, winning the fight. Another way of saying it, is there is no standard for complexity. Complexity is relative. So for all you know there is a more efficient better organism that can exist 13.8 billion years after the beginning of our universe, but it couldn’t happen on our planet, because our planet had a specific arrangement of matter that lead to the specific evolutionary tree we observe today in the fossil record. We may not be that complex. Or perhaps we are. But this is a helpful way to understand how natural selection can lead to what we **call** incredibly complex things, with random genetic mutations. There may be other factors at play like genes reexpressing themselves, changing, after birth, apparently affected by environmental factors. This is part of a field called epigenetics. But it requires patience and more study, to understand its limits. For now, it is quite apparent the theory of evolution stands firm. Also remember I am no expert, and you should do your own research. Trust no one simply because they sound smart. Learn everything for yourself. Good luck!

@edus9636

2 ай бұрын

@@KieranLeCam Define "simple", because lifeforms have NEVER been simple, the big LIE Neo-Darwinists have always told us. The first cell was complex from the very beginning, because it was made of TRILLIONS of arranged atoms, another fact that the dogmatics knowingly push under the carpet. Another lie: with the first cell began the tree of life. Nope, because even statistics put the survival odds for this cell (created by pure random chance, so the scientific narrative) to zero. Natural selection by random chance can impossibly lead to "incredibly complex things", a delusion told by charlatans like Dawkins. The existence of extremophiles has already destroyed this nonsense. Random chance only exists at the macroscosmos (animals/humans surviving tsunamis, eruptions, plagues, wars, etc). Life and information contributed to terraforming of the planet, to make it compatible for lifeforms after millions of years. When the conditions were given, the first cells (plural!) formed in several spots of the earth. Many died, but the remaining few began the odyssey called Evolution through intelligent design. Irreducible complexity is a fact and has never been debunked like deluded liars try to tell us. The "more efficient better organism" has always been the bacterium. Yet it evolved anyway to all fauna and flora we see today and in the fossils of the past. Darwinism doesn't work in the microcosmos. Never has.

@Dr-Curious

2 ай бұрын

Simple. Nobody claim's it's random except creationists and Iiars.

Shocking that Scientists would censor dissenting ideas.

Is this what we're doing now? Pretending that when someone says "intelligent design" they aren't talking about a god magically poofing things into existence, but rather, somehow contorting the tricking of a fish to be "intelligent design," rather than literally just being the normal selective pressure of natural selection i.e. the more fit tricky mollusk is able to care for its offspring better. You're just trying to shift the perspective here and claiming the fish is "intelligently" *designing* the mollusk, rather than the more realistic and evident fact of a given mollusk being better fit to propagate, thereby continuing the natural selection process.

@aliengreeter

4 ай бұрын

Tell me you don't know diddley shit about the subject you're complaining about with out telling me you don't know diddley shit about the subject you're complaining about.

@zedek_

4 ай бұрын

@@aliengreeter Nice projection.

@aliengreeter

4 ай бұрын

@@zedek_ It's an assessment, not a projection stupid.

@anthonybrett

4 ай бұрын

Eric never brought God into the equation of intelligent design in this conversation? There is a difference between the old creationist bullshit of "Intelligent Design" and the intelligent design that Eric is talking about. He is talking about the learned intellect of the organism playing a part in the process. Not God. "You're just trying to shift the perspective here and claiming the fish is "intelligently" designing the mollusk." Sometimes you need to shift your perspective to see better.

@zedek_

4 ай бұрын

@@anthonybrett Hey thank you for that clarification -- I thought I was running into that creationist apologist bullshit from 10 years ago. There have been so many instances where people I followed suddenly shifted to being alt-right or some nonsense, that I thought Eric was doing something similar with the god version of intelligent design that was all the rage, haha. Happy to learn I was mistaken. Merry Christmas dude

Why use the term "intelligent design" in this way? Just to confuse people? Because you could come up with (or use existing) terms very easily instead.

@Citizen_J

2 ай бұрын

Selective breeding/artificial selection comes to mind

@arcguardian

2 ай бұрын

What's the difference?

@myggggeneration

2 ай бұрын

Agree. Mules (donkey x horse) happen in the wild naturally as well as being bred domestically. Interestingly, the buck stops there, they cannot reproduce.

I love these conversations because it gets quite frustrating not being an atheist or religious, yet seeing there is something much more to the universe and its life.

I don’t see any design in Erick’s examples. Co-evolution seems infinitely more likely an explanation. Design would imply intention. A clam or a flower can’t choose its genetics, or choose the mutations in the genetics of its offspring.

@polkad3v

3 ай бұрын

Mr Weinstein seems to be just arguing about words.

@lauterunvollkommenheit4344

3 ай бұрын

The Wikipedia article on adaptive mutation is a good starting point on the topic.

1. Mutated mussel creates floppy lip. 2. Bass eats lip killing mussel but inhaling its young. Advantage mussel and Bass as bass gets a meal and young bass get a meal and distribution. 3. Mussel evolves ability to survive its lip being eaten. Advantage mussel & bass. 4. Mussel evolves ability to keep its tissues intact. Bass loses its meal but still provides blood meal for young mussels. advantage mussel only 5. Mussel makes tissues more attractive to bass because lip no longer a food supply for the bass. Advantage mussel only. A similar obvious route doubtless exists for the orchid example. Nice examples but no sign of intelligence needed by any of the organisms involved. Not sure what point Eric was trying to make here.

@firecloud77

4 ай бұрын

"Mutated mussel creates..." "Mussel evolves ability..." "Mussel evolves ability..." "Mussel makes..." Document the pathway that random genetic mutations and natural selection took to reach each of these stages.

@koolkeef

4 ай бұрын

Mimicry and convergent evolution always throws me for a loop. There's several species of moth that look and fly exactly like a hummingbird, and I'm just like what is the point? What evolutionary pressures led to this??

@jerrymcarthur2062

4 ай бұрын

That fact that Eric says in his argument there’s nothing else it could possibly be shows the shallowness of his thinking. As a f there was some way he could be 100% certain of all the factors and influences.

@Kyle906-Q8

4 ай бұрын

Yep! Exactly what i was thinking! But people nowadays will fall for anyone who sounds very convincing with a little charisma. Eric is absolutely wrong about everything he said. It shows he really doesn’t understand evolution that well. The people agreeing with him are literally just looking for confirmation bias.

@firecloud77

4 ай бұрын

@@Kyle906-Q8 Understand evolution? Understanding what the theory claims is not the problem. The problem is proving that it actually happened. There is no proof, just speculation masquerading as proof. And you apparently don't know the difference.

I am confused. Aren't the examples provided about "intelligent design" examples of artificial selection by human breeders? In terms of "perception mediated selection", it still falls under the bigger umbrellas of natural selection and sexual selection of evolutionary biology, whether you are talking about eagle's vision or camouflaged flowers. Its a subset of Darwinian selection, not a supplement or replacement.

@alexanderktn

4 ай бұрын

Yeah, Weinstein just likes to oppose anything he deems "orthodox", even if it doesn't make sense. If you listen to other interviews with him, he appears very much to be a conspiracy theorist.

@JoshWiniberg

4 ай бұрын

Nothing to be confused about, I think it's Eric who's confused. It's a bizarre example for him to pick because it had nothing to do with the subject of intelligent design. Seems to me like Eric is really reaching here.

@waterkingdavid

4 ай бұрын

​@@JoshWinibergTalking would be a better description of what he's doing! But nevertheless I enjoy listening to him. Not every day you hear people talking about pseudocopulation!

@konberner170

4 ай бұрын

If it turns out that, for example, in humans, female selection is more important to guiding evolution than random mutations, then this may mean you'll have to turn to psychology rather than science (sorry psychologists) to understand what is really happening in human evolution.

@hollywooda111

4 ай бұрын

It does & we also know who the breeder is, why certain breeds were selected & Eric is as thick as pig shit.

Scientists have been discussing what Eric calls "perception mediated selection" for over 100 years. The general term is "biotic selection" and has been in use since at least 1908. The evolution of lures (as in the clam and the flower Eric mentions) are examples of "aggressive mimicry", a term coined by Edward Poulton in 1892. Mimicry, in general, evolves through a special type of biotic selection that remained unnamed until the 90s, but is now called "sensory exploitation". I imagine Bret would not like that Eric is pretending Bret came up with all these ideas, since they are staples of evolutionary biology almost from its start.

@Y3HU

3 ай бұрын

I think you should give it a little bit more cognitive effort in analyzing this. Eric explains that Darwin himself wrote about this - which shows that he gives credit to the contemplation of the conundrum to at least one other author. I am not sure where you are getting the idea that he is pretending or posing to have been the original thinker about this. What Eric has to offer is a bit different, his concept of "perception mediated selection," is a bit different from what you are calling "biotic selection," or "aggressive mimicry," in that he is arguing that it is actually the mistakes made by certain agents which are driving the selection pressure. On one hand perception mediated selection is an explanation how, whereas the latter is simply a description of the behavior. Point is, it's not the same thing. I can't find any scholarly articles referring to what work he is referencing but he uses neurological terms like "bounded intelligence." I haven't seen much of his work but from the first glance it seems as though he may consume relevant scientific articles similar to my interest, neuroscience / mathematics. Relevant authors to look more into understanding what what he is talking about and why it may be interesting are; Marks Solms, Karl Friston There is alot of work being completed in contextualizing the difference between consciousness and intelligence and if what this mechanic describes it is true, it sort of shows that there is a sort of embodied cognition which is actively learning even if disconnected form the neocortex. Concepts that might be appreciated is the intelligence of plants / starfish / hydroencephalic children etc

@gaetanomontante5161

2 ай бұрын

@@Y3HU Yours is another example of a poetic response. You are not angry or insulting to Mr. @Stated Casually. Instead, you are pointing out the various manners in which the concept has been discussed in the past and continues to be so. I appreciate that you took the time to "converse", "debate", "amplify" Mr. @StatedCasually's points with the result that all of us are "smarter" for that interaction. Thank you very much. PS: Also, if I say that "one of my better ideas" is the studying and understanding of the Specific Gravity as discovered by the great Sicilian scientist Archimedes, I am not saying that I discovered this mind blowing concept. QED

@mitchjames9350

2 ай бұрын

I prefer Bret over Eric who is more logical and knowledgeable than his brother also makes more sense than he does.

@Pre_Vee_et

2 ай бұрын

The deeper we get into quantum mechanics, the more it looks like there is a God (or call him/her/it/they, the game engine designer). It’s really fascinating that the deeper we delve into science and understanding the world around us, it does seem…the more it points to intelligent design.

@StatedCasually

2 ай бұрын

@RealAliens-fw4nq Biologists have discussed and written about each example Eric gave, in detail, as well as the evolutionary dynamics that make mimicry possible. There are hundreds of papers and many books written about this subject, many were published before Bret was born.

Neither Galileo nor Bruno were punished for things they said or wrote as regards their findings, but rather things they said against the Church - at a time when the State they lived in was under the Church.

@jounisuninen

3 ай бұрын

Galileo Galilei had a personal issue with Pope. Both were shrews but Pope had the bigger stick.

@MrSeedi76

3 ай бұрын

Ah, and yet another ill-informed person who believes the lies about Galileo and Bruno. Haven't I seen that before. Galileo wasn't even really punished. He lived his life in luxury and continued his studies. And fun fact - the Jesuits looked through his telescope and were convinced. His colleagues however didn't even bother looking through it because they "knew" he was wrong. And Bruno was handed over to the authorities after being questioned by the inquisition and they asked for his live to be spared but the court killed him anyway. There are so much lies spread about the church it's unbelievable. Many of these lies date back to the French revolution BTW. For an unbiased view I'd suggest the channel "Esoterica" run by Dr Justin Sledge. As a secular jew he's certainly not spreading "pro Christianity" propaganda.

@marcokite

2 ай бұрын

In Galileo's case the Church was following the science. About 99% of scientists who lived at that time (natural philosophers etc) thought Galileo was wrong. He was TOTALLY wrong about the moon and the tides (as the Church correctly pointed out). The pope told Galileo his theory was interesting and to put both sides in dialogue format but Galileo in his arrogance insulted the pope, it got personal and all went pear shaped. Some of Galileo's research was funded by the Church but no one mentions that either.

@edus9636

Ай бұрын

@@marcokite "but no one mentions that either". Yep, the anti-Christian movements have always been strong, and the (luckily) short lived Inquisition was used to inflame the propaganda invented after the Renaissance to make a blunt separation to the medieval "Dark Ages"; "forgetting" that more blood was spilt in the Modern Age than before (not to mention the hundreds of millions killed by the atheists through Communism, Maoism, Polpotism, US-military-, pharma- and fast food-industry). Also funny is how the atheists use Galileo as the paladin of modern Science while conveniently "forgetting" his deep studies on alchemy.

I like to think that the insect knows and doesn't care. "Dang that is one sexy flower" [quickly checks his six as he unzips his trousers]

One thing is for sure. History will look back upon us and our understanding of reality as being primitive, coarse, and mostly incorrect.

@joaquinmisajr.1215

4 ай бұрын

Who do you think will bother about history after the impending 6th mass extinction?!

@heartpath1

4 ай бұрын

@@joaquinmisajr.1215 Well, obviously, extinction is the last word, but if that doesn’t happen then .

@stevenverrall4527

4 ай бұрын

​​@@joaquinmisajr.1215 Every human generation thinks they are the first enlightened generation. The opinion you express here is at least primitive and coarse. Complete human extinction is extremely unlikely.

@zimpoooooo

4 ай бұрын

Hold my beer.@@stevenverrall4527

@lv4077

4 ай бұрын

@@joaquinmisajr.1215 You seem excited by the prospect.

I'm not a Christian, but I have great respect for Dr. James Tours work with criticism of the origin of life field. I find him very careful and complete his thoughts, while personally I find his detractors often very dishonest in trying to tarnish him personally, while ignoring the immense gaps in the origins of biological life.

@kurtisengle6256

3 ай бұрын

I got your Dr James Tours COVERED. And not with opinion. Just gravity, thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics. Google "Nick Lane: The electrical origins of life" and get ready for an hour of BIG ANSWERS about how life can be automatically created on any wet, rocky planet or moon.

@faithburns8379

3 ай бұрын

I find his statement at the beginning of the video to be the exact opposite of what happens in the scientific community, that "atheist scientists" are somehow afraid of the religious scientists criticism. Whaaaa????

@ramigilneas9274

3 ай бұрын

I would say the same about Richard Carrier.

@romanpolanski4928

3 ай бұрын

As an Organic Chemist I find his criticisms of Origin of Life Chemistry unassailable and unarguable.

@AlexLifeson1985

3 ай бұрын

what does that mean?@@romanpolanski4928

What's hilarious about this proposed question is that modern science came about as a result of the presupposition that our universe is driven by order and law, which is why something like the scientific method works at all.

@staffankarlsson1428

4 ай бұрын

Of course, science has nothing to do with the CAUSE of everything per se. Science only describes what can be observed and measured. Not even the bigbang theory is about the CAUSE. It just tries to describe what was happening. Among the hypotetic phenomena that CANNOT be observed or measured are GODS, ANGELS; SPIRITS and free-living SOULS.

@herrbonk3635

3 ай бұрын

It's driven by opportunism, from physics to biology. But at a macro scale, that looks like order and laws.

@jounisuninen

3 ай бұрын

Indeed ... The most important founders of modern science believed in God or Intellligent Design: Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestley, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel (the founder of genetics and abbot of a monastery), Lord Kelvin and Albert Einstein. Plus, many of the pioneers of quantum physics: Werner Heisenberg, Max Plank, Erwin Schrödinger, James Jeans, Louis de Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli and Arthur Eddington. And scientists like the astrophysicist Paul Davies, Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge), Alasdair Coles (Professor of Neuro-immunology at Cambridge), John Polkinghorne (who was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge), Russell Stannard, Freeman Dyson … and Francis Collins, who led the team of 2,400 international scientists on the Human Genome Project and was an atheist until the age of 27, when he became a Christian. Natural sciences started to decline only after Charles Darwin presented his evolution theory in 1859, without understanding anything of genetics or thermodynamics or information science. Over 60% of all Nobel Laureates in Science believe in God (data1900-1999). It seems that the more ignorant a person is, the more he is inclined towards atheism.

@SilviaHartmann

3 ай бұрын

It's a very nice presupposition. Try operating without it! 🤣

@7ebr830

3 ай бұрын

@herrbonk3635 I don't understand your point at all. What opportunitism? How is science driven by opportunism?

What are people afraid of, everything should be questioned anytime at all. This what the Galileo case proves, no book should ever be closed.

@FrankBurnham

3 ай бұрын

Agreed, the fear must be of being wrong, which the standard model of physics is because it is not complete.

@jurcik250

2 ай бұрын

@@FrankBurnham It can be right even if unfinished. We can still explain a lot while using it.

@FrankBurnham

2 ай бұрын

True, it may even lead to some A.I. that could finish it. @@jurcik250

@Citizen_J

2 ай бұрын

Agreed, but Eric is misrepresenting the facts here.

@sakabula2357

2 ай бұрын

Except Facebook

To Eric’s point as of the “books of science being closed” in the evolutionary biology department, I think many factors, such as personal gain derived from now antiquated theories, and a near religious fervor for atheism has led well meaning scientists to cease questioning the status quo, lest their careers, reputation, and financial successes come tumbling down.

@bradsmith9189

4 ай бұрын

Well stated.

@bmoobe

4 ай бұрын

Dang! Well said. It's pretty sad when concern of reputation has become one of the main influences of science.

@moogoatcluck7544

4 ай бұрын

Doubt about whether or not random mutation is the main driver for evolution is all well and good as long as you have a better alternative than "god did it". Radiation levels are one variable that might affect how much mutation occurs, I would rule that out before invoking a deity myself (although that might be hard when we're talking about millions of years and relatively short half-lives which could make finding evidence of historical high-level radiation events difficult) It just seems a bit hasty to go right from random mutation to spooky supernatural interference. If we conclude that this is in fact what's happening, then why is everything else automated, needing no intervention? Either it all makes sense or none of does.

@dhruvadude808

4 ай бұрын

When I read A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson I realized that because scientists are human, egos and livelihoods are always present. Like Rupert Sheldrake's TED talk being banned from the platform, the books of science should never be closed.

@Reclaimer77

4 ай бұрын

You can question it a you want but evolution and origins of life are EXTREMELY well supported theories. Plus you would have to basically disprove DNA analysis altogether as being forged or critically flawed. DNA proves common descent. Thus proving modern evolutionary theory. I ask you what's more probable??

I'm back for a rewatch and I feel I need to suggest that Brian facilitate a conversation between Eric, Brett, and Stephen Wolfram.

If there was a creator then they were, at best, horribly incompetent.

@KitsyX

3 ай бұрын

I mean, that depends on what they were trying to do... If they were focused on creating man as some sort of perfect being, then you're probably correct... However, that may not have been the intention... Or their perception of perfect may be very different to ours... I personally think intelligent design is a weak theory... I highly doubt the Bible in various ways... This said, our scope of awareness is arguably potentially quite small.... Who knows?

@kimanimzalendo367

2 ай бұрын

Repent...

Hint anyone? I cant see why the examples given need the rubrik of Intelligent design. Seems to fall squarely within evolutionary theory.

@SkyKingAzure

2 ай бұрын

Then your evolutionary theory is highly intelligent.

@marcokite

2 ай бұрын

....which has been debunked

Yes I run into situations not understanding the perspective (More like a Senior NCO) watching the people "Marching" to a "Comm link" (Thought amplifier) with a story. Synchronized to within +- 10 seconds of what I was doing. All the way back to 1989.

I would love to see a conversation between Eric and John Lennox..

what happens with his eye mowement at @1:18?

@cgivensldr

2 ай бұрын

Eric has a wandering eye.

@zyxwutubeurlwxyz

2 ай бұрын

Nevermind the eye, the mouth doesn't match the speech. Is this an AI hit piece on Eric? Why always behind the mic?

"Perception mediated selection" as described here, just seems like a fancy way of saying artificial selection and/or a jumbled mix of proposed articifical selection and natural selection. Brett says there is a group of scientists "who do not believe there is a persuasive case for random mutation as being the major engine of selection" random mutation is not an engine of selection, its a source of variation, sounds like they don't understand the theory correctly. The books were not closed after the neo darwinian synthesis, there has since been the dispelling of the assumed constant steady gradualism in evolving species and has been replaced with punctuated equilibrium in where species tend to stay in the same form in stasis until selection pressures are put upon them by changing enviroment or competition and the population can change quite fast in a relatively short amount of time as a result. There has been the development of the entire field of genetics, and discoveries such as, endogenous retroviruses(ERVs) allowing us to track lines of common decent by germline viral infections and adding a whole new independent confirmation of evolution theory and genetic drift and other things, random mutation and natural selection are not the entirety of evolutionary theory. There are lots of symbiotic relationships that were once seperate and later developed to be dependent upon each other for reproduction and/or survival. With both examples Eric is basically arguing irreducible complexity, which has been refuted with real examples and theoretical ones again and again, Brett is arguing these symbiotic relationships are not developed through natural selection but instead are intelligently designed because the relationship appears irreducibly complex, but it is far from it, Kenneth miller and others defeated these arguments in court in a case called kitsmiller vs dover area school district, over intelligent design in like 2004 or 2005, kenneth miller's videos on it were brilliant and he is a theist and a brilliant scientist. This just seems to be along same lines of the claims of Expelled No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein in which they falsely claimed fair science was being shut out due to anti religious views, the reality was stuff like getting their paper removed because they attempted to skip the peer review process and other claims that wildly misrepresented the true events.

Dalai Lama, " Science is higher than religion because based on fact and can be verify the truth in labolatory. Any Buddhist teaching should confirm to science; if discrepancy different from science, we should change it and accept it."

@emmanuel8310

2 ай бұрын

Well, i guess that explains why modern science doesn't have a Buddhist root but a Christian one. Science has a base of assumptions which are largely based on Christian philosophy.

Stephen C Meyer makes good points about intelligent design concerning the chemical makeup of the digestive system.

Different examples of possible intelligent design: how did the flagellum mechanism gradually evolve into what it is used by bacteria as Natural Selection postulates? From what I understand, we do not have explanation for how the various parts could naturally / randomly evolve into the mechanism in use now. All parts are required to make it work so just two or three elements that happen to fall together would not result in something useful. It APPARENTLY had to have all of the elements (and there are several) come together to simultaneously form a complex mechanism that is highly useful. I believe that the evolution of the eye is a similar mystery. I know science is not giving up on natural selection to explain this but the odds are very great that there has to be another explanation. It takes views from many different angles to figure out the most difficult questions. Religious scientists do have insights to offer. No matter the scientist however, we SHOULD always rigorously question any insight.

Sciences biggest hindrance is the way it's funded... They get money for a specific goal not to see if the science is actually there or not

@BMulligans

4 ай бұрын

Nice opinion. Clearly, you are not a scientist.

@hamishanderson6738

4 ай бұрын

"Safe & effective" lmao.

@friendlyadvice2792

4 ай бұрын

@dculican7513 No, I'm just informed...

@BMulligans

4 ай бұрын

@@friendlyadvice2792 clearly not

@hamishanderson6738

4 ай бұрын

Follow the silence.

5:41 - Mediated Selection - Lamp Bacillus Mussel 7:07 Clade of Orchids

@dalelerette206

3 ай бұрын

Extended Phenotype - The next scientific revolution will be when Richard Dawkins converts Isaac Asimov's 3 Volumes of Understanding Physics into Solid State Metaphysics. I had the 3 volume collection years ago in the early 90's. But in my late twenties I became obsessed with Creation Science and gave them away. It was my early 30's I grew into a Theistic Evolutionary view. I found them recently online again. When Led Zeppelin comes together they will establish their Finest Album - Metaphysical Graffiti. May Sir John Henry Bonham's name be sung in Heaven Forever Ever After. ❤ I think a magnanimous approach to G.K. Chesterton's 'Distributism' straddles agape 'compassionate justice' aligned along economic channels that naturally feed each other. Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated. In short, no one is considered superior to another, especially NOT for cosmetic reasons such as physical beauty. James 1:27 says, "Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you." G. K. Chesterton considered one's home and family the centrepiece of society. He recognized the family unit and home as centrepieces of living and believed that every man should have their property and home to enable him to raise and support his family. Distributists recognize that strengthening and protecting the family requires that society be nurturing. I really do love her Sacred Heart til death do us part. We lost a good man with Gram Parsons back in 1973. I told her I would ride her Wild Horses straight through The Apocalypse Sowing the Seeds of Love just like Tears for Fears -- when you are moved by the Spirit you manifest love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. These are the weapons we use in battle. Against such things there is no law.. I was born on August 20th, 1969, days after Woodstock for this exact reason. The Apostle Paul said Question all things. Hold onto that which is Sacred. The Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary Loves All Life to the Fullest.❤ To the Africans, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears African. To the American Indians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears American Indian. To the Asians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Asian. To the Australians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Australian. To the Europeans, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears European. To the Indians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Indian. To the Melanesians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Melanesian. To the Micronesians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Micronesian. To the Polynesians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Polynesian. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me- holy is His name. His mercy extends to those who fear Him, from generation to generation. - Luke 1:48-50 ❤

It's not just religious scientists who question darwinism, many atheist do as well based on the extreme improbability and other huge problems in darwinism.

The grounding faith of most scientist's is materialism, and the dominant methodology is reductionism. This has revealed a wondrously organized world, from the cell to the brain to the atom to the cosmos. Einstein's motivation was explicitly religious, albeit in a pantheistic sense. Maxwell was a devout Christian, Newton acknowledged the existence of God, Mendel was a Catholic priest , as was LeMaitre (originator of the Big Bang model). The Faith vs. Science "debate" is as silly as an Art vs. Science debate woukd be.

@tommore3263

3 ай бұрын

Protestantism in its infinite fracturing and "faith alone" sola scriptura dance, artificially removed sanity from theism, the ground of sanity. We've been staggering along ever since. And now we are at the brink of annihilating mankind.

@mark4asp

3 ай бұрын

Materialism isn't a sensible idea. Empiricism is. For example, String Theorists constantly told us - X could happen - and wasted a lot our our time in the telling. S.T. is fully compatible with materialism but is incompatible with empiricism. Likewise an empiricist idea can even be anti-materialist! One good example of this is Newton's "instantaneous action at a distance". I'm not sure anyone ever believed in that. But many believed that the world behaved as is IAaaD were so. This search - especially by theoretical physicists to describle the "mind of God" - AKA the "TRUE nature of reality" is wasteful of our time. It hasn't convinced me that either Eric or Brian know more about the "TRUE nature of reality" than I do. The reason I disparage this attitude is because way too many people are overconfident in their beliefs; and this over-confidence seems to feed conceited, censorious attitudes. Most of those people seem to be convinced "materialists".

@DanielSanchez-yi9cr

2 ай бұрын

As a scientist I'm telling you there's a lot of people who do this major, lack emotional intelligence, empathy, creativity, and critical thinking skills, and disdain anyone and everything that possesses or requires these qualities to engage in. The radical zeal they have for their chosen faith, materialism and reductionism, is a reflection of their personal God complexes and inability to comprehend the fact that they too are subject to human limitations as well as the whole scientific method. The people who lead to meaningful breakthroughs are not these people. There is s reason there are so many grossly racist and bigoted people in science. The reductionsim and materialism when applied to anything but pure scientific data allows them to inject their ideology (white supremacy most often) into everything they see while maintaining that they're being the rational ones.

There is a difference between ‘Adaptations developing in an environment with perception or perceiving beings’ and what we understand when someone says intelligent design. ‘Intelligent design’ suggests a transcendent being outside the system as whole, or that has no evident presence and adaptations that result from the existence of the minds within that environment. The clam in the example evolved as a result of a stimulus prescient and evident within the system. Bad example if you are giving any credence to a believe in supernatural intelligence.

@edus9636

2 ай бұрын

The problem is: the perceiving beings do not make conscious changes, it is done by a conscious source of pure information within the lifeform itself. Random mutations are, as known, always deadly, and the desperate Darwinists know this but would never acknowledge it openly. The positive ones involve synchronized (!) rearrangements of trillions of atoms and molecules, leading often to irreducible complexity, greatly described by Michael Behe in his evergreen "Darwin's Black Box", still unchallenged by the reactionary dogmatic Darwinists. Only with intelligent design are mimicry, symbiosis, instinct, behavior, altruism, adaptation and evolution (the real one!) explainable.

@kimanimzalendo367

2 ай бұрын

Why is the idea of "a transcendent being outside the system" so offensive? What if that is what the evidence points at?

@ablejon1470

2 ай бұрын

@@kimanimzalendo367 the very point is ‘outside the system’ meaning is that there is an observable universe and known forces and pressures that can be measured and accounted for. God is not one of them inside the earth level rule set. Any other unseen and undetected force or influence can not be considered and is t necessary to explain material questions and most probably, being unnecessary, likely does not exist.

@ablejon1470

Ай бұрын

@@kimanimzalendo367 That is a great question that answers itself.. Evidence inside the system can not point to something outside the system..the evidence itself is the mark made.. luckily there aren’t any evidences like that at all, not the bacterial flagellum not the eyeball.. Those classic examples of irreducible complexity have been demonstrated to have every stage of evolutionary predecessor… You believe a mythical story told as a made up explanation to explain our lives before we had the proper sense making tools to actually observe and report the real answers. I would say put down childish pursuits and actually try to understand what actually happened. It is so wild and interesting it couldn’t be invented.. but it’s explanations are magnificent and gorgeous and far more compelling than just “because god made it from clay with magic.”

I don't see any connection between the two.

@FromThe3021

4 ай бұрын

I don’t know enough to say your heart is filled with the lord but there’s a mutual grasp between your mind and God. IYKYK

@frosted1030

4 ай бұрын

@@FromThe3021 "I don’t know enough to say your heart is filled with the lord but there’s a mutual grasp between your mind and God." How did you measure this exactly?

@FromThe3021

4 ай бұрын

@@frosted1030 - How I signed off really says it all. But here’s the gist of the gist, a really poor explanation that I hope helps. _Them not seeing a connection between the two indicates they have a grasp of God, an understanding, in their mind. Taking that very concept as God itself, it isn’t possible unless God has a grasp of their mind and ultimately it does not make them a Godly or religious person, that is gauged by the heart._

@frosted1030

4 ай бұрын

@@FromThe3021 "Taking that very concept as God itself, it isn’t possible unless God has a grasp of their mind and ultimately it does not make them a Godly or religious person, that is gauged by the heart." So.. this imaginary friend of yours is as real as anything else as long as we can grasp it? Do you think Star Wars really happened? What about fairies? These things have much greater specific definitions than your silly imaginary friend. We can grasp them, even children can grasp these concepts. Is that the low low bar you use to determine something? Describe your methodology for determining the truth and how you apply that methodology without hypocrisy to every situation.

@FromThe3021

4 ай бұрын

@@frosted1030 - I can’t explain it, you have to find your own enlightening. I’m not even exactly sure what you’re getting at with your analogy’s but if you genuinely are looking to understand, scrap any assumption of what you may think I’m claiming to know to be real. Such assumptions are based on your other assumptions of what someone you define as religious believes. I’m assuming. Maybe clarify your definition of God and ask very specific questions if you wish to continue the chat. It’s not really my domain, it’s more of a tacit understanding shared but I have no problem helping guide you because it wasn’t that long ago, I was you. Maybe not as polite to the crazies. FYI - The crazies are still the crazies. They are the ones who haven’t found what OP has.

Isaac Newton was a devout Christian as were many others. Practically all of the advancements we enjoy today we owe to religious scientists.

@yvonnem.langlois5197

3 ай бұрын

True, and there are scientists today who hold religious beliefs. But doing science requires objectivity.

@glos7569

3 ай бұрын

@@yvonnem.langlois5197 and time and again scientists have demonstrated that it is possible to maintain objectivity while being part of a religion

@pairoa

Ай бұрын

Even Dawkins would be a theist in Newtons time. We should not judge the efficacy of theist scientists as long as they don't get their religion in the way of their work. Brain can split worlds like that, personally I prefer to stay consequential in the pursue of understanding the world through science and get rid of the unfalsifiable nonsense that I might need to feel comfortable or just was indoctrinated as a child.

But, but, what’s wrong with the idea that the orchids that didn’t have the extra petal mutation died off in the unfriendly environment? If we keep reminding ourselves that those who weren’t lucky mutants all died off, the natural selection idea holds firm. The design looks that way to us, clever designers. We can’t help ourselves.

He gives an opinion put forward as fact with no supporting evidence. "There is no way you can tell me this is not an intelligently designed system", is not a proof.

@brendanengland8385

4 ай бұрын

Your opinion is just as valid as his

@electricAB

4 ай бұрын

And he’s talking about ‘closing the book the book too early’… it’s irony upon irony! While I totally agree with what he is saying about closed books and no discussion, I found his examples to be word-salads, and a simple explanation of feed back loops would have got his ideas across, for me, much better. Then, there is the need for evidence and the exclusion of simpler explanations.. and I’m not quite sure how about the idea of the ‘dumb’ thing leading to the selection of the other thing, can be called ‘intelligent’.. Surely intelligent design must include some aspect of intent? Thanks for you comment.. it helped me think this through a bit more..

@upublic

4 ай бұрын

@@electricAB yea guys like him looove redifining terms, mixing them up in complicated frameworks, and then they wonder why everyone else calls them dark web intellectuals

@pablopumarestaminiau7512

4 ай бұрын

I didn’t get why he says that was an example of intelligent design by the bass. I can see it as an example of intelligent design by the mussel; creating a fleshy lip that looks like a fish to lure the bass. But why would it be intelligent design for a bass to not be lured? What was designed or created in the bass who wasn’t fooled?

@Raiddd__

4 ай бұрын

When did he say he was giving a proof? He’s waiting for someone to explain to him how it could not be intelligently designed, when that’s what it appears to be and that’s what the mechanism clearly is in terms of perception mediated selection.

True science doesn't forbid asking questions

@mrfish4572

3 ай бұрын

Yes but unfortunately a lot of science is driven by existing theories and consensus. New compelling data doesnt very often overturn science. This is particularly true when funding and careers are on the line. Theres a great book by Kuhn called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions where he explains how it takes years of overwhelming evidence to change scientific opinion. Science is still the best tool we have for human development. Its neither pure nor perfect though.

@Joe-bx4wn

3 ай бұрын

@@mrfish4572 Yes I love science.But some people discard God for it.

Eric conflating natural selection and intelligent design in one of the most bizarre takes I've ever heard on the subject.

@MrMichaelFire

4 ай бұрын

You don’t really have a good grasp of the subject, it’s not your fault, the educators themselves don’t realize the Cambrian explosion itself disproves evolution as far as they understand it.

@maxamos7

4 ай бұрын

Sounds like you have a clear bias.

@JoshWiniberg

4 ай бұрын

​@@maxamos7not really, I'm not the hardcore atheist I once was, but intelligent design and selection are different things. To conflate the two is ridiculous.

@maxamos7

4 ай бұрын

@@JoshWiniberg I think he's clearly laying out the case for intelligent design instead of natural selection for these creatures. But yes, you can believe in intelligent design and also believe we've evolved from base materials (and thus believe natural selection led to all creatures we have today). WLC I believe holds this view.

Human intervention in evolution is a just as “normal” intervention as any evolutionary intervention or change over time.

I'm sure these gentlemen are very busy but I would love to hear more conversation from them, even if its less structured or grounded

@RichardHarlos

4 ай бұрын

Have you seen the entire interview? If not, there's a link to it in the description notes.

Can someone please help me understand the bass and clam thing. Eric says that Smart Bass (that don’t get fooled by the trick) would survive over time and therefore there would be no more such clams. But couldn’t one make the argument that the aggressive, hungrier bass (even if dumber) would survive over time, therefore leading to the positive evolution of the clam? Perhaps I am missing something.

@dontvoteforanybody3715

4 ай бұрын

The whole example makes no sense. The clam isn't intelligently designing anything because the lip is the product of ordinary natural selection. The bass isn't intelligently designing anything (it is stupidly being manipulated). But Eric says that "the system" is intelligently designed, by which he means the interaction between the clam and the bass that apparently benefits both. OK, so who or what is the "designer" of "the system"? There isn't any, because the "system" wasn't intelligently designed.

@johndalzell904

4 ай бұрын

It seems like a forced example. The mussel/clam needs fish to reproduce itself because fish are how its larva get spread around. The mussel itself is as dumb as a rock, the fish is a lot cleverer than the mussel because the fish has a brain. In a sense, it's the intelligence/perception of the fish that drives that mussel's lip to gradually resemble a prey fish more & more. The term "perception-driven selection" rather than "intelligent design" seems more accurate. The smarter the fish are, the stronger the selection pressure for the mussel's lip to improve its appearance. But remember the mussel doesn't have to fool every fish, just one of them. The dumber of the two species is driven by the intelligence/perceptual ability of the smarter one. It doesn't have to be a purely parasitic arrangement. I think there is a fig which has an arrangement with an insect where they both benefit. Although, every living thing tries to a get a free ride wherever it can! It may have started with a random stripe or dot pattern which meant slightly more predator fish gave it a nibble. You only need a tiny advantage to get natural selection moving. Over the generations the striped/spotted lip mussels reproduce more successfully and the more that lip evolves to look like a prey fish in tiny increments, the more successful those mussels become & they come to dominate the population.

@craigbritton1089

3 ай бұрын

He is doing the either one or the other fallacy; in nature two things can both help or hinder different parts of a population. I could use his form of argument that getting a good night's sleep is critical for good health; thus difficulty in sleeping is counterproductive and will have been weeded out by evolution. There are insomniacs and poor night sleepers; so evolution must be wrong. Or in a dangerous world we need people who can stay awake at night and can contribute to the overall survival; even if they are less healthy and die sooner.

@ecyranot

2 ай бұрын

Your insomnia analogy would be good except I don't think that is normally heritable. People have insomnia for non-genetic reasons. If there was a gene that caused one to sleep five hours a day, though needing eight, that might be selected against due to a higher percentage of fatality from a lack of sleep or the accidental deaths that would result. @@craigbritton1089

@edus9636

2 ай бұрын

@@dontvoteforanybody3715 "the lip is the product of ordinary natural selection". For a lip to develop into "something" resembling a fish living just by coincidence in those waters, is believing in something beyond magic and miracles. Yet, Darwinists do exactly that, and with amazing fervor. The designer of the system is a combination of information (the basic essence of the universe) and subconsciouness. Else, mimicry, altruism, symbiosis wouldn't exist at all, nor the archerfish that catches insects (outside the water) spitting at them with perfect aim, as if "knowing" the laws of light refraction.

The main issue here is not creationists smuggling God into the debate about Nature but evolutionists excluding cause-and-effect and statistical probability from that debate. And if causal thinking and statistical probability are not the foundation of science, I don't know what is.

I studied religion and science side by side, and that has been incredibly enlightening. Created earthling.

I think Lee Cronin’s theory explain Eric’s examples.

You can believe whatever you want, the Scientific method always points the way to fact. In my world you can pick which ever one you want. you will end up responsible for the outcome.

@bradsmith9189

2 ай бұрын

There is a difference between “science” and “scientists” driven my theory own bias.

This seemed like a very intelligent, very eloquent attempt to redefine “intelligence” as it is meant in the term “intelligent design”.

Are Eric's eyes crossing some of the time?

How, when and why should science "close the books" on any significant question? As long as we live in time and have a future, there can always be new evidence that will call settled conclusions into question.

This feels very much like a completely semantic issue. “Intelligent design“ is a term used to describe a higher intelligence designing each organism that we see before us and it’s miraculous complexity. I don’t see anything in these two examples that Weinstein gives that Is consistent with that kind of intelligent design.

@loneIyboy15

2 ай бұрын

I have no idea what this guy was smoking when he did this .

@emmanuel8310

2 ай бұрын

You're the one who needs to understand the intelligent design proposition. It starts with the DNA which is a code, an information system. Start from reading "The signature in the cell"

@loneIyboy15

2 ай бұрын

@@emmanuel8310 The proposition is that life was deliberately designed by a higher power. This talk has been around so long, that when it started, you could use slurs online without getting banned. Smartphones weren't even around at the time.

@Dr-Curious

2 ай бұрын

The reality is, neither does he. But he's going with faith because it pays the bills.

@Dr-Curious

2 ай бұрын

@@emmanuel8310 "It starts with the DNA which is a code, an information system." It's a collection of chemicals that obey the laws of physics, You choose to call it a "code" because it can store information using that natural process. That doesn't make it a code.

That's a lot of words to say "selective breeding". And no, atheistic scientists don't deny it - they use it (mainly dogs) to show that evolution is a real phenomenon.

Scientists research and try to understand material and existing elements but cannot figure out the how they were made, or why. Scientist can view how all galaxies and solar systems rotate on flat planes, in an organized matter, but don’t know why. They can observe gravity but do not understand what causes it. The more scientists observe and research, the more they admit, someone purposefully designed all things.

People prepared to risk heresy but do not seek martyrdom are always the most important voices to listen to.

@theultimatereductionist7592

4 ай бұрын

If you and Eric Weinstein and a billion other podcasts had ANY integrity they would give EQUAL TIME to Communists, Marxists, Socialists, Antinatalists like me and Amanda Sukenick and Lawrence Anton, Greens like me and Dr Jill Stein and Ralph Nader and Howie Hawkins, Antinatalist Animal Rights Vegans (AARVs) like me, Anarchists, Sovereign Citizens, biocultured meat advocates like Isha Datar and New Harvest, longevity escape velocity (LEV) advocates like the Foresight Institute and Aubrey de Grey, Sovereign Citizens, Auditors, Libertarians, Separatists like Brexiters and anyone seeking to separate themselves or their town or county or province or state from a larger region such as a country, and PRISONERS (since ALL prisoners are prisoners of war) and ask for all THESE people's ideas and theories about cosmology as you and big media have given UNJUSTLY and STUPIDLY and FOR NO REASON AT ALL EXCLUSIVELY to christurds, religionists/cultists, religious extremists, religious fanatics, subhumans. ANTINATALIST FACT: EVERYBODY WAS FORCED INTO THE WORLD WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. THEREFORE THE OPINION OF EVERY SINGLE Communist, prison etc is JUST as important as the opinion of ANYONE ELSE, and certainly INFINITELY MORE important than the opinion of the subhuman rightwing religiontard, about the origin of the universe, etc.

@bettydoughtery3920

4 ай бұрын

Agree

5:21 Obviously a nod to "St. Galileo" and "St. Giordano Bruno" is basically "de rigueur" among the science community ...

Many people accept intelligent design without knowing it. Just look at how seriously some people take the idea that we are living in a computer simulation.

For me, it's mainly 2 things: 1) DNA. It's information. No where else in the universe does information exist where there wasn't an author of that information. 2) Reproduction. How could even the FIRST cell know to reproduce? If there isn't a point to life, why would organisms care if they reproduced or not, and where does the point of life come from? Moral codes. Not biological ones.

I'm not religious... I'm much closer to Dawkins in thinking. However, Eric makes a very very good point that (in this day and age when atheism is the establishment) the religious intellectual may be able to ask questions that the establishment won't. Yes, I'm suspicious of how far that can go back to Jesus, but i prefer that over trying to shut down certain scientists.

@aidanya1336

4 ай бұрын

Science is all about asking the questions no1 thought off to ask before. People from different backgrounds and worldviews are key to this process. Group-think is the antithesis of curiosity.

@warrenny

4 ай бұрын

@@aidanya1336 it is certainly good to have an open mind; I would just be careful about what you are saying. Good science is not about diversity and worldviews. Those things are human centric....just like religion is human centric.

@aidanya1336

4 ай бұрын

@@warrenny ofc it is not about diversity. Diversity has no role in the work itself. But different people think in different ways. Where some get stuck on a problem, someone else might view it from a different angle and see a solution the other never considered.

@alexmack956

4 ай бұрын

@@warrenny”good“ science starts with novel hypotheses. Obviously diverse worldviews might help with that.

@TheSouthieBeautiful

4 ай бұрын

@@alexmack956 your comment is a non sequitur, but nice try

Those orchids with their 20/20 vision, never cease to amaze.

@KravMagoo

4 ай бұрын

Yeah..."If only I could look just like that thing that keeps coming to fiddle with my faddle, I could trick it into faddling me without having to be fiddled with!"

@dontvoteforanybody3715

4 ай бұрын

Bingo. With respect to the clam example, he doesn't conclude that the clam has 20/20 vision; he concludes that "the system" is intelligently designed. What does he mean by "the system"? I guess the interaction of clam and bass. But who or what designed that? Nothing! He brings nothing to the critical point. He's just redefining 'intelligent design' to fit a standard evolutionary process, and pretending that is profound. Dawkins would make mince meat of this amateurish argument, IMO.

Interesting that Eric would choose mediated selection as his evidence of intelligence. Not everything coming from nothing or life coming from non-life. It goes with that thought that says, “give me one miracle and I can explain the rest”. In other words, ignore the miracle that preceded your explanation.

"Do we live in the Matrix?" is the same question as "Is there a grand creator?".

I'm sorry but I read some of Dawkin's books, he talks about the orchids specifically in great length and would consider both these cases to be examples of the extended phenotype - i.e. a bass' genes for getting fooled and biting a mussel's lip actually result in the phenotype of the mussel to include that lip. He also mentions that Darwin extrapolated natural selection of all species from the observation of artificial selection (intelligent design) of human domesticated species. While it's a refreshing rhetorical twist, hearing intelligent design describing a real thing in nature, I don't think he would dispute it and say "This is out of the question.", he might just say that the phrase has been so profaned that it's better to avoid it and find a better phrase. Just as "flat earth" could mean a really smooth desert with no dunes, cracks or plants, and this is surely possible, but the phrase itself colloquially means other things. I agree with your factual points here, I'm just highly skeptical that anyone would refuse to debate you on these factual points, and would require some more evidence of this (rather than handwaving "scared atheist academics").

@marcokite

2 ай бұрын

Which shows how little Dawkins knows....poor guy

All people have their beliefs. Some beliefs are called religious and some are not. And many 'religious' people don't have the rigorous and unreasonable beliefs that people often ascribe to them. Both 'religious' and 'non-religious' people (including scientists) can be humble, flexible or rigorously dogmatic about their beliefs. It is the rigorously dogmatic one's that we should worry about - regardless if they label themselves as religious or secular or something else. They are the ones who will try to prevent scientific exploration whenever this exploration might challenge their perceptions (I don't consider myself religious).

@greenpilgrimz3763

4 ай бұрын

Will you be flexible and consider not making more scientific explorations?

@colnixon8989

4 ай бұрын

"many 'religious' people don't have the rigorous and unreasonable beliefs that people often ascribe to them". They aren't doing it properly then. The whole point of religious beliefs is not to challenge them too much, it would seem to me.

@MrSeedi76

3 ай бұрын

​@@colnixon8989it seems to me that you don't understand much of religion then.

@kimanimzalendo367

2 ай бұрын

@@colnixon8989 Evolution is a religion, with Charles Darwin as the high priest or founder. No other religion is quite as dogmatic as evolution

After Christopher Hitchens passed on, his fellow colleagues in atheism begin stumbling in the dark. I still remember watching The Four Horsemen and how bright Hitchen's star shone in that discussion.

@SolusVir

2 ай бұрын

I remember thinking Sam Harris didn't belong in such august company...and it turns out I was right. What a disappointment he's been.

So evolved use of camouflage (not to avoid or help predation, but for other matters) -- is a proof of intelligent design?! 🤦‍♀ It is hard to take seriously.

I agree with Heisenberg's famous quote about the rudiments of science leading one towards atheism, whilst more thorough, in-depth investigation reveals the hallmarks of order & design everywhere, and in everything (unless you're evading logical inferences due to established ideological opposition).

@williamwilson6499

4 ай бұрын

In other words, blah blah blah…buh…blah blah blah. Order and design 🙄

@smitch1793

4 ай бұрын

I prefer his other quote about being the man who knocks tbh

@bradsmith9189

4 ай бұрын

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you”

@carlhoward5469

4 ай бұрын

When looking at the life cycle of a butterfly including the insanely complex process of metamorphosis, I've never seen any plausible explanation of how this system could have arisen through the process of random mutation and natural selection beyond a hand wave. ...oh, and hand waving does not count as science. If anyone reading this has heard of a reasonable explanation (besides intelligent design), I'd love to see a reference.

@danstar455

4 ай бұрын

Fractal Geometry shows how complexity results from simplicity.

As intelligent as Eric is, I'm surprised that he is making this statement. If you use a phrase that is charged such as this one is. You can expect people to hear you saying something other than what you are intending. You must clarify your definitions, before you criticize someone for misunderstanding you, when it is you, using a highly charged phrase instead of just clearly illustrating the concept you are attempting to express.

@patmoran5339

4 ай бұрын

I agree with your questions about logic and appearances. This seems to be in deep left field. I hope other readers do not make the same mistake of calling this Science. BTW: As of about 2017, it is against the law to teach "Intelligent Design" as Science. However, I think this is following the same path of ignoring the law as the Scopes in the 1920;s. Creationism is alive and well and Science is on life-support.

9:53 How would you hope to explain on evolutionary terms the origin of the human language? Ape has phoneme = morpheme = phrase. Human has phonem + phoneme ... = morpheme; morpheme + morpheme ... = phrase. Ape has pragmatic messages. "How are you?" "Want some food?" "Flee into the trees from the lion!!!" "I'm sad" "I'm happy" ... Human has all of that + notional messages, extending into not immediately relevant past, future, at a distance, negatives, conditionals ... How would you explain the transition? Tomasello, on Dukes, refused to answer that question.

Man how I wish Gould was still alive. He'd run circles around his argument.

Excellent video enjoy listening to the brilliant Eric W.

@DrBrianKeating

4 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

Happy to see your channel with some momentum here the last few months. I enjoy your videos.

I remember the many discussions that Krishnamurti had with physicist David Bohm. Radical atheists dismiss all of it, even those who do not hold a religious belief, but are exploring if there is something beyond what ordinary thought can know or perceive.

I don't see how anyone can doubt design though I have heard their arguments ad nauseum. Even Anthony Flew after a lifetime of Atheism became a Deist because he could no longer intellectually support it. As an Atheist he would state that he followed where the evidence led him.

How does a trapdoor spider know how to build a trapdoor?

'Religious scientists' as a term is kinda ambiguous. I've noticed that some atheist scientists behave very religiously with regard to their own world views. I know what is intended, but it's a poorly chosen term. What he means is "theistic scientists" I think. My view is that agnosticism is perhaps a more unbiased position to take for a scientist. Though, for the sake of openness, I consider myself agnostic ;)

@jeffcapes

3 ай бұрын

many would argue they are not exclusive, that atheism and agnosticism are two axis on a chart, one pertaining to knowledge, another to belief, under this rubric most atheists would be "agnostic atheists" (neither know, nor believe there is a god), in fact its only really theists that tend to profess they "know" there is a god, when what they tend to mean is just they are very very very convinced. since I doubt there really are any people who truly have knowledge of the supernatural, it would bracket everyone as either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. tl;dr everyone is defacto agnostic, it just comes down to whether or not you beleive a god exists or not.

@kimanimzalendo367

2 ай бұрын

Any belief strongly held without obvious evidence to everybody else is not far from a religious conviction. I agree with you the name calling is a form of shading/persecution, and has very little with looking at the actual evidence. People's worldviews can very strongly impact evidence gathering and analysis.

I'm all for skepticism. But have you ever thought about what discoveries, what lines of inquiry have been ignored because we're skeptical? Skepticism, like everything else we think, is selective. So open up a bit. Don't sit around thinking about how wrong people are. People are stupid, but that doesn't make you any smarter.

For me, the fundamental argument for design springs not so much from some specific feature of the world, but from science itself. Science is based on the assumption that the universe is rational and comprehensible, and this assumption is justified at every end and turn. The universe works according to mathematically codifiable laws, so that the application of reason to evidence has given us a wonderful (though still partial) understanding of what the universe is and how it works. As Einstein put it: "the one incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". The thought that this is because the universe is the work, or offspring, of a supreme, transcendent, creative intelligence, is clearly very compelling. It is hardly surprising that many scientists, past and present, have themselves come to this conclusion.

Dawkins would eat you for dinner. You've read a few things, sound smart but even for the layman, dont sound convincing. Dawkins dedicated his whole life to this. Get a new brother.

Richard Dawkins has spent his whole life seeking out religious people to debate... This is just complete nonsense from Eric. Just because his brother and him are slowly morphing into religious wackadoos doesn't mean what they are saying has any merit.

@bnz70

4 ай бұрын

The urge to grift is strong.

@christopheresson3158

4 ай бұрын

Yeah I have very little time for him now and I would have never thought that would happen.

Many have considered the universe to be a designed construct by an individualized person. Such as an architect draws out the blueprint for a building. But has anyone considered the possibility that the universe and the "grand designer" are both one and the same? Meaning that the architect and the building are literally the same thing.

@donthesitatebegin9283

2 ай бұрын

Many people have considered it. Keep up.

I find that modern scientists love to edit history and forget to mention that pretty much every great mind they quote, and look up to, and cite from the history of science, including Charles Darwin for example, was religious.

I'm at 5:26 and reeling from this perplexing feedback. First, it's complete and total equivocation on the term "intelligent design". Something like a donkey isn't what any ID proponent means. Zero. Zilch. ID proponents mean magic. God magic-ed things into existence and there's no reason to think further. The end. They mean "irreducible complexity" and "the eye is impossible to have evolved" and so forth. Or they're like James Tour and tell their rabid, uncritical supplicants "science is broken and we should shut it down" while then childishly acknowledging to their peers that they have no actual science based reason for their chest puffing bravado. What happened Eric? Why be an ID apologist? Sheesh.

@Singularity606

4 ай бұрын

You are reeling over things which were never said. Why not tell people that you also disagree with flat-Earthers? Lol.

@firecloud77

4 ай бұрын

*"ID proponents mean magic. God magic-ed things into existence and there's no reason to think further. The end."* That is a straw man argument, which is a logical fallacy.

@HumblyQuestioning

4 ай бұрын

@@firecloud77 it literally is not a straw man. “Magic” is a term theists object to because it makes their perspective sound absurd. Not my problem they’re sensitive.

@firecloud77

4 ай бұрын

@@HumblyQuestioning “Magic” is a term theists object to because theists do not believe God creates things through the mechanism of "magic." Therefore the use of the term "magic" is an intentional mischaracterization of the theist's argument which, by definition, is a straw man argument and a logical fallacy.

@HumblyQuestioning

4 ай бұрын

@@firecloud77 no sir. It is not a mischaracterization. It is the correct term that makes theists uncomfortable. Feeling uncomfortable with your argument doesn’t make it a straw man. You can’t hide from responsibility by proclaiming victimhood. If anyone is fallacious it is usually the theist. Primarily, special pleading and equivocation, the two most common theistic tools for combatting cognitive dissonance. Example: anyone aside from Jesus turned water into wine, or raised a child from the dead, or walked on water, etc, that would be magic.

None of these "books" AKA theories, should be closed until they can be definitely proven false. Lack of observable evidence is not the same as proving incorrect. That is a fundamental concept of science!

@mooferoo

4 ай бұрын

As it also doesn't prove something exists.

@robertvann7349

4 ай бұрын

You want ABSOLUTE TRUTH? LAW OF CONTRADICTION A is B, illogical impossible contradiction. This is an ABSOLUTE FACT. Let's plug data into formula and critically evaluate the absolute fact. A non conscious non intelligent non being caused the illogical impossible effect of B your conscious intelligent being in the universe Dude this is A is B illogical impossible contradiction never witnessed in nature or labs.

@laattardo

4 ай бұрын

​@@mooferoo Correct. Therefore, neither stance should be bashed when conducting proper science or speaking with people in general.

@vagrantknights

4 ай бұрын

I don't really understand the "mechanism" of "closing a book" to a scientific theory (probably because I'm not a scientist). Who is and how are they "closing" these theories? How can an entire field whose foundation it is to constantly try to disprove established theories have theories that are no longer allowed to be worked on? It seems pretty reductive for an ever-evolving field.

@laattardo

4 ай бұрын

@vagrantknights it stands behind consensus. However, concensus is supposed to change when provided new information. Closed books have a way to reopen regardless of whether people wish them to or not. Exampes: The big bang... was considered a closed book and is now being seriously looked at again. The age of the universe is also being revisited due to new galaxies being discovered that "weren't supposed to be" And all of this is due to the JWT

As Schrodinger pointed out, human beings would never have started waling upright unless they had WANTED to do so.

The "Intelligent Design" that Dawkins is against, is an external intelligence doing the designing. The "Intelligent Design" Eric is talking about is entirely different and with that argument comes the question of whether free will exists. If it doesn't (and I personally don't believe it exists) then the "intelligence' in the design is still described by natural selection and makes "intelligent" variations based on learned and inherent behaviours as well as environmental factors, better fit to survive and pass on genes. But not true external "choice" resulting in design direction. My 2c.

David Berlinsky is the top dog on these issues, imo. His lecture several years ago on the KZread channel "Socrates in the City" hosted by the hilarious Eric Metaxis was brilliant. If you want whimsical yet devastating gems of polemic, he's the man. Btw, it was Jordan Peterson that came to the rescue for millions of thirsty young minds who drank the kool-aid of hard reductive materialism. Iain McGilchrist is also healing the damage. Poor Rupert Sheldrake was Dawkins' punching bag. It was reprehensible.

@BlissBlessHappiness

4 ай бұрын

Agreed, but really, Sheldrake is a rich man's Dawkins, truly. This is, however, an impoverished age.

@paulaustinmurphy

4 ай бұрын

It sounds like you'd love to punch the people you believe have been "punching" Sheldrake and co. How do these supposed "materialist" punchings compare to the theocracies, Divine Rights, witch burnings, witch trials, torture and beheadings for apostasy, religious wars, etc. we had in religious societies?

@Frederer59

4 ай бұрын

@@BlissBlessHappiness With respect I think you've got that upside down.

@marshalmcdonald7476

4 ай бұрын

Good words Frederer. Gonna ck out that Berlinsky thing further.

@Frederer59

4 ай бұрын

@@marshalmcdonald7476 His book The Devil's Delusion was a great read.

Surely "intelligent design" when referenced by Athiests in this context, refers to "God" as the intelligent desinger?As for the bass, this could have just evolved with successful mutations over generations without "intelligent" input by the Bass. (edit) This is nonsense to call these examples "intelligent design" what is he talking about? Dawkins would debunk these claims without breaking a sweat.

@Singularity606

4 ай бұрын

You're quite insistent on missing the point.

@lukesball1

4 ай бұрын

@@Singularity606 What point would that be?

@Singularity606

4 ай бұрын

@@lukesball1 That nature does not randomly produce fake fish and intelligence plays an active role in evolution.

@lukesball1

4 ай бұрын

Well it produced real fish, with organs, eyes and motion detectors, so a fake fish shaped growth isn't exactly a stretch.

@giannismentz3570

4 ай бұрын

Dawkins can believe what he likes, as anyone, and other than stating his beliefs, or write about them, he does nothing that could cause harm, he's more of a philosopher, and I think if he was presented with proper formulated arguments and proof from a person with his debating skills, he might reconsider. I don't see ill intent in his arguments, yet there are people who will purposely either avoid considering higher beings for the purpose of either feeling better with themselves when carrying out their ill intents. This is evident from people, especially nowadays with AI and such, those people are so keen on accepting the possibility of an infinitely capable AI, like a God, yet they absolutely dismiss the idea of a God in terms of the Bible or something similar. Why do you think this is? And if you think about it, the idea of a God as creator, does inherently give God infinite power, I mean if He created a universe, then... on the other hand, a created program in a lab that somehow in a sudden moment becomes more powerful than the universe itself, sounds a bit like a joke tbh. So yeah, I don't know, yet there are people who are willing to believe this is possible, but a God(s) as creator(s) is just out of the question. That's kinda suspect. Either these people are actually stupid, or they just prefer their beliefs as in their mind they could use this to carry out their ill intent, no consequences whatsoever. It makes them feel safer and gives them unchecked powers over others. In my opinion such an AI, the idea of it is silly, just as I find silly all those searching for theories of everything. Theories of everything might be silly, but believing an infinitely powerful human created AI is possible, but a creator(s) is not, is just suspect, has no logic behind it, other than human limitations, make-belief etc. And really, just because you wanna believe you'll escape consequences because you believe in no creator, does not necessarily make it so. An ostrich hiding her head in the sand still does not escape. It just don't wanna see it. As for Bible alternate theories I have heard, extra-planar aliens and the like, well, something extra-planar is out of this world. In another plane. Might have created this world as well. You may as well call it God, does it matter? So why would this theory be more acceptable than the Bible God? Cause ethics and ill intent. Again. In someone's limited understanding, an extra-planar alien could excuse him, while the Bible God seems kinda strict on this. And if an extra-planar alien/being whatever does not excuse them? Then what? An AI is obviously the best case scenario to escape, they might send a team of hackers to hack it. It's mechanical, got no ethics or morals against anything, they might control it and become Gods. Well, all the best. PS: People are stupid.

Isn't the example of the 'orchid and the pollinator' be an example of 'symbiosis' rather than 'parasitic', not unlike the bee and the flower? Each make an exchange, perhaps with the bee/flower being more obvious, as the bee gets nectar, and the flower gets pollinated, to make fruit. A lot of men are attracted to the 'smell' of a woman; a moment of stimulation, which may lead somewhere, or not.

I followed the debate evolution Vs creation, at least a decade ago, until it came to a stumbling halt. No evolution protagonists could come up with any scenario where random gene mutation and natural selection could result in the computer like code and language contained within DNA. It didn't help their cause either, when Craig Venter (world famous geneticist) announced that Darwin's "tree of life" theory was false, that all life was not related. Therefore saying that man and ape do not stare ancestry. This after testing more than 60 million organisms throughout the world.

The notion that Richard Dawkins is afraid to deal with religious colleagues has to be one of the most bonkers statements I’ve ever heard. Is Weinstein really not aware of Dawkins doing the very thing he’s probably most famous for doing? Going out of his way to talk to religious people, including scientists, about how they justify their point of view, and how he arrives at his. Truly a jaw-dropping, fact-free thing for someone like Weinstein to say. Dawkins has literally written best-selling books about the very topic Weinstein appears to think he’s afraid of.

@tommore3263

3 ай бұрын

Dawkins is a philosophical moron. LIke De Grasse. Capital S stupid. His meme theory removes the possibility of his meme theory being.. TRUE. He's a philosophical illiterate who attracts bigots and illiterates. Like Hume's fork rule which breaks Hume's Fork Rule. Materialism is by definition stupid.

@ericp6496

3 ай бұрын

Please point me to where Dawkins goes toe to toe with one of his religious colleagues.

@meb280

3 ай бұрын

All of those books and lectures and debates by Dawkins. And yet, there are only six words he needs to say in order to bridge the gap: “ It is possible you are right”.

@museblock

3 ай бұрын

I think you’re missing Eric’s point. Dawkins’ bias towards religious scientists hinders him. Dawkins is not interested in working with religious scientists, only against them. Dawkins has said only a tiny minority of religious scientists are genuine believers (by his assumption) as if to say it is near impossible to do credible science by someone who views the scientific landscape from a religious position. I believe history will not only remember Dawkins for his great contributions to evolutionary biology but also for the limitations of his bias.

@mrfish4572

3 ай бұрын

@@ericp6496Without stating the obvious, if you search Dawkins Religious Debate you'll find many videos. What has been published is a small number of the total.

Rupert Sheldrake is one of the most interesting scientists to me. Not afraid to look into the places that others don’t dare for fear of their careers.

@RWin-fp5jn

4 ай бұрын

Agree. Although it tend to think of him as a philosopher with scientific background. Thats what we currently need as we are hitting walls in fundamental science requiring people that can make us self reflect more. There is something deeply human within this man that we should resonate with if we want to progress. Give him a call Brian. He has a thing or two to say which may open new paths regardless which science branche your in.

@0Metatron

4 ай бұрын

@@RWin-fp5jn absolutely

@ezbody

4 ай бұрын

Rupert Scamdrake isn't a scientist, he is a con-man. It just hurts my brain to know that people like you exist. 🙄

@owenbarnes773

4 ай бұрын

@@Joe-sg9ll 🤣🤣🤣 i think you might be right about that ... a little too much like heresy

@user-rn1ws5id8h

4 ай бұрын

Until he endorsed the vaccination, and then I realised he's just another moron.

It's quite clear what the Discovery Institute means when it uses the phrase "Intelligent Design", and it isn't what Eric describes.

Semantically the phrase 'natural selection' is a play off 'selective breeding'.

Random mutation is plausible, but not probable. De Vries was a patch for Darwin. Consider cosmic rays bombarding DNA. It's like firing a machine gun at an automobile and expecting a better car. Not in a million iterations.

@craigbritton1089

3 ай бұрын

Biology is not auto mechanic; and analogies/ parables do not prove anything; they can only illustrates a true or false point. And since DNA has mutations that seldom destroy the organism instantly ( cancer takes time); your analogy would be more accurate if you said that something not understanding the physics of aerodynamics kept randomly changing the shape of cars that needed an advantage to get somewhere sooner; and those cars could reproduce themselves. Have you heard of DNA? Cars are built in a factory; organisms reproduce themselves.

There are some problems with what he's saying. For example, natural selection is not driven by mutation. The changes wrought by selective pressures are just a selection among existing options. The moths that become darker-colored when the bark of local trees get darker because of pollution are not mutating. The potential for dark and light are both already there. What is happening is that the prevalence of existing genes is being changed by the selective pressure.

@chrisfonden6431

4 ай бұрын

Yup! Mutations do not add information.

@KAZVorpal

4 ай бұрын

@@chrisfonden6431 Well, while we're on the same page philosophically, I don't exactly agree with that specific assertion: Mutations are random breakages of the genetic program for an individual. Therefore they do "add information", by messing up the info that's already there. Selective forces then determine that only the tiny percentage that are accidentally helpful or harmless get passed on much. But that's just a means of weeding those out, not the source of giraffes getting longer necks. The neck change is primarily just the changing of focus of existing genes. And while Darwin was correct about Natural Selection as the shaper of animals, but wrong about it as the origin of species. Genetics hadn't been discovered, yet, so he had no idea of the mechanics of gene transmission, or how insular genetics allow mutations to change the chromosomal structure of a pool of a species, so it drifts away from the physical architecture of the rest of the species, eventually becoming genetically incompatible. And it is, indeed, the genetic compatibility that defines a species, not how it looks. Poodles and chihuahuas are still genetically identical to wolves (to oversimplify, as they're hybrids), not a different species. They just have been selected for different gene focus, giving them separate characteristics in a superficial way.

@Teo_live

4 ай бұрын

Yes and no. It's been a long time since I did basic biology but if my memory serves me correctly, it is mutation being the driving force behind EVOLUTION, and evolution is selected upon. So yes your basic variation of genetic traits (immediate selection pressure) doesn't have enough time for mutations to be relevant. However, over a long time period of time the selection pressure of mutations comes into play.

@chrisfonden6431

4 ай бұрын

@@KAZVorpal mutations do not add new information to the genome. Just scrambling what is already there. No beneficial mutations have been observed. Poodles and Chihuahuas would not survive in the wild. More devolution than evolution

@KAZVorpal

4 ай бұрын

@@Teo_liveNope. Speciation has nothing to do with how an animal looks, nor the mechanics of its anatomy. Speciation is only chromosomal architecture. The mutations that cause speciation have nothing to do with natural selection, other than that unviable mutations are less likely to be passed on. It's all about mutations in isolated gene pools. Natural selection is not the mechanism.

I believe it was Dawkins who wrote that all science is based on assumptions? Anyone questioning these assumptions is driven out of science.