Thanks for clearing this up, I saw the original and thought Eric Weinstein was just changing the definition of the term 'intelligent design'. Maybe he should have talked to his brother Bret for ten minutes about this and saved on the confusion.
semantic games is how religious people hide their motives. Anything that is inconsistent with having been created for a greater, exciting purpose, must be rejected. Period. No discussion.
I am by no means an expert, but I have always felt that selective breeding is a great example to prove evolutionary theory in a controlled setting. Yes plants and animals were domesticated over a long period of time that we cannot collectively observe in human memory. But we can observe very significant changes in a short period of time with the selective breeding we do. We act as a pressure on the organisms which drive the change. Nature is not intelligent, but it is a pressure and is constantly changing and so those pressures change. How organisms interact, regardless of human presence or not is one of the main pressures, so to separate it seems silly to me. Predators experience pressure through competition and food availability, they experience pressure when their prey changed and adapts. Prey gets faster, predator gets faster. At no point is the organism deciding that a specific trait is superior. It's fascinating how these pressures produce such variety and beauty and it completely confounds me that nature in and of itself isn't something people find awe inspiring. They need a god to explain it instead of just learning about the forces as they are.
Calling naturally selected perceptions -- and all the effects they can naturally have in a complex ecology web -- "intelligent design" is a category error, given what Intelligent design was coined to mean. Intelligent design was coined to mean metaphysical self aware agent using various supernatural interrupters of natural processes to shape natural chain reactions after the "big bang" commenced; Or occasionally as fine tuning before ignition. The latter would cause the universes trendlines to simply look natural to organisms. Humans are so bored they have to create controversy where there is none. It is all part of sexual display (attention desires) in a niche gone mad.
This is the core mechanism of evolution that ignorant folk haven’t conceptualised. The organisms they see now are the results of the successful survival of their ancestors, and not because they are acting with forethought for the future. They act on signals in the environment not “to” achieve something, but because their parents did.
Intelligent design ' feels' like the intuitive solution to so many, because it fits neatly within their day to day experiences of life. Good explanation on the topic Jon. Just wondering if you've read any of the work done by Michael levin? He references teleology in his research, not of course by some intelligent agent but rather by a series of complex interactions.
I have not read his books but I've read some of his papers and I follow him on Twitter. I'd like to interview him sometimes because I like his work but some of the claims he makes don't seem to follow from the data.
@@StatedCasually I would also note, that whenever anyone declares that the ' atheistic ' science community wants nothing to do with intelligent design, it's always good to reference Kenneth Miller, a scientist and a Christian, who exposed ID for what it is.
It is good to get 'evolution' explanation to have parallel male and female lineage for all life. If species A evolve to species B, there has to be parallel male and female compatible changes for procreation to happen. A mutation in one can not co-ordinate parallel changes in opposite sex to have compatible changes. In some species, there is huge sexual dysmorphism, where male and females look pretty different but all have to be sexually compatible.
Would you be willing to due like a talk (not a debate per se) with Dr Weinstein regarding the who selection thing & expanding evolutionary biology? Love your channel btw.
As someone who has also been a know-it-all, I’ve noticed the things I’m most likely to be wrong about are the ones I have bullshitted into the universe the most confidently.
Obviously the term intelligent design has a completely different intended meaning from.artificial + sexual selection. Those birds dont intend no pun intended to get alot brighter its just the like a lovely mate. Btw would i wish to see more native species over introduced species. It certainly took intelligence to bring one species from area to area but not the one they meant here.
"it is very clear" that Weinstein must believe himself to have been created for a special purpose by a greater 'being'. And that's that. Anything that is inconsistent with this emotional need will be rejected. Period. No discussion.
The part about the bird with the red spots was fascinating. Thank you for sharing that story.
Never actually heard an example of how sexual selection works. Great to know
Thanks for clearing this up, I saw the original and thought Eric Weinstein was just changing the definition of the term 'intelligent design'. Maybe he should have talked to his brother Bret for ten minutes about this and saved on the confusion.
One would hope so anyway. I'm not so sure anymore after Brett's weird Covid, and now, AIDS comments.
That's the danger of semantic games.
semantic games is how religious people hide their motives. Anything that is inconsistent with having been created for a greater, exciting purpose, must be rejected. Period. No discussion.
I am by no means an expert, but I have always felt that selective breeding is a great example to prove evolutionary theory in a controlled setting. Yes plants and animals were domesticated over a long period of time that we cannot collectively observe in human memory. But we can observe very significant changes in a short period of time with the selective breeding we do. We act as a pressure on the organisms which drive the change. Nature is not intelligent, but it is a pressure and is constantly changing and so those pressures change. How organisms interact, regardless of human presence or not is one of the main pressures, so to separate it seems silly to me. Predators experience pressure through competition and food availability, they experience pressure when their prey changed and adapts. Prey gets faster, predator gets faster.
At no point is the organism deciding that a specific trait is superior. It's fascinating how these pressures produce such variety and beauty and it completely confounds me that nature in and of itself isn't something people find awe inspiring. They need a god to explain it instead of just learning about the forces as they are.
Calling naturally selected perceptions -- and all the effects they can naturally have in a complex ecology web -- "intelligent design" is a category error, given what Intelligent design was coined to mean.
Intelligent design was coined to mean metaphysical self aware agent using various supernatural interrupters of natural processes to shape natural chain reactions after the "big bang" commenced; Or occasionally as fine tuning before ignition. The latter would cause the universes trendlines to simply look natural to organisms.
Humans are so bored they have to create controversy where there is none. It is all part of sexual display (attention desires) in a niche gone mad.
This is the core mechanism of evolution that ignorant folk haven’t conceptualised. The organisms they see now are the results of the successful survival of their ancestors, and not because they are acting with forethought for the future. They act on signals in the environment not “to” achieve something, but because their parents did.
Brett, Eric and Harvey Winestain
Intelligent design ' feels' like the intuitive solution to so many, because it fits neatly within their day to day experiences of life. Good explanation on the topic Jon.
Just wondering if you've read any of the work done by Michael levin? He references teleology in his research, not of course by some intelligent agent but rather by a series of complex interactions.
I have not read his books but I've read some of his papers and I follow him on Twitter. I'd like to interview him sometimes because I like his work but some of the claims he makes don't seem to follow from the data.
@@StatedCasually I would also note, that whenever anyone declares that the ' atheistic ' science community wants nothing to do with intelligent design, it's always good to reference Kenneth Miller, a scientist and a Christian, who exposed ID for what it is.
It is good to get 'evolution' explanation to have parallel male and female lineage for all life. If species A evolve to species B, there has to be parallel male and female compatible changes for procreation to happen. A mutation in one can not co-ordinate parallel changes in opposite sex to have compatible changes. In some species, there is huge sexual dysmorphism, where male and females look pretty different but all have to be sexually compatible.
Would you be willing to due like a talk (not a debate per se) with Dr Weinstein regarding the who selection thing & expanding evolutionary biology? Love your channel btw.
Ah Eric Weinstein the mathematician that knows everything about everything.😂
As someone who has also been a know-it-all, I’ve noticed the things I’m most likely to be wrong about are the ones I have bullshitted into the universe the most confidently.
Obviously the term intelligent design has a completely different intended meaning from.artificial + sexual selection. Those birds dont intend no pun intended to get alot brighter its just the like a lovely mate. Btw would i wish to see more native species over introduced species. It certainly took intelligence to bring one species from area to area but not the one they meant here.
The phrase itself is a red flag.
What is the mechanism for evolution?
1:47 oh man, that fish is triggering my trypophobia so bad! 😅
Weinstein is truly ignorant. A real intellectual basket case.
"it is very clear" that Weinstein must believe himself to have been created for a special purpose by a greater 'being'.
And that's that. Anything that is inconsistent with this emotional need will be rejected. Period. No discussion.
First