Reviewing a Young Earth Creationist Paper on Hominins
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 бер 2022
- Sources:
Wood & Sinclair
assets.answersresearchjournal...
Wood
answersresearchjournal.org/cl...
Dembo et al.
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Intro: The Mind Electric by Miracle Musical
www.hawaiipartii.com/
Outro: Point Pleasant by Brock Berrigan
www.brockberrigan.com/ - Наука та технологія
“Don’t blame me if it’s too technical, *you* clicked on the video.” Awesome
I loved this! 😆 Yes, we knew what we were getting into. No one to blame but ourselves!
Am I the only one that watches the intro all the way through in every video? It's so cute and the song is amazing. I have cried several times during the, "Someone help me understand what's going on inside my mind!" Due to having several things on my mind at the time lol. I dunno, I just really love the animation and song. That's all.
You're not alone. We don't tolerate intro skippers here
Far from the only one.
100% not alone! ☺️
It's just too good
It’s my favorite intro of all the channels I subscribe to
Gibbers, I just wanted to let you know that there aren't a lot of people on earth who are as decent and reasonable as you seem. I'm really glad to be on your team.
Tsk tsk! She might ramble cutely, but she does NOT gibber...
@@leeshackelford7517
😆
@@leeshackelford7517 on my planet, gibbers is our form of money. We also eat them. Basically, just picture reeses pieces. That's actually what they are, we just call them gibbers there, IDK why.
@@domecrack which planet? Melmac?
@@leeshackelford7517 Ork.
Creationist calls out Erica for picking picking low hanging fruit.
Mildly amusing if you think about it
every creationist is a low hanging fruit
people like kent are just under the ground low
Let’s be kind and be better modern primates
@@DocLucas77 sigh, you take the fun out of life.......those chimps throwing feces around, look to be having so much fun
Hahaha
You know, Erika actually copped to the accusation and took it as an impetus to give a deeper read. Assuming she’s being sincere (why not assume that?), why would you try one-upping her response by being snarky about it?
New subscriber here, born again christian, steadily shedding those beliefs as I study more of the sciences (and applying a bit of common sense). Your videos are helpful and crammed with good info. Im 54, so there is a lot of indoctrination to shake loose.
47 here and it's been a life long process!
That's ashame for the both of you, you two are being deceived just as the woman was in the Garden of Eden. Did you all forget Satan is the father of all lies, a murderer from the beginning and he roams the earth seeking whom he may devour?
You guys are falling into a man idealized theory, which is by his own defining terms false.
Check the definitions of scientific theory and scientific method scientists like the word empirical too.
ALL of them no matter what fancy words chosen lead back to observable, repeatable and measurable.
All of nonbelievers science is called scientific yet the Big Bang Theory was never observed, repeated or measured.
Neither was the evolution theory.
To get you started;
Theory
Noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Supposition
Noun
an uncertain belief.
So when was either the Big Bang Theory or the Evolution Theory become fact.
Neither has been proven because it was NEVER observed, repeated or measured. Don't fall for the deception of Satan the father of all lies, the one like a lion seeking to deceive and devour, a murderer.
@@darinb.3273 I wonder if you understand science at all? There are no “facts” in science “facts” are for math not science. Theory is the highest form of science there is. And just to be fair evolution has been proven over and over. However I won’t be that person who just shouts at you online. You are perfectly welcome to believe whatever you like. I only ask that you do as you ask others to do. Read! It is the most fundamental thing in the human experience. Also when others are changing their views please be kind and let them find there own way.
@@darinb.3273 - Funny. In the Bible, Satan never lies. God does. But do go on. I think the invention of the myth of Satan is human beings not wanting to be responsible for the dumb things they do.
You don't understand what science is or how it works.
Edit: typo.
@@darinb.3273 Yes, always blame the woman for being ignorant or sinful....it's going to continue to be a solid argument as society progresses.
The full fossil record to color gradient chart analogy was on point.
It’s such a good analogy. People have tried to explain it to Kent Hovind types but it just sails over their head.
@@jonathan4189 heh, all things do
I'm not sure if I hear incorrectly during the introduction or if it was scripted, but calling creationist "literature" *_blitherature_* is now my new favorite thing.
Im 8 years out of a bachelors of science degree and this is the first time someones shown me how to actually read a scientific journal. I learned a lot watching this.
For what it is worth, Wood was instrumental in my process of abandoning “biblical creationism”. His attempt to define the “human kind” created several conclusions that went up against my preconceived ideas, but they were well thought out. However when his YEC peers critiqued his position, they seldom dismissed him with any scientific arguments. This further cemented the idea that if I was going to remain a YEC, I was probably going to have to accept Australopiths as part of the human kind or accept that “kind” has no real meaning scientifically. I ended up just accepting both and abandoned YEC.
I'm not sure someone forcing apes into an obligatory bipedal morphology even counts as creationism. That would lead to weird things counting as creationism, such as Hindu Rishis cursing people to be reborn as animals (souls born in lower bodies retain their own advancement, even changing body form, which is Hinduism's way of explaining why talking animals are a thing) counts as creationism.
This is the typical evolutionist argument from ignorance. There is a bunch of skulls no one really knows what the came from or what they looked like with skin on them and yet when the creationists says they don't know for sure or you disagree with it, then all the evidence for creation is thrown out. Mean while the evolutionists doesn't know, speculates and one thinks that the evolutionists is right because they agree with the speculation. When the reality is, no one can know.
The problem with your dismissal of YEC and this video is that is an argument from ignorance. It is fallacious. No speculation of explanation makes anything true or not true. Evolution only speculates. The Bible is an observed record. Creation happened by the reason of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
@@notstayinsdowns Creationists by definition cannot say they don't know. And YEC contradicts any fossil of a non-living organism or any organism extinct or extant that does not serve a significant advantage to humans.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana ,
Explain your claims because just saying it doesn't make it true.
do you expect one know all the knowledge God has?
Are you saying you didn't read the Bible part about man falling?
It seems your arguments are from ignorance not facts.
@@notstayinsdowns I would phrase it differently, myself. Creationists generally claim to have knowledge. When asked about abiogenesis, a science will likely say I don't know. A creationist will not. And that makes sense. Creationism is the belief that life (the Earth, universe, etc.) was created by some greater power. As such, it is, by definition, a claim to knowledge, just not all knowledge.
I can not see any scenario where YEC's don't start with an outcome and look for evidence which only fits their preestablished biases. The advantage of 'conventional' science (that hurt to type) is that it uses the preponderance of evidence to establish conclusions.
I hate to say it, but such a bias is both human and extremely prevalent in science.
@@thelaughinghyenas8465 True, but it is typically weeded out and always discouraged.
@@ryandavis9879 Discouraged, yes. Weeded out? No, especially when the author is famous. See Jack Horner's work trying to prove that T Rex wasn't a hunter for example. It slips through far more than it should.
The projection is strong with YECs too. That’s there number one attack: “you just force evidence to fit your religion of evolution.”
It’s so cringe. 😬
@@thelaughinghyenas8465 this is very true but in science we do attempt in principle to combat rather than uphold conflation bias.
As usual a model lesson in how to conduct scientific discourse. We are privileged to have GG, are we not?
YEC "peer review" = "My friend read it."
No matter how well meaning (some) creationists are, creationism (biblical and/or otherwise) cannot be defended honestly....
Google ' you owe your life to a rock'; evolution cannot be accepted as being correct
Never mind the other guy. Christians believe we were made from dirt as well. From dust we were made, to dust we return.
@@davidbarnes1563 evolution is the core principle in biology and all the life sciences and is observed every day all over the world. Obviously, it's real.
What do you think people who work in fields like *evolutionary medicine* do every day at work? Play video games?
@@davidbarnes1563 I know, right?! Goo to You is just so far-fetched. Magical Mud to Man is the only reasonable position....lol
@@davidbarnes1563 Google 'you owe your life to a rock'
Either that, or you could just do honest, actual research and learn something 👍
I was hoping to talk about “homonyms” like young earth creationists did in a previous video Erika showed… but hominins are cool too
Sorry, we were thinking of the other kind of hominin
@@nft639 Yeah, your other left, right?
She better talk about the Tibula of the Homonyms
Given that a lot of creationist trolls make the common their/there/they're and your/you're errors* a lot, it'd be fitting.
(*Above and beyond the kind you get when you let your phone's autocorrect do the heavy lifting)
@@simongiles9749 ,
Yeah, everyone makes those mistakes. Sad you will try to make it one group's issue.
Oh, to live in a world where all creationists were intellectually honest. Imagine if all the Hovinds in the world were replaced with people that make an honest attempt to learn terminology and are willing to note the gaps in their own data.
Anyway, have a comment for the algorithm, Gibs. I've only recently come across your channel and I've been enjoying the archive binge.
A couple of things must happen to get the brain gears of a stuck-on-stupid YEC rolling again.
First, they have to abandon the Gawd of the Gaps Fallacy.
Simply saying "Gawddidditt" is a thought stopper, and just a lazy answer.
Secondly, they have to face the facts put in front of them.
And thirdly, and probably the most difficult, deal with their fear of death.
We all fear death, which is to say nobody wants to die.
Practically the only way for that to happen is in a hypothetical world where creationism is true. Of course, the same people would deny that in that world, because all they want is an excuse to justify their other beliefs.
What dishonesty? You claim speculation is fact. How is that honest? Creationists show facts while you just deny them for your speculation. This video only argues disagreement with the creationists on things no one knows. It is an argument from ignorance. Over an hour wasted on a fallacious argument.
@@kinglyzard ,
creationists don't use God of the gaps. That is what you were told so you would ignore the facts creationists have that destroy evolution. Everything you mentioned is propaganda to fool you not us. I see it worked.
@@notstayinsdowns Creationists have no facts.
The color gradient analogy was very helpful in visualizing the concept. Thanks
As a PhD drop out, I admire your tenacity. You got this!
@@udhehfhehcuw9169 In my instance, no, since I have subsequently completely changed life directions. I was going in religious studies, and now I'm a librarian.
Not a drop out you just valued your sanity, LOL
Fellow grad school drop out, I wholeheartedly agree! Both one of the best and worst experiences of my life. That said, I do love seeing awesome people like Erika succeed. And in Erika’s case, she doesn’t seem to be simply succeeding, she’s excelling at her research _and_ being a world-class science communicator!
They'll do anything to try to tell the world, that the world is only 6,000 years old or 10,000 years old when they need to move the goalposts.
And it doesn't occur to them that, just like in football, it's hard to score the extra point when you've moved the goalpost.
Because Anglican Archbishops are infallible, but only when you need to support your made up BS. Somehow they foam at the mouth that the actual infallible Pope of the Catholics has accepted Evolution and has actually pardoned Galileo for debunking Genesis' Solid Sky holding the cosmic waters.
It's such a ludicrous claim they have to use desperate measures, I bet they wish they hadn't chosen such a stupid hill to die on.
@@dogwalker666 nononono....they didn't pick that hill.......it poofed up after they picked that spot...
Just like per them, and their idea that all the highest mountains poofed up after the flood
@@leeshackelford7517 oh I see lol.
Killer video, as usual. Love the honesty and openness you started with. Saying that you do tend to go for lower fruit, as it were, and admitting fault in reading up carefully before engaging with the author speaks to your character. Also, speaking about your respect for the opponents puts a really different weight on the rest of the video going forward.
VIDEOGRAPHER'S NOTE: You should set your camera's focus and then turn off autofocus if you're just going to sit in front of the camera. The autofocus keeps trying to focus on the microphone, then back to you, then back to the mic.
Whenever the bible is involved, it's all low-hanging fruit.
This is my new favorite video that you’ve put out. It was so good I sent it to my Old Earth Creationist mother with no explanation because none was needed. Keep it up.
You should totally make a video of just your intro animation and song. I literally keep coming back just to see it! It makes me unreasonably happy for no clear reason. 😂
Keep it up!
I love your videos, Erika. I'm subscribed and never miss a video. I wish I was half as smart as you are.
I wish I was half as smart as someone half as smart as her.
Cool! I can learn both how to refute Creationists and more about our ancestry. 😁
So when you’re saying ancestry, you’re saying you’re related to strawberries, fish and bananas?😂
I'm glad you are doing this & taking those YECs who want to be taken seriously, seriously. Good on you!
Great video and by all means don't be afraid to get technical. I can always pause the video and look into things I don't know or understand.
Why would a gibbon go for the low hanging fruit? You're arboreal.
Variety is the spice of life?
She needs the exercise of ground to treetop to ground to treetop......and picks fruit as she nears it?
She's making a smoothie, and already has mangoes, bananas and oranges...and thought berries and some pineapple might be a nice addition?
This has been an excellent experience watching you set out what your opinions are on this paper, its use of potentially problem data sets, and what their conclusions were. I also appreciate the transcript, and the links to further reading, too. You help us understand what to be looking for when looking at these scientific papers, and I appreciate that quite a lot. 😊
Every one of the science content creators I consider my favorites always include any helpful links to further reading, when they cover papers like this, and you are in that group! I got spoiled with Anton Petrov always including links to the papers he covers, so when I found you, and you do the same, I immediately liked your channel, and you. 😁😊
Thank you for what you do. You are a bright, articulate, enthusiastic, and passionate woman that I know will accomplish a lot in her chosen field. I have strong evidence to back up that opinion, too from all of the videos I've watched you in! 😊❤❤👏🏼👏🏼🖖🏼🙂
Technical? Yes. But still digestible by layman standards. Well done.
Loved this as always. I appreciate your willingness to present more technical content. Are we going to see the next chapter of 'Contested Bones' soon?
Hahaha..thx for asking
Cool video idea. I dig the peer review concept like you did here. Could even do non YEC papers, cause your way of explaining stuff makes it digestible and easy to understand 🤘🏻🤘🏻
Erika the Blue- let me just begin by saying thanks for all you've taught this old autodictat (some college). I haven't been this 'at sea' since I was a teen reading hegel and heidegger. But I've never seen how peer review 'works' but I now see why it's a team effort. I will have to go through the video several more times until something sinks in. Thanks again for all the hard work and research. Jim the Perplexed
I keep hearing about Gutsick Gibbon and man… she had me at that opening animation. That’s charming AF. Subscribed.
Well this was nice to get from YECs. Appreciate the degree of work done by these dudes, but you have some very strong points as always Erika. Hope to see more like this in the future, though I do love the memes.
@Gutsick Gibbon ,
Thank you for making a nice, well balanced video. You did crush their paper in your detailed peer review, but you did it respectfully, with explanation and without ridiculing their religious beliefs. I do have one request. *Please equalize your microphone audio across both the left and right audio channels.* For those of us who are hearing impaired and listening with headphones, having only one channel makes it a lot harder to sit back and enjoy your work.
This was outstanding! Rigorous and detail, but well-explained; a professional critique that still expresses respect and gives credit where it's due. I wish this was more common between the two stances in public discourse. Thank you.
Did ya'll see the (edited) "Darwins dangerous idea" biographical documentary AronRa put on his channel? If not, it's definitely worth it!
Yes! Fascinating stuff! His previous debunking of the John and Jane video showed excerpts from it... I was wondering where those came from.
Shouldn't the argument for creationism require all these fossils species to appear in the fossil record at the same time?
That's what creationists always claim about the Cambrian explosion. They all appeared "suddenly" as the creationists claim in one day. It's one of their stock in trade Lies for Jesus.
According to these idiots: pre-flood, yes, post-flood, no.
56:00 that's the problem creationists always had.. they have to define the word "kind" narrow enough so that humans and other great apes aren't in the same family, but then the number of kinds explode because humans and other hominins or even great apes, aren't that different. that creates problems for them like: the ark is too small to have carried such a huge number of kinds xD (not that the story would be credible without that problem xD).
They would lump alligators and crocodiles in the same kind, though they are more genetically distant to each other than we are to Orangutans.
Go figure...
THis is your misunderstanding how genetics works. There is no need to define kind in a "narrow" fashion because kind is those that can breed with each other or those that come from those that have breed with each other in the past. The DNA patterns are the same. There is only variation in basically color and size.
Extreme variation that prefer those that are closer to their size or isolated some how is named a different species. It is total lack of understanding of genetics when one thinks these had to be on the ark.
There is no problem with the ark story. it is a problem with you lack of education.
@@kinglyzard ,
Genetic differences by variation of alleles as compared to variation of different body types is a logical fallacy of comparison. It is like saying a ford Mustang is a Chevy because it has more in common with a Camero then it does with a Ford Truck.
@@notstayinsdowns "or that have breed with each other in the past" so close yet so far.
@@phantomstarsx9343 ,
No one has seen any thing birth something with new anatomy. And you will deny it can happen and will disprove evolution but that is what has to happen to prove evolution happened. Do don't observe that. ever.
But I knew someone that doesn't understand genetics would say what you did. It would also require new alleles and DNA to have formed.
I could watch your work all day.
This old intro is good but the oreopithicus to homo sapian montage in the new one just rips my heart out each time. Thank you for doing this!!!!
I was impressed when Peter said he needed to develop his model rather than attack evolution. But looking at hominid fossils, ERV's and pseudogenes, his enterprise is akin to mapping out the isotopes of phlogiston.
I don't know if you are familiar with the AiG paper submission guidelines, but it's worth a read. They call it "Instructions to Authors Manual
" and it's easy to find in google. Here is the relevant section:
VIII. Paper Review Process
Upon the reception of a paper, the editor-in-chief will follow the procedures below:
A. Notify the author of the paper’s receipt
B. Review the paper for possible inclusion into the ARJ review process
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper
offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, younguniverse alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the
origins debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative
interpretation of Scripture? If necessary, refer to the following: R. E. Walsh, 1986. “Biblical
Hermeneutics and Creation.” In Proceedings First International Conference on Creationism,
vol. 1, 121-127. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
Remark:
The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above
criteria or if it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals
outlined in its statement of faith. The editors play a very important initial role in preserving a
high level of quality in the ARJ, as well as protecting AiG from unnecessary controversy and
review of clearly inappropriate papers
As this makes very clear, they aren't interested in unbiased well founded research. They are building a library of highly biased work that specifically supports their agenda. This is the opposite of science.
So more evidence, if more evidence were needed, that AIG are in the business of positively promoting their YEC ideology above ANY and ALL scientifically validated evidence. 👍👍👍
@@budd2nd Yes, it's fairly blatant right there in their own documentation.
@@avi8r66
Yep. I 100% agree with you. At this point they should just come out with it and say -
“I don’t care what the facts are. I want to continue to believe, what I want to believe. I am happy to ignore reality, just because it’s comforting and simple to me. I also want to keep reality AWAY from other people. If that involves lying and bending to truth, then I’m okay with that too.”
@@budd2nd A friend of mine got annoyed with my occasional mention of atheism on facebook so he challenged me on it when I was at his house... after a few drinks ... I asked if this was really a discussion he wanted to have, yes it was. Ok, lets do it. I asked if he could tell me the problem with the following: "The bible is true because it's the word of God. God is real because the bible says so." He said Yeah, I know it's circular but it's what I believe. So... they know it's flawed, they know it's fiction, but they have 1 fact locked in their brain that God is a real thing and if they want to go to heaven they need to dismiss their doubts and just believe.
As a person with a theological PhD., their insistence that proper hermeneutics demands a young earth model is spurious. To start with, their interpretation that the Hebrew word for earth in Gen. 1:1 must mean the ‘planet earth’ is dead wrong. It assumes a world view perspective not current to the culture that produced the text, one that understands what ‘planets’ and the solar system are.
Very interesting, thank you for sharing your time and knowledge.
Yeah, this channel is a unlikely success story given the anti-intellectual climate, but then it's kinda because of that. We love it , love to see you having fun as well.
This was a great and fun "peer review " style video. They should be proud of this work and I agree this is much much more than I've seen most YEC or even theists in general do to try to prove their case. Everyone here please continue what you are doing.
why don't you actually view creation sites and see what they have to say before you claim it is more then what creationists do when you haven't looked?
@@notstayinsdowns you got links to similar papers you think I've missed or are you just here to say "you didn't look hard enough" ?
@@thatgayvillain3234 ,
I don't know what papers you are talking about but it doesn't matter. Why do you go looking for it like you did for this video?
My point is you made a claim but you didn't ever look up the other side.
@@notstayinsdowns my "claim" was that this was the most I have seen and YEC or theist do to prove their case.... that is a fact that I have not seen this much work from that side before. You are now claiming that means I haven't tried but you have no reason to think I haven't read theistic arguments and such before. Me saying something is the best so far is not saying that something is the only attempt so far...
@@thatgayvillain3234 ,
And I am saying it is because you don't look for YEC or theistic work. I do have reason because I know it is out there.
At the end of the day if you believe in a dirt man created through a golem spell and a ribbed woman. I don’t care about any argument after that.
Hahaha...another fan of Aron Ra....nice.
@@leeshackelford7517 I didn’t say anything about Aron Ra. I’ve read the Bible multiple times over a 20 year period. Say what you will but according to Genesis “god” created Adam from dirt and “breathed the breath of life in him”. That’s a golem spell. Eve was created from his rib. So dirt man and ribbed woman. If you are biblical literalists that is what it says. Period.
@@leeshackelford7517
A golem (/ˈɡoʊləm/ GOH-ləm; Hebrew: גּוֹלֶם, gōlem) is an animated anthropomorphic being in Jewish folklore which is entirely created from inanimate matter (usually clay or mud).
@@joelmouton9365 egads, I know exactly what the fuck one is
Stop talking DOWN ....
If you know anything about AR....he used that spell comment.
Pardon me for making a fucking mistake....
I always go back to 1x speed for the intro because the song is just so good (and beautiful animations!)
Your intros give me life
It is vital when doing any analysis to clearly visualise what might be expected given the statistical characteristics of the observational data-set.
In this particular case, the statistical character of the fossil record must be considered. How many individuals from each taxa were fossilised? How many of those fossils survived to the present day? How many of the surviving fossils have been found and analysed?
It is entirely possible that the processes of fossilisation, preservation and discovery result in skewed observational data-sets simply as a matter of happen-stance. This is difficult to formally factor into a strict quantitative uncertainty analysis - but it must be considered on at least a qualitative level.
To this, we can add an additional layer of possible bias, that being the effect of restricting the analysis to craniodental features. There seems no reason to exclude observational data when undertaking an analysis that is already data-poor.
There have been over 6000 species whose fossils show we descended from them. Not in a straight line either. She'd likely know better, but I swear there is a part of our A&P, which we don't have a straight line of evolution. (Species A eventually makes the conditions that make species B more successful in living to reproduce, etc.)
There are currently no datasets for hominin phylogenetics that include post cranial remains, which presumably is why the reviewed paper doesn't include them and definitely is why Dembo didn't include them (since I've met her and asked her). That doesn't mean, of course, that Dembo (and many others working in this field) doesn't also recognize this issue.
The biggest problem with including post cranial material, though, is that species tend to be identified by their skulls. The number of post cranial remains that are associated with skulls is very low, so we often don't know what species any given post cranial fossil is from. This is especially a problem for Paranthropus and Early Homo.
I am aware of two different groups working to include post cranial material in a character matrix, so hopefully this issue should get resolved in the next decade or so.
I would ask Young Earth Creationists if they’re not guilty of ‘lese majeste’ against the God they so stridently proclaim - what is 13.8 billion years to an Eternal, N-Dimensional, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being?
I would say they're guilty of many things. Not only "lese majeste" but taking their imaginary Lord's name in vain. Because if god were real, it wouldn't look kindly on the arbitrary use of its name and a pretend knowledge of its intentions and methods, to sell their particular brand of Christianity.
That’s what I always thought: They have a very low opinion of their god. I would say, if there were a god, that he’d be subtle and clever. They seem to think he’s Kreskin.
One of the most common complaints I have for creationists, young earth creationists, evolution deniers et cetera is that they keep regurgitating the same easily refuted arguments. So to see actual scientific work put into this thesis does make me happy, and your respectful way of criticising a fellow scientist, even if you fundamentally disagree with their conclusion, does you a lot of credit. Very enjoyable hour of video content.
Your videos are great but your opening music is like Peacemaker. I won't skip over it!
When it comes to Young creationists it's all low-hanging fruit.🍇
Interesting that larger data sets result in poorer separation between groups. I'd have to dig into the precise statistical methods, but generally larger sample sizes from different populations are more differentiated than small sample sizes (for most statistical analysis, the confidence interval is proportional to 1/srqt(n)). A good reason for poorer separation as sample size increases is because they are not actually from different populations.
I like the analogy of colour gradients and clustering of samples. Isn't it the case that many specimens are found in close geographical and geological proximity? We would then expect them to fit into a group together unless we have similar groups throughout time e.g., every few thousand years.
Thanks for giving your knowledge of issues such as excessive reliance on dental specimens and the adaptive nature of dental morphology, which I didn't realise when you mentioned it in Dembe's paper.
Erika, not that it has any bearing on what an awesomely intelligent person you are or how wonderfully informative this video is...but your hair looks amazing here!
I really respect your kindness.
I think it's great that the tip of the microphone is in focus. Just the tip, but at least something is. ;-)
Don't forget to like the video!
Always fascinating!
I really love the images from the beginning that you created. It's organized beautifully. Is there any way to get a copy of those? Is there, by chance, a website where your material is posted?
I Cannot Believe You Don't Have A Million Subscribers ~
Great video
I'm a liberal arts major (art history) and a sped teacher, so much of what you say is beyond me (at least when you get into the details),but I love your videos! I love a science channel who appreciates that not all Christians are creationists and I love learning more about why science is right.
"Progenitor Cat" is the name of a progressive metal band that someone needs to form.
If you turn hominims into an equation do you get an add hominim? 🤭
The nerd in me calculates a like for your comment.
@@rickmartin7596 🤭
That mic is an improvement, but the side of the mic with the two knobs is the back. The side with the logo is the front and should be pointed at the source (you).
I didn't have my glasses on - this looked like 'Reviewing a Young Earth paper on Moomins' - hurrah for Tove Jansson.
It's fantastic to see a claim that is worth discussing coming from Young Earth. I enjoy hearing their best arguments.
Most videos in this genre are very simple. YEC straw-man some unrelated argument for their case and claim victory as they fail catastrophically to explain their case. (looking at you "Mud Flood")
It's sad. Because it would be nice to consider another view, but it rarely gets that far. Science is always at it's best when quality arguments are put forward on any topic.
This is worth a genuine eyebrow raise. Not laughably dismissible.
Yeah, let's have the conversation. What if they are right? If not, where exactly are they wrong? We may even have to sit down for this.
Great video.
Pretty cool stuff!
Here's some fruit for the algorithm
🍌🍇🍍🥑🌶️🍐🥝
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here. You are very generous and forgiving. But would you give credit to a well-trained surgeon, using sophisticated methods and tools to operate with the purpose of extracting the devil out of a patient?
Way to nail the _false equivalency_ fallacy.
@@AlbertaGeek Way to confuse a metaphor with an equivalence. I guess I should explain more simply: It doesn't matter how well a scientists adheres to conventional methods while researching, if at the core of it's methodology lies the goal of proving a very narrow interpretation of a book of supernatural fables.
@@DoctorZisIN _"Way to confuse a metaphor with an equivalence"_
*_False_* equivalence, and of course it's a metaphor, but that doesn't *not* make it a false equivalence, as well.
Really love to see you a rigorous anthropologist dissecting a paper of other beliefs through an open-minded yet proper scientific analysis. I'm not a creationist but I believe in supernatural stuff so it's good to see people trying to prove spiritual beliefs via good science and people discussing/criticising them back also in unbiased scientific manners (^_^).
I’m fascinated by how it would look to “prove spiritual beliefs via good science.” I’m not sure that’s possible. Could you explain what you mean?
@@dingdongism I would expect something like a lab experimental setting with bunches of independent witnesses especially experts in physics. People with extreme experience will be recruited with confirmation from a respected religious figure that these experimentee are currently haunted or have supernatural/psychic power and they will be tested if they can induce disturbance in electricity or moving objects in isolated vacuum etc
Erica I wanted to mention something. I’m sure that my opinion isn’t influencing many people, but I did feel to put this on the record: I am not easily entertained or captivated by women. I’m not saying that to be anti-women, I’m just being honest. I often find myself bored with females in the forefront. Maybe it’s a personality thing with me, I don’t know. However, I really enjoy your videos. I’m not entirely sure why, but I find these videos to be very entertaining and enlightening, as well as just overall pleasant. For what it’s worth, great job! God bless
Placeholder comment until I've watched the video.
Dat intro 😍
The statistics gave me a bit of a flashback from my graduate school days : ) but excellent discussion. Thank you...
What makes a paper scientific in the general sense is a real clear, accurate methodology section (here’s what we did), a real clear, accurate results section (this is what we got), and a sound lit review (here’s where our research fits in what the smart money says). What makes it scientific in the functional sense is when it survives skeptical, expert peer review. They do, indeed deserve a lot of credit; no falsehoods and what's misleading might just be an oversight. Perhaps they left out Hominidae because the editor of their journal removed it.
It's interesting to see the skulls of the different hominins. You can clearly see the increased cranial capacity. Makes me think I should research the current thought about language development. I took some medical classes for undergrad and graduate school. I didn't have formal comparative anatomy, but I do find it fascinating to compare skeletons of different animals vs human anatomy in which I am versed. I did learn that some of the factors for us being able to vocalize is the descent of the larynx (which helps with the airway and muscles for tongue movements and changing of pitch). It's suspended by the hyoid bone: which is a very small and is completely floating. So I can imagine that if hyoid bone fragments exist with the hominin remains, it's a little bit more complicated to determine where exactly it could have been in situ.
As for this "paper", to me it seems like a typical logical fallacy in which they are trying to cherry pick what fossils could be related to humans or are distinct. It's typical creationism: lets try to find a fault with evolution, but not present a theory that would explain the fossil record. Especially if you believe in young Earth creationism, your task has become one like Sisyphus (rolling a boulder up a hill for eternity). There's not a universal model: some changed the term from creationism to intelligent design. Some are either ignorant or just conveniently ignore the transition fossils in our fossil record. By itself, this paper could be more valid in questioning each hominin....but I don't see any development of a working YEC model that has any scientific scrutiny. You could keep intellectualizing about why hominidae is the only kind in which creationists dispute every accepted species. But I find it par for the course....no matter what YEC presenter tries to look scientific, they're still basing things on their religious beliefs (and they have to come to terms with literal biblicism that includes Genisis, an Ark story, and that humans are the image of God separate from animals).
Does anyone call you Gibby? I feel like someone should be calling you Gibby.
G.G.: You're the bomb. Thanks for your thoughtful videos.
Great video, as always!
Low hanging fruit is the only fruit that it makes sense to go after.There’s either folks who are too ignorant of the facts & methods to understand or people who do & are dishonest grifting cons. There’s no way, once you learn the facts by looking & studying the evidence, one can continue to refute evolution. Unless your paycheck depends on it.
From decades of studying creationist positions on kinds, the reason why the "massive inconsistency" in Sinclair & Wood is obvious and inevitable: humans must by definition be their own kind, and because the Ark can't hold all the genera, practical considerations dictate using different scales for everything except our hominidae.
Btw this is juicy, and will get a mention in Vol 2 of Rocks.
Wonder if the usual trolls are going to show up.
Like the one I had a prolonged argument on the Gutsick Gibbon '5 more reasons to reject YEC'. I mentioned how history proves that the Earth is 6000 years old, the whole 'If the universe is 6000 years old how can we see objects farther away than 6000 light years.' He just kept repeating blather about 'stretching of space affecting the speed of light' and disputing the historical record.
Wonder if he'll show up again.
You mean YEC trolls right? People stupid enough to think the Earth is 6,000 years old?
@@joelmouton9365 Precisely.
Those trolls are pathetic personally I ignore them.
Please please please do not say SGloobal, 3 times..I'm begging you
@@leeshackelford7517 Maybe if we say it 3 times after he shows up, he'll disappear.
Actually, I haven't seen a post by him for a while.
Weird question but could you post your intro video and song on its own. I love it and watch it over and over
A lot of work to say humans aren't apes. Thanks for educating us always great to see how to read and understand research results.
She is saying that humans are apes. Greater apes comprise the genus Pongo, Gorilla, Pan, and Homo.
Brilliant, pretty, and despises creationism... I think I'm in love.
I like Homo Sativa.
I'd love to get a closer look at your skull graphics. The ones from the 11:00 minute mark? Is there a way to purchase a copy of them? Posters or digital files or some such?
20:20 - And your t-shirt offers a visual aid of just that! :-D
Can you really call YEC stuff, Papers? Aren't they more, Collection Of Unrelated Words?
She's talking about the PHYSICAL item, not the blather they put on it.
"Paper", like the YEC's word "kind" has more than one meaning...
Would love how they would explain Australian Monotemes and Marsupials.
They usually misrepresent the platypus as a chimera of traits (they rarely if ever bother with the 4 spiny echidna species) that defy common ancestry as opposed to acknowledging that they link mammals to non mammal amniotes. They do this by adhering to Linnean taxonomy and ignoring cladistics. they're just a weird subset of mammals and not a distinct branch within mammals. iow God was just ordering ala carte when he concocted their kind.
I wonder if the "redundancy" mentioned in this video could be addressed by models which exhibit partial pooling, such as mixed effects or certain stochastic process models (e.g. Gaussian processes).
I don’t know that any of those methods would make up for the different scales for scoring character states. But it’s fun hearing folks use statistical/analytic terms I remember from grad school, something I’d hear at a brown bag seminar or practice talk with a colleague.
Awesome video. What is the song that is used in the intro?
It's a portion of The Mind Electric. See her Q&A video she did not long ago.
Love your work crook guto gibbon
"I realize this is a more technical video" Well, yeah, that's why I'm here!
The Hominid family tree is a weedy shrub.
So much to learn and so little time left.
You should post your intro as a stand alone video.
👋Hi there I googled your t-shirt and now I know what it signifies. 👍
Great analysis of the paper. I think you missed an opportunity to show the difference between continuous spectra and emission spectra of light (color gradients) to make your point about the fossil record.
Is it possible to evolve back? Such as, in a case of outside environmental changes that would pressure evolution of a species to change to what it had been previously. I know I am not getting this across as well as I had hoped. I am talking about going from walking on all fours to bipedal and back to walking on all fours do to some outside factor.
Technically there's no such thing as "backwards evolution" but if something is lost and then regained through the process then yeah, pretty much that.
@@arkkon2740 Thank you, Yes, that is what I meant.
Can you please post just your intro song? I’m autistic and I like to watch it repeatedly and I love your song with the graphics which is your intro
Same... NEED that. 👌