I feel that my reply to this will get me defriended by a lot of you but I cannot allow something with so much misinformation be passed around so willy nilly. This video is full of gross misunderstandings that are easily explained. Part of his argument is that evolution cant be replicated and it cant be observed and thus it is not a science. Let me give you the real definition of a theory: It is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypothesis. Now with the theory of evolution it is the idea of decent with modification. Its strict biological definition is a change in allele frequencies over time. By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word evolution mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. The fossil record that we have is evidence that organisms have evolved through time even humans. Even though we have no observed these transformations, the evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All of the current sciences rely on indirect evidence like evolution such as physicists who cannot not see subatomic particles but they know they exist by the evidence they leave behind. Therefore, the absence of direct observation does not make a physicists conclusions less certain just like with evolution. Also, evolution actually can be observed like in viruses and in other animals. Evidence isnt limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. Now with his point about the theory of evolution being about life coming from a single cell, I have to say this: The theory of evolution has nothing to do with where the original living matter came from. Once you have the first thing that was replicate then the theory of evolution kicks in. He is bringing in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT topic into this. That is a completely different science all together how non living things like proteins and such could become complex organisms like fish, birds, humans, etc. Evolution does not care about what individuals in that species want to have happen. That is an old model of evolution that a elephant wanted to use its trunk to reach high branches of trees or a giraffe wanted to make its neck longer to reach the tops of trees, it could will it to happen within a generation and pass it on to its children. That is not true and has been debunked for many years now. Moving on. In the next part he brings up the Laws of Thermodynamics. Okay, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body. or in a more basic way The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often but not always corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. What I believe he was trying to say is that according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that life is a closed system and thus the theory of evolution is wrong. However, life is NOT a closed system. The sun existing and giving energy is proof that we live in an open system. This is a very simplified explanation. Evolution is not a chance event. Changes and mutations happen because of various reasons! Radiation is one of them. It is not random chance. The planet Earth wasnt made for humans only. Its not a perfect world at all. In fact, Earth is like a game placed on Hard Mode. There are only certain places humans can live permanently. Other places, like the poles? NOPE. Also there are some species on this planet can only live in certain places too or they would die. Now he brings up Intelligent Design. And I have ask that someone proves with evidence that everything on this planet was caused by Intelligent Design. Now with the Universe part. That was just nonsense. And the the way that we derive words means nothing. Just because the word Universe has a religious undertone does not mean it is automatically a religious thing. The reason we teach evolution in schools and it is taught in science classes is because it actually EXPLAINS SOMETHING. Intelligent Design is not a science. It can be taught in school...in Philosophy classes where it belongs. Not in science classes. Prove that this is a science and THEN it can be taught there. But for now, Intelligent Design belongs in church and in Philosophy class. Im not even sorry saying all of this. Im a firm believer that knowledge is power and what was in this video was not knowledge at all.
Posted on: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 00:46:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015