Dr. David Berlinski: Transitional Sequence (Clip 4)

[oopscanada]

@Jatz071 "Terrible grammer"? Wow; it must be a new dictionary. I hope one day you see the light; in the meantime, I'm glad most people have common sense; unlike you pagans; worshipers of Darwin.

[oopscanada]

Just Excellent exposition by Dr. Berlinski. Thanks.

[deadadelta]

Third Generation of SOFT DRINK , DRINKER lot of TOXINS in HIS BRAIN

[ttcmp0]

Also, an organism that develops new feature (be it quite incomplete) will allow its heirs to complete the feature in some generations allowing the newest organisms be classified as new species.

Here is the thing: I suppose that these feature-transitioning organisms will be quite few in numbers compared to the old and new species. Is it not unlikely that these ratios will be the same for the fossil record - i.e. good "transitional" fossils will be quite rare (and fossils can be quite rare I hear)

[ttcmp0]

Its quite inaccurate of him to suppose that Galapagos Finch might evolve into Galapagos Elephants. It could be elephant-like, in behavior or appearance, but it would be a completely different creature - with much less genetic relation to the African elephant than the current finches have.

Also, he again inaccurate states that the transitional fossil found was derived from whales. It may have been related to the ancestor of modern whales, but that is a wholly different creature from whales today.

[TheLogic1010]

Evolution is a fact, The theory of Evolution which should be called The Theory of Darwinism is not equal to evolution. Darwinism is based more on faith than the actual series of events. Random mutations and natural selection are not enough to change one species into another. There is another missing factor or factors in this process. Darwinism doesn't account for all these changes and should not be seen as a science.

[Inmylifealive]

wow sensor the comments so that we can't debunk this, very mature.

[TransUnicorn]

"Actress" Meredith Baxter: Her run as a lesbian will confirm her failure as a long-haul trucker. Not all gays are lesbians, yet 92% of lesbians are festive. Most public beaches have banned bathing attire. This is indecent. Nubile, young women romping around in their birthday suits, while engaged in wholesome family fun, is wrong.

[sherwoodstars]

Minor changes in already-existing species, such as finches, are known to occur by natural selection. But even creationists have long believed in minor modifications of that sort, by natural selection. Scientists who were actually creationists were aware of minor changes by natural selection long before Darwin: although they didn't call the process by the name "natural selection." James Hutton first published a description of the process, 1n 1794! Hutton was a creationist.

[eastjones]

he simply doesn't understand evolution, nor is he being honest about the findings on the finches. the finch beaks changed exactly how evolution predicts they should. It could be tested, it could have produced false results, and it cold have proven evolution didn't predict accurately.  The tstudy was done, and it DID align with the predictions of evolutionary theory. it din't have to prove evolution, but it did. He is just ongoing the facts again without evidence to back up his claims.

[gregrutz]

The fossils are layered like this;

On the bottom is a layer of rock with only shell fossils in it,

above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils

There are no human fossils found in any of these layers.

And living fossils are consistant with evolution.

[flylike1]

"A species that looks ALMOST like a living fossil PROVES similar looking species "

Ya good logic! The similar looking species dies off leaving no ancestors, and the new similar looking species which never existed prior is created!

It's so obvious, evolutionists are so stupid.

[gregrutz]

@toobsucker Evolution does not say thing have to change, why can't creatards understand this? You, like all creationists, don't understand evolution. A transitional species is one that has the traits of 2 different kinds of animals>> a fish with a neck or legs. A dinosaurs with teeth, boney tail and Feathers. A land animal with a whales ear. Scientists have found all these ''missing links''

[toobsucker]

@gregrutz "Evolution does not say thing have to change, why can't creatards understand this?"

Yes that exactly what Darwinian evolution predicts, what do you think evolution means?. Methodological naturalism (atheistic evolution) starts with chemical reactions and the entire system must be subject to evolution.

Evolutions glaring problem is most of the genome is conserved (not subject to evolutionary mechanisms). Why do you think 500myo living fossils have not changed?.

Conserved elements

[gregrutz]

@toobsucker Why do you think you know how evolution works? You have never studied it ! You don't understanD it so it is easy for you to make a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

1. Yes that exactly what Darwinian evolution predicts... NO IT DOES NOT.

2. (atheistic evolution) starts with chemical reactions ... NO, EVOLUTION IS ABOUT SPECIES.

3. the entire system must be subject to evolution OR genome is conserved (not subject to evolutionary mechanisms). YOU ARE MAKING SHIT UP.

[gregrutz]

@toobsucker Similar looking and lived at different times and are both extinct.

And evolution does not say things have to change.

[kobasica]

This man brings up valid arguments and evo fundies scoff at them, such blatant ignorance, its hilarious. This is why darwinians are a laughing stock in my comunity.

[gregrutz]

@kobasica

Evo fuddies laugh at him because they found all the fossils for land animal to whale evolution. It is now well documented now.

[XForceBowhunter]

@gregrutz

Uhhh, did they find them all and then keep them secret? They have like 10 out of the hundreds of thousands of fossils that would hint at gradual evolution. Where are the rest?

[deepwinter77]

@kobasica

and what are the points please, and argue them

[gregrutz]

@kobasica Bull shit, Mr. Butinski does not have any evidence, he is just a paid IDiot.

[gregrutz]

@kobasica @ 4:55 ''I don't have the answers'' Correct, he is paid by the Discovery Institue to make up crap. "We only have 6 transitional fossils, we need 4,994 more'' How blind can you get ! Scientists have hundreds of transitional fossils the flood story can't explain.

[mcmanustony]

@kobasica

"This is why darwinians are a laughing stock in my comunity."- I think your ignorant hooting is easily drowned out by the science community laughing at creationists. berlinski has nothing resembling a valid argument and neither do you. keep laughing.....idiot.

[gregrutz]

@kobasica Is your community a bunck of uneducated religious fuddymentalists?

Evololution was accepted 150 years ago when the found the first transitional fossils.

[oopscanada]

@gregrutz - "Evololution was accepted"; by whom? By a monkey named Darwin? Sure. The fact is a dying theory; and I demand all the TAX dollars spent on this be given back to the taxpayers by all these atheists who misspent it.

[gregrutz]

@oopscanada Evolution was accepted by Scientists, you know, the people who study the evidence. Not Atheists, Scientists. You probibly think Mr. Butinski is a scientist. LOL

[oopscanada]

@gregrutz Oh you mean the evidence of the fossils? That shows a clear path from monkey to human, correct? Those are the scientists? Grave diggers? Please, be honest with yourself; it was a nice idea at the time. It cannot be proven in the labs.

[gregrutz]

@oopscanada Evolution has been observed in nature and in the lab.

[oopscanada]

@gregrutz "Adaptation" has been observed; what has not been observed is "new" species, new organs, new systems. *If* evolution was taking place now, all these things would be very clear; however, they are not anywhere. One thing is to adapt, and another one is to generate brand new species from totally different ones. Brand new type of cells where the DNA is not meant to create them.

[gregrutz]

@oopscanada Yes, adaptation [evolution] has been observed. It takes millions of years for species to split into two.

New species don't come from totally new one.

Dinosaurs already had feathers, hollow bones, warm blood, oval eggs, etc before evolving into birds.

[oopscanada]

@gregrutz Oh please; there is a big difference between, adaptation and splitting two species.  Be realistic; use your logic.

[gregrutz]

@oopscanada Yes, one is evolution and the other is how evolution happens.

[oopscanada]

@gregrutz ; No, not really; fossils show the animals existed; they do not show an evolution.  DNA shows that living forms have a code that at the nano level, everything has been codified to behave, react, and adapt, exactly as we see it. Sorry.

[gregrutz]

@oopscanada Yes, fossils show animals existed. 99% of them are extinct. Fossils show dinosaurs changed over 160 million years, some evolving feathers, hollow bones, warm blood, 3 forward toes, oval eggs in nests.

DNA codes for amino acids in proteins, it can be copied, that does not make it intelligent.

[gregrutz]

@oopscanada ''splitting two species'' do you mean splitting one species into two species that can't interbreed?

[oopscanada]

@gregrutz No; it has not. Sorry.

[gregrutz]

@oopscanada Evolution has been observed in the lab and in nature. It is obvious in the fossil record and DNA shows how everthing is related. Done deal.

[gregrutz]

@oopscanada >>Watch /watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y

[robertgreen1977]

This guy speaks well and has some balls. Total BS though.

Why does he bother getting up in the morning?? Perhaps he is a great wind-up merchant??? :)

[arsjth]

perhaps he is a scientist who hasnt given himself over to a bias that he cant extract himself from without looking foolish.

[gregrutz]

"There are plenty of things that look like tranistional species"

If it looks like a transitional species,

it is one. How many does this Idiot need?

[anselmo666666]

He makes an estimate as the to number of morphological changes that need to occur to change the land dweller into the whale. 50,000. Ok, lets go with that. Then somehow he correlates that to needing 50,000 transition forms between the two species. Maybe he is pretending that only one morphological aspect changes at a time. What would happen, rather, would be that all aspects of the land dweller change simultaneously, more or less, to bring about the change.

[gregrutz]

They found the evolutionary transition fossils [5 different species] showing the change of the ear of a whale from one that can hear on land to one that works underwater.

[murphymagick]

He loses credibility with me when says "take a finch, move it somewhere, wait a million years and it becomes an elephant." or when he says, "how do you take a cow and change it to a whale..." ---Those things thoroughly misrepresent evolution science, and I think he's vastly intelligent enough to challenge evolution without these irresponsible representations. A third grader can show cow-to-whale and finch-to-elephant evolution is wrong. Who does he think he's talking to?

[Quipert]

I totally agree. His obfuscated language make him sound intelligent, and I'm sure he is, but this clip showed me he really doesn't understand evolution.

[logicCplusplus]

ahahahha..its you who doesn't understand it. You know why? Because you only understand Darwins theory and nothing else. You are unable think outside of the box. bwahahahhahaha...

[newperve]

Thirty seconds in and already he's already misrepresenting the truth of the science. Don't really need to hear the rest.

[TainoRebelde]

ha ha ha.... Not according to your dogma, huh??

[dowter]

Berlinski is an idiot. There is a reason why he has to preach his nonsense to soccer moms rather than actually engage real scientists.

[aminoacid100]

Dear Dowter, I must agree with you. This guy has a phd in philosophy and is a post doctoral fellow in mathematics and micro biology BUT clearly he is not a scientist because he does not believe in evolution. Science can only be endorsed and propogated by those who believe in evolution and hence exclude God from the picture. So scientists such as Newton, Einstein, Copernicus etc. have nothing to say. This guy clearly does not know anything.

[paxfiat]

Berlinski not having a PHD in Science still does not discount his arguments.

[gregrutz]

@paxfiat So why can't he prove evolution wrong?

[Daealis]

The one problem with this whole Coldwatermedia is that they seem to have gathered only those guys critical of evolution. Somehow the claims of "darwinists" are presented to the anti-parties, but not vice versa.

Moving on to Berlinski: He is a moron, regarding evolution. He might be brilliant in math, but he doesn't undestand:

1)how fossils form(and therefore are rare)

2)how much the fossil records shows(nostrils, inner-ear, feet)

He wants thousands of intermediates, when dozens are adequate.

[whiteliketar]

yeah right because u say so Berlinski is an idiot and you are sooooooooo smart! lol

[Ioannakis]

Many of the responses here imply he's being heard to assert the falsehood of evolutionary theory, which is a shame. He is doing nothing of the sort: 2.05 - "the claim that there are no transitional sequences in the evolutionary record, or nothing that looks like a transitional sequence, certainly is false". 4.05 - "the question is not whether this is an evolutionary sequence: sure it is; it is very very pursuasive". If I've double posted, excuse me. Respectfully, Ioannakis.

[Ioannakis]

Many of the responses here imply that he's being heard to say that evolutionary theory is groundless. Please listen more closely: 4:05 - "the question is not whether this is an evolutionary sequence: sure it is; it is very very pursuasive". 2:05 - "The claim that there are no transitional sequences in the evolutionary record, or nothing that looks like a transitional sequence, certainly is false." There is nothing here to support such an interpretation. Respectfully, Ioannakis

[diuryl]

well said, doctor, well said.....

[procommenter]

ALL celebrities are mercilessly condemned. "Atheists" actively are without will. They are neither frank nor worthy. Why must "atheism" & homosexualism be synonymous? It isn't fair. Homosexual "atheists" are the only "atheists" who matter, damn it!!! Every day is Christmas in Fairy Land. For reasons that apparently only concern a minority of citizens: the federal govt. advances its collectivists' agenda.

[ktn121]

This man just batters. He should read more evolutionary literature and not try to be a genius.

[pittland44]

One big problem I have with evolutionary theory is that it does not account for existing genetic arsenals within a group of animals. One good example is the breeding of dogs. All dogs trace back to wolves, and are viable with wolves, yet we see a tremendous variation if forms arrising not from random selection, but from the picking and amplifying of desired preexisting genetic traits that were already present in a less concentrated form.

[Englishdosser86]

You didn't mean to say "random selection". That doesn't make sense. Did you mean 'random mutation' or 'natural selection'?

[AWS12345678910]

He's a scientist: True scientists don't "Believe", they prove, or they disprove. His problem is that for X, Y, Z reasons, its evident to him that Evolution- at least in the way its commonly represented- hasn't been proven, indeed hasn't even been properly tested.

[danielyeh]

that's because he is a mathematician. he does not and does not want to understand the evidence that evolutionists have

[pittland44]

What evidence is that? Because I'm a biochemist, and I find neodarwinism inadequate to explain many things, such as the origin of life and the rise fo eukaryotes.

[Englishdosser86]

So you have a problem abiogenesis, not evolution?

[veritaslogos]

thats a misconception many ppl have. darwinism doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, just the origin of species. however of coarse i think what we know about the origin of life must be known to accurately know anything about the origin of species

[newperve]

No, we don't need to know anything about the origin of life to know that species develop by natural selection. Life could have been started by natural chemical processes or giants throwing away a massive condom that lands on the earth. Doesn't matter wrt evolution.

[bullviii]

we don't need to know anything about the origin of the first self replicating cells?

hmmm?giants throwing condoms???

lol. is that a neo- darwinian concept ?

did you think that one up on your own?

[1n354a]

This man is a wonderful liar...he is smart enough to know better, but then again the Discovery Institute has never been one for truthful presentation of information.

Also I wish he would use the word evolution instead of "Darwinian theory". Quite a bit of knowledge has been gained since Darwin first aired his ideas...somewhere around 150 years worth of it...if he was meaning to be honest at all, he would refer to it as evolutionary theory.

[fatsomamacheese]

Lol...that's your only beef with this clip? Come on you can do better than that mr. subjectivity...

[iilikefeet]

its important not to use "evolution" to describe the darwinian theory althow now a days it is the neo-darwinian theory because micro -evolution is true, however it is macro-evolution which is false

[newperve]

There is absolutely no evidence that it is false. that's why Berlinsky lies in these videos (less than thirty seconds in with this one).

[erylone]

Agreed...evolutionists will point to microbiological variations as evidence for common relation of all life on the planet. No one wants to account for the vanishingly small amount of evidence in the transitional record.

[heavensbestfighter08]

i dont understand this guy, he doesnt believe in evoultion and doenst really believe in god, whats this guys deal? what DOES he believe in, email me if u know

[logomachon]

Maybe your premise is wrong, and in fact evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive, nor does the absence of one require the presence of the other. Berlinki is not critiquing evolution; he is saying that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is inadequate to explain what we see, that what we see doesn't support neo-Darwinism very well, and further that the evidence is mostly mythical anecdotes.

[Jesrael1986M]

yo don't have 2 believe anything. You can just say "I don't know"

[iilikefeet]

thats what he is saying. sorry if he uses too big of words

[RhinoAts51]

One of the most amazing things I can imagine is a pale blue dot called Earth, orbiting a normal star, in a normal galaxy, in a normal area of the universe gave birth to life. And that certain lifeforms on that pale blue dot, began to attempt to understand the origins of the universe through experimentation, skepticism, and technology.

Whats more amazing than that though, is people like David Berlinksi. What a tard.

[HowieInTheUK]

Berlinski's argument on "multiple changes needed to evolve" is fundementally flawed. He pretends that changes MUST take place sequentially to prop up his argument, but this is NOT true. Every facit of an organisms makeup is subject to evolutionary pressure sulmultaneously. So it is hardly at all suprising that over 60 million years a whale can develop changes to its ears as well as its mammary system as well as etc etc etc

[tubewatch59]

(I may be repeating myself but my comment seems to have vanished)

You cannot have every facit of an organism subjected to "effective" evolutionary pressure simultaneously. Background noise stops too many traits from being selected at once. Theorizing too much selection pressure (to lower the noise threshold) will just decrease the population faster than it can be replenished (for the larger animals anyway). Natural selection has a cost that must be paid for with finite populations.

[thethikboy]

"develop changes to its ears as well as its mammary system as well as etc etc etc "

All at once? Mathematically the probability of such an event taking place at random is infinitesimal.

[elansing]

Finch beaks change seasonally? WTF?? Back of the envelop calculations - he based his calculations based on what?

[iilikefeet]

the beaks change seasonally based on the food supply. in wet seasons(and were not talking yearly seasons more in fluctuations in climate) there are juicey beeries which are more easily accessed by the finches with longer, more narrow beaks. in dry seasons however, there are only the harder nuts and seeds to which finches with shorter, wider can get to

[ArcanaKnight]

He talks about the gaps in the fossil record, but he fails to mention that the conditions of fossilization are very rare. On top of that, we have to find the ones that are created. The fact that we have as many transitional fossils as we do is actually quite remarkable when viewed in that light.

[Zacharybinx34]

you actually believe that load of make believe

Evolution is dead long live the creator

[owchywawa]

What he is saying is that instead of simply making this claim we should actually calculate how many we should have, and compare that to how many we do have.

Is fossilization really so rare that we can only find a few 'transitional forms?' I also wonder how many fossils of living whales we have. If we have hundreds of the type we know exist, then shouldn't we have roughly the same amount of the imagined ones?

Btw, an excuse for why you have little evidence doesn't provide any more evidence.

[babak462]

Scientific theory has scientific evidence. Explaining why we can't bring enough evidence doesn't make a theory scientific.

[thethikboy]

Excuses, excuses.

[Chuichupachichi]

From transitionals getting in their way as the scientists looked for those elusive fossils of mono-species.

Don't believe me? Just do the math. I did, its so obviously true, that I didn't have to write a single number. Do as Einstein did, use your imagination, based on the facts.

[SlighlyRetarded]

Intellectual dishonesty at it's very best...

[Zacharybinx34]

answer his points or close your mouth.

Dr. David Berlinski is a complete genius.

[SlighlyRetarded]

What an utter nutter..

Intellectual dishonesty at it's best...

[jeffbrown8]

haha- maybe he wants to throw insults like hitchens and dawkins.. he wants to get famous..

[Zacharybinx34]

no he's a genius

[ngarey]

This guy is a self-confessed crank.

[cruelfate45]

you are a self confessed fruit cuz I think you really love him, no but seriously, he actually thinks about stuff instead of just accepting what he is told like you apparently do, you trust the materialists cuz you want it to be true, that's all, it's not for me, there is always more, what makes you think it will stop at the natural? I bet you that in 100 years, evolutionary biology will be unrecognizable to Darwins theory,