Comments by "VColossalV" (@VColossalV) on "The Young Turks"
channel.
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
MosheMYY M "My rationale says something stupid can't develop biotechnological wonders"
And there is your problem. Nature consistently defied our intuition, I gave you the Quantum world as an example before but it's far from the only one.. And if you're once again talking about the origins of life, that doesn't have anything to do with Evolution. Evolution simply explains how it changes over time, it doesn't explain the origins of it.
"I already know that you believe stupid is support by science"
Yes. Science is on our side, not yours. Evolution is just as established as our Theory of Gravity. You can't "tell me otherwise" because if you said it wasn't supported by Science you would be wrong. I guess you can be wrong if you want to.
"scientists that do question stupid have reasons to question it."
Yes, religious reasons. The only other motive is a religious one. Even Scientists that question and debate how much of a role Natural Selection plays don't deny that Evolution happens --- we know Evolution happens because it's a commonly observed and well documented phenomenon with literal mountains of evidence to support it.
Scientists (non-Biologists) that reject Evolution certainly don't have valid criticisms, only ones like yours, that which are based on ignorance, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and straw-men. That which I just mentioned is all you've done here.
"Since you shun them, of course you'll have your landslide victory"
It's a landslide victory simply because literally 99.9% of Biologists accept it. Scientists (usually non-Biologists) that reject Evolution have their "arguments" dismantled by the actual experts, they aren't silenced as you would like to imagine.
"Thomas Nagel is an Highly Intelligent atheist and he questions it"
Yep, and he isn't a Biologist -- Francis Collins is the former head of the Human Genome Project and accepts Evolution and the established age of the universe --- guess what? He's a Christian.
"he's been ridiculed, ostracized and the works."
He isn't a Scientist. His work concerning his opinion on Scientific matters has been criticised by the Scientific Community, yes, that's not a bad thing, just like movie critics aren't doing a bad thing when they give bad reviews to movies.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MosheMYY M "What says it's more beneficial and what's the reason behind it surviving."
I specifically said relative to the environment because sometimes traits makes the organism better adapted to the environment; there's no choosing, organisms that have traits that give them advantages have better chance of survival --- it really is an easy concept to understand, but we both know you don't want to understand it, you're wilfully ignorant and proud of it.
"Please just leave the name calling out of this, you only lose with ugliness."
Stop misrepresenting basic principles of Biology then, you earned that insult by being one.
"This is why I ask for a demonstration of what STUPID can do. See....Evolution is STUPID"
If by that you mean there's no conscious entity choosing which organism survives then yes, it is stupid -- but true. Natural Selection is a thing, get used to it.
"As for the survival of the fittest, I think the study applies to that as well"
I explained to you what I meant by 'survival of the fittest' and nothing in the article you cited contradicts anything I've said, organisms with advantageous traits survive (by virtue of having a trait that give an advantage) -- that is not disputed.
"It's interesting how non-scientists like to trash or discard what some scientists are finding"
Scientists are on my side, not yours.
1
-
1
-
MosheMYY M "Because Professor Nagel isn't a scientist he's open to be maltreatment by your lot"
Criticising someone's work isn't maltreatment, as you serious right now? Are movie critics mistreating the creators just because they criticise some of their movies? Ludicrous. If he's going to attempt to criticise Science then obviously Scientists are going to point out his errors and criticise his work.
"Why shouldn't Jerry and Massimo share their findings with the public?"
They are allowed to... They already have! You can buy their damn book on Amazon! Are you mental? They aren't being censored, criticism isn't the same as censoring someone. They have freedom of speech. Why can't they get published in journals? Well, they could submit for peer-review, but if their work doesn't hold up, then it can't get published, this rule applies to everyone.
"I don't deny small changes happen, I deny that you can SHOW how something stupid developed biotechnological wonders!"
You did deny that change happens, you completely rejected the notion that DNA changed earlier, you're contradicting yourself now.
You may aswell call any other natural process "stupid" just because there is no intelligence behind it. Small changes happen over a short span, the larger changes happen over much longer periods, the only additional factor is time. Genetics and the fossils record and such suggest that these changes are much larger given longer periods of time.
Oh and by the way, the small changes (which are still Evolution by definition) happen due to the same mechanisms.
"Anyone that's not a biologist who believe in stupid are no more than mere believers in stupid"
We're not stupid for accepting well-established Science, are you stupid for accepting Atomic Theory or Germ Theory without being an expert in the relevant field? No. Ofcourse not. You're stupid for other reasons.
"biologists who don't accept stupid are not heard."
They aren't censored if that's what you're suggesting, it's not completely unheard of (but very, very rare) for a Biologist to atleast reject common ancestry due to their religious convictions. It's ridiculously rare but it has happened before. When someone is raised to have these religious convictions it can happen. There's a reason that 99.9% of Biologists accept Evolution.
I respect people like Francis Collins who are intellectuals in their fields who don't let their religious beliefs get in the way of Science. He's a Christian and although I do not agree with his religious beliefs I can accept that he's a great Scientist (former head of the Human Genome Project).
"he's a christian but he wasn't always one"
So he says. What mattes is that he does not let his religious beliefs get in the way of Science. He rejects Creationism/ID.
"who knows why he still believes in evolution, certainly not because it's true."
That's exactly why he accepts it. He's a Geneticist remember, the evidence is undeniable. He is completely against Young Earth Creationism.
"It's not a problem, it's a just a logic fact. No amount of you stating stupid is true will make it true."
It's not my statements that make it true, it's the overwhelming evidence that makes it true. I also say that our Theory of Gravity is accurate and true, me saying so doesn't make it true, but the evidence does.
"Pseudo-science is indeed on your side."
You don't get to decide what is and isn't Science. It's Science, deal with it.
"Comparing the theory of stupid with the theory of gravity is like comparing a car with wheels to a bike with no wheels."
No, they both have predictive and explanatory power and mountains of evidence to support both of them. Our Theory of Gravity isn't perfect by the way, there are things it cannot account for (yet).
"this is all through the peer review literature, nothing to demonstrate that IT DID!"
Yes... we do. The fossil record and Genetic evidence for starters. Peer reviewed literature doesn't make things up.
"So the overwhelming evidence is nothing more than a chant among the faithful"
No, faith is belief without evidence, if there's evidence; then it isn't faith. Sorry. Your religious convictions are faith.
"NO ONE CAN HAVE VALID CRITICISMS AGAINST EVOLUTION, WHETHER THEY ARE SCIENTISTS OR NOT"
Having a valid criticism requires that you understand the Science and actually know the first thing about it, you don't know the first thing about Evolution and you've demonstrated that here. Unsurprisingly, the more you learn about it, the less misconceptions you have about it. Misconceptions and misrepresentations are not valid criticisms.
"what do you know of his knowledge?"
I know he's not a Biologist. That's what I know. And I know for a fact that his works has been criticised by the Scientific Community, people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to Science.
"You know how establish the theory is....of course you're a biologist right?"
No. I'm not. I'm not a Biologist and I'm not afraid to admit that. Biologists are the experts on the matter, and it's no coincidence that the vast majority of Biologists and Geneticists accept it.
1
-
MosheMYY M "WOW you missed so much."
No. You did.
"why were they told not to make this public information?"
Who said they can't? It's their choice if they want to put out books and what not. What you're referring to is the fact that they did not get their work published in Science journals ---- you can't just get any old tripe published, it has to be examined rigorously by other Scientists, that's how peer-review works, if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny then it isn't published in Science journals --- this does not mean they can't write books of their own and put them out there or say whatever they want.
"They also shared that they shouldn't have put it out there for the world to know."
When you put your idea's out there you do so with knowledge that people may criticise it. There is nothing wrong with criticism, everyone should be open to express their views and to criticise them.
"Since you're not a biologist I shouldn't hear anymore from you."
I'm telling you what Biology is and what Biologists have to say on a subject they are experts in. They have opinions that are valid (due to being informed on the subject) and I am presenting you with them, and presenting you with the current scientific understanding.
"I never said DNA can't change"
Yes you did. You explicitly said this --- "when I ask for demonstrable evidence of DNA evolving" --- Evolution means change, that's what it means, "evolve" and "change" are synonyms, and to put the definition of Evolution scientifically -- "Evolution is the *change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations"* --- This is a demonstrable phenomenon, and the "small changes" you accept are Evolution, by definition.
Is the development of your DNA from your parents magical? I don't know what you mean by "development of DNA", you have yet to clarify what you mean by it. If you're talking about the origins of life and how DNA came to be then you are not talking about Evolution, you're talking about Abiogenesis. The fact that you've been conflating these two this entire time speak volumes, you're ignorant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1