Jerry Coyne speaks on Ways of knowing: Science vs. Everything Else

[@richardhedd3080]

Religion isn’t going way easy. Thank you Jerry for the willingness to stand up to religion.

[@Hhjhfu247]

So atheistic

[@roblovestar9159]

@@Hhjhfu247 And furthermore, so TRUE.

[@bobbybannerjee5156]

​@@Hhjhfu247so true.

[@acr08807]

Coyne starts at 5:32.

[@AlbertoApuCRC]

No me cabe en la cabeza que solo haya 140 personas que gustan del video, tiene 3 años publicado!

[@neeloor2004able]

Excellent information, sorry to see very few likes and comments 🤨

[@crazysphynxcatlady3359]

Jerry Coyne (Rick Moranis), Sam Harris (Ben Stiller) what a parody that would be

[@kahlesjf]

Hilarious. Good call.

[@West3720]

Jerry also looks like Richard Belzer from Law and Order. 😅

[@donaldwhittaker7987]

I am surprised at the number of rude comments here. Coyne is one of the good guys. Certain facts are just facts and no amount of complaining will make facts go away. Math and the information we get from our senses is all we have and ever will have. Would you go to a doctor for an operation or a clergyman? Be honest.

[@nblm805]

It's hard to eradicate infected religion promoters and believers this is like parasite will affect many but the only way to eradicate this infection is by educating ourselves and helping others to reach the same goal attacking the media the way they attack us and letting the people our true origin thank you for your program Jerry I admire you

[@existentialbaby]

this is just awesome...should have shed some light on hinduism too

[@nefaristo]

5:20 for Jerry Coyne

[@mikebellamy]

LUCA Falsifies Abiogenesis: 1) The minimum DNA for life is a precise string of 63 base pairs *conserved across all of biology* 2) That string must be present in LUCA complete for cellular life to begin 3) That string therefore cannot evolve by natural selection because the cell cannot reproduce without it 4) The improbability of a string of 63 RH base pairs is (2 x 4)^63 = 8^63 = average entropy cost of 63 all at once 5) Thus average number of point mutations by the second law = 63 x 8^63 = 4.9e58 6) Time for chemical change per BP substitution is about one second and there are ~1e17 seconds in 4.5 Ga 7) Not enough time in 4.5 Ga to perform 4.9e58 BP mutations presents a second law violation problem 8) 36 throws of two dice equates to the entropy cost of double six (average periodicity in infinite throws) 9) Means the earth system needs 4.9e58 seconds to pay the entropy cost for that state by the second law *Theory of chemical origin of life is falsified as a violation of the second law of thermodynamics! Q.E.D*

[@ALavin-en1kr]

When religion was banned under Communism that was not so great either. Religious ethics provides guidelines for right behavior. There is also free will. Some people behave rightly and some do not. There is no reason to believe that Secular Humanism could have everyone behave rightly, especially if they believe that no higher intelligence is present and aware of their mis-deeds. That Humanism would bring about a perfect world is a fantasy.

[@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523]

Religion was not banned in communist countries. It was not encouraged nor supported.The fail of communism have nothing to do with the lack of religiosity. Don’t buy the non-sense that the American media tells you, and use the scientific attitude to gather knowledge

[@martylawrence5532]

Hey Jerry Coyne! You said in 2011 that epigenetics is not dangerous to the theory of evolution because it only passes for two or three generations. . In 2014, it was found to pass adaptations for HUNDREDS of generations. I take it that now evolutionary theory is dead in the water. Am I right? You inferred this in 2011 it would be the case.

[@moatef1886]

This isn't the proper way to contact Coyne. This is the India Academy of Sciences' KZbin page.

[@toaojackson7447]

Epigenetics can never be "dangerous" to evolution. Only to pure genetics based explanations for evolution.

[@martylawrence5532]

@@toaojackson7447 Give me the year epigenetics was married to the theory of evolution by the evolution mainstream mentors or yours. Give me a cut and paste of the title of this link so I can look it up. I do not have to trust assertions from you. Lying is a debate tactic you on the fly science guys use and love.

[@toaojackson7447]

@Marty Lawrence I have no other means but to promise you I am not just some "science guy" unless you mean I am wedded to empirical observation. I am convinced the only religions that can be true are the Abrahamic ones and will delight in evidence that one of them in particular is true. To be honest: I'm not even sure what your question means? but I ask you to be understanding of that. Knowledge (even science) doesn't work the way you seem to be asking for. I was only trying to separate "evolution" from "science" in my quest to understand all things.

[@martylawrence5532]

@@toaojackson7447 Does the DNA sequences 'break' with epigenetic breakdowns? Does the DNA sequences advance to better arrangements with new adaptations? If not, what are the implications? Here is my latest post on evolution...This was in response to the KZbin video of PYjPqq8P70s&t=207s HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL! With epigenetic ageing, autoimmune disease, and cancers, it is largely a chemical going off kilter called methylation. Genes become under-expressed or over-expressed...turned up and down or on and off, away from their healthy former levels. THERE IS NO DNA SEQUENCE 'BREAKAGE' INVOLVED as you state. The sequence stays the same in either in the disease processes or in healthy adaptations to changed environments, changed diets, or new threats such as found with the Darwin Finch beaks Just think of a caterpillar becoming a butterfly in metamorphosis. Does its DNA sequence become different to accomplish it? No. It is done all by the epigenome's methylation-chemicals being MODIFIED. This action is called epigenetics. This is what happens with adaptations in all life including bacteria and viruses such as with the Darwin Finch beaks, cave fish passing on non-eye development to its offspring after coming from the outside streams, high altitude breathing, lizards modifying the foot pads or elongation of their gut when switching from insects to plant diets. All of the stickleback fish adaptations...it is epigenetic...just without the metamorphosis of the butterfly. It's epigenetic without any of the postulated DNA sequence evolving by mutations becoming 'naturally selected'. Adaptations come from an ALREADY EXISTANT BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM IN PLACE BEFORE CHANGES. Not evolution after the changes. Being already in place fits the intelligent design predictive model. Not the IQ-free after-the-fact evolution. The evolution narrative has always ASSUMED it is evolution in all of these epigenetic-derived adaptations. This assumption was piggy-backed by calling it 'microevolution'. The next piggy-back in line was saying this microevolution were steps going toward to all of the macroevolution mind-constructs such as whales from a land animal, bacterial antibiotic resistance, or humans coming from hominids. All for passing on this deception of evolution. Here is a big kicker...natural selection has been selecting these epigenome-derived adaptations. This puts natural selection over into the intelligent design column. Natural selection does NOT even save the theory of evolution! The huge precept of evolution of...degeneration causing evolutionary generation is laid out here to be absurd comic book science. It's Ninja Turtle material. This means effects from various mutations becomes a non-sequitur to evolution. Just the presence of mutations is not evidence for evolution. Take for instance mutations of a parent population not being able create offspring with the other...therefore a new speciation...is not evolution. It's a non-sequitur. In this light I have given in this post, the theory of evolution is made of many sleights of hand or smoke and mirrors. We are an intelligent design. The intelligent designer? Jesus Christ without a doubt. He offers a free gift of eternal...forever-life to you just for faith without works. No merit of any kind is needed. He takes you as you are. Do it today!

[@West3720]

Jerry does not hold back on religion.

[@tonybanks1035]

the number of ways in which Jerry Coyne is completely incoherent is mindboggling.

[@mikebellamy]

Jerry Coyne's definition of science: _"the use of observation, testing of hypothesis, consensus and reason to determine truth"_ Well nothing hypothesised in the big bang cosmology or origin and evolution of life fits into this definition because they are hypotheses about the unobservable past. *But they can be falsified by what is known now of the laws of physics and chemistry!* For example.. BIG BANG Gravity Problem: 1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation 2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite 3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny 4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light 5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon 6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg 7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2 8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs 9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter 10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known 11. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..* *The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.* Consistent with the bible creation of stars on day 4 after the expansion of space. Also _"Let there be light."_ on day 1 explains the uniformity of the CMBR being a burst of photon energy with no mass.

[@mikebellamy]

SIR FRED HOYLE Falsified Evolution: 1- Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and also an atheist 2- In 1987 he wrote ‘Mathematics of Evolution’ concluding the Darwinian theory is false (accepted micro-evolution) 3- What Hoyle showed was that novel genes for new proteins could not possibly have evolved by the Darwinian process of natural selection; 4- _“Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from slightly different rabbits...”_ 5- Even assuming 95% of the genome is junk and the code is 30% redundant could not save evolution 6- Concerning new genes _“Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.”_ 7- In 2018 TB. Fowler reviewed Hoyle's Critique of Neo-Darwinian Theory and said _“The conclusion is that while Hoyle's mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit, he did not carry his own reasoning far enough and specifically failed to consider the possibility of large variations in selective value.”_ 8- Hoyle did not consider large variations because he knew the obvious negative effect on probability of beneficial change only magnifies the problem; Hoyle 9- _“we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology? The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by a random process"_ The probability = 1e-120 ? 10- Hoyle was so convinced he invented a panspermia model pushing the problem of new genes out into the cosmos admitting it’s still a problem 11- Since Hoyle’s work was verified and its only alternative worse for evolution of new genes his assertion that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong is a *falsification!* Fred Hoyle "The Mathematics of Evolution" And the outcome of this essay? Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwin theory is correct in the small but not in the large." Introduction page 6

[@alekm4185]

If I had a coin for every time Coyne makes a logical fallacy life would be good

[@AlbertoApuCRC]

... you will be poor, for sure... can you cite ONE logical fallacy?

[@alekm4185]

@@AlbertoApuCRC well I can't cite a logical fallacy now, 2 months after having watched the video. Did you even watch it yourself?

[@moatef1886]

@@alekm4185 Could you do it now?

[@toaojackson7447]

@@alekm4185 watch it again and name one. You should delete your comment otherwise for attempting to make others more stupid.

[@joeherbert7556]

Big talk. But runs away like a little puppy that just piddled on the carpet as soon as literally anyone asks you to back up your claims.

[@toaojackson7447]

I am an atheist. But enough evidence exists to say Jesus existed. In my opinion his existence is unambiguously attested, it is only his divine nature that is in question.

[@mikebellamy]

BUTTERFLIES Falsify Evolution: 1- The butterfly has two distinctly different body plans 2- Only the second one has the means of fertilisation and reproduction 3- Evolution assumes it evolved from a creature with one body plan and its own means of fertilisation and reproduction 4- The second body plan cannot function until it is complete in both a male and a female simultaneously 5- Evolution must develop complimentary second body plans in male and female by random mutations without the aid of natural selection over generations 6- Evolution cannot by definition develop a whole body plan without the benefit of natural selection contradicting the basis of the theory 7- It is fanciful to imagine the random process could time the moment of transfer of the complex reproductive mechanism from the first to the second body plan in both a male and female to coincide exactly at the moment when those body plans were complete! 8- _"We can often learn about evolution from the fossil record, but there are relatively few butterfly fossils. Those that do exist, like the 40-million-year-old Prodryas persophone, are remarkably similar to modern-day forms-so the fossil record sheds little light on the origin of today's butterflies."_ American Museum of Natural History *Evolution by Natural Selection is falsified by contradiction of its most basic premise!* Q.E.D. METAMORPHOSIS by David Klinghoffer: _"If one wanted an example of a biological system that could never be explained by natural selection, butterfly metamorphosis would stand at the head of the line."_ Alfred Russel Wallace; _"Contemplating butterflies was among the considerations that drove evolutionary theory’s co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace, to doubt the sufficiency of natural selection to account for the most wondrous aspects of animal life."_ _"In The World of Life, Wallace wrote of how he could satisfyingly account for this only as a feature intended by design"_ *"to lead us to recognize some guiding power, some supreme mind, directing and organizing the blind forces of nature in the production of this marvellous development of life and loveliness"*

[@calebstone22]

Doesn’t the title itself say that science is a religion or at least is being treated as such?

[@TomSkinner]

No

[@ozowen5961]

Er... no. What a strange conclusion to draw.

[@calebstone22]

@@ozowen5961 It throws everything out every other discipline and says “science is god” because it’s the only way of knowing. That’s dogma. Science is philosophy and used metaphysics in order to be systematic and logical in order to interpret evidence. It’s hubris and arrogance steeped in its own faith

[@ozowen5961]

@@calebstone22 " It throws everything out every other discipline and says “science is god” because it’s the only way of knowing. " Some scientists assert this, certainly. But that is not the approach of most scientists nor is it how science works. Science is about the objectively verifiable. "That’s dogma." That sounds like your dogma is that it is dogma- but that's all. "Science is philosophy and used metaphysics in order to be systematic and logical in order to interpret evidence." No, science employs a developing philosophical approach, but it is not what drives science. It does have a set of rules. They are operational. I'm not at all sure why you decided to ascribe metaphysics to science. Sounds like you read that somewhere and now you need to repeat it.

[@calebstone22]

@@ozowen5961 I’m with you and agree. I have long issues with this guy and his approach in lectures and interviews. Metaphysics is nature of reality, mind and matter. I had Plato in mind.

[@danielwarpaint1963]

The grand deception.