I wish I knew this man. Everything he says is so in line with my thinking. The discussion at the end points to the inability to make real science accessible to the average reader. This gives the average non-science person a feeling of inferiority which has now transformed into distrust. The notion now seems to be "It's not me that can't understand science, it's scientists lies therefore I don't need to understand. But how has science education failed at this? The body of knowledge has gotten to the point where the prerequisite knowledge would take years to learn. I've taught high school biology for ten years and it is impossible to teach in one year all that is needed to understand recent advances in biology. So how can one explain it?
A bit delayed, but posting for posterity... The answer is not to teach the biology student everything about biology. The answer is to teach the student how to _think_ about biology. Those core concepts of philosophy enshrined in the scientific method don't change. If you want a student to be able to engage deeply in science, and more importantly, to be able to spot bad science, you have to show them proper science, and probably a fair number of examples where scientists simply got it wrong. -Did they never test their hypothesis before accepting it? -Did they change their data or omit parts of it to justify supporting a theory? -Did they design a poor test that doesn't really show what is claimed? -Did they conduct a test, but later find out they could replicate the result? -Did new information force a change in a theory? These are some of the most elementary parts of what I do every single time I read and evaluate a scientific paper. They constitute the essence of the answer to the question: how do we know what we claim to know? Science is a thought process. Teach that, and your students will thrive. It's not about memorizing a textbook. That sort of lazy teaching (and I'm not accusing you of it, for sure) is far too common in high school and universities. It's convenient and easy to teach to a test, but it doesn't serve the student.
He is a pseudo academic who falsified research to forward his antiscience ideology. He lied and attacked others who were genuine scientists, shame on Gould. "In 2011, a study conducted by six anthropologists reanalyzed Gould's claim that Samuel Morton unconsciously manipulated his skull measurements,[95] and concluded that Gould's analysis was poorly supported and incorrect. They praised Gould for his "staunch opposition to racism" but concluded, "we find that Morton's initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved."[96] Ralph Holloway, one of the co-authors of the study, commented, "I just didn't trust Gould. ... I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme. When the 1996 version of 'The Mismeasure of Man' came and he never even bothered to mention Michael's study, I just felt he was a charlatan.""
That 2011 article has been refuted by a number of scholars. It had so many problems it sat in review for over 10 years. _Current Anthropology_ wouldn't even publish it, so they published online in PLOS.org for $2,900.
Well, he and Richard Dawkins had a few high profile and well documented academic ding dongs regarding Evolutionary Theory which are worth exploring, however they agreed on far much more than they disagreed.
Well, he and Richard Dawkins had a few high profile and well documented academic ding dongs regarding Evolutionary Theory which are worth exploring, however they of course agreed upon far much more than they disagreed.
Falsified skull measurements? You clearly don't now what you're talking about. Gould never measured Morton's skulls. He accepted Morton's measurements as accurate, once Morton switched to lead shot. The 2011 article making this claim has been largely refuted.
Gould: Evolution is the history that explains the changes of life through time, and were going to read there all those biases of which our culture is guilty of, and "progress" in the INDUSTRIAL era is the primary one.... BRILLIANT. I just wish the interviewer were better at it, and not bog this great man down with superficially covered religious questions!!
Stop thinking of evolution as a ladder as if it meant "to progress to something" --- that is a result of our deepest bias about our place in the world.... this is a great thinker and tinkerer!! Love his panoramic view of the subject.
@Fred Flintstone not really the Nazis were obsessed with teleology which is actually a staple of Judeo Christan thinking. Anybody with a real grasp of biology or evolution gives up on worshipping teleology.
@Fred Flintstone no it's the teleology view of evolution and design as opposed to genetic variation in response to a changing environment. Teleologists are dime a dozen in western religion.
@Fred Flintstone I studied biology thanks and you wanna blame evolutionary theory for the Nazis you have to look at Hitler's Catholic upbringing and the warfare mostly based on religion. Kidneys are nice yes but look at the laryngeal nerve and sickle cell as well as the endless useless bones in the feet. Evolution really doesn't support a master anything unless you're first coming from teleology informed by religion. As for opining you opined and I answered. 😄
@Fred Flintstone you want designed life but fail to see the correlation to Nazi thinking. Sorry but that's silly. Evolution loses the platonic ideals and consequently any fight over master races or other princess playhouse fantasies. The misplaced or useless aspects of the body are always within context as with sickle cell. Nazi genetic fascination and obsession with blood line matches neatly with designed life not semi random evolution where previous advantages or holdovers become useless. There is no need to remove Jews unless you believe in metaphysical scaffolding firmly put in place by religion. From evolutionary point of view minimizing variety is completely counterproductive.
Also, I completely agree with Gould when he says that science says nothing about the existence or not of God, and CAN'T. That makes total sense to me - just look at the main "pillars of science" - classical mechanics, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory. None of those make a single statement about deities, positive or negative. So, how is it that scientists can have any true certainty about this issue, as many of them (very aggressively) claim to have in public fora? I think the whole thing is unprovable in either direction - religion is really a matter of faith, and always will be, and science really doesn't enter into it at all. So while each individual scientist is perfectly entitled to his or her own opinion in the matter, his or her credentials as a scientist don't elevate or lower the argumentative weight of that opinion in the slightest.
Science does not claim to have evidence of the non existence of god whereas religion claims there is a god with no evidence whatsoever, therefore, I stay with science and have raised my children to question, reason and look for evidence. No god in the mix and Im happy to say they are both non violent, generous, compassionate humans
For the same reason theists have any certainty that faeries and unicorns do not exist. Unless a theist were to propose that it is rational to believe in faeries and unicorns on the premise that science can't demonstrably disprove their existence either?
"Evolution" IS NOT "a stairway to heaven" Update: By that I mean, it is genetic modification from shared descent, not that "you won't go to heaven if you "believe" in evolution", if a god exists I highly doubt it would be that petty
Fred Flintstone I think that advances in molecular biology have clarified many questions of taxonomy. Look at what we’ve learned about the common ancestry of the hippopotamus and whales that comparative anatomy could not reveal. There are many questions left unanswered of course, but claiming that abiogenesis is a myth worries me that you would instead claim a supernatural causation. As biology peels back the layers of time the problems become more pronounced. Like how prokaryotic life developed into eukaryotic life. The ancestry details are far from settled but the path is lit with the dim lights of our understanding.
@Fred Flintstone yes, the closest living relatives of the hippopotamus are whales. Of course you're not buying it... you're too invested in your indoctrination to accept an idea that puts the whole house of cards at risk.
@Fred Flintstone I would not be surprised to find that neither of those things were true. You've basically rolled out the inane and inept argument that can be found on most creationist pages. The only one you missed was "macro vs micro evolution." Everything is transitional by it's very definition and the variation is not random. Hence I am skeptical about your level of education or where you did that education. Lacking faculty to understand the science is not the problem with the science, the problem belongs with the faculty of the reader. Agreed that we have a way to go before we can fully understand abiogenesis... i believe that in our lifetime science will demonstrate how you are wrong.... inconclusively. I can understand how that would scare you because without it you have to admit that the myths and lies that you were brought up with have no foundation. How the creationists arguments have "evolved" over the years. Before Darwin religious beliefs ruled the roost. The argument's get more and more desperate the more we learn.
11:00 some call it gap theory but it offers solutions for anyone who starts with Genesis and reads the collection in that order. Other books describe creation too. The Torah author had so much symmetry, arching and layering going on as it is.... 1:1 is all as It 1:2 Spirit post Younger Dryas 1:5 Sets up a lineage model to produce Himself among us, 6th day man types for a period of time in flesh. It's in the title of Darwin's work; the jews are the favored race. Same reason my mom loves Rotties and another love Dash Hounds. Favorite cause they're stubborn.... stubborn for a reason. To ignore the pick of the litter. Like Joseph and the brothers if you know the stories. Thank you SJG for helping me see this.
Evolution has nothing to with theism or the origin of life (thats abiogenesis), but religion is the real fairytale, in religion someone just pulled some stories out of their ass and truth haters believe it ruclips.net/p/PLgRoK-eyLjomiSP6o_8JchPueuVyPHfTa
I've never understood why the notion that intellectual ability varies from person to person seems so hard to accept for some people. *All kinds of things* vary from person to person - height, strength, ability to run, etc. etc. etc. There are differences in all facets of our capabilities. Why have we singled this one out to reject, when it's so obvious all around us that there is such variation? Now, as to how much of that variation is genetic and how much is cultural, I can't make a claim - this isn't my field and I haven't studied it. Off the cuff, my guess would be that *some* of it is genetic, and I wouldn't dare try to say how much. But this seems like something that should be easy to measure. If you go to measure it and you have a pre-defined outcome you want to obtain, in either direction, you're likely to obtain it - we all know how statistics can be manipulated. The only way really to know is to approach it with total objectivity and show that the outcome is repeatable, robust, etc. and so on. That is, ACTUALLY DO SCIENCE. I suspect that part of the fuss has to do with the fact that intelligence *is* correlated with financial success in life (according to Jordan Peterson the two best predictors of life success are general intelligence and conscientiousness). Well, a few centuries ago when we were primarily agricultural it was advantageous to be bigger, stronger, and of greater endurance - i.e., capable of extended hard physical work. No one tried to claim that all humans were the same in that ability. It was visually obvious that they were not. We need to get over the idea that we get to decide what "is" in the world based on what we would "like to be." That's not how life works. The world *is*, and we get to live in it - that's the bottom line. "Fairness" is not something that the physical world pays one iota of attention to.
In case you haven't noticed there are millions of videos of idiots babbling but few really good ones on science. The worship of mindless entertainment is worrisome and mainstream science docs are usually not too deep ruclips.net/p/PLgRoK-eyLjomiSP6o_8JchPueuVyPHfTa
PE might be the standard process of change in many aspects of reality. His book the structure of evolutionary theory discusses it. Although it's 1400 pages long. Not for everyone. I'm on page 1000
I was watching *A Glorious Accident (6 of 7) Stephen Jay Gould: The Unanswerable* , where *Stephen Gould* says at 46:00 it would be Unethical - ( Amoral- WRONG ) - for humans and chimps to interbreed. Might that be because Gould has an inner conscious that tells him that? My point is WHY? Since Gould is such a hard core scientist (and 100% non-theist) , why would the thought of humans and chimps interbreeding be so distasteful to him? After all, Gould does not see humans as being any better than chimps, so why would Stephen Gould say that such is "unethical"?? It would be _"scientifically interesting"_ , would it not, at least from a scientific point of view.
5:05 isn’t the very concept of Natural Selection a type of inherent bias towards assuming the “progress” in nature? Being fit enough to survive and reproduce (have your set of genes passed on to the next generation) indicates “progress” of that species. #contradiction
No. Evolution is not a "stairway to heaven". It is simply "genetic modifications with shared descent". A species can evolve and change in a way with causes them to go extinct. Dont confuse modern evolutionary biology which started with Darwin but has developed alot since, with "Social Darwinism" or Lemarkianism and the using "survival of the fittest" as a will to power. Darwin and most Evolutionary biologist point that empathy, diversity and mutual aid in a society increase chances of survival. But individuals or groups do not "select", nature does, it is out our the beings or groups, or society's hands. It has nothing to do with choice, it is simple genetic change with shared ancestry and in the end ALL species die eventually but other off shoot live on to also go extinct too one day, jist look at how many speciec of Homo genus there has been Its not about nature having progress, its that genetic change only happens with descent and descendants only happens with enough individuals in a species surviving long enough to reproduce, that is the natural selection aspect of evolution. Evolution is the study of that long term modification and the macro geneological tree of all life on earth.
Darwins ideas were revolutionary at the time specifically because they were, distinct from other theories of evolution at the time, not directional or progressivistic.
Sprite News that’s not what punctuated equilibrium is you fool. The fossil record is proof of PE, which is just the relatively greater speed of evolutionary change during certain epochs on a GEOLOGICAL time scale. 10 million years seems like a huge amount of time to us but on the geological time scale would be like the blinking of an eye. And in that time major events like, the evolution and diversification of the mammals can be observed. Prior to which there was a long period, say 100 million years or so of stasis in mammal evolution. Then the dinosaurs got extinct and many ecological niches were left open, thus ‘triggering’ the new evolutionary change . It was relatively fast, but it’s still like 10-20 million years as the mammals underwent adaptations to their new found roles .
@Trax Yes and no. Punctuated equilibrium is the definition of one person’s guess based ONLY on our very incomplete fossil record. It is very possible that some sort of environmental triggers or other forms of pressure take place that cause these explosions that we are unaware of at this time.
@@jakepollen6839 you can tell that not many people view this video, there is a year between postings. Punctuated equalibrium is a contrived explanation necessary because evolution does not demonstrate the slow, gradual change expected by Darwin and evolutionists. We have many great minds, over a long period of time, attempting to justify belief in Darwinian evolution. It is natural selection which drives change at times of environmental upheaval. Natural selection can only select what already exists, it can not select what does not exist and it can not create a series of beneficial mutations which would add up to new, beneficial or more complex useful organs or body parts. Natural selection can only select what is already in the gene pool and it selects it at a time when that particular piece of genetic information becomes useful or necessary. The covid change is a good example of this. Because of isolation the viruses which do not have extra good stickability are losing out to the ones which do. Hence the new version. It didn't go away and mutate itself, all it did was to select appropriate, existing qualities. And no matter how many changes it experiences it will always remain a virus, losing information from its gene pool whenever change is forced upon it until extinction occurs. Evolution is a world view very cleverly imposed upon us but only parts of it are true. Would you agree that people have become more aware of this over the 4 or so years since this video was posted?
Gould, Steven Jay: (1941-2002) Distinguished ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and man of letters. Gould believed that natural science ultimately was informed by multiple or 'plural' empirical traditions, and that accident and contingency has a much a hand in making us what we are than a monomaniacal reliance on the metaphors of natural selection. Sensible stuff of course unless you have a lucrative 'revolution' to run. Thus Gould was excoriated, excommunicated, and in their dreams burned alive by Darwinian fundamentalists such as Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and Tooby-Cosmides who felt at least that they had true religion if not truly good writing skills. From Dr. Mezmer’s World of Bad Psychology, at an internet near you!
Lol. Micro only wrt a human lifespan. It’s not wild speculation to extrapolate backwards with all the evidence at hand! Some people just refuse to try…
Dawkins is not a bigot. You only think that because you're used to living in a society where religious belief is protected as this special, virtuous thing that people aren't allowed to even remotely criticise. Religion's greatest trick was not convincing people that it was true, but convincing people that it was beyond criticism. Dawkins is great.
Given that he's pretty similar to other prophets, and his utterances were lesser than Shakespeare's, yes. I see no reason why he wouldn't be (if he existed)
Kent Hovind and the others who for $$$ome reason fight to lead the flock away from the actual truth. It's not an opinion ruclips.net/p/PLgRoK-eyLjomiSP6o_8JchPueuVyPHfTa
He lost me when he said “I don’t know why consciousness should be seen as any higher state of being.” If that’s not ideology, then I’m just a bacterium myself. That’s a ridiculous quote.
Gould was a pseudo scientist more interested in forwarding his ideology than investigating issues in a scientific manner: "In 2011, a study conducted by six anthropologists reanalyzed Gould's claim that Samuel Morton unconsciously manipulated his skull measurements,[95] and concluded that Gould's analysis was poorly supported and incorrect. They praised Gould for his "staunch opposition to racism" but concluded, "we find that Morton's initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved."[96] Ralph Holloway, one of the co-authors of the study, commented, "I just didn't trust Gould. ... I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme. When the 1996 version of 'The Mismeasure of Man' came and he never even bothered to mention Michael's study, I just felt he was a charlatan.""
Nonsense. It was Morton who falsified the data. And the book doesn’t even hinge on that. Gould was a true scientist: your continued attempts at discrediting him are laughable, even if sad.
@@christopherhamilton3621 His rebuttal to the question on a lack of evidence was answered misleadingly. He doesnt actually point to evidence but uses CIRCULAR reasoning to say that animals and plants have evolved and that was it. He gave a philosophical argument and said that evolutionary theory predicts stability which it does not. Its his get out clause to explain why theres a lack of evidence to support evolution from there past and present history.
Am I the only person that finds a satisfying feeling watching this man smile while talking?
No, there are two by July 2021.
I wish I knew this man. Everything he says is so in line with my thinking. The discussion at the end points to the inability to make real science accessible to the average reader. This gives the average non-science person a feeling of inferiority which has now transformed into distrust. The notion now seems to be "It's not me that can't understand science, it's scientists lies therefore I don't need to understand. But how has science education failed at this? The body of knowledge has gotten to the point where the prerequisite knowledge would take years to learn. I've taught high school biology for ten years and it is impossible to teach in one year all that is needed to understand recent advances in biology. So how can one explain it?
A bit delayed, but posting for posterity...
The answer is not to teach the biology student everything about biology. The answer is to teach the student how to _think_ about biology. Those core concepts of philosophy enshrined in the scientific method don't change. If you want a student to be able to engage deeply in science, and more importantly, to be able to spot bad science, you have to show them proper science, and probably a fair number of examples where scientists simply got it wrong.
-Did they never test their hypothesis before accepting it?
-Did they change their data or omit parts of it to justify supporting a theory?
-Did they design a poor test that doesn't really show what is claimed?
-Did they conduct a test, but later find out they could replicate the result?
-Did new information force a change in a theory?
These are some of the most elementary parts of what I do every single time I read and evaluate a scientific paper. They constitute the essence of the answer to the question: how do we know what we claim to know?
Science is a thought process. Teach that, and your students will thrive. It's not about memorizing a textbook. That sort of lazy teaching (and I'm not accusing you of it, for sure) is far too common in high school and universities. It's convenient and easy to teach to a test, but it doesn't serve the student.
Einstein said that if you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself.
@SnoopyDaniels then no one understands science.
We miss this man immensely. A great man and a brilliant intellect.
Wish he was still here.
agreed
Damn, was just thinking the same thing. :-(
He is a pseudo academic who falsified research to forward his antiscience ideology. He lied and attacked others who were genuine scientists, shame on Gould.
"In 2011, a study conducted by six anthropologists reanalyzed Gould's claim that Samuel Morton unconsciously manipulated his skull measurements,[95] and concluded that Gould's analysis was poorly supported and incorrect. They praised Gould for his "staunch opposition to racism" but concluded, "we find that Morton's initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved."[96] Ralph Holloway, one of the co-authors of the study, commented, "I just didn't trust Gould. ... I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme. When the 1996 version of 'The Mismeasure of Man' came and he never even bothered to mention Michael's study, I just felt he was a charlatan.""
That 2011 article has been refuted by a number of scholars. It had so many problems it sat in review for over 10 years. _Current Anthropology_ wouldn't even publish it, so they published online in PLOS.org for $2,900.
me too man!
Thank you for posting this!
Stephan J. Gould wrote some of the best books I’ve ever read
There's no arguing against Dr Gould. Only Carl Sagan shadows this kind of remarkable intelligence and dry, riveting explanations.
Well, he and Richard Dawkins had a few high profile and well documented academic ding dongs regarding Evolutionary Theory which are worth exploring, however they agreed on far much more than they disagreed.
Well, he and Richard Dawkins had a few high profile and well documented academic ding dongs regarding Evolutionary Theory which are worth exploring, however they of course agreed upon far much more than they disagreed.
I dunno, I could argue with him. The first few minutes are a mix of bs and the obvious. Not inclined to listen to the whole thing..
No arguing against a pseudo scientist who falsified skull measurements in his book mismeasure of man? ironic
Falsified skull measurements? You clearly don't now what you're talking about. Gould never measured Morton's skulls. He accepted Morton's measurements as accurate, once Morton switched to lead shot. The 2011 article making this claim has been largely refuted.
This interview is brilliant, he is giving us the so much from Stephen with a few key questions.
We need more Goulds nowadays.
Jørn Jacobsen 5o brilliant and so clear and beautiful ,this man was a gem among pebbles!
No, we definitely don’t need more marxist, dysgenicist lunatics in academia
“Marxist, dysgenesis lunatic” ... You’ll always find a few of these freaks in the comment sections under Gould vids on RUclips. Fascinating stuff...
the kind of happy philosopher
He is so eloquent and interesting 👍🏼
I miss Gould so much.
Gould: Evolution is the history that explains the changes of life through time, and were going to read there all those biases of which our culture is guilty of, and "progress" in the INDUSTRIAL era is the primary one.... BRILLIANT.
I just wish the interviewer were better at it, and not bog this great man down with superficially covered religious questions!!
This interview is conducted by Allan Gregg for TV Ontario.
Happy Birthday
this mans hair is a force to be reckoned with
June 2019
Stop thinking of evolution as a ladder as if it meant "to progress to something" --- that is a result of our deepest bias about our place in the world.... this is a great thinker and tinkerer!! Love his panoramic view of the subject.
36 thumbs down...sad. Gould is a legend!
Legendary liar
Likely angry and closed-minded Christian’s giving thumbs down. Not surprised. Their dogma trumps science.
nazis really seem to hate this guy lol
They sure do don't they!
@Fred Flintstone not really the Nazis were obsessed with teleology which is actually a staple of Judeo Christan thinking. Anybody with a real grasp of biology or evolution gives up on worshipping teleology.
@Fred Flintstone no it's the teleology view of evolution and design as opposed to genetic variation in response to a changing environment. Teleologists are dime a dozen in western religion.
@Fred Flintstone I studied biology thanks and you wanna blame evolutionary theory for the Nazis you have to look at Hitler's Catholic upbringing and the warfare mostly based on religion. Kidneys are nice yes but look at the laryngeal nerve and sickle cell as well as the endless useless bones in the feet. Evolution really doesn't support a master anything unless you're first coming from teleology informed by religion. As for opining you opined and I answered. 😄
@Fred Flintstone you want designed life but fail to see the correlation to Nazi thinking. Sorry but that's silly. Evolution loses the platonic ideals and consequently any fight over master races or other princess playhouse fantasies. The misplaced or useless aspects of the body are always within context as with sickle cell. Nazi genetic fascination and obsession with blood line matches neatly with designed life not semi random evolution where previous advantages or holdovers become useless. There is no need to remove Jews unless you believe in metaphysical scaffolding firmly put in place by religion. From evolutionary point of view minimizing variety is completely counterproductive.
a very great scientist and creative mind
Fuck me a good talker.
SJG is my intellectual hero.
Dr. Swamidass must love him too.
Also, I completely agree with Gould when he says that science says nothing about the existence or not of God, and CAN'T. That makes total sense to me - just look at the main "pillars of science" - classical mechanics, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory. None of those make a single statement about deities, positive or negative. So, how is it that scientists can have any true certainty about this issue, as many of them (very aggressively) claim to have in public fora?
I think the whole thing is unprovable in either direction - religion is really a matter of faith, and always will be, and science really doesn't enter into it at all. So while each individual scientist is perfectly entitled to his or her own opinion in the matter, his or her credentials as a scientist don't elevate or lower the argumentative weight of that opinion in the slightest.
Science does not claim to have evidence of the non existence of god whereas religion claims there is a god with no evidence whatsoever, therefore, I stay with science and have raised my children to question, reason and look for evidence. No god in the mix and Im happy to say they are both non violent, generous, compassionate humans
For the same reason theists have any certainty that faeries and unicorns do not exist. Unless a theist were to propose that it is rational to believe in faeries and unicorns on the premise that science can't demonstrably disprove their existence either?
I watched a documentary about Darwin's dangerous idea and Stephen Jay gould was in it. I looked him up and saw he died :(
Who is the interviewer?
"Evolution" IS NOT "a stairway to heaven"
Update: By that I mean, it is genetic modification from shared descent, not that "you won't go to heaven if you "believe" in evolution", if a god exists I highly doubt it would be that petty
Seven people are unevolved.
Gould was a pseudo scientist who falsified research and attacked other scientists to forward his own ideological dogma. The man is trash.
8:50 that's what I'm saying, Hoss. That Kimura pulls both ways.
It’s amazing how creationists misrepresent what he taught and believed
Fred Flintstone how so?
Fred Flintstone I think that advances in molecular biology have clarified many questions of taxonomy. Look at what we’ve learned about the common ancestry of the hippopotamus and whales that comparative anatomy could not reveal. There are many questions left unanswered of course, but claiming that abiogenesis is a myth worries me that you would instead claim a supernatural causation. As biology peels back the layers of time the problems become more pronounced. Like how prokaryotic life developed into eukaryotic life. The ancestry details are far from settled but the path is lit with the dim lights of our understanding.
@Fred Flintstone yes, the closest living relatives of the hippopotamus are whales. Of course you're not buying it... you're too invested in your indoctrination to accept an idea that puts the whole house of cards at risk.
@Fred Flintstone you need to expand your reading beyond creationist websites.
@Fred Flintstone I would not be surprised to find that neither of those things were true. You've basically rolled out the inane and inept argument that can be found on most creationist pages. The only one you missed was "macro vs micro evolution." Everything is transitional by it's very definition and the variation is not random. Hence I am skeptical about your level of education or where you did that education.
Lacking faculty to understand the science is not the problem with the science, the problem belongs with the faculty of the reader. Agreed that we have a way to go before we can fully understand abiogenesis... i believe that in our lifetime science will demonstrate how you are wrong.... inconclusively. I can understand how that would scare you because without it you have to admit that the myths and lies that you were brought up with have no foundation. How the creationists arguments have "evolved" over the years. Before Darwin religious beliefs ruled the roost. The argument's get more and more desperate the more we learn.
Thanx for upload! I'd love to be stuck in an elevator with him.
The only constant in the Universe is change.
He talks exactly like carl sagan
Tin foil hat wearers - You guys found the Crocoduck yet ?
Your being sarcastic right?
@@whatabouttheearth A wee bit, am fae Scotland it goes with the territory ken. Hopefully Stephen Jay Gould was also being sarcastic
@@johnmaclagan2263
Haha
11:00 some call it gap theory but it offers solutions for anyone who starts with Genesis and reads the collection in that order. Other books describe creation too.
The Torah author had so much symmetry, arching and layering going on as it is....
1:1 is all as It
1:2 Spirit post Younger Dryas
1:5 Sets up a lineage model to produce Himself among us, 6th day man types for a period of time in flesh.
It's in the title of Darwin's work; the jews are the favored race.
Same reason my mom loves Rotties and another love Dash Hounds. Favorite cause they're stubborn.... stubborn for a reason. To ignore the pick of the litter. Like Joseph and the brothers if you know the stories.
Thank you SJG for helping me see this.
I love how the interviewer makes a claim without presenting evidence
I'm guessing he's representing the common man, and the questions a common dunderhead might ask.
I love evolution so helpful when you can't go to sleep you know like a fairy tale... so beautiful
Evolution has nothing to with theism or the origin of life (thats abiogenesis), but religion is the real fairytale, in religion someone just pulled some stories out of their ass and truth haters believe it
ruclips.net/p/PLgRoK-eyLjomiSP6o_8JchPueuVyPHfTa
@@whatabouttheearth nothing can't come from nothing
He was such a genius
His ally Lewontin didn’t seem to think so
@@heizensperg Interesting. What did Lewontin have to say? I'm familiar with this work in Triple Helix to some extent, but that's it.
I've never understood why the notion that intellectual ability varies from person to person seems so hard to accept for some people. *All kinds of things* vary from person to person - height, strength, ability to run, etc. etc. etc. There are differences in all facets of our capabilities. Why have we singled this one out to reject, when it's so obvious all around us that there is such variation?
Now, as to how much of that variation is genetic and how much is cultural, I can't make a claim - this isn't my field and I haven't studied it. Off the cuff, my guess would be that *some* of it is genetic, and I wouldn't dare try to say how much. But this seems like something that should be easy to measure. If you go to measure it and you have a pre-defined outcome you want to obtain, in either direction, you're likely to obtain it - we all know how statistics can be manipulated. The only way really to know is to approach it with total objectivity and show that the outcome is repeatable, robust, etc. and so on. That is, ACTUALLY DO SCIENCE.
I suspect that part of the fuss has to do with the fact that intelligence *is* correlated with financial success in life (according to Jordan Peterson the two best predictors of life success are general intelligence and conscientiousness). Well, a few centuries ago when we were primarily agricultural it was advantageous to be bigger, stronger, and of greater endurance - i.e., capable of extended hard physical work. No one tried to claim that all humans were the same in that ability. It was visually obvious that they were not.
We need to get over the idea that we get to decide what "is" in the world based on what we would "like to be." That's not how life works. The world *is*, and we get to live in it - that's the bottom line. "Fairness" is not something that the physical world pays one iota of attention to.
So fossil suggest PE rather than gradualism? Why aren’t there more quality video on PE?
In case you haven't noticed there are millions of videos of idiots babbling but few really good ones on science. The worship of mindless entertainment is worrisome and mainstream science docs are usually not too deep
ruclips.net/p/PLgRoK-eyLjomiSP6o_8JchPueuVyPHfTa
PE might be the standard process of change in many aspects of reality. His book the structure of evolutionary theory discusses it. Although it's 1400 pages long. Not for everyone. I'm on page 1000
It’s not ‘rather than’, but mostly by…
Seven has evolved great hair ,but i!m not sure on what animal it evolved on
I was watching *A Glorious Accident (6 of 7) Stephen Jay Gould: The Unanswerable* , where *Stephen Gould* says at 46:00 it would be Unethical - ( Amoral- WRONG ) - for humans and chimps to interbreed. Might that be because Gould has an inner conscious that tells him that? My point is WHY? Since Gould is
such a hard core scientist (and 100% non-theist) , why would the thought of humans and chimps interbreeding be so distasteful to him? After all, Gould does not see humans as being any better than chimps, so why would Stephen Gould say that such is "unethical"?? It would be _"scientifically interesting"_ , would it not, at least from a scientific point of view.
It’s both unethical and immoral by logical, humanistic argument. Stop trying to strawman & ridicule non-theological thought. You sound silly.
7:49 isn't that why Israel was to be isolated? To produce the....
as
Evolution = adaptation only?
And transformation
Evolution is descent with modification from common ancestry
ruclips.net/p/PLgRoK-eyLjomiSP6o_8JchPueuVyPHfTa
5:05 isn’t the very concept of Natural Selection a type of inherent bias towards assuming the “progress” in nature? Being fit enough to survive and reproduce (have your set of genes passed on to the next generation) indicates “progress” of that species. #contradiction
No. Evolution is not a "stairway to heaven". It is simply "genetic modifications with shared descent". A species can evolve and change in a way with causes them to go extinct. Dont confuse modern evolutionary biology which started with Darwin but has developed alot since, with "Social Darwinism" or Lemarkianism and the using "survival of the fittest" as a will to power. Darwin and most Evolutionary biologist point that empathy, diversity and mutual aid in a society increase chances of survival. But individuals or groups do not "select", nature does, it is out our the beings or groups, or society's hands. It has nothing to do with choice, it is simple genetic change with shared ancestry and in the end ALL species die eventually but other off shoot live on to also go extinct too one day, jist look at how many speciec of Homo genus there has been
Its not about nature having progress, its that genetic change only happens with descent and descendants only happens with enough individuals in a species surviving long enough to reproduce, that is the natural selection aspect of evolution. Evolution is the study of that long term modification and the macro geneological tree of all life on earth.
Darwins ideas were revolutionary at the time specifically because they were, distinct from other theories of evolution at the time, not directional or progressivistic.
natural selection is merely differential reproduction among individuals.
Punctuated equilibrium is self contradictory. Smaller populations would spread changes more rapidly, but they would also experience fewer changes.
Sprite News that’s not what punctuated equilibrium is you fool. The fossil record is proof of PE, which is just the relatively greater speed of evolutionary change during certain epochs on a GEOLOGICAL time scale. 10 million years seems like a huge amount of time to us but on the geological time scale would be like the blinking of an eye. And in that time major events like, the evolution and diversification of the mammals can be observed. Prior to which there was a long period, say 100 million years or so of stasis in mammal evolution. Then the dinosaurs got extinct and many ecological niches were left open, thus ‘triggering’ the new evolutionary change . It was relatively fast, but it’s still like 10-20 million years as the mammals underwent adaptations to their new found roles .
@Trax Yes and no. Punctuated equilibrium is the definition of one person’s guess based ONLY on our very incomplete fossil record. It is very possible that some sort of environmental triggers or other forms of pressure take place that cause these explosions that we are unaware of at this time.
@@jakepollen6839 you can tell that not many people view this video, there is a year between postings.
Punctuated equalibrium is a contrived explanation necessary because evolution does not demonstrate the slow, gradual change expected by Darwin and evolutionists. We have many great minds, over a long period of time, attempting to justify belief in Darwinian evolution.
It is natural selection which drives change at times of environmental upheaval. Natural selection can only select what already exists, it can not select what does not exist and it can not create a series of beneficial mutations which would add up to new, beneficial or more complex useful organs or body parts. Natural selection can only select what is already in the gene pool and it selects it at a time when that particular piece of genetic information becomes useful or necessary. The covid change is a good example of this. Because of isolation the viruses which do not have extra good stickability are losing out to the ones which do. Hence the new version. It didn't go away and mutate itself, all it did was to select appropriate, existing qualities. And no matter how many changes it experiences it will always remain a virus, losing information from its gene pool whenever change is forced upon it until extinction occurs.
Evolution is a world view very cleverly imposed upon us but only parts of it are true. Would you agree that people have become more aware of this over the 4 or so years since this video was posted?
Gould, Steven Jay: (1941-2002) Distinguished ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and man of letters. Gould believed that natural science ultimately was informed by multiple or 'plural' empirical traditions, and that accident and contingency has a much a hand in making us what we are than a monomaniacal reliance on the metaphors of natural selection. Sensible stuff of course unless you have a lucrative 'revolution' to run. Thus Gould was excoriated, excommunicated, and in their dreams burned alive by Darwinian fundamentalists such as Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and Tooby-Cosmides who felt at least that they had true religion if not truly good writing skills.
From Dr. Mezmer’s World of Bad Psychology, at an internet near you!
Hahaha. Utter nonsensical trolling….
I've never listened to someone sound so intelligent and yet say nothing of profound wisdom
The world would be a kinder place if SJG was still in it. Dawkins, Dennet et al have a poverty of spirit in comparison.
Albeit their disagreements I love them all as they push as to question, to doubt, to reconsider, to search for evidence. Beautiful minds
Evolution is adaptation not advancement
He only talks about micro evolution not macro.
Wrong! Speciation is by definition MACRO evolution, thus he DID speak about macro evolution.
Lol. Micro only wrt a human lifespan. It’s not wild speculation to extrapolate backwards with all the evidence at hand! Some people just refuse to try…
He only cited micro-evolution
Micro=less than human lifespan. Macro=greater than, plus much evidence.
Not hard unless you refuse to think….
Didn't this guy argue against IQ?
ShadowCrashed81 yes, he even accused Murray of only doing the regression equations only once. He was simply a Modern day SJW
This man is a much better champion of evolutionary theory than Dawkins who has just turned into another bigot, but with no god.
Both Gould and Dawkins are great. Neither is a bigot.
Dawkins is not a bigot. You only think that because you're used to living in a society where religious belief is protected as this special, virtuous thing that people aren't allowed to even remotely criticise. Religion's greatest trick was not convincing people that it was true, but convincing people that it was beyond criticism. Dawkins is great.
@@JohnDoe-ov9ib bravo ! Well put
Do you really think that Jesus is the product of evolution?
Given that he's pretty similar to other prophets, and his utterances were lesser than Shakespeare's, yes. I see no reason why he wouldn't be (if he existed)
Sure! He was a human after all. Even if he really is the Son of God who died for all our sins, he would still be an evolved monkey.
watch Kent Hovind's debates, God bless
lovethyneighbor as thyself Kent Kent doesn’t have a degree 📜 n science....he’s a fucking moron who thinks the earth is 6000 years old 😂👌😂👌
What for?
Kent Hovind and the others who for $$$ome reason fight to lead the flock away from the actual truth.
It's not an opinion
ruclips.net/p/PLgRoK-eyLjomiSP6o_8JchPueuVyPHfTa
LOL. Hovind is a liar & a hack. A joke, even.
His views on religion are rather misguided and dishonest, but other than that a fantastically interesting man
chaps Too bad he doesn't have all the right ideas like you do. We're so lucky that you know the way we should all think about religion
@@TremendousSax bravou, touché!
He lost me when he said “I don’t know why consciousness should be seen as any higher state of being.” If that’s not ideology, then I’m just a bacterium myself. That’s a ridiculous quote.
Gould was a pseudo scientist more interested in forwarding his ideology than investigating issues in a scientific manner:
"In 2011, a study conducted by six anthropologists reanalyzed Gould's claim that Samuel Morton unconsciously manipulated his skull measurements,[95] and concluded that Gould's analysis was poorly supported and incorrect. They praised Gould for his "staunch opposition to racism" but concluded, "we find that Morton's initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved."[96] Ralph Holloway, one of the co-authors of the study, commented, "I just didn't trust Gould. ... I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme. When the 1996 version of 'The Mismeasure of Man' came and he never even bothered to mention Michael's study, I just felt he was a charlatan.""
Much like Burt, Watson, Murray and more...
You are the same guy that keeps trying to edit his Wikipedia entry
@TOITN That’s because scientists back then weren’t fragile little wussies like they are today.
Nonsense. It was Morton who falsified the data. And the book doesn’t even hinge on that. Gould was a true scientist: your continued attempts at discrediting him are laughable, even if sad.
@@christopherhamilton3621 no he was a typical jvvsh pseudo science type with an ideology
Wrong. Still is and will be.
Bright man but also exceedingly opinionated, arrogant and pompous.
Eloquently misleading - so much junk science here
Which you won't specify, naturally. Because you don't know what you're talking about
You wouldn’t know the difference between real science & junk science, so no….
@@christopherhamilton3621 His rebuttal to the question on a lack of evidence was answered misleadingly. He doesnt actually point to evidence but uses CIRCULAR reasoning to say that animals and plants have evolved and that was it. He gave a philosophical argument and said that evolutionary theory predicts stability which it does not. Its his get out clause to explain why theres a lack of evidence to support evolution from there past and present history.
12:10 - 12:27