Abby Hafer: Animals That Shouldn’t Exist, According to Intelligent Design (AHA Conference 2016)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Abby Hafer is an author, scientist and public speaker. Her book debunking Intelligent Design, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer-Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not became a #1 bestseller on Amazon in the category of Theism. Abby Hafer is not averse to irony. Her public speaking has taken her all over the United States and she has given many radio interviews, including appearing on NPR and WBAI.
Her scientific career includes a doctorate in zoology from Oxford University, many research projects in physiology, and a stint monitoring fish populations on the Bering Sea. More recently, she published “No Data required: Why Intelligent Design Is Not Science”, which was published in The American Biology Teacher. She teaches human anatomy and physiology at Curry College and lives in Massachusetts with her husband, the astronomy writer Alan MacRobert.
This puts a whole new meaning to the phrase "judging a fish on its ability to climb"
i thought the same thing
me too haha
The immortal jellyfish makes a good case for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, was created in it's likeness, I tell you!
GOOD THAT YOU HAVE A GREAT ATTITUDE ,AND ALL THE BETTER THAT YOU KNOW EVERTHING AND EVEN MORE SO THAT YOUR ALWAYS RIGHT AND BLAMELESS AND HOW IF YOU WERE TO BECOME BLINDED YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR LIFE AND NOT COMMIT SUICIDE ! It's also so good that people like you are nice people and aren't jerks! Don't you just love how my sarcasm is a great thing with no charge as well as providing charity without ascended mastery for the basic person how I'm not putting myself above and trying to prove ! Like a smart alec!
It's amazing that people believe a jelly fish is immortal with no evidence of it. There's not even any evidence that it's over 300 years old, and we have trees that we know are that old from historical records. Yet nobody is calling those trees immortal. Empirical evidence is a thing, and a whole lot of "intelligent design is stupid" evidence lacks the empirical validation that would be the hallmark of science.
May He touch you with His noodly appendage. R'amen.
@@gspendlove
R'amen.
ruclips.net/video/mQaReWoUyyQ/видео.html
Einstein - "If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid"
Mudskipper - "Hold my beer"
It's not that the rest of the universe dislikes organization, it just doesn't *CARE*
Clearly, they do. But what does that have to do with my comment?
So your argument against evolution is a grammar correction?
Cliff Hanley
Do you know what it's called when an animal supports its weight on limbs and propels itself in that fission? It's called "Walking"
Granted, they usually drag themselves along, but they CAN walk, just as crocodiles do.
Cliff Hanley no: they _can_ drag/walk , but they also jump: hence 'mud _skipper_ '.
So, is *this* fish walking? ruclips.net/video/hdlHMMsP_ZI/видео.html
As Robin Williams put it - "intelligent design? Who the hell puts the entertainment center smack in the middle of a sewage outflow?"
+Robert Lockard
He also did a funny bit from a creationist angle. He said, "Do you think God has a sense of humor? Look at the platypus - I do." Then he mimed God getting high and saying, "OK, I'll take a beaver, give it a duck's bill, and it'll be a mammal, but it lays eggs! Take that, Darwin!"
Robin Williams Live at the Met - one of his better ones
+bad1dobby
True, but since it was a joke and not a biology lecture, I'll give him a pass :-)
The placement of the vagina is the optimal location, structurally, for pushing out a baby. Smh.
Courtney, you are assuming that the need of pushing it out is unavoidable. That seems a bit too unimaginative.
That fact alone contradicts intelligent design. Just think on how many times it fails, and how many problems it causes.
"Now. Take. Another look. At. This. Image. It is a fish. Climbing a tree. How. Cool. Is. That."
This lady is awesome! She sounds like would be a great teacher!
She is teaching, isn't she? :D That's why she's talking in front of people and puts videos on RUclips. ;)
So a fish that climbs trees is supposed to prove that God doesn't exist? Wow. That's rich.
*its a fish. Climbing a tree.*
*HOW. COOL. IS THAT.*
*As cool as the birds that swim! But not as cool as humans that can live in space!*
Simple way to disprove intelligent design. Look at cave fish, cave crickets etc. Fully developed eyes that are blind.
SO either they evolved outside a cave, then evolved to not need sight anymore inside a cave or God has a really warped sense of humor and thought giving creatures eyes but making them blind would be hilarious.
There is no such thing as macroevolution and mocroevolution. It is something you made up in a desperate attempt to make your theories stick together. Evolution is a fact that can be proven experimentally. Just as we did with dogs. Oooh explain me again about "kinds" as if we never heard about ring species. You are truly ignorant and proud of it.
I'm surprised that isn't a subgroup to be honest. We could call it "the hypothesis of Malevolent Design."
I think back to the "WTF nature?" thing where they go over the strangest animals we've found, including a video of a bird that makes its nest on massive cliffs, but the food is down at ground level, so the poor chicks have to try to slow their descent with their half-formed wings, inevitably fail, slam into every rock on the way down, and hopefully survive with most of their bones intact.
LOL Yes! Monty Python's song "All things dark and Ugly" all creatures short and squat all things rude and nasty the lord God made the lot. Uncurable cancer, aids, all things evil great and small, the Lord God made them all, etc. He invented the concept of evil. In the bible, "I am both good and evil" and of course "Blessed is he who smashes the heads of the babes against the rocks". Of course Christians will argue that I am taking that one out of context. How comforting to know he only blesses baby murderers within a certain context.
"the hypothesis of Malevolent Design"
You mean the Demiurge? It's already been invented, even before Jehova. Some christians (gnostics) believe in it.
I can't understand why not all of them do, as a religion it makes much more sense.
These idiots claims as having anything other than idiotic myth just buys into their moronic claims. Don't bother replying. It is obvious they are brainwashed and incable of original thought.
If there really was an intelligent designer, then birds would have to land before they could poop.
Doug - I'm just glad that cows don't fly.
Doug50pl : lol.... thanks.
Unhinged Crings: "SEI FEIN, NIE FIES!" Kind regards from GERMANY.
Doug50pl if there's no intelligent designer, the living being cant even to exist, as the abiogenesis required too many coincidences of the synergy of physics
Hello Ms.Satya, IF you were intelligently designed, you would not introduce the unknown [A]Biogenesis as a strawman, against very well KNOWN Evolution.
God must have missed this jellyfish when he was punishing creation for the first humans eating forbidden fruit.
Intelligent design (ID) had its day in court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and ID lost in every possible way. In fact, the some of the defendants (Dover) were thought to have committed perjury, but those charges were never pursued. Creationism and ID should be relegated to the dust bins of history once and for all.
Are you high? The judge was fooled by the lies, equivocations and a literature bluff. ID is still going strong
@@sombodysdad sure buddy
@@sombodysdad intelligent design never was going strong and never will.
@@Vivi2372 And yet it is the only viable scientific scenario for our existence.
Somebody please tell that fish that it was specially designed to swim in water! That was great. Great upload. Thanks.
The brain of the fish is not intelligently designed. God missed to give it a proper brain for it to understand that it's supposed to swim in water -_-
"if you tell a fish it should be able to climb a tree, oh, never-mind, carry on."
23:45 - Part of current thought, based on the Human Genome Project, is that hominids gained the upper hand when a genetic mutation that caused infants to have more fragile skull bones allowed us to grow bigger brains. This gave rise to a more intelligent group of related species. Hence, what could be considered a random genetic defect ended in the existence of humanity.
we are also a product of neoteny which is where animals keep traits of an infant into adulthood (eg axolotl newt), this is shown when you compare the human skull to that of a baby gorilla. at this point the two skulls are almost indistinguishable and the crest to which the jaw muscles which develops later in gorillas isn't present in the infants giving them a more rounded skull with more room inside.
in fact all it is believed that neoteny is responsible for all vertebrates through some kind of swimming sea cucumber.
Actually one of the current theories is that there was a mutation that caused our jaw muscles to grow weaker so we don't need such a strong skull to anchor our jaw muscles.
Simplicity is the whole mark of good design. Engineering 101.
That may be true but some engineers overengineer things to the point of absurdity.
I don't understand simple scientific concepts so I have come to the conclusion that Gaaaaaaawwwwd is the only possible explanation for the world around me.
I *do* understand basic simple scientific concepts, as well as a few complex ones; I also understand basic simple philosophical concepts, as well as a few complex ones. If I come to the conclusion of God, how does that affect my understanding of the scientific and philosophical explanations?
Well DAVID, the first question I would ask you is what evidence you are following to reach the conclusion that there is a god?
Mt. Dew is delicious
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. Most children by the age of 10 can understand basic Science and it's concepts.
The Repair Shop, you understand about motors, magnets, electricity, gears, etc ... ? That IS Science and it's concepts applied in practical situations and solutions. You also listen to Joe Rogan's podcasts, so at more than one point you've heard discussions about everything from mushroom colonies configuring itself as one massive neural network to brain surgery and brain transplants, cloning, space exploration, etc.
So it's dubious that you can not understand Scientific concepts.
The Repair Shop Halle bloody lujah!!!!!
13:47. Here we are , born to be kings - we're the princes of the Pacific ocean. I am immortal, I have inside me blood of... jelly? I have no rival, no fish can be my equal...
+uncleanunicorn One dream, one goal, one prize, one soul, one jellyfish with immortality...
Perhaps this is the true origin of the flying spaghetti monster! D=
+4hm35319hd0h5 The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a false god. The true god is the Immortal Jellyfish (IJ). Praise be to IJ!
They say IJ was birthed by the Vegan CalaMary
Of course. It was obviously a miraculous birth. I was in doctrinal error with my previous statement about the FSM. The FSM is the divine father of IJ, the only begotten of FSM. This accounts for why they both have tentacles.
WHO DESIGNED THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ?
franklin field That’s a silly question, do you really think someone’s going to own up ?
who designed the designer of the intelligent designer ?
la paix ou l'épée Was it Bob the Builder ?
Mart TL1000S ??
Only half as silly as believing in ID in the first place while we already have a pretty clear understanding of the evolution process.
I felt compelled to add this comment. Could not move onto anything else until I did.
I must state as a man myself. After watching lectures from 99.9% atheist men only. Your passion and dedication climbed a tree out of water in your delivery and it was very moving with universal conviction.
Bravo and high five.
Watched in a room by myself and clapped like everybody else upon conclusion.
P.S. the voice thing was fine. It looked like you may have been in pain but pardon me for saying. It made you appear resolute and I loved it. Sorta like a speech John Adams surely gave to the continental Congress.
Capt. Jack Sparrow: ... Undead Monkey. Top that.
Dr. Abby Hafer: Fish up a tree.
when you talk about humbleness with a superior voice...yeah, you make a grate point!
Probably the best lecture I've ever watched 🙂
I had a Mud-skipper for a pet. He would hop into my hand and I could walk around the house with him. I used to tell people I was taking my fish for a walk. His favorite place to sit in the aquarium was on top of a rock just above the surface of the water. When I would feed him, he would come up to my hand and take the food right from my fingers. My fish was wild caught. Unless they figure out how to breed mud-skippers in captivity, I will not own another. That being said, they are fascinating little critters, and if you have known one, you are privileged beyond measure.
@09:50 These fish are well adapted to their environment, and if they are designed, their designer does have a very weird sense of humor.
"Intelligent design" is just kicking the improbability can down the road to an exponentially greater improbably.
"Not all statements by scientists are statements of science" - Dr John Lennox.
You mean like "I gotta take a dump!"
And a doctorate in mathematics doesn’t mean you have any expertise in biology, zoology or even in theology, that grandest of all subjects without an object.
True. But every religious statement is most definitely unscientific.
Commissar Gamza trying to defend intelligent design
True just look at the "scientists" on the young earth pay roll.
I don't know if it's intentional, but I love the sarcasm just oozing from her voice. She's like "yeah, I've read little your holy book and it's quite cool. But you know what's also cool? A FREAKING FISH FREAKING CLIMBING A FREAKING TREE, THAT'S WHAT!!!"
Weird how the amount of dislikes is so low and there are so many angry ID believers in the comments
they are the vocal minority
not a creationist but if there was a designer i'm sure he could make something absolutely ridiculous
I don't know why biologists even bother with this.
The basic premise of Intelligent Design is logically flawed from the outset.
ID cannot talk about the nature of the designer without immediately rendering itself irrelevant (which is why Intelligent Design advocates always avoid the question of the designer)
People bother with intelligent design because there are people who take is seriously and educate their kids with it. There's a very deep rabbit hole of creationists apologetics and counter apologetics online. Sad to say but bad trivially false ideas can be socially relevant. Also people love to hear others agree with them so even if there was only one crazy guy who thought intelligent design made sense people would probably love to hear debunks.
If the designer worked for me, I'd sack him on the spot for incompetence.
Because dumb ass's often set policy by their belief RE. {MIKE PENCE.}
"The basic premise of Intelligent Design is logically flawed from the outset.
PROVE IT.
Ill debate all of you at the same time. Name the day and the time. Ill be there.
I will debate every single 'evolutionist' on this comment thread. Lets see how stupid Creationists are and how 'intelligent' evolutionists are. You people like
to think of yourselves as shade tree scientists. Ok. Prove it. Lets do a debate
And you can ALL prove what an idiot I am ;) - Let me ask all of you a question.
What is the mechanism of evolution? ( And if you say natural selection i will crawl through cyber space with a magic marker and write IDIOT across your
forehead!)
Oh i had two of those mudskipper fish ;-) they had huge aquarium/terrarium, but if you let the lid open too long they still climbed out on wires and tubes, and usually you better just put in some food in and wait, and they came back themselves, they were nearly impossible to catch,and i was afraid to grab them too tight ;-)
I'd love to see this lady going round the Creationist "Museum".
Loved it, & thank you for doing what you do...
I have a question. What is the known mechanism for adding information to DNA? Mutations are a loss of information, so I'm wondering how the mudskipper developed airsacs in it's skin, not to mention all of the othe attributes that it acquired by random chance mutations. If tree climbing was so important to its survival, how did all of the other fish survive from predation when they didn't have the ability to climb trees?
"Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." --quote by somebody other then Einstein.
Well that "family tree" slide sure wasn't intelligently designed. Dark blue text on a black background?
Creationists, start with a conclusion and work backward
Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
In all of the directions it can whiz;
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
-Monty Python, Meaning of Life, Galaxy Song
Cleopatra7Philopator
i love that song
I had it running through my head as she was discussing.
Well, another "It Can't Happen, because I Don't Understand it" proponent. Aside from it has Nothing to Do with the Song I Posted, Nothing to Do with Physics or Theology, but Nothing to Do with Sense.
Scientific Creation, or the Big Bang is an Explosion of EVERYTHING, not Nothing. Whether one's Belief system as to Cause includes a Creator, or just Natural forces. The difference is the Scientific view Admits that Humankind does not Understand ALL the Physical Laws TODAY, but what we Do Understand TODAY is Based on, and Built upon Observation, and Conjecture. Tomorrow will be Built upon Today.
You Admirably display The Problem with Your style of argument! It IS, because it Must be. The closest thing to a Fact, you must Interject non-sequitur.
Your Hypothesis is that you have an Intelligent Designer that has abilities BEYOND Human Comprehension:
So- You will Tell me How it works, the Abilities Beyond Comprehension that you Understand?
Thank You for Proving MY Point though: I Quote myself again:
"And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth! "
If someone accepts 'microevolution' or speciation and then proclaims that macroevolution isn't supported or is impossible, then it becomes incumbent on them to prove something from preventing macroevolution.
This in my opinion is the best lecture on RUclips Period. Abby also has a great sense of humour, Brilliant!
"Feeling humble yet?" I dunno, Dr Hafer, I'm too busy feeling *awe* to tell. Religious people tell us that their holy books are full of awesome stuff but nothing I've ever read in any so-called holy book matches the awesome things that science has discovered about our universe and our place in it - and even more awesome: we haven't stopped discovering stuff yet.
Reverence and a certain humility are both classical virtues. No religious claptrap needed.
This woman is so freaking amazing!
Citpeks Tsiehta freakingly.
See I understand all that but, tide comes in tide goes out. You can't explain that. Checkmate Scientists
Right. ;)
Shubham Bhushan I, as a Doctor, have found out during my research on tides that the movement of water can be influenced by (large) chunks of cheese.
I bet I only need a few decades more to find out exactly what kind of cheese makes tides come in and also go out.
I'm already learning a little Swedish!
Ha Bill O'Reilly is a dumbass.
exactly, It's just like rain, where the hell does it come from? Noone has ever been able to answer this
Try gravity!
Wait, hold on, you're saying that a God would not create a needlessly complex animal based on human concepts of logic. Christian biologists of Darwins time argued that only a God could create needlessly complex animals. Darwin, in his own notes, conceded that if complex organic machinery were proven to exist in animals, then evolution is wrong. It was evolutionists who argued that animals were simple.
I enjoyed the lecture, but I feel she is just building a strawman of her opposition and knocking it down.
Is there an animal that has square eyes for example? There are many cases where animals could be fine without so perfect body development but yet we don't see them. I don't understand where you see randomness in life.
What a great presentation!!!
What a great dumbass presentation!!!
Isn't the Mudskipper a contemporary like any other land animals that are comfortable on land and the sea. It anatomy looks highly developed to me. She didn't show any examples where it was ever restricted to just land or water.
She didn't address the biology of turritopsis nutricula, but talked about it at a superficial level. Why does she think its cells undergoing transdifferentiation is evolutionary over design?
I think the intelligent design proponents would be asking her about its DNA and Gene structure.
DonswatchingtheTube. It's. A. Fish. A fish which walks on land, climbs trees, builds burrows on land, lays eggs in the air, and breathes with simple lungs. A fish, which is living on the land near the water. Which is what you'd expect to see, if fish were moving from living in water to living on land full-time. If you're implying that it's not the transitional tetrapod: congratulations! You've stated the obvious. _Here's_ the transitional tetrapods that have been found so far: evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04 - link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12052-009-0119-2
It's a fish. A fish. Deal with it.
"gene structure" yup, we've got a genius over here
We all know they wouldn't, because if anything all that "go disprove my wild claims!" crap is just a stalling tactic. And even if they were shown both the DNA *and* the Gene structure (lol?), what do you think they would do with it?
Actually there are less arbitrary definitions of what constitutes a fish, which i still fits. Also there are fish much like it, but without these features. And other creature who are better equipped to do these things.
But regardless - if you claim that all creatures were designed to be exactly what they are today, you would have to explain why many (including yourself) have vestigal or atavistic structures that serve no purpose. Is that intelligently designed?
And if you try to squirm out of that with the recent fad of "the perfect creation has degraded"... well then it would not be exactly the creature it was designed to be.
So which one is it?
Absolutely effing amazing!!!
you know this and can prove this or are you just arrogant? because the mountains of evidence are very hard to bury because they are so high.
Goggle products translation:
"Muh feefees"
"I'm retarded, therefore everyone is retarded."
-Nacherel Jesus
That's nice kid, go back to eating lead paint chips.
no, she demonstrated evolution, to disprove intelligent design.
you have NO valid arguments to support it, other than a book written 2000 years ago, which we KNOW was put together by a committee of men. give up!
she is a fool
But can your *science* explain why it rains??
Tell me if you get the reference
If such a thing as a Creator exists evolution is said Creator's tool. It is observable fact, it is acting on us right now. I'm in no way religious, but it would make much more sense if a unique and all powerful Creative force had engineered a self-correcting mechanism like evolution, than having diseases, natural disasters and extinction events used as "erasers" whenever said creator wanted something corrected - which in itself is an impossibility for an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent entity. The theory of evolution is more in tune with a Creator than intelligent design is, since it leaves every room in the universe for things like self-determination and free will. Science is closer to "God" than anything else.
Seyfert I'm not arguing against evolution, but for it. I'm saying that *if* it was part of a deliberate process implemented by a deity, *that* would make more sense than believing every nanometre of the universe, including all laws of physics, celestial bodies and living creatures were created as static systems that fail by design, and especially systems that fail by *intelligent* design. Understanding the process through which the universe itself came to be and where it's headed using objective observation and the scientific method brings us closer to our origin, to what many choose to call "God" in the search for some meaning that validates their brief and unemarkable existence.
So if someone still needs to cling to the notion of God, I would rather that person faced the evolutionary process as the "how" rather than discard it completely. There is nothing wrong with belief as long as it doesn't contradict provable fact.
And radomization can be automated, so there is no reason to think "chance" isn't part of it. Mathematically speaking technically everything can be calculated so there is no such thing as "oh, it just happened", especially in science. There is always a reason and a cause.
Around 15 minutes "Biology has taught me humility"
Sooo virtuous!
M’kay, it’s 2018 and people still believe in Creationism? That’s INSANE, aka “Poor Design”.
Serenade314 thats because christians campaigned as hard as they could to keep evolution out of the classrooms
Serenade314
The REAL mystery is how anyone could still believe that the mechanisms proposes by darwin, even in modified form, can sufficiently account for the development of life. It is frankly embarrassing. Even atheists (Thomas Nagel, to take just one exampl are becoming skeptics. Asserting it as truth is just a secular variety of dogmatism.
Joey Pipkorn no it isnt. It isnt dogmatic at all because dogmatism implies a disregard for evidence. Evolution is based purely on evidence. Atheists arent who we look towards to determine the validity of a scientific theory, its scientists. It doesnt matter if 80% of atheists rejected evolution, it is valid science that has been clearly demonstrated at this point.
Christopher Parks
I mention atheists simply to rebut a common but false idea that voicing skepticism about evolution is something that is only done by theists who have an axe to grind. You can't play that card these days. The darwinian/neo-darwinian mechanisms which purportedly drive evolution are increasingly thought to be unsufficient to explain all of the biological diversity, and the intricacies of that biology. Evolution is a paradigm. The early Karl Popper had it right when he said that evolution is fundamentally a metaphysical research project.
Serenade314
"It's very well understood that" what...?
The human head; the very centre of our being, perched on top of a spindly column of bone that requires massive muscles just to hold up straight and can be broken in a simple fall or impact, resulting in death. An entire chapter could be written on that design flaw alone.
Migraine headaches - paralysing, debilitating : top-notch design.
Creationism evolved too. From denial of evolution to accepting some creationist created "category" like micro evolution. Such short memory and ignorance of their own ideological past....so much for "intelligent" design
To any who ask could evolution not be from a gods intelligent creation; we can dismiss the notion for no end of reasons...let me just point out the most obvious.
Daniel Blair simple:
A) Occams razor
B) Because if you believe your god incapable of mistake, there would be no evolution, because the state of planet/environment and species would be a constant... that of their original 'perfection'.
C) Because many species include flaws that would be stupid as design decisions but are not easily or likely to be 'corrected' by evolution. In fact evolution can and does make some elements increasingly ridiculous. One example would of course be the laryngeal nerve.
D) Because if you hold the Earth to have been designed for us as a chosen species, then the god could have designed humans to be humans in the first place. It would not design something else then require 3.5 billion years of evolution to complete the process.
E) Because if you hold Earth to have been made for us, even perhaps the universe...it is entirely illogical that the god character would establish a plan that had entire rafts of species emerge, thrive and then become extinct millions of years before we appeared at all.
F) Because only a complete arsehole would include in their plan the parasitic creatures that have an entire life cycle based around boring into a child's eye, blinding it in the process, or laying eggs into the brain of another creature which turn into lavae that slowly eat its brains out. No god would design species that destroy, maim and cause misery for its favourite one. There would be no belhazia, no malaria, etc.
(I could carry to to Z) but there is already no need.
I like trees
This woman's argument: If I had created the world it would be simpler and easier to categorize. I don't understand the creator's mind or his sense of logic. I'm smart and if I can't figure it out a pattern it must be random, therefore there is no creator.
No. She is saying that an intelligent designer cannot exist simply because the designs are not really intelligent enough. A much simpler way of creating complex things would have indicated an intelligent designer. Also, if a designer does exist, you have to admit He is not very benevolent, rather sadist.
Straw man!
Veg Out ...please provide empirical evidence for the existence of a supernatural creator entity, or just stfu.
Yep.
@@humblesentiments1553 Buddy that's an absolutely ridiculous argument
"Animals that no rational creator would have come up with exist perfectly well in our evolved world"
My sides!😂They're killing me!😣😂😂😣😥😅😁😄😊😮😯😟😧😩
0:19 .. laryngitis? Pshaw.. she was out last night PARTYING!
3:10.... okay, so it might be laryngitis after all. But we could play a drinking game!
Every time she says *category* sip your NyQuil...
Absolutely absurd to state that:
"Because I can't conceive of how such a thing would evolve"
"Therefore evolution is impossible"
"because I assert that I has to be intelligently designed."
The fact is we may never know exactly how these organisms began to exist
as they are,
but that has no bering at all on wether or not they were made with magic incantation from a super intelligence.
It's basically as ridiculous as saying aliens must have designed earth creatures because you can't fathom another possibility....
I am not saying that sarcasticly either I really think that the God is less evident than to say:
"It must have evolved with mechanics that we actually at the very least understand the concept of"
and the fact that we know information is not stagnant in the DNA.
Those two points alone dont exclude an outside force but you NEED to demonstrate that the outside force meets the level of evidence that is avaliable to back the idea that it was just a natural thing to happen.
And that God claim is seriously at the level of "aliens created octopus"
I get that you want evidence for some outside force that you can then claim is your personal God
But you fishing for weird creatures and calling it unexplained therefore I can explain with appeal to super intelligence.
It's really weak.
It's too weak to be an actual argument.
I used to believe this nonsense.
My school taught some viciously dogmatic claims because it was private Christian so obviously....
But it never really convinced me, because its an appeal to ignorance,
And it's a God of the gaps fallacy.
Just because you don't know something in spectacular detail like how a specific jellyfish be essentally immoral
does not mean that a God made them almost immortal.
I know.. it's a tought emotional struggle. You've been taught that you can never question God and you NEED to have evidence for him and the grains of nothing keep slipping away so you desperately cling to the idea that if sience can't explain it now then science never will and so if you can dilute yourself in this way then God is grounded even within the doctrinal requirements of having evidence.
Explain how God did it.
Oh you can't?
So what if I went the other way and pressed for information that you should have right
because the super intelligent is your friend.
It's insanity.
I have no respect for your religion.
Please stop spreading willful ignorance and a method to stop questions with a single unchallengalbe answer that you pretend is obvious.
The fact is the DNA is very versatile and is subject to change and regardless we understand how the change came to be...
GOD is never the correct answer.
Because you need to demonstrate the actual mechanism that caused such change and the ultimate excuse is not answer.
Fantastic speech, thanks for sharing....
I honestly think this is a poor argument against intelligent design, sorry.
I am sorry that millions of Americans still stick to the stupidity of Christianity despite lack of evidence, lack of logic and in fact immoral contents abound in the whole of bible
I love her sense of humor!!
Josh Ortiz i do too, took a while to get used to her delivery though
Oh my God, what a amazing woman, at least what s shown in this video. I love you Hafer.
Beneficial mutation is impossible. Please explain how larvae, pupae and adult "evolved".
WOW! A baseless assertion AND an argument from ignorance in only two sentences! That could win you the creationist Pulitzer for packing the most nonsense in the fewest words!
And while insect metamorphosis is one of the areas of evolution for which we do not have a definite answer (and possibly never will) as usual, the scientific hypotheses about it are far better than your nonsense, and as always, unanswered questions are nothing more than that - they are not evidence against the overall theory or evidence for magic. www.scientificamerican.com/article/insect-metamorphosis-evolution/#
Do you also believe that nothing created everything? That humanity evolved from rocks and water?
+Liam McPhee
What a moronic question! First, we don't even know that everything was created, or that there ever was, or even could be "nothing", nor have you even DEFINED "nothing". Does nothing include natural laws? If it doesn't then anything could arise from it. And it is a lot more complex than "rocks and water", but yes - all evidence indicates that we evolved from much simpler chemical systems.
It appears that you are angry, why?
I assumed that you know the definition of "nothing". No thing, the absence of everything and anything.
Don't the "experts" claim that space, time, matter, came into being at the moment of the "big bang"?
Doesn't the theory go; the earth cooled into a rocky mass around 4 billion years ago then water started liquefying on the surface, perhaps by rain or other methods, creating large bodies of liquid water that dissolved "stuff" from the rocks creating the primordial soup, then life started in the primordial soup, i.e., rocks and water? Where did the information come from that created the first life, i.e., DNA?
+Liam McPhee
Of course you "assumed" that is what poor critical thinkers do. And the definition you provided and the subsequent text, allows for either Hawkin's or Krauss' hypotheses on the start of space time as we observe it today, to be correct. Neither one requires space, time, matter, or energy to exist - just that the laws of quantum mechanics would still apply in whatever reality gave rise to this universe. When I asked you about natural laws, that was a hint for you - but you missed it. So by your definition, there is no need for a creator. Of course, it is simpler than that. If something cannot come from nothing, then there could never have been nothing, and if something can come from nothing there is no need for a god.
As for the theory - no - it is nothing like that if you mean evolution, but if you mean the concept and hypotheses around abiogenesis, you are not too far wrong. And no "information" is needed to create life, no more than "information" is needed to make rust. Put iron and oxygen together and you're going to get rust but neither iron or oxygen has the "information" to make rust - they are merely chemicals doing what chemicals do in the right circumstances. If an alpha particle impacts the DNA of one of my sperm, changing the DNA in that sperm, and I pass that on to a child, that is NOT information. The particle did not impart knowledge or information - it just changed the chemicals in a sperm cell. But that could make my child different than it would have been otherwise. No "information" required.
Using intelligent design to disprove intelligent design?
pseudoprodigy . hmm. Explain
jesse chavez the odds of just the human DNA becoming into existence by mere chance is greater than winning the lottery a thousand times.
pseudoprodigy . I agree with the incredible odds for that to happen but that doesn't explain your first statement.
jesse chavez either by chance or design, there are no other options.
and yet someone wins the lottery almost every time...bad analogy.
also "Basics of Theological Philosophy" is about as useful as a degree in Harry Potter or Shakespeare, it doesn't prove anything
None of these species prove, or disprove, anything beyond the fact that interesting species exist. She does do an excellent job of making points that no ones disputes sound like they are disputed. All and all, this entire presentation was worthless as a slam against intelligent design.
Most of the video was not about animals that shouldn't exist according to intelligent design.. but ok.. so it hinges on two animals? A mudskipper and a jellyfish? I want more animals. I listened all the way to the end holding out hope for a third animal.
Other good examples would include seahorses, certain species of sharks that are so aggressive they try to eat their own young, pandas which are addicted to a food they can't properly digest, hummingbirds with such a hyperactive metabolism they need to almost constantly eat, and pugs who struggle to bre-- oh wait that one is intelligent design on us.
Thanks for the replies.
Where in the Intelligent Design theory does it state that such a designer can't create a mudskipper? What does "immortality" have to do with Intelligent Design?
I could listen to her all day.
Gullet-windpipe-epiglottis is enough to convince me: what idiot would cross the fuel line with the air intake, then fit a flap valve which can fatally fail.
William Chamberlain - LOL - Well said!
Evolution is amazing!
hell fire is not
Please demonstrate that hell exists, or any god, or anything supernatural, otherwise, keep your delusions to yourself.
EVIL-lution
"human is not perfectly designed"
what about the digestive system
Is that the one that shares an opening with the respiratory system resulting in choking deaths?
If you don't want to believe in a Creator that is your business, but lady, your logic here is about as stupid as anything I have ever heard. One could make EXACTLY the same argument against Darwinism. In fact, when you say that Intelligent Design would never create a finned fish that climbs trees, ask yourself if Darwinism would have evolved such a thing, in fact, you should ask if Natural Selection could ever have produced such an animal. It seems to me it would REQUIRE a conscious Designer. You made one of the best arguments FOR Intelligent Design I have ever heard.
"You made one of the best arguments FOR Intelligent Design I have ever heard."
So then please describe the logic of an intelligent agent creating such a fish. You seem to be stuck in the mentality of a thinking being that creates things for reasons... evolution is not like that at all. There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish, that's the point.
Yes I got the point, and her entire presentation is based upon her personal opinion of what a Designer would or would not do. Thank you for asking. Actually you mistake my point when you say, "You seem to be stuck in the mentality of a thinking being that creates things for reasons." No, my point is that a conscious Designer would do some things that you and I would find quite illogical; done for creative and artistic purposes, and for fun, not simply for logic. This woman's problem despite her obvious vitriol, is that she attempts to make an argument that contradicts just about everything we have learned about Darwinism and Natural Selection when it is left on its own. She was literally contradicting the very processes she was defending. I am not saying that either a Conscious Designer or Evolution produces things according to logic, I am saying that her argument follows no logical hypothesis or syllogism. To make the statement that "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" cannot be based upon any fact whatsoever without knowing the mind of the Designer; it is simply an assumption based upon hatred for a belief in a Designer. I understand Darwinism very well having studied it for many years, and I can tell you that according to Darwin's Theory of Descent that evolution would not and could not have produced such a creature according to all that is taught about it. That's why I say this woman's dogma is simply a form of meta physical belief disguised as science.
"To make the statement that "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" cannot be based upon any fact whatsoever without knowing the mind of the Designer; it is simply an assumption based upon hatred for a belief in a Designer."
LOL, 'hatred for a belief in a designer'? It seems I am not the only one making assumptions here. If you prefer to call my rejection of an illogical idea 'hatred', that is your bias, not mine. When your main point is examined, you can see that when you deny the logic of the design, you are moving away from the very concept of design. When you say "No, my point is that a conscious Designer would do some things that you and I would find quite illogical; done for creative and artistic purposes, and for fun, not simply for logic." you are removing the very thing that allows people to imagine design in the first place. In other words, you are trying to suggest intelligent design by pointing to things that there is no reason to recognize design in. You are pointing to a Pollock painting and claiming 'Of course it was designed like that!'
To fix that, you personify the designer and assume that it is like us... again an unfounded assumption considering there is absolutely no evidence for the designer even existing much less the qualities it possesses. You are simply making up these qualities to force-fit your already decided upon designer to the available evidence. If you were serious about your position, you would see that YOU are the one claiming to know the mind of this designer. You are, in fact, claiming that he is like you... an extremely common theme for theists. Each individual's god just happens to want/think/do exactly what each individual believer wants, thinks, and does. An extraordinary coincidence!
I see no reason at all why descent with modification could not produce such a creature. If the conflict between the creature's existence and evolution is so distinct, you should be able to describe it in great detail rather than simply suggest it.
You completely misunderstood, I wasnt talking about YOU but about the presenter.
You said in your post:
'To make the statement that "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" cannot be based upon any fact whatsoever without knowing the mind of the Designer; it is simply an assumption based upon hatred for a belief in a Designer.'
In your statement, you are quoting someone... you quoted a statement "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" and you responded to that statement that it 'cannot be based upon any fact whatsoever without knowing the mind of the Designer; it is simply an assumption based upon hatred for a belief in a Designer'
Is that a correct summary of the exchange? The person who said "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" was me, not the presenter. You copied and pasted my quote from my post. How am I misunderstanding? Or are you talking about a different part of my post?
I would like to hear her thoughts on Tardigrades (water bears) They are just as amazing as some of her other examples in my opinion.
Didn't Copernicus say we're not at the centre of the universe?
Alwin Priven No, he said we're not the center of the solar system. We technically are the center of the universe... since technically the way that the universe expands suggests that every point in the universe is the center of the universe...
That, and we absolutely are the center of the observable universe, since how far we can observe of the universe is limited by the amount of time that light from over there has to reach our eyes.
while we are technically at the centre of the observable universe, we are not the centre of the universe, as we can still detect that we're orbiting the sun, and the sun orbits the centre of the Milky Way and it is moving through space too.
Just did a bit of last minute reading... apparently there is no center of the universe... huh... go figure...
Okay, moving on!
Let me just site what I just read...
www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/is-there-a-centre-of-the-universe/
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
Yeah, that's right, I've just proven myself wrong and sited my sources.
Sometimes I like to bring my patella to my sternum, wrap my ulna around my fibula, and lean forward. 'Cause that's just how I roll.
LOVE LOVE the Buddhist joke!
Creationists like to point to the holes in the evidence. At least there's evidence to have holes in.
Actually, without intelligent design these animals WOULD NOT exist. Putting your own spin on what 'intelligent' design means and then using your OWN SPIN to go through the animal kingdom and say 'Ah ha! See? Theres nothing 'intelligent' about this (according to our own spin on what intelligent design means) However, if you use what the intended usage of Intelligent Design actually indicates these animals are actually as irrefutably
INTELLIGENTLY designed as the eye is with its 1.7 million fibers and the retina positioned
just so it doesnt burn out when you go outside into broad daylight.
EVOLUTION IS INCREDIBLY STUPID and STUPIDLY OBVIOUS!
You mean our eyes that have a blind spot because the designer decided to put the nerves that connect it to the brain on the _inside_ ?
germanvisitor2 - If He hadnt they would be destroyed by the intensity of the light coming into the eye
when you step outside! - You just made a complete idiot of yourself! Good job~!
That is completely unrelated, though.
LOL - HAHAHAHA!!!! -- YOU PEOPLE ARE COMEDY GOLD. I'll let you in on something. I NEVER realized how ridiculous 'atheists' were until this alleged 'flat earth movement' was hatched from hell. It never EVER dawned on me just how stupid people were. Thanks to the flat earth nonsense. Welp! Now we know! Youre raving mad!
You realise that almost all flat earthers are theists?
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. (Isaiah 55:8)
That is actually a good point.
That quote says god and humans should not be concerned with each other. It is a good reason to ignore the Bible entirely.
Hellllla random but.........Who else really wants this women to be their grandma?
Mr.Larry: "Nobody-Has-Made-All-Out-Of-Nothing",is the desperate expression of the hope,that there is nothing to hope!
I wish she didn't sound so angry!
Wow, I was just thinking about how she didn't yell enough! I thought she was way too calm. She could have thrown in some personal insults as well. Maybe she could have made some threats regarding those who don't agree with her?
I prefer my lecturers with a little more fire in their bellies.
I used to be a creationist, I woke up though.
welcome to the relm of people that base their belief on proof
I have nightmares too
You're an inspiration to all of us!
Great talk!
no it isnt,,,lol,,,its proper crap
+Etothe2iPi How on earth do you think this is a "Great talk?" All she does is show the many differing animals in existence, and then claims that Intelligent Design would not accept, or there existence disprove the theory of ID. For heavens sake, the Idea that there are many differing animals is totally accepted by both ID folks, and the hated creationists. Her explanation of how these animals came from evolution (Neo-Darwinian) she just uses "just so stories". She has no understanding of the arguments against Neo-Darwinian theory. She even brings up religion for crying out loud, ID is a theory devoid of religion. In short she is an idiot.
totally agree : magnificent talk
your nick took me a couple of seconds to fathom - big smile
what about niches
How embarrassing for the AHA to have this kind of a talk on line with their name attached. I'm surprised they haven't taken it down, but the fact that they leave it up, thus validating it, shows us just how scientific they are.
What is your issue with this vid?
I am a little confused...... Am I to accept this ladies opinion that the life forms she has presented are flawed and therefore could not be the product of an intelligent mind? That they are not well designed?
First off.... The design of anything is based on what the designer intended for the thing. What is its purpose. What is it to do? Does it accomplish its purpose? Unless one knows that that purpose is. One cannot say whether the design is good or bad.
The bottom line is......Until one has successfully created an entire living ecosystem. Or even an entire universe from nothing. Their opinion as to whether the design of just one very insignificant part of this ecosystem is a good one or a bad one is quite irrelevant.
Perhaps the designers intent of these odd life forms was simply to confuse. Confuse and perplex those hell bent on insisting that they more intelligent than the designer himself? Just saying....
Nick Nack
Lol... As if a simple typo has any bearing on the truthfulness of the subject or the argument proper.... Your funny..
Where's the molecule that all life forms came from and why did it decide it needed a brain ? It obviously was intelligent
+pappyforyou - Your question is not even wrong.
"I am a little confused"
Obviously, that's why you're a theist.
GSpotter63 • You're confused? The theist says "Of course there is a designer, just look at the perfection all around you!", thus claiming to recognize said creator's intent otherwise the idea of "perfection" holds no meaning. Yet here we are discussing organisms that are anything but perfect. Which is it? Am I supposed to recognize all of this "perfection" around me that shows design? This "irreducable complexity", or am to accept that this creator's intent cannot be known?
Confused indeed.
awesome talk
I believe in design, I just don't believe in intelligence. Just look at the Modernist period.
so you thing there is a god but hes a moron?
Are you not familiar with Modernist architecture?
That's funny, I believe I intelligence, but not design!
Seriously, though...
Aquatic Mammals. For example Dolphins, they dwell in the Sea, they can't live on land. But they have Lungs and no Gills. So they need to breath Air and drown in the water... I don't think this is very intelligent.
you're my favorite. I have sent this to everyone i know
God she sounds so pointed and vindictive.
The ID concept was made by ignorant people, for ignorant people. Is basically saying 'I don't understand evolution, therefore I'm gonna come up with the stupid idea of an ethereal, magical being that creates and designs things out of nothing!'
Or rather "F*ck, Evolution is backed by all that science. Quick, get us something that looks like science and backs up our preconceived conclusions! And name it something fancy!"
Such anger on her face
You probably confuse it with her having had meningitis(as stated in the introduction) and trying as hard as possible to pronounce every word so people can hear her lecture. It looks a bit weird when she talks but that's not what's important. Her message is what's important.
madman2u "God doesn't exist because of this fish" that's her message and it's delivered with hate and disdain... Yet she proved nothing but her anger. Seriously we're talking about God and she comes with a fish. An atheist biologist doing theology. It's like listening to a drunk man talking politics in a bar.
hfyaer:
If you believe in god you are drunk!
hfyaer Yup, pretty much.
Can't catfish also "walk" on land?
I do have a bible signed by the author Yahwey could it be worth anything ????????
If it's an antique, then give it to a museum. If not, give it a match. Either result is beneficial to humanity.
Shs funny
Jesus is the only fish for me (says the fundamentalist strawman southpark cartoon christian that's she's debating).
Evolution teaches that all life evolved from a common source....(AKA abiogensis).For that to have taken place then life must have diverged from one Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, to another Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
In order for all forms of life to have come from just one common ancestor would require that this one source of life diverge, crossing all classification lines. Even the big ones.
Again....We have observed and recorded life adapting to changing environmental conditions producing slight variations on the Species level. Some even refusing to or incapable of interbreeding again. But never has anybody ever recorded a change at the Genus level. To say that it is a fact and that this has actually happened is a lie.....an unknown....not an observable scientific fact. It is an assumption required to support the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor and nothing more.
The branches of the "tree of life" and the names that have been given presented by academia indicating the ancestors of one organism transforming into another are unseen speculations invented by man to help organize and classify individual life forms and nothing more. The transitions presented within the charts are speculations, not observed facts.
IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR ONE TO REFUTE A POSITION THAT HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED TO BE TRUE TO BEGIN WITH.
Genus is a category that we assign to related species after-the-fact. To see a species changing its genus you would have to have some organism giving birth to a group of new, closely related species. Which makes no sense, and would falsify evolution.
uncleanunicorn
Quit playing word games. You know exactly what I am talking about.
Evolution teaches that all life evolved from a common source....(AKA abiogenesis).After the first cell formed all life must have diverged OVER SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS from one Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, to another Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
In order for all forms of life to have come from just one common ancestor would require that this one source of life diverge, crossing all classification lines. Even the big ones. So yes, Cross (taxon) was required. Unless you are claiming that the statistically imposable abiogenesis happened multiple time. Ones for every Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, and Family in existence today.
The fact is. Not ones has anybody ever recorded a cross (taxon) event. Not a single one. Just bias assumptions based on unverifiable interpretations of existing evidences.
If the evolution of just one genus to another genus OVER SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS takes longer than the entire time that man has been keeping records then such evolutionary ideas need not to be refuted. The fact is, that it has never even been proven to be true to begin with. Your insistence that one must prove something faults that has never been proven true to begin with is fallacious.
As far as its predictions are concerned. We have seen (observed) very small variations within families and genus, but that is it. The small confirmed variations that have been predicted are not the large unseen theoretical changes found in all of taxonomy. The large interfamily changes have never been confirmed. Not even close.
Abiogenesis is studied separately from biological evolution. The work of Jack Szostak of Harvard is illuminating.
But this claim that it's impossible to cross classification boundaries shows a fundamental misunderstanding. We can observe speciation events all the time. The only thing that needs to be proposed is a continuation of the process that we can literally observe in the real world constantly.
You're basically arguing that the ability to walk 100 feet is insufficient evidence that it's possible to walk 10 miles. All it is is a matter of time, and distance.
uncleanunicorn
"But this claim that it's impossible to cross classification boundaries shows a fundamental misunderstanding."
Never said it was impossible..... I said that it has never been observed...... If inter-family changes have been observed then give us all an example......
AGAIN....Pointing to the remains of an organism buried under layers of sedimentary strata and proclaiming that it is the progeny of another different organism berried farther down and longer ago in another layer of strata is called an assumption. Not a fact.
"You're basically arguing that the ability to walk 100 feet is insufficient evidence that it's possible to walk 10 miles. All it is is a matter of time, and distance."
That is just the point...... The 10 miles of steps were not observed..... They are speculated....Believed to be true based on even more unobserved speculations. Speculations like the massive amount of time and the formation of the Geologic Column. You are welcome to believe in your (theory) speculations based upon even more speculations if you like. Just do not declare them as fact.
GSpotter63 So by this reasoning, forensics goes out the window. 'Cause you didn't see the violent drug-dealer pull the trigger, so no matter how much powder-residue, DNA, or blood spatter you present, we can't rule out gun-powder pixies planting evidence. I mean, we didn't see it, so....
Of course, that means stars don't go through giant phases, because we can't watch it happen in front of us. And it also means that languages don't evolve, because we didn't see the emergence of Chinese, so it must have been whipped up at the Tower of Babel. Even though we can witness small-scale linguistic evolution in our own lives.
If *any* historical inference is valid, evolution is - based on everything that we *ARE* able to see. But something we've never, ever seen is a deity conjure up an animal.
Has anyone else ever considered that whatever was in charge of the intelligence in the design actually needed a helmet?
There are some hilarious replies in this (on both sides). There is no denying evolution, at least micro-evolution (i.e. birds growing longer/shorter beaks, etc.), I hold reservation about macro-evolution until there is a way (other than looking at fossils and saying "these have similar attributes they must be the same"), but that still doesn't answer how life began. Be it hydro-vents, primordial soup, etc..., creating life from inorganic material has also yet to be proved or even if organic material was produced how it created cells that knew how to replicate/reproduce and isn't anymore sensible than the story of Adam and Eve.
So I agree micro-evolution most certainly does exist and science has helped mankind tremendously, but needs to step up its game if it wants to put debates like this to rest.