The Cambrian problem

[In situ]

Fast tracking the video

Read at 15:55
Read at 32:06
Conclusion at 53:59

Time stamps are not synopsis. Why do you not tell us your own conclusion or reflections from the video? After all, like somebody already have pointed out in this forum, this is a forum for discussion not suggested "readings".

I mean, I do not mind if if one post references to claims made, but just posting a reference as an argument is not really an argument at all. I been considering to look at the video but I suspect I will just go like "I don't agree with that assertion because ..." before even the introduction is done.

 

[In situ]

The following video is pretty long, but I strongly suggest watching it all.

So I started to listen to this video...

Anyone that start a presentation by quote mining a scientist with the purpose to try to paint the impression the theory evolution is based on some kind of religious beliefs system and have no scientific validation loses a huge amount of credibility in my eyes. This is what this speaker did with his quote mining of the evolutionist James Shapiro in the introduction. Shapiro makes controversial claims, and as such he is an favorite object to be misrepresented and quote mined by creationist.

In addition, this speaker is a theologian and, as far as I am aware, has no training in evolutionary theory so anything he says are just his personal (biased) opinions on the matter.


At 3:40 he continue his rant by misrepresenting what evolution is by giving a dictionary, i.e. non-biologist, definition of the word 'evolution' and then assert:

"Natural Selection and Adaption are scientific principles, but Evolution is not."

Ignoring the two facts that 1) evolution in one context is a name for the whole theory itself and 2) in another context, evolution is a term for a process which is part of the theory carrying the very same name. He ignores the fact that selections and adaption are key point in the theory of evolution and that selection and adaptation is evolution. His formulations gives the impression that selection and adoption are mere "principles" rather than, which is the case, observed facts.

I.e. he ignores the fact that evolution is a well established scientific observed fact, and gives the same old flawed and fabulated definition of its meaning only used by creationists.

So, coming not even 4 minutes into this presentation the speaker has, with his biased view, quote mining, ignorance and semantic games, utterly disqualified himself to have any whatsoever informed opinions on the theory of evolution.

I.e. this is the usual creationistic rhetoric in progress...

So, I wonder, why do you want us to, possible waste our time with, listen to an hour of possible endless nonsense opinions and as well take this persons speech seriously when he already have confirmed his confirmation biased after less than 3 minutes talk?

That said, I am sure the creationists at Creationgroup at Edinburgh University, which organized this presentation, loved to listen to ever word of this speaker so they could have their own bias confirmed yet again. However, others, more critical thinkers, my not want to listen to the very same old nonsense over and over again. So please, if you think this guy had something (new) of value to contribute with then state it here in your own words.

 

[ecco]

Yes! One hour and eight minutes is "pretty long". Why don't you provide a synopsis, in your own words?

Fast tracking the video

Read at 15:55
Read at 32:06
Conclusion at 53:59

You posted some portions of the video that you think are relevant.
I asked for a synopsis:

syn·op·sis
səˈnäpsəs/
noun
a brief summary or general survey of something.
"a synopsis of the accident"
synonyms: summary, summarization, précis, abstract, outline, digest, rundown,roundup, abridgment
"the synopsis was so intriguing that I just had to buy the book"
an outline of the plot of a book, play, movie, or episode of a television show.

​

Care to try again?[/QUOTE]

 

[ecco]

Except for that science just been around for a few hundred years. In that very same short time of human history we have had a progress unlike anything else. If religions are dealing with the truth one may wonder why this progress never happen until science made its entrance on the scene of intellectual thoughts...

I was kinda going beyond just evolution:

Pagan astronomy
The Greeks and a spherical earth
Copernicus and heliocentricity

 

[In situ]

I was kinda going beyond just evolution:

Pagan astronomy
The Greeks and a spherical earth
Copernicus and heliocentricity

I would regard Copernicus to be within the time frame of the last few hundred years. I agree, the Greeks are to be credit with the foundation of modern thinking. However, you also have to take into consideration that whatever scientific progress the Greeks made it was undone by the Christian church and was only, thanks to the Arabs, rediscovered in the past few hundred years. The pagans did not had a written tradition so, again with thanks to the Romans, any possible discovery they may have had done are forever lost in time.

It can be argued that Christianity set back scientific development with a thousand years at least. One can ponder about where we would had been knowledge wise today if it wasn't for what the Christian church did.
.

 

[In situ]

Care to try again?

I started to look at the intro and coming that far I concluded it is yet another creationism rant by yet another creationist. I would guess the rest will be the same old rant about how the Theory of Evolution is only a reborn old pagan belief system - which always been the main enemy to the Christan Church and which the Church always been working hard to destroy during the past two thousand years. So this seams to be about the end of time and the struggle between God and the fallen angles in their epic cosmic war game about the human souls. He may not say this straight out, but that is what I suspect it all will be about, and implicit understood as by the proper "trained" listener.

All I can say is that the pagans was right at least in their belief that we are connected to the animal kingdom and the rest of the living, which is something Christianity been wrong about for the past 2000 years and some still continue to adhere to. But to say that the Theory of Evolution is reborn paganism because of that is just plain silly or ignorant - that is unless you have a biblical fundamentalistic belief which blurs proper critical thinking.

 

[In situ]

Fast tracking the video

Read at 15:55

For those that cannot be bothered to watch - at this time point the speaker list the Hinduism view that the universe is made out of an evolving exploding scrambled egg. Despite creationists fabublations, cosmic evolution is certainly not what the Theory of Evolution is about. The Theory of Evolution is a theory about biology not physics and cosmology. The sooner creationists understand this the better.

 

[pat34lee]

The point is, creationist always try to render the meaning with words meaning less by letting them mean everything. Theory = story telling, and if the Bible then tells a story then it follows that the Bible is just as valid story telling as a scientific theory, the Bible can even then be said to be supported by science, and other nonsense like that

Incorrect. A claim supported by evidence is not story telling. It is only story telling when you do not have supporting evidence. I.e. it means that you do not understand what is meant with evidence since you believe a claim based on evidence is story telling, which it isn't.

I do not see how that can be - unless you exposed to new facts - if you have the facts, how can it then "throw you off"? At most you can look at it from another, perhaps more interesting, angel but to "throw you off" seams to be an exaggeration.

Two things. There are always new facts. Science is only scratching the edges
of creation. And, facts are just observations and tests. They can be wrong or
misinterpreted. Some facts can be conditional, yet taken for constant. Even
barring outright confirmation bias, and the fact that you cannot interpret anything
except through your own experience and training.

For example, C = speed of light in a perfect vacuum.
Since space is not nearly empty or a perfect vacuum, we have no idea what
affects the speed of light between us and the stars we see.

 

[pat34lee]

For those that cannot be bothered to watch - at this time point the speaker list the Hinduism view that the universe is made out of an evolving exploding scrambled egg. Despite creationists fabublations, cosmic evolution is certainly not what the Theory of Evolution is about. The Theory of Evolution is a theory about biology not physics and cosmology. The sooner creationists understand this the better.

That is wrong. Evolution was created as an alternative to special creation. It
is a philosophy dressed as science.

 

[pat34lee]

You posted some portions of the video that you think are relevant.
I asked for a synopsis:

Care to try again?

[/QUOTE]

No. If you can't be bothered to read three quotes, it isn't worth my time.

 

[Hoghead1]

Fact is, Pat, just abut everything is rooted in philosophy. If I found something that wasn't, I'd throw it out as worthless junk. Science itself is rooted in philosophy. That's why the are courses on the "philosophy of science." Consider the alternative offered here to evolution. Creation science is not only heavily rooted in conservation Christianity, but also in the ancient Hellenic concept of a substance, or substance philosophy.

 

[In situ]

Two things. There are always new facts.

One thing; you are moving the goal post.

 

[In situ]

No. If you can't be bothered to read three quotes, it isn't worth my time.

But it is worth your time to listen to all the nonsense produced by Paul James-Griffiths?

 

[In situ]

That is wrong. Evolution was created as an alternative to special creation. It is a philosophy dressed as science.

In what way was it "created" as an alternative, and why is it a philosophy and why do you think it is not a science?

 

[In situ]

Science itself is rooted in philosophy.

For instance, physics started out as philosophy but became later independent of philosophy. But I don't think this is what Pat34lee is fishing after after. The claims seams to be that the Theory of Evolution is not a scientific but some kind of world view constructed in the armchair by people like Darwin simply because they did not like the idea of creation.

How just a handful of people, that just happens to be creationist, have discover this "truth" but have evaded 99% of all biologists is still a big mystery.

I mean how can a wild speculating creationist like Paul James-Griffiths, which Pat "strongly" recommend, possible be wrong?

 

[In situ]

facts are just observations and tests

Incorrect. Just because something is an observation does not imply it is a fact, nor does a fact imply it is an observation in the sense of being an observed measurement.

Then I wonder where you got the idea from that a test is a fact and what do you mean with this? Did you meant to say that a fact is a "tested observation", and if so, what do you mean with that?

[facts] can be wrong

If you mean this in the way a scientist would say it then maybe yes, but if you mean this in the way creationist usually do then the answer is definitely no - a fact cannot be wrong since a fact is an established truth.

or misinterpreted.

Per definition this is incorrect. A fact cannot be interpreted because the very definition of a fact requires it to not be in dispute or ambiguous, if it is then it is not a fact.

Your are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own definitions!

Some facts can be conditional, yet taken for constant.

I do not understand what you are talking about here, could you please elaborate on this?

Even barring outright confirmation bias, and the fact that you cannot interpret anything except through your own experience and training.

Now I completely lost your line of thoughts, but are you saying that you cannot share experience with others?

Since space is not nearly empty or a perfect vacuum

Empty space between starts contains in average one hydrogen atom per cubic meter of space which is a far better vacuum than we ever produced on Earth. Such vacuum is regarded as more or less a perfect vacuum and I would not lose any night sleep by worry about empty space containing some unknown forces or substances between distant galaxies since such things would had been detected by now...

we have no idea what affects the speed of light between us and the stars we see.

Yes "we" do. However...

I heard this nonsense talk before from creationists, and my respond is: do not use the word "we" when you talk about yourself and your own knowledge about things.

You see, you are making an argument from incredulity here so it may come as a surprise to you that astrophysics pretty much know what space is filled with between stars and galaxies - and it is not so hard to figure out as you may believe it is. The reason why it is not hard is because "we" are, for good reasons, quite confident in both our knowledge about how physics and the measurement instrument works.

All that said; what is the point you tried to make?

 

[In situ]

Science is only scratching the edges of creation

No, science is not. Science is per definition an attempt to explain the natural world by natural means. As such "god did it" is a concept which science so far has not seen any need for to use as an explanation since the alternative are far from exhausted.

Some honest leading creationist have admitted there are no scientific research being done in creation, there is not even a research program for how to do it. I suggest you listen to those creationists instead of the fraudulent one...

 

[In situ]

That is wrong.

I don't think so, Hinduism claims that the universe was made out of an exploding egg. Why you and Griffiths thinks this bare any similarity to the theory of evolution is beyond my limited intellect and understanding.

 

[In situ]

If you can't be bothered to read three quotes, it isn't worth my time.

In all seriousness, in effect what you are doing by simply giving a reference is trying to manipulate people here to argue against his opinion not yours. I think ecco - just like me - is not interested to have an argue with a "champion" of yours, a person that probably does not even know this discussion exists. This is why we wont you to make a summary - express your own opinions, explain your own understanding and viewpoint. I.e. defend your own position by your own words - not via a mediator. Because, your thoughts is your own thoughts, and not just what others tells you to think, right?

 

[freezerman2000]

This is off topic,but,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!