Thread: Response to Ben Stein

Yes: Molecular evolution-- But not biological evolution.

That's like saying the Earth evolved from the original Neubula the sun formed in. Yes, it can be viewed that way, but it isn't what biological evolution is and is classified as a totally separate theory.

Originally Posted by 27

It also bothered me to see Nazi imagery in the trailers as I feel that comparing those you disagree with to the Nazis or Hitler is not only extremely disrespectful to the memory of those who suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis, but is used to the point of losing most or all of it's meaning.

Actually it's a very good comparison. I haven't seen Expelled yet, but from what I understand it's not about intelligent design, but about the attitude the scientific establishment has toward anyone who even entertains the notion. It's akin to a genocidal elimination of the opposition by destroying their careers.

This film is going to be the biggest incarnation of the world has ever seen.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Actually it's a very good comparison. I haven't seen Expelled yet, but from what I understand it's not about intelligent design, but about the attitude the scientific establishment has toward anyone who even entertains the notion. It's akin to a genocidal elimination of the opposition by destroying their careers.

You didn't read my whole post;

Originally Posted by 27

Finally, to address the "Nazi" issue; As I previously stated, I feel that comparing your enemies to the Third Reich is, in most cases, unwarranted, unfair, untrue, and makes a mockery of one of the worst tragedies in human history. But 'Expelled' surprised me. While I worried that the film might present their case as "the Atheist doing this and this can be compared to Hitler doing this and this" 'Expelled' makes a far more accurate, and chilling, depiction of Nazi Germany and the ideas, namely eugenics, that led to the holocaust, by using Hitler's own words. It shows how eugenics was powered by Darwinism. how Hitler made the case that we, as humans, had super-ceded natural selection. That we'd allowed the human race to become polluted by letting "inferior" human beings live and procreate. Most of us know this but I had no idea that the actual terms "evolution", "natural selection", and other Darwinist terms were used by the Nazi movement to make the case for ethnic cleansing. You may still believe that comparing atheism to the Nazi movement is unfair, or that Darwinism was simply a front for the blind hate and bigotry displayed by Hitler. I can't dissuade you from that point of view, but if that's the case, isn't it equally unfair to compare religion to terrorism? And can't you use that same argument to say that religion is simply a front for the blind hate and bigotry displayed by terrorist organizations? I can accept that religion, taken the wrong way, can, and has been the primary cause of many wars, ethnic cleansings, terrorist attacks, injustices, and feelings of intolerance, but the atheist must also accept that Darwinism, taken to far, can, and has resulted in the same.

Originally Posted by Omicron

he could probably come back at you there with the theory that the start of life was a form of evolution in itself. oo.

Thank you. I think I will...

Originally Posted by Lord Bennington

NO! Evolution does not address the start of life. That is because that is not what the theory is about at all. It is a theory of how life changes over time. To deny that is idiocy. Abiogenesis covers the start of life.

A lot of evolutionary scientists explain the entire process of how protein molecules eventually led to humans. Protein molecules EVOLVED into humans. Did they not? Darwin did not get into how protein evolved into DNA, as far as I know, and apparently most evolutionary scientists do not address it either, but abiogenesis is a part the big picture of protein's evolution into complex organisms, and to deny that is idiocy. Don't tell me that no evolutionary scientists go into abiogenesis as part of the EVOLUTION of DNA and beyond.

The point that a lot of people are getting at in making the point you are defending is that abiogenesis is not INHERENTLY a part of every given speciation theory. That does not mean it never is. Ben Stein criticizes Darwin for not explaining abiogenesis, and it was not Darwin's job or goal to do so. The same is true of most evolutionary scientists, but be careful with your broad brush. Some evolutionary scientists go for bigger pictures than others.

I know that a lot of people claim that evolution and abiogenesis are completely separate, but I disagree. I think people usually argue that just to shut up creationists who suggest that it is every evolutionist's job to explain abiogenesis. Creationists often talk as though any evolutionary scientist who does not go all the way back to the very first organsim's origin has somehow failed his duty. The overall goal of abiogenesis science and the overall goal of evolutionary science are two very different things, but that does not mean the two can never overlap. They sometimes do. One can involve the other.

Genetics wasn't even a science in Darwins day, of course he couldn't speculate on how proteins evolved into DNA - he had no idea they existed. The word 'genetics' wasn't even in the English lexicon until 1905.

Evolution - the variation in allelle frequencies in populations suffering environmental attrition.

Nothing in that definition says anything about the origin of life. Evolution explains the diversity of life - not the first spark. It never has, and it never will. It's a completely seperate theory, and the 'evolutionists' that separate them are right to do so.

Thunderf00t, evolution and you

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Genetics wasn't even a science in Darwins day, of course he couldn't speculate on how proteins evolved into DNA - he had no idea they existed. The word 'genetics' wasn't even in the English lexicon until 1905.

I know, and like I said, he had no obligation to do so. However, some evolutionary scientists seek to explain the entire process on a macro level. I am all for it.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Evolution - the variation in allelle frequencies in populations suffering environmental attrition.

That is of course what is generally measured. The vast majority of the time, it is fully developed species of complex organisms that are being studied. However, protein did evolve into complex organisms. That is a fact. Do you really want to argue that it is not? I call it the evolution of protein, and that is a legitimate term to use, especially considering the fact that the word "evolution" encompasses more than just biological principles. If you want to call it "abiogenesis from protein and THEN evolution", suit yourself. The whole process is still a matter of evolution. Companies evolve, individual organisms evolve, and systems of laws evolve. All kinds of things evolve, and when they do, what they are going through is evolution. The change from protein to human is a form of evolution, biological evolution to be specific. That does not mean the discipline of biological evolution does not focus almost exclusively on speciation. That is the main focus. However, I think it is very narrow minded of people to say that abiogenesis is automatically not a principle of biological evolution and absolutely cannot be. It is so odd that people are so determined shut the door on using the word "evolution" to label the evolution of protein into more complex organisms. There is a bigger picture involved in evolution than what evolutionary scientists are primarily concerned with.

If you want to call the overall process several words instead of one, then go for it. It is still a matter of evolving. You can still make the point that speciation scientists do not have an obligation to explain abiogenesis. You don't have to slam the door shut on the abiogenesis part of the overall process when using the word "evolution". You can win the argument without doing that. This is a situation where I think evolutionists get a little too fanatical in being prepared to argue with creationists. I never thought there would come a day when I would say something like that.

The problem is that you're crossing your definition of evolution. You're using both the scientific and the layman terminology, then chopping and changing their uses.

systems of laws evolve. All kinds of things evolve

Case in point. Systems of law don't have genetic codes that carry hereditary information. Planets evolve from the interstellar dust and rock in the accretion disk around a new star, but planets don't have DNA or a means of hereditary information transfer. You're mixing the definitions, just like Stein is.

However, protein did evolve into complex organisms

Yes! They did, I agree - THAT is evolution. But abiogenesis is the theory of how that first protein developed from basic organic materials in an aqueous solution. Evolution deals exclusively with "living -> living". Abiogenesis deals with "non-living -> living". It's the difference between night and day.

Saying evolution explains the origin of life because life "evolved" into existence is like saying me making a sandwich is explained by creationism because I "created" the sandwich.

Both of you, the evolution of protein into complex organisms is a form of biological evolution. It is not the kind of biological evolution that Darwin theorized about or that the vast majority of evolutionary scientists are concerned with, but it is still biological evolution. You talk as though I am using homonyms or something. I am not. If you limit the term "evolution" to "speciation", then I am not using your very narrow term in your limited context. However, as I have illustrated, it is legitimate to not use such a narrow definition when talking about biological evolution, which is not limited to speciation. There is evolution of one species to another, and I am not talking about that. Darwin did that and only that, and the modern discipline does almost just as exclusively. So what. There is also evolution of protein to the most complex of organisms, and I am talking about that. Any questions?

You are taking the standard usage of a term and assuming it has to be limited to that standard usage. The term has a broader meaning in biological application than you are giving it credit for having. The reasonable response to an accusation that evolution does not adequately explain abiogenesis is that it does not have to do so to be true and that it actually does explain abiogenesis, not that abiogenesis and evolution have no overlap whatsoever. They overlap. For one thing, the principles of natural selection apply to abiogenesis, not exclusively to speciation. The major principles of speciation are the same principles that do a great deal to explain abiogenesis. They are the principles that explain the evolution of protein into the most complex organisms.

EDIT: I just read up on this some more, and a common term for "abiogenesis" is "chemical evolution". It ends with the very first official "organism", whatever science would decide qualified as that. That same organism, which was part of the process of "chemical evolution", was the first organism involved in "species evolution". The two subprocesses overlap at that organism. The whole process is a process of evolution, which involves changes plus natural selection. What would you say is a proper term for that entire process of evolution?

I am not saying that the word "evolution" can't be used for any other thing, obviously. But maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but to me it seemed that you were saying because the cells evolved into existence it somehow has relation to the "theory of evolution," which is a specific and limited theory that can not be extended to any entity that "evolves." This is another one of those semantical arguments.

Originally Posted by wasup

I am not saying that the word "evolution" can't be used for any other thing, obviously. But maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but to me it seemed that you were saying because the cells evolved into existence it somehow has relation to the "theory of evolution," which is a specific and limited theory that can not be extended to any entity that "evolves." This is another one of those semantical arguments.

Yeah, it is semantic, and I feel sillier and sillier having this argument because it looks like we agree more than we thought at first. It all started when I pointed out that evolution does explain abiogenesis. I was saying that protein evolved, and the principles of that evolution were change and natural selection. That is what I am saying. Now, the famous "Darwin's theory of evolution" does not explain it. Darwin never touched the issue, as far as I know. My bottom line here is that nonliving things evolved into living things through change and natural selection, but that is not as well established as Darwin's theory and the modern theories concerning speciation.

It's not about Ben Stein, but it's by thunderf00t too:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bAvr5VZJjNQ

A young earth creationist, the protagonist in some episodes of 'why creationists get laughed at' series, challenged thunderf00t for an open debate, lol!

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

It's not about Ben Stein, but it's by thunderf00t too:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bAvr5VZJjNQ

A young earth creationist, the protagonist in some episodes of 'why creationists get laughed at' series, challenged thunderf00t for an open debate, lol!

Yeah I've noticed this guy for quite awhile now, as I've been watching atheist videos on youtube for years, he's very ignorant, he'll say anything if it supports jesus.

Also there used to be a guy called glennreb or his new channel is ItsAboutJesus, he's basicly a hellfire and brimstone preacher insulting atheists he talked about how he'd disown his own children if they were atheists, there was a homophobe guy similer to that as well.

You're hardcore, I've only been following this "war" on youtube for the last 4 months or something. Although the only atheist channel I really subscribe to is thunderf00t's, there are others I might visit every now and then.

This guy venomfangx is very funny: not only because of the usual silly arguments against science and/or atheism, but he also makes movies bashing other religions (islam at least), talk about irony.

He made a response to thunderf00t's open letter, notice how he addressed just one very small argument done in one of the WPLAC videos (yay for acronyms) and "forgot" to mention all the big ones.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

You're hardcore, I've only been following this "war" on youtube for the last 4 months or something. Although the only atheist channel I really subscribe to is thunderf00t's, there are others I might visit every now and then.

This guy venomfangx is very funny: not only because of the usual silly arguments against science and/or atheism, but he also makes movies bashing other religions (islam at least), talk about irony.

He made a response to thunderf00t's open letter, notice how he addressed just one very small argument done in one of the WPLAC videos (yay for acronyms) and "forgot" to mention all the big ones.

Yeah and that other guy in thunderf00t's videos the one argueing how monkeys never gave birth to humans.

Most of the atheists that were prominent around the early stages of youtube like CapnOAwesome and TheAmazingAtheist have really gone into like a senseless pit (they more reflect comedy, and both are quite funny), theamazingatheist doesn't really debate anymore, though Nick Gisburne is still around, none of them were as really informitive as thunderf00t's video's though.

I highly recommend Paulsego, he's my favorite youtube atheist