Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "EPA Head: ‘There Aren’t Sufficient Scientific Facts’ For Evolution" video.

  1. He isn't wrong. Evolution is what it is, a theory. It has many doubts which is why it is still a graduate level course. As a scientist myself I don't believe in evolution as I do not believe in anything really. I question evolution myself. Does that mean I deny it? No. Does that mean I don't support it as the theory? No. It just means, as a scientist, I am willing to accept shortcomings in a theory. Science is science as it can adapt to change. Sorry leftists, science is not a religion. So stop treating it like one.
    4
  2. A little more complicated than that. He doesn't deny evolution, it is just that when you get to the macrolevel it becomes complex.
    2
  3. Quinton Jones, it is much more than just time scales. We do not understand the energy barriers involved or the driving forces for example.
    2
  4. Quinton Jones, think physics. Driving forces such as energy. Go farther and think quantum.
    2
  5. " Anyone who says they understand quantum physics doesn't understand quantum physics." I passed quantum mechanics as a grad student. We used Cohen Tannoudji as a text but use JJ Sakurai when we covered identical particles as that text does it better.
    2
  6. Also, I love this Russian troll thing that keeps coming up. You have some Alex Jones level of conspiracy here. As for me not knowing basic science, I teach it and study it for a living. I think I know a little bit about it.
    2
  7. VitalVampyr, to quickly answer you question on energy barriers when a protein or RNA folds it has to overcome an energy barrier. How does it, and why it does it is unclear. There is a large field, including the one I work in, devoted to studying those physical events. "Biological evolution is at it's core a very simple and straightforward concept: " Nothing is that straight forward. "traits which are inheritable will generally proliferate if they promote successful reproduction and will generally not if they don't. " Yes, I agree to a point, but all you are doing is seeing a pattern. You are not actually explaining the events that occur to cause that such as RNA dynamics.
    1
  8. Sean Hanson, energy barriers are important in understanding RNA folding. RNA contains genetic code. The theory of evolution is simply scratching the surface on what is going on and shows a trend. It never really explains anything. The old saying is that in science you have physics and stamp collecting. Evolution is based on stamp collecting, not the actual physics. You say "Its many small changes and mutations over generations leading to large changes", now how and why do those changes occur? That's the physics of it. You talk about changes but fail to ask yourself how those changes occur? What causes a small deviation in the genetic code?
    1
  9. "There are many things that can cause changes to the genetic code but what actually causes these changes is not as important to evolution as the fact that they do occur and can be inherited." I agree to the point, but at that point it shows that evolution is vague and thus can have many flaws. "Nothing you have said has any bearing as to whether evolution is a sound theory." I never said it wasn't. My problem is that many people on the left treat it as gospel when in reality it is science and can have flaws, and most likely does. The deeper you get into science the more questions you have. "Evolution as a concept does not care how the changes happen or even what the changes are, only that they do happen and can be passed on to the next generation and can lead to large differences over many generations." Which again makes it vague.
    1
  10. "are u for real, get a book on evolution and don't just read the bible. " Why are you bringing up the bible? This is a discussion of science, not religion. "The simple deviations in the genetic code are caused by copying errors" Ok, how? "For a religious fanatic like u" I am not religious, but I love how you made that assumption of me.
    1
  11. " not knowing precicely how RNA folds does not cast any doubt on the theory of evolution." It does. Even without that there is always doubt in science. As Richard Feynman said, science is a culture of doubt. That is why scientists do research. "Organism produce offspring with largely similar but somewhat modified genetics, and this is what is relevant to evolution" That's fine, and I agree, but that is also vague. At that point if you want to admit evolution as a theory is very vague that's fine. "Don't lazyly throw up "quantum" and "energy", with no context" I didn't. Also, if you want to sound educated stop using childish criticisms. The reality is evolution is a theory that was designed by a biologist and is, as a whole, vague. Saying certain traits are passed on (there is a lot more to evolution than that, but we will stick to this part) is vague. How are they passed on, and why? Saying something like the dominate specie survives than why doesn't man have 10 arms to increase productivity? The problem I have here is that so many are treating evolution as gospel and when someone like Pruitt has a legit criticism of it, or even when I do we get treated like witches. You treat science like a religion at that point. The reality is evolution, like everything in science, has shortcomings. If you can't admit it then fine, don't study science but also don't have an opinion on it. Leave science to the scientists.
    1
  12. Master Markus, people are against pollution. The issue with climate change is that it is questionable if it is even a threat. And if it is what is the best approach? Calling for economic killing policy is not always best. And is the government the best route in solving the issue if it is an issue? Even if you feel climate change is an issue you can still feel government is inefficient in solving these problems.
    1
  13. I am a scientist. I am pursuing my doctorate in physical chemistry where I do research that specializes in spectroscopy, particularly multidimensional spectroscopy.
    1
  14. Atheist Proletariat, whenever someone on the right questions something in science you go after them like a witch hunt. You treat science like a religion.
    1
  15. "You do realize scientific theories are supported by facts and evidence yes? " I agree, 100%. You do know that we are only scratching the surface in the evidence we have gathered? That is why scientists continue to do studies. That is why I spend around 60 hours a week doing research. A lot is because pursuing a PhD is a lot of work, but also because there is so much research to be done in science.
    1
  16. Vineeth Philip, thanks for showing you have no counter argument. Believe is associated with faith meaning that you will believe in something no matter what evidence is presented. Science does not work like that.
    1
  17. MrNumber0ne1608, you need a high school degree to get into college typically. You need a college degree to get into grad school.
    1
  18. Pranay Ramesh, evolution is an advanced course in college for a reason. You should take it. As for holes, consider nurture vs nature to start. Another is get into the physics of evolution. What are the driving forces? What is the probability? I will compare it to something I know a little about, photosynthesis. Statistically photosynthesis should not take place but it does at a rate of over 90%. Why? We do not have a clear understanding. The same can be said about evolution. It is not to say evolution is wrong or that it should be discarded. It is to say that evolution has shortcomings and we should continue to do research.
    1
  19. " I get your point that there are holes in evolution but that we cant explain yet but that doesn't discount the vast amount of other evidence for it." I support it, that is different than believing it. I support the theory of it as it has the strongest supporting evidence as of now.
    1
  20. "You´re wrong, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, change over time in the animal population is an observed fact about reality. The scientific theory of evolution explains that fact. " What is the riving force of it? Think physics, not biology. You have energy and forces to deal with. How proteins and RNA folds. How certain genetic code transfer and why. That is where many hole lie.
    1
  21. Brian Williamson, I agree with you definition 100%. In fact, it is exactly what I said just in fewer words. So.....what's your point? That I am correct? Thanks.
    1
  22. demonicwiccan666, what makes you think Alex is a creationist?
    1
  23. SkyTechRTS, there is a lot in science that can't be explained. But on this point ""What are the driving forces? " Circumstance? evolution is the name we give to the changes in species over time." What causes these changes? What causes genetic codes to change? What causes RNA to fold the way it does? What is the energy barrier and dynamics? You say "Huh..? why? just "cuz"?" But yet you say the exact same thing with evolution. Change happens. Why? Just cuz.
    1
  24. Vineeth Philip, gravity is a theory, but I am not going to jump off a building. Why? Well because here is what theories are. They are models that explain natural occurrences and predict future results and they are designed from collecting experimental evidence. As you collect more evidence either the theory has stronger supporting evidence or a new one is developed. Sticking with gravity consider this, two spherical object are attracted to each other based on their mass and inversely proportional to the distance between them squared. In other words, there is some invisible force that attracts objects to one another. That will sound like magic to an outsider. However, that's gravity. What's gravity? Explain that. I will be waiting. "also evolution has NOTHING to do with with he origins of the universe, the big bang has nothing to do with the origin of the universe it is simply the rapid expansion of the universe." I agree with evolution. The big bang however, not so much. "Also who says the energy for the universe came out of nothing?" Not me. That is an idea. "And I'm certain you've never heard of Quantum fluctuation where conservation of energy can be violated temporarily" Energy is always conserved, period. At that point I am sure you are making things up.
    1
  25. Evolution is a theory and should be treated as such. Why do you leftists love to treat science like a religion?
    1
  26. "A scientific theory is backed up by facts, evidence, and research. " It is supported by evidence. A theory is a model designed to explain natural occurrences and predict future results. It is limited based on the evidence we gathered where we are only scratching the surface in all reality. A theory has shortcomings. Does not mean it is wrong but instead not the best model we have. Compare it to traveling from NY to LA. Walking or riding a bike is a method, but not the best. Flying is the best. The same can be said about other theories. For example aether to describe light waves. The theory was not strong so another one was developed. Does not make the aether theory wrong, but instead weak. So to say it is an "accurate description of reality" you have to realize our knowledge of reality is minute. If you don't feel that way then we might as well stop scientific research.
    1
  27. The Awoken, what is gravity? Two spherical bodies attract each other? Sounds like voodoo to some outsider. Science has limits but has the ability to change which is why it is not a religion and should not be treated as such.
    1
  28. Beaver Ones, I agree with you.
    1
  29. "Something doesn't have to be spherical to have gravity." In physics everything is a sphere.
    1
  30. Nothing is proven in science.
    1
  31. Kyle has a 7th grade, at best, understanding of science. He should really stop talking about it.
    1
  32. JGCR 45, Pruitt is fine for the EPA, and Devos is find as well. What's wrong with them exactly? You do know their job title entails a lot more than you think.
    1
  33. demonicwiccan666, Devos has zero say in curriculum, that is left up to the states and Devos supports that.
    1
  34. Nutcase, creationism in school is fine if 1. It is not required 2. It is left out of science class 3. it is taught with other religions
    1
  35. demonicwiccann666, she can't defund public schools and 84% is state and local and 8% is private. Also, she pushes for states to set up whatever program they want. She wants less federal government being involved in education. Google is your friend, use it.
    1