Comments by "D Mc" (@dmc8092) on "Why Evolution is True (Pt. 1) | Jerry Coyne | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report" video.

  1. Vampyricon, I don't think it's "we" who are not teaching this. It's that in this country Religious conservatives have kept evolution out of schools or attempted to put creationism on the same level. It's also hard to teach people about something when they are getting false information from their parents and religious leaders about what evolution actually is and what processes. People still believe that it means one species will turn into or give birth to an entirely different species. That's not because "we" are not teaching it it's because others are putting out false information.
    3
  2. Vampyricon Unfortunately in this country religious people are far more powerful that academics, especially when it comes to issues of dealing with children. I agree that the education needs to be better but it's not just a matter of "teachers need to do better" it's that evolution, in their minds, challenges the basis of their religious beliefs. It's easy to shake a finger at people who actually know what evolution is but that is not the root of the problem.
    3
  3. +Mephistahpheles You have so completely missed the point that I'm kind of stunned you have the nerve to be tutting about bad educators. So, you think that creationism and evolution are on equal standing? You are a victim of what I am talking about. The fact is, in many schools, evolution is not allowed to be taught at all. There is actual evidence for evolution. There is overwhelming evidence in fact. There is no evidence for creationism. Creationism is not science and should not be taught in science classes. Evolution is not an opinion, it's not just this idea with nothing to back it up.
    3
  4. Arturo Luna And I think you are someone else who doesn't really know what the evidence for evolution is. You should also go out and learn what you're talking about before you start talking based on a few stories on the internet. The fact that you use a term like "neo-Darwinist" makes me question whether you know anything at all. In fact, I think it makes it pretty clear that you are coming at this as a creationist and that you don't understand what evolution is. In fact, you could just look at the writings of Mr. Coyne here.
    3
  5. cloudazer Science is bringing out the worst in people? How is this the fault of science and not the fault of people not knowing wtf they are condemning? And if you believe in creationism you are a creationist. This isn't my narrative--it's what the word means.
    3
  6. Mephistahpheles Not only has there not been any compelling evidence of a god, there has been no evidence other than people's feelings.
    2
  7. Bad End Happy Ask who? Psychology itself is not an exact science and neither is evolutionary psychology.
    2
  8. +haloreachisawsome117 So, you don't know much about evolution.
    2
  9. Mephistahpheles, I am not just making claims. But what I think is absolutely true is that you, yourself, don't know what evolution is. So when you talk about the bad science education you, yourself are a product of that. Also, just so that you know, strawman building is a fallacy. Why don't you take a biology class from a real biologist so that you will be able to talk about this without pointing out how ignorant you are. When you "choose" to believe something you should actually become informed of what the evidence is before you just dismiss it out of hand.
    2
  10. But, Arturo, they are not saying that evolution isn't true and that it doesn't exist. There are no serious biologists who do not believe in evolution--including Christian biologists. Francis Collins, a Christian, does not dispute evolution. They may be reevaluating how it happens but not that it does.
    2
  11. Except that the complexity argument is just not true. It's been disproven over and over again. Including in court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
    2
  12. +Bad End Happy Left wing extremists deny evolution? How?
    2
  13. cloudazer I didn't say that, I said that the people who are on this thread are not informed of what evolution actually is and you are among them.
    2
  14. +Solitaire Citizen This would be easy to research. Why don't you do a study, go out and ask atheists to explain evolution. You might be surprised. And you know what that process of disproving your hypothesis is? Science.
    1
  15. chemiah I already did. And, in fact, I don't really see the point in continuing this with you because you're not really dealing in an honest way. You throw around claims that you never support and then you ask me to disprove the claims you didn't provide any evidence for in the first place. You accuse me of fallacies such as the appeal to authority when, ironically, you committed it in a previous post. You site authorities and take them out of context and seem to think that's okay.  You're a dishonest debater and I don't think there's any point in dealing with your on the one hand, lies, and on the other, ignorance as though you know what you're talking about.
    1
  16. cloudazer And the fact you're claiming you didn't just shows how dishonest you are.
    1
  17. cloudazer But please, stop wasting time.
    1
  18. Mephistahpheles You don't have to take evolution on faith because there is actual evidence for it. The same cannot be said of any god.
    1
  19. Mephistahpheles The difference is, they don't have to take evolution on faith because if they did a little bit of research they could find evidence. Gods, not so much. What evidence of god exists? Find some that isn't based on people's feelings or filling in gaps of knowledge with imaginary ideas. Again, I'm talking about proof not your feelings about looking at waterfalls or rainbows.
    1
  20. ekool.445 Evolution is a fact. There's no discussion that it's not among people who actually understand the science. And there is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They are the same process. They are both just evolution.
    1
  21. Mephistahpheles I have never blindly accepted evolution as truth. I was pretty much taught creationism growing up and thought it was true until I actually learned what evolution is, took biology classes and read up on it. Once you've actually studied it you're not "blindly accepting" it.
    1
  22. Mephistahpheles What actual evidence have any of your classes presented for creationism? That science doesn't presently know something doesn't mean that it had to have been a god that did it. Until there is actually evidence to show the only honest answer is "I don't know." Faith is not an answer. Faith is believing things when there is no reason to believe it.
    1
  23. Even if evolution was proved to be false--which it hasn't, that wouldn't prove the existence of god.
    1
  24. ekool.445 Evolution does not deal at all with the origin of the universe or the origin of life. And it's not ridiculous that people believe in a god, there's just no evidence of it whatsoever while there is abundant evidence of evolution.
    1
  25. Mephistahpheles No. There is fossil evidence and we have actually observed evolution. We has watched insects and other animals evolve over time. There is actual data to show how the evolutionary process works.  I do not believe there is a god because there has never been any compelling evidence to prove there is. You can't look at the fact that we don't know for sure how the universe was created or life first came to be and say "it must have been a god". Science needs better evidence than that. But, also, if evolution were suddenly shown not to be true that wouldn't prove the existence of a god. I don't care what you believe as long as you're not using it to enact policy. Evolution wasn't what made me question the existence of god and disproving it (which you wouldn't be able to) would not mean your god exists.
    1
  26. cloudazer Also, considering your supercilious tone you should not be pointing the finger at anyone and calling them "haughty".
    1
  27. If only this guy would have been on the show with that Prager idiot.
    1
  28. One thing that many religious people don't seem to get when they refer to people as "darwinist" or "evolutionist", in science we don't take what Darwin wrote as scripture. In science when something is shown to be right or wrong it is taken in and knowledge expands and changes. In religion when someone is shown to be wrong or there is more information, if it doesn't fit the beliefs it is thrown out and condemned.
    1
  29. In America there are places where it can't even be taught in schools.
    1
  30. Mephistahpheles And you are not informed about evolution. Get informed and then talk to me.
    1
  31. Arturo Luna Also, if evolution wasn't true things like medicine and vaccinations wouldn't work--something else you could learn about while you're taking in actual education and not just creationist obfuscations.
    1
  32. Mephistahpheles No. There is evidence for evolution.
    1
  33. Put it to the test Solitaire Citizen. Go out, find some random atheists and ask them to explain evolution. This is easy to do.
    1
  34. chemiah Michael Denton is an evolutionist and does not accept creationism. Gary Bates is not a scientist at all and has a background in marketing. Crick says that creationism has no place in science classes.
    1
  35. chemiah That's not what strawman means. The point is that there is enormous evidence for evolution. We have witnessed species evolve (such as insects) within a fairly short period of time as well as the fossil evidence. All of your posts are obfuscations. If you're going to point to these various people to support your claim you should make sure that they actually support your claim, or, in one case, that they have any standing at all.
    1
  36. chemiah A straw man is when you misrepresent the argument so it is easily defeated. I didn't do that, I pointed out that the basis of your argument was unsound. If anything, you cherrypicked certain things Denton and Crick said and then misrepresented those things so you are the one who built the strawman.
    1
  37. chemiah And again, you've taken what he said out of context and have used the word "miracle" in a way that he didn't. What you have done here is called a "straw man."
    1
  38. chemiah And, also, evolution does not deal with the appearance of life. You have, again, not understood what evolution explains.
    1
  39. chemiah Since we're talking about evolution I'm not fixated on it. I'm not interested in having you move the goal posts. Why are you bringing in something that has nothing to do with evolution as an argument against it? DNA does not provide any evidence of a god or "intelligent agent". It certainly provides no proof of the Christian god.
    1
  40. chemiah If you're talking about irreducible complexity it's been debunked, including in the court of law.
    1
  41. chemiah And I'm saying that there is not. Saying that a scientist called the origin of life a "miracle" is not proof of god.
    1
  42. chemiah Do you have any kind of background in biology and if not where are you getting your "evidence". If it's "Answers in Genesis" or some equivalent you're getting very bad information.
    1
  43. chemiah No. It would be an appeal to authority if I claimed that an expert in marketing, like Gary Bates was also an expert in biology. I didn't bring up the Bible, I don't even know where that came from. Your calls for "rational discussion" are ill founded because you're not using rationality. Now, do you have a background in biology at all?
    1
  44. chemiah Answers in genesis is a website where they pretend that there is evidence of god in DNA and often confuse evolution and biogenesis--like you do.
    1
  45. chemiah It is funny that you call other people fundamentalist. That little trick where you use words to mean things they don't mean. And considering how often you've sited fallacies incorrectly at the same time you are using fallacies to support your argument you shouldn't be criticizing other people's debating skills.
    1
  46. chemiah You had the wrong definition for a straw man fallacy and the plea to authority. Your debating is terrible because you don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  47. cloudazer Actually, you did say that.
    1