Uhm, this video stops abruptly at 1:31. Is there more to this video?

Rip 'em a new poohole, Richard!

according to the survey, 6/10 people believe the new ideas that everything can be rationally understood.

"evolution is the explanation for our existence"

HOW? explain to me how evolution is the explanation for our existence you pompous twat. I watched loads of your videos and all you can prove is that we evolved. From WHAT motherfucker?

Moving this video to dead_tofu's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter dead_tofu.

>> ^MINK:
according to the survey, 6/10 people believe the new ideas that everything can be rationally understood.
"evolution is the explanation for our existence"
HOW? explain to me how evolution is the explanation for our existence you pompous twat. I watched loads of your videos and all you can prove is that we evolved. From WHAT motherfucker?


Abiogenesis ?

Are you talking about the formation of amino acids and proteins from inert base gases with an electric catalyst ?

Evolution is the process by which something very very simple, undergoes natural selection, and evolves into something complex. Its been shown in the lab time and time again, without evolution we wouldn't need AIDS medication, nor anti-biotics, as germs wouldn't evolve...but alas, they do.

We've also shown in lab environments that we can create life from non-life materials.

We can also see through Doppler principle and phase shift of the stars, that literally everything in the universe originated in a single point, about 14 billion years ago.

We can also model accurately with the laws of physics, the evolution of the universe, which eventually unfolds basic hydrogen and helium into the more complex, heavier elements. We can also show how solar systems, stars, planets, moons etc. can form.

Its truly amazing what hydrogen can do given 14 billion years.

If you cant wrap your head around it, don't presume its false. I cant wrap my head around non-euclidean geometry, that doesn't mean I'm about to run around claiming that its a load of crap, and the relativists out there are all in it for the grant money.....the scientific method ensures that theories (the highest scientific standing of any hypothesis), are the best model of our understanding of how stuff works.

In science, the word "fact" does not exist. It ranges from guesstimate, to theory, with theory being as close to the laymen understanding of fact as you can get.

Reaching your intellectual limitations and claiming that something beyond your understanding is false, is supremely arrogant.

Evolution is the framework for which the natural selection mechanism allows simple life to become complex and adapt, and it most certainly not a random process. Think of it similar to a binary accumulation search algorithm.

Im thinking of a number between 1 and 100, each guess I will tell you if you are higher or lower. The binary search dictates you guess in the middle each time, it should only take 7 guesses max to reach the number (if its less than 128). This is very similar to evolution via natural selection.

Lets try this gene...is it better or worse than its pre-decessor ?

If better - propogate it, else, kill it. Very very simple.

>> ^MINK:
I watched loads of your videos and all you can prove is that we evolved. From WHAT motherfucker?


... evolved from the early internet commenters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF_uu5LlyS4

^
"We've also shown in lab environments that we can create life from non-life materials."

I missed that development. When did that occur? I've read about artificial "cells" that are capable of single protein synthesis. That's a long way from a building a self-replicating, self-sustaining organism from scratch. I would think that sort of achievement would have made the newspaper. Then again, maybe not my local newspaper.

>> ^snoozedoctor:
^
"We've also shown in lab environments that we can create life from non-life materials."
I missed that development. When did that occur? I've read about artificial "cells" that are capable of single protein synthesis. That's a long way from a building a self-replicating, self-sustaining organism from scratch. I would think that sort of achievement would have made the newspaper. Then again, maybe not my local newspaper.


Perhaps I jumped the shark a little bit on that, we are very very close however.

This man is the synthetic life pioneer, hes getting real close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter

Him at TED talks.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/craig_venter_is_on_the_verge_of_creating_synthetic_life.html

^
Yeah, he's the guy I've read about. I'd say he's got a ways to go. Excuse me, I have to go back to my lab, I'm trying to synthesize Charlize Theron using the human genome project template. So far, it's not working very well.

>> ^MINK:

"evolution is the explanation for our existence"
HOW? explain to me how evolution is the explanation for our existence you pompous twat. I watched loads of your videos and all you can prove is that we evolved. From WHAT motherfucker?


apes. or much earlier : a bacteria-like lifeform.
before that?
nucleic acids.
before that?
molecules, many of which that came about from the death of massive stars.
before that?
the big bang.
what caused that?
probabilities.
dawkin's doesn't need to use anthropic/philosophical reasoning though, he uses scientific FACTS for his arguments. which is why everyone fails if they disagree with him - because he's right.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chicchorea.