TEDxNUS - Debunking myths about evolution - John van Wyhe
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 апр 2024
- In an enlightening and scientifically motivated talk, Dr. John van Wyhe states that the popular narrative attached to Darwin and his discoveries are wide off the mark. Dr van Wyhe tells us why it is important to hear the true story behind Darwin and his work to understand their scientific and human significance. In a logical manner, we are shown where certain premises attached to the popular narrative fail when brought under a strict scientific scrutiny. The matter regarding the age of the Earth is settled, the progressive nature of the history of the Earth is highlighted and this leads to Darwin's idea of Evolution. According to Dr van Wyhe, Darwin states three reasons for his theory of evolution - the existence of fossilized mammals,patterns linked to geographical distribution and the Galapagos Islands which served as a hotbed for a unique diaspora of different species. The accumulated effect of these observations - natural selection, or as Dr van Wyhe puts it "The Gauntlet of Death" - showcased the accuracy and simplicity of Darwin's observations. With interesting excerpts and his own observations Dr van Wyhe paints a portrait of Darwin and the theory of evolution that comes to a logical conclusion.
Наука
The photographer who took pictures of our wedding forgot to take the lens cap off, I always wondered where he went next
Are you serious
Good one 🤣🤣🤣
saved from 250 fotos no one will ever look at again...
🤣🤣🤣
😅😅😅👌👌
I finally figured out the camera man's perspective. He is a former USMC Sniper. That's the only logical explanation. 😎
In context this is TEDx and not TED.
Showstring budget, some 'friend' of event filming. One or two too many beers at the bar / stubbies from the esky.
Frank Lopez II I just pissed myself. (SNIPER)🤪
@Steve is this a waaah moment? Are we having a meltdown?
I'm retired. If you've followed post after post maybe it is you that needs to get a grip. Grip on something.
lol, that's rich!
A 'former sniper' he was discharged for his unsteady hand and inability to keep his target in the crosshairs.
Was the camera just duct taped to the back of a cat?
rofl
LMAO😂😂😂
Imagine you're a director. And this was your cinematographer.
Had to stop watching because of that. Too bad, it looked interesting. WHat on earth was that camera man thinking?
*The result of asking your wife to film for ya, to save $50 for a qualified cameraman 😉
I'm delighted that I wasn't the only one who noticed the filming "style" used here.
I couldn't agree with you more. I said out loud while trying to watch this: 'PULL THE CAMERA BACK AND STOP TRYING TO FOLLOW HIS MOVEMENT IN CLOSE-UP!!!!"
I fired him
For goodness sakes. Next time just zoom out so you can fit him, the stage and the background images into the shot, instead of trying to chase him around every time he walks out of the shot. That was so annoying
+mattian -- Yours is the only sensible comment I've read so far.
A is for... let me guess... Atheism?
I was about to say the same thing but thought someone else must have noticed too.
Newton was bible nut too, so were Galileo and many other great minds in history
優さん ~> Likewise; the more we stray, the more nuts we become.
To all cameramen: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE focus on the content of the presentation, not the presenter. Thank you.
(To the cameramen in this video, Shaun Leow & Kelvin Teo, I hope this is a positive learning experience for you. Thanks.)
So, it's aa TED event filmed by my dad. Gotcha.
Danielsan B I’m a Dad and Feel quite offended by your comment. It’s more likely to be a Mum (or my father in law)...
@@alexevans3085 XD
And filming his child
The one who filmed it - thanks but probably could have zoomed out to include the slides ... Why keep the Cam on the speaker pacing to and fro on stage when he has made so much effort to present the slides to help us visualise the points from his talk BUT hardly any of them could be seen?
Worst camera guy ever!
I think the missing link may actually be filming this
That was funny.
No , Michael Moore. Is busy with a. New movie "" How to kill.Donald Trump ""
I just can't
Miguel Urdaci
The Piltdown man missing link hoax which kept evolutionist alive , after being finally exposed in 1953!! 😂😂😂
Darwinism as religion - 1859 - 1953😅
Miguel that gave me a belly laugh!
looks like we just found a new species of cameraman
Lololololololll...
E
Just a thought;
(Evolutionism says we evolved from bacteria) How about today's bacteria, is much older than ancient bacteria, why it does not evolve into a some sort of man or another creature?.,crazy!!!!
😂
@@Juan-lf6qonot all bacteria in the past evolved into higher organism.. Some evolved a little.. Some evolved a lot.. Some dont evolve because they are fit enough to survive in their environment
Isn't it aggravating??
I can't see the slides when he's specifically referring to them! BLARGH
I'm glad he had that clicker in his hand to move from picture to picture THAT WE DIDN"T GET TO SEE!!!
The camera man needs to evolve over a few million more years...
5:05 a true failure of cinematography
Hahah, yep : ).
I didn’t even last that long... 🤣 now I have to go back to see 🤣🤣
Dont you dare call this cinematography
as soon as that happened I had to scroll down to see if anyone had mentioned it. lol
Either the cameraman is stoned or he has a major crush on Whye!
ZOOOOOOOMMMMMM OOOOOUUUUUTTT!!!!!!!
YeAH - where's Darwin's self-portrait?
horrible footage
The joke is that he drew over his own self portrait cuz he just didn't care, or something.
I had to stop watching to not get a little dizzy, like some blair witch stuff.
Agreed. The talk is great, but the camerawork is utterly atrocious! UGH!
Without all the great visual examples shown, I wouldn't have been able to grasp what he's saying. Thank you again, TED!
TED screwed up on this one.
It would be nice if we could see the damn slides!
Ian Atkinson
I wonder what Darwins self portrait looks like.
Watching this is like participating in an experiment to create the feeling of being drunk. Or seasick.
Best comment section ever. Laughs for days
nah
today i laugh tomorrow ill cry cs of stsying too much to read these coms lol
I guess I'll never find out what Darwin's self-portrait looks like
I love how the only thing anyone took away from this was the cameraman 😭😂
proving that illustrated talks require the illustrations to be meaningful.
Excellent and very interesting subject matter and fantastic presentation by this young man however the 7-year-old camera boy was a bust.
This is the worst radio broadcast I've ever watched...
😎😂Excellent
Ultramajik this comment is severely underrated 😂😂😂
and Oscar goes for the best cameraman ever :)
glass is half full kind of thing ? lol
I just missed the entire video, reading this hysterical comment section.
And according to the comment section, the people who were actually watching the video, missed the entire video.
Well, I hope the camera operator's technique has evolved since this was filmed.
*DNA and Proteins Paradox (The First Replicator)*
In about 1962 we finally understood that the first replicating molecule was composed of RNA, a simpler version DNA as the basis for the first life form. Self-replicating systems of RNA molecules have been found in nature (RNA functions both as a gene and as an enzyme). RNA molecules can store and replicate genetics information and can catalyze chemical reactions)
The mystery of how these RNA molecules formed by themselves still remained. *We have gradually came to understand that this replication was done by proteins. Proteins can twist and fold into a wild diversity of shapes, so they can do just about anything, including acting as enzymes, substances that catalyze a huge range of chemical reactions* . At the same time we also found that the information needed to make proteins is stored in DNA molecules. We can’t make new proteins without DNA, and we can’t make new DNA without proteins. So which came first, proteins or DNA?
Creationists, often site this apparent paradox as the evidence for the impossibility of natural (chemical) origins of life and the “proof” for an Intelligent Designer, or “god”. Of course, time did not stand still, since the 1960’s; and the additional information came to light.
“The discovery that RNA could fold like a protein, albeit not into such complex structures, suggested an answer. If RNA could catalyze reactions as well as storing information, some RNA molecules might be capable of making more RNA molecules. And if that was the case, RNA replicators would have had no need for proteins. They could do everything themselves” (New Scientist). Still, this was a nice hypothesis only until 1982, when an RNA enzyme was discovered. (Thomas Cech of the University of Colorado in Boulder found it in Tetrahymena thermophila, a bizarre single-celled animal with seven sexes; Science, vol 231, p 4737).
“This was followed by the discovery of several more RNA enzymes in living organisms and even new ones were manufactures in the laboratory. These were significant evidence that the first life consisted of RNA molecules that catalyzed the production of more RNA molecules - “the RNA world”, as Harvard chemist Walter Gilbert dubbed it 25 years ago (Nature, vol 319, p 618). The RNA enzyme Cech discovered did not just catalyze any old reaction. It was a short section of RNA that could cut itself out of a longer chain. Reversing the reaction would add RNA to chains, meaning RNA replicators might have been able to swap bits with other RNA molecules.”
We do know that RNA needs protein to duplicate itself. Since an early replicator could not be found, we have to assume that if one really existed it has disappeared long time ago. In order to deal with this challenge we were impelled to produce such a replicator.
By 2001, we have been able to build an RNA enzyme called R18 that could stick 14 nucleotides - the building blocks of RNA and DNA - onto an existing RNA, using another RNA as a template (Science, vol 292, p 1319). Then along came Philipp Holliger of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, and he unveiled an RNA enzyme called tC19Z. It reliably copies RNA sequences up to 95 letters long, almost half as long as itself (Science, vol 332, p 209). To do this, tC19Z clamps onto the end of an RNA, attaches the correct nucleotide, then moves forward a step and adds another.
In 2003, Hiroaki Suga, now at the University of Tokyo, Japan, created an RNA enzyme that could oxidise alcohol, with help from a cofactor called NAD+ which is used by many protein enzymes (Nature Structural Biology, vol 10, p 713). Months later, Ronald Breaker of Yale University found that a natural RNA enzyme, called glmS, also uses a cofactor.
Many bacteria use glmS, says Ferré-D’Amaré, so either it is ancient or RNA enzymes that use cofactors evolve easily. Either way, it looks as if RNA molecules would have been capable of carrying out the range of the reactions needed to produce energy.
So the evidence that there was once an RNA world is growing ever more convincing. But there is still one huge and obvious problem: where did the RNA come from in the first place?
RNA molecules are strings of nucleotides, which in turn are made of a sugar with a base and a phosphate attached. In living cells, numerous enzymes are involved in producing nucleotides and joining them together, but of course the primordial planet had no such enzymes. There was clay, though. In 1996, biochemist Leslie Orgel showed that when “activated” nucleotides - those with an extra bit tacked on to the phosphate - were added to a kind of volcanic clay, RNA molecules up to 55 nucleotides long formed (Nature, vol 381, p 59). With ordinary nucleotides, the activated ones provide the energy needed to drive the reaction.
This suggests that if there were plenty of activated nucleotides on the early Earth, large RNA molecules would form spontaneously. John Sutherland, at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, proved that it was possible that simpler molecules might assemble into a nucleotide without ever becoming sugars or bases. He took half a sugar and half a base, and stuck them together - forming the crucial sugar-base link that everyone had struggled with. Then he bolted on the rest of the sugar and base. Sutherland stuck on the phosphate last, though he found that it needed to be present in the mixture for the earlier reactions to work (Nature, vol 459, p 239). Sutherland concluded that there is a “Goldilocks chemistry” - not too simple, not too complex - that would produce many key compounds from the same melting pot.
The issue isn’t entirely solved yet. RNA has four different nucleotides, and so far Sutherland has only produced two of them. However, he says he is “closing in” on the other two. If he succeeds, it will show that the spontaneous formation of an RNA replicator is not so improbable after all, and that the first replicator was most likely made of RNA.
The many questions remaining are addressed by Jack Szostak of Harvard University who has shown that the same clay that produces RNA chains also encourages the formation of membrane-bound sacs rather like cells that enclose cells. He has grown “proto-cells” that can carry RNA and even divide without modern cellular machinery.
No fossilized vestiges remain of the first replicators as far as we know. But we can try recreating the RNA world to demonstrate how it might have arisen. “One day soon”, Sutherland says, “someone will fill a container with a mix of primordial chemicals, keep it under the right conditions, and watch life emerge. “That experiment will be done.”
Footnote: This comment is based on several science articles on the subject and direct quotes from those articles.
Stop trolling
@@rickdavis2053 You have zero education in biology, and nothing to contribute.
@@maylingng4107 yeah right miss "copy and paste"🙄
@@rickdavis2053 Try to finish the 10th grade before you are ready to converse intelligently.
Footnote: this was copied and pasted
I loved Darwin’s portrait of himself. Really laughed out loud...
Darwin had no scientific degree he tried but failed to get a medical one he had a degree in theology
@@faithtruth8036
--- I haven't fact checked you but assuming that you are correct, why does it matter?
@@faithtruth8036 rather irrelevant lmao 😂😂
@@logicalatheist1065 then it is illogical to reply but you did.
@@faithtruth8036 ...why?
He misses an awesome Huxley quote... So a bunch of people were debating Darwin's hypothesis, and a Bishop (Don't remember his name) asked Huxley if his grandfather or grandmother was the ape, so Huxley says to the guy next to him: "The LORD hath delivered him into my hands!" He than stands up and says to the bishop: “If then the question is put to me whether I would rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape.” Bloody brilliant. It's like the best comeback from a scientist to a creationist...
Your bishop is an invented straw man. It's easy to construct a comeback if you can invent your opponent and put words in his mouth.
@@BrianStanleyEsq It's easy to refuse whatever you don't like as well
@@Ignirium I take it you can cite an original source for your anecdote? Otherwise, I'll have to infer that you just don't like my "refusal" of its authenticity, and therefore you refuse it.
And that's the real answer: You don't want to recognize that a supreme power (God) exists, even though that makes more sense, and you won't ever admit his existence even if he materialize in front of you; and that's fine, you are given that freedom of choice
@@nestorjs even some Catholic priests would find what you just wrote hilarious... I'd convert if there was evidence that god could do anything, like cause rain. That's nature.
the quality of cam operation is worse than amateurish
If you have not read "Voyage of the Beagle" then please do so. It gives a vivid insight into Darwin's mind and how he formulated his theory of evolution. Also it is quite an adventure story in in it's own right.
Francis Crick, *we must keep telling ourselves what we see was not designed but evolved.* So what exactly do we need to see that is not designed but evolved? *Perhaps a lawless, liveless chaos from nothing in the finite past instead of a ‘miraculous’ universe (Einstein’s observation) This might prove Evolution? *Maybe the immutable laws of science and the constants of physics all evolved in some cosmic multiverse generator?* *Or was it a multi verse generator that spat out one finite, awe-inspiring rationally intelligible, abstract law-abiding universe? Was it the expansion rate of the BB (Lambda), that had to be accurate to 1x10^120th power (Roger Penrose) Was it one tiny speck of dust that had by chance a hundred or so parameters to enable life to self create in a pre-biotic pool? *Then we have such this breathtakingly beautiful planet that by blind unguided forces and luck that somehow created a sentient, moral intelligent, self-conscious being along with a trillion other incredibly beautiful bio-diverse life-forms. * So where can we observe all this evolution in action? If all species are transitional where can we observe any clam, caterpillar, crow, crocodile, cow, camel cat or chimp in some minor or major transitional state, alive or dead? you pathetic bunch of belligerent bigots don't believe in nothing, you believe anything that is counter intuitive as long as it doesn't allow a divine foot in the door!! If your denial was not so tragic, it would be laughable.
Couldnt agree more But be honest for once in ur meaningless, ever diminishing existence. We are of course, ALL creationists.despite the 20 million google hits of *Creation Vs evolution*, the most perniciously false dichotomy which has NOTHING to do with explaining ultimate origins i.e why there is something rather than nothing. The FINITUDE of the past demands an explanation of how there is something now when time matter and space had an absolute beginning. If u r committed to the philosophy of scientific materialism u may like to claim nature created itself out of nothing perhaps by means of a law such as gravity (a la Hawking) But we all know that is absurd just as there cant be an infinite regress of past physical events or staTES. So what is the only plausible explanation?. Atheism is not a dichotomy with religion of any persuasion. It is in fact CREATION ex nihilo that which atheists cleverly avoid. Macro Evolution is a theory in crisis ask Ric lewontin, a staunch atheist!
As for atheists cynical claim about Christianity, the God we all believe in, the one that obvious haunts your every waking moment is the God Jesus so beautifully articulates in parables like the prodigal Son, a text u have obviously never read. As Pascal said *Some people believe whatever they want not on the basis of evidence but what they dinf attractive.* And there is some thing very attractive about a hedonistic lifestyle, where there is no ultimate justice where our moral choices have no more consequence than their immediate effect.
Ah NO u havent! how have u explained " why there is something rather than nothing. The FINITUDE of the past demands an explanation of how there is something now when time matter and space had an absolute beginning. If u r committed to the philosophy of scientific materialism u may like to claim nature created itself out of nothing perhaps by means of a law such as gravity (a la Hawking) But we all know that is absurd just as there cant be an infinite regress of past physical events or staTES. So what is the only plausible explanation?. Atheism is not a dichotomy with religion of any persuasion. It is in fact CREATION ex nihilo that which atheists cleverly avoid. Macro Evolution your go to theory is in crisis ask Ric lewontin, a staunch atheist!
Is Lewontin lamenting about the absurdity of life emerging according to a blind, unguided unintelligent simple processes th,at the best scientific minds cant even come close to recreating in the best sophisticated labs Nothing but bacteria from bacteria and dead or mutant flies from living fruit flies after 60000 generations?
Yes, Gerry, make sure you keep evolution separate and away from all other implicated theories since evolution is based on abiogenesis, which is unproven and has been a dismal failure. Well, if abiogenesis didn't happen, then maybe the same cause that designed and created life might have designed and created the diversity of life. In fact, maybe the same cause that created the universe to indescribable precision to sustain intelligent life also created life. But they don't want you guys to think this. So completely separate evolution from other historical origins.
@@Gericho49 ...,"what they find attractive"...,you just hit the nail on the head with that remark! All of this so called origins of life science fiction is merely
the old debunked theory of "Spontaneous Generation"..., which the great Louis Pasteur demonstrated back in 1859 was preposterous!
How far the RUclips presentations have come over the last 10 years. The best presenters are the same, but the settings, camera men and tech is now so professional.
You must be joking.
@@stepaushi No, I just missed the illustations and thinking the camera man must have been drunk :)
@@andersemanuel yeah, I got your sarcasm now 👍😆
Watching this reminds me of a French TV documentary many years ago about Chinese martial arts.
The kungfu monk was doing his kungfu dance moves with a weapon. The whole thing took a few minutes, and all we saw was a close up of the monk's face for the entire duration!
It was as if the French photographer thought viewers wanted to know if the monk had pimples on his face. It's interesting that he thinks people would tune into a kungfu documentary to watch an enlarged face instead of kungfu moves.
(But I should give him some credit for his ability to capture the face of a fast moving target)
videography hasn't evolved beyond a rather primitive fixation with mimic muscles on an ape's face.
With all the BRAINS at these Ted Ex expos of sales, one would think they could HIRE a Camera Person that KNOWS HOW TO USE A CAMERA.
Cameraman's mind;
Zoom in
Cameraman;
why ?
Cameraman's mind;
Just do it
Cameraman;
Ok
Men didn't create his Polish Chicken, they manipulated it. Who manipulated the beautiful birds in the rain forest?
He "buried the lead" with that penultimate comment that the scientific debate was settled in 1879 and that the present fuss is a Twentieth Century phenomenon.
has there ever been a lecture where the projector worked perfectly or wasnt screwed up by the lecturer
Watching this in 2019, enjoying myself it since I knew those points decades ago through Gould's series of essays. Stephen J. Gould referred to them! (Although his studies might be independent)
Camera person seems to have strong disliking for the theory of evolution!
Either focus, or stand still.
WOW! Those pictures and notes were so clear...
True, Darwin didn't realize the importance of the Galapagos finches till his return to England and an Ornithologist called out their importance to him
What a hilarious self-portrait!!!!
I cannot believe he was such a bad drawer. Seeing is believing!
This needed to be treated as a TED Radio not a TED video ... the point of the talker is refreshing as anyone who has studied the history of science will know that most of what people think they know about Darwin is simply myth. The Wikipedia article "History of evolutionary thought" is covers a lot of material.
Outstanding camera work!
LMAO Out standing somewhere with super zoom?
Cera guy shot every every cam.xvid ever.
Bonus points for no people walking past the shot.
For everyone giving me a hard time about the camera work, the zoom out button was broke and there wasn't a backup camera.
just kidding 8)
Fortunately
Mr Leow ( The cameraman) inherited a rubbery neck from his great grandfather
who was a ping pong referee.
You are too funny Jamaican
"Let's see. We have a stage where the speaker will be presenting large slides behind him. How about we set up a single camera and zoom in on only him." "Great idea!" Not.
whoever recorded this, you're absolutely hilarious!
10 years u still up bruh? hope the decade was amazing for you :)
@@moc1759 he ded
@@moc1759 he deed
@@ego5652 LOL
Yeah nah, he defo dieded
Man I wish I could get everyone in my family to listen to this. I can't understand why anyone would try to deny this.
They'd try to deny it cause it's flat out impossible and even senseless
Did someone just say it's false?
Not just false, but baseless. From a scientific point of view
Denying evolution would put someone on the wrong side of science, the wrong side of history, the wrong side of truth, and the wrong side of the Creator God... (assuming there is one to be on the wrong side of...)
u got your answer lol from digital easy XD when the evidence conflicts with one's beliefs.... deny the messenger
04:50 who knew Darwin was such a great sketch artist...
I think the cameraman was the speakers mother... so proud
Nicely put but unfortunately it would have been more interesting to go into slightly further details on the concept upon which Darwin based his theory
...which was formulated by his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin.
The concept that Darwin based his (proven) theory on is, as explained in the clip (the bit about the pigeon and chicken): Natural Selection (as opposed to artificial selection, whereby breeders select certain traits in the creature that that they wish to have passed on to future generations.) Incidentally, speakers at the TED talks are allowed only a certain limited time in which to get their point over - no more than fifteen or twenty minutes or so.
Before I scrolled down to the comments, I thought I would be the only one who had a problem with the way it was filmed. At the first part(the only part I've seen yet), it's really annoying when we don't see what the projectionist is trying to show us!
I'm sure a do over would evolve into a visual display of the background photo examples :)
One minute in and I'm sea sick.
Can't see the presentation.
Maybe watch a Ted Talk before you try to make one.
well this was 2011 so i think ted was still a new thing, but still doesnt excuse the camerawork
Evolution should be a major topic at high school, because it not only explains the current populations of animals and plants as a result of the survival of the fittest (luckiest), it also explains the embryonic development of plants and animals and thereby the anatomy of species. It explains our complicated heart structure, the loop of the vocal box nerve in giraffes, the presence of retroviruses in our DNA, the benefit of stem cell therapy, the way our immuun and hormone system works. Those who still think that this is not true, should refuse the use of medical care which emerged from evolution theory.
Absolutely great talk. Hard to concentrate though with the camera work. Hope the camera man learned from his mistake.
never mind the lecture some of the comments gave me hysterical laughter!
Ah...4:37 interesting if he was the ship's companion...I always felt that Paul Bettany's character in Master and Commander The Far Side of the World war Darwin-like...so much so that when I heard he was going to play Darwin in the latter Creation film of 2009, which I didn't like terribly much, probably only watch on occasion because it's about Darwin, I felt he was an appropriate choice...and when you look at photos of Darwin when he was younger, the choice seems even better...
If you're interested, the BBC produced a seven or eight hour series called The Voyage of Charles Darwin back around the end of the '70s, early 80s. It's available free to watch here on RUclips.
Ah, I see, lol...yeah, I'll check that out...
Not all birds are classed as raptors. But all birds are dinosaurs. The only dinosaur to have survived. You can actually see evolution in birds from it's ancestor to now. Looking at a birds Fossils you can see that evolution is very real indeed. I actually work in a lab preparing Fossils and birds is my field.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@Unique_Monk whats so funny? Birds being evolved from dinosaurs too ridiculously funny for you? Nature can be incredibly ridiculous I agree but doesn’t mean it’s not real
@@allenchang6185
It’s not real
It’s hilarious that scientists still try to teach us it happened
Science has proven life is too complex for it to have happened
There is NO MECHANISM to create information
If it’s not in the dna gene pool it can’t be created
Mutations duplicate or lose information
Natural selection = survival of the fittest - life survives or dies under the conditions of nature
Time is your enemy but evolutionists claim time is the answer
So you believe nothing created everything perfectly ?
Life evolved from a rock ?
Abiogenesis - debunked
You’re already jumping through hoops to get to dinosaurs
Where did dinosaurs evolve from - bacteria ???
Where’s the fossils of amoeba to dinosaur ???
It never happened
C-14 in all fossils proves millions of yrs is a lie
@@allenchang6185your atheist I'm guessing?
@@scottlinehan7806 not really more like agnostic
whoever made this video doesn't seem to know that in these kinds of talks one needs to cover the screen presentations along with the presenter and not just the presenter
interesting talk but terrible camera work. Why didn't the camera person pull out to show the slides right behind the speaker?
the zoom out button was broke 8)
Simple, straightforward science and history in a nutshell. Very well done.
It amazes me that by simply removing or not including God in one’s theory makes it completely palatable for the week minded looking for any explanation that conforms to their bias. Evolution has been proven to be impossible. No reputable scientist believes Darwin’s theory because the math proves it to be impossible. I take that back impossible is not accurate - the improbability is such as to deem the theory impossible is a better description. Throwing a bunch of sticks into a pile and expecting a 3 bedroom house in a million years is more probable. At least the sticks are made of wood and contain cells and dna and are already a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years ahead of the amino acids in the theoretical sludge where the spontaneous occurrence of life theoretically occurred. I digress, your theory has been proven wrong so it no longer qualifies as a theory and is nothing more than a religious belief based solely on faith. No better than any other religion but in many ways much worse.
Really excellent talk so unfortunate the filming .....please redo
Poor camera man, just graduated and very nervous during his first actual job 🤣🤣🤣
When you look away from your collar mic, the volume diminishes.
That's what happens when you give a sniper a cameraman job.
Very informative. Thank you!
10 years my man !!! u still up?
@@moc1759 11 now
His talk is brilliant and he is amazingly well spoken but the video is incredibly hard to watch and in turn listen too with the camera moving all of the time. The video is expanded 12 minutes in for 1 minute.
Anybody notice at 11:50 slide, that "geometical" is not a word?
The video man is about to be extinct.
"job selection" will take him down
I know about pre-darwinian science. Young-earth theory came much later.
Missing everything in the slides.
I had to minimize the window and just listen. Camera man had his head where the sun doesn't shine...
Everyone forgets about Wallace. Everyone remembers who won Olympic gold, silver??? who ??
Good lecture, ruined by shocking camera work.
i'd love to meet the person who laughed at the "gauntlet of death" part
I suppose.. but only just to ask her why she found it so funny.. but I think I know the answer to that already.. She's disturbed AF!
Jeez. Thanks for showing us the graphics! This is a TED talk? Really? You filmed it on what? A cell phone?
Very interesting presentation but unfortunately filmed by an incompetent. I would have liked to see the graphics to which he referred during his talk.
Darwin explained the evolution of species not the origin of life. Which is a totally different topic.
exactly
The name of the book is origin of Species let's not muddy the water
I too laughed at "Gauntlet of death." That person gets me.
The speed of light is constant, and it does not decay. It were to decay, then the law of conservation of mass would be violated in the E=mc^2, where c is the constant for the speed of light.
So?
That was a nice chicken WHICH I DIDN’T SEE!!!!!!
I just don't understand how someone couldn't believe in evolution.
I'm a biology graduate. I would have thought if you finished 10th grade you would understand through common sense that evolution is true.
@May Ling Thanks for clarifying, Thumps up!
I am a biology graduate: common sense isn't a basis for science, just said before "believing" is the right word :-)
It is harder to underststand how someone could believe in macro evolution.
when it comes a time that a person has to choose sides. curse 'em both!
The damn camera operator could not zoom out and focus on the screen showing the necessary visual aids in this lecture. This may as well have been just an audio recording.
Highly recommend Sean B Carroll's book, The Making Of The Fittest. It clears up a lot of questions about evolution from a genetic view.
too bad about the video guy.... no idea how to operate a camera ... ZOOM OUT!!!!!
The TEDxNTU talk by him flows perfectly. Watch that one first. Brilliant guy.
by flow do u mean this talk is kind of like a continuation of the other talk? and thanx for the tip
o i found it, its only 5 years ago so it is after hmm guess ill watch and see
This needs to get a proper Ted platform.
How did life appear on earth? I have looked this question up but it doesn’t give me a good answer. Please help me understand.
Which perspective are you coming from?
An excellent critique of the 1859 book!
What is astounding is someone who still believes in the 6-day creation.
Better than we evolved from apes
So we don't get to see any of the slides? Zoom out maybe next time if they ever give you a next time.
why film a talk with slides if we can't see the slides
Jesus, how about showing some slides instead of running around after his face?... Why?!?!?!
this is a ted x talk video 😧
The guy that filmed this is most certainly the father of the presenter :D
What about Wallace (who spent years in the field! with biogeography as a result) ??? A lot to say on that topic. And then there is Al Jahiz, who was hundreds of years ahead of the Victorians,...etc.
Are they involved with myths about evolution?
The myth that Darwin alone conceived of natural selection is addressed specifically by mentioning Wallace, to the extent necessary to debunk the myth.
You could ask the presenter to do a separate talk on the specifics you raise.
@@oakfat5178 I think the myths connected to Evolution you're referring to, must be those of when men used to walk on water, or turned water into wine, or brought rotting corpses back to life, or that men and women a long time ago used to live for as long as nine-hundred years. Yep, there certainly is a lot of those irksome myths whirling around that Evolution all right! Baaaah!
@@tomward2688An interesting interpretation of the talk.
Thank you.
Why not show the slides? Don't need to see the speaker!