Library of Errors | Contested Bones, Preface and Chapter 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лис 2021
- Intro: The Mind Electric by Miracle Musical
www.hawaiipartii.com/
Outro: Point Pleasant by Brock Berrigan
www.brockberrigan.com/
Welcome to Season TWO of the Library of Errors!
Here we look at pseudoscience books, typically Young Earth Creationism Texts, and we examine them for robusticity and accuracy. It ALWAYS goes well.
Today we are beginning Contested Bones, a book aiming to overturn all of human evolution (paleoanthropology) written by a guy with a BS in biology and a Plant Geneticist.
Socials:
gutsickgibbon@gmail.com
@Gutsick_Gibbon
Support the Channel!
/ gutsickgibbon
www.redbubble.com/people/Guts... - Наука та технологія
I'm pursuing a masters in geology, and I can confidently say that rocks are infact hard, not soft. This makes geology a hard science. Thank you for listening to my ted talk.
Best. Talk. Ever!
[Shout from the back of the room] "What about chalk?"
Chalk ? Talc!
@@simongiles9749 Take a baseball sized chunk of chalk and throw it at said offender. They can tell us how "soft" it is after it beams them in the forehead.
I'm not pursuing any degree and I know better than that... Rocks are extremely soft compared to iron or steel or titanium...🤣👿
Sanford/Rupe: Most academics arbitrarily accept human ev without truly studying it
Also Sanford/Rupe: The people who study it don't count
"Neither Sanford nor I possess a PhD in Palaeontology..."
Erica- Nor a Masters nor a BS...
I would have said they both have a lot of BS in the subject if I was Erica. lol
It's a bit of a strange statement to claim most academics haven't studied human evolution.
I would suggest it is very true.
But then why would a professor of Modern History be expected to have a deep understanding of palaeontology?
I find it hard to believe that those studying the natural sciences wouldn't have a good grasp on the subject, though.
It's wonderful to see someone with appropriate education critique this sort of Creationist tripe.
So important. Because to anyone just reading this book without the relevant background it's going to sound like these guys know what they're talking about and are making valid criticisms when in fact they're talking out their ass lol
Erica's great, and I enjoy the fact she's chosen this hobby, but really, her videos are shooting a mouse with an elephant gun; It should be obvious, from speaking to people far less well-credentialed than Erica (or just from looking directly at the evidence), that Creationism is laughably implausible, and evolution is real.
Exactly this. I love debunking videos etc. But I often feel like the people who do them aren't sufficiently educated to properly do it. Erika on the other hand is amazing!!!
Sounds like you're not willing or able to think for yourself. Why not read the work for yourself with an open mind and come to your own conclusions? This youtuber is not open minded. She has massive biases against the view she's 'critiqing' and is extremely unfair to both the authors and their arguments. When it comes to world-view, try this: eat and digest the food for yourself. Don't just eat someone else's vomit. You'll be very surprised, I'm sure. @Captain_Gargoyle
As a plant geneticist working on a PhD, this book hurts me. Population genetics and distribution with plants support evolution, the age of the planet, continental drift, the multiple ice ages. How is Sanford not fully descrideted for being involved in this. Gene guns are fun though.
Hell, 'The Principle of Faunal Succession' in geology even supports evidence of the evolution of plants by the fossil record, and how did he not know about that? There is no way he couldn't of, they're shills.
Plate Tectonics was first proposed by a meteorologist named Alfred Wegener and was rejected by the geologists of his day. To be fair his proposal had a few problems that made it look a bit ridiculous (he thought the plates moved 100x faster than they actually do) but the core parts of his theory were eventually supported by data.
His story is not a common occurrence, but it is an example of someone who upended the paradigm of a scientific field they had no formal training in. That said, his theory was progressing understanding, not trying to regress a field by ignoring all the places evolution works.
He was one of the later proponents of it but it was not invented by him - others (including geologists) had had the idea before. (Though I guess the same can be said for Sanford and Rupe, since creationism isn't exactly new either)
For anyone wondering the absolute banger of an intro song is a part of "The Mind Electric" by Miracle Musical, just so you guys know and can listen to it on your chosen music platforms
33:28 ~ "Young Earth Creationists" is a very cumbersome adjective, so we will refer to them as "Liars".
Netflix could learn a thing or two about producing an award-winning Season 2 so soon after a groundbreaking Season 1...
It's also worth saying that when a scientific consensus is overturned, from within the field or outside of it, it's usually by way of a compelling alternative hypothesis. This is just " are you sure?" in book form
It's "are you sure" with an assertion of biblical inerrancy as the alternative answer.
Are you sure about that?
Cxu vi certas?
18:25 "I cannot think of a single example where a paradigm in science has been completely abandoned by someone who has no training in the field coming in and telling the people who do have training in the field that they are wrong, actually."
This is so well put. I'm going to memorize that and use your exact words whenever someone gives me the "the big picture can only seen from outside" BS.
By the way, since your first appearance on Aron Ra's channel I kept watching your videos, and you still get better and better. Informative, thorough and entertaining. Keep up the great work!
As a layman I chuckled when GG said dude had a BS in biology...
The preface alone made me feel like I need a hot shower to wash off the slime of creationist dishonesty. That being said, I really appreciate the work you put in to expose such ignorance.
I’m a Christian and I feel the same way. Creationists and the lies they tell DO feel like slime
A Christian someone who follows Christ. Was Christ an evolutionist like you? No, he was not. In fact, he CREATED all things in six days as the Bible says. He didn't just allow them to create themselves by doing nothing for a long time. So, you don't follow Christ after all. You follow this ignorant girl. You're not a 'Christian. Not as long as I'm one. @@dancingnature
this book is a prime example of how a too open mind might cause a leak
Rupe and Sanford: We connected the dots
Gutsick: You didn’t connect shit
Rupe & Sanford: We connected them
Reminds me of an xkcd comic "If your scatter plot could be a constellation, your correlation line isn't going to help"
I recently discovered your channel. That intro is a real banger.
I actually chuckled out loud at around 34:00 when the authors of this alleged almost-PhD dissertation complain about big Latin words and announce they’re going to use nicknames. Like big proper smrt science-tist guys do.
"It’s a leg up when it comes to robusticity." Awesome. That made my day. Erica rules.
"...the dinosaur people." That was such a Sheldon Cooper sounding comment. Cracked me up.
Go ahead: be sassy. These guys have it coming.
'They brought a *spoon* to a gunfight'
I have never loved an analogy more.
This was really great. I couldn't read something like that and suss out all the problems with it... And that means vulnerable, impressionable people can't either... It's so great that you do this...
How are you able to see it already. Is it because of some kind of subscription?
@@garrusn7702 Patreon, vidoes are usually shared a little earlier.
@@Sovvyy ahh, thanks
Yeah I'm a patron! And proud of it! Lol 🙂
My chowder head also needs a little help from brilliant minds like this beautiful young lady.
Answering your question around minute 18 about people with no formal training: Michael Farraday was a huge contributor with electromagnetic fields etc and had little formal training. But he didn’t upend anything, just added new ideas. And he’s the only one I can think of.
Concerning outsiders breaking into scientific fields, we may not have a lot of recent examples.
I just thought of 17th century textile merchant Anton van Leeuwenhoek who got into microscopy because of the lenses he made to take closer looks at cloth.
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek made a revolutionary discovery (microbial life), true, but there was no field that could abandon any established paradigms when he entered as an outsider. Based on his discovery he became opposed to the creationist "theory" of spontaneous generation, but while this was the predominant view at the time, it's not like there had been any studies or experts who had done research on that field. You can, especially at a time when science wasn't specialized as it is today, stumble into a new field by accident. But that's not the same as dismissing well established and documented research.
What he did was quite the opposite of Sanford/Rupe: He did research and did not publish any books, instead he shared his observations with authorities and the royal society in letters. Sanford/Rupe published a book without doing any research.
I thought of Wegener. He wasn't a geologist
As human knowledge increases so does specialization, so it makes sense that due to the ever increasing body of knowledge to cover, that there would be less of what we called in the military, "lateral movements", because there is going to need to be more and more people in more and more specialized areas.
Hence why everyone was at one time a "naturalist", and even complete amateurs made some breakthroughs, then there is an increase in specialization and there becomes "astronomers", then there becomes "asto-biologists", then "astro-bio-geneticist" and so on. As knowledge of humanity increases so does specialization. This is not the 17th or 18th century anymore. One can still break into any new field but of course there is usually an offset due to time and experience in the field.
That being said it is far easier for an amateur to learn now what those in the past never knew. But the top standard for any subject will allways be the best educated and most experienced. Leeuwenhoek didn't have the luxury of having free MIT and Yale etc courses online...or You Tube.
Gregor Mendel. He was a monk - and also discoverer of genetic inheritance. For which he is called "Father of genetics."
@@KateeAngel interestingly, another person whose work was really influential in developing continental drift/plate tectonics, Harry Hess, was also not a geologist beforehand
Fantastic.
Thank you for exposing this biased nonsense.
I'm waiting for you to start writing books.
You explain things SO clearly.
It is kinda funny to see Sandford and Rupe leveling the criticism against evolution scientists and paleoanthropologists that they arrive at the conclusions they do because of their bias and pre-conceived notions lol
I find it galling that Chris Rupe, with a bachelor’s degree, considers himself a “biologist.”
I like the one-hour long format. It's ideal to play as audio during a walk outside.
i love the library of errors. it's oddly soothing to listen you debunk the pseudoscience.
You've heard of mansplaining, now get ready for: creationist-splaining
I suspect that their use of the term “ape-men” is (along with a deliberate attempt to devalue the science), another example of copying old usage.
When I was a child (1950,s to 60,s) this term was often used in TV and radio programs and in books for both children and the non-scientific adult population (at least in the U.K.). As a very interested child at this time the human ancestors I. Knew about were: Peking Man, Java Man, Neanderthals and Cro-Mangon (probably spelt incorrectly., I understood that the entire fossil,record for our ancestry would easily fit into a shoe box.
If Sandford/Rupe learned just two things from this video, hopefully it would be:
1) Hominid species are distinguished only by human perception. We make up the names when we see enough differences to say they are different. We are name extinct hominid species as if they are links in a chain, but it's not a chain, it's a rope.
2) Bones they wish to say are from different species came from the same individual. They were articulated when dug out of the ground.
To add one more point, human race is also an artificially created way to view all of humanity. It's a split of a homogenous group that was done for nefarious reasons.
“…it’s not a chain, it’s a rope.” I love that! Did you write it?
@@DocBree13 Yup.
I worked on plant genetics for my Bachelors. (Ironically the species I studied is now regarded as a species group). This is WILD. We have so many fossile records of their evolution that contesting it as someone from 'the field' necessitates you wearing a blindfold.
But I have a theory on what might lead someone focused on plant genetics to doubt things. Plants are incredibly flexible when it comes to changes in their genome and as sessile organisms they have to be. A mobile organism can avoid harmful enviromental factors (sunlight, cold) and can seek out food or watersources. Meanwhile that's not an option if you are stuck where you germinated (not counting certain tropisms as their range is very limited). So plants started amassing a lot of genes, quite literally. Most of them are inactive for most of the time or at least their expression rates are down regulated. This allows for a lot of plasticity of their phenotypes, which can be expressed as need be, according to given growth conditions. Additionally a plant can and will mutate within its lifetime in different parts of its tissues. So you can have two flowers on the same tree, producing gametes with significantly different genes (mostly apparent when the mutated genes had a regulatory effect).
Thinking about it this way... I guess the genomes of plants throw us an unfortunate curveball here. On the surface they can appear like the thing these people describe as microadaptation... but on the other hand we can draw an evolutionary tree of these growing genomes, showing a nice timeline from single cell organisms to highly complex orchids with their obligate symbiosis not only with mycorrhiza but also specific pollinators etc.
Bottom line: how do you do genes and still deny evolution.
Almost all of these adaptations are examples of epigenetiics and not the changing of the DNA. Only one in a thousand changes in a population are caused by mutations
@@mauricedicke9527 I'm not sure what you are referring to, since epigenetics describes the activation or inactivation of certain genes under given circumstances - which is something I referenced in my post. But this is just the regulation, it doesn't speak to the amount of genome and the way it evolved? To regulate genes you must first have them in your genome, i.e. mutate or aquire them via horizontal gene transfer... which is what I'm talking about. They have these huge genomes with a lot of room for plenty phenotype variations... but those were not put there by a godly spark, they had to evolve.
I literally don't know what you are pointing at, I'm sorry. But if you are interested to learn about the complexity of plant genomics I'd recommend you read up on something like "Duplicate and diverge: the evolution of plant genome microstructure" [Ian Bancroft, 2001]. It's an older study but he gives a nice overview why plant genomics are so darn fiddly to figure out.
@@Kenghym I am referring to a study: Another look at Darwin’s finches
by Rebecca Phillips.
Another study: DNA Study Shows Why Neanderthals, Modern Humans Are So Different by Sharon Begley
In these studies they explain that epigenetic is the main reason for the adaptation and not mutations. The information is already present in the DNA but the epigenetic switches turns genes on or off
@@mauricedicke9527 And where did these genes come from? I'm just trying to figure out your core argument right now.
I also don't understand how this relates to my comment. I was talking about plant genetics, since one of the authors has that backround as do I. Plant genetics are different from animal genetics, since their reproductive strategies and needs as sessile organisms make them very different from us. The complexity and especially the trend towards bigger genomes in plant genomes, would make it easier to assume regulation (including but not limited to epigenetic modifications) as the only factor relevant to speciation. This could lead to creationism sounding less impossible, even to someone who should know better. As unfortunate as that is.
I really don't see how your comment relates to this, but you cite animal studies and I'm happy to admit that I'm not in the loop when it comes to animal genetics. I'll have look over these later to maybe pick up on the connection.
@@mauricedicke9527 Nevermind - the things you are citing are articles about these topics, not studies. I get the impression you are interested in STEM but not working in the field?
I don't mean to offend you but I don't think you understand what I'm talking about and that's fine - I've spend many years of my life to make this my job, afterall.
Epigenetics isn't something I'm unaware of. Every biologist knows about these mechanisms and molecular bio (i.e. my field) is where we try to figure out how and why and most of all when the genes are packed or unpacked i.e. made avaliable for translation.
But I appreciate the effort!
Gotta be honest I didn't immediately clock that this was a creationism book and I really thought we were gonna have a fun time with Erika talking about a book that one of the tiktok bone stealers had written
GG: They brought a spoon to a gunfight
My brain: *Razormind starts playing*
What an absolute delight landing on this channel. Instant subscription.
Yay, a Gorillaz poster! [memory fragments from a mis-spent youth flash up]
I've really grown to enjoy these comprehensive dismantling of poor science vids that GG and Aron Ra have been doing recently. Can anyone recommend any others doing this kind of thing?
Forrest Valkai is another science teacher making debunking videos of YEC inanities.
Thank you for how you do these readings. It's informative when you're dealing with a contrast like this. It exposes me to much new material in the context of how it progressed from older material, as well as how it is being misrepresented. The dynamics of your "infopology" is quite enjoyable, not to mention your clever animations and the music you use. Again, absolutely love the intro. Just noticed the poster of Murdoc behind you. Cool.
As a plant taxonomist, that "making taxonomic distinctions based on common sense" was extremely offensive and cringy. How on Earth does the plant genetics guy do any of his work with such a basic misunderstanding of taxonomy?
I am amazed at how quickly and willingly these graduate fellows throw away so many years of study and research just to try and prove their pseudoscientific creationist claims.
Picture a person standing next to the Empire State Building. That scale shows the difference in funding between science education and creationist apologetics. Never underestimate the allure of big money.
The dishonesty of "religionists" is astounding, especially considering that they want to be considered as having the "moral high ground".
I really love your intro animation/song, it suddenly just becomes the rhythm for the rest of my day
Thank you, this is super fun so far and, well, seems crazy promising. And it looks like Roe might fucking implode, I can use the smile.
I share your outlook. Any smile at the expense of people who believe that our earth is only 6000 years old, and also want to outlaw abortion, is something to be savored right now. Taking away women's rights to control their reproductive system goes hand in hand with biblical literalism. Sharing a laugh at their expense is better than sharing tears at their forcing their values on our entire society.
Had to edit to include the statement that, biblical values should never be an acceptable basis for the creation of any laws in our country. Separation of church and state means no church doctrine can be used for any law that all citizens must follow. I don't agree that abortion is murder, as the anti abortion people would define it. After conception it's a fertilized egg, not a human citizen of the U.S..
All of those anti abortion states have poor track records with caring for either children, mothers, general health care and also have high rates of poverty and poor education
been excited for season two! can't wait to see the rest
This is so fascinating. I'm enjoying it so much. Your critique adds such depth to my understanding of our evolution. Thank you for taking the time.
Omg, you're actually doing this? that's amazing, I'll definitely be hooked on this series!! I am very very grateful for you doing this, so I don't have to. :)
When you said when some of the quotes they used originated I burst out laughing. Pretending that something that was said almost 60 years ago is relevant for ANY scientific field today is absolutely bonkers :'D
I can't sing your praises enough. You are doing Gaia's work.
The color gradient analogy is really good.
Love this series and your content.
Wow. I missed season 1 but I'm strapped in for season 2!
Love this style of critique.
Reminds me of the YEC book "Bones of Contention" written by a dentist about 30 years ago.
MAGNIFICENT IN DEPTH PRESENTATION!!! I love this type of complete explanation.
I must admit I subscribed yo tour channel a few months ago, and hadn't actually watched anything.(I had watched the episode of Ham and Aig News with you in it.) However in the last week or so I've started watching your channel, and I love the longform style. Glad to watch!
Creationists are telling lies for God
We should tell it as it is
Keep up the great work
been watching your videos for a month or so and I've been going through your debates on MDD. your constitution and patience is legendary. the hovind, SFT and neph debates are great watches
I often see an interesting topic and skip the video if it's more than 10 min; but when I see one of your videos that are under an hour I feel like i got a cookie with a bite out of it. MORE MORE MORE!
Very happy to see this series getting started today. Thanks!
The way you speak, is really fun to listen to...
Bring on the "sassy", with no apologies
A very "sassy" season....Love it! And love your presentation!! Keep it coming.
Here for the sassy season! Learn a lot from your videos.
Man, it took long enough for algorithm to send me here but finally. Now a new subscriber. I look forward to listening to more of your videos.
Hey, I wanted to let you know, your UA-cam channel really helped internalize a lot of physical anthropology for me. I'm not a good student (multiple withdrawals, failed one, maybe two courses in college), but I have a high B (I think) in my freshman Phys Anthro class bc of that intro video and your dedication to making this content approachable.
I shared your channel with my professor bc she seems to be trying to keep that same image, and I think she might like it too.
Anyway, just wanting to make sure you get that positive grateful comment today right before I take my final. Thanks again!
I love the content but my favourite part is seeing the new members on the list. Well done.
Ugh your intro is just so good!
This series is going to be good!
...Wow, what have I been missing with these series!
You are a wonderful science communicator! Keep up the good work.
I really love the end part where you so *forcefully and emphatically* explain the gradient details within the Australopithecus genus and the Homo genus. That really nails how the reductionist view of S&R is not accurate. Thanks for being so good at explaining all of this! You are amazing!
Oh, I'm gonna really enjoy this! I totally loved your first deep dive into a book, so I'm sure I'll love this one, too. Thanks, Erika!
LOL, the "brought a spoon to a gunfight" line just made me clearly remember the Doctor having a sword battle with a spoon... and winning! 😄 ❤❤
I love the intro/outro on these music on these vids...
...and everything between as well
Season 2: Contested Boogaloo
Great intro! I am really looking forward to learning real science with you in this series!
RJ Downard has a YT. series on this too, also recommend his book, "Evolution slam dunk" in relation to this subject, and can't go wrong with reading "The Rocks were there" too.
What is his channel?
@@whatabouttheearth ua-cam.com/video/2ETDsQ6OohU/v-deo.html
@@brianstevens3858 Between lucky lemurs and gutsick gibbons creationists are completely overmatched in their battle of wits.
@@davebeach2343 I don't even think it is a contest, since creationists are outwitted by themselves, I mean just how much of a witling does one have to be to be outwitted by a presupositionalist?
@@brianstevens3858 congratulations for using witling and presupositionalists together in one comment. I absolutely love the english language and it's ability to make such subtle insults that people don't realize they've been insulted until after you leave.
"Because paleoanthropologist is a mouthful..."? This is a book, right? This suggests to me that the author's target audience are people that mouth the words while reading.
🤣🤣🤣👍
All that YEC leaders do, no matter how sophisticated the window dressing, is set out to sustain the deception that the YEC flock is already indoctrinated by. These books are meant to create the illusion that there is a real debate. Their target is not science minded people, it is their own flock and those in society who are uneducated about the science and may lean their way.
Make no mistake about it, they are not trying to present arguments, they are systematically sustaining indoctrination in the specific YEC ideology.
They are intentionally lying to their flock, not us. In a way that's even more shady.
My day has been made better. Your review and absolute destruction of their work has been an enjoyable journey.
“They brought a spoon to a gunfight.” I love it🤣🤣🤣
You stated that you were going to show pictures of the different baboon species in question, then i guess you forgot to do so. Was looking forward to seeing them. I could look them up myself to be sure. Enjoyed your analysis.
I saw Aron Ra used you in a recent video. I let out a w00t when it happened. Keep up the good work, dude.
Great stuff! 👍🕵
Thanks Erika! 🤗🤗🤗🖖
Hey Gutsick Gibbon, I ran across you from a different channel, don't remember off hand which one. (Logicked, Suris, Aron Ra Paulogia possibly) Anyhow, decided to subscribe.
l just saw something in my feed you did with Godless Engineer. I have talked with him, and I'm planning to watch that one next. Just so you know, I used to be a young earth creationist, so I know the mindset.
@ 11:29 It' amazing to me how creationists conflate evolutionary biology all the way back to the Big Bang, Nucleosynthesis, and Abiogenesis. None of which are covered under Evolutionary Biology.
About 22 years ago, I had a mudskipper as a pet. That little fish was wonderful. I used to have the fish in my hand and tell people I was taking my fish for a walk. Those little guys meet the very definition of transitional.
@ 13:50 And people thought the "Planet of the Apes" was science fiction.
You know the thing in science fiction/fantasy about pointed ears? Yes, that's a thing. One of my co-workers had pointed ears, and would have needed no prosthetics to play an elf or a Vulcan. I told her that, and she told me she got so much teasing about it that she was ashamed of it. I mean really? One of the things I admired about her, she got hate over. How sad is that.
This book gives "Me play smart, but big words hurt brain!" vibes.
\ o / More Library of Errors!
Just discovered your channel through Ben Stanhope. Really enjoy your content! Think you’ll ever do a video on Isbell’s snake detection hypothesis or the hypothesis that primates originate from Indo-Madagaskar?
"Have you SEEN the dinosaur people interact??"
Haha oh man, this took me places. Solid gold content.
We need to have a virtual party when you get your PhD. I’ve never met you, but I wanna wear a silly hat and clap for you. It’s so delightful when someone with so much specific knowledge can communicate it to laymen.
There are times when a fresh set of eyes can bring a different perspective for how to solve or view a problem, my dad has had that a few times with accounting, and I have had that with my work, but I can't think of something on the order of debunking evolution, a massive paradigm shift where the whole field of study must vanish overnight. Maybe at most, you could get someone to come up with something like punctuated equilibrium, something that shifts how you look at the main thing, not the thing itself.
And even then, an outsider would only be able to give the idea, maybe even only inspiration, not debunk an old concept, not flesh out the details of the new concept, etc.
Thanks for another great video!
Never omit the great intro
I can think of a few examples of people outside a field having good ideas, and no, I can't cite sources.
1) In the early days of cell biology the biologist were having a hard time working out how cells worked - they were looking at animal cells and being confused as animal cells are quite complicated. It was suggested by some physicists that they look at bacterium first instead as simple things are easier to understand and physicists are lazy and don't want to do more work than they have to. - I was told this by my high school physics teacher, so it may be biased.
2) An entomologist made a breakthrough in maths/computing science by using ants as a way to solve a problem.
3) Noted Children's author, WW2 Flying Ace and possible Spy, Roald Dahl invented the Wade-Dahl-Till cerebral shunt with no real expertise in the field, although how much of it was actually done by him is a question for the experts.
So, outsiders having good ideas does happen, but probably not in the field of Christian Fundamentalists overturning Evolution.
Wow, very good series.
Well worth the wait!
Excellent. Thank you. Amazing how much can be learned about real evolution from debunking these Creationist texts.
Can't wait.
I still have a lot of my old books. The lie evolution and "Bones of Contention" I'm not strong enough yet to go through them again. I'll just watch your stuff and learn that way. I think if I throw them all out, I couldn't cope with it. Don't know what that's all about. 😁
Ex Pentecostal here, Yep, I get ya.
I still have a lot of my books... I don't read them. But one day.... I'll give them another read with a more critical mind.
Put on the full armor of Gaia 😄, study for years, and than go through them. I rather use the time studying science than reading some of my old christian books from when I was a kid or those my family give me. But it's good to sharpen ones sword against deception, charlatans, psuedoscience and logical fallacies, so maybe one day.
I haven't even seen this. But it's a great video!
Love the shorthand names - because we can't be bothered to use the full names.
I admit as a bio major something I have wanted to ask many creationists and it kinda releates to the species problem is if Autotrophic and Heterotrophic protists are the same kind. Then again thinking about it I am not neccsarily sure what a protist is from a creationist view in the first place... they mention them a lot but I am not sure they really have thought about it that much
I always ask which species is separately created because mitochondria and chloroplasts are evolved eubacteria that live with the rest of the eucaryotic cell.
@@dancingnature There's no universe in which a creationist accepts endosymbiosis theory, which is a shame for them because it's one of the many little aspects of biology that's honestly fascinating and weird.
Absolutely love your content friend
Love your videos and personality!
Ericka, regarding your statement at 18:25 , I can think of one example where a paradigm wasn't overturned, but a new one was suggested. I speak of course of Alfred Wegener. Wegener was a meteorologist, not a geologist. Yet he published On The Origins Of Continents And Oceans in 1915 in which he proposed contintental drift. Geologists at the time scoffed, but as we all know, sea-floor spreading was verified in the 1950s (using magnetic data from mid-ocean ridges) and by the 1970s the term plate tectonics was coined by J. Tuzo Wilson. While it is true that others after Wegener did the hard work in developing plate tectonics, I think it's fair to say Wegener at least got the ball rolling.
I’m so readyyyy
Well we know where the flat earthers get their schtick from. They are basically saying “historical science” isn’t proper science because we can’t manipulate the variables they think we should be manipulating.
They think that science being "repeatable" means repeating the entire process in nature ... including the Big Bang.
@@rickmartin7596 some of them are slightly more nuanced but that is essentially right.
Always reassuring when a scientist claims to have previously been a committed "evolutionist"
I have a whole lotta respect for you going through this. But I can't it's too painful......