‘Why Evolution Is True’ by Jerry Coyne, AAI 2009

Jerry Coyne explains ‘Why Evolution is True’ (also the title of his excellent new book) at the Atheist Alliance International 2009 conference, sponsored by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Buy Jerry Coyne’s new book “Why Evolution Is True” at Amazon.com: www.amazon.com Jerry Coyne’s Blog: whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com Download Quicktime version Small: c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com 720p HD: c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com richarddawkins.net http Produced by The Richard Dawkins Foundation and R. Elisabeth Cornwell Filmed by Josh Timonen Edited by Joel Pashby

This entry was posted in Evolution and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to ‘Why Evolution Is True’ by Jerry Coyne, AAI 2009

  1. mrtadreamer says:

    Jerry Coyne is a liar.

  2. Kleinium says:

    Remember, Coyne is calling me perverse, moron and incapable of understanding evidence. 7.54 You have a habit of calling me stupid also. But the evidence for God is right in front of you! Open your eyes. Try assembling a DNA molecule yourself sometime from styrofoam balls. Then we will see who is intelligent! I challenge you. Just one turn, 12 nucleotide bases pairings. Remember exact atom dimensions count, Atomic radii matters! So make sure you get the phosphorus where it belongs.

  3. opinionatedaunti says:

    Ok, ur stupid. Let’s assume ur absolutely right–no RNA self assembly, etc. NOW provide some evidence that ur higher intelligence exists and is responsible 4 the generation of life.

  4. Kleinium says:

    What is 1,2,3? Evidence? What would convince you that something is IMPOSSIBLE. Only can I convince you if I know that you believe something is in fact MAY be impossible. If for you ALL things are possible than I cannot provide any evidence you will accept. Take RNA. It is IMPOSSIBLE for RNA to self assemble, remain pure and stable, have meaningful sequence to be biologically active, DO anything biologically significant, and finally SELF-REPLICATE with adequate fidelity to survive.

  5. Kleinium says:

    Only in Frankenstein do inanimate objects become living through electricity. The building blocks of life, lipids, amino acids, nucleic acids, sugars, etc are FAR more complex than legos. But to put one aspect of the problem in perspectve. Life requires only l-amino acids. 53.23 (Ask a scientist what that means) It is like only red legos will work in the building with equal mixtures of 10 different lego colors. How can random motion sort out ONLY the red legos to build with?

  6. opinionatedaunti says:

    I’m getting tired of repeating myself. LACK OF EVIDENCE 4 ONE HYPOTHESIS DOES NOT EQUAL EVIDENCE 4 ANOTHER. EVEN IF WE NEVER CREATE LIFE IN THE LAB U STILL HAVE NO EVIDENCE 4 ID. All u can prove is that we haven’t solved the problem yet. Stop saying the same thing & produce some evidence 4 ur hypothesis already. We do have evidence that life happened only once & it is falsifiable. The RNA world hypothesis is only 1 among many. Stop using scientific jargon to be unscientific. BTW, did u c 1,2,&3?

  7. Eric Dustin says:

    The “legos that life uses” are not living. Then you apply electricity and they become living. Your initial complaint was that life can’t come from non life. Which is wrong. Now your complaint is what “legos” appeared and how is that possible? I don’t know…go ask a scientist. I was merely responding to your claim that non-living materials can’t give rise to living ones.

  8. wyatth90 says:

    Are you like 10 or something? You have a lot to learn.

  9. Kleinium says:

    NO, MIller-Urey show that under carefully controlled lab conditions you can make a few legos that life uses.  It doesn’t show how the grand castle of life could be assembled. It includes no provision for information and no experiments follow that clarify the situation. I am making my statements from knowledge not ignorance. At least Coyne is more honest than you. He says: “Some questions we will never know the answer” 54.20 You can infere that the theory is in trouble if he admits that!

  10. Eric Dustin says:

    Miller-Urey and the experiments that followed showed life from non-life. My lightning example was to show you that saying you have an explanation lightning when you actually don’t know is an argument from ignorance. When we don’t know how it did happen you aren’t justified in believing in something because no one else can explain it. How did that fish get to the top of the mountain? Me: Don’t know Random Person: A magic fairy named Mike did it. Me: How do you know? RP: Well you can’t explain it.

  11. Kleinium says:

    The reality is that Coyne presents NO evidence for lifes origin. He says that there must be only one original life starting event due to the odds against DNA or L-amino acids forming more than once. 53.14 “Maybe a soft organism RNA?” The only proof that matters is what we know TODAY about chemistry. We know the odds against RNA forming, or L-amino acids getting sorted out. All calculations lead to ZERO probability.  That is our modern calculation which gets lower every day as more is known

  12. opinionatedaunti says:

    3.How exactly would u test ur theory? How would u falsify it? What would b ur experiments or predictions? WO REFERENCE 2 EVOLUTIONARY THEORY? If science had listened 2 arguments like urs, there’d b no science-no medicine, chemistry, physics-Don’t have the knowledge or tools 2 understand the cause of infection? God did it. R u really that stupid?

  13. opinionatedaunti says:

    2.”God did it” and tht’s tht? No.He ALWAYS framed thought experiments wn the context of science & he TESTED his theories empirically ie Michelson-Morley experiment, emission theory, Maxwell’s equations-he DID NOT jump 2 the easiest conclusion 2 fit his needs & commit 2 it wo evidence. He DID NOT ignore facts or misuse rhetorical strategies just 2 prove himself right. I say again, even if we NEVER create life in a lab, u still have NOT proved ID.

Leave a Reply