standup4REALscience

Blaggers. YouTubers. WikkiWarriors.

We are all brothers in arms in this information revolution.

Jeremy Mohn from stand up for REAL science has been creating a series of YouTube videos on evolution.

His newest installment?

ERVs.

Sweet.

Comments

  1. #1 Draconiz
    December 8, 2008

    This is really cool, thanks ERV!

  2. #2 deep
    December 8, 2008

    I love things that combine my love of science with the time wasting possibility of youtube.

  3. #3 Magnus
    December 8, 2008

    Others have made similar videos, but I think this one was the clearest video I have seen on the subjects of ervs.

  4. #4 Jeremy Mohn
    December 8, 2008

    Thanks for the props, ERV. I figured you would appreciate this video.

    Magnus: There is a reason why I try to make sure my videos are clear.

    In my day job, I get the opportunity to explain this stuff to 14-15 year olds. :)

  5. #5 Steven
    December 8, 2008

    I watched, rated, favourited, commented and posted them on my Facebook page. He deserves a larger subscriber base than he has. For some reason his first video has a lot more views and comments than the proceeding two.

  6. #6 Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
    December 8, 2008

    Hey, ERV, here’s the link to Jeremy’s post. I posted something above Jeremy’s video before I knew you’d linked to the blog. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

    Yes, Steven, Jeremy’s work deserves a MUCH bigger audience!

  7. #7 William Wallace
    December 9, 2008

    Real science is mathematical and able to make predictions. Even in the face of randomness (e.g., brownian motion).

    How many generations (or what bounded range of generations) will it take a population of blind fish to develope eyesight if placed in an environment where the path to food is indicated visually?

    Until evolanders can answer such questions, macro-evolutionists are mere metaphysicians.

    Even Tycho Brye using an incorrect geo-centric model of the solar system could make more accurate mathematical predictions, such as the time of the next eclipse, than evolanders can with their “nothing makes sense in biology except in light of evolution” nonesense.

  8. #8 Albatrossity
    December 9, 2008

    Ah, WW is back.

    Rather than let you hijack this thread about viruses with your strawman argument re blind fish, let’s try to see if, for once, you can provide evidence for your notions.

    Based on the think-poof mechanism favored by your troglodytic tribe, what is your explanation for the observed evidence that similar ERV sequences are found in identical locations in the human and chimp genomes? Does this explanation lead to a prediction for future research that will confirm or deny the think-poof mechanism?

    thanks for playing

  9. #9 Tatarize
    December 9, 2008

    He’s wrong about the odds. The with 500-1000 integration sites the odds are about 1:1000 that the same virus could infect the same point in the sequence. He’s calculating the odds that two viruses different viruses integrate themselves into the same location. Rather what he should calculate is the odds that if a virus has integrated itself into one location what are the odds that the same virus can integrate itself into the same location. The odds that some virus can integrate into some location is about 1:1 rather than needing to be in that specific location.

    Though the fact that humans and chimps share the same damned insertion locations is a bit like failing to see the forest through the trees. Our chromosomes match exactly for like 99% of these sequences… but look here’s a virus! — What about the 92% (99% – 8% viral) of other sequences which are identical?

    All in all… good.

  10. #10 Tatarize
    December 9, 2008

    Wait he’s calculating the 500-2000 by the base pair number?

    That’s right.

  11. #11 Eric Saveau
    December 9, 2008

    Wally is using eclipse predictions as a point of comparison to deny evolution? Seriously?? Does he honestly not get that orbital calculations are purely mechanistic, and that evolution has to contend with variation, selection, and a certain amount of randomness? Or is he just another lying, child-raping, America-hating shithead? Or both?

  12. #12 William Wallace
    December 9, 2008

    The inability of evolutionists to predict the number of generations (even a bounded range of generations) before a new feature evolves is duly noted. Note also the name calling. Hillarious.

    Scientists? Not.

    Metaphysicians, clearly.

  13. #13 William Wallace
    December 9, 2008

    Eric, the comparison was with an incorrect model (Tycho Brahe’s incorrect geocentric model of the solar system using epicycles) that was still infinately more useful than evolution.

    LOL, geocentricism is more scientific than evolution.

  14. #14 Eric Saveau
    December 9, 2008

    Wally, name-calling is still far more dignified than what lying hateful scum like you deserve. Your meaningless comparison of eclipse predictions to evolution is illogical and vacuous.

  15. #15 Albatrossity
    December 9, 2008

    WW whines – The inability of evolutionists to predict the number of generations (even a bounded range of generations) before a new feature evolves is duly noted. Note also the name calling.

    The ability of creationists to hijack threads with strawman arguments is duly noted.

    The inability of think-poof theory to explain anything except the vacuity of creationist thinking is duly noted.

    WW, if you would learn a bit more about biology and evolutionary theory, you would understand that it is not astronomy, not physics, and not math. You would understand that chance and contingency are important factors in evolution, and might begin to get a glimmer about how your statements about one branch of science being “more scientific” than another is really a remarkably ignorant statement. But you will never do that, being content, as you are, to misunderstand science so that you can continue to feel special about your place in the cosmos.

    So, how does think-poof theory explain current observations? It is one thing to demand predictions about the future, but don’t you feel bad when your think-poof theory can’t even explain what we know at present?

  16. #16 William Wallace
    December 9, 2008

    The entry was about a video in a series of videos that attempts to portray evolution as science. Not highjacking.

    Note, too, you have nothing to be ashamed of that evolution is still mere metaphysics. Some biologists embrace this.

    E.g., see Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind. It is still a valid area of research–it’s just not science.

  17. #17 Eric Saveau
    December 9, 2008

    Wally, you wouldn’t recognize science if it had you on your knees and was smacking you in the face with its dick. Which, come to think of it, is what happens pretty much every time you show up here and attempt to imitate grown-up speech.

  18. #18 Ty
    December 9, 2008

    “Wally, you wouldn’t recognize science if it had you on your knees and was smacking you in the face with its dick. Which, come to think of it, is what happens pretty much every time you show up here and attempt to imitate grown-up speech.”

    Funny, and true, but be careful, all this talk of dick smacking will turn Wally on.

    I love how he thinks that orbital mechanics have anything in common with mutation and selection. He’s basically saying, “You can’t predict exactly what I will get when I roll these craps dice, therefore statistical analysis is fake science.”

    Sadly, he is too stupid to realize how stupid he actually is. I can only assume having asshats like him as the champion of the other side helps our cause.

  19. #19 DataJack
    December 9, 2008

    ERV, That was really an incredible video. It was to the point, easy to understand, and irrefutable. It may be one of the best arguments for common decent that I have ever seen.

    Jeremy – If you are reading this: Keep up the terrific work! I watched all the videos last night, and will be passing them on to friends and colleagues.

  20. #20 William Wallace
    December 9, 2008

    Ty,

    Stochastic processes can be modeled in other sciences (and indeed some are attempting it in biology). Yet the chance worshiping evolanders find it easier to claim evolution is science than to actually make it so. Don’t let a little math get in the way of a good story.

    My how metaphysicians are testy when cornered.

  21. #21 Eric Saveau
    December 9, 2008

    *smack smack smack*

  22. #22 William Wallace
    December 9, 2008

    HAHAHAHAHA DISREGARD EVERYTHING I’VE SAID, I SUCK CAWKS!!!

    AND I’M CONVERTING TO SCIENTOLOGY BECAUSE I THINK ALIENS ARE MORE KICK ASS THAN JESUS.

  23. #23 Eric Saveau
    December 9, 2008

    You’ve said nothing of any substance, as usual. Yawn.

  24. #24 Eric Saveau
    December 9, 2008

    Funny, and true, but be careful, all this talk of dick smacking will turn Wally on.

    Ty, you were eerily prescient. Wally just trolled over to my blog to snivel.

  25. #25 Albatrossity
    December 10, 2008

    WW weasels: The entry was about a video in a series of videos that attempts to portray evolution as science. Not highjacking.

    Asking strawman questions about a blind fish population is simple hijacking on a thread about viruses. The fact that you don’t recognize it as hijacking says more about your logical blinders than just about anything else you’ve posted here.

    Furthermore you have consistently avoided the question about how your think-poof paradigm explains current observations. We won’t ask you to predict the future (in other words, you can keep your strawman to yourself). But it seems strange that you won’t even address a question asking how your supposedly superior explanatory paradigm deals with known observations.

    How about it, WW? How does think-poof explain the pattern of ERV integration into the chimp and human genomes? Can think-poof generate any testable predictions from its mechanism-free assumptions?

    No, of course not. So you will continue to try to deflect the conversation toward your delusional conclusion that some fields of science are “more scientific” than others, simply because you understand them better. Your ignorance of biology is not a reason to discard what biology has taught us, WW. It is merely a classic sign of creationist delusion.

  26. #26 Stacy S.
    December 10, 2008

    Jeremy’s videos are now available on “Teacher Tube”
    http://www.teachertube.com/video.php?category=mr&viewtype=&chid=59

  27. #27 MattK feeds the troll
    December 10, 2008

    WW’s slam (=FAIL) of historical sciences is funny. First of all, it ignores non-historical aspects of evolutionary biology like the E.coli adapting to metabolize citrate experiments. Also see classic studies of evolution in action on finches on the Galapagos by the Grants. How about evolution of resistance to antiretrovirals by HIV over and over again in different patients? That seems pretty predictable.

    Besides that of course, historical sciences can make predictions that can be tested – they can predict the nature of later discoveries. For example, Darwin and others believed that humans descended from other apes based on morphological similarities. Since then ample fossil evidence has turned up in support of that hypothesis (no Human – Cockroach links so far). No rabbits in the Precambrian either.

  28. #28 minimalist
    December 10, 2008

    Furthermore you have consistently avoided the question about how your think-poof paradigm explains current observations.

    Albatrossity, please. Wally is trying very hard not to think of poofs.

    Trying not to think of them being beaten… or perhaps of being beaten by them… their soft, smooth hands, mauling his quivering, yielding flesh like a lovers’ kiss…

  29. #29 Jeremy Mohn
    December 10, 2008

    Here’s a permanent link to my videos on TeacherTube:

    http://www.teachertube.com/uvideos.php?UID=213930

    I removed the “stand up for REAL science” website information at the end of the videos so that teachers can show them commercial-free in their classrooms.

  30. #30 LanceR, JSG
    December 10, 2008

    Limp Willy’s argument that evolution is not science because it doesn’t have enough numbers for him has been rather satisfactorily thumped.

    I’d like to tear apart critique the other portion of his argument: that real science is mathematical. Neurology. Entomology. Most of biology. Large parts of chemistry. Some portions of physics. Geology.

    Math is not necessary to make predictions. This is just Limp Willy moving the goalposts, as it were.

    So, Limp Willy, did you find a man to beat you yet? Look in the Yellow Pages under “Domination”. Or use the intertubes. Stick with it, and I’m sure you’ll find someone to stick it in with you!

  31. #31 Eric Saveau
    December 10, 2008

    @minimalist

    Albatrossity, please. Wally is trying very hard not to think of poofs.

    Would those be Cheesy Poofs?

    *ducks*

  32. #32 LanceR, JSG
    December 11, 2008

    This blockquote deleted for pun-related offenses

    Cheesy *jokes*, maybe!

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.