Abby Hafer: Animals That Shouldn’t Exist, According to Intelligent Design (AHA Conference 2016)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Abby Hafer is an author, scientist and public speaker. Her book debunking Intelligent Design, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer-Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not became a #1 bestseller on Amazon in the category of Theism. Abby Hafer is not averse to irony. Her public speaking has taken her all over the United States and she has given many radio interviews, including appearing on NPR and WBAI.
Her scientific career includes a doctorate in zoology from Oxford University, many research projects in physiology, and a stint monitoring fish populations on the Bering Sea. More recently, she published “No Data required: Why Intelligent Design Is Not Science”, which was published in The American Biology Teacher. She teaches human anatomy and physiology at Curry College and lives in Massachusetts with her husband, the astronomy writer Alan MacRobert.
This puts a whole new meaning to the phrase "judging a fish on its ability to climb"
i thought the same thing
me too haha
As Robin Williams put it - "intelligent design? Who the hell puts the entertainment center smack in the middle of a sewage outflow?"
+Robert Lockard
He also did a funny bit from a creationist angle. He said, "Do you think God has a sense of humor? Look at the platypus - I do." Then he mimed God getting high and saying, "OK, I'll take a beaver, give it a duck's bill, and it'll be a mammal, but it lays eggs! Take that, Darwin!"
Robin Williams Live at the Met - one of his better ones
+bad1dobby
True, but since it was a joke and not a biology lecture, I'll give him a pass :-)
The placement of the vagina is the optimal location, structurally, for pushing out a baby. Smh.
Courtney, you are assuming that the need of pushing it out is unavoidable. That seems a bit too unimaginative.
That fact alone contradicts intelligent design. Just think on how many times it fails, and how many problems it causes.
"Intelligent design" is just kicking the improbability can down the road to an exponentially greater improbably.
23:45 - Part of current thought, based on the Human Genome Project, is that hominids gained the upper hand when a genetic mutation that caused infants to have more fragile skull bones allowed us to grow bigger brains. This gave rise to a more intelligent group of related species. Hence, what could be considered a random genetic defect ended in the existence of humanity.
we are also a product of neoteny which is where animals keep traits of an infant into adulthood (eg axolotl newt), this is shown when you compare the human skull to that of a baby gorilla. at this point the two skulls are almost indistinguishable and the crest to which the jaw muscles which develops later in gorillas isn't present in the infants giving them a more rounded skull with more room inside.
in fact all it is believed that neoteny is responsible for all vertebrates through some kind of swimming sea cucumber.
Actually one of the current theories is that there was a mutation that caused our jaw muscles to grow weaker so we don't need such a strong skull to anchor our jaw muscles.
Weird how the amount of dislikes is so low and there are so many angry ID believers in the comments
they are the vocal minority
13:47. Here we are , born to be kings - we're the princes of the Pacific ocean. I am immortal, I have inside me blood of... jelly? I have no rival, no fish can be my equal...
+uncleanunicorn One dream, one goal, one prize, one soul, one jellyfish with immortality...
Perhaps this is the true origin of the flying spaghetti monster! D=
+4hm35319hd0h5 The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a false god. The true god is the Immortal Jellyfish (IJ). Praise be to IJ!
They say IJ was birthed by the Vegan CalaMary
Of course. It was obviously a miraculous birth. I was in doctrinal error with my previous statement about the FSM. The FSM is the divine father of IJ, the only begotten of FSM. This accounts for why they both have tentacles.
This in my opinion is the best lecture on UA-cam Period. Abby also has a great sense of humour, Brilliant!
I had a Mud-skipper for a pet. He would hop into my hand and I could walk around the house with him. I used to tell people I was taking my fish for a walk. His favorite place to sit in the aquarium was on top of a rock just above the surface of the water. When I would feed him, he would come up to my hand and take the food right from my fingers. My fish was wild caught. Unless they figure out how to breed mud-skippers in captivity, I will not own another. That being said, they are fascinating little critters, and if you have known one, you are privileged beyond measure.
@09:50 These fish are well adapted to their environment, and if they are designed, their designer does have a very weird sense of humor.
Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
In all of the directions it can whiz;
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
-Monty Python, Meaning of Life, Galaxy Song
Cleopatra7Philopator
i love that song
I had it running through my head as she was discussing.
Well, another "It Can't Happen, because I Don't Understand it" proponent. Aside from it has Nothing to Do with the Song I Posted, Nothing to Do with Physics or Theology, but Nothing to Do with Sense.
Scientific Creation, or the Big Bang is an Explosion of EVERYTHING, not Nothing. Whether one's Belief system as to Cause includes a Creator, or just Natural forces. The difference is the Scientific view Admits that Humankind does not Understand ALL the Physical Laws TODAY, but what we Do Understand TODAY is Based on, and Built upon Observation, and Conjecture. Tomorrow will be Built upon Today.
You Admirably display The Problem with Your style of argument! It IS, because it Must be. The closest thing to a Fact, you must Interject non-sequitur.
Your Hypothesis is that you have an Intelligent Designer that has abilities BEYOND Human Comprehension:
So- You will Tell me How it works, the Abilities Beyond Comprehension that you Understand?
Thank You for Proving MY Point though: I Quote myself again:
"And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth! "
I love her sense of humor!!
Josh Ortiz i do too, took a while to get used to her delivery though
Great talk!
no it isnt,,,lol,,,its proper crap
+Etothe2iPi How on earth do you think this is a "Great talk?" All she does is show the many differing animals in existence, and then claims that Intelligent Design would not accept, or there existence disprove the theory of ID. For heavens sake, the Idea that there are many differing animals is totally accepted by both ID folks, and the hated creationists. Her explanation of how these animals came from evolution (Neo-Darwinian) she just uses "just so stories". She has no understanding of the arguments against Neo-Darwinian theory. She even brings up religion for crying out loud, ID is a theory devoid of religion. In short she is an idiot.
totally agree : magnificent talk
your nick took me a couple of seconds to fathom - big smile
But can your *science* explain why it rains??
Tell me if you get the reference
Creationists like to point to the holes in the evidence. At least there's evidence to have holes in.
Evolution is amazing!
hell fire is not
Please demonstrate that hell exists, or any god, or anything supernatural, otherwise, keep your delusions to yourself.
EVIL-lution
"human is not perfectly designed"
what about the digestive system
Is that the one that shares an opening with the respiratory system resulting in choking deaths?
Kudos to the person who asked about super-organisms! Absulutely fascinating topic. I think this is an inevitable destiny for evolution... the new chapter in a long progression of compartmentalized special function within in the element of an organism. I predict this theory of "layers" of evolutionary development is going to gain relevance as the field of evolutionary biology advances. Check out siphonophores! An unassailable example of a "multi-bodied body". Perhaps this genetic has evolved to this level of advancement simply by merit that it is descended from one of the earliest multi-cellular creatures, thus having had the greatest opportunity to feel the effect of this "collective" modality of evolution. This is a really, really important concept and it can help us to direct human evolution with this end in mind. We are rapidly approaching a point where any organ we lack, we will be able to craft, either through gene editing or neural interface with artificial components. Telepathy may be a thing of science fiction, fantasy and pseudo science at the present time.. but once we can link directly to the internet with our minds, we may approach an organismal efficiency in communication that will allow a "meta-mind" to foment. It can be argued that human society is already a low fidelity super-organism.
Using intelligent design to disprove intelligent design?
pseudoprodigy . hmm. Explain
jesse chavez the odds of just the human DNA becoming into existence by mere chance is greater than winning the lottery a thousand times.
pseudoprodigy . I agree with the incredible odds for that to happen but that doesn't explain your first statement.
jesse chavez either by chance or design, there are no other options.
and yet someone wins the lottery almost every time...bad analogy.
also "Basics of Theological Philosophy" is about as useful as a degree in Harry Potter or Shakespeare, it doesn't prove anything
More strength to this woman
Such anger on her face
You probably confuse it with her having had meningitis(as stated in the introduction) and trying as hard as possible to pronounce every word so people can hear her lecture. It looks a bit weird when she talks but that's not what's important. Her message is what's important.
madman2u "God doesn't exist because of this fish" that's her message and it's delivered with hate and disdain... Yet she proved nothing but her anger. Seriously we're talking about God and she comes with a fish. An atheist biologist doing theology. It's like listening to a drunk man talking politics in a bar.
hfyaer:
If you believe in god you are drunk!
hfyaer Yup, pretty much.
Actually, without intelligent design these animals WOULD NOT exist. Putting your own spin on what 'intelligent' design means and then using your OWN SPIN to go through the animal kingdom and say 'Ah ha! See? Theres nothing 'intelligent' about this (according to our own spin on what intelligent design means) However, if you use what the intended usage of Intelligent Design actually indicates these animals are actually as irrefutably
INTELLIGENTLY designed as the eye is with its 1.7 million fibers and the retina positioned
just so it doesnt burn out when you go outside into broad daylight.
EVOLUTION IS INCREDIBLY STUPID and STUPIDLY OBVIOUS!
You mean our eyes that have a blind spot because the designer decided to put the nerves that connect it to the brain on the _inside_ ?
germanvisitor2 - If He hadnt they would be destroyed by the intensity of the light coming into the eye
when you step outside! - You just made a complete idiot of yourself! Good job~!
That is completely unrelated, though.
LOL - HAHAHAHA!!!! -- YOU PEOPLE ARE COMEDY GOLD. I'll let you in on something. I NEVER realized how ridiculous 'atheists' were until this alleged 'flat earth movement' was hatched from hell. It never EVER dawned on me just how stupid people were. Thanks to the flat earth nonsense. Welp! Now we know! Youre raving mad!
You realise that almost all flat earthers are theists?
I am not a creationist, but this argument strikes me as undisciplined in its countless presumptions about creationists. The reason so many have trouble accepting evolution is because scientists do not understand how to teach it. They misunderstand the actual obstacles in their way. Her logic is oddly a religious one. She is hardly an example of humility.
You cannot teach something to someone that is willfully ignorant.
Abby rocks! Read her book!
Dr. Hafer, if you ever read this: You are an incredible speaker, your magnificent, grandiose perspective on our place in the universe was enough to make me cry tears of wonder. Twice even. Fucking brilliant.
0:19 .. laryngitis? Pshaw.. she was out last night PARTYING!
3:10.... okay, so it might be laryngitis after all. But we could play a drinking game!
Every time she says *category* sip your NyQuil...
Who's the hero with segmented eyes? It's Muddy Mudskipper!
Can't catfish also "walk" on land?
The author here seems to have a serious chip on her shoulder when it comes to Christian Fundamentalists, mentioning them a few times and seething throughout her talk. Love the Muddskipper. Frogs can also live in water, walk on land, and climb trees.Just saying. lol
If Eve was created by GOD from Adam's rib, was Eve's DNA the same as Adam's DNA...?
creation.com/noah-and-genetics
2fast : If Eve was created from Adam's rib by God without changing Adam's rib DNA, then Eve DNA must be 100% the same and identical to Adam's DNA. That is Eve DNA must have y chromosome. The description in the website has make personal assumption about what God could have done to Adam's DNA which Genesis did not mentioned. 2ndly, if Eve and Adam were created from rib and dust of ground without blood and water, then both Eve and Adam cannot be living human beings. Another flaw in Eve Adam account.
Nice
The immortal jellyfish makes a good case for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, was created in it's likeness, I tell you!
GOOD THAT YOU HAVE A GREAT ATTITUDE ,AND ALL THE BETTER THAT YOU KNOW EVERTHING AND EVEN MORE SO THAT YOUR ALWAYS RIGHT AND BLAMELESS AND HOW IF YOU WERE TO BECOME BLINDED YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR LIFE AND NOT COMMIT SUICIDE ! It's also so good that people like you are nice people and aren't jerks! Don't you just love how my sarcasm is a great thing with no charge as well as providing charity without ascended mastery for the basic person how I'm not putting myself above and trying to prove ! Like a smart alec!
It's amazing that people believe a jelly fish is immortal with no evidence of it. There's not even any evidence that it's over 300 years old, and we have trees that we know are that old from historical records. Yet nobody is calling those trees immortal. Empirical evidence is a thing, and a whole lot of "intelligent design is stupid" evidence lacks the empirical validation that would be the hallmark of science.
May He touch you with His noodly appendage. R'amen.
@@gspendlove
R'amen.
ua-cam.com/video/mQaReWoUyyQ/v-deo.html
Einstein - "If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid"
Mudskipper - "Hold my beer"
*its a fish. Climbing a tree.*
*HOW. COOL. IS THAT.*
*As cool as the birds that swim! But not as cool as humans that can live in space!*
God must have missed this jellyfish when he was punishing creation for the first humans eating forbidden fruit.
Simple way to disprove intelligent design. Look at cave fish, cave crickets etc. Fully developed eyes that are blind.
SO either they evolved outside a cave, then evolved to not need sight anymore inside a cave or God has a really warped sense of humor and thought giving creatures eyes but making them blind would be hilarious.
There is no such thing as macroevolution and mocroevolution. It is something you made up in a desperate attempt to make your theories stick together. Evolution is a fact that can be proven experimentally. Just as we did with dogs. Oooh explain me again about "kinds" as if we never heard about ring species. You are truly ignorant and proud of it.
I'm surprised that isn't a subgroup to be honest. We could call it "the hypothesis of Malevolent Design."
I think back to the "WTF nature?" thing where they go over the strangest animals we've found, including a video of a bird that makes its nest on massive cliffs, but the food is down at ground level, so the poor chicks have to try to slow their descent with their half-formed wings, inevitably fail, slam into every rock on the way down, and hopefully survive with most of their bones intact.
LOL Yes! Monty Python's song "All things dark and Ugly" all creatures short and squat all things rude and nasty the lord God made the lot. Uncurable cancer, aids, all things evil great and small, the Lord God made them all, etc. He invented the concept of evil. In the bible, "I am both good and evil" and of course "Blessed is he who smashes the heads of the babes against the rocks". Of course Christians will argue that I am taking that one out of context. How comforting to know he only blesses baby murderers within a certain context.
"the hypothesis of Malevolent Design"
You mean the Demiurge? It's already been invented, even before Jehova. Some christians (gnostics) believe in it.
I can't understand why not all of them do, as a religion it makes much more sense.
These idiots claims as having anything other than idiotic myth just buys into their moronic claims. Don't bother replying. It is obvious they are brainwashed and incable of original thought.
It's not that the rest of the universe dislikes organization, it just doesn't *CARE*
Clearly, they do. But what does that have to do with my comment?
So your argument against evolution is a grammar correction?
Cliff Hanley
Do you know what it's called when an animal supports its weight on limbs and propels itself in that fission? It's called "Walking"
Granted, they usually drag themselves along, but they CAN walk, just as crocodiles do.
Cliff Hanley no: they _can_ drag/walk , but they also jump: hence 'mud _skipper_ '.
So, is *this* fish walking? ua-cam.com/video/hdlHMMsP_ZI/v-deo.html
Creationists, start with a conclusion and work backward
If there really was an intelligent designer, then birds would have to land before they could poop.
Doug - I'm just glad that cows don't fly.
Doug50pl : lol.... thanks.
Unhinged Crings: "SEI FEIN, NIE FIES!" Kind regards from GERMANY.
Doug50pl if there's no intelligent designer, the living being cant even to exist, as the abiogenesis required too many coincidences of the synergy of physics
Hello Ms.Satya, IF you were intelligently designed, you would not introduce the unknown [A]Biogenesis as a strawman, against very well KNOWN Evolution.
"Now. Take. Another look. At. This. Image. It is a fish. Climbing a tree. How. Cool. Is. That."
This lady is awesome! She sounds like would be a great teacher!
She is teaching, isn't she? :D That's why she's talking in front of people and puts videos on UA-cam. ;)
So a fish that climbs trees is supposed to prove that God doesn't exist? Wow. That's rich.
Somebody please tell that fish that it was specially designed to swim in water! That was great. Great upload. Thanks.
The brain of the fish is not intelligently designed. God missed to give it a proper brain for it to understand that it's supposed to swim in water -_-
"if you tell a fish it should be able to climb a tree, oh, never-mind, carry on."
Intelligent design (ID) had its day in court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and ID lost in every possible way. In fact, the some of the defendants (Dover) were thought to have committed perjury, but those charges were never pursued. Creationism and ID should be relegated to the dust bins of history once and for all.
Are you high? The judge was fooled by the lies, equivocations and a literature bluff. ID is still going strong
@@sombodysdad sure buddy
@@sombodysdad intelligent design never was going strong and never will.
@@Vivi2372 And yet it is the only viable scientific scenario for our existence.
I'd love to see this lady going round the Creationist "Museum".
Well that "family tree" slide sure wasn't intelligently designed. Dark blue text on a black background?
"intelligent design".. intelligence in regard to what, humans? unfortunately miss, we aren't too intelligent. Also, her demeanor seems like she has a bone to pick.
Capt. Jack Sparrow: ... Undead Monkey. Top that.
Dr. Abby Hafer: Fish up a tree.
WHO DESIGNED THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ?
franklin field That’s a silly question, do you really think someone’s going to own up ?
who designed the designer of the intelligent designer ?
la paix ou l'épée Was it Bob the Builder ?
Mart TL1000S ??
Only half as silly as believing in ID in the first place while we already have a pretty clear understanding of the evolution process.
Oh i had two of those mudskipper fish ;-) they had huge aquarium/terrarium, but if you let the lid open too long they still climbed out on wires and tubes, and usually you better just put in some food in and wait, and they came back themselves, they were nearly impossible to catch,and i was afraid to grab them too tight ;-)
I felt compelled to add this comment. Could not move onto anything else until I did.
I must state as a man myself. After watching lectures from 99.9% atheist men only. Your passion and dedication climbed a tree out of water in your delivery and it was very moving with universal conviction.
Bravo and high five.
Watched in a room by myself and clapped like everybody else upon conclusion.
P.S. the voice thing was fine. It looked like you may have been in pain but pardon me for saying. It made you appear resolute and I loved it. Sorta like a speech John Adams surely gave to the continental Congress.
I don't understand simple scientific concepts so I have come to the conclusion that Gaaaaaaawwwwd is the only possible explanation for the world around me.
I *do* understand basic simple scientific concepts, as well as a few complex ones; I also understand basic simple philosophical concepts, as well as a few complex ones. If I come to the conclusion of God, how does that affect my understanding of the scientific and philosophical explanations?
Well DAVID, the first question I would ask you is what evidence you are following to reach the conclusion that there is a god?
Mt. Dew is delicious
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. Most children by the age of 10 can understand basic Science and it's concepts.
The Repair Shop, you understand about motors, magnets, electricity, gears, etc ... ? That IS Science and it's concepts applied in practical situations and solutions. You also listen to Joe Rogan's podcasts, so at more than one point you've heard discussions about everything from mushroom colonies configuring itself as one massive neural network to brain surgery and brain transplants, cloning, space exploration, etc.
So it's dubious that you can not understand Scientific concepts.
The Repair Shop Halle bloody lujah!!!!!
ID is such obvious nonsense. Just which to ask which religions God did the designing? Was it Zeus?
when you talk about humbleness with a superior voice...yeah, you make a grate point!
Simplicity is the whole mark of good design. Engineering 101.
That may be true but some engineers overengineer things to the point of absurdity.
Loved it, & thank you for doing what you do...
"Not all statements by scientists are statements of science" - Dr John Lennox.
You mean like "I gotta take a dump!"
And a doctorate in mathematics doesn’t mean you have any expertise in biology, zoology or even in theology, that grandest of all subjects without an object.
True. But every religious statement is most definitely unscientific.
Commissar Gamza trying to defend intelligent design
True just look at the "scientists" on the young earth pay roll.
not a creationist but if there was a designer i'm sure he could make something absolutely ridiculous
Wait, hold on, you're saying that a God would not create a needlessly complex animal based on human concepts of logic. Christian biologists of Darwins time argued that only a God could create needlessly complex animals. Darwin, in his own notes, conceded that if complex organic machinery were proven to exist in animals, then evolution is wrong. It was evolutionists who argued that animals were simple.
I enjoyed the lecture, but I feel she is just building a strawman of her opposition and knocking it down.
What a great presentation!!!
What a great dumbass presentation!!!
I like trees
Absolutely absurd to state that:
"Because I can't conceive of how such a thing would evolve"
"Therefore evolution is impossible"
"because I assert that I has to be intelligently designed."
The fact is we may never know exactly how these organisms began to exist
as they are,
but that has no bering at all on wether or not they were made with magic incantation from a super intelligence.
It's basically as ridiculous as saying aliens must have designed earth creatures because you can't fathom another possibility....
I am not saying that sarcasticly either I really think that the God is less evident than to say:
"It must have evolved with mechanics that we actually at the very least understand the concept of"
and the fact that we know information is not stagnant in the DNA.
Those two points alone dont exclude an outside force but you NEED to demonstrate that the outside force meets the level of evidence that is avaliable to back the idea that it was just a natural thing to happen.
And that God claim is seriously at the level of "aliens created octopus"
I get that you want evidence for some outside force that you can then claim is your personal God
But you fishing for weird creatures and calling it unexplained therefore I can explain with appeal to super intelligence.
It's really weak.
It's too weak to be an actual argument.
I used to believe this nonsense.
My school taught some viciously dogmatic claims because it was private Christian so obviously....
But it never really convinced me, because its an appeal to ignorance,
And it's a God of the gaps fallacy.
Just because you don't know something in spectacular detail like how a specific jellyfish be essentally immoral
does not mean that a God made them almost immortal.
I know.. it's a tought emotional struggle. You've been taught that you can never question God and you NEED to have evidence for him and the grains of nothing keep slipping away so you desperately cling to the idea that if sience can't explain it now then science never will and so if you can dilute yourself in this way then God is grounded even within the doctrinal requirements of having evidence.
Explain how God did it.
Oh you can't?
So what if I went the other way and pressed for information that you should have right
because the super intelligent is your friend.
It's insanity.
I have no respect for your religion.
Please stop spreading willful ignorance and a method to stop questions with a single unchallengalbe answer that you pretend is obvious.
The fact is the DNA is very versatile and is subject to change and regardless we understand how the change came to be...
GOD is never the correct answer.
Because you need to demonstrate the actual mechanism that caused such change and the ultimate excuse is not answer.
Aquatic Mammals. For example Dolphins, they dwell in the Sea, they can't live on land. But they have Lungs and no Gills. So they need to breath Air and drown in the water... I don't think this is very intelligent.
Probably the best lecture I've ever watched 🙂
"Feeling humble yet?" I dunno, Dr Hafer, I'm too busy feeling *awe* to tell. Religious people tell us that their holy books are full of awesome stuff but nothing I've ever read in any so-called holy book matches the awesome things that science has discovered about our universe and our place in it - and even more awesome: we haven't stopped discovering stuff yet.
Reverence and a certain humility are both classical virtues. No religious claptrap needed.
I don't know if it's intentional, but I love the sarcasm just oozing from her voice. She's like "yeah, I've read little your holy book and it's quite cool. But you know what's also cool? A FREAKING FISH FREAKING CLIMBING A FREAKING TREE, THAT'S WHAT!!!"
To any who ask could evolution not be from a gods intelligent creation; we can dismiss the notion for no end of reasons...let me just point out the most obvious.
Daniel Blair simple:
A) Occams razor
B) Because if you believe your god incapable of mistake, there would be no evolution, because the state of planet/environment and species would be a constant... that of their original 'perfection'.
C) Because many species include flaws that would be stupid as design decisions but are not easily or likely to be 'corrected' by evolution. In fact evolution can and does make some elements increasingly ridiculous. One example would of course be the laryngeal nerve.
D) Because if you hold the Earth to have been designed for us as a chosen species, then the god could have designed humans to be humans in the first place. It would not design something else then require 3.5 billion years of evolution to complete the process.
E) Because if you hold Earth to have been made for us, even perhaps the universe...it is entirely illogical that the god character would establish a plan that had entire rafts of species emerge, thrive and then become extinct millions of years before we appeared at all.
F) Because only a complete arsehole would include in their plan the parasitic creatures that have an entire life cycle based around boring into a child's eye, blinding it in the process, or laying eggs into the brain of another creature which turn into lavae that slowly eat its brains out. No god would design species that destroy, maim and cause misery for its favourite one. There would be no belhazia, no malaria, etc.
(I could carry to to Z) but there is already no need.
"Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." --quote by somebody other then Einstein.
See I understand all that but, tide comes in tide goes out. You can't explain that. Checkmate Scientists
Right. ;)
Shubham Bhushan I, as a Doctor, have found out during my research on tides that the movement of water can be influenced by (large) chunks of cheese.
I bet I only need a few decades more to find out exactly what kind of cheese makes tides come in and also go out.
I'm already learning a little Swedish!
Ha Bill O'Reilly is a dumbass.
exactly, It's just like rain, where the hell does it come from? Noone has ever been able to answer this
Try gravity!
Absolutely effing amazing!!!
you know this and can prove this or are you just arrogant? because the mountains of evidence are very hard to bury because they are so high.
Goggle products translation:
"Muh feefees"
"I'm retarded, therefore everyone is retarded."
-Nacherel Jesus
That's nice kid, go back to eating lead paint chips.
no, she demonstrated evolution, to disprove intelligent design.
you have NO valid arguments to support it, other than a book written 2000 years ago, which we KNOW was put together by a committee of men. give up!
she is a fool
Creationism evolved too. From denial of evolution to accepting some creationist created "category" like micro evolution. Such short memory and ignorance of their own ideological past....so much for "intelligent" design
So "Intelligent Design" doesn't fit reality. How about "Committee Design"? ;)
I guess all those monotheists are going to hell for choosing the wrong religion and not being committeetheists (a subset of polytheism).
I honestly think this is a poor argument against intelligent design, sorry.
I am sorry that millions of Americans still stick to the stupidity of Christianity despite lack of evidence, lack of logic and in fact immoral contents abound in the whole of bible
None of these species prove, or disprove, anything beyond the fact that interesting species exist. She does do an excellent job of making points that no ones disputes sound like they are disputed. All and all, this entire presentation was worthless as a slam against intelligent design.
nice walking fish ... however this doesnt change a major problem for you all knowing scientists in the evolution field... the severe lack of real transition of ape to human. Most of the findings were frauds, or small pieces that turned out to be different things, why are there no fossils that clearly show human transition ? You have nothing, its just like explaining how universe appeared with the big bang without knowing what that actually was , how can you explain the universe when you dont even get the basics of quantum physics. Before you can complete replace something you have to add something instead, and it seems to me that much of science is changing every day, as what ive learned in school is today no longer accurate.... and science is unable to answer the real big questions still,as I mentioned lack of evolutionary proof of the human. There are some huge gaps in your chain and nobody talks about that for some reason.
Intelligent Design = Poof a miracle happens and all of these little things line up just right for it to all work.... Evolution = Poof a miracle happens and all of these little things line up just right for it to all work...
This woman's argument: If I had created the world it would be simpler and easier to categorize. I don't understand the creator's mind or his sense of logic. I'm smart and if I can't figure it out a pattern it must be random, therefore there is no creator.
No. She is saying that an intelligent designer cannot exist simply because the designs are not really intelligent enough. A much simpler way of creating complex things would have indicated an intelligent designer. Also, if a designer does exist, you have to admit He is not very benevolent, rather sadist.
Straw man!
Veg Out ...please provide empirical evidence for the existence of a supernatural creator entity, or just stfu.
Yep.
@@humblesentiments1553 Buddy that's an absolutely ridiculous argument
"Animals that no rational creator would have come up with exist perfectly well in our evolved world"
My sides!😂They're killing me!😣😂😂😣😥😅😁😄😊😮😯😟😧😩
I don't know why biologists even bother with this.
The basic premise of Intelligent Design is logically flawed from the outset.
ID cannot talk about the nature of the designer without immediately rendering itself irrelevant (which is why Intelligent Design advocates always avoid the question of the designer)
People bother with intelligent design because there are people who take is seriously and educate their kids with it. There's a very deep rabbit hole of creationists apologetics and counter apologetics online. Sad to say but bad trivially false ideas can be socially relevant. Also people love to hear others agree with them so even if there was only one crazy guy who thought intelligent design made sense people would probably love to hear debunks.
If the designer worked for me, I'd sack him on the spot for incompetence.
Because dumb ass's often set policy by their belief RE. {MIKE PENCE.}
"The basic premise of Intelligent Design is logically flawed from the outset.
PROVE IT.
Ill debate all of you at the same time. Name the day and the time. Ill be there.
I will debate every single 'evolutionist' on this comment thread. Lets see how stupid Creationists are and how 'intelligent' evolutionists are. You people like
to think of yourselves as shade tree scientists. Ok. Prove it. Lets do a debate
And you can ALL prove what an idiot I am ;) - Let me ask all of you a question.
What is the mechanism of evolution? ( And if you say natural selection i will crawl through cyber space with a magic marker and write IDIOT across your
forehead!)
Hellllla random but.........Who else really wants this women to be their grandma?
Wow I am watching this on Feb 12 by accident didn't know it was Darwin's birthday today
This woman is so freaking amazing!
Citpeks Tsiehta freakingly.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. (Isaiah 55:8)
That is actually a good point.
That quote says god and humans should not be concerned with each other. It is a good reason to ignore the Bible entirely.
The human head; the very centre of our being, perched on top of a spindly column of bone that requires massive muscles just to hold up straight and can be broken in a simple fall or impact, resulting in death. An entire chapter could be written on that design flaw alone.
Migraine headaches - paralysing, debilitating : top-notch design.
Maybe God just has a sense of humor? I mean, consider her charisma. bwahaha!
Equating size with value. I don't think so.
If you don't want to believe in a Creator that is your business, but lady, your logic here is about as stupid as anything I have ever heard. One could make EXACTLY the same argument against Darwinism. In fact, when you say that Intelligent Design would never create a finned fish that climbs trees, ask yourself if Darwinism would have evolved such a thing, in fact, you should ask if Natural Selection could ever have produced such an animal. It seems to me it would REQUIRE a conscious Designer. You made one of the best arguments FOR Intelligent Design I have ever heard.
"You made one of the best arguments FOR Intelligent Design I have ever heard."
So then please describe the logic of an intelligent agent creating such a fish. You seem to be stuck in the mentality of a thinking being that creates things for reasons... evolution is not like that at all. There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish, that's the point.
Yes I got the point, and her entire presentation is based upon her personal opinion of what a Designer would or would not do. Thank you for asking. Actually you mistake my point when you say, "You seem to be stuck in the mentality of a thinking being that creates things for reasons." No, my point is that a conscious Designer would do some things that you and I would find quite illogical; done for creative and artistic purposes, and for fun, not simply for logic. This woman's problem despite her obvious vitriol, is that she attempts to make an argument that contradicts just about everything we have learned about Darwinism and Natural Selection when it is left on its own. She was literally contradicting the very processes she was defending. I am not saying that either a Conscious Designer or Evolution produces things according to logic, I am saying that her argument follows no logical hypothesis or syllogism. To make the statement that "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" cannot be based upon any fact whatsoever without knowing the mind of the Designer; it is simply an assumption based upon hatred for a belief in a Designer. I understand Darwinism very well having studied it for many years, and I can tell you that according to Darwin's Theory of Descent that evolution would not and could not have produced such a creature according to all that is taught about it. That's why I say this woman's dogma is simply a form of meta physical belief disguised as science.
"To make the statement that "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" cannot be based upon any fact whatsoever without knowing the mind of the Designer; it is simply an assumption based upon hatred for a belief in a Designer."
LOL, 'hatred for a belief in a designer'? It seems I am not the only one making assumptions here. If you prefer to call my rejection of an illogical idea 'hatred', that is your bias, not mine. When your main point is examined, you can see that when you deny the logic of the design, you are moving away from the very concept of design. When you say "No, my point is that a conscious Designer would do some things that you and I would find quite illogical; done for creative and artistic purposes, and for fun, not simply for logic." you are removing the very thing that allows people to imagine design in the first place. In other words, you are trying to suggest intelligent design by pointing to things that there is no reason to recognize design in. You are pointing to a Pollock painting and claiming 'Of course it was designed like that!'
To fix that, you personify the designer and assume that it is like us... again an unfounded assumption considering there is absolutely no evidence for the designer even existing much less the qualities it possesses. You are simply making up these qualities to force-fit your already decided upon designer to the available evidence. If you were serious about your position, you would see that YOU are the one claiming to know the mind of this designer. You are, in fact, claiming that he is like you... an extremely common theme for theists. Each individual's god just happens to want/think/do exactly what each individual believer wants, thinks, and does. An extraordinary coincidence!
I see no reason at all why descent with modification could not produce such a creature. If the conflict between the creature's existence and evolution is so distinct, you should be able to describe it in great detail rather than simply suggest it.
You completely misunderstood, I wasnt talking about YOU but about the presenter.
You said in your post:
'To make the statement that "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" cannot be based upon any fact whatsoever without knowing the mind of the Designer; it is simply an assumption based upon hatred for a belief in a Designer.'
In your statement, you are quoting someone... you quoted a statement "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" and you responded to that statement that it 'cannot be based upon any fact whatsoever without knowing the mind of the Designer; it is simply an assumption based upon hatred for a belief in a Designer'
Is that a correct summary of the exchange? The person who said "There is no reason why an intelligent designer would create such a fish" was me, not the presenter. You copied and pasted my quote from my post. How am I misunderstanding? Or are you talking about a different part of my post?
M’kay, it’s 2018 and people still believe in Creationism? That’s INSANE, aka “Poor Design”.
Serenade314 thats because christians campaigned as hard as they could to keep evolution out of the classrooms
Serenade314
The REAL mystery is how anyone could still believe that the mechanisms proposes by darwin, even in modified form, can sufficiently account for the development of life. It is frankly embarrassing. Even atheists (Thomas Nagel, to take just one exampl are becoming skeptics. Asserting it as truth is just a secular variety of dogmatism.
Joey Pipkorn no it isnt. It isnt dogmatic at all because dogmatism implies a disregard for evidence. Evolution is based purely on evidence. Atheists arent who we look towards to determine the validity of a scientific theory, its scientists. It doesnt matter if 80% of atheists rejected evolution, it is valid science that has been clearly demonstrated at this point.
Christopher Parks
I mention atheists simply to rebut a common but false idea that voicing skepticism about evolution is something that is only done by theists who have an axe to grind. You can't play that card these days. The darwinian/neo-darwinian mechanisms which purportedly drive evolution are increasingly thought to be unsufficient to explain all of the biological diversity, and the intricacies of that biology. Evolution is a paradigm. The early Karl Popper had it right when he said that evolution is fundamentally a metaphysical research project.
Serenade314
"It's very well understood that" what...?
I wish she didn't sound so angry!
Wow, I was just thinking about how she didn't yell enough! I thought she was way too calm. She could have thrown in some personal insults as well. Maybe she could have made some threats regarding those who don't agree with her?
I prefer my lecturers with a little more fire in their bellies.
If such a thing as a Creator exists evolution is said Creator's tool. It is observable fact, it is acting on us right now. I'm in no way religious, but it would make much more sense if a unique and all powerful Creative force had engineered a self-correcting mechanism like evolution, than having diseases, natural disasters and extinction events used as "erasers" whenever said creator wanted something corrected - which in itself is an impossibility for an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent entity. The theory of evolution is more in tune with a Creator than intelligent design is, since it leaves every room in the universe for things like self-determination and free will. Science is closer to "God" than anything else.
Seyfert I'm not arguing against evolution, but for it. I'm saying that *if* it was part of a deliberate process implemented by a deity, *that* would make more sense than believing every nanometre of the universe, including all laws of physics, celestial bodies and living creatures were created as static systems that fail by design, and especially systems that fail by *intelligent* design. Understanding the process through which the universe itself came to be and where it's headed using objective observation and the scientific method brings us closer to our origin, to what many choose to call "God" in the search for some meaning that validates their brief and unemarkable existence.
So if someone still needs to cling to the notion of God, I would rather that person faced the evolutionary process as the "how" rather than discard it completely. There is nothing wrong with belief as long as it doesn't contradict provable fact.
And radomization can be automated, so there is no reason to think "chance" isn't part of it. Mathematically speaking technically everything can be calculated so there is no such thing as "oh, it just happened", especially in science. There is always a reason and a cause.
If someone accepts 'microevolution' or speciation and then proclaims that macroevolution isn't supported or is impossible, then it becomes incumbent on them to prove something from preventing macroevolution.
I used to be a creationist, I woke up though.
welcome to the relm of people that base their belief on proof
I have nightmares too
You're an inspiration to all of us!
I believe in design, I just don't believe in intelligence. Just look at the Modernist period.
so you thing there is a god but hes a moron?
Are you not familiar with Modernist architecture?
That's funny, I believe I intelligence, but not design!
Seriously, though...
The edginess of criticism of faith.
There are some hilarious replies in this (on both sides). There is no denying evolution, at least micro-evolution (i.e. birds growing longer/shorter beaks, etc.), I hold reservation about macro-evolution until there is a way (other than looking at fossils and saying "these have similar attributes they must be the same"), but that still doesn't answer how life began. Be it hydro-vents, primordial soup, etc..., creating life from inorganic material has also yet to be proved or even if organic material was produced how it created cells that knew how to replicate/reproduce and isn't anymore sensible than the story of Adam and Eve.
So I agree micro-evolution most certainly does exist and science has helped mankind tremendously, but needs to step up its game if it wants to put debates like this to rest.
God she sounds so pointed and vindictive.
I would like to hear her thoughts on Tardigrades (water bears) They are just as amazing as some of her other examples in my opinion.
Most of the video was not about animals that shouldn't exist according to intelligent design.. but ok.. so it hinges on two animals? A mudskipper and a jellyfish? I want more animals. I listened all the way to the end holding out hope for a third animal.
Other good examples would include seahorses, certain species of sharks that are so aggressive they try to eat their own young, pandas which are addicted to a food they can't properly digest, hummingbirds with such a hyperactive metabolism they need to almost constantly eat, and pugs who struggle to bre-- oh wait that one is intelligent design on us.
Thanks for the replies.
Shs funny
There is no intelligent designer
Fantastic speech, thanks for sharing....
Around 15 minutes "Biology has taught me humility"
Sooo virtuous!
This lady is awesome female version of Richard Dawkins
I was thinking more of Zefrank1. ua-cam.com/video/EdzQ9wEOElw/v-deo.html
LOVE LOVE the Buddhist joke!