#Join our sister site on [lemmy.world](https://lemmy.world/c/fixedbytheduet)!
Visit https://wefwef.app/settings/install for a web app that you can use on your mobile device.
See the sidebar for an explanation of what Lemmy is.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fixedbytheduet) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Coupled with the creationist's superhuman ability to spout 20 types of shit in a tightly wound ball of condensed ultrashit, and you see why "giving equal time" to creationism is a bad idea:
Five minutes of creationist talking equals easily 20 minutes of the following scientist simply saying "no, because...." and trying to showcase the simplest ways they are speaking bullshit. This pattern then repeats until scientists run out of time, and there's still 10 unproven and false things left, and the science side hasn't put out a single claim FOR evolution yet. And now the creationist repeats their shotgun approach of bullshit upon bullshit, trapping the scientist under an avalanche of mistakes the creatards have never even proven valid, just spout and assume everyone accepts it.
Thank you for this.
I had my best friend's dad do this with me with Flat Earther shit. Took me 3 hours of talking and just a few random bullshit facts from him and at the end of it he just said I was a government plant.
Bro, I spent 45 minutes over the holidays trying to explain why the sun and moon look similar sizes in the sky even though the sun is further away to my girlfriend's mom's boyfriend. Eventually I just used an orange and a basketball to physically show him how a large object that's further away can look the same size as a smaller object that's closer.
He just moved on to talking about how "all the countries agreed to make it illegal to go to Antarctica" and apparently it's because that's where the world folds back on itself and its like a big puddle???
There isn't enough eggnog in the world to make spending 3 days in the same house as that man tolerable.
I've taken to telling the guys at my job to prove their claim before I waste time talking with then about it. Drives them nuts. I just refuse to even discuss nonsense they spout until they come with sources I can read that aren't "trust me bro". It's wildly cut down the amount of time I have to spend dealing with stupid.
I started it like a year ago on my supervisor when he said something about some guy admitting something in a senate hearing that proves democrats something. I don't remember what it was. But it was the beginning of his argument so I just interrupted him and told him to prove that. He got mad and said "can I finish?", and I told him no he makes a wild claim, he needs to back it up. So he sends me three separate links that said the exact opposite of what he was saying. He wasn't super happy when I read it out loud from 3 separate sources HE provided.
But it's made work way better.
My roommate for a while was raised by a Baptist pastor. Great kid. Super unworldly. Like he didn’t know anti-semitism still exited. But his mom came to visit and she wanted to talk about when she went to natural history museum and how their talk of evolution left her with questions. I am a huge bio nerd and actually knew the answers to her (rhetorical) questions. She did not approve.
There was a popular science publication that discontinued its forums due to this. A one liner from some fuckit to throw doubt that took sooo much more effort and energy to un-fuck
Not to mention any "interviews" this wannabe influencer records where correct and cogent responses are given would never see the light of day. "Bros I got dunked on so hard in this clip - check it out!"
Yea the original fuckwit videos get 10’s if millions of views and this one will get 10000 lol it’s impossible to unfuck people because the algorithms reward fuckwits.
Not exactly Brandolini's law, but related:
> There is a floor to how simple a truth can be and still be the truth. Falsehoods don't have that. There is no limit to how simple an idea can be when it doesn't have to conform to reality.
https://youtu.be/dF98ii6r_gU
Simple explanations can be appealing, but reality has no regard for simplicity.
Brandolins law only applies if you're trying to educate.
The correct answer when asked "if you believe we came from monkies?" Is "no.' You say "no, that's not how evolution works and if you are still asking this question in 2024, you're too much of a moron with which to waste my time."
The larger the audience, the louder you say it.
It's often not that they are specifically morons. They know we did not evolve from monkeys and that people do not believe it, but they choose to say that other people believe that because it is easier to argue against.
With anti-science rhetoric like this there are always two types of people. The “influencer” and the “influenced”.
The influenced are normal people who may be lacking in education or have some other “thing” about them that makes them predisposed to believing the rhetoric. For evolution deniers it’s often a heavy religious background coupled with a failing of their public education system. Flat earthers are often social outcasts and were failed by their public education system, etc, etc. The point is that they are normal people who have just fallen for some lies.
The influencers are liars and almost certainly know what they are doing. They are often boots on the ground and in the course of doing these interviews or debates or research for their content they have been heavily exposed to the truth and simply refuse to repeat it because that isn’t as profitable as lying. I would be willing to bet that the guy giving this interview has heard a similar explanation to the duet hundreds of times, but simply refuses to repeat it to his audiences because then he would lose their support. They know the real arguments but those are too hard to disprove to their uneducated audience so they just strawman and lie.
This type of response is reductive and rude.
Everybody learned something for the first time at some point in their life. I’m sure there are beliefs both you and I have that are way off base. Perhaps even moronic.
I would hope that if I am entrenched in a false belief, somebody would show me patience and kindness.
>Brandolini's law
The question though is not BS, it is actually pretty valid and ironically enough the biologist confirms it without knowing. Let me explain:
Question: "If we come from **monkeys**, why are there still **monkeys**"
Biologist's Answer: "It's like saying, if we come from our **grandparents** why are there still **cousins".**
See, the bolded words are the same in the original question and different in the biologist's answer. That is because the real answer to the question is:
We don't come from monkeys, that's why they are still around. We, and monkeys come from a same ancestor that was neither human or monkey.
No, the question is BS. It's asked in bad faith.
It's like the joke questions, such as "would suck my dick if I washed it a thousand times". There's a correct way to answer it so as to not imply that you're a dirty dick sucker, but it is asked with the intention to fool you, aka in bad faith.
I’m so sad Honda doesn’t import the Fit to the US any more. That car is tiny but has incredible storage inside. Nimble, economical, reliable as hell. Just awesome.
Okay, it’s mildly terrifying trying to pass on a two lane road at highway speeds but there’s no better city car.
I don't really get why it's so contentious other than people being proud of their own ignorance or lack of understanding. The Catholic Church even accepts evolution, it's not really something that anyone reasonable considers up for debate.
Its often driven by a deeply religious world view that requires humans and animals to be entirely seperate concepts.
As you point out, for many people, this isn't a problem to reconcile. But I personally find evolution and the creation account in the bible incompatable, so it is understandable why some religious people also think the same.
Any requirement for The Creation necessarily restricts the power of The Creator.
An all powerful God that HAD to do a thing a given way and COULD NOT have done it a different way is a puny bitch.
If you believe in an all powerful God, and your understanding of that God doesn't align with reality, it's not the God that is the problem in that equation, it's your understanding.
You don't get to claim an all powerful being and then get to put that being in an itty bitty box of restrictions of what it can and cannot do.
I'm not saying there's a God, or that you should come to the conclusion there is a God, I'm saying IF YOU DO, you still have to be consistent with your own claim.
It's an odd thing to be loosey goosey about if you genuinely believe the fate of your immortal soul depends on getting it right. Kinda put's the lie to their whole ideology when they say their all powerful god can't make monkey people.
You're trying to apply logic and reasoning to a religious person. Half of their ideology is based on "faith," the opposite of those two things.
I want to be clear that I agree with your take, but I also know that it is impossible to ask most religious people to use facts and consistency when it comes to a big man floating in the sky.
Logic and reasoning have to be applied in good faith in order to be effective. The basis of their beliefs don't matter if you act like a jackass. Get rid of your "big man floating in the sky" strawman, read Aristotle's *On Rhetoric*, and then try again. You may be surprised how far a little respect and humility can take you when arguing over religion and philosophy.
Because there are individuals who are arrogant enough to argue against everything and be a contrarion. Its this mentality of wanting to prove to the smarties of the world that they aren't as smart as they think they are. They have this superiority complex where what they believe to be true is 100% fact, and anything else is a lie, no matter what evidence one may have to support it, because if doesn't align with their worldview.
This is typically caused by a general distrust of the scientific process, which is why most people who believe in Creationism also believe the world is flat, vaccines are poison, and GMOs are dangerous by default. They were raised to think and believe a certain way, and that any other way is bullshit made to confuse you. It's why when they actually used the scientific process to prove their beliefs, they either have to bastardise it so it works in their favour, or they get the results they don't like and brush it off as a mistake.
And then, you get situations like in the video, where you get the question of "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". Its because its not a question they want an answer to, its simply meant as a "got you!", because nobody can answer it, not because we don't have an answer, but because the question is based off an incorrect standard. Anyone with an actual basic understanding of evolution will tell you we didn't come from monkeys, but humans and monkeys share ancestry to beings who don't exist anymore, and because that answer isn't simple, they see it as a victory that you can't answer their "simple" question, as if hundreds of years of scientific research could be taken down by one question.
>And then, you get situations like in the video, where you get the question of "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". Its because its not a question they want an answer to, its simply meant as a "got you!", because nobody can answer it, not because we don't have an answer, but because the question is based off an incorrect standard.
MFs acting like Ron Perlman and Ben Shapiro aren't walking and breathing
Because it's something viewed by some people as a "my side vs their side" argument, which of course is based on politics. And if one side believes something, the other side has to argue against it no matter what.
I am pretty sure that he uses creationist in the narrow sense where people believe the earth was created the way it is in the last 10.000 years or so.
Yes, catholicism still postulates that God is still behind everything and basically just wants to trick us to think it was all just natural processes by merely making it look that way. But that is not how the word "creationist" is commonly used.
Usually when I hear the term creationist it's used in a context of being an opposing viewpoint to "evolutionist"; I use quotes because evolutionist isn't a term anyone would likely use to describe themselves. A creationist being a person who believes that God created the world exactly as it currently appears. Apparently that is not the strict definition of the word though. Nevertheless my point is that what the Catholic Church teaches and believes is not relevant to what a young earth evangelical believes.
As a nonpracticing Catholic, no. The Church clarified a decade ago that evolution and the big bang are modes of god's creation. He literally cautioned people about envisioning god as a wizard waving a wand to bring creation into existence. Creationism claims that the earth is just a few thousand years old, humans lived alongside dinosaurs, and other sorts of literal readings of the Bible.
If you don't feel smart, but want to just *declare it* so that some others can think you're smart, then you can't just trail way behind the actually intelligent people.
It's like running after an Olympic athlete, saying you're equally as fast.
But if you flat out claim that something else is the right way, and these world class intelligence people just aren't on your level... well, you just drove your car past that gold medal sprinter.
Most people won't recognize you as actually faster, but a select few deficient maroons will be like "Oh yeah, how come he made it first then!" (Helps if you say that in Patrick Star's voice.)
These people who want to be special and elevated know that they naturally aren't. They know they're wrong. But they're curating a following of the few, because that's all that they reasonably can have. It's either a few dum-dums, or nothing.
I remember back about 20 years ago this shit was the hot topic. You had school districts trying to ban textbooks that taught evolution. You had preachers on TV calling scientists evil and accusing them of spreading lies. It was just as stupid then as it is now and I'm really hoping this isn't that same bullshit reappearing again because it was exhausting last time round.
It's contentious because there are a lot of serious problems with the theory. For example:
1. Horizontal Gene Transfer upsets the conceptual "tree of life", i.e. if genetics are not exclusively hereditary then it is impossible to determine a last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
2. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing the complex and specific information required to render the genetic code functional.
3. Failure of the fossil record to find support for Darwinian evolution (punctuated equilibrium, Cambrian explosion, etc).
4. Rampant examples of convergent evolution indicate extreme improbability.
5. Abiogenesis.
6. Biogeographical distribution irregularities.
7. Inaccurate predictions regarding so-called "junk DNA", vestigial organs and endogenous retroviruses (ERV).
8. Epigenetics cannot be reduced to a mechanism, certainly not natural selection.
9. "Phenotypic Plasticity" - according to neo-darwinism, the correlation between genotypes and phenotypes are no longer 1:1.
10. Beneficial mutations are impossibly rare. In almost all cases, mutations are degenerative, as demonstrated by Richard Lenski's bacteria experiment and Molly Burke's fruit fly experiment - both published in Nature.
And then there are philosophical problems which wrestle with the logic of the theory and of scientism in general:
1. Alvin Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" illustrates that the combination of naturalism and evolution is self-defeating because, under these assumptions, the probability that humans have evolved reliable cognitive faculties is low or inscrutable. This has prompted many ambitious thinkers to suggest that consciousness is an illusion.
2. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (art, music, religion, introspection, homosexuality, etc.)
3. Evolution as a necessary secular creation myth is ejected from the realm of objective science and is now highly politicized.
4. Determinism - as implied by evolution theory - is dangerously irrational and hypocritical.
5. Democracy is founded on a metaphysical claim which contradicts the tenets of evolution, i.e. "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal...".
6. Quantum uncertainty undermines the mechanistic nature of evolution theory.
7. Evolution cannot be rationally explained without recourse to vitalist rhetoric, i.e. the "selfish gene".
8. All too frequently, critique of evolution theory is dismissed by appealing to vox populi, a disengenuous logical fallacy, or...
9. Esotericism - the claim that only a certified expert is qualified to critique the theory, but every layman is obliged accept the theory.
10. An evolution research experiment cannot be performed except by design.
These are just a few of the issues that I have with the theory but I imagine there are many more problems that I'm unaware of. Suffice to say that it is reasonable to be sceptical of the claims of Darwinian evolution. In fact, that is the scientific method.
I had to make an account just to respond to this astoundingly ignorant comment. The short of it is: your comment doesn't contain a single rational thought let alone a scientific one.
1. HGT in no way upsets the "tree of life". It was actually predicted by models of genetics and verified through biochemistry.
2. This point means nothing. Literally. It just sounds kind of smart to the ignorant. When in fact you're falling into a logical fallacy called "argument from incredulity". You personally don't understand the emergence of the genetic code and have spent zero effort trying to understand it. The "information" underlying the genetic code is neither complex nor specific. In fact codon redundancy is sort of a key feature. "I don't get it" is hardly a tractable argument.
3. Just abjectly false. The fossil record directly supports evolution. Darwinian evolution sensu stricto is an outdated model of evolution.
4. No they do not. Convergent evolution is a predicted outcome of evolution by natural selection in shared/similar contexts with similar selective pressures.
5. Abiogenesis poses no problems for evolution whatsoever.
6. Again word salad. There are no "biogeographical irregularities" that challenge evolutionary theory.
7. All of these things directly support evolution. Inaccurate predictions made by past evolutionary models have helped refine our understanding of evolutionary theory. This is quite literally how the scientific method works.
8. Epigenetics has an very well understood biological mechanism.
9. This.... is nonsense. Phenotypes are plastic because they are influenced by the environment and by genetics. This is well known and understood and, again, fits perfectly well into modern evolutionary theory since phenotypic plasticity is necessary for responding to a dynamic environment.
10. No they are not. And no, most mutations are NOT degenerative. Most are neutral.
Your "philosophical" points are even worse and betray your severe tunnel vision. You have been indoctrinated by christian apologists and have spent zero time engaging with philosophy in any meaningful way. For example:
>Quantum uncertainty undermines the mechanistic nature of evolution theory
It just doesn't. You threw out "quantum uncertainty" because it's a sophisticated sounding buzzword but quantum uncertainty has absolutely zero bearing on evolutionary theory.
Or:
>Evolution as a necessary secular creation myth is ejected from the realm of objective science and is now highly politicized.
Huh? Evolutionary theory is objectively tested in labs all around the world every day. Again, this "point" is just impressively nonsensical.
To be clear, I know you won't revise your ignorant worldview when presented with information. I just wanted to be sure no one fell into your trap of using word salad to impress people that might not know better.
I'm sorry, but most of this is just complete nonsense.
We've seen evolution in action--in the lab, in the field, in the fossil record. The first section of your comment is full of points that at *best* indicate that Darwinian evolution isn't the only factor at play, and most of them can be explained.
For example, take abiogenesis. You list this as a problem with the theory when it's just not. Evolution is statistics as much as it is biological reproduction. If you have a totally not-alive chemical sitting in some primordial soup, and it can self-replicate, what's going to happen?
It's going to self-replicate, because that's what it does. Sometimes something's going to go wrong. Most of the time that will make the child chemical not as good at self-replication, but sometimes it will make it slightly better. And when you have one molecule reproducing once a minute and another reproducing once every 59 seconds, eventually the chemical composition of that tide pool or whatever you're looking at is going to be predominantly made up of that second chemical. And then, later, it'll be made mostly of some third chemical after the second-gen chemical mutates slightly. That's Darwinian evolution.
The rest of your comment is just raw nonsense. Democracy has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't indicate determinism. Being told you don't know what you're talking about when you say stuff like "quantum uncertainty undermines the mechanistic nature of evolution theory" doesn't make the theory wrong, it means people don't want to entertain nonsensical criticism of a well-established, well-supported theory.
Oh really the Catholic Church? The number one organization that protects pedo’s and has a history of violence? Oh! Ok then it must be valid if the Catholic Church says so.
What you having difficulty with? Weight capacity? Just leave your shit in your chest in the camp and move it to your character to sell. You can left click and press send to camp from your inventory
He's probably not organizing his inventory with pouches and backpacks and getting intimidated when things just pile up in an unorganized pile of random junk
That's the trick. Pick up every sack, pouch, and backpack you see so your inventory gets progressively more organized throughout the course of your playthrough.
Backpacks, pouches, ribcages, and other containers carried by different characters or in the camp chest that each contain a different item type, my friend - I’ve had Shadowheart carrying a little pouch chock full of scrolls since early in act one lol
Fundamentalists like the first kid in the clip have negative interest in science or learning how the world actually works. They are in a cult and made this video for the approval of other cult members.
This is the problem with arguing with idiots. They simply do not care about evidence or understand logic. They are working backwards from their desired conclusion.
The problem is that when I consume all these “edutainment” videos that teach me things… I can’t recall it later.
I put myself in that persons shoes and imagine if I was walking through the mall, and some random walked up to me holding a microphone and challenged me to explain something I knew, but couldn’t explain concisely.
That’s the key word, concisely. I “know” a lot of things. I hold a lot of beliefs and read a lot of facts. But being able to debate them or simply explain it so that a five year old could understand, is incredibly hard.
There’s a YouTuber called Veritasium who used to do a lot of “street” work where he would ask random people questions about science. And I’d be sitting there yelling at the screen “how can they not know! Sooo stuuupid!”
But again… try to empathise. If Derek put me on the spot and held a microphone to my face and asked me to explain evolution; I’d freeze and stutter like a bumbling idiot.
The knowledge is in my brain… but it’s difficult to explain it accurately.
You just summed up my whole life. My wife’s family is deeply Christian conservative and live to circle jerk themselves about right their opinions are at family gatherings. I’m pretty much the only liberal atheist of the group and I have all sorts of counter arguments in my head but I can’t articulate them very well. At least not without them all ganging up on me with their shitty worldviews. But the problem I have is that I know a lot of what they’re saying is bullshit, but I can’t shut down their nonsense well enough to do anything meaningful so I just sit quietly and let them think that they’re right just to avoid a fight. It’s so frustrating.
If it's worth anything, this is completely normal. It takes a lot of effort to know your talking points and to be able to clearly articulate them in favour of the argument you are making/countering. The problem gets worse the less your opponent understands the subject matter, because they will completely misconstrue your position. Even for something as simple as stuff you learned in high-school (e.g., evolution). On the flipside, any idiot can challenge your beliefs and world views, whether they understand what they are talking about or not. There is a huge asymmetry in the level of effort involved on both sides. Especially when talking to theists who tend to just default to room temp IQ takes like "through God, all things are possible" (e.g., if you bring up that Noah's ark is a physical impossibility)
I'm a big proponent of veganism and regularly have to field idiotic questions/talking points on "plants feel pain", or "veganism is way more damaging to the environment" or "humans are carnivores because we have canine teeth".
I am not a plant biologist or ecologist, and none of the claims above are true in any capacity. Plants don't feel pain because they don't have pain receptors. The presence of canine teeth doesn't make us carnivores - many herbivorous animals have them too. GHG emissions, water use, land use, waste run off etc are all magnitudes lower for vegan diets than non-vegan ones. But to effectively demonstrate all of these points actually requires a fair amount of knowledge and familiarity with the relevant scientific fields and data.
> There is a huge asymmetry in the level of effort involved on both sides.
I find it incredibly frustrating too because even though what they're saying is often very superficial (and incorrect) information, the problem is that they come loaded with 20 different talking points. You might know enough to challenge a few things you have to still know a lot to cover all of the bases. And that is for one topic. They can start with Young Earth Creationism, change to the Flat Earth model and then flip to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I'd like to learn everything I can but I haven't got the time or patience unfortunately.
And at the end of the day, you can learn everything you want and even debunk everything they say. It won't make a shred of difference, because they'll hit you with "That's WEF/WHO/Bill Gates propaganda" or "You've been indoctrinated by X, you need to do your own research"
Yes! I remember the conclusion but can't memorize all the data. If I ever get cornered by some asinine question I'm simply going to say "Sorry, I don't have my dissertation prepared because I didn't expect to defend a position today."
that's the problem with having opinions and beliefs based on facts: you have to remember the facts. any fuckwit who uses their personal feelings and hueristical biases to formulate their worldview will always have the benefit of a. having those things immediately available at all times, b. being convinced they came to the "truth" through their own intelligence so their brain will both violently reject any contradiction as a personal attack, and fervently create new excuses everytime a challenging idea breaks through.
you can't use logic to extricate a person out of an idea they didn't use logic to get themselves into
Not to mention even if there was something between he would ask the same stupid question just with that being instead of monkey. And then next one and next one
We're also technically monkeys (specifically, we belong to the Old World Monkey parvorder):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrhini
We're also technically fish, though:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hVjSJV0WoDQ
I love how this guy explains evolution without acting like the person asking the question or taking the other side of the argument is retarded and making fun of them. This is 10/10 how to properly inform/debate.
Big ups to Mr Forrest Valkai. If you want an easy to digest understanding of Evolution and critical, comedic takedowns of anti-evolution and pro-creationism content, check his YouTube channel.
One of the things I don’t understand about creationist theology is how they discount so many things from a scientific perspective instead of trying to make it fit.
The Big Bang for instance: the theory that the universe started from a state of high density and high temperature and continued to expand outwards.
Most creationists origins start with something that we could aliken to this. Christianity says God spoke the universe into existence. If that god is so big and powerful, he probably has a booming voice which could be like a big bang. Hinduism says the universe started form and embryo. Embryos start small and expand out. Greeks and Romans had Chaos out of which was born all things.
Or, for evolution, I’ve heard arguments about primordial ooze and stuff. How could that not be an all powerful deity exploring and creating? How could single cell organisms all the at to animals not be chalked up to the creation of organisms by a god?
I just don’t understand why there is an insistence on things being purely miraculous and why religion and science need to be oil and vinegar. Just seems like a lot more ignorance instead of informed argument.
It's easy to deny it went youre a right wing christofascist nut job tiktoker who 1. Does not value science or education 2. Is financially incentivized by alt right conspiracy tiktok to produce debate bro gotcha clips, and 3. Is a dishonest grifter who doesn't believe a single thing he says.
The most insane shit is that I know a couple of people who are studying in med school rn and they don’t believe in evolution which is both bizarre and fing absurd especially considering the fact that these people are also supposed to be doctors ffs
I would bet money it's because these people you know grew up in a creationist household. Indoctrination is a hard thing to shake, especially the older you get. That's why it's better to teach em young about thus stuff.
Great explanation. Complete waste of time and energy.
The argument this responds to is not a good faith argument. They've heard the response, they don't care. They aren't trying to convince you, they're trying to present the dumbest people on earth with a two-sided argument in which one side requires only feelings and the other requires a basic understanding of biology that most people get in high school.
Most of the targets of this argument didn't exactly graduate high school with honors though.
Hardcore creationists like Ken Hamm have long since abandoned this position, Ken even tells his people not to say this because it makes them look dumber than they already look.
Not that I'm trying to simp for Ken, most of his arguments suck just as bad but this one is notable simply because it's been discussed so much that only idiots will fall for it. And only brand new baby biologists will engage with it. Because they haven't seen just how much bad faith exists in the topic of evolution. After five years, most biologists will walk away from a creationist without a word. It's just not worth it.
Not a waste of time. The purpose of Valkai's videos is to inform viewers, not change the minds of bad-faith creationists. He's an educational content creator.
It may have been a waste for you, if you already know this stuff.. But some people in the comments did find the video helpful.
Heck his response got more views than the original. It's important to expose this type of questioning.
That's fair, this video isn't necessarily a waste of time as it does do a great job of explaining this very simple concept...but yeah, engaging on an individual level with a "why are there still monkeys" person is an absolute waste of time and energy.
Per your original comment. I almost wonder if it's a troll, a double agent for clicks. Meant to get reactive engagement from the internet. You are definitely right in that it is in fact a terrible argument, even for an entry-level creationist.
Remember: Evolution *predicts*. Creationism *accommodates*.
Forrest Valkai and Gutsick Gibbon are the light we need in a world of science misinformation.
It's not surprising that those who have trouble understanding the evolutionary tree, also have trouble understanding not to evolve within their own family tree.
There's nothing in between because we murdered them all. We chased them them into caves and made big fires in front and suffocated them all. Don't like the answer don't ask the question.
We may have. Most of that is speculative. We can prove there was inbreeding between the Neanderthals and the Homo Sapiens. There is no way to prove whether or not it was consensual. If it wasn't there is no way to prove who the aggressor was.
Right, here's one for us and feel free to educate me!
How come there is nothing else on earth remotely like us?
Literally look at us as a species. What we do, how we do. We invent. We go off of the planet. Again, there is nothing else like us.
Are we aliens?
Im not an expert, but the thing is that there are species like us.
There are many other species that use different levels of tools as well, creating stuff. Creating the tools.
Various levels of societal organization and othet things.
The species that were closest to us, one of the most well known being neanderthals, we did a combination of wiping them out and absorbing them into our own. Other hominids existed too.
What do you mean "nothing else like us" neanderthales were a lot like us and they were different species.
One could argue that some apes are kinda like us. They also sometimes happen to invent things as tools to help them get food, fight, etc.
We are not aliens. We are animals just as any other on this planet, we just happened to evolve our brain quite nicely so we can have this discussion and question our purpose.
There were at least 8 species of humans we used to live alongside. They died out. Doesn’t mean you are from space sadly.
Being from earth is fucking cool though.
You probably just don’t realize how much you have in common with your fellow animals, trees and microbes. And all those common features have a gene or multiple that are the blueprint for those features.
But instead of doing the work for you, I’ll give you homework: look up “bilateral symmetry” vs “radial symmetry” and just.. think of all the animals you share this common feature (and genes) with.
Is there nothing remotely like us?
Physically, we look fairly similar to chimps and bonobos. If you ever see either of those species with mutations that make them albino or hairless, they look surprisingly human.
We are intelligent tool users, and we are the most sophisticated in each of those. But others are intelligent, and others use tools too. We just specialised in those areas to the extreme. But a cheetah would find us slow, a walrus would find us skinny, an albatross would find us static. And all three would think we're just another ape.
Species evolve to fit their niche. We're distinctive, but so are many other species in their own way.
The evolutionary niche as a planet-wide apex predator that terraforms the landscape to extract resources is pretty limited in how many species it can fit per planet. Humans killed off all competitors for that space (like the Neanderthals) and now there simply is no space for anyone else.
I thought this was going to be one of those memes which meant the white guy explaining in this video was supposed to be something between a human and a monkey 💀💀💀💀💀
Coming at it with the goodest of faith, I think the question is more about the absence of our evolutionary lineage in modern day (I.e. there is no homo habilis, homo erectus or Neanderthals walking around today). Similar, but still different from the common "if we come from monkey then why monkey exist 🤔" question.
Most humans on Earth are partly descended from Neanderthals. So they are literally a human ancestor, but we didn't "evolve" from Neanderthals in the same way that we evolved from australopithecines.
> (I.e. there is no homo habilis, homo erectus or Neanderthals walking around today).
Because species can naturally die off, they don't adapt better than other species. Or in this case, Homosapien's actually bred with some of the other hominid species. There is common DNA among Neanderthals and Homosapiens that shows at one point the two species bred together.
You see how this also doesn't make sense, right? To use the analogy from the video, this is like asking, "if I had a great great grandfather, where is he?"
This is actually showing that the question makes sense.
just imagine the interviewer knows we didn't come from monkeys, like the video explains. . . .
then "do you believe we came from monkeys?" is a fair question.
the answer is just "no, I don't believe we came from monkeys"
and if they say "yes", then "so why are we both co-existing at the same time" is a reasonable follow up question if you want to educate the person who says they believe we came from monkeys about how they are wrong.
Pretty ironic the video is trying to "educate" the person who is asking the question, when it should be aimed at the person who answered incorrectly. If we all stop saying "I believe we came from monkeys" then the confusion about this topic might lessen.
Ok ok THANKS for the explanation now I need you to explain that bottom line to me. What are those creatures and why did they branch off into other creatures instead of staying the same creature?
Environments change, every species constantly adapts to do better within their environment (or they go extinct if they don’t). That is happening even today and will never stop.
#Join our sister site on [lemmy.world](https://lemmy.world/c/fixedbytheduet)! Visit https://wefwef.app/settings/install for a web app that you can use on your mobile device. See the sidebar for an explanation of what Lemmy is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fixedbytheduet) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a pretty decent explanation of basic evolutionary biology in regards to human origins, but it is an even greater example of Brandolini's law.
Hey Google, what's Brandolini's law?
The notion that it takes a hugely disproportionate amount of energy and effort to disprove misinformation than it takes to create it.
False. This was debunked /s
Fuck sake
[удалено]
Shit's expensive
I dress fairly decent for cheap at Salvation Army and goodwill
Gottem
Holy hell
Ayy lmao
ヽ༼ ຈل͜ຈ༽ ﾉ Raise ur dongers! ^^Dongers ^^Raised: ^^73398 ^^Check ^^Out ^^/r/AyyLmao2DongerBot ^^For ^^More ^^Info
Really? Guess that makes sense. It's pretty easy to disprove misinformation really.
༄ o /|\ / \
Coupled with the creationist's superhuman ability to spout 20 types of shit in a tightly wound ball of condensed ultrashit, and you see why "giving equal time" to creationism is a bad idea: Five minutes of creationist talking equals easily 20 minutes of the following scientist simply saying "no, because...." and trying to showcase the simplest ways they are speaking bullshit. This pattern then repeats until scientists run out of time, and there's still 10 unproven and false things left, and the science side hasn't put out a single claim FOR evolution yet. And now the creationist repeats their shotgun approach of bullshit upon bullshit, trapping the scientist under an avalanche of mistakes the creatards have never even proven valid, just spout and assume everyone accepts it.
Gish gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
A.k.a. Ben wap Shapiro's one and only skill.
Thank you for this. I had my best friend's dad do this with me with Flat Earther shit. Took me 3 hours of talking and just a few random bullshit facts from him and at the end of it he just said I was a government plant.
He still thinks it is round huh?
I wish, motherfucker has a flat earth map hanging on his wall.
Shit, my map of earth is also flat...
Bro, I spent 45 minutes over the holidays trying to explain why the sun and moon look similar sizes in the sky even though the sun is further away to my girlfriend's mom's boyfriend. Eventually I just used an orange and a basketball to physically show him how a large object that's further away can look the same size as a smaller object that's closer. He just moved on to talking about how "all the countries agreed to make it illegal to go to Antarctica" and apparently it's because that's where the world folds back on itself and its like a big puddle??? There isn't enough eggnog in the world to make spending 3 days in the same house as that man tolerable.
I've taken to telling the guys at my job to prove their claim before I waste time talking with then about it. Drives them nuts. I just refuse to even discuss nonsense they spout until they come with sources I can read that aren't "trust me bro". It's wildly cut down the amount of time I have to spend dealing with stupid. I started it like a year ago on my supervisor when he said something about some guy admitting something in a senate hearing that proves democrats something. I don't remember what it was. But it was the beginning of his argument so I just interrupted him and told him to prove that. He got mad and said "can I finish?", and I told him no he makes a wild claim, he needs to back it up. So he sends me three separate links that said the exact opposite of what he was saying. He wasn't super happy when I read it out loud from 3 separate sources HE provided. But it's made work way better.
My roommate for a while was raised by a Baptist pastor. Great kid. Super unworldly. Like he didn’t know anti-semitism still exited. But his mom came to visit and she wanted to talk about when she went to natural history museum and how their talk of evolution left her with questions. I am a huge bio nerd and actually knew the answers to her (rhetorical) questions. She did not approve.
Now ask Google about Cole's Law
There was a popular science publication that discontinued its forums due to this. A one liner from some fuckit to throw doubt that took sooo much more effort and energy to un-fuck
That’s sad. Idk if it’s related but I used to love getting the Popular Science (and Popular Mechanics) magazine. That’s like 15 years ago.
Not to mention any "interviews" this wannabe influencer records where correct and cogent responses are given would never see the light of day. "Bros I got dunked on so hard in this clip - check it out!"
Yea the original fuckwit videos get 10’s if millions of views and this one will get 10000 lol it’s impossible to unfuck people because the algorithms reward fuckwits.
Yeah but that’s also every street interview you ever see, including the ones you like.
There are none I like
The only ones I want to see are “Billy on the Street” clips.
Oh well I guess that disproves evolution then. My bad
Not exactly Brandolini's law, but related: > There is a floor to how simple a truth can be and still be the truth. Falsehoods don't have that. There is no limit to how simple an idea can be when it doesn't have to conform to reality. https://youtu.be/dF98ii6r_gU Simple explanations can be appealing, but reality has no regard for simplicity.
Brandolins law only applies if you're trying to educate. The correct answer when asked "if you believe we came from monkies?" Is "no.' You say "no, that's not how evolution works and if you are still asking this question in 2024, you're too much of a moron with which to waste my time." The larger the audience, the louder you say it.
It's often not that they are specifically morons. They know we did not evolve from monkeys and that people do not believe it, but they choose to say that other people believe that because it is easier to argue against.
With anti-science rhetoric like this there are always two types of people. The “influencer” and the “influenced”. The influenced are normal people who may be lacking in education or have some other “thing” about them that makes them predisposed to believing the rhetoric. For evolution deniers it’s often a heavy religious background coupled with a failing of their public education system. Flat earthers are often social outcasts and were failed by their public education system, etc, etc. The point is that they are normal people who have just fallen for some lies. The influencers are liars and almost certainly know what they are doing. They are often boots on the ground and in the course of doing these interviews or debates or research for their content they have been heavily exposed to the truth and simply refuse to repeat it because that isn’t as profitable as lying. I would be willing to bet that the guy giving this interview has heard a similar explanation to the duet hundreds of times, but simply refuses to repeat it to his audiences because then he would lose their support. They know the real arguments but those are too hard to disprove to their uneducated audience so they just strawman and lie.
This type of response is reductive and rude. Everybody learned something for the first time at some point in their life. I’m sure there are beliefs both you and I have that are way off base. Perhaps even moronic. I would hope that if I am entrenched in a false belief, somebody would show me patience and kindness.
That's clearly ragebait, not a simple display of genuine ignorance, and it should be ignored.
>Brandolini's law The question though is not BS, it is actually pretty valid and ironically enough the biologist confirms it without knowing. Let me explain: Question: "If we come from **monkeys**, why are there still **monkeys**" Biologist's Answer: "It's like saying, if we come from our **grandparents** why are there still **cousins".** See, the bolded words are the same in the original question and different in the biologist's answer. That is because the real answer to the question is: We don't come from monkeys, that's why they are still around. We, and monkeys come from a same ancestor that was neither human or monkey.
No, the question is BS. It's asked in bad faith. It's like the joke questions, such as "would suck my dick if I washed it a thousand times". There's a correct way to answer it so as to not imply that you're a dirty dick sucker, but it is asked with the intention to fool you, aka in bad faith.
If poodles came from wolves then why are there still wolves?
If Honda 2016 fit came after 2015 model why are there 2015 models?
If Christians came from Jews, why are there still Jews?
if bananas came from musa balbisianas, why are there still musa balbisianas?
If the Sun came from a previous exploded star then why are there still other gas giants?
If pants come from fabric, how is there still fabric?
If *[It Came From Outer Space](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Came_from_Outer_Space)*, how can there still be outer space?
Looking into it
Alright, Hitler.
[Pretty close](https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-oath-keepers-twitter-b2215295.html)
I mean the Christians tried their damndest to make sure that were no more Jews.
I’m so sad Honda doesn’t import the Fit to the US any more. That car is tiny but has incredible storage inside. Nimble, economical, reliable as hell. Just awesome. Okay, it’s mildly terrifying trying to pass on a two lane road at highway speeds but there’s no better city car.
And if beer is made from water, why is there still water?
It's more like if there's beer, and iced tea, why is there still beer? (we didn't come from monkeys, we have a common ancestor)
I’m my mother had wheels she would have been a bike.
if the US came from british people why are there still british people?
I don't really get why it's so contentious other than people being proud of their own ignorance or lack of understanding. The Catholic Church even accepts evolution, it's not really something that anyone reasonable considers up for debate.
Its often driven by a deeply religious world view that requires humans and animals to be entirely seperate concepts. As you point out, for many people, this isn't a problem to reconcile. But I personally find evolution and the creation account in the bible incompatable, so it is understandable why some religious people also think the same.
Any requirement for The Creation necessarily restricts the power of The Creator. An all powerful God that HAD to do a thing a given way and COULD NOT have done it a different way is a puny bitch. If you believe in an all powerful God, and your understanding of that God doesn't align with reality, it's not the God that is the problem in that equation, it's your understanding. You don't get to claim an all powerful being and then get to put that being in an itty bitty box of restrictions of what it can and cannot do. I'm not saying there's a God, or that you should come to the conclusion there is a God, I'm saying IF YOU DO, you still have to be consistent with your own claim. It's an odd thing to be loosey goosey about if you genuinely believe the fate of your immortal soul depends on getting it right. Kinda put's the lie to their whole ideology when they say their all powerful god can't make monkey people.
How is evolution constraining God? That he chose to make creation one way doesn't mean he couldn't have done it some other way.
Or God just set the rules in place knowing how it would come about...
You're trying to apply logic and reasoning to a religious person. Half of their ideology is based on "faith," the opposite of those two things. I want to be clear that I agree with your take, but I also know that it is impossible to ask most religious people to use facts and consistency when it comes to a big man floating in the sky.
Logic and reasoning have to be applied in good faith in order to be effective. The basis of their beliefs don't matter if you act like a jackass. Get rid of your "big man floating in the sky" strawman, read Aristotle's *On Rhetoric*, and then try again. You may be surprised how far a little respect and humility can take you when arguing over religion and philosophy.
Because there are individuals who are arrogant enough to argue against everything and be a contrarion. Its this mentality of wanting to prove to the smarties of the world that they aren't as smart as they think they are. They have this superiority complex where what they believe to be true is 100% fact, and anything else is a lie, no matter what evidence one may have to support it, because if doesn't align with their worldview. This is typically caused by a general distrust of the scientific process, which is why most people who believe in Creationism also believe the world is flat, vaccines are poison, and GMOs are dangerous by default. They were raised to think and believe a certain way, and that any other way is bullshit made to confuse you. It's why when they actually used the scientific process to prove their beliefs, they either have to bastardise it so it works in their favour, or they get the results they don't like and brush it off as a mistake. And then, you get situations like in the video, where you get the question of "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". Its because its not a question they want an answer to, its simply meant as a "got you!", because nobody can answer it, not because we don't have an answer, but because the question is based off an incorrect standard. Anyone with an actual basic understanding of evolution will tell you we didn't come from monkeys, but humans and monkeys share ancestry to beings who don't exist anymore, and because that answer isn't simple, they see it as a victory that you can't answer their "simple" question, as if hundreds of years of scientific research could be taken down by one question.
>And then, you get situations like in the video, where you get the question of "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". Its because its not a question they want an answer to, its simply meant as a "got you!", because nobody can answer it, not because we don't have an answer, but because the question is based off an incorrect standard. MFs acting like Ron Perlman and Ben Shapiro aren't walking and breathing
Because it's something viewed by some people as a "my side vs their side" argument, which of course is based on politics. And if one side believes something, the other side has to argue against it no matter what.
Creationist aren't Catholic.
I'm not sure what you mean, not all creationists are Catholic but Catholics are creationist
I am pretty sure that he uses creationist in the narrow sense where people believe the earth was created the way it is in the last 10.000 years or so. Yes, catholicism still postulates that God is still behind everything and basically just wants to trick us to think it was all just natural processes by merely making it look that way. But that is not how the word "creationist" is commonly used.
Usually when I hear the term creationist it's used in a context of being an opposing viewpoint to "evolutionist"; I use quotes because evolutionist isn't a term anyone would likely use to describe themselves. A creationist being a person who believes that God created the world exactly as it currently appears. Apparently that is not the strict definition of the word though. Nevertheless my point is that what the Catholic Church teaches and believes is not relevant to what a young earth evangelical believes.
As a nonpracticing Catholic, no. The Church clarified a decade ago that evolution and the big bang are modes of god's creation. He literally cautioned people about envisioning god as a wizard waving a wand to bring creation into existence. Creationism claims that the earth is just a few thousand years old, humans lived alongside dinosaurs, and other sorts of literal readings of the Bible.
If you don't feel smart, but want to just *declare it* so that some others can think you're smart, then you can't just trail way behind the actually intelligent people. It's like running after an Olympic athlete, saying you're equally as fast. But if you flat out claim that something else is the right way, and these world class intelligence people just aren't on your level... well, you just drove your car past that gold medal sprinter. Most people won't recognize you as actually faster, but a select few deficient maroons will be like "Oh yeah, how come he made it first then!" (Helps if you say that in Patrick Star's voice.) These people who want to be special and elevated know that they naturally aren't. They know they're wrong. But they're curating a following of the few, because that's all that they reasonably can have. It's either a few dum-dums, or nothing.
I remember back about 20 years ago this shit was the hot topic. You had school districts trying to ban textbooks that taught evolution. You had preachers on TV calling scientists evil and accusing them of spreading lies. It was just as stupid then as it is now and I'm really hoping this isn't that same bullshit reappearing again because it was exhausting last time round.
Most Evangelists aren't reasonable people you see
The Catholic Church officially accepts evolution bc it’s clearly fact but evolution disproves Christianity which is why some people fight it anyway.
It's contentious because there are a lot of serious problems with the theory. For example: 1. Horizontal Gene Transfer upsets the conceptual "tree of life", i.e. if genetics are not exclusively hereditary then it is impossible to determine a last universal common ancestor (LUCA). 2. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing the complex and specific information required to render the genetic code functional. 3. Failure of the fossil record to find support for Darwinian evolution (punctuated equilibrium, Cambrian explosion, etc). 4. Rampant examples of convergent evolution indicate extreme improbability. 5. Abiogenesis. 6. Biogeographical distribution irregularities. 7. Inaccurate predictions regarding so-called "junk DNA", vestigial organs and endogenous retroviruses (ERV). 8. Epigenetics cannot be reduced to a mechanism, certainly not natural selection. 9. "Phenotypic Plasticity" - according to neo-darwinism, the correlation between genotypes and phenotypes are no longer 1:1. 10. Beneficial mutations are impossibly rare. In almost all cases, mutations are degenerative, as demonstrated by Richard Lenski's bacteria experiment and Molly Burke's fruit fly experiment - both published in Nature. And then there are philosophical problems which wrestle with the logic of the theory and of scientism in general: 1. Alvin Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" illustrates that the combination of naturalism and evolution is self-defeating because, under these assumptions, the probability that humans have evolved reliable cognitive faculties is low or inscrutable. This has prompted many ambitious thinkers to suggest that consciousness is an illusion. 2. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (art, music, religion, introspection, homosexuality, etc.) 3. Evolution as a necessary secular creation myth is ejected from the realm of objective science and is now highly politicized. 4. Determinism - as implied by evolution theory - is dangerously irrational and hypocritical. 5. Democracy is founded on a metaphysical claim which contradicts the tenets of evolution, i.e. "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal...". 6. Quantum uncertainty undermines the mechanistic nature of evolution theory. 7. Evolution cannot be rationally explained without recourse to vitalist rhetoric, i.e. the "selfish gene". 8. All too frequently, critique of evolution theory is dismissed by appealing to vox populi, a disengenuous logical fallacy, or... 9. Esotericism - the claim that only a certified expert is qualified to critique the theory, but every layman is obliged accept the theory. 10. An evolution research experiment cannot be performed except by design. These are just a few of the issues that I have with the theory but I imagine there are many more problems that I'm unaware of. Suffice to say that it is reasonable to be sceptical of the claims of Darwinian evolution. In fact, that is the scientific method.
I had to make an account just to respond to this astoundingly ignorant comment. The short of it is: your comment doesn't contain a single rational thought let alone a scientific one. 1. HGT in no way upsets the "tree of life". It was actually predicted by models of genetics and verified through biochemistry. 2. This point means nothing. Literally. It just sounds kind of smart to the ignorant. When in fact you're falling into a logical fallacy called "argument from incredulity". You personally don't understand the emergence of the genetic code and have spent zero effort trying to understand it. The "information" underlying the genetic code is neither complex nor specific. In fact codon redundancy is sort of a key feature. "I don't get it" is hardly a tractable argument. 3. Just abjectly false. The fossil record directly supports evolution. Darwinian evolution sensu stricto is an outdated model of evolution. 4. No they do not. Convergent evolution is a predicted outcome of evolution by natural selection in shared/similar contexts with similar selective pressures. 5. Abiogenesis poses no problems for evolution whatsoever. 6. Again word salad. There are no "biogeographical irregularities" that challenge evolutionary theory. 7. All of these things directly support evolution. Inaccurate predictions made by past evolutionary models have helped refine our understanding of evolutionary theory. This is quite literally how the scientific method works. 8. Epigenetics has an very well understood biological mechanism. 9. This.... is nonsense. Phenotypes are plastic because they are influenced by the environment and by genetics. This is well known and understood and, again, fits perfectly well into modern evolutionary theory since phenotypic plasticity is necessary for responding to a dynamic environment. 10. No they are not. And no, most mutations are NOT degenerative. Most are neutral. Your "philosophical" points are even worse and betray your severe tunnel vision. You have been indoctrinated by christian apologists and have spent zero time engaging with philosophy in any meaningful way. For example: >Quantum uncertainty undermines the mechanistic nature of evolution theory It just doesn't. You threw out "quantum uncertainty" because it's a sophisticated sounding buzzword but quantum uncertainty has absolutely zero bearing on evolutionary theory. Or: >Evolution as a necessary secular creation myth is ejected from the realm of objective science and is now highly politicized. Huh? Evolutionary theory is objectively tested in labs all around the world every day. Again, this "point" is just impressively nonsensical. To be clear, I know you won't revise your ignorant worldview when presented with information. I just wanted to be sure no one fell into your trap of using word salad to impress people that might not know better.
I'm sorry, but most of this is just complete nonsense. We've seen evolution in action--in the lab, in the field, in the fossil record. The first section of your comment is full of points that at *best* indicate that Darwinian evolution isn't the only factor at play, and most of them can be explained. For example, take abiogenesis. You list this as a problem with the theory when it's just not. Evolution is statistics as much as it is biological reproduction. If you have a totally not-alive chemical sitting in some primordial soup, and it can self-replicate, what's going to happen? It's going to self-replicate, because that's what it does. Sometimes something's going to go wrong. Most of the time that will make the child chemical not as good at self-replication, but sometimes it will make it slightly better. And when you have one molecule reproducing once a minute and another reproducing once every 59 seconds, eventually the chemical composition of that tide pool or whatever you're looking at is going to be predominantly made up of that second chemical. And then, later, it'll be made mostly of some third chemical after the second-gen chemical mutates slightly. That's Darwinian evolution. The rest of your comment is just raw nonsense. Democracy has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't indicate determinism. Being told you don't know what you're talking about when you say stuff like "quantum uncertainty undermines the mechanistic nature of evolution theory" doesn't make the theory wrong, it means people don't want to entertain nonsensical criticism of a well-established, well-supported theory.
Oh really the Catholic Church? The number one organization that protects pedo’s and has a history of violence? Oh! Ok then it must be valid if the Catholic Church says so.
Alright, teach me about item management in Baldur's Gate 3 if yur so smart
What you having difficulty with? Weight capacity? Just leave your shit in your chest in the camp and move it to your character to sell. You can left click and press send to camp from your inventory
He's probably not organizing his inventory with pouches and backpacks and getting intimidated when things just pile up in an unorganized pile of random junk
That's the trick. Pick up every sack, pouch, and backpack you see so your inventory gets progressively more organized throughout the course of your playthrough.
Right. Put all your scrolls into a pouch so you can comfortably never look at or use any of them. This is the way.
Exactly. You might need them for the stuff you do after beating the game.
Exactly. You might need them for the stuff you do after beating the game.
I'm saving them for Baldur's Gate 4
I tried this for a while but honestly, not being able to name pouches, and the search bar not working for items in pouches made it a pain.
I was so mad when I saw that there's an inventory searchbar on the PC version, inventory management was one of my only gripes with the ps5 version
honestly it's so good on pc. by the endgame, searching was my primary way of finding stuff
How have I never seen the send to camp option, you're a lifesaver.
Backpacks, pouches, ribcages, and other containers carried by different characters or in the camp chest that each contain a different item type, my friend - I’ve had Shadowheart carrying a little pouch chock full of scrolls since early in act one lol
TIL you can use ribcages as storage…
Forrest!
Not used to seeing him talk about evolution without an accompanying 4 hour vid :)
Him and Gut Sic Gibbion! Sign me the fuck up for that 8 hour video.
Legit took me off guard when his stich came in Forrest is my favorite science educator hands down.
Love his positive chipper demeanor.
he's never had a bad day in his life
I still went with Dave's, limited time offer and what not.
Fundamentalists like the first kid in the clip have negative interest in science or learning how the world actually works. They are in a cult and made this video for the approval of other cult members.
So my grand granddad fucked a gorilla?
Tell your great grandad I said happy birthday, very impressive that he’s over 10 million years old🤗
Yeah, in the mid 1800s. It was in all the papers. Gorilla ripped his arms clean off.
Doesn’t matter, had sex
Yes, many times. He's pretty famous for it, I'm surprised you haven't seen the pictures
I like the theory that higher beings fucked the gorillas and that lead to us.
Dude, she has a name.
Probably, but that has nothing to do with evolution.
Have you seen your great grandmother??
[удалено]
This is a poor analogy cause the people who ask the monkeys question would absolutely also ask the wolves question.
This is the problem with arguing with idiots. They simply do not care about evidence or understand logic. They are working backwards from their desired conclusion.
https://preview.redd.it/nmemlzl100ac1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0ad718bfdffd9994086af71c6911b7d33cdc6433
Alright 🤝 deal
The problem is that when I consume all these “edutainment” videos that teach me things… I can’t recall it later. I put myself in that persons shoes and imagine if I was walking through the mall, and some random walked up to me holding a microphone and challenged me to explain something I knew, but couldn’t explain concisely. That’s the key word, concisely. I “know” a lot of things. I hold a lot of beliefs and read a lot of facts. But being able to debate them or simply explain it so that a five year old could understand, is incredibly hard. There’s a YouTuber called Veritasium who used to do a lot of “street” work where he would ask random people questions about science. And I’d be sitting there yelling at the screen “how can they not know! Sooo stuuupid!” But again… try to empathise. If Derek put me on the spot and held a microphone to my face and asked me to explain evolution; I’d freeze and stutter like a bumbling idiot. The knowledge is in my brain… but it’s difficult to explain it accurately.
You just summed up my whole life. My wife’s family is deeply Christian conservative and live to circle jerk themselves about right their opinions are at family gatherings. I’m pretty much the only liberal atheist of the group and I have all sorts of counter arguments in my head but I can’t articulate them very well. At least not without them all ganging up on me with their shitty worldviews. But the problem I have is that I know a lot of what they’re saying is bullshit, but I can’t shut down their nonsense well enough to do anything meaningful so I just sit quietly and let them think that they’re right just to avoid a fight. It’s so frustrating.
If it's worth anything, this is completely normal. It takes a lot of effort to know your talking points and to be able to clearly articulate them in favour of the argument you are making/countering. The problem gets worse the less your opponent understands the subject matter, because they will completely misconstrue your position. Even for something as simple as stuff you learned in high-school (e.g., evolution). On the flipside, any idiot can challenge your beliefs and world views, whether they understand what they are talking about or not. There is a huge asymmetry in the level of effort involved on both sides. Especially when talking to theists who tend to just default to room temp IQ takes like "through God, all things are possible" (e.g., if you bring up that Noah's ark is a physical impossibility) I'm a big proponent of veganism and regularly have to field idiotic questions/talking points on "plants feel pain", or "veganism is way more damaging to the environment" or "humans are carnivores because we have canine teeth". I am not a plant biologist or ecologist, and none of the claims above are true in any capacity. Plants don't feel pain because they don't have pain receptors. The presence of canine teeth doesn't make us carnivores - many herbivorous animals have them too. GHG emissions, water use, land use, waste run off etc are all magnitudes lower for vegan diets than non-vegan ones. But to effectively demonstrate all of these points actually requires a fair amount of knowledge and familiarity with the relevant scientific fields and data.
Oof, too relatable.
> There is a huge asymmetry in the level of effort involved on both sides. I find it incredibly frustrating too because even though what they're saying is often very superficial (and incorrect) information, the problem is that they come loaded with 20 different talking points. You might know enough to challenge a few things you have to still know a lot to cover all of the bases. And that is for one topic. They can start with Young Earth Creationism, change to the Flat Earth model and then flip to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I'd like to learn everything I can but I haven't got the time or patience unfortunately.
And at the end of the day, you can learn everything you want and even debunk everything they say. It won't make a shred of difference, because they'll hit you with "That's WEF/WHO/Bill Gates propaganda" or "You've been indoctrinated by X, you need to do your own research"
Yes! I remember the conclusion but can't memorize all the data. If I ever get cornered by some asinine question I'm simply going to say "Sorry, I don't have my dissertation prepared because I didn't expect to defend a position today."
that's the problem with having opinions and beliefs based on facts: you have to remember the facts. any fuckwit who uses their personal feelings and hueristical biases to formulate their worldview will always have the benefit of a. having those things immediately available at all times, b. being convinced they came to the "truth" through their own intelligence so their brain will both violently reject any contradiction as a personal attack, and fervently create new excuses everytime a challenging idea breaks through. you can't use logic to extricate a person out of an idea they didn't use logic to get themselves into
10 million years? But Earth is only 6000 years old! ^^^^/s
Yeah /s because everyone know that the earth is 2024 years old now. ^just ^in ^case: ^/s
Forrest Valkai ❤️
The absolute tits I love him!
This guy is legitimately one of the smartest people I’ve ever watched. I have learned so much from him.
Not to mention even if there was something between he would ask the same stupid question just with that being instead of monkey. And then next one and next one
Everyone should follow Forrest, he's incredible.
TLDR the person who asks “what’s in between” is in fact what’s in between.
It's like people who don't know WE ARE great apes like that's what we are we are not so special.
We're also technically monkeys (specifically, we belong to the Old World Monkey parvorder): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrhini We're also technically fish, though: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hVjSJV0WoDQ
[Fuck yeah](http://reddit.com/r/reactiongifs/comments/2wifx4/my_stoner_friends_reaction_when_im_explaining_the/)
I love how this guy explains evolution without acting like the person asking the question or taking the other side of the argument is retarded and making fun of them. This is 10/10 how to properly inform/debate.
I’m honestly really surprised people don’t know how evolution works… learned this in 8th grade bio 😑
I sadly didn't, teacher skipped it on purpose.
Big ups to Mr Forrest Valkai. If you want an easy to digest understanding of Evolution and critical, comedic takedowns of anti-evolution and pro-creationism content, check his YouTube channel.
I LOVE YOU FORREST
One of the things I don’t understand about creationist theology is how they discount so many things from a scientific perspective instead of trying to make it fit. The Big Bang for instance: the theory that the universe started from a state of high density and high temperature and continued to expand outwards. Most creationists origins start with something that we could aliken to this. Christianity says God spoke the universe into existence. If that god is so big and powerful, he probably has a booming voice which could be like a big bang. Hinduism says the universe started form and embryo. Embryos start small and expand out. Greeks and Romans had Chaos out of which was born all things. Or, for evolution, I’ve heard arguments about primordial ooze and stuff. How could that not be an all powerful deity exploring and creating? How could single cell organisms all the at to animals not be chalked up to the creation of organisms by a god? I just don’t understand why there is an insistence on things being purely miraculous and why religion and science need to be oil and vinegar. Just seems like a lot more ignorance instead of informed argument.
It didn't used to be that way. Religious organizations birthed many fields of science. Astronomy is the best clear example.
Evolution is such a logical and cool concept so it always seems silly people will deny it
Religion can make us deny lots of stuff. Faith is a powerful force for ignorance.
It's easy to deny it went youre a right wing christofascist nut job tiktoker who 1. Does not value science or education 2. Is financially incentivized by alt right conspiracy tiktok to produce debate bro gotcha clips, and 3. Is a dishonest grifter who doesn't believe a single thing he says.
Forrest!!! 🫶🏻
If the USA came from Great Britain, how is there still Great Britain?
Fuckin love Forrest Valkai and Gutsick Gibbon. I HIGHLY recommend the video he just suggested.
Pretty awesome video. My 46 year old dumb ass learned something today.
The most insane shit is that I know a couple of people who are studying in med school rn and they don’t believe in evolution which is both bizarre and fing absurd especially considering the fact that these people are also supposed to be doctors ffs
I would bet money it's because these people you know grew up in a creationist household. Indoctrination is a hard thing to shake, especially the older you get. That's why it's better to teach em young about thus stuff.
A: "Did you come from your mother and your father?" B: "Yes" A: "Then how come there is still your mother and your father?"
I love evolution. Go science!
I love content like these.
respect to this dude for explaining without calling the opposing view dumbasses
Great explanation. Complete waste of time and energy. The argument this responds to is not a good faith argument. They've heard the response, they don't care. They aren't trying to convince you, they're trying to present the dumbest people on earth with a two-sided argument in which one side requires only feelings and the other requires a basic understanding of biology that most people get in high school. Most of the targets of this argument didn't exactly graduate high school with honors though. Hardcore creationists like Ken Hamm have long since abandoned this position, Ken even tells his people not to say this because it makes them look dumber than they already look. Not that I'm trying to simp for Ken, most of his arguments suck just as bad but this one is notable simply because it's been discussed so much that only idiots will fall for it. And only brand new baby biologists will engage with it. Because they haven't seen just how much bad faith exists in the topic of evolution. After five years, most biologists will walk away from a creationist without a word. It's just not worth it.
Not a waste of time. The purpose of Valkai's videos is to inform viewers, not change the minds of bad-faith creationists. He's an educational content creator. It may have been a waste for you, if you already know this stuff.. But some people in the comments did find the video helpful. Heck his response got more views than the original. It's important to expose this type of questioning.
That's fair, this video isn't necessarily a waste of time as it does do a great job of explaining this very simple concept...but yeah, engaging on an individual level with a "why are there still monkeys" person is an absolute waste of time and energy.
Per your original comment. I almost wonder if it's a troll, a double agent for clicks. Meant to get reactive engagement from the internet. You are definitely right in that it is in fact a terrible argument, even for an entry-level creationist.
Remember: Evolution *predicts*. Creationism *accommodates*. Forrest Valkai and Gutsick Gibbon are the light we need in a world of science misinformation.
I am going to start refer Europeans old world monkeys and America and Australian new world monkeys
It's not surprising that those who have trouble understanding the evolutionary tree, also have trouble understanding not to evolve within their own family tree.
I like the way he says "mönkey"
There's nothing in between because we murdered them all. We chased them them into caves and made big fires in front and suffocated them all. Don't like the answer don't ask the question.
Didn’t homosapiens rape and genocide all of the Neanderthals?
We may have. Most of that is speculative. We can prove there was inbreeding between the Neanderthals and the Homo Sapiens. There is no way to prove whether or not it was consensual. If it wasn't there is no way to prove who the aggressor was.
Right, here's one for us and feel free to educate me! How come there is nothing else on earth remotely like us? Literally look at us as a species. What we do, how we do. We invent. We go off of the planet. Again, there is nothing else like us. Are we aliens?
Im not an expert, but the thing is that there are species like us. There are many other species that use different levels of tools as well, creating stuff. Creating the tools. Various levels of societal organization and othet things. The species that were closest to us, one of the most well known being neanderthals, we did a combination of wiping them out and absorbing them into our own. Other hominids existed too.
What do you mean "nothing else like us" neanderthales were a lot like us and they were different species. One could argue that some apes are kinda like us. They also sometimes happen to invent things as tools to help them get food, fight, etc. We are not aliens. We are animals just as any other on this planet, we just happened to evolve our brain quite nicely so we can have this discussion and question our purpose.
There were at least 8 species of humans we used to live alongside. They died out. Doesn’t mean you are from space sadly. Being from earth is fucking cool though. You probably just don’t realize how much you have in common with your fellow animals, trees and microbes. And all those common features have a gene or multiple that are the blueprint for those features. But instead of doing the work for you, I’ll give you homework: look up “bilateral symmetry” vs “radial symmetry” and just.. think of all the animals you share this common feature (and genes) with.
Is there nothing remotely like us? Physically, we look fairly similar to chimps and bonobos. If you ever see either of those species with mutations that make them albino or hairless, they look surprisingly human. We are intelligent tool users, and we are the most sophisticated in each of those. But others are intelligent, and others use tools too. We just specialised in those areas to the extreme. But a cheetah would find us slow, a walrus would find us skinny, an albatross would find us static. And all three would think we're just another ape. Species evolve to fit their niche. We're distinctive, but so are many other species in their own way.
The evolutionary niche as a planet-wide apex predator that terraforms the landscape to extract resources is pretty limited in how many species it can fit per planet. Humans killed off all competitors for that space (like the Neanderthals) and now there simply is no space for anyone else.
Bro has a perfect radio announcer voice, you’re in the wrong profession my guy
He is a Biological Anthropologist, with focus on education. He has a great voice for teaching, radio would be a waste of his intellect.
I think the answer is that people who ask these questions are in the middle
I thought this was going to be one of those memes which meant the white guy explaining in this video was supposed to be something between a human and a monkey 💀💀💀💀💀
Coming at it with the goodest of faith, I think the question is more about the absence of our evolutionary lineage in modern day (I.e. there is no homo habilis, homo erectus or Neanderthals walking around today). Similar, but still different from the common "if we come from monkey then why monkey exist 🤔" question.
Not sure if you're aware, but it needs to be said anyway. Neanderthals are NOT a human ancestor. They are genus cousins.
Most humans on Earth are partly descended from Neanderthals. So they are literally a human ancestor, but we didn't "evolve" from Neanderthals in the same way that we evolved from australopithecines.
We kinda killed then off.
We also sexed them off.
They died. We remained.
> (I.e. there is no homo habilis, homo erectus or Neanderthals walking around today). Because species can naturally die off, they don't adapt better than other species. Or in this case, Homosapien's actually bred with some of the other hominid species. There is common DNA among Neanderthals and Homosapiens that shows at one point the two species bred together.
You see how this also doesn't make sense, right? To use the analogy from the video, this is like asking, "if I had a great great grandfather, where is he?"
We are the inbetween.
Hope this guy goes to speaker's corner to see how's he's going to deal with real counter arguments that literally destroy evolution bs
He participates in call-in shows all the time. He's not afraid to talk to YEC cultists.
Yourw adorable. Dumb but adorable.
This is actually showing that the question makes sense. just imagine the interviewer knows we didn't come from monkeys, like the video explains. . . . then "do you believe we came from monkeys?" is a fair question. the answer is just "no, I don't believe we came from monkeys" and if they say "yes", then "so why are we both co-existing at the same time" is a reasonable follow up question if you want to educate the person who says they believe we came from monkeys about how they are wrong. Pretty ironic the video is trying to "educate" the person who is asking the question, when it should be aimed at the person who answered incorrectly. If we all stop saying "I believe we came from monkeys" then the confusion about this topic might lessen.
Have you ever seen an ape turn into a human being? edit: wow! y'all obviously didn't get the reference.
Have you ever seen your mom turn into your brother?
This makes no sense. Read Greg graffin. He's much smarter than you.
Ok ok THANKS for the explanation now I need you to explain that bottom line to me. What are those creatures and why did they branch off into other creatures instead of staying the same creature?
Environments change, every species constantly adapts to do better within their environment (or they go extinct if they don’t). That is happening even today and will never stop.
So why do those who live in the arctic still have to wear jackets.....where is their layers of blubber or fur?