Understanding evolution: Michael Gillings at TEDxMacquarieUniversity
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июн 2024
- Michael Gillings is a Professor of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University. He has research interests that broadly include the mechanisms that generate and maintain genetic diversity, and how such diversity can be used to understand population structure, dispersal and evolution. Current research spans all living things, from bacteria to fungi, to plants, fish and mammals. A major program examines the evolution of mobile DNA in bacteria, with an emphasis on the origins and spread of antibiotic resistance in pathogens. In an offshoot of this research, he is investigating the consequences of DNA pollution and its potential effects on the natural environment. He teaches Human Biology to a class of over 900 undergraduates each year and is consistently voted amongst the top 5 University Lecturers in Australia. Teaching a diverse cohort of students with different backgrounds and interests has led to an abiding enthusiasm for making connections between the Humanities and Sciences, resulting in a fusion of Art, Music, Literature, History and Biology in his teaching material.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations) 
Наука
![Oscar Maydon x Junior H - Volver Al Futuro [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sa52xabMSB8/mqdefault.jpg)
one of the reasons for non-acceptance of evolution is individualism. we are taught we can do and understand anything. that everyone's ideas are equal. this is a really good idea in most contexts, but it also leads to people believing that their own ideas, even on subjects such as this, are as valid as those of the collective ideas of the scientific community. people are more likely to believe that something is not true than accept the fact that they don't understand it.
I disagree.
Can you back your assertion up?
Mary Can you refute anything I said with observable scientific data? For example I said there is no Geologic Column. You can't prove a negative as you should know. However, you could prove it, if it exists, by giving me those close up photos such as I described.
You are correct in what you say. One only has to look through some of the things said by scientifically bereft obsessives with an agenda who think that their ideas on how history or science should have gone has equal factual weight to how they actually did. Hence creationists arguing from abyssal scientific ignorance and propounding the most arrant nonsense, simply because it fits in with their rigidly held religious beliefs in addition to their refusal to accept or even consider any alternatives. 'Stupidity knows no bounds', - Pascal
I think its more wanting to find a meaning in our lives like we came from a unique god. It is the thought that we arent special and a product of chance and mistake is seen as worse obviously
@@ishthefish9006 totally true!
This would be such a great teaching tool for elementary school kids. Have them make up a sentence and tell it to different kids throughout the day. Then the next day, then at the end of the week see what the sentence turned into.
Brilliant metaphor, perfectly explained!👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Yes it was.
He might as well have chosen Architecture as a methaphor. Both language and architecture are a product of creative minds, as is the theory of evolution.
I don't think the evolution of language and the theory of evolution are a good metaphor at all cause if you have a bird and a dog they do not mate . but language is a root or something completely new , like how did the very first thing evolve and if something evolves I believe it is all from the same thing not of other things . like 1 straight line . like what caused the big bang and what caused that ? That's another infinite line ? He used that to dispel creationist theory? I'm not convinced the right questions are being asked still..
There is no way to know that the first verbal communication was just a few simple sounds. To say “we know it” is just wishful thinking and indoctrination. What we do know is that there are no primitive languages. Those that were considered primitive by early evolutionists are in fact mostly much more complex than for example English. Languages do not evolve to more complex ones through “language drift”, that is impulses from others languages, they become simpler instead. Those that are left alone, isolated, are the ones that become more complex. There is for example a number of native languages in North America that are so difficult and complex that if an English speaker has not learned one before the age of thirteen, she or he will never be able to speak and understand half of it. Modern English has a large vocabulary, but it does not say anything about its complexity, modern English grammar is actually quite simple compared with most other languages in the world.Another thing that is happening is that languages die out so quickly that of the current 6000 only an estimated 500 will be left in 100 years. And in that process the remaining ones will be ever simpler. Things “happen” with languages, but in the opposite direction to what Professor Gillings affirms. His language metaphor could in fact be used to argument that the life on earth is too complex to have appeared with the things-just-happen-method.
Pfffff
Is amazing to me how many educated people don't even truly understand what the evolution debate is even about. This guy proves that in his introduction.
Yeah I feel like speech and hard line biology is so different it's like the worst example imaginable IMO?
The evolution of the nervous system would require some kind of guidance. When comparing design in nature, the evolutionist normally leaves out some dimensions to specific designs to simplify them. Although language seems to evolve with no purpose that can’t really be compared to a nervous system in a living thing. The way that nervous systems are put together alone could be explained by evolution if you really give it the maximum assumptions it needs but then you have to stack that other dimension to it, which is the way that the connectors send tiny electrical signals to each other. Then after you manage to explain that, you have to now stack the third factor on top of the first to and explain how that just assembled in that fashion AND did it in such a way where specific combinations of tiny electrical signals translate to certain functions such as decision making. It simply isn’t good enough to say, well look language changes over time. Language is a free flowing system that can do that. It’s used by people with brains who continually pick up on the subtle changes in language. Before brain and the nervous system, you have no brain yet to make the right steps towards the assembly of the nervous system.
There is no debate. When Asa Gray debated Luis Agassiz in the 1800s it maybe was a debate. When Thomas Henry Huxley debated Wilberforce...it was a debate. Since the modern synthesis of Evolutionary theory it isn't a scientific debate. And since Kitzmiller vs dover it isn't a educational question anymore.
Anything trying to breach methodological naturalism or empiricism...has to provide evidence for a supernatural state, being, force etc.
So long this doesn't happen Creationism or it's brother Intelligent Design can't be falsified, make no testable predictions and definitely aren't scientific theories but a nice idea for your next bible class or theological discussion.
@@gatolf2 I highly suggest you grab a copy of Joseph LeDoux " The deep history of ourselves" which has a beautiful destruction of your "hypothesis".
Also funny how Intelligent Design proponents talk about the most complicated, less understood parts of our anatomy or cell structures...
But what about the incredible unintelligent moron design of the female birth canal causing millions of spontaneous natural abortions and deaths of the mothers...only sometimes saved by literally cutting open a women's stomach? What about the incredible unintelligent design of your wisdom teeth or the pathetic human eye ? Our spines are a mess...it's a wonder we can actually walk...all explained easily via Evolutionary theory and thus Occam's razor...
Saying a supernatural invisible superbeeing made such incredibly idiotic designs is your actual claim?
Ohhh-kaaayyy......I guess no God is perfect or there wouldn't be over 4000 different ones😆
that moment when you come across your uni lecturers on your you tube endeavours
BIOL108. He's amazing!
This was brilliantly thought out and explained. Don't leave it there. Another please.
Thank you for sharing. Insightful, especially on the metaphor of language. =)
see Ken Bro post above. Language is not a suitable metaphor for evolution.
There is no way to know that the first verbal communication was just a few simple sounds. To say “we know it” is just wishful thinking and indoctrination. What we do know is that there are no primitive languages. Those that were considered primitive by early evolutionists are in fact mostly much more complex than for example English. Languages do not evolve to more complex ones through “language drift”, that is impulses from others languages, they become simpler instead. Those that are left alone, isolated, are the ones that become more complex. There is for example a number of native languages in North America that are so difficult and complex that if an English speaker has not learned one before the age of thirteen, she or he will never be able to speak and understand half of it. Modern English has a large vocabulary, but it does not say anything about its complexity, modern English grammar is actually quite simple compared with most other languages in the world.Another thing that is happening is that languages die out so quickly that of the current 6000 only an estimated 500 will be left in 100 years. And in that process the remaining ones will be ever simpler. Things “happen” with languages, but in the opposite direction to what Professor Gillings affirms. His language metaphor could in fact be used to argument that the life on earth is too complex to have appeared with the things-just-happen-method.
@@s.unosson
Languages do not start out complex, that is a nonsense.
What does happen, it seems, is that grammar takes over from changes to words (inflections) to give meaning. Remnant word strictures that were used to clarify whether the word was active, a subject, predicate , object, or descriptive etc often remain/ linger as a language shifts from random word order to non random word order, with many of the old inflections in place still, but with grammatical rules also applying.
Our language went through this and we dispensed with gender rules as well.
Others have levelled more.
And languages do disappear, but they are doing so faster than ever. Dialect levelling is slowed or has disappeared under the impact of mass communication, standardized education and easy travel.
You cannot ise the new paradigm to describe the previous one, this has never happened before.
@@ozowen5961 The fact remains that so-called “primitive languages'' are more complex than modern languages with many speakers. All languages that have a history of being or having been international, are per definition creoles, mixtures of several languages; in that process they have been stripped off of much of the complexity of the original individual languages which formed them.
Your theory of what “seems” to happen does not describe an observed reality, it describes a philosophical standpoint that parallels the theory of biological evolution.
It is obvious that language learning is a preprogrammed ability, much like an instinct.
@@s.unosson
There are huge problems with your claim.
Ancient languages are largely unavailable to us as they had no written form. And initial fprms of the written were clumsy, not complex.
Also, early languages had quite small vocabularies.
So, not buying what you are selling.
Great talk! many thanks...!
There is no way to know that the first verbal communication was just a few simple sounds. To say “we know it” is just wishful thinking and indoctrination. What we do know is that there are no primitive languages. Those that were considered primitive by early evolutionists are in fact mostly much more complex than for example English. Languages do not evolve to more complex ones through “language drift”, that is impulses from others languages, they become simpler instead. Those that are left alone, isolated, are the ones that become more complex. There is for example a number of native languages in North America that are so difficult and complex that if an English speaker has not learned one before the age of thirteen, she or he will never be able to speak and understand half of it. Modern English has a large vocabulary, but it does not say anything about its complexity, modern English grammar is actually quite simple compared with most other languages in the world.Another thing that is happening is that languages die out so quickly that of the current 6000 only an estimated 500 will be left in 100 years. And in that process the remaining ones will be ever simpler. Things “happen” with languages, but in the opposite direction to what Professor Gillings affirms. His language metaphor could in fact be used to argument that the life on earth is too complex to have appeared with the things-just-happen-method.
Professor is brilliant
..evolution of language translated to living organisms...metaphorically!🦇🦠🤧☠
The professor is not brilliant at all, or at least he is a very bad linguist.
First of all: There is no way to know that the first verbal communication was just a few simple sounds. To say “we know it” is just wishful thinking and indoctrination.
What we do know is that there are no primitive languages. Those that were considered primitive by early evolutionists are in fact mostly much more complex than for example English. Languages do not evolve to more complex ones through “language drift”, that is impulses from others languages, they become simpler instead. Those that are left alone, isolated, are the ones that become more complex. There is for example a number of native languages in North America that are so difficult and complex that if an English speaker has not learned one before the age of thirteen, she or he will never be able to speak and understand half of it. Modern English has a large vocabulary, but it does not say anything about its complexity, its grammar is actually quite simple compared with most other languages in the world.
Another thing that is happening is that languages die out so quickly that of the current 6000 only an estimated 500 will be left in 100 years. And in that process the remaining ones will be ever simpler.
Things “happen” with languages, but in the opposite direction to what Professor Gillings affirms. His language metaphor could in fact be used to argument that the life on earth is too complex to have appeared with the things-just-happen-explanation.
I am relatively new to learning about Evolution so I’m not speaking from any authority. I’m trying to reconcile the idea of an evolutionary force with what we see scientifically.
Language as an analogy for evolution is good at showing how a force is required to motivate the natural selection of mutations to language. It requires autonomous individuals to be attracted to the mutation, then select to use it. Who’s to say the selected language is better suited to it’s environment? Human mind has made a relationship with the new terms, given them meaning, like the example of recombination he gives, Human mind has given these abstract elements a meaning. This is unique to human behaviour and can we attribute this capacity to individual cells?
It doesnt matter how much time an event has to occur, if its impossible to have occured, then it can have an infinite amount of time to occur, its still impossible.
Which is why creationism is bunkum
i call it the millions and millions of years reasoning. just say millions and millions of years and everyone nod their heads. this kind of goes against the LAW of entropy. statistically evolution is impossible! frankly it’s ridiculous.
@@peterkoenenmyers5164 yea, given enough time and we can prove time travel is possible also. Lol. You have only scratched the surface on the many issues the debunked "theory" of evolution has. Funny thing is scientists are now double and triplling down on it cuz they know the only alternative.
Please clarify! What exactly is impossible, and how did you draw that conclusion?
@@CRuM770 evolution is impossible because a number of reasons. first a completely made life form would have to pop out of nowhere. louie pasteur proved there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. look at the statistics. there are 3 billion (yes with a b) base pairs in the DNA of your average human. if you take 3 billion with four variables is 3 billion to the 4th power is 8 with 37 0s behind it. i can’t even plug my phone to the charger without getting it wrong. that’s only 50:50 try 3 billion! of course entropy things break down not up. to get organization out of randomness requires organized energy. etc. etc.
There's something about evolution that's oddly beautiful.
And interesting.
@@giorgigarsevanidze6334, very interesting. One of my favourite topics in fact.
Ahaha I like his random "the floor is lava" attack in around 09:30 xD
Awesome thanks watched it twice
In order to have time to watch all those channels we would have to be unemployed and without kids.
Believing in a magical, unprovable super-entity puts you on par with a witch doctor dancing around a fire in an insane effort to appease unseen forces. Accepting the fact that no super-entity exists does 2 things: it forever destroys the notion of security which is terrifying to most, and makes one 100% responsible for one's self, which is equally terrifying to most. Smh...
For me, accepting the fact that there is no "superhuman in the sky" or "human mind that created everything" is just like not believing that Zeus is the creator of thunder and lighting. Easy.
So Newton and Einstein were on par with a witch doctor?
@@zatoichiMiyamoto ok boomer
@@BrunoCardoso-dp3bd *millenial
@@zatoichiMiyamoto milenial
Actually, we are finding new species and the changes don't take that long depending on how much stress is in an organism's environment IE: off the eastern coast of the US 2 new dolphins have been found with their direct evolution from the bottlenose that are common in these water !
it depends of the generation rate
history: it's just one bloody thing after another.
and yeh the history of science / thinking is really interesting. thanks for the comment.
never mind the evolution of language, an explanation of the evolution of the ability to speak would be great
Yes, and an explanation of the course of the Big Bang, an explanation of abiogenesis, and an explanation of consciousness would all be great as well. However, it does not make the evolution of language uninteresting.
@3:16 - Oh look, it's Gwen Stacey thinking: 'Mmm you can bang my head against the pavement anytime'
If you know evolution it just makes you a baby doctor. That is the intelligent design.
Great lecture. Wrong audience.
I find a few very dangerous imprecisions in this talk:
1) As it is admitted here, mountains (minerals) do not evolve, they simply change. Therefore, evolution did not begin 13 Billion years ago, but it began when life (genetics) appeared, which is only 4 Billion years ago.
2) Verbal language is not a living organism but a simple practical tool, a very simple organization of gutural sounds, which change at the will of its human users, but it continues to serve the same one purpose, communication.
3) Evolution would happen only if language itself suddenly produces a new word, which, for instance, writes itself in a blackboard, or if you write all the letters in page one, they reproduce and continue to write the whole book all by themselves...
4) I find it very difficult to admit that, for instance, the incredibly complex structure of the hearing mechanism, or the miracle of the eye, etc. could happen just because of sporadic changes in the environment.
5) If evolution began 4 Billon years ago, and primitive animals already had organs like the ear, the eye, etc. it means that such mind blowing evolutionary miracles did not take very long. This fact completely destroys the assumption that time explains everything.
I find a great deal of dangerous mendacity in your comment.
'mountains (minerals) do not evolve, they simply change', yet evolution is simply change over time, a gradual metamorphosis from one state to another, similar to what happens with living things.
' Verbal language is not a living organism but a simple practical tool, a very simple organization of guttural sounds', - no, it may have started that way but over time it has changed into it's present form, adapting to express new ideas and concepts, in a similar way to living things changing in response to environmental change (hence the thrust of his analogy).
'Evolution would happen only if language itself suddenly produces a new word, which, for instance, writes itself in a blackboard'. - Nonsensical tautology as words are developed through conscious thought in order to express concepts. As new ideas appear, new words develop to express them, whether they are written down or not.
' I find it very difficult to admit that, for instance, the incredibly complex structure of the hearing mechanism, or the miracle of the eye, etc. could happen just because of sporadic changes in the environment.' - Standard creationist argument, long disproved by orthodox science. The eye and other complex organs did not suddenly spring into existence, ex nilio like Niobe from Jove's forehead in Greek mythology. It has been shown (many times) how they gradually evolved from mechanisms developed for other purposes and that complexity can arise without any guiding intelligence.
'If evolution began 4 Billion years ago, and primitive animals already had organs like the ear, the eye, etc. it means that such mind blowing evolutionary miracles did not take very long. - What? Life is thought to have appeared about 3 billion years ago, but complex life, with recognizable eyes, ears etc only made an appearance about half a billion years ago. Two and a half billion years is a long time for evolution to occur and miraculous intervention is not required, that is a religious get out of jail card used to hide the impossibility of doctrinal claims.
It's hard to believe that someone could be so wrong about so many things but there you go.......
I once had a friend who also stole my jeans.
lol
did he give it back? 5 years later
An interesting view.
Also this guy is funny.
Are my ears deceiving me or did the lecturer repeatedly mispronounce the word pronunciation? Few get it right, even by English "experts."
The talked got so many believers triggered. Funny!
All a bunch of yada yada yada with no proof. Long ago and far away is evolutionists only saving grace
"A complex object has to have a more complex designer, and a complex designer has to have an even more complex designer, and now we're crossing over into philosophy and I don't wanna go there so let's just believe in evolution."
If God is eternal and exists outside of the realm of time, space, matter, and energy then He doesn't need a designer. Aristotle talked about this over 2,000 years ago in his discussion of the primary cause, or the "prime mover". I think it's much easier to believe in a supreme being that exists outside of the laws of the universe and therefore isn't bound by those laws than it is to believe that the most complicated program ever coded (DNA) was somehow created through an unguided process.
As for the evolution of language analogy, here's the problem. Regardless of which version of English you use, it's still a human language. It's not like you went from croaking like a frog or barking like a dog to English. The problem with evolution is that we're told that we've evolved over a period of billions of years from a microbe, passing through various species along the way. That's macro-evolution. The evolution of language is comparable to micro-evolution, or adaptation within the species. It's not a good argument for Darwinian evolution.
just because something is easier to understand that doesn't make something true. You first have to prove a god exists and then prove he's eternal.
You do know that programmers have stated if they created something like DNA they would be fired for incompetence. macro and microevolution is exactly the same, just on a different scale.
you also completely missed the mark with the analogy for 1 thing and second, an analogy isn't supposed to be perfect if it was it would just be an explanation
Stop using the word "KIND"
Creationists have been unable to specify what the created kinds are. If kinds were distinct, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities, with kinds within kinds within kinds. For example, the twelve-spotted ladybug could be placed in the twelve-spotted ladybug kind, the ladybug kind, the beetle kind, the insect kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kind, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where one sets the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism predicts.
Fixity of kinds is based on the philosophy of Plato, not the Bible (Dewey 1910). Nowhere does the Bible say that kinds themselves cannot change and diversify. Reproduction "according to their kind" is entirely consistent with evolution, as long as it is recognized that kinds are not fixed.
Although major changes from one kind to another do not normally happen, except gradually over hundreds of thousands of generations, a sudden origin of a new kind has been observed. A strain of cancerous human cells (called HeLa cells) have evolved to become a wild unicellular life form (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).
According to Morris, fungi were not part of the original creation. They were not among the categories listed in Genesis 1, and as decayers they would not have their form until after the Fall. Thus, Morris's own theology requires new kinds to originate after the creation.
References:
Dewey, John, 1910. The influence of Darwinism on philosophy. In The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy and Other Essays in Contemporary Thought, New York: Henry Holt & Co. Reprinted in Fisch, M.H. (ed.), 1951, Classic American Philosophers, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.
I am so be disappointed
. Michael used English language to explain. The big problem is that a Language is created by certain Intelligent Being. Does he assumed that gene is created by some Intelligent Being or God/gods? So what is up for the following interpretation?
1+1+1=1
Therefore deity exist. ? Is which form and where it was made up from.
South USA believes in special oxygen used in water before stars were created.
What do you mean south usa belives X ? Like everyone or an institution? That seems wrong .. Maybe I misunderstood but I don't think you said anything
Good analogy using language to understand evolution
There is no way to know that the first verbal communication was just a few simple sounds. To say “we know it” is just wishful thinking and indoctrination. What we do know is that there are no primitive languages. Those that were considered primitive by early evolutionists are in fact mostly much more complex than for example English. Languages do not evolve to more complex ones through “language drift”, that is impulses from others languages, they become simpler instead. Those that are left alone, isolated, are the ones that become more complex. There is for example a number of native languages in North America that are so difficult and complex that if an English speaker has not learned one before the age of thirteen, she or he will never be able to speak and understand half of it. Modern English has a large vocabulary, but it does not say anything about its complexity, modern English grammar is actually quite simple compared with most other languages in the world.
Another thing that is happening is that languages die out so quickly that of the current 6000 only an estimated 500 will be left in 100 years. And in that process the remaining ones will be ever simpler.
Things “happen” with languages, but in the opposite direction to what Professor Gillings affirms. His language metaphor could in fact be used to argument that the life on earth is too complex to have appeared with the things-just-happen-method.
I find the the intersecting parallels between biological and linguistic evolution very interesting - thank you. However Prof Michael shouldn’t give up his day job to pursue a career in mathematics. His sand grains per swimming pool concept is off by many orders of magnitude. And since this is so easy to check and debunk I can’t help but wonder why he didn’t verify this for himself before immortalising this error in the eternal records of cyberspace. Let me explain:
An Olympic pool is 50m long, 25m wide and either 2m or 3m deep. But let’s go with the shallow / smaller volume pool to help his argument. 50x25x2 = 2500m3 (cubic meter) of volume, and if we filled it with sand, this will be 2500m3 of sand. If you multiply this by 1000 you get to 2.5 million liter of sand per swimming pool. Multiply again by 1000 and you get 2.5 billion millilitres (ml) of sand per swimming pool. He mentions that life had 3.7 billion years to develop and I certainly agree with this number. But let’s see how many pools it take to give us 3.7 billion ml of sand. We divide 3.7 billion by 2.5 billion. This shows that we only need 1.48 (just under one-and-a-half) Olympic size swimming pools to get to 3.7 billion ml. Remember that a ml is much much much bigger than a grain of sand! So stay with me... He says that his swimming pool holds 100 million grains of sand. This time his math is correct; 3.7 billion divide by 37 pools is indeed 100 million. But since we already know that there is 2.5 billion ml in the pool, it means that the professor’s sand grains are 25ml each in volume (2.5 billion / 100 million). To understand this better, it means that you can only fit 10 of his sand grains into a standard coffee cup of 250ml... You could hardly spot 10 grains of sand in a standard coffee cup, let alone fill it.
So how many grains of sand is there then in our pool. Well according to Wiki medium to course sand grains can be around 0.5mm x 0.5mm x 0.5mm. And lets just say these are perfect cubes packed tightly so that there is no empty space between them. I’m going to spare you the boring math but it basically means that we can fit 8000 grains of course sand in a ml, and a whopping 20 trillion (with a ‘T’) grains of tightly packed course grains of sand in only one Olympic sized swimming pool!! If you want to half that to provide a lot of empty space between these sand grains, this is still 10 trillion!
Come on Prof, you should have back-of-napkin sense-checked it... but good presentation otherwise.
Çok zor anlaşılması ölümsüz bir bakteri yada bakteriler?
I accept evolution as fact... But the examples he used are really misplaced
Prof Gillings may be a good biologist but he's an awful philosopher.
And even a more awful language expert. He does not know much about linguistics.
If physics of the universe is social it's certain to produce a God then us.
You yourself are a proof of evolution. DNA sequencing over millions of years has resulted in you. DNA sequencing is how evolution works for living organisms. Entire universe is evolutionary in nature . Nothing is static. Everything is dynamic, constantly pulsating, changing and evolving for the better. You can also see evidence of evolution in the development of the human foetus from the one-celled to different multi-cellular forms like tadpole, fish, organism with tail, different kind of animal-like forms etc. The 9-months of foetus development represents probably 900 million years of evolution. God made the universe evolutionary in order for finite souls to experience matter, change gradually and ultimately evolve towards him.
The one celled zygote of a human is 100% human. Period. Fish are fish from their inception, ditto birds, bugs, trees, bees, whatever.
You talk about DNA. Actually it shows creation, and creation according to the Bible. All DNA is always just a copy of a copy of a copy and so on. Yes, it can be altered to some extent, but no new strands of DNA are ever created and, further, no one has any data to show how any DNA got here. This matches the Bible which says creation has halted. And btw, fish don't have DNA instructions for legs, and lizards don't have DNA instructions for feathers, wings etc. Since no new DNA is ever created, where would they get it from? Cite your data, if any.
Another example of how creation has been halted is seen when you look at the taxonomic groupings of animals and plants, ascending from species to class, to order, to phylum, to kingdom. No plants or animals ever go higher than the creation of a new species, no matter what Darwin, or evolutionary peer reviews, claim happened in the invisible and unverifiable past. That stasis matches what the Bible says, also, about creation having been halted. Plants and animals stay in their "kinds" i.e. families. But if you can give an example to the contrary, by all means do so.
The Bible talks about a Great Flood. There are countless billions of fossils all over the planet. Now, fossils are created when life forms are suddenly buried with water, then rapidly covered with sediment. To give you an idea of their vast numbers, consider that there are billions of fossils of just one kind of ocean dwelling nautiloid, alone, in the Grand Canyon alone. And, speaking of ocean dwelling creatures, 95% of all fossils on land are marine. Now how did all that ocean water get everywhere? Hmmmm....
.
There never was any Geologic Column, or any Cambrian, Jurassic, Triassic etc. periods. Those are all fictional. Real science uses real data. The real data shows the fossils are jumbled or, you could say, awash. For just one of countless examples, you can find giant sharks next to dino bones in America. So called lowest level Cambrian, deep sea, fossils are found at every level on the planet from Canada to New Zealand. When I say every level, that includes the hills of mid America, for instance, and most mountain tops in the world.
.
If you think there was a Geologic Column, link close up photos of one showing the lowest level Cambrian fossils at the bottom, and asecending layers of fossils matching the GC charts. Close ups now, not some distant photos of mountains ranges or rock piles they CLAIM have GCs in them.
.
If we demonstrate there is no GC, we are then are told "plate tectonics" moved the fossils around. Plate tectonics are just theories piled on hypotheses that are heaped on speculation to fit the evolutionary narrative. But we have some real data! Common sense and universal experience, and scientific research, let us know what erosion does. Now some of those deep sea life creatures' fossils, like trilobites, are supposed to have gone extinct two hundred MILLION years ago. Yet, around the planet, we see that their fossils are not uncommonly found in mint condition. Google "Trilobites on mountains."
.
And we're also supposed to buy it that dino bones lasted 75 million or so years? That narrative is still promoted even though they keep finding more and more soft tissues in dinosaur bones all the time, along with things like blood cells. There always is some unverifiable "reason" given for why such things lasted, of course. Forensic science - which makes it clear those materials could not survive more than a few thousand years - and common sense are ignored.
.
Art works, and historical accounts, around the world, which show dinos, sometimes with people, are also ignored or else the false claim is made, with no justification at all, that they must be fake. Yes, Noah would have taken dinos on the Ark. Juveniles, no doubt. They all started out in eggs about the size of a football.
.
The Bible says people lived for hundreds of years in Old Testament times. We cannot prove that. But we can prove that in the ancient past dinos did! Again, they started out small, but got to be gigantic. Now lizards keep growing as long as they live. Obviously there was a different eco system back then that allowed the dinos, unlike modern day lizards, to keep on growing for hundreds of years. (And giant-ism, btw, was no way confined to just dinos. There used to be rhinos as big as houses, for example.) Would not that more favorable, pre Flood, eco system have allowed for longer lives in humans, too?
.
Irreducible complexity is also evidence of the truth of the Bible which claims instant creation of all life forms. I will give you my favorite example, though all life is irreducibly complex.
.
Google a picture of the bacterial flagellum and its motor and whip. Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. So, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answers, how is mindless "evolution" going to make it happen?
.
Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to work together? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now. Some claim a simpler life form evolved into the b.f., but once again there is zero data to support any such claim.
.
Again, irreducible complexity, which indicates incredible intelligence, not to mention unimaginable power, is seen at every level in life forms. The Bible presents a picture of life forms created instantly, fully complete and fully functional. That's what irreducible complexity in living examples, and the fossil record, reveal.
MK your fetal analogy was debunked long ago but is a useless argument that won’t go away.
A guy who dosnt understand evolution, Explain evolution. No wonder so many people dont understand it.
Pretty much everyone who passed 5th grade can explain the basics of evolution. Only a very small group of very unintelligent people, cannot.
'no one in charge of where language has gone to'.
Actually, every user of the language, all intelligent persons, has contributed to the changes.
Not in any way like evolution is claimed to be.
You're missing the point. We all participate in the evolution of our languages, but we have very little personal control as to where it goes. Just like with natural selection, all living things are participating in the process, but by following their own needs and whims. The universe has no natural underlying intent. Life has no intent or purpose, only the process of elimination.
@@mandospurs The point is our involvement in the development of language is a result of and function of intelligence.
Whereas the mechanisms of natural selection are devoid of intelligence.
the mechanisms being DNA/the genome and the environment.
Ever notice how the rate of evolution increases with intelligence and populations expanding? Intelligence is certainly a factor in natural selection.
@@mandospurs Language is a construct of minds.
Natural selection is a genetic mechanism, Genes are mindless machines.
Therefore language cannot be used as a metaphor for evolution; it's like comparing apples with lemons.
i feel the same way about your comment. ;)
Using language as an example to illustrate evolution is smart, provided that the audience is armed with a good understand of language itself. However, the conclusion, that the next 50 years is a tipping point of change in evolutionary history, is irrelevant and indeed contradictory, against his own sand in the swimming pool metaphor. For complex beings and the earth, a span of 50 years means literally nothing!
No, using language as a metaphor for evolution is totally wrong. It is evident, the Professor has very scarce knowledge of linguistics himself.
There is no way to know that the first verbal communication was just a few simple sounds. To say “we know it” is just wishful thinking and indoctrination. What we do know is that there are no primitive languages. Those that were considered primitive by early evolutionists are in fact mostly much more complex than for example English. Languages do not evolve to more complex ones through “language drift”, that is impulses from others languages, they become simpler instead. Those that are left alone, isolated, are the ones that become more complex. There is for example a number of native languages in North America that are so difficult and complex that if an English speaker has not learned one before the age of thirteen, she or he will never be able to speak and understand half of it. Modern English has a large vocabulary, but it does not say anything about its complexity, modern English grammar is actually quite simple compared with most other languages in the world.Another thing that is happening is that languages die out so quickly that of the current 6000 only an estimated 500 will be left in 100 years. And in that process the remaining ones will be ever simpler. Things “happen” with languages, but in the opposite direction to what Professor Gillings affirms. His language metaphor could in fact be used to argument that the life on earth is too complex to have appeared with the things-just-happen-explanation.
God doesn't need a complex designer. That would go against the very idea of a god.
""There is no conflict between Creation and evolution, for God created evolution so that everyone in Separation could find their way back." ~ Greater Community Spirituality, Chapter 27: What is the evolution of religion in the world?
God did not create evolution. God is a rejection of evolution and evolution is a rejection of God.
'There is no conflict between Creation and evolution, for God created evolution so that everyone in Separation could find their way back." - What??
Bu bakteriler bir gün gelişip ölümsüz olamaz mı evrime göre? O zaman ne olabilir?
Interesting
I think he confuses an Olympic swimming pool and a bathtub. If I assume a sand grain to be roughly 1 cubic millimetre, I can pack 1000 x 1000 x 1000 = 1 Billion in one cubic metre. So we are talking about a small truckload of sand grains, which is still a lot if you have to count them.
Learn about quantum biology
he's using the evolution and expansion of language/communication to explain the snowballing creation of more and more complex species, which must have become more complex as a survival mechanism, but fails to identify that nearly all complex life that has ever existed is now extinct.
most languages that have ever existed are extinct too.
Professor Gillings starts with the argument that it is ridiculous to believe that there was a designer before the designer before the designer ad infinitum. But I don’t get how his explanation “It just happened” describes the origin of the complexity of life better.
Evolution is a designerless process that only occurs when life has been established. Evolution is about diversification and speciation, not origins.
@@WarriorOfWriters Darwin did speculate about an original “warm pond” where the first life could have started. A first "organic soup” is still object of speculation among evolutionists.
@@KARAIsaku not through natural selection. The theory of evolution only concerns the changing patterns of life, not its origins.
@@WarriorOfWriters Darwin did speculate in his writings about an original "warm pond" where the life could have begun. Until today similar speculations of an "organic soup" as a cradle of life are common among evolutionists. Professor Gillings' "it just happened' does not contain any explanation of either the origin or the evolution of life. And the parallels he draws to language development are not applicable, the most complex languages are the so called primitive ones, the tendency in language development is less complexity and exteinction.
@@KARAIsaku the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a product of reproduction (selection), thus evolution by natural selection.
Evolution doesn't "just happen," it has a mechanism science well understands, regardless of what Darwin postulated. The origins of life could be just about anything and our understanding of evolution by natural selection would be the same.
Flint printed life they knew since Flintstones cartoon. That is yaba daba do.
Using the changing of language as an analogy is weak at best. A change in language does not need a mutation. Mutations are not able to account for things like the butterfly. How could the butterfly evolve. It would require a massive number of changes all at once.
You really don't understand evolution and what it says...
Yet you dismiss it???
Indoctrination and brainwashing by propaganda pseudoscience like answers in genisis or fools like hovind are we?
A butterfly didn't just appear like that, that'd undermine evolution and be more like nonsense creation.
An animal not quite a butterfly has a baby with one tiny mutation that may be beneficial, if it is it out competes others and more successful in passing genes and it's mutations, millions of years millions of mutations all adding getting closer and closer to the butterfly.
There are over 150 thousand peer reviewed paper's in support of evolution and non against.
Language is a perfect analogy because new languages don't evolution over night, the change over multiple generations little bits at a time.
You still look like most humans a bit like your parents, yet everyone single one of us is born with around 130 mutations to our parents and will mutate around 30 more times in your life.
The body you have is constantly renewing and changing, your memories are not memories of the event but memories of those memories stored in pictures, when you remember something you remember the last time you reminded it not doing it, that's why memories fade!
You are just a ape!
Language changes are all about mutations.
Phonemes change. Mutations.
Morphemes change- mutations.
Grammar changes- mutation
Vocabulary changes- mutation
Written form impacts spoken form- mutations
Spoken form impacts written forms- mutations
Intersections with other languages- mutations
And, combining the sciences of linguistics and genetics (and indeed technology via archaeology- we can trace language movements across the globe.
@@ozowen5961 bad analogy. Languages are not living biological entities.
@@BP7BlackPearl
I was addressing your assertion about mutation in languages.
They certainly mutate.
@@ozowen5961 change is not the same as mutation. Mutation is a subset of change. All mutations are a form of change, but not all changes are mutations. Mutations refers to living organisms. bad analogy. It could be used as slang that way, but that is not scientific, which I presume you want to be having a scientific discussion here.
A better slang for the changes in language would be evolution, or change over time.
And everything changes over time, doesnt mean everything is mutating, otherwise the term loses and usefulness.
frankentits
What are you talking about? L-Ron says the volcano aliens are in total control, don't sweat the small stuff.
wut?
How about a creation of a system capable of evolving?
ha
m76gmm each and every neutral net program, as that's how they learn. Also, evolutionary programming for design purposes has been around since the early 1990s.
In fact, the original Apple Mac was self-programming and evolved in use.
Where did that 'creator' come from or what was its origin?
You see, it's not a real explanation, just a stop gap answer.
This has all the qualities of just-so stories. The more I think about it, the more I suspect that Emergence and Evolution are interchangeable words. Further, that what is termed as mechanisms of Evolution are not really mechanisms i.e. the embodiment of mechanics but signifiers that are granted extraordinary powers. At least when it comes to Emergence, one can be forthright and say that it just happens.
We hear from Mr Gillings that he thinks that evolution theory is required to understand "...loss of biodiversity, conservation, climate change, antibiotic resistance, and medical technology." How, exactly does any of those things require an understanding of evolution? (Evolution of course being defined here as evolutionists prefer to teach it; 'descent with modification by genetic mutation and natural selection from a single common ancestor').
Let's take biodiversity and conservation of species together, as they are related as far as human effects are concerned: The diversity of species (specialized distinct forms of life within equally distinct groupings) on Earth today, or in the past, has partly been made possible by the enormous range of habitats that the Earth has provided, together with the huge potential for, and existence of actual genetic variation within the main groups of organisms, all of which - each group - have distinctive morphologies that are often not shared with other groups. The number of variations seen in species within a particular group has been shown over time to be reduced, where habitat destruction or restriction has occurred (Restriction of the variety of habitats is often caused, for example, by man using land for agriculture). Thus it is perfectly predictable for the general variability of each originally residing species from a given habitat range, to be put under selection pressure, and that some forms may in time become extinct, whereas some others become predominant: Their uniqueness and specificity to their environment are no longer matched by the environment that selected for their genes and enabled them, originally, to thrive and become species in the first place, over many generations of selection for particular traits. -Natural selection of course is not in dispute, and can be mimicked by human beings in artificial breeding trials.
The diversity of many forms of life has decreased, and is still decreasing now, caused not only by actual extinctions of whole species and sub-species, which continue, and appear to be doing so at an increasing rate, but also by simple reduction of the number of different varieties within a given species. Thus, *preserving the biodiversity of any form of life (and conservation) has nothing at all to do with the supposed mechanisms of evolution by common descent.* It has to do with the conservation of genetic variability, if necessary, chiefly by stopping the destruction of habitat, to prevent the REDUCTION of the frequency of genes that produce the varieties we see around us. To most biologists that is obvious. Whether you accept 'evolution' happens when the opposite is true - that habitats are made more diverse - or not, an increase of biodiversity is NOT capable of being shown to be a mechanism of evolutionary descent as defined above, and you do not need an understanding of unproven aspects of evolution theory to appreciate the importance of, or to be a successful worker in the field of biodiversity.
In the UK we have seed banks where we are preserving for future generations, if possible, the genetic diversity of food and non-food crops, to ensure that we can continue to carry out selective breeding, genetic experimentation and other important work on the richness of the genetic inheritance we have received. This is vital work, and requires no evolutionary acceptance whatsoever to be done properly. It does require good science, carried out in the here-and-now, not the semi-religious thought experiments that some like to indulge in, in university lecture halls.
In summary, the real-time, factual mechanisms that are measurable, and testable experimentally, both in plant and animal experiments to show how diversity is associated with genetic inheritance in a population (first carried out by Mendel in the 1830's) are clear, and do not required to be associated with the palpably false idea of evolution by common descent, in order to be validated.
Surfer 7901 Excellent post.
Thanks kindly & Piss Off! : )
(Only a little piss)
*I'm going for a real Bath
Art is kooky. Science is weird. Organized crime is crazy. Kooky worlds best intelligence. Lucille Ball was kooky. God revealed himself as a kooky baby. It was real nice but it wasn't appreciated they thought it was mentally ill.
We don't need a designer but we need legislators to allow evolution to occur... Circular and nonsensical...
Intelligent Consciousness of the soul is the driver or engine of evolution. Hard to understand but that is the absolute truth.
Henry Low,
You have made an assertion of (absolute) truth, will you be presenting any supporting evidence for this claim? Will you be providing a way to determine if this assertion is not true? Can you explain how it would be possible to distinguish this from selection as the driver of evolution? How would evolution appear different if it were driven by selection, instead of intelligent consciousness?
Absolute truth?nobody claims that but you
If you love the universe the birds will make you mentally ill so you fight with the environment to make it intelligent. Your supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God needed. God has been liberated and he is fully capable of evolving himself without any help. God don't want your worship he just wants to get married. Royal weddings is most watched thing on television. We fixed the video and audio for best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
The evolution of languages cannot be compared to biologic evolution. Languages evolved through intelligent human beings. Biologic evolution supposedly occurs through random mutations.
The thing is, this is not about comparison, this is about an analogy, and a rather good analogy, as we see, languages as well as genomes, they both evolve.
It was not a comparison. A comparison and an analogy are two different things with two different purposes.
If evolution was actually real, stop using analogies and metaphors and all other rubbish and give us an actual case in which evolution in biology did happen. Or is happening
As a creationist myself, I have to admit that this is the finest piece of pro-evolutionary argumentation I have ever seen in my life. I have a special affection for the history of the English language, so that analogy resonated with me. I genuinely appreciated Michael's carefully reasoned presentation. And, having given over three decades to the study of historical theology, I can admire and verify his delightfully cheeky assertion that religions, also, undergo an evolutionary process.
However, there are two insurmountable problems that Michael did not address in his brilliant lecture. I would like to hear his reasoning on these two issues:
1. Before you can start this elegant process, you have to get something out of nothing. I mean you have to get not only matter and energy, but even time and space, out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And you have to do it with no help: no reason, no purpose, no process, no motive, no guidance -- ZILCH. Before Edwin Hubble, we could avoid this problem by pretending that the Universe was eternal, that it never had a beginning, and that matter and energy had always been at work in the formation (NOT creation) of the world as we know it. But the Big Bang imposes a beginning on the physical world. You can no longer seek refuge in eternity. Existence must emerge somehow from absolute non-existence.
2. But let's skip that one. Let's shelve the problem of origins, simply stipulate that the universe is here, and see what happens. The next insurmountable mountain is the emergence of life from non-life. You have to get non-living, unconscious matter to begin to form intention. A rock moves only when something hits it. But the simplest life forms -- even protozoa -- will flee from danger and pursue food. You have to get from lifeless chemicals to some basic, primal level of consciousness. This you cannot do.
I leave aside the argument from fine tuning and the anthropic principle. These ideas come into play in other contexts, not this one. However, if one were to solve these two insoluble problems, this fine piece of argumentation would be, in my view, irrefutable.
"1. Before you can start this elegant process, you have to get something out of nothing."
No, you do not:
1) Evolution starts when life starts. What happened before that is irrelevant to evolution.
2) The universe could be eternal, so, there may be no need for a creation/beginning at all. There is no evidence that there ever was "nothing".
"Before Edwin Hubble, we could avoid this problem by pretending that the Universe was eternal, that it never had a beginning"
Oh, we still can. All Hubble realized is that at one point, all the matter in the universe was tighly compressed. There is absolutely no evidence that the unvierse is not eternal, only that it was small at one point. There is, however, evidence that the universe AS IT LOOKS NOW is not. But that is really not arguing anything.
"But the Big Bang imposes a beginning on the physical world."
No, just as EVOLUTION stars when LIFE starts, the BB theory starts when matter is already there. So none of them are "creation" or "origins". They both explain development, not origins.
"Existence must emerge somehow from absolute non-existence. "
Simply not true, but even if it was, we can simply say that a pink unicorn created it, or god, OOOOOR, you simply say like scientists: "we do not know". That seems to be the only honest answer.
"2. The next insurmountable mountain is the emergence of life from non-life."
Also not a part of evolution. Evolution theory STARTS when life starts. IT is not even TRYING to explain how life got there. Evolution explains how life developed, not its origins.
So, double fail.
To simplify why: IF you order a pizza, there is nothing wrong with the Pizza if it is not a hamburger. Evolution is the theory that explains the development of life, that it does not explain origins of the universe or of life, is simply because it is not trying to, just as the guy making your pizza was not trying to make a hamburger.
If organisms stay the same over a "great period of time...because the environment remains the same...", then how do organisms survive when the environment changes abruptly? Biological evolution is alleged to take millions of years and our climate is supposedly changing at a much more rapid pace. Please explain how any life managed to survive, since it couldn't evolve in time to catch up with the change in climate.
Earl P Your: "then how do organisms survive when the environment changes abruptly?" Who says they have to? They usually don't. (e.g. the last dinosaurs). However, life clearly HAS survived rapid climate change. One simple way is by migration.
Environmental change also triggers evolutionary spurts (the punctuated equilibria concept) where species survival might result from a single macro-mutation or from an accelerated series of micro-mutations all reacting to the changed conditions. Once the climate settles so does the evolutionary pressure and equilibrium returns. Evolution need not take your alleged millions of years. On this scale, probably a few thousand years, it is only minor adaptations - mammoth to woolly mammoth, or different beak sizes in Galapogos finches, for instance. Hope this helps.
@@alanthompson8515 mammoth to wooly mammoth is still mammoth to mammoth. Varying beaks on finches are still beaks on finches. There has been to change from finch to mammoth. Hmmm
@@SupremeOverkill Nope. Different species.
@@alanthompson8515Exactly! Adaptation is real and observable. Evolution is an unneccessary stumbling block on the path of true understanding, and has no purpose in the realm of legitimate science.
@@SupremeOverkill Pardon? How do you define evolution then?
Then debate a creationist quit talkin to people who you have a mental advantage to and actually debate someone on your level ding-a-ling
Debate a creationist? Do you know of one who can do it honestly? By that I mean one who hasn't signed a statement of faith, promising to (frankly) lie about things that religion gets wrong? I haven't come across an honest one yet. If I sign a statement proclaiming that the answer is five regardless of the equation, I'm not likely to be worth debating in a real sense.
@@vincebuckley1499 There is no way to know that the first verbal communication was just a few simple sounds. To say “we know it” is just wishful thinking and indoctrination. What we do know is that there are no primitive languages. Those that were considered primitive by early evolutionists are in fact mostly much more complex than for example English. Languages do not evolve to more complex ones through “language drift”, that is impulses from others languages, they become simpler instead. Those that are left alone, isolated, are the ones that become more complex. There is for example a number of native languages in North America that are so difficult and complex that if an English speaker has not learned one before the age of thirteen, she or he will never be able to speak and understand half of it. Modern English has a large vocabulary, but it does not say anything about its complexity, modern English grammar is actually quite simple compared with most other languages in the world.
Another thing that is happening is that languages die out so quickly that of the current 6000 only an estimated 500 will be left in 100 years. And in that process the remaining ones will be ever simpler.
Things “happen” with languages, but in the opposite direction to what Professor Gillings affirms. His language metaphor could in fact be used to argument that the life on earth is too complex to have appeared with the things-just-happen-method.
So many errors. Failed to understand the Kalaam argument. The analogy of language to biology misses the main point. Evolution requires information adding mutations of significance in order to be seen by natural selection. Language changes don't add information, just change insignificant pronunciation and spelling. The analogy is therefore poor. The required increase in biological information has never been observed and is extremely improbable. Lateral gene transfer is an example of why evolution still lacks a viable mechanism. ...no new information. Surprising to see such uncritical thinking from a professor.
So, if evolutionary process isnt understood by leaders, they cant solve many of our problems?? what a joke.
A complex item needs a complex designer, and so on and so forth, so therefore there cant be a complex designer? Bad analogy, it doesnt account for going into the realm of the supernatural. It is impossible for science to explain where matter came from, so we have to admit our shortcomings, which means we have to admit there might be a supernatural component to everything.
Thank you Runny for exhibiting the valueless thinking of folks who don't understand evolution.
@@ozowen5961 Still waiting for the link to the answer, what specie was the immediate precursor to the moth, butterfly?
@@BP7BlackPearl
Still waiting for you to respond to actualresearch without your pathetic demand for nomenclature.
Did you concuss yourself perhaps? (That would mitigate your daft repetition)
@@ozowen5961 Burden of proof is on you. Im still waiting for an answer. YOu dont have one, nor does the guy who put up this vid.
And once again, you go to personal insults. Does that make you feel better? Because name calling is what I used to do in grade school.
So, once again, all you chest beating psuedo scientist evolutionist faith believers keep claiming the evidence is there, WHAT EVIDENCE?
SHOW ME THE MONEY. Where is the evidence? Give me a link that tells what specie incapable of metamorhosis evolved into the moth, butterfly.
@@BP7BlackPearl
The insults are things you earned Runny.
As predicted you didn't read any of those papers.
I showed you the money.
Your eyes are closed.
I knew this would be stupid, but I thought he would at least start off sounding intelligent--but, no. His analysis of the watch and watchmaker hypothesis is typically trite. He presumes that the watchmaker must likewise have a maker and so on and so on, ad infinitum. Why? If it can be presumed that it goes infinitely far in one direction, then it can be assumed that it goes in the other direction as well. Question: What does the watch "make"? (If you said "time", go sit in the corner.)
In addition, this guy is a biologist so he knows, for example, that sexual reproduction produces like offspring, produces like offspring, produces like offspring.... But, as an evolutionist, he doesn't believe this sequence goes forwards or backwards ad infinitum. In fact, he can't prove anything about its origin or destination; and, he's cool with that; but, he expects a watch to prove its provenance back to infinity? What's really sad is that a lot of non-critical pseudo-intellectuals watching this will think he nailed it. Public indoctrination/education strikes again.
+Believer VS Beliefs I believe in God, but I also have no problem accepting evolutionary theory whole-heartedly. When you say that "sexual reproduction produces like offspring" what do you mean? Sexual reproduction exists essentially to make not-like offspring. You are not genetically identical to your parents or your children. You are a random combination of your parents' DNA coupled with a few dozen mutations that were not present in either of them. I agree that you are a human, your parents were humans, your kids are humans, and so it will go, but like you are not. The presenter, as an evolutionary biologist, does not believe that any organism has ever given birth to a different species. It is just that these subtle differences between generations, if given enough generations, can lead to some pretty significant changes.
+Clint Laidlaw
If you breed two dogs, you will get puppies that are different from (not identical), but "like" both of them; i.e. more dogs...forever. Each generation is born with brand new DNA, so there is no reason that, overtime, dilution of the DNA will allow new life forms to take over.
How can you believe that millions of years ago you had a lizard ("L") that gave birth to an offspring that had a mutation ("L1"), which after millions of years and trillions of mutations ("L 10^12") "became" a bird ("B"), WITHOUT there ever being a "non-lizard" along the way? They say that because they don't have any transitional fossils. If they did, every one of them would be declared a "different kind" of animal to prove evolution.
You say that you believe in God, I suppose that means you believe God used "evolution" to create all life--after it was already created, of course. So, your God is only powerful enough to produce a prokaryote, but then He needed "evolution" to take over? I don't think so.
+Believer VS Beliefs I don't understand what you are saying about a lack of transitional fossils. Are you saying that there are none? There are countless transitional fossils. Birds, as you referenced, have a fairly extensive fossil history. However, there was never a time when a dinosaur had an offspring that was a bird. Some dinosaur lineages simply became progressively more bird-like over time (lots of time).
I do believe in God, and I accept that God probably used evolution to perform creation. I do not believe in a god-of-the-gaps who only does what cannot be explained. It doesn't really matter to me how God performed creation. That said, all the evidence says evolution. If I understand creation's mechanism does god cease to be god?
+Clint Laidlaw
I don't know what you mean by "countless transitional fossils". With regard to lizard/birds, Archaeopteryx has been reclassified as a dinosaur, and Archaeoraptor has been shown to be a money-making fraud. But, regardless of that, you can not prove that any fossil is transitional. That is what science is about isn't it? Proof?
In order to prove a fossil is "possibly" transitional, you have to prove that the creature it represents had offspring that lived. Can you prove that? I know there are fossils of animals giving birth; but, guess what, those babies died the same time mama did. No succession of genes.
I see the problem now. I never said a lizard gave birth to a bird. I said it had to give birth to something that wasn't a lizard--a transitional creature. I hope you understand now that there is no "scientific" proof for any transitions.
"God of the gaps" is an atheist term that is used to beat believers over the head when they honestly admit that they don't understand everything. Too bad atheists can never seem to admit that; especially, since they are the ones who have a real "gap" problem. They're the ones who claim they understand Life--but can't explain where it came from, and the Cosmos--but can't explain where it came from either.
God has not hidden anything from us. We keep learning more about ourselves and the Universe every day. With regard to "evolution", we have learned that obviously there are different types among each "kind": Different fish, birds, snakes, and even people. So, if you want to say that God created a few hundred different fishes and birds, and a couple dozen snakes and two people, etc., and they evolved into what we have now--evidence will support that. But, there's just not any evidence that a single prokaryote evolved into all of this.
+Believer VS Beliefs I see now that your view of evolution is somewhat skewed by a common misconception about how evolution works. Major changes do not generally occur over a few generations. The kind of time that we are talking about is far more than you, or anyone, can really conceptualize well. No organism ever gives birth to something that is "transitional" or wholly different from its parents, but rather all organisms are transitional in subtle ways. It is just that if you add up these subtle differences for a few thousand generations it can really start to make a difference.
However, even considering this misconception it is clear that you do not want to accept evolution. The burden of proof that you require of an organism that gives birth to a wholly different organism (not part of evolutionary theory) that is still alive and has more offspring is impossible in the fossil record. You know this. It makes me wonder what is it about evolutionary theory that so threatens your beliefs?
The evolution of language is a ridiculous thing to compare evolution of species to. Language is only thousands of years old. Evolution should be as old as the universe. There was no life on Earth for the first 3 1/2 billions years. Also the vast majority of life forms popped into existence in the Cambrian explosion a time aprox 450 million years ago in a window of 20 million years. From then on evolution takes hold but where did all the life forms come from then? There are no fossils of anything inter species. They just appeared fully formed. Explain that please.
Ro Lo. No. Why should anyone explain anything but your lack of understanding.
An example: "Evolution should be as old as the universe". So, life was there at the beginning? But no! " There was no life on Earth for the first 3 1/2 billions years" you say. So WTF was there around to evolve? Duh!
Another: "No fossils of anything inter species.". Every single fossil is a transitional form between species. It's just that some are more closely related. "Species" is a human invention - a mere label ("Now, which drawer shall I put it in?"). The one key species here is Clupea roseae (aka the red herring).
Before you cut n paste, try to understand.
@@alanthompson8515 that's right!
Joke: How many evolutionist does it take to change a light bulb? None, if they wait long enough it will happen by chance.
Not apple to apple with living organism. Light bulb has no autoreproducible functional unit of their solitairity outside electrical circuit. Dishonesty is really bad thing.
He announces his support of global warming. Not a part of evolution. Evolution is an interesting hypothesis.
Evolution is actually considered the best proven fact in scientific history by basically every scientist in the world. Science has never been as sure about anything before.
You don't think global temperature and weather changes have an affect on the survival of and pressures on various population groups on the planet? Understanding evolution may not be crucial to deal with the change itself, but it is crucial for understanding the effects of such a change.
he did not explain evolution
Punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record. We see evidence of the static state; We see different states; what we don't see are the mechanisms of change. In the absence of that being evident, 'evolution' is routinely invoked.
How about some scientific evident that a genetic code could have evolved from random mutations.
Why not give us an evolution example...not one.
If you want an example of evolution open your eyes and look for any sentient being that can move by itself. Do you have any pets, neighbors, or maybe a compact mirror in your purse. Those would all be great starts.
The experts in evolution as the speake say it just happens .how simple can you get
Well, unless you can explain why some people die, some live, and some gets to mate more... Then yes, it just happens. Evolution is simply a result of how physics and chemistry works.
Disliked: volume too low.
Are we talking about biological origins or behavioral traits origins... I don't think his initial argument against creationism is very good .. Like what caused the big bang ? And what caused that? I don't believe there is any clear answer . unfortunately you can't even debate evolutionary theory without being called a science deniar ... Not healthy debate IMO
SHINY HAUNTER Why are you bringing the big bang to a video about evolution?
@@jaymz1999 I was making a example of why there is room for creationist views to coexist . we have no idea what caused the big bang . and then you can logically say something caused whatever caused the big bang. So on and so on. This is something called
"infinite regression"
Some people interpretate this as god.. My entire point was to say we NEED to be able to civilly coexist ... Also it turned into a argument basically but I don't care if people want to argue they are never going to listen to anything they have to say. I never said evolution wasn't "real" or it was wrong or some ridiculous proposal.. That was after the fact .. But I am not getting into why religion (& especially post enlightenment religion) was/is valuable ,again ... But that's one reason I brought it up.. There is a ton to talk about. Like where did living things come from.... ? No one even knows lol ... So
*Evolution Vs CreationISM*
One would think from the 20 million google hits that this debate involves fiercely opposing explanations for the same historical observations. But this dichotomy is utterly false for the following reasons:
*1.* Evolution is merely a theory about how pre-existing life changes while the latter is broadly defined as a belief that a supernatural reality brought into existence all time, space and matter by an act of freewill.
2 A more apt title might be Evolution Vs Religion or Evolution Vs Bible.
*3.* Even more specifically, If the cynics are honest, what it’s really about is *Darwinism Vs Genesis.* And in particular their clever ploy to attack fundamentalism’s young earth and 6 day creation literal interpretation.
4. The latter of course may well be allegorical since we are still in the 7th day of Creation according to Genesis 2:2, Psalm and 105 Hebrews 4.
*5.* The Bible is not one book, but a library of books written in most literary genre. What it isn’t, is a book of 20th century science.
*6*. As Galileo said _“the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”_
*7.* to argue for the scientific proof for Darwinian evolution from strawmaning a non-scientific religious passage is about as laughable and dishonest as it gets. It is a complete non sequitur which suggests there is far more at stake than an initial observation.
*8.* According to one honest, well decorated, atheist and evolutionary biologist, “no matter how counter intuitive or patently absurd its constructs (his science)….materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” RC Lewontin _Billions and billions of Demons_ For many evolutionists like Lewontin, allowing for intelligence or design are abhorrent! But these are EXACTLY what we observe!
*9.* The only thing these opposing ideologies have in common, is they are both depend on faith-based assumptions.
*10* Despite the title, Darwinian theory says nothing about creation events or origins. It is merely a blind, bottom up, mindless, unguided process that assumes simple molecules given an impossible brief, produced a very intelligent, conscious being like us, by--- “common descent” and NOT heaven forbid, Common Design.
*11.* An absolute beginning for all time. Space and matter is actually a religiously neutral statement but has atheist cosmologists fantasizing about how natural forces produced all of nature in the finite past.
*12.* Both Science and religious Gen 1:1 have to account for the miracle of Creation ex nihilo. *13.* Despite the knockdown claim that “evolution is a fact”, there is much debate e.g. in the “Evolutionism” series of videos to indicate it is anything but.
*14* Only within theism do we have the necessary intellectual framework to explain existence from non existence and thus why we have a finite, awe-inspiring, rationally intelligible, abstract law-abiding, life-supporting universe .
*15.* The real problem is I suggest, not an intellectual one but a moral one. As CS Lewis observed, _“an atheist cant find God for the same reason a thief cant find a policeman.”_
Nope, you're using false equivalency in the majority of your points and you're incorrect in most of your suppositions which unfortunately lead you to incorrect conclusions.
I don't think you're being honest at all.
This guy is incorrect by making understanding evolution important to fixing the world. Who put this joker on RUclips?
Well, vaccines and Food is important, right? And understanding evolution is central to both. We cannot make vaccines without evolution, and we cannot produce food for earth's population without evolution.
@@yahruisreal3786 someone doesn't understand what the flu short is for, the flu shot is only the vaccine for the most deadly flu that season, you can be sick from weaker variations of the flu because you did not make contact with the deadlier one that was meant for the vaccine
How hard a person has to try to prove to others that God does not exist and all we see around us happened by chance, by pure luck. While if a person's soul and intellect are alive they would see God in His creation, in His intelligent design, in Mathematics and how everything is precisely calculated, in the ability of creatures to communicate with each other, in every field of science and humanity, Which is- Everything that God created and we are just trying to figure out how He did and why. If a person wants to see God look no further. Look at man, complete in himself; a woman complete in herself; but when they come together, they form new Life. How amazing is that!!! From a tiny seed grows an enormous tree. The seed has all the code in it! But we don't want to acknowledge the Coder. What a shame!
The goal of evolution is not to disprove gods. It's to explain diversity. And it does that, fantastically.
is he really that dumb or is he willingly dishonest? to compare something natural .. with something a human mind produces and without realizing .. that in order to change human language .. you have to have a human MIND behind the change!! words dont change meaning without a reason and certainly not by chance!! is this really enough to get to TED :D
!!!!P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C!!!!!
Think you missed the entire point of the analogy.. and obviously don't understand evolution since you used the creationist favorite strawman "by chance".
@Dan C. using the tern chance confuses the issue, thats all. Chance means different things to people on different sides.
To elaborate on the relevance to the topic of evolution: chance implies there is no selection pressure. Evolution is not a process of random occurances blindly pressing onward in every direction. There are limitations, niches to fall into, and rules to follow based on the underlying chemical frameworks. Nothing is truely random, but that does not prove, or even lend evidence to the claim that some higher intelligence(whatever that is supposed to mean) had a hand in anything.
A better analogy would be that languages evolve over time which turns from speech into a working jet engine.
17m30s
'we KNOW that the first languages were just grunts, a few nouns'
Really, you don't KNOW any such thing, not even when they began.
You seem like a very experienced nitpicker
@@privaTechino1 I just don't like the way people are conned by throwaway lines.
@@kenbro2853 well ... based on your study of now exist species and their physical vocal systems, how do you think language started?
@@MG-bs5mr Vocal systems are important for sound. Many animals can imitate lots of sounds including human speech. However language is much more than just sound. It always originates from intelligence and involves code generation and code recognition. Vocal systems or other sound systems cannot do this.
@@MG-bs5mr in short; language originated from intelligent mind.
Right in the first minute Michael makes the big claim that we have to understand evolution in order to address the questions of loss of biodiversity, climate change, antibiotic resistance, etc. Really?
Where has knowledge of evolution ever contributed to scientific breakthroughs? Breakthroughs come from scientific observation coupled with rational thinking. Evolution is a conceptual paradigm.
Then his choice of language as a metaphor for evolution is not relevant. Language is a means of expressing and sharing concepts between intelligent beings. It is not surprising therefore that those intelligent beings can adapt and modify their mode of expression. This is because of intelligence, not random physical transactions.
Language is non-material but is stored in and read from material media, be that the human brain or a written page or bytes of information on the web. The media is not the language. Language is conceptual.
Language is in no way analogous to evolution, be that biological, cosmic or any other (supposed) form of evolution.
I agree with you. The Professor's language metaphor is totally wrong: There is no way to know that the first verbal communication was just a few simple sounds. To say “we know it” is just wishful thinking and indoctrination. What we do know is that there are no primitive languages. Those that were considered primitive by early evolutionists are in fact mostly much more complex than for example English. Languages do not evolve to more complex ones through “language drift”, that is impulses from others languages, they become simpler instead. Those that are left alone, isolated, are the ones that become more complex. There is for example a number of native languages in North America that are so difficult and complex that if an English speaker has not learned one before the age of thirteen, she or he will never be able to speak and understand half of it. Modern English has a large vocabulary, but it does not say anything about its complexity, modern English grammar is actually quite simple compared with most other languages in the world.Another thing that is happening is that languages die out so quickly that of the current 6000 only an estimated 500 will be left in 100 years. And in that process the remaining ones will be ever simpler. Things “happen” with languages, but in the opposite direction to what Professor Gillings affirms. His language metaphor could in fact be used to argument that the life on earth is too complex to have appeared with the things-just-happen-method.
They idea that a maker of the universe has to have a maker and then the maker has to have a maker into infinity is not an intelligent argument that there is not a creator of the universe. This idea is far too simplistic which is kind of hypocritical. You give a simple explanation for the absence of creation but a complex explanation of evolution.
Will you make the same ridiculous argument when the day comes when we simulate life in a computer ? Then the same argument will apply. the simulated life will say no one created us.
This atheistic argument that the universe cannot have creator simply because WE cannot imagine who created the creator is overly simplistic and utter nonsense.
if a creator exists then that entities level of intelligence greatly out weighs ours and it would be very arrogant to dismiss the idea based simply on our limited intelligence. Why do atheist always need an excuses. Why not be honest with the world. Not only do you not believe in god ,creator or religion you WISH passionately not to believe. Quit being so sneaky and always hide behind science and dumb simplistic arguments.
I wonder how the rest of the world would react if they simply knew that atheism is not just a passive disbelief but a fundamentalist aggressive war on any other option.
I don't think you fully understand the meaning of the word 'simple'.
Mankind invented god. That's why most of them are impossible to believe. Too many errors and 'grand statements.' Man can't help himself and that is why the bible is so flawed. If there is to be a god then wait until a completely coherent message comes with it.
A very irreverent and desperate analogy that has nothing to do with genetics. This guy must be 2nd grade teacher.
fuck you man that's my dad
Well, he was trying to reach your demographic...
Yea the analogy isn't the best.. and has given plenty of creationists in this comment section an inflated ego and reinforcement that because this guy's analogy isn't perfect their religion must be correct.. as if this guy is the only reason every laughs at creationism..
@@frankytoad12 no analogy is perfect
EVOLUTION IS SO 1800s, let it go buddy.
Gravity is even older than that
Are you trying to disprove Darwin? No ONE person directed the “evolution” of language, but the collective intelligence of each society directed it. After 163 years of trying to prove Darwin’s theory, is this the best you can do? What’s a real example?
Charlie Weisel Pardon? Did we watch the same video? Language development as an analogy for evolutionary change? Did you miss the point?
And what's this "collective intelligence" BS? Individual decisions to use / not use new words within a population works for me (just as in evolution). Your idea is unworkable. You are trying to sneak "intelligent design" into the process. But who are your designers? Who represents the "collective intelligence" of a society? How do you decide upon it? I guess it would mean language is controlled by dictionary editors and the like, which is getting close to "ONE person" ........oh!
"The intelligence of that creature known as a crowd is the square root of the number of people in it.”
Terry Pratchett, (Jingo).
You just can't compare biology to language. This guy obviously doesn't know what mutation is. One of the rare times Tedx has disappointed me.
"We have one hundred thousand million incredibly complex neurons." "The hands holding the watch are far more complex than the watch." He tells why evolution cannot be the source. He then says why it is. He so naively uses "changes" and "drift" as the makers of to the hundreds of thousands of millions of neurons. What could be more absurd. I wonder if he fooled everyone in the audience with this inane example. Neurons had to be invented before they could even be formed into nerves. Yes, neurons are inventions. Evolution had to come up with the notion of a neuron, THEN build nerve cells, THEN connect them all together in nerves from the brain to incredibly complex organs, like the hands holding the watch. The hands had to be originated, or invented, the brain did as well. "Changes" are chump change compared to originating the entities that he thinks do the changing. For his stuff to be valid, evolution had to come up with several hundred new neurons every year over 500 million years to get to one hundred billion neurons. Can evolution do that? Then evolution had to place each neuron in exactly the correct positions so they could be utilized by the other complex organs that they control. Sorry, but this is why the number of people that believe this nonsense science is shrinking. It should shrink to zero, and science should reload. Time for new thinking.
Nasty sort of chimera image on Gillings' t-shirt. Sort of half woman with animal top half. Yuck. It says a lot about him.
+stevebee92653 ..you listen to videos like religious people read the holy babble....poorly.
vishee2906 Is that all you can do in in response? We should have hoped for more. Please critique, debate, or respond to content, not just to method in Steve's text. Or is that too difficult for you on this one?
S MacLaren no you jackass that is the extent to which i wanted to respond....if you apply yourself you could just possibly look like a bigger moron.
vishee2906 Clearly too much for you to address any actual subject matter. Insults do you no credit, and you have NO argument. What a joke.
Hahaha what a joke
When intelligent agents evolve their language, he says ‘it just happens’. And...
When species suddenly appear in the fossil record, he says ‘its a transition’.
He wants God out of the equation so badly that his reasoning has become upside down.
These intellectuals just say stuff the masses want to hear.
C’mon TED??
Not every creature is a transition.. what are you even talking about?
@@frankytoad12 I am not talking about whether or not every creature is a transition.
Michael Gillings tries to prove evolution by arguing that God is too complex... that is a religious argument.
Headley Springer You do know you can edit your own comments? Or is it that you like seeing your name repeated on YT?
You repeat the tired old PRATT that "Biologic evolution supposedly occurs through random mutations". Anyone with a decent education and without your anti-science presuppositions knows this is BS.
Evolution proceeds mainly by natural selection, which (as its name tells you) is non-random. Those (admittedly few) random mutations that do occur are selected for, and in time will come to dominate all other alleles in a population. This must result in slightly improved organisms who thus are slightly better adapted to their environment. They are more likely to survive and, by reproducing, ensure the future of the improvement. Over thousands of generations, little changes add up to big ones.
This simple and elegant process lacks intent. It is blind. It often creates the ILLUSION of design, but frequently proceeds no further than functionality. The cobbled together mess that is the human body is a good example of both.
I'm sure this refutation will not change your mind. However, OP need to know why your BS is so odorous.
@@alanthompson8515 There is no way to know that the first verbal communication was just a few simple sounds. To say “we know it” is just wishful thinking and indoctrination. What we do know is that there are no primitive languages. Those that were considered primitive by early evolutionists are in fact mostly much more complex than for example English. Languages do not evolve to more complex ones through “language drift”, that is impulses from others languages, they become simpler instead. Those that are left alone, isolated, are the ones that become more complex. There is for example a number of native languages in North America that are so difficult and complex that if an English speaker has not learned one before the age of thirteen, she or he will never be able to speak and understand half of it. Modern English has a large vocabulary, but it does not say anything about its complexity, modern English grammar is actually quite simple compared with most other languages in the world.
Another thing that is happening is that languages die out so quickly that of the current 6000 only an estimated 500 will be left in 100 years. And in that process the remaining ones will be ever simpler.
Things “happen” with languages, but in the opposite direction to what Professor Gillings affirms. His language metaphor could in fact be used to argument that the life on earth is too complex to have appeared with the things-just-happen-method.
@@s.unosson "Why me, Lord?" as they say. Why not "add a public comment"? I was responding to the changeable Headley Springer who has deleted most of his original comment. Your comment seems of general interest, and, sadly, it doesn't interest me.
@@alanthompson8515 I made a couple of public comments as well, but your answer to Headley Springer seemed to me as a good platform as well.
Evolution is a ball for blinds
gaetano di giorgio Evolution is a well proven fact backed by evidence. It is observable, testable and repeatable.
Another absurd extrapolation... Italian evolved from Latin. Therefore, man evolved from a worm.
Esactly, the language analogy is totally wrong also linguistically.
There is no way to know that the first verbal communication was just a few simple sounds. To say “we know it” is just wishful thinking and indoctrination. What we do know is that there are no primitive languages. Those that were considered primitive by early evolutionists are in fact mostly much more complex than for example English. Languages do not evolve to more complex ones through “language drift”, that is, impulses from others languages, they become simpler instead. Those that are left alone, isolated, are the ones that become more complex. There is for example a number of native languages in North America that are so difficult and complex that if an English speaker has not learned one before the age of thirteen, she or he will never be able to speak and understand half of it. Modern English has a large vocabulary, but it does not say anything about its complexity, modern English grammar is actually quite simple compared with most other languages in the world.
Another thing that is happening is that languages die out so quickly that of the current 6000 only an estimated 500 will be left in 100 years. And in that process the remaining ones will be ever simpler.
Things “happen” with languages, but in the opposite direction to what Professor Gillings affirms. His language metaphor could in fact be used to argument that the life on earth is too complex to have appeared with the things-just-happen-explanation.
Here is how you can defend the Evolution theory: Bring together bricks, sand, calk, iron, glass, etc,. and wait some hundred million years that there will stand a house with windows, water taps and canalisation. Good luck, devolutionists!
That's not evolution.
Evolution isn't how you build the house, it's how you renovate it.
There is no way to know that the first verbal communication was just a few simple sounds. To say “we know it” is just wishful thinking and indoctrination. What we do know is that there are no primitive languages. Those that were considered primitive by early evolutionists are in fact mostly much more complex than for example English. Languages do not evolve to more complex ones through “language drift”, that is impulses from others languages, they become simpler instead. Those that are left alone, isolated, are the ones that become more complex. There is for example a number of native languages in North America that are so difficult and complex that if an English speaker has not learned one before the age of thirteen, she or he will never be able to speak and understand half of it. Modern English has a large vocabulary, but it does not say anything about its complexity, modern English grammar is actually quite simple compared with most other languages in the world.
Another thing that is happening is that languages die out so quickly that of the current 6000 only an estimated 500 will be left in 100 years. And in that process the remaining ones will be ever simpler.
Things “happen” with languages, but in the opposite direction to what Professor Gillings affirms. His language metaphor could in fact be used to argument that the life on earth is too complex to have appeared with the things-just-happen-method.