Watch "Gradual Change of Things" or "Development" (Over Time) in Action

Really really big discovery with Turbo and Next-Generation Enlightenment.

And a cynically high level of sarcasm.

Ooh, look, it's changing, it's developing over time, gradually too, wow:


The previous video had few details about the folding process, quite a crucial process regarding functionality:


Oh look it's changing again, but videos and fantasy allow for a bit of trickery regarding reality:

Was that too short for a thread? Well, I could say something about the video about "Define evolution" and specifically about what he said regarding de-evolution (and the common mental trigger regarding the philosophy/idea that 'evolution has no direction'). It's only de-evolution if you use his definition for the word "evolution". Which is pretty honest in representing a lot of things the word "evolution" has been used for especially on forums such as this that are titled "Origins and Creationism". Or the subjects he is clearly talking about and having issues with. And if promoters of evolutionary philosophies are using the word "evolution" to refer to or in stories about the subjects he spoke about at the end of the video when defining the word "evolution", then any objection of him doing that as well when responding to these evolutionary philosophies is irrational and unreasonable. In some cases even deliberately deceptive and an attempt to start a useless debate about something that should be obvious to anyone willing to be honest and reasonable about it.

How does he know Jesus is responsible for the creation and evolution of bicycles? He said the evidence was clear but he didn't go into more detail on that subject.

a reply to: whereislogic

I take objection that the last video was nothing but him rambling about stuff he spoke pretty generally about and then ended it with some intelligent design nonsense.

Most people don't have an issue with the general concept of evolution even, they have particular issue with the aspects relating to natural selection. I agree it is a little confusing for those who don't study the topic because we do use the term evolution rather loosely when describing any type of change (in everyday English).

Truly the general public often doesn't seem to know the basics of what types of evolution exist or how natural selection functions (maybe a result of our ineffective education system on that matter and science on general). That probably makes it confusing as well, since evolution can happen in a variety of ways, and most people don't really know much about genetics.

My favorite source in these situations is:


Misconceptions about evolution

Unfortunately, many people have persistent misconceptions about evolution. Some are simple misunderstandings ideas that develop in the course of learning about evolution, possibly from school experiences and/or the media. Other misconceptions may stem from purposeful attempts to misrepresent evolution and undermine the public's understanding of this topic.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
You may ignore everything after 4:13, if I had felt like it, I'd edit it like that before using it. This is one of the rare videos that I'm somewhat OK with the way things are phrased before 4:13, a rarity (you could remove the word "intelligent" from the term "intelligent design" he uses earlier, it helps with the mental triggers, even though his terminology is not incorrect).

Here are some more things changing over time:

a reply to: whereislogic

Looks like someone is mad at the professor because they flunked the exam they didn't study for.

a reply to: TzarChasm
Which professor, this one? Who is actually Professor Emeritus of Biology:

Or this one, who was a Darwin Prize Visiting Professor and currently professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago:

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”
― James A. Shapiro

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm
Which professor, this one? Who is actually Professor Emeritus of Biology:

Or this one, who was a Darwin Prize Visiting Professor and currently professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago:

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”
― James A. Shapiro

a professor who admits that these processes boggle his mind, therefor it must be intelligent design. It says in the beginning that he does not accept chemical evolution, and then goes on to show a rather crude cartoon of a series of complex chemical reactions. Chemical reactions.

CHEMICAL REACTIONS!!

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm
Which professor, this one? Who is actually Professor Emeritus of Biology:

Or this one, who was a Darwin Prize Visiting Professor and currently professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago:

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”
― James A. Shapiro

a professor who admits that these processes boggle his mind, therefor it must be intelligent design.

No that's not his argument or the argument of the video. It's a well known and described straw man argument though that is actually much more representative of what evolutionary philosophers are arguing regarding chemical evolution a.k.a. abiogenesis (by natural processes, these processes also referred to as chemical evolution or molecular evolution and even chemical evolution followed by biological evolution, yes, wikipedia is doing this, not gonna quote the abiogenesis page again when people can look it up if they really want to deny ignorance). Where the main philosophy and argument is 'we don't know (yet) but Mother Nature did it anyway'; the last part never spelled out clearly after the first part, usually the other way around, first the claim that 'nature found a way', 'nature designed, created, evolved a...(cell membrane for example), etc.', and then when asked for logical detailed conclusive evidence or when asking about the logical gaps in the storyline followed by the 'we don't know yet, but we're getting closer, making great progress', etc. The straw man argument you used comes in variations, another example is given in this video at 0:34:

Quoting you again:

It says in the beginning that he does not accept chemical evolution, and then goes on to show a rather crude cartoon of a series of complex chemical reactions. Chemical reactions.

CHEMICAL REACTIONS!!

Yes, chemical evolution is another terminology for abiogenesis by natural processes alone (only caused by the laws of nature, no intelligent interference). Chemical reactions happen in combustion engines as well, your point?

I refer back to Tzarchasm's comment, perhaps it's more appropiate for you now.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm
Which professor, this one? Who is actually Professor Emeritus of Biology:

Or this one, who was a Darwin Prize Visiting Professor and currently professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago:

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”
― James A. Shapiro

I was referring to Professor's Bill Nye and Stephen Hawking actually at the time that I typed that post. It's also strange that you are still referring to Darwinism when it has been pointed out numerous times that the Darwin model is obsolete and has since evolved into a more accurate model. If you want to discuss Evolution then it should be modern evolutionary synthesis. But I suppose that's assuming you started this exchange with the intent of correcting your misconceptions.

a reply to: whereislogic

Or this one, who was a Darwin Prize Visiting Professor

Cool. How stupid was he? When did he die? What stupid way did he do it?

The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it...

www.darwinawards.com...

a reply to: Phage
You be the judge, cause you like that role so much:

EDUCATION: Harvard College, Sept., 1960-June, 1964
B.A. in English Literature, Magna cum laude
Phi Beta Kappa, 1963

Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, England, Sept.1964-August,1967
Ph.D. in Genetics, October, 1968 (W. Hayes, supervisor)

POSITIONS: Postdoctoral Fellow, August, 1967-August, 1968
Service de Genetique Cellulaire
Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
Prof. Francois Jacob
Jane Coffin Childs Fellowship

Research Fellow, October 1968-June, 1970
Department of Bacteriology and Immunology
Harvard Medical School
Prof. Jonathan Beckwith
Jane Coffin Childs Fellowship

Invited Professor, August, 1970-April, 1972
Department of Genetics
School of Biological Sciences
University of Havana, Cuba

Research Associate, November, 1972-May, 1973
Rosenstiel Basic Medical Sciences Research Center
Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachussetts
Prof. Harlyn Halvorson

Assistant Professor, 1973-1978
Associate Professor, 1978-1982
Professor, 1982-1984
Department of Microbiology
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Visiting Professor, March-April, 1980
Department of Microbiology
Tel Aviv University, Israel

Professor of Microbiology, 1984-1985
Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology
University of Chicago

Professor of Microbiology, 1985-
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Chicago

Darwin Prize Visiting Professor, May-July, 1993
Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology
University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Visiting Fellow, Jan. - June, 2000
Churchill College
Cambridge, England

Source: Curriculum Vitae: James A. Shapiro

a reply to: whereislogic

I can find no information about any "Darwin Prize" only Darwin Awards.

a reply to: Phage
google is your friend, google "James A. Shapiro" when you want to evaluate someone's credentials or level of stupidity. I'm sure James A. Shapiro is capable of figuring that one out, even though being an evolutionary philosopher and philosophical naturalist, one of the most prominent ones actually (a little less known with the general public than Dawkins, still better paid perhaps, if you don't count booksales).

Oh, and don't google and keep on commenting if you want to help me evaluate yours. Allthough I'd use another word than stupidity (which can be rather insulting and that is not the intention of what I just said, neither am I implying you should stop commenting or that I want you to stop), it has a lot more to do with the phrase described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4, 'not putting up with beneficial teaching', i.e. willful continued ignorance (often supported by unreasonable behaviour and commentary).

a reply to: whereislogic
I don't doubt his credentials. It's just that you seemed to emphasize that "Darwin Prize" in your post so I looked it up.

I'm not sure of you point about him though. Are you saying that he is skeptical that evolution occurs?

a reply to: Phage
I was responding to Tzarchasm with:

Which professor, this one?

Do with Shapiro's words whatever you feel like.

a reply to: whereislogic

How about this?

Shapiro integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring.

www.thethirdwayofevolution.com...

That's not evolution? See, he knows evolution happens (because he isn't a fool). He knows that it operates by mutation. He just thinks it works differently than a lot of others do. He's adding (relatively) new science to the mix. Which is *drumroll* science.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm
Which professor, this one? Who is actually Professor Emeritus of Biology:

Or this one, who was a Darwin Prize Visiting Professor and currently professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago:

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”
― James A. Shapiro

I was referring to Professor's Bill Nye and Stephen Hawking actually at the time that I typed that post.

Never took the exam in their field of the "philosophical belief system" that I refer to as philosophical naturalism filled with evolutionary philosophies and myths/false stories. I did study the field. But lost interest upon being told or shown tha't's ok to use the word "nothing" when referring to "something". Here are some other gurus in the same field teaching or demonstrating the same behaviour:

Quoting you:

It's also strange that you are still referring to Darwinism ...

Please quote me on using the word "Darwinism" in this thread. Who used the word again?
Quoting you:

If you want to discuss Evolution then it should be modern evolutionary synthesis.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Phage
I was responding to Tzarchasm with:

Which professor, this one?

Do with Shapiro's words whatever you feel like.

It would appear that Phage is putting them to excellent use.

a reply to: TzarChasm
And I just quickly read this after something seemed fishy on Bill Nye's wikipedia page (I didn't read this on the wikipage, but I'm sure a quick googlesearch of the texts below will lead you there if you're curious):

But check this out. To help prove that Nye is a real scientist, they cited his honorary degrees. You know, degrees that are actually awards and not really degrees at all:
"Nye has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Cornell. He also has six honorary doctorate degrees, including Ph.D.s in science from Goucher College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute."
Sorry, guys, but that’s not how it works. Why not cite any of Nye’s numerous peer-reviewed papers instead?
Oh, that’s right … because he has none. From The Federalist:
"It does not appear that Nye has published a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal of any kind; his chief scientific exploits of the past 20 years or so appear to be tinkering with sundials and making public speaking appearances to talk about how great science is. His most recent high-profile contribution to “science” was to publicly debate a creationist over whether the Earth is 6,000 years old—a functionally useless endeavor, though I’m sure it made for a great Twitter hashtag."
Bill Nye: STILL not a scientist.

Heavily opiniated I'm sure...but I'm sure that a Bill Nye fan like yourself could tell me which degrees he actually studied for, like everyone else who has had to roll up their sleeves and not play the political media propaganda campaign of philosophical naturalism.