Uhh, why so many clicks? I watched VW's beetle and NFL TV shows multiple times!

>> ^jonny:

There's ants. At 0:17, right after the hairpin turn. >> ^ant:
No ants?


Woah, I failed. I thought they were beetles. That went too fast. Thanks!

However, they don't look like real leaf-cutter species.

There's ants. At 0:17, right after the hairpin turn. >> ^ant:

No ants?

Ants at 0:17! Hauling leaves

In reply to this comment by ant:
No ants?

It'll either look like a Beetle or a Porche...nothing to see here.

Ok, as you cited wikipedia, I will as well. "Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument." It's ad hominem. Further, as you stated, pseudoscientific is a pejorative. It's an attack on his credibility as a scientist by associating him with people like what's his name from Growing Pains.

I never criticized his discussion of the beetle. I am not an entomologist, I'm a vision scientist. I criticized the implication that people who believe like Behe also believe that the eye was too complicated to have evolved. On the contrary, Behe openly admits the likelihood of the evolution of the eye once started from an eyespot, or simple photoreceptor of any sort. Where he noted the possibility of irreducible complexity was in the biochemical transduction of light into electrochemical gradients. That argument was never addressed in the video.

Further, when talking about his views as pseudoscientific, I presume you are referring the common complaint that ID is unfalsifiable. Well, then, I would challenge you to express how the theory of evolution itself could be falsified? Here's Darwin's take from the Origin of Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." If you take the position that all claims of irreducible complexity are simply matters of the poverty of imagination, and as such it is not demonstrable, you open evolution up to the same criticism.

While I agree, a hole in our understanding of the universe should not invite the cure-all "God did it," the problem of the falsifiability of evolution remains. That is, those that wish to put evolution into the purview of science, should precisely define what they would accept as evidence it is wrong. While Dawkins often claims scientists do this, I've rarely seen him publicly explain what such evidence would be. When he does, it is usually something snide, such as "finding precambrian fossils of hippos." I find that argument about as appealing as the crocoduck.

Except QualiaSoup's argument doesn't rest on ad hominem attacks. You're pointing to the single use of a word, "pseudoscientific," which in context (about 4:23) was used as "Some anti-evolutionists repeat an argument put forward by Michael Behe - an advocate of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement..." (and again, no mention of the word fraud, that was your own addition). That is simply not an ad hominem fallacy, since he is not attacking Behe's character. Perhaps it's just you who interprets it as such? If we're going to debate semantics here, the word "pseudoscience" has a formal definition (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudoscience) that, while pejorative, is still not an ad hominem attack against Behe. QualiaSoup used it as an adjective to describe intelligent design, suggesting that it does not conform to the principles of the scientific method. Which is a true statement. It doesn't. QualiaSoup is not questioning Behe's wealth or IQ or sexuality or what Behe's mother did last night or any other personal quality completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Ad hominem = "to the man" - Behe the man is not under attack. Behe's beliefs/opinions are.

Behe's scientific knowledge and work can absolutely be isolated from his pseudoscientific beliefs/advocacy. Isaac Newton sought ways to perform alchemy, does that mean his contributions to fundamental physics are invalid or that it's an ad hominem attack against him personally if I were to say that alchemy is pseudoscience?

Also, would it help put your mind at ease that QualiaSoup isn't blowing smoke out of his ass if a noted and widely published evolutionary scientist like Richard Dawkins made the exact same argument years ago?

>> ^bmacs27:

There was a reason I put pseudoscientific in quotes, and left fraud out of quotes. Calling him pseudoscientific implies he is a fraud, as he claims to be a scientist. It is ad hominem. An appeal to accomplishment is a valid response to an argument that rests on ad hominem attacks.
Further, as far as logical fallacies go, particularly within science, an appeal to expertise hardly seems inappropriate. In fact happens all the time. That's why courts employ expert witnesses, and we accept the recommendations of grants reviewed by peers not laymen. While there is of course always room for arguments from evidence, in the absence of such we generally defer to the intuitions of experts.
There are plenty of arguments that suggest the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction could have evolved. Why not make them?

Generally it is taught that God brought all the animals to Noah. Noah didn't have to go and find them all.
The author of the book seems to have it wrong from what I recall of the story. I don't remember the rainbow being around before the flood, but was a new sign after the flood only...
Ricky probably should have pointed out that the bible says that some were more than just a pair of each, so we end up with far more than 10 million animals on it. He started to touch on some of it, the food issue. You now need enough food for those animals and the people for 1 year... of course this is normally passed on using magic, much like the space issue... I liked mgittle's point of plants as well.
Also, that 5 million figure can't include all the insects now can it? I would think if we toss in all the insects we would have to have far more, there are more than 450,000 species of beetles alone before we toss in the 4,000 termite species, 22,000 species of ants, 40,000 spiders...
I wonder how Christians pick and choose which stories to pass of as parables or morality tales and which to take as full of truth? Why believe Noah's flood and the Earth was made 6,000 years ago but not, with a few notable exceptions, believe the Earth is the center of the universe though the Bible says it is, but they pass that off an allegory or something like that.

>> ^mgittle:

I'd like to see the explanation of how species made it to other continents if Noah let all the animals off the ark in the same place.
Also, there is no mention of plants. I guess they can't drown.

Irrefutable evidence of intelligent design.>> ^MrLips:

Where did that fucking shirt evolve from?

>> ^MrLips:

Where did that fucking shirt evolve from?

Dawkinses have evolved such shirts as a way to camouflage themselves in their natural habitat, the cushions of old ladies' couches.

Your video, Dawkins on the Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^ant:

I get sprayed a lot like that.


Skit skit.

Dawkins explains the evolution of the Bombardier Beetle. http://videosift.com/video/Dawkins-on-the-Evolution-of-the-Bombardier-Beetle

Your video, Bombardier Beetle - Master Of Chemical Warfare!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

The Bombardier is one of the cases of irreducible complexity that creationists cite.


I've gotta say it's very hard to conceive of how this creature evolutionized over time. However just because we can't imagine it doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly logical creator involved.