READ DESCRIPTION: Please watch the video in its entirety- I know it starts off slow and technical. I discuss the actual, oft unmentioned reason every scientist accepts evolution. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.
Special thanks to Greenman3610 for providing the audio track in the background. If you’re remotely interested in global warming, subscribing to him is not an option, its a requirement.
-The C14 tree/etc example is just to show the strengths of independent methods.
Embryology video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnTGYdasDu0
Transitional Fossils: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
Sources:
Gilbert, S. F. (1997) Developmental Biology. Fifth edition. Sinauer Associates.
Carroll, R. L. (1988) Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. New York, W. H. Freeman and Co.
Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, Mass., Sinauer Associates.
Gould, S. J. (1990) “An earful of jaw.” Natural History 3: 12-23.
Kardong, K. V. (2002) Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution. Third ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Rubin, G. M. et al. (2000) “Comparative Genomics of the Eukaryotes.” Science 287: 2204-2218. [PubMed]
Schmid, K. J., and Tautz, D. (1997) “A screen for fast evolving genes from Drosophila.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 94: 9746-9750. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/18/9746
Sereno, P. C. (1999) “The Evolution of Dinosaurs.” Science 284: 2137-2147. [PubMed]
Smit, A. F. A. (1996) “The origin of interspersed repeats in the human genome.” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 6: 743-748. [PubMed]
Thornhill, R. H., and Ussery, D. W. (2000) “A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 203: 111-116. [PubMed]
Voet, D., and Voet, J. (1995) Biochemistry. New York, John Wiley and Sons.
Williams, G. C. (1992) Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges. New York, Oxford University Press.
Scarpulla, R. C., and Nye, S. H. (1986) “Functional expression of rat cytochrome c in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae.” Proc Natl Acad Sci 83: 6352-6. [PubMed]
Shimamura, M., et al. (1997) “Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates.” Nature 388: 666. [PubMed]
Smit, A. F. A. (1996) “The origin of interspersed repeats in the human genome.” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 6: 743-748. [PubMed]
Stewart, C. B. and Disotell, T. R. (1998) “Primate evolution – in and out of Africa.” Current Biology 8: R582-588. [PubMed]
Svensson, A. C., N. Setterblad, et al. (1995) “Primate DRB genes from the DR3 and DR8 haplotypes contain ERV9 LTR elements at identical positions.” Immunogenetics 41: 74. [PubMed]
Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) “Retroviruses and primate evolution.” BioEssays 22: 161-171. [PubMed]
Duration : 0:10:51
[youtube JgyTVT3dqGY]
@TheUnapoligetic …
@TheUnapoligetic Religion differs in that it has theistic people gods, such as Jesus, the Holy spitit,
Yahweh; who is found all over Israel before 650BC with statues of his wife Esherah, and brothers (baals, AKA mountains)
and Satan
Religion also requires faith.
religion is placing God on a stick for authority,
magic,
concepts of unworthy and unworthy
it excludes, and it condemns the infinite other which is not it to eternal torment.
Yet it is the finite entity.
Religion is false.
@marsCubed yes my …
@marsCubed yes my description does. Why would the Apostle Paul say the heavens (Astronomy) declare the glory of the Lord. If we believe that nature is somehow non dependent upon God. Spinoza has a world view and I hold a biblical view. Therefore I don’t worship creation more then I do the creator. Spinoza holds no new line of thought or philosophy that has not existed before his time. The bible speaks of these things in great detail thousands of years before Spinoza.
@TheUnapoligetic …
@TheUnapoligetic Your description of Darwin indicates strongly, a Deistic perspective.
Spinoza was at the heart of the enlightenment, although often called atheist, this is not quite accurate.
Spinoza explains that what religion has been calling God, is identical to Nature; The same substance.
Infinity is a condition of the God concept. there cannot be something else and God, or it wouldn’t be God, this is the garden, it is all God. however it is, even evolution, honesty and reason are enough.
In reason, faith is …
In reason, faith is the additive identity.
Well done.
Well done.
@DuhIdiot1 I agree …
@DuhIdiot1 I agree with you also. I do not claim to have an all knowing sense of what is or what is not logical, I was actually basing this off of what Richard Dawkins has repeated many times. That no logical thinking person could ever believe in a deity. They would have to be mentally ill. (Paraphrasing from The God Delusion.) Without and before my currently held faith I had no logical concept of a deity either. So without that faith, it is therefore not logical.
@JuryDutySummons …
@JuryDutySummons yes I agree 100%. He was not religious according to what was “religious” in the 19th century or what we call “religious” today. Also what he was not was an atheist. “I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally … an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.” Charles Darwin 1878
DonExodus2, this is …
DonExodus2, this is easily one of the most awesome videos on the ‘Tube. As you explain, the fact that thousands upon thousands of separate lines of evidence all point to trees of common descent, and THEY’RE ALL THE EXACT SAME TREE, makes the falsity of common descent about as ludicrous as it’s imaginable for a proposition to be.
My only critique: your delivery is rushed. Split the video into two. Then you can give this material the gravitas it deserves.
Wow, Unapoligetic, …
Wow, Unapoligetic, good job on the total and complete logic fail.
DonExodus2 didn’t say a thing about why rational people doubt God–didn’t even mention God or any other religious concept. Therefore, Darwin’s or anybody else’s reasons for doubting God cannot be compared against DE2′s statements to determine the doubter’s rationality.
Ad hominem: UR doin it wrong. (Nym spelling, too, but that’s immaterial.)
@TheUnapoligetic …
@TheUnapoligetic Darwin was religious out of respect for his very religious wife and not from personal conviction.
excellent !
excellent !
fake and gay
fake and gay
Funny thing is, it …
Funny thing is, it wasn’t evolution that made Darwin doubt the Christian God. It was the death of his son and struggles in his personal life. If you are 100% correct in your ending statement then Darwin was not a logical thinking person.
I’m sending a 5* …
I’m sending a 5* rating via mobile but I have no idea how that will translate into YT’s new ‘thumbs’ system.
nice closing …
nice closing statement
IN YOUR FACE, …
IN YOUR FACE, creationists !
holy who cares
holy who cares
@MrAnguswangus DNA …
@MrAnguswangus DNA could of evolved
brilliant! Wish I …
brilliant! Wish I could hi-five you.
@MrAnguswangus even …
@MrAnguswangus even if scientists did not even have a single clue how DNA formed, isn’t it better to say we don’t know how it formed than to assume that there is an intelligent being who created it? As limited as our understanding of the formation of life is, it’s at least more than we can say for the explanation of how an intelligent designer came to be, so how does believing in such a thing put the science in a better position? Just leave it as an unknown for now and study what we can.
@MrAnguswangus: OK, …
I look forward to it, and just so that I am not better informed about you than you are about me: I teach geography at university level and have a doctorate in geography. I may not be able to answer you immediately due to the fact that I am answering you from Europe…but I will answer!
@MrAnguswangus: OK, agreed
@MrAnguswangus: OK, …
. But I do not think I need you to help me think critically, I am all for constantly questioning preconceived notions. Indeed, that is the most important lesson to be learned at university.
@MrAnguswangus: OK, I accept your explanation for adding up the courses
@Nalae1978 I would …
@Nalae1978 I would love to continue with this intellectual conversation (now that we have settled down) but this will be my last comment until later this evening. Thanks for listening. Talk to you later.
@Nalae1978 I happen …
@Nalae1978 I happen to believe that DNA was created…evidence from studying DNA shows this. DNA is made using proteins but you cannot make proteins without DNA. Don’t take my arguement personally…do some inquiry.
@MrAnguswangus: ” …
@MrAnguswangus: “You implied that all I read is propaganda”. Well, so did you…:) BTW: You seem to support the idea of “Intelligent Design”. Just to be sure: Are you and old or young earth creationist? From that we can proceed, if you want to.