All though the process looks stochastic on the DNA level, it sure is not on the macroscopic level. Bad mutation might kill the animal, thus ridding the world of the DNA. Thus, good mutations DO relate to the mutations that come afterwards. Thus the process is not stochastic. Such a failure for a mathematician...
Berlinski is not and never has been a mathematician- though he loves to be associated with the discipline. he is a pseudo intellectual fraud- nothing more.
@mcmanustony Yes, I realized that later, when further investigating his background.. Man he annoys me (atleast in these videos. I'm sure he can be a nice guy in other areas in life....)
He's been getting away with it for years. never once made any contribution to any scientific or mathematical discipline, has only recently stopped lying about his non existent math phd, continues to lie about his association with great mathematicians (eg rene thom) is full of the most pompous tripe delivered with such narcissistic arrogance and yet his ignorant disciples on the right think him a globe straddling intellectual colossus.
he has presented himself repeatedly as a mathematician, which he is not. he had repeatedly allowed himself to be presented as a Phd in mathematics when he has none. the correction came from elsewhere. he lied about von neumann and has lied about work with rene thom.
I can argue the points perefectly well. I can also explain the concept of ad hominem since you clearly don't understand it.
no genuine mathematician would get the pigeonhole principle so utterly wrong. the principle in his example would state that if you had 10 letters and 9 mailboxes then there exists a mailbox with more than one letter. still, he has a history of getting basic mathematics wrong. no surprise there.
if he ever manages to get it right and actually makes a valid connection with evolutionary biology you'll be sure to let us know.
btw- calling a liar out on his lies is not even close to an ad hominem.
My question, which you ignored, is whether you have footage to prove that he lied ABOUT HAVING A PHD IN MATHEMATICS. Before you can call out a lie you have to find one.
@Onieracraft I ignored nothing. he is listed repeatedly on several websites as having a phd in mathematics. he has repeatedly allowed this falshood to be spread and only told the truth when corrected from elsewhere. references were easy enough for me to find and they are easy enough for you. get off your duff and look.
why the obsession with "footage"? does it have to be on camera to be a lie? how strange.
if you seriously think he can appear as a speaker at various creationist meetings listed as a mathematician with a phd in mathematics, have fake credentials on book covers calling him a mathematician, be listed on multiple websites as a Phd in mathematics and be blissfully unaware to the extent that others had to point out that he's not a mathematian and has no phd in the subject....you need more help than I'm willing to give,
He's a pseudo intellectual fraud and nothing more.
@Onieracraft from Jason Rosenhouse (actual Phd in actual mathematics) blog. "As others have pointed out, there's no shortage of sources that either describe you as a mathematician, or state explicitly that your PhD is in mathematics. In addition to the sources others have mentioned, your author bio in the Mere Creation anthology states that you have a PhD in mathematics"
happy now- or is he not a liar since there's no footage of him writing his bio?
....Uhh I think his point was that the right kind of subsequent mutations must first arise entirely by chance, not that if they were to arise by chance they would be unrelated to the previous mutations. *sigh*
@Onieracraft I disagree. He is clearly arguing that the sequences of mutations are totally unconnected ("and they are not linked to changes that have occurred".). Yes, mutations are subject to chance (of about 100-200 mutations per human, by recent news it seems). So imagine few hundred animals for few hundred years... A beneficial mutation is not too far fetched, for me at least. The events "lock, change, lock, change" are _not_ independent and cannot be modeled with random variable.
Uhh, he says "The process is both one of sheer dumb luck (finding the right changes) and something that is not quite a matter of luck, that is deterministic, that is saving the valuable changes. ". The second part of the quote falsifies your claim.
I'm more interested in how you could think that a post doctorate fellow in Molecular Biology could believe something explainable to a 6 year old? Don't confuse your own lack of comprehension with Berlinski's argument.
@Onieracraft He briefly talks about the deterministic part. But then he throws it away, calling the process stochastic. But his main point is that evolution is a random process. He is talking about beautiful structures arising in a random process. Sure, the mutations are random. The process, as a whole, isn't.
Now, a 6 year old might also know germ theory. Does it make the theory wrong for the post-doc? What is your point here?
it wasn't an Ad Hominem. I didn't say you were incapable of understanding what he said, i said you didn't Look the quote you gave can also be understood as referring to the original random appearance of the change
"and they are not linked to changes that have occurred"
The quote i gave can only be understood as referring to a connection between mutations once they arise. The logical interpretation of what he is saying is that they arise randomly but may then function together
This would be consistent with the idea of a stochastic process, which is made up random variables, but exhibits an overall correlation. What he is saying makes perfect sense when the phrase is interpreted in the way that i say, but very little when it is understood as you advise.
@Onieracraft He contradicts himself in this video. Starts by talking about the deterministic part. Then goes on and says his "essential point" is that the theory is a random process. He also says he cannot believe himself being the result of random process. This is _not_ what the theory is about!
"[..]original random appearance [..] between mutations once they arise [..]"
Are you talking about origins of life? Or could you elucidate? (Darwins theory is not about origins of life..).
"post doctorate fellow in Molecular Biology "- another piece of berlinski dishonesty. his phd was in philosophy. he has had several short term low level teaching jobs since and been fired from every one.
he has absolutely zero publications in the research literature of mathematics or molecular biology having done no research in either.
@mcmanustony I'm not sure Onieracraft was implying Berlinski to be that postdoc. I thought it was a rhetorical question of sorts.. But I'm still waiting on clarification on this from him.
@ttcmp0 difficult to know what he's implying. Berlinski is fond of refering to himself as a "post doctoral fellow" in both mathematics and molectular biology when his degree was in philosophy- and "fellow" in his case means untenured teaching assistant.
I love how these religious nuts inflate their credentials at will. you're not just a member of a pressure group, you're a "senior research fellow" or "advanced titular emeritus whatever.."
@mcmanustony Post doctoral work is not always published. Religious nutjobs? Your ignorance about this aspect of who David Berlinski is doesn't bode well for your other claims.
I know perfectly well that berlinski is agnostic. to be otherwise he'd actually have to articulate and defend a postition- something of which he's totally incapable. he is also incapable of holding down a real academic job so he aligns himslef with the well funded creationist right since they have nice pseudo academic titles and treat him as if he's actually got something of substace to say.
Hmm, If you knew Berlinski was an agnostic it seems you wouldn't have called him a "religious nutjob".
And if you have a source directly from Berlinski stating that he did post Doc work with Thom, give it to me, that's what i have been asking for. I never said it didn't exist, i simply asked you to produce it.
Oh and critiquing an idea IS saying something, it is simply saying something different than proposing one.
@Onieracraft "If you knew Berlinski was an agnostic it seems you wouldn't have called him a "religious nutjob""
wrong. I'm pefectly aware of his religious stance- assert no belief that may have to be defended and accept handouts from a fundamentalist pressure group while doing so. he is aligned with religious nuts and recites their lies when called upon
you actually asked for evidence of berlinski being dishonest about his credentials- which you've been given.
No, I asked for evidence that he claimed to have a PHD in Mathematics.
Evidence that Berlinski did post doctoral with THOM in Topology would be precisely that. I had assumed that this is what you meant to suggest and that you were not ignoring my question.
@Onieracraft "Oh and critiquing an idea IS saying something"- sure it is. my point however is that he is incapable of stating clearly any position of his own. he is agnostic on the existence of god. fine. he is agnostic about evolution and makes boneheaded criticisms of the theory. he claims to be agnositc about ID yet chants the slogans and picks up the cheques- in lieu of an real academic job. when asked a revealing question by hitchens he pompously replied "it is not of any importance to me"
nor do I need your permission to comment on a comment. who do you think you are? unlike the vast majority of creationist videos these have comments enabled. tough.
@Onieracraft " from Jason Rosenhouse for the second time- "your author bio in the Mere Creation anthology states that you have a PhD in mathematics". He has appeared numerous times at creationist events listed as having a phd in mathematics and has allowd himself to be so presented.
@Onieracraft you're sharp aren't you! I quoted Jason's comment to berlinski pointing out the numerous places where his credentials were falsely presented including his own bio in "mere creation" where he is wrongly identified as a phd mathematician. do you seriously think multiple people noticed this a berlinski didn't?
I would gamble that you don't even recognize what he is arguing in his "cow to whale routine" , and his discussion of the Fossil record relative to that argument.
"they don't even get what he is arguing."- really? professional biologists dont understand the ramblings of a smug layman? I don't think so. his "argument" is incoherent drivel and nothing more.
can you give some references for failed attempts to challenge the cow to whale performance? I've seen it sucessfully shown to be utter tripe more than once. since the great man doesn't bother to give a list of these 50,000 changes.....morphological changes no less....possilbly even "non linearly reticulated"....can you tell us where we might find it so we may better understand his searing intellect and jaw dropping wisdom?
@Onieracraft His point is '' shear dumb luck''. Why can't creationists see the forces of nature? Is it luck that a rock always falls down? Is it dumb luck that Hydrogen always burns to make water? Was it luck that the tiger has sharp teeth?
I didn't know what you were doing, i couldn't sort through through the quotation marks. So you are still not giving me a source wherein Berlinski claims he has a PHD, you are giving me an account of a person who says they told him that he was listed somewhere as having a PHD?
I gave you a reference citing berlinski's own bio falsely listing him as a mathemtics Phd. are you trying to argue that this was done, along with citations too numerous to list here and too tedious to list anywhere, without berlinskis knowledge? every single one? grow up and move on.
can you find a single reference anywhere to berlinkis "work" in differential topology with Rene Thom- other than from berlinski? I cant. Thom was one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century. his collaborators are well know. professor sir doctor DB is listed nowhere.
How do you "prove" beneficial? If the tootless tiger developes splendid teets that will improve its possibilities to catch its pray and survive, then why on earth did the smiledon (sable tiger) die out? It is supposed to be as well developed as you can imagine, but it still did not survive! What about the dinosaurs that developed into all kinds for forms and yet did not survive? The whole idea of "beneficial" is an axiom, not something that can be proven.
@gregrutz How is variation that distinguishes wolves from any dog "special" or different than the variation that exists between a Chihuahua and a German Mastiff. What makes reproductive isolation so special? The Czechoslovakian Wolfdog come to mind.
@fissure226 You missed the point. The 'new information' is already there. A wolf would have no problem evolving into something as large as a great dane or as small as a toy poodle
@gregrutz Darwin never observed the evolution of a species, no human in their lifetime ever could, even if that where the mechanism at play. He only saw different species and tactfully arranged them.
@fissure226 Good thing we have observed evolution since then and found lots of transitional fossils too. Darwin is dead and his ideas 150 years out of date, proving him wrong means nothing.
@fissure226 Good thing we have observed evolution since then and found lots of transitional fossils too. Plus all the DNA proof. Darwin is dead and his ideas 150 years out of date, proving him wrong means nothing.
All the DNA proof? DNA doesn't prove common descent but rather contradicts it.
How does evolution explain:
Q: The profound differences between the Y chromosomes of Humans and Chimps which should be practically identical as predicted by common descent but are remarkably different in structure, form and genetic location?
A: It doesn't.
Q: Overlapping genes in Humans which should also overlap in Chimps but don't?
The genetic clocks, or molecular clocks, are used to calculate proposed speciation events within the scope of evolutionary divergence. The problem is that when you check for the mutational rate between two supposedly related species, say humans and chimps, you get a completely different rate than what is directly observed between human to human comparisons by a factor of about 20 times by mitochondial DNA, more by Y chromosome markers.
@hugenex2000 Absolute Rubbish! What are your sources? The y chromosome, overlapping genes, and genetic clocks shouldn't be the same. We ARE different species now. That means the DNA has"profoundly" changed so that we can no longer interbreed. Stop getting your info from creationist websites. The mountains of genetic data point to a common descent. Don't vaccinate your kids if you don't believe the scientists who actually study genetics.
@adrianwbourne Most of my research has been in comparative genomics of placental mammals. The sheer number and type of mutations that would have had to occur to explain the genetic differences between Humans and Chimps for example makes the idea that we had a common ancestor 6 million years (300,000 generations) ago completely ridiculous.
Then, there are genes which are in Humans which are not in Chimps and vice versa, some of which overlap in their respective genome, some are embedded in palindromes. There are also genes which completely contradict evolutionary gene-trees such as the gene WNT5A in Humans on chromosome 3 which shows Humans more closely related to Rats than Chimps, which might be interesting if anyone other than creationists were interested in the data, all of it, not just what you want to see.
My source is the genetic data itself which does a bit more than just point AWAY from universal common descent, it directly refutes it. Belief in evolution will not survive the onslaught of genetic data rolling in against it by the truckload even now. Vaccinations have nothing to do with it one way or another.
@hugenex2000 You've just asserted that we are more closely related to rats than chimps. How does that help your case? You said "related". Are you inferring we can trace a line directly to rats instead of chimps?
Some genetic difference is expected. We ARE different species.
So, if you actually have information that will contribute to human understanding about evolution, you should publish it. It would overturn everything we currently understand about life itself. You'll win a Nobel prize.
@adrianwbourne No. What I assert is that the data contradicts evolutionary trees because species which are supposedly more closely related should be more similar genetically. This is not the case with 23% of the genes compared between Human and Chimp according to a study, 'Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry', published in 'Molecular Biology and Evolution' , "For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee." 98.5% then is not true.
@hugenex2000 ...I meant "Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry"
After your quote mine it says "We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. This explains recurrent findings of very old human-specific morphological traits in the fossils record, which predate the recent emergence of the human species about 5-6 MYA."
@hugenex2000 I agree we shouldn't be using the number 98.5% in regards to our genome similarities. That number came from a study that only compared 97 specific functional DNA bases across 6 species. On the other hand "Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry" compares 23,210 DNA sequence alignments from human, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, and rhesus. They had a bigger more random sample and are getting a more accurate number. It's taking a while for the corrected information to disseminate.
@adrianwbourne So, the 98.5% similarity between Human and Chimp is not true and we have known for some time that it's more like 77% (or less). Also, the phylogenetic trees are contradicted by the data and I gave you just one example, there are several hundred examples, maybe thousands. More research will provide a multitude of examples of how evolution is contradicted by the evidence but there is ample evidence now to reject evolution, WNT5A is just one. Check for yourself. Avoid the rush.
@hugenex2000 Right...so we aren't as similar as we thought, but we are more similar to chimps than we are to any other species. I read "Molecular Biology and Evolution" The paper suggest to me that science is refining the tree, not throwing it out. IF, the one gene (WNT5A) is more similar in rats, it could have been retained in us, and modified in the chimp. Our genetic isolation from other primates could account for that drift, and the "several 100 examples" you tease at. You're data mining.
If by saying that I'm "data mining" you mean that I am more interested in the data than in your wild speculation and 'ad hoc' attempts to save a defunct theory from the facts then yes indeed, I am. You are forced to shield Evolution from the data at all cost! What choice do you have?
@adrianwbourne But you also accuse me of quote mining as if for some reason evolutionists should not be held accountable for what they say. If then by "quote mining" you mean the way I point out how the evidence has proponents of evolution talking in circles and uttering things which are blatantly false then,yes, it is what it is.
@hugenex2000 Quote mining and data mining are picking only some data or quotes out of context in a dishonest attempt to prove an unsupported position. Evolution IS the data. It's an observed fact. The "theory" is the best possible explanation for these observations. In science a theory is not a guess or speculation. You seem to have a bias against the conclusions, and want to shield yourself from the facts at all costs. So, what theory can you put forward to explain the data?
@hugenex2000 ...and thanks to you and your ilk misunderstanding, and misrepresenting what these studies accurately conclude, the real facts don't get to come out. And only because you have a bias against the peer revued conclusions. Science doesn't have bias. It's self correcting. If the crap that Creationist run "Evolution Views and News" spews had any bearing, it would have already come up in the very competitive scientific community. 23% difference is less than the predicted 40%. Look thatup
Statistics...mathematics....He's arguing from observations in sciences that comment upon Darwinism. They don't comment favorably. If it were any other theory it would be considered a failure on statistical grounds alone. I, personally, believe the rancor that sets up over information like this is based in issues other than science.
Huh? At :28 at the very beginning he specifies that selection is "deterministic" and "quite deterministic", i.e, non-random. Variations *are* random. Selection is not. Watch the video again. You must have blacked out for a minute.l
Coldwater Media. Follow the money. Berlinski is doing really well with copious compensation and book deals with one of the most ultraconservative, theocratic media outlets in existence. Where does that leave truth?...in the mind of the well-paid.
Berlinski lies.....he correctly describes the random process being affected by selection, then he goes on to incorrectly describe the entire process as random.
He is clearly intelligent enough to know how the process works, so he is clearly dishonest.
@kshackleton "He is clearly intelligent enough to know how the process works" Really? Noone has a clue how it works or even how it could work. There is no WORKING hypothesis of how it could work. There is not a single mutation documented where ANY new information has been added. No new organs, limbs, functions.... only duplication, or lose of information. Evolution should not even be called a 'theory'; perhaps a poor hypothesis, but that's all.
@kshackleton Does this add anything of value to this discussion? Does it reveal any of the knowledge you've gained from your education?
I have gotten an education, I am getting one every day, and plan on getting one every day for all eternity. How about you?
If you have scientific evidence that Berlinski is wrong please share that. The chances of getting one new useful, average size protein is less than one to the number of atoms in the universe. It IS 'Sheer Dumb Luck"!
@enoch1844 You can find the scientific/mathematical proofs in countless places on the internet and even in many evolutionist sources(I find that most hard core evolutionists will not give any credence to research done by IDers or creationists regardless of how flawless their work it). Google Evolution: Possible or Impossible? by Dr. James F. Coppedge. Creationist though. Evolutionists are befuddled by this and many other difficulties, thus some have intellectually given it up.
Look up the evolution of nylonase. This is a clear example of genetic mutations being filtered by selection to provide new and useful information which allows the organism to not simply survive, but flourish in a new environment.
When you realize that evolution is nothing like a chain, and understand that it involves lots of parallel processes, perhaps, just perghaps, the light will come on for you.
@kshackleton Several problems with your statements. 1)Consensus is that this ability came through gene duplication 2)Probably in a single step mutation 3)This Flavobacterium is still Flavobacterium 4)If introduced into it's original environment with its predecessors it would be wiped out 5)Some variations in organisms come about because of a change in environment, such as the Galapagos finches change in beak shape and size, but they return to normal when the environment returns to its norm.
Your claim is that mutations cannot provide new and useful information. That claim has been refuted. Nylonase is the result of a gene duplication event followed by a frame shift in subsequent generations.
Now, if what you are looking for is the creation of a complete and functioning gene from the random mixing of thousands of base pairs, sorry...evolutionary theory makes no such claims....that's what creationists say happened.
@kshackleton You said it... "gene duplication". Just copying one piece of information and inserting it in another spot. No NEW information... a replication or repeating of what was there. And no real benefit to the Flavobacterium. When reintroduced to it's original environment with its predecessors it dies out. No evolution there... survival of the FITTEST. Which is by the way a tautology. Which were the fittest? Those that survived. Which survived? The fittest! lol
2:47...and not a single second spent raising a legitimate criticism of evolutionary theory. Berlinski's emaciated point is simply this: "Gee, it's hard to believe stuff can happen randomly."
The fact that Berlinski is guilty of committing one of the oldest known argumentative fallacies - namely, the argument from incredulity - should tell you everything you need to know about how seriously to take Berlinski as an "evolutionary critic".
Ok. It's quite clear that DNA is very much like computer code. (Except when that analogy is used to dismiss darwinism. Then it is nothing like computer code at all. lol) Anyway. With a change of a single parameter, I can change all the textboxes, dropdowns etc in my acountancy application to be 200px wide, rather than 150px (Provided the code was written well). However, changing variables is not going to change my application's nature into a racing game. Darwinism suceeds by hiding the details
@Tripockets OK, watch DonExodus2 > transitional fossils 1 NEW
for the fossils you can't seem to find.
Mr. butinski is trying to come up with a counterargument, evolution was accepted 150 years ago. Natural Selection is not random, and changes in species IS evolution.
Darwin wrote 'Origin of Species' by way of Natural Selection.
The sermons of Darwin, Dawkins, Cousteau, Ted Turner, Margaret Sanger, Jane Goodall, Paul Ehrlich, the Huxleys, H.G. Wells, Elizabeth Regina's husband, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc. humanely stress the reduction of humanity through weaponized serums, laboratory-fabricated viruses (pathogens), perpetual war, food & water shortages/rationing, de-industrialization & aborticides. Eugenics is now "bio-ethics" & "sustainability."
@gregrutz It sort of is. If you really think about it. Random mutations are random, which is dumb luck. Natural selection is anything but dumb luck. In conclusion, I think a person could say that natural selection, selects the best things that came about by dumb luck.
gregrutz even point mutations in peps/pros or bp's via random mutation will not make these wild body plan changes. we transfect cells daily/weekly and make major expression changes. in vitro/vivo and still do not see changes in morph. as you would think. ive no idea how we came to be. but random mutation is a poor option
@gregrutz but mutations have never, ever shown an interspecies change. we never see a fly turning into a moth. regardless of the manipulation we perform in the lab. drastic transformation via transfection of anyting we've tried does not seem to change the body plan.. look i'm as confused as anyone and have no idea how or why this is.
@gregrutz i agree completely with what youve said. its common ancestor that escapes alot of scientists... alot... we need bacteria in culture (ie large life experience) or any animal to change to another animal. with all due respect, what convinces you that these small changes actuly lead to large leaps in body plan change...ie common ancestor.??? i'm stumped and have been in disco. biotech for almost 15 years... its very confusing.
@gregrutz Pardon me but, yes it does. Even worse it claims they all changed from a blank slate. Analogous to all animals developing from a piece of paper. No on misunderstands evolution, that is just a mantra from people who want to make evolution seem more elaborate than it really is. If anyone misunderstand it is due to the fact that they rely upon only what is seen in the present world. Which is what science measures, observable reality. Not your imaginary reality of things never observed
@gregrutz That's not a misunderstanding of evolution, that's your misunderstanding of sarcasm. I hope you don't really think you're smarter than them.
-
There are better example than the Grand Canyon. There is a Canyon that is perfectly square shaped and no one knows what caused it. Forgive me for forgetting the name and location.
-
A scientist is defined by his action not his education. This is common sense.
i'd have to disagree gregrutz. if you mean intra species change over time, i think all scientists agree with this. single ancestor... there is just no real basis for it. i'd like to think we "keep up" are you thinking that 5-10mm yrs of the cambrian explos. via undirected mutation created all this varied morph ?
@gregrutz thats exactly the point...change within "dogs" does happen just like minor adjustments within a species.. but we dont see species changing to other species. this would be a much larger step.
@gregrutz Nature is not alive and cannot perform the action of selecting. The word random means without objective. Just because you stick the words 'nature' and 'selection' together does not make it cohesive. It's an oxymoron. Natural inclination, maybe. But even then, nature clearly isn't inclined towards survival, else immortality would be possible and probable. You should stop reading from your science book and start using your own thinking skills. It's you who is brainwashed
@knowwaie Plants and animals are alive. Which ones reproduce better is not chance.
Have you ever read a science book? Home schooled to avoid the TRUTH. ''nature clearly isn't inclined towards survival'' Ever go outside and look, dummy.
It's a jungle out there.
immortality?!? We do live longer than our ancestors. Evolution at work.
@gregrutz You really don't understand the theory yourself do you? Nature also includes the laws of physics, not just natural life. Is there some mechanism within the laws of physics which caused natural life to occur and change. I think you missed the point. Nature also causes things to die. What lives or dies based purely on odds. Otherwise they would only do one or the other, not both. Either everything dies or everything adapts to changing environment. Why do things die rather than adapt?
@gregrutz You really don't know how this works. Nature is all of physical existence . I specified "mechanism within the laws of physics". Again, you're reading off common parrot phrases like a programed robot. Nature cannot select, it is an inanimate object. The word select is a verb. What performs the action? This is elementary English. The fact that both life and death exist shows clearly there is a chance for either within physical reality. Nature 'selected' for things to die yet they survive
@gregrutz It's funny how you're telling me to read into it (in other words brainwash myself) when i just explained to you in simple, easy to understand terms that it is a flawed concept which lacks any real physical mechanism. In fact now you need a mechanism by which nature selects. Saying "nature selects" is not at all different from saying "God did it". Mother nature did it?. Darwin was apparently clueless about the mechanical nature of the universe. Think for yourself.
@knowwaie You don't understand evolution because you don't understand nature, the laws of nature, or how science knows what it knows. And you have no idea what they know. How many fossils they have.
T-Rex was all based on one fossil for a long time, Now the have 6 complete ones.
They have 600 Neanderthals, and some DNA of these other kind of human.
@gregrutz By the way, your original comment was completely wrong- "He is fine until he leaves out Natural Selection, what Darwin discovered."
-
He clearly mentions natural selection within the first 20 seconds of this video. "after the changes have occurred there is a deterministic process which determines those changes that are valuable and excludes those changes which are not.".
-
You didn't even understand the video. How can you accuse anyone of not understanding something?
@knowwaie I fully understand, This IDiot is paid by the Discovery Institute to make it look like evolution can't work. To say things like. '' We just don't know'' like he is a Biology Scientist.
Sorry, but evolution is accepted by all of science and most of the world,
@gregrutz How do such basic concepts slip passed you? Are things selected to die also? Why did those not adapt? They didn't get the chance?
-
This really isn't rocket science. Evolution by natural occurrence is pure chance because there is no mechanism by which to make it natural law. If some adapt and some don't then it becomes chance. The fact that some died INSTEAD of adapting defeats your case. Use common sense please.
@gregrutz Alright, i don't think you really understand the core of the issue. This natural selection idea cannot be shown as a material part of physical reality, it is on par with saying "earth decided". Darwin was clearly a novice, even juvenile when it comes to scientific understanding of nature. In reality, if these atheist ever find it, people would be ashamed of having fallen for such an unsophisticated idea. It lacks any explanatory power. I'm sure you'll never understand....
@knowwaie There was a discovery 150 years ago, at the time, they thought evolution happened, but did not have a theory as to how it happens.
Creationist can't understand something becoming more complex.
Charles Darwin showed how it can happen. What, besides random chance, is driving this process. The mechanism is called Natural Selection. N.S. also promotes more variation in species, what you call micro evolution. More micro evolution, the more marco evolution. and Dogs always make dogs.
@gregrutz Were the changes caused by natural selection, or did the changes make natural selection possible? Survival has never caused anything to become more complex. Complexity is what caused them to survive.
berlinski is very much on point with any biotech lab that is SELF FUNDED....lol... not the old u. work....you'd be suprised at the numbers of scientists that completely disregard darwinism... i've no idea how life began or exists in such diversity..but in any case we need far more data than just an old theory.
@gregrutz "99.98% of all scientists accept evolution"
Yet more than half of them are not really scientist. They are college professors. Richard Dawkins is a commentator Ken Miller is a teacher. These figures come from colleges. It's a huge conflict of interests and you're not very bright if you take these figures seriously. This also begs the question, what type of scientist? Biologist, psychologist, geologist? How many are speaking outside their own expertise? This percentage is made up.
There is evidence that each animal species descended from a common ancestor belonging to the same animal family group. Creationists believe this.
There is zero evidence that mammals, birds and reptiles all descended from one magical little fish, which is what the committed evolutionist believes.
@gregrutz wow, perfect example of how people like you, with these closed-minded, egotistical world views seem to only be able to hear the information that you want (need) to hear and you totally miss the point of the argument.
All though the process looks stochastic on the DNA level, it sure is not on the macroscopic level. Bad mutation might kill the animal, thus ridding the world of the DNA. Thus, good mutations DO relate to the mutations that come afterwards. Thus the process is not stochastic. Such a failure for a mathematician...
ttcmp0 4 months ago
@ttcmp0
Berlinski is not and never has been a mathematician- though he loves to be associated with the discipline. he is a pseudo intellectual fraud- nothing more.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony Yes, I realized that later, when further investigating his background.. Man he annoys me (atleast in these videos. I'm sure he can be a nice guy in other areas in life....)
ttcmp0 3 months ago
@ttcmp0
He's been getting away with it for years. never once made any contribution to any scientific or mathematical discipline, has only recently stopped lying about his non existent math phd, continues to lie about his association with great mathematicians (eg rene thom) is full of the most pompous tripe delivered with such narcissistic arrogance and yet his ignorant disciples on the right think him a globe straddling intellectual colossus.
you are right to be annoyed. he's a pompous bore.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony
Do you have footage to prove that he lied about having a PHD in mathematics.
ahhh, when you can't argue the points, there is always Ad Hominem.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft
he has presented himself repeatedly as a mathematician, which he is not. he had repeatedly allowed himself to be presented as a Phd in mathematics when he has none. the correction came from elsewhere. he lied about von neumann and has lied about work with rene thom.
I can argue the points perefectly well. I can also explain the concept of ad hominem since you clearly don't understand it.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
no genuine mathematician would get the pigeonhole principle so utterly wrong. the principle in his example would state that if you had 10 letters and 9 mailboxes then there exists a mailbox with more than one letter. still, he has a history of getting basic mathematics wrong. no surprise there.
if he ever manages to get it right and actually makes a valid connection with evolutionary biology you'll be sure to let us know.
btw- calling a liar out on his lies is not even close to an ad hominem.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony
My question, which you ignored, is whether you have footage to prove that he lied ABOUT HAVING A PHD IN MATHEMATICS. Before you can call out a lie you have to find one.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft I ignored nothing. he is listed repeatedly on several websites as having a phd in mathematics. he has repeatedly allowed this falshood to be spread and only told the truth when corrected from elsewhere. references were easy enough for me to find and they are easy enough for you. get off your duff and look.
why the obsession with "footage"? does it have to be on camera to be a lie? how strange.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony
No but it has to actually come from him to be a lie.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft
if you seriously think he can appear as a speaker at various creationist meetings listed as a mathematician with a phd in mathematics, have fake credentials on book covers calling him a mathematician, be listed on multiple websites as a Phd in mathematics and be blissfully unaware to the extent that others had to point out that he's not a mathematian and has no phd in the subject....you need more help than I'm willing to give,
He's a pseudo intellectual fraud and nothing more.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@Onieracraft from Jason Rosenhouse (actual Phd in actual mathematics) blog. "As others have pointed out, there's no shortage of sources that either describe you as a mathematician, or state explicitly that your PhD is in mathematics. In addition to the sources others have mentioned, your author bio in the Mere Creation anthology states that you have a PhD in mathematics"
happy now- or is he not a liar since there's no footage of him writing his bio?
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@ttcmp0
....Uhh I think his point was that the right kind of subsequent mutations must first arise entirely by chance, not that if they were to arise by chance they would be unrelated to the previous mutations. *sigh*
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft I disagree. He is clearly arguing that the sequences of mutations are totally unconnected ("and they are not linked to changes that have occurred".). Yes, mutations are subject to chance (of about 100-200 mutations per human, by recent news it seems). So imagine few hundred animals for few hundred years... A beneficial mutation is not too far fetched, for me at least. The events "lock, change, lock, change" are _not_ independent and cannot be modeled with random variable.
ttcmp0 3 months ago
Uhh, he says "The process is both one of sheer dumb luck (finding the right changes) and something that is not quite a matter of luck, that is deterministic, that is saving the valuable changes. ". The second part of the quote falsifies your claim.
I'm more interested in how you could think that a post doctorate fellow in Molecular Biology could believe something explainable to a 6 year old? Don't confuse your own lack of comprehension with Berlinski's argument.
"
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft He briefly talks about the deterministic part. But then he throws it away, calling the process stochastic. But his main point is that evolution is a random process. He is talking about beautiful structures arising in a random process. Sure, the mutations are random. The process, as a whole, isn't.
Now, a 6 year old might also know germ theory. Does it make the theory wrong for the post-doc? What is your point here?
Also: Nice ad hominem...
ttcmp0 3 months ago
@ttcmp0
it wasn't an Ad Hominem. I didn't say you were incapable of understanding what he said, i said you didn't Look the quote you gave can also be understood as referring to the original random appearance of the change
"and they are not linked to changes that have occurred"
The quote i gave can only be understood as referring to a connection between mutations once they arise. The logical interpretation of what he is saying is that they arise randomly but may then function together
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@ttcmp0
This would be consistent with the idea of a stochastic process, which is made up random variables, but exhibits an overall correlation. What he is saying makes perfect sense when the phrase is interpreted in the way that i say, but very little when it is understood as you advise.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft He contradicts himself in this video. Starts by talking about the deterministic part. Then goes on and says his "essential point" is that the theory is a random process. He also says he cannot believe himself being the result of random process. This is _not_ what the theory is about!
"[..]original random appearance [..] between mutations once they arise [..]"
Are you talking about origins of life? Or could you elucidate? (Darwins theory is not about origins of life..).
ttcmp0 3 months ago
@Onieracraft
"post doctorate fellow in Molecular Biology "- another piece of berlinski dishonesty. his phd was in philosophy. he has had several short term low level teaching jobs since and been fired from every one.
he has absolutely zero publications in the research literature of mathematics or molecular biology having done no research in either.
dont confuse credential inflation with the facts.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony I'm not sure Onieracraft was implying Berlinski to be that postdoc. I thought it was a rhetorical question of sorts.. But I'm still waiting on clarification on this from him.
ttcmp0 3 months ago
@ttcmp0 difficult to know what he's implying. Berlinski is fond of refering to himself as a "post doctoral fellow" in both mathematics and molectular biology when his degree was in philosophy- and "fellow" in his case means untenured teaching assistant.
I love how these religious nuts inflate their credentials at will. you're not just a member of a pressure group, you're a "senior research fellow" or "advanced titular emeritus whatever.."
pretentious bullshit.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony Post doctoral work is not always published. Religious nutjobs? Your ignorance about this aspect of who David Berlinski is doesn't bode well for your other claims.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft
drop the pompous blather.
I know perfectly well that berlinski is agnostic. to be otherwise he'd actually have to articulate and defend a postition- something of which he's totally incapable. he is also incapable of holding down a real academic job so he aligns himslef with the well funded creationist right since they have nice pseudo academic titles and treat him as if he's actually got something of substace to say.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony
Hmm, If you knew Berlinski was an agnostic it seems you wouldn't have called him a "religious nutjob".
And if you have a source directly from Berlinski stating that he did post Doc work with Thom, give it to me, that's what i have been asking for. I never said it didn't exist, i simply asked you to produce it.
Oh and critiquing an idea IS saying something, it is simply saying something different than proposing one.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft "If you knew Berlinski was an agnostic it seems you wouldn't have called him a "religious nutjob""
wrong. I'm pefectly aware of his religious stance- assert no belief that may have to be defended and accept handouts from a fundamentalist pressure group while doing so. he is aligned with religious nuts and recites their lies when called upon
you actually asked for evidence of berlinski being dishonest about his credentials- which you've been given.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony
No, I asked for evidence that he claimed to have a PHD in Mathematics.
Evidence that Berlinski did post doctoral with THOM in Topology would be precisely that. I had assumed that this is what you meant to suggest and that you were not ignoring my question.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
Excuse me, i meant "evidence that Berlinski CLAIMED to have done Postdoc work with Thom would be precisely that.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft "Oh and critiquing an idea IS saying something"- sure it is. my point however is that he is incapable of stating clearly any position of his own. he is agnostic on the existence of god. fine. he is agnostic about evolution and makes boneheaded criticisms of the theory. he claims to be agnositc about ID yet chants the slogans and picks up the cheques- in lieu of an real academic job. when asked a revealing question by hitchens he pompously replied "it is not of any importance to me"
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony
Can you give me an example of one of his bonehead criticisms? I can only think of one offhand (the Monk analogy).
Onieracraft 3 months ago
Well I wouldn't quite call it "boneheaded" but it's off base.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@mcmanustony
So you continue to ignore my original question and instead reply to a comment left by someone else, I see.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft
you continue to ignore my original question
no, you ignored the answer.
nor do I need your permission to comment on a comment. who do you think you are? unlike the vast majority of creationist videos these have comments enabled. tough.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony
"no you ignored my answer".
If you had given an answer it would have either been a citation or a confession of an inability to offer a citation, neither of which you did.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft " from Jason Rosenhouse for the second time- "your author bio in the Mere Creation anthology states that you have a PhD in mathematics". He has appeared numerous times at creationist events listed as having a phd in mathematics and has allowd himself to be so presented.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony
Uhh, you seem to be quoting someone named Jason Rosenhouse.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft you're sharp aren't you! I quoted Jason's comment to berlinski pointing out the numerous places where his credentials were falsely presented including his own bio in "mere creation" where he is wrongly identified as a phd mathematician. do you seriously think multiple people noticed this a berlinski didn't?
he is as dishonest as the day is long.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony his idiotic cow to whale routine would be one..,,,of many.
his incoherent babble about the fossil record would be another,
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony
I would gamble that you don't even recognize what he is arguing in his "cow to whale routine" , and his discussion of the Fossil record relative to that argument.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft
his ignorance of the fossil record is amply demosntrated many times on this site.
"would gamble that you don't even recognize.." you'd do better not to be so presumptious.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@mcmanustony
Most of the times i have heard people challenge him on it, they don't even get what he is arguing.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Onieracraft
"they don't even get what he is arguing."- really? professional biologists dont understand the ramblings of a smug layman? I don't think so. his "argument" is incoherent drivel and nothing more.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@Onieracraft
can you give some references for failed attempts to challenge the cow to whale performance? I've seen it sucessfully shown to be utter tripe more than once. since the great man doesn't bother to give a list of these 50,000 changes.....morphological changes no less....possilbly even "non linearly reticulated"....can you tell us where we might find it so we may better understand his searing intellect and jaw dropping wisdom?
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@Onieracraft His point is '' shear dumb luck''. Why can't creationists see the forces of nature? Is it luck that a rock always falls down? Is it dumb luck that Hydrogen always burns to make water? Was it luck that the tiger has sharp teeth?
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@mcmanustony
I didn't know what you were doing, i couldn't sort through through the quotation marks. So you are still not giving me a source wherein Berlinski claims he has a PHD, you are giving me an account of a person who says they told him that he was listed somewhere as having a PHD?
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft
I gave you a reference citing berlinski's own bio falsely listing him as a mathemtics Phd. are you trying to argue that this was done, along with citations too numerous to list here and too tedious to list anywhere, without berlinskis knowledge? every single one? grow up and move on.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
Post doctoral work is not always published
can you find a single reference anywhere to berlinkis "work" in differential topology with Rene Thom- other than from berlinski? I cant. Thom was one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century. his collaborators are well know. professor sir doctor DB is listed nowhere.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
How do you "prove" beneficial? If the tootless tiger developes splendid teets that will improve its possibilities to catch its pray and survive, then why on earth did the smiledon (sable tiger) die out? It is supposed to be as well developed as you can imagine, but it still did not survive! What about the dinosaurs that developed into all kinds for forms and yet did not survive? The whole idea of "beneficial" is an axiom, not something that can be proven.
rmir2 6 months ago
It's a leap of faith to think similarities are proof of evolution.
All biological life was formed from the same materials found in the earth.
Markus77x7 6 months ago
What happened to ''Origin of Species by NATURAL SELECTION !!
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz The selection being on something that is random.
fissure226 8 months ago
@fissure226 Yes, variation in species is needed for evolution. That is easily to prove, look at all the dogs that came from the wolf.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz How is variation that distinguishes wolves from any dog "special" or different than the variation that exists between a Chihuahua and a German Mastiff. What makes reproductive isolation so special? The Czechoslovakian Wolfdog come to mind.
fissure226 8 months ago
@fissure226 You missed the point. The 'new information' is already there. A wolf would have no problem evolving into something as large as a great dane or as small as a toy poodle
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz So the new information was the old information already there? I'm not following your logic or how that is a Darwinian view.
fissure226 8 months ago
@fissure226 Darwin did not know about mutations or DNA. He could see the results, variation in species.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz Darwin never observed the evolution of a species, no human in their lifetime ever could, even if that where the mechanism at play. He only saw different species and tactfully arranged them.
fissure226 8 months ago
@fissure226 Good thing we have observed evolution since then and found lots of transitional fossils too. Darwin is dead and his ideas 150 years out of date, proving him wrong means nothing.
gregrutz 8 months ago 2
@fissure226 Good thing we have observed evolution since then and found lots of transitional fossils too. Plus all the DNA proof. Darwin is dead and his ideas 150 years out of date, proving him wrong means nothing.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz
All the DNA proof? DNA doesn't prove common descent but rather contradicts it.
How does evolution explain:
Q: The profound differences between the Y chromosomes of Humans and Chimps which should be practically identical as predicted by common descent but are remarkably different in structure, form and genetic location?
A: It doesn't.
Q: Overlapping genes in Humans which should also overlap in Chimps but don't?
A: It doesn't.
Q: Contradictory genetic clocks?
A: It doesn't.
hugenex2000 8 months ago
@hugenex2000 So publish your work and prove evolution wrong. I will wait.
gregrutz 8 months ago
what do you mean contradictory clocks? thi sounds intersting
zenithar6666 8 months ago
@zenithar6666
The genetic clocks, or molecular clocks, are used to calculate proposed speciation events within the scope of evolutionary divergence. The problem is that when you check for the mutational rate between two supposedly related species, say humans and chimps, you get a completely different rate than what is directly observed between human to human comparisons by a factor of about 20 times by mitochondial DNA, more by Y chromosome markers.
hugenex2000 8 months ago
@hugenex2000 Absolute Rubbish! What are your sources? The y chromosome, overlapping genes, and genetic clocks shouldn't be the same. We ARE different species now. That means the DNA has"profoundly" changed so that we can no longer interbreed. Stop getting your info from creationist websites. The mountains of genetic data point to a common descent. Don't vaccinate your kids if you don't believe the scientists who actually study genetics.
adrianwbourne 7 months ago
@adrianwbourne Most of my research has been in comparative genomics of placental mammals. The sheer number and type of mutations that would have had to occur to explain the genetic differences between Humans and Chimps for example makes the idea that we had a common ancestor 6 million years (300,000 generations) ago completely ridiculous.
hugenex2000 7 months ago
Comment removed
hugenex2000 7 months ago
@adrianwbourne
Then, there are genes which are in Humans which are not in Chimps and vice versa, some of which overlap in their respective genome, some are embedded in palindromes. There are also genes which completely contradict evolutionary gene-trees such as the gene WNT5A in Humans on chromosome 3 which shows Humans more closely related to Rats than Chimps, which might be interesting if anyone other than creationists were interested in the data, all of it, not just what you want to see.
hugenex2000 7 months ago
@adrianwbourne
My source is the genetic data itself which does a bit more than just point AWAY from universal common descent, it directly refutes it. Belief in evolution will not survive the onslaught of genetic data rolling in against it by the truckload even now. Vaccinations have nothing to do with it one way or another.
hugenex2000 7 months ago
@hugenex2000 You've just asserted that we are more closely related to rats than chimps. How does that help your case? You said "related". Are you inferring we can trace a line directly to rats instead of chimps?
Some genetic difference is expected. We ARE different species.
So, if you actually have information that will contribute to human understanding about evolution, you should publish it. It would overturn everything we currently understand about life itself. You'll win a Nobel prize.
adrianwbourne 7 months ago
@adrianwbourne No. What I assert is that the data contradicts evolutionary trees because species which are supposedly more closely related should be more similar genetically. This is not the case with 23% of the genes compared between Human and Chimp according to a study, 'Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry', published in 'Molecular Biology and Evolution' , "For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee." 98.5% then is not true.
hugenex2000 7 months ago
@hugenex2000 ...I meant "Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry"
After your quote mine it says "We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. This explains recurrent findings of very old human-specific morphological traits in the fossils record, which predate the recent emergence of the human species about 5-6 MYA."
adrianwbourne 7 months ago
@hugenex2000 I agree we shouldn't be using the number 98.5% in regards to our genome similarities. That number came from a study that only compared 97 specific functional DNA bases across 6 species. On the other hand "Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry" compares 23,210 DNA sequence alignments from human, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, and rhesus. They had a bigger more random sample and are getting a more accurate number. It's taking a while for the corrected information to disseminate.
adrianwbourne 7 months ago
@adrianwbourne So, the 98.5% similarity between Human and Chimp is not true and we have known for some time that it's more like 77% (or less). Also, the phylogenetic trees are contradicted by the data and I gave you just one example, there are several hundred examples, maybe thousands. More research will provide a multitude of examples of how evolution is contradicted by the evidence but there is ample evidence now to reject evolution, WNT5A is just one. Check for yourself. Avoid the rush.
hugenex2000 7 months ago
@hugenex2000 Right...so we aren't as similar as we thought, but we are more similar to chimps than we are to any other species. I read "Molecular Biology and Evolution" The paper suggest to me that science is refining the tree, not throwing it out. IF, the one gene (WNT5A) is more similar in rats, it could have been retained in us, and modified in the chimp. Our genetic isolation from other primates could account for that drift, and the "several 100 examples" you tease at. You're data mining.
adrianwbourne 7 months ago
@adrianwbourne
If by saying that I'm "data mining" you mean that I am more interested in the data than in your wild speculation and 'ad hoc' attempts to save a defunct theory from the facts then yes indeed, I am. You are forced to shield Evolution from the data at all cost! What choice do you have?
hugenex2000 7 months ago
@adrianwbourne But you also accuse me of quote mining as if for some reason evolutionists should not be held accountable for what they say. If then by "quote mining" you mean the way I point out how the evidence has proponents of evolution talking in circles and uttering things which are blatantly false then,yes, it is what it is.
hugenex2000 7 months ago
@hugenex2000 Quote mining and data mining are picking only some data or quotes out of context in a dishonest attempt to prove an unsupported position. Evolution IS the data. It's an observed fact. The "theory" is the best possible explanation for these observations. In science a theory is not a guess or speculation. You seem to have a bias against the conclusions, and want to shield yourself from the facts at all costs. So, what theory can you put forward to explain the data?
adrianwbourne 7 months ago
@hugenex2000 ...and thanks to you and your ilk misunderstanding, and misrepresenting what these studies accurately conclude, the real facts don't get to come out. And only because you have a bias against the peer revued conclusions. Science doesn't have bias. It's self correcting. If the crap that Creationist run "Evolution Views and News" spews had any bearing, it would have already come up in the very competitive scientific community. 23% difference is less than the predicted 40%. Look thatup
adrianwbourne 7 months ago
That "randomness" argument is a ridiculous strawman very popular among cdesign proponentsists. "Darwinian theory" posits no such thing.
johnstephenalbert 11 months ago
Statistics...mathematics....He's arguing from observations in sciences that comment upon Darwinism. They don't comment favorably. If it were any other theory it would be considered a failure on statistical grounds alone. I, personally, believe the rancor that sets up over information like this is based in issues other than science.
59arkady 1 year ago
@59arkady I think you are perfectly right about that.
matlalaefcm 1 year ago
Evolution is nothing close to a random process as Berlinski claims at 1:17.
How anyone can trust this kind of person, building his case on direct lies, are beyond me.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
Huh? At :28 at the very beginning he specifies that selection is "deterministic" and "quite deterministic", i.e, non-random. Variations *are* random. Selection is not. Watch the video again. You must have blacked out for a minute.l
kornbelt 1 year ago
@kornbelt You did not follow his argument. Listen again.
matlalaefcm 1 year ago
Coldwater Media. Follow the money. Berlinski is doing really well with copious compensation and book deals with one of the most ultraconservative, theocratic media outlets in existence. Where does that leave truth?...in the mind of the well-paid.
charadester 1 year ago
Berlinski lies.....he correctly describes the random process being affected by selection, then he goes on to incorrectly describe the entire process as random.
He is clearly intelligent enough to know how the process works, so he is clearly dishonest.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton "He is clearly intelligent enough to know how the process works" Really? Noone has a clue how it works or even how it could work. There is no WORKING hypothesis of how it could work. There is not a single mutation documented where ANY new information has been added. No new organs, limbs, functions.... only duplication, or lose of information. Evolution should not even be called a 'theory'; perhaps a poor hypothesis, but that's all.
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
get an education
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton Does this add anything of value to this discussion? Does it reveal any of the knowledge you've gained from your education?
I have gotten an education, I am getting one every day, and plan on getting one every day for all eternity. How about you?
If you have scientific evidence that Berlinski is wrong please share that. The chances of getting one new useful, average size protein is less than one to the number of atoms in the universe. It IS 'Sheer Dumb Luck"!
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844 You can find the scientific/mathematical proofs in countless places on the internet and even in many evolutionist sources(I find that most hard core evolutionists will not give any credence to research done by IDers or creationists regardless of how flawless their work it). Google Evolution: Possible or Impossible? by Dr. James F. Coppedge. Creationist though. Evolutionists are befuddled by this and many other difficulties, thus some have intellectually given it up.
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
Look up the evolution of nylonase. This is a clear example of genetic mutations being filtered by selection to provide new and useful information which allows the organism to not simply survive, but flourish in a new environment.
When you realize that evolution is nothing like a chain, and understand that it involves lots of parallel processes, perhaps, just perghaps, the light will come on for you.
Berlinski is wrong.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton Several problems with your statements. 1)Consensus is that this ability came through gene duplication 2)Probably in a single step mutation 3)This Flavobacterium is still Flavobacterium 4)If introduced into it's original environment with its predecessors it would be wiped out 5)Some variations in organisms come about because of a change in environment, such as the Galapagos finches change in beak shape and size, but they return to normal when the environment returns to its norm.
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
Your claim is that mutations cannot provide new and useful information. That claim has been refuted. Nylonase is the result of a gene duplication event followed by a frame shift in subsequent generations.
Now, if what you are looking for is the creation of a complete and functioning gene from the random mixing of thousands of base pairs, sorry...evolutionary theory makes no such claims....that's what creationists say happened.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton You said it... "gene duplication". Just copying one piece of information and inserting it in another spot. No NEW information... a replication or repeating of what was there. And no real benefit to the Flavobacterium. When reintroduced to it's original environment with its predecessors it dies out. No evolution there... survival of the FITTEST. Which is by the way a tautology. Which were the fittest? Those that survived. Which survived? The fittest! lol
enoch1844 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@enoch1844
Did you actually read what I posted? It seems that you stopped at gene duplication and ignored the rest.
You create a strawman and argue against that because you have no argument to counter what evolution actually proposes.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Comment removed
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
2:47...and not a single second spent raising a legitimate criticism of evolutionary theory. Berlinski's emaciated point is simply this: "Gee, it's hard to believe stuff can happen randomly."
The fact that Berlinski is guilty of committing one of the oldest known argumentative fallacies - namely, the argument from incredulity - should tell you everything you need to know about how seriously to take Berlinski as an "evolutionary critic".
garethac81 1 year ago
Ok. It's quite clear that DNA is very much like computer code. (Except when that analogy is used to dismiss darwinism. Then it is nothing like computer code at all. lol) Anyway. With a change of a single parameter, I can change all the textboxes, dropdowns etc in my acountancy application to be 200px wide, rather than 150px (Provided the code was written well). However, changing variables is not going to change my application's nature into a racing game. Darwinism suceeds by hiding the details
Hannodb1961 1 year ago
@Tripockets watch ''Dogs don't make non-dogs'' on my home page.
Just click on my name.
A dog turning into a cat would prove evolution wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Strawman argument, evolution is not 'sheer dumb luck''.
If he know anything about it he would not seem so silly.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Tripockets Just close your eyes and say LA LA LA real loud and the DNA evidence will go away.
There is proof of evolution. search, guess what, proof of evolution
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Tripockets a fossil did not evolve dummy, a species evolves, a breeding population changes.
Why don't you learn what evolutioin is?
You are classified as a Great Ape
You share 98% of your DNA with chimps, who are closer to humans than they are to gorillas.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Tripockets Yes, all humans are apes and all apes are monkeys, glad you accept evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Tripockets FEATHERS ON DINOSAURS.
Just close your eyes and say LA LA LA real loud the those pesky fossils will go away.
gregrutz 1 year ago
He does not understand sheer dumb luck so that proves evolution didn't happen?!?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Tripockets OK, watch DonExodus2 > transitional fossils 1 NEW
for the fossils you can't seem to find.
Mr. butinski is trying to come up with a counterargument, evolution was accepted 150 years ago. Natural Selection is not random, and changes in species IS evolution.
Darwin wrote 'Origin of Species' by way of Natural Selection.
It happened, the theory shows how.
gregrutz 1 year ago
He says tigers evolved teeth, but.......but what?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Tripockets He is paid by the Discovey Inst. to make up crap.
Evolution has been proven, get over it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Tripockets Well, because he does not know what he is talking about.
He says evolution, the tiger, is obvious.
Natural Selection is not luck, mutations are.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The sermons of Darwin, Dawkins, Cousteau, Ted Turner, Margaret Sanger, Jane Goodall, Paul Ehrlich, the Huxleys, H.G. Wells, Elizabeth Regina's husband, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc. humanely stress the reduction of humanity through weaponized serums, laboratory-fabricated viruses (pathogens), perpetual war, food & water shortages/rationing, de-industrialization & aborticides. Eugenics is now "bio-ethics" & "sustainability."
LovingKimiKatkar 1 year ago
Strawman agrument. Evolution is powered by natural selection, not dumb luck.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz It sort of is. If you really think about it. Random mutations are random, which is dumb luck. Natural selection is anything but dumb luck. In conclusion, I think a person could say that natural selection, selects the best things that came about by dumb luck.
lmihay 1 year ago
@lmihay There is a lot of luck involved in survival, that is why 99% of all species went extinct. No trilobites. No dinosaurs.
I mean no large dinosaurs, the ones with feathers made it until today.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I am aware, I was just pointing out how someone could say that and not technically be wrong. Peace.
lmihay 1 year ago
What does the Darwininanain theory say? None the less.......
What part doesn't he understand? He gets the tiger part right, '' it doesn't even need a theroy'' Yes, it does, it is called the Theory of Evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
He is fine until he leaves out Natural Selection, what Darwin discovered.
We don't see any math in biology, wow he is smart.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Comment removed
knowwaie 1 year ago
@gregutz No, but I have washed my hands of the secular world view. I recommend Steven C. Meyer's new book "Signature in the Cell."
TheFreebourne 1 year ago
gregrutz even point mutations in peps/pros or bp's via random mutation will not make these wild body plan changes. we transfect cells daily/weekly and make major expression changes. in vitro/vivo and still do not see changes in morph. as you would think. ive no idea how we came to be. but random mutation is a poor option
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22 Darwin didn't even know about mutations, and he figured it out.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz but mutations have never, ever shown an interspecies change. we never see a fly turning into a moth. regardless of the manipulation we perform in the lab. drastic transformation via transfection of anyting we've tried does not seem to change the body plan.. look i'm as confused as anyone and have no idea how or why this is.
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
Dogs make dogs.
Apes make apes.
That is why we are still apes.
And all apes are still primates.
And all primates are still mammals.
And all mammals are still tetrapods.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz i agree completely with what youve said. its common ancestor that escapes alot of scientists... alot... we need bacteria in culture (ie large life experience) or any animal to change to another animal. with all due respect, what convinces you that these small changes actuly lead to large leaps in body plan change...ie common ancestor.??? i'm stumped and have been in disco. biotech for almost 15 years... its very confusing.
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22 Evolution does not say one animal will turn into another.
You, like Mr. Butinski, doen not understand evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Pardon me but, yes it does. Even worse it claims they all changed from a blank slate. Analogous to all animals developing from a piece of paper. No on misunderstands evolution, that is just a mantra from people who want to make evolution seem more elaborate than it really is. If anyone misunderstand it is due to the fact that they rely upon only what is seen in the present world. Which is what science measures, observable reality. Not your imaginary reality of things never observed
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie All creationists misunderstand evolution. The get there 'facts' from IDiots like Kent Hovind.
They say shit like, ''Evolution says we are products of random chance''
Or ''Why don't monkeys make human babies''
Or ''The Grand Canyon is proof of a flood"
Why do people laugh at creationists?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz That's not a misunderstanding of evolution, that's your misunderstanding of sarcasm. I hope you don't really think you're smarter than them.
-
There are better example than the Grand Canyon. There is a Canyon that is perfectly square shaped and no one knows what caused it. Forgive me for forgetting the name and location.
-
A scientist is defined by his action not his education. This is common sense.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie The Grand Canyon is the most studied geology on the earth, Geologists know exactly were each layer came from and the date it was formed.
gregrutz 1 year ago
i'd have to disagree gregrutz. if you mean intra species change over time, i think all scientists agree with this. single ancestor... there is just no real basis for it. i'd like to think we "keep up" are you thinking that 5-10mm yrs of the cambrian explos. via undirected mutation created all this varied morph ?
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22 Creationists never talk about Natural Selection, the driving force behind evolution. The variation is there in nature, you can see it.
A wolf can make a poodle or a great dane without a single mutation.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz thats exactly the point...change within "dogs" does happen just like minor adjustments within a species.. but we dont see species changing to other species. this would be a much larger step.
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22 No, and evolution say you will never out grow your ancenstry.
All offspring of dogs will Always be dogs.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Nature is not alive and cannot perform the action of selecting. The word random means without objective. Just because you stick the words 'nature' and 'selection' together does not make it cohesive. It's an oxymoron. Natural inclination, maybe. But even then, nature clearly isn't inclined towards survival, else immortality would be possible and probable. You should stop reading from your science book and start using your own thinking skills. It's you who is brainwashed
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie Plants and animals are alive. Which ones reproduce better is not chance.
Have you ever read a science book? Home schooled to avoid the TRUTH. ''nature clearly isn't inclined towards survival'' Ever go outside and look, dummy.
It's a jungle out there.
immortality?!? We do live longer than our ancestors. Evolution at work.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You really don't understand the theory yourself do you? Nature also includes the laws of physics, not just natural life. Is there some mechanism within the laws of physics which caused natural life to occur and change. I think you missed the point. Nature also causes things to die. What lives or dies based purely on odds. Otherwise they would only do one or the other, not both. Either everything dies or everything adapts to changing environment. Why do things die rather than adapt?
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie Is there some mechanism? Yes, ever here of C. Darwin, he discovered the mechanism 150 years ago. Natural Selection.
Some things adapt, most things die. Death is a big part of evolution, the strongest survive.
Why do thing die rather than adapt? That's the way it works, through death.
99% of all species that ever lived on the earth is dead, see the fossil record.
OOPs, I forgot the fossils are invisible to creationists. Deny, Deny, Deny.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You really don't know how this works. Nature is all of physical existence . I specified "mechanism within the laws of physics". Again, you're reading off common parrot phrases like a programed robot. Nature cannot select, it is an inanimate object. The word select is a verb. What performs the action? This is elementary English. The fact that both life and death exist shows clearly there is a chance for either within physical reality. Nature 'selected' for things to die yet they survive
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie Natural selection is the mechanism, what part of it don't you understand?
Who said anything about ''adapt''?
You do agree evolution happened, that is proven. Right?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz It's funny how you're telling me to read into it (in other words brainwash myself) when i just explained to you in simple, easy to understand terms that it is a flawed concept which lacks any real physical mechanism. In fact now you need a mechanism by which nature selects. Saying "nature selects" is not at all different from saying "God did it". Mother nature did it?. Darwin was apparently clueless about the mechanical nature of the universe. Think for yourself.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie You don't understand evolution because you don't understand nature, the laws of nature, or how science knows what it knows. And you have no idea what they know. How many fossils they have.
T-Rex was all based on one fossil for a long time, Now the have 6 complete ones.
They have 600 Neanderthals, and some DNA of these other kind of human.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz By the way, your original comment was completely wrong- "He is fine until he leaves out Natural Selection, what Darwin discovered."
-
He clearly mentions natural selection within the first 20 seconds of this video. "after the changes have occurred there is a deterministic process which determines those changes that are valuable and excludes those changes which are not.".
-
You didn't even understand the video. How can you accuse anyone of not understanding something?
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie I fully understand, This IDiot is paid by the Discovery Institute to make it look like evolution can't work. To say things like. '' We just don't know'' like he is a Biology Scientist.
Sorry, but evolution is accepted by all of science and most of the world,
all except some religious people in the US.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Why did atheist invent God?
quailhill 1 year ago
@quailhill Atheists don't believe in god. Religions invented all the gods.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Did men created in the image of God create religion or did men not created in the image of God create religion?
quailhill 1 year ago
@quailhill Lots of men made lots of religions with lots of gods, every one has a creation story.
And they all claim that theirs is the one true religion.
You probibly think your three gods are the one true god. How ever that works?!?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You answered a question I didn't ask. Are you saying men that were not created in the image of God invent God?
quailhill 1 year ago
@quailhill ''image of God'' How do you know what He looks like?
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz Can you answer the question?
quailhill 1 year ago
@gregrutz How do such basic concepts slip passed you? Are things selected to die also? Why did those not adapt? They didn't get the chance?
-
This really isn't rocket science. Evolution by natural occurrence is pure chance because there is no mechanism by which to make it natural law. If some adapt and some don't then it becomes chance. The fact that some died INSTEAD of adapting defeats your case. Use common sense please.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie I will type real slow so you get it
The mechanism for evolution, discovered by Darwin, is called>>>
Natural Selection.
He is famous for this, read about it in a biology book.
If you think it is chance, then you don't understand it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Alright, i don't think you really understand the core of the issue. This natural selection idea cannot be shown as a material part of physical reality, it is on par with saying "earth decided". Darwin was clearly a novice, even juvenile when it comes to scientific understanding of nature. In reality, if these atheist ever find it, people would be ashamed of having fallen for such an unsophisticated idea. It lacks any explanatory power. I'm sure you'll never understand....
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie Did the sun ''decide'' to shine? It does. Praise Ra.
Nature decides, that is the NATURE-l part of Natural Selection.
If God made the laws of nature, that is all that is nessesary for it to evolve complex life.
It happened, DNA now proves it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz So, in closing. Even if evolution is true, saying nature selected in explaining how it happened is completely retarded, to be frank.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie There was a discovery 150 years ago, at the time, they thought evolution happened, but did not have a theory as to how it happens.
Creationist can't understand something becoming more complex.
Charles Darwin showed how it can happen. What, besides random chance, is driving this process. The mechanism is called Natural Selection. N.S. also promotes more variation in species, what you call micro evolution. More micro evolution, the more marco evolution. and Dogs always make dogs.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Comment removed
knowwaie 1 year ago
@gregrutz Were the changes caused by natural selection, or did the changes make natural selection possible? Survival has never caused anything to become more complex. Complexity is what caused them to survive.
knowwaie 1 year ago
Glad you accept evolution, just like Mr. Butinski does at @1;20
gregrutz 1 year ago
berlinski is very much on point with any biotech lab that is SELF FUNDED....lol... not the old u. work....you'd be suprised at the numbers of scientists that completely disregard darwinism... i've no idea how life began or exists in such diversity..but in any case we need far more data than just an old theory.
peptidedoc22 1 year ago
@peptidedoc22
99.98% of all scientists accept evolution, lying about it does not change the facts.
Darwin wrote, ''Origin of Species' Not origin of life.
And yes, you are right, Darwinininism is 150 years out of date, try to keep up.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "99.98% of all scientists accept evolution"
Yet more than half of them are not really scientist. They are college professors. Richard Dawkins is a commentator Ken Miller is a teacher. These figures come from colleges. It's a huge conflict of interests and you're not very bright if you take these figures seriously. This also begs the question, what type of scientist? Biologist, psychologist, geologist? How many are speaking outside their own expertise? This percentage is made up.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie Dawkins is a zoologist.
Miller is a biologist.
A lot of research is done at schools, routers for the internet were developed at Stanford U.
All schools teach biology. Evolution is the backbone of biology.
Geologists proved there was no global flood.
They all agree, the evidence is there, take off your bible glasses.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I enjoy David Berlinski.
TheFreebourne 1 year ago 2
@TheFreebourne Then you are brainwashed. Read a science book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
There is evidence that each animal species descended from a common ancestor belonging to the same animal family group. Creationists believe this.
There is zero evidence that mammals, birds and reptiles all descended from one magical little fish, which is what the committed evolutionist believes.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
@Markus77x7
Watch Dogs don't make none dogs in my Favorites list.
You seem to accept evolution but don't understand it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1:20 He says Evolution is ''Obvious '' Don't even need a theory.
The part he keeps missing is Natural Selection, which is not random
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz wow, perfect example of how people like you, with these closed-minded, egotistical world views seem to only be able to hear the information that you want (need) to hear and you totally miss the point of the argument.
KiwiChristian 1 year ago
@KiwiChristian
He doesn't believe ''shit happens''. so what?
Natural Selection is not random.
If he means humans are here by luck and evolution has no 'direction' he is right. That does not mean it didn't happen.
gregrutz 1 year ago