Science Vs Evolution

I love science! How many people well into their 60's buy microscopes like a kid just to look into all the world around them! How many people are so whacked about raven personalities that they have over a thousand hours (Where's Guinness's Book?) of video tape just on ravens? That doesn't include the many hundreds of hours of a host of many different types of animals! But there are certain scientific things I'm not sold on. And some You Tubers have asked questions as to why?

My experience is that science can help us to find many amazing facts about our world but like statistics in math extrapolations carried too far can lead us to conclusions that are physically impossible. In this video I explain why I totally support the "Special Theory of Evolution"* but find the "General Theory of Evolution"* both non-scientific and more accurately, physically impossible.

Like I say at the end, if you disagree that's great but do us all the favor of sharing why, more specifically give us the actual real world science that convinces you the "General Theory of Evolution" is possible! I thank you in advance!

*Here is the distinction between the two according to G. A. Kerkut ;
"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand, there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."

In biology, to simplify, this concept is usually introduced as Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution.

[dragonspartan]

This all just seems like a argument from "I don't understand, thus evolution must be wrong". And why are you criticizing Darwin's work when we have 162 years of research? Does Darwin getting things wrong or any character flaws somehow discredit the whole field of research into evolution.

[marianaldenhoevel]

I like this story:

The Scientist wants to know how grass grows. Each day she takes a few measurements of the lawn outside of his office. Processes the data, cleans it up, plots it (add whatever steps you want to make it look legit)...

...and concludes that grass grows at a linear rate and retracts back into the ground to a constant height about every two weeks.

Of course the story has a happy ending:

...and gets torn a new one in peer review.

And that is just what would happen to your naive babystep-extrapolator.

[NEMOfishZ]

So you don't understand analogy or evolution therefore evolution is wrong....

[richarddimartino]

Cats and dogs share a common ancestor, they are carnivora. You seem to lead into that. But then you do not address it accurately. Instead you jump to fruit flies.

[benjamindover]

This guy knows nothing about science or evolution.

[wishusknight]

Sorry but this video is rather bad.. Really bad. It gets far too much wrong and just plain uses analogies that have nothing to do with evolution, but describe more your misunderstandings with it. You claimed to have researched it, but watching Hovind or Ken Ham video's isn't research.. I recommend using Berkley University's online course for the basics of evolution. Its 30 hours for the first module and completely free. That will clear up alot of misinformation you have been fed.

[azulaspencer]

lol dunning-kruger effect in action, my dude. amusing tho.

[Favar]

Science vs Evolution is a nonsensical title, man...

[timeshark]

_"How have you studied to be a scientist?"_
- *That's a silly question... the real question would be, "have you studied to be a scientist?"... but of course, the answer is an obvious "no".*
Loving science is not the same as studying to be a scientist... buying microscopes does not make you a scientist... falsely claiming to have been "trained in the scientific method" does not make you a scientist.
... you are a layman who has dabbled in science while holding onto your preconceptions. So much of what you say is amazingly wrong and caused by a profound lack of knowledge on the topic... like when you talk about "there was never only 1" when evolution happens to _populations_ not individuals.
There's nothing really wrong with being a layman (although pretending to be a trained expert when you aren't, like you are doing, is rather dishonest) but frankly, you seem to be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect coupled with the strong desire to support a preconception.

You picked a strawman version of the theory of evolution (2 versions actually) rather than the standard/accepted modern theory... and then misrepresent them through the misuse of terms like "macro evolution" and "micro evolution".

You claim that _"everything you were taught about evolution had been overturned"_ which is a flat lie. There is still quite a bit from when Darwin first wrote about it even though we have learned a lot and refined or corrected the ideas to reflect that knowledge.
Also, if "everything was overturned" why are you trying to point to outdated sources when trying to talk about a modern theory? And why are you so proud about reading Darwin's writings if they aren't even part of the theory (according to your logic) anymore?

You use nebulous, dishonest, terms like "kinds" while talking about animal groups... *try to actually define it*

You talk a lot about some sort of "limits" or "barriers" or what is "impossible"... *try to demonstrate any of these limits, barriers, or supposed impossibilities using actual science instead of just alluding vaguely to them while crowing about your imagined expertize.*

Its really classy of you to insult and attack the honesty of *_real_* scientists while you pretend to be one from reading some popular science magazines and a pile of sources you claim aren't even part of the theory anymore.

Your arguments amount to personal incredulity... not science. That you don't understand or don't like something is not a valid argument against the idea.
And worse, the support for your claims amount to little more than "believe me, I'm a scientist and have read a lot of magazines"... hardly a valid form or argumentation.
Grasping at things you think can be used as ammunition against evolution while ignoring context and changing your standards over and over does nothing to actually attack the idea... all it does is give people who know more about the theory than you (anyone who has taken any level 200+ biology courses in a university in the past 20 years for example) a clear impression that you don't know what you are talking about and are only interested in slinging mud.

Finally, don't you think that its dishonest to demand that other people use science to argue against you, and that they argue for one of your strawmen, when your arguments aren't based on science and don't talk about the modern theory at all?
Frankly, if you wanted to actually talk about evolution you should be using the "modern synthesis theory of evolution" at the very least... is that in any of your magazines? was it too hard to strawman or misrepresent?

[DJH]

You think that someone that "loves" science as much as this guy would put in more effort into learning about science.

[spitfire]

"It can't happen, it can't happen, it can't happen!"
Ok... I hear you... care to explain why it can't happen?

[richarddimartino]

A chef? You should warn people where you work so they don't eat there. Judging from your aptitude at science you might poison someone.

[wheels]

Have you read Jerry Copyne's book, "Why Evolution is True"? Darwin's book is quite old given the rate of scientific progress. Try reading Coyne's book and then tell us how you belief changes.

Of course, you could always write a paper for a peer-reviewed journal and be remembered as the one the showed bioly evolution is wrong. Heck, maybe Nobel prize time!

[freddanfly]

"I love science" says the anti-scientific conspiracy theorist. I don't like people spreading lies from personal incredulity.

[righty-o]

You do realize that the article you cherry picked at 8:52 in your video, explains that the only logical conclusion is that evolution is true and is taking place right now as we speak. Right?

[richarddimartino]

Evolution is not a belief system. It is a theoretical model that most parsimoniously explains all the available evidence,

[asianhippy]

You obviously have no idea about the science of evolution.

[JesseP.Watson]

Well, reading this comment section I'm, as always, rather saddened to see all this religious bile being spouted in the name of science because a thinking man dared question a theory - a THEORY. That is a deeply troubling sign of the times, or, once deeply troubling but today I do accept that the vast majority are perfectly happy to understand nothing themselves and rely entirely on headline statements spoon fed them by experts they designate to do their thinking for them.

Aye. Shame on those who believe anything in science I say, "belief" is the very antithesis of science and always will be. "Belief" should be reserved for religion and spirituality, the fact that so many today so easily say "believe the science" betrays the truth, science is to them just so much religious dogma to be parroted out in attempts to pretend an understanding of that which is, in reality, beyond their ken.

Regarding a comment you wrote in the top thread here on wing evolution, yes, I have had this issue bubbling away at the back of my mind for some time... As far as I understand it, the process would run something like this...

A ... fictional tree rat is born with a very slightly enlarged flap of skin under its arm pit... and every so slightly webbed 'fingers'

It has no evolutionary advantage but for some reason it bumps into another rat with the same mutation and they breed and that webbed skin is slightly enhanced in the off-spring.

That webbing is a dominant gene and so, though it provides no advantage, quite possibly the reverse, it continues to grow over multiple generations.

Eventually, thousands of generations later, after a natural disaster split these tree rats from the others so they could not interbreed, a tree rat stands there looking like a flying squirrel.

It looks under it's arms and thinks: "You know what, I've been carrying these irritating flaps of skin around under my legs and fingers as they evolved for generations, I think I'll put them to some use, I wonder if they have aerodynamic potential?"

So, the tree rat runs along a branch, jumps to another, and, as it does so it spreads its legs out in the hope that the flaps of skin will catch the wind. ...It works!

So, the tree rat then goes home and tells its family: "Hey guys, you know these mutated flaps of skin under our arms and between our fingers that we've been dragging around for thousands of generations despite them being neither use nor ornament?"

"I am aware of the flaps you are referring to..." Says mother tree rat.

"Well, today I discovered that they have aerodynamic potential and, by spreading my legs out as I jump between branches, I could glide, like a leaf on the wind!"

"Have you been on the fungi again Bob?" Says Mrs Tree rat.

"No, honest, it's true, I can show you how to do it!"

"Now you listen here sonny Jim, we're the lost lineage of tree rats, always have been, we don't talk about our weird skin flaps, they're the bane of our lives, the last thing we need is you flying around in front of the neighbours, they'll cast us out of the group! No, you stay on the ground, you hear me?"

"No! I'm going to bring our children up as FLYING tree rats and you can't stop me!"

"HAVE YOU ENTIRELY TAKEN LEAVE OF YOUR SENSES BOB?!? I will not have you putting these crazy ideas into our children's heads, it's hard enough for them to mate with their mutant skin flaps as it is!"

"Then you'll be left behind because I am SUPER FLYING TREE RAT!"

"Then I cast thee out of this crook in the branches Bob for thou art not the tree rat I me, ho, but you are no longer one of us, you are something different!"

So Bob the super flying tree rat began his long walk up the mountain from whence he flew to multiply across the Earth and so the flying tree rat was born.

I concur, to my eye, none of that makes any sense whatsoever, I cannot for the life of me imagine how the mechanical apparatus for flight could evolve and, more troublesome, were that to happen accidentally, as it must, how all those steps wherein a creature had a completely useless appendage... and then suddenly decided to try gliding... yup, that is surely a conundrum of megalithic proportions. I would REALLY like to hear a genuine explanation for that process because, by natural selection's own tenets, it just doesn't make sense.

As you, I love science... and am personlly not religious... but that problem there... that bothers me.

[Typo edit]

[AsmodeusDHare]

Okay Raven... tell me when was the last time you celebrated the festival of feasts? Have you taught people to not boil a baby goat in its own mother's milk, both of those are in the ten commandments in the original book that hasn't changed.

[robertrathswohl]

You may love science but you have no idea what it is. When you discover what science is I doubt that you will still claim to love it.