Its idiotic to suppose that evolution allows for cows to be able to become like whales in few steps. Of course there is a myriad of changes needed for a cow to transform into whale-like creature. How about letting the cow first live close to water, live in shallows, eat seaweed etc for, say, few thousands of years. I likely that some of the features will start to change. We will likely have hundreds or thousands of intermediate species before the end. Why does Berlinski insist on bad arguments?
Alright fancy pants. Where did you get the fake eyebrows? This fine gentleman is a Star Trek fan, enjoys Pooktre tree shaping and is also a duct tape artist.
@nancycogar The animal that lived near the water and ate meat and fish [not a cow] changed over time. By swimming in the ocean it could find an unlimited amount of food.
"This is one of those things evolutionists never address"- "evolutionists" as you wrongly call them account for 99.99% of life scientists. how many have you asked?
Questions: Breathing apparatuses, diving apparatuses, Lactation systems etc. Are all very complex systems. Every minute mutational step in their development is not likely to be so extreme it will lead lead to the eradication of all immediate predecessors true? So we are talking about long stretches of time where the animal has no unique competitive advantage over those predecessors but where they have the potential to develop more immediate advantages.
Remember, they number in the millions, statistically, aren't they likely to produce something in the short term capable of edging it out of their collective ecological niche?
David Berlinski is yet another of those academic nonentities that the Intelligent Design crowd has elevated to the status of expert, despite having a minuscule scientific publication record and not a single significant contribution to science or mathematics. Berlinski is fond of writing, mostly negatively, about the theory of evolution, despite understanding virtually nothing about the subject
"we have the evidence, but more importantly, we have a theory that would be easy to falsify if it was wrong"
The point is that the "theory" can not be confirmed nor falsified. How do you see if a change is random or somehow pre-coded? How do you prove "beneficial"? All there is in darwinian theory are assumptions, that are taken as a starting point whenever you try to explain it. The "explanation" is self-confirming. And that is why it is not a scientific theory.
Example: in one case we use the explanation of camouflage. In another we use the explanation of warning colours (because the species would kill whoever try to eat it). In a third example we talk about "false" warning colours. Put them side-by-side and ask: "so what would be the best colour(s) for a species?"
A similar problem exists with "transitional" forms. Once upon a time, neanderthal man was considered a transitional form between apes and humans. Today he is a side-branch!
I am stll waiting for someone to show how a trilobite changed into a blackbird. Until now no one has been able to put up a model or in any other way to show how this change is possible according to Darwin. And the change has to contain at least some transitional forms found in nature - but they are not found. Not one. This is the point by Berlinski in this clip (forget the whale - it may seem to be too constructed to make his point).
@rmir2 there are thousands of transitional forms, and even if there weren't any it wouldn't be evidence against evolution, it would be a lack of a specific kind of evidence for it. Every fossil is a transitional form when you consider evolution is a continuous process, just like every color could be considered a transitional form from black to white.
@rmir2 Or inorganic chemistry to a cell, protozoan to metazoan, heck, I'd settle for a natural mechanism to separate racemic amino acids into pure L and D forms (my prediction is - that's not going to happen).....These ideas hang on the slightest of threads, are best presented to the convinced crowd...
Creationist do the math? We are not the ones making claims about evolutionary processes. To change a car into a submarine requires engineers. The same analolgy applies to changing a cow into a whale.
This highly educated, well expressing himself creature – is, in fact a dumb, illogical moron. This man supposedly has a doctorate in mathematics ( logical thinking) and yet, his lack of imaginative intelligence is staggering.
Hitchens said: ‘Religion poisons everything’… Well, look at Berlinski. He could be a great help in the fields of science yet, he has chosen path of exposing himself as an idiot. Comparing a redesigning of a car to a biological transformation ?
And, it's going to be called a theory for as long as the world revolves around.
Theory - the highest level of scientific method of explaining the physical, material things.
Biological evolution itself is a 100% proven fact. Theory of evolution is a scientific method of discovering as much as possible about that fact. And, if some day - the theory of evolution will discover that the evolution itself is a mistake - the theory of evolution will be corrected or discarded.
When the ferocious dinosaurs died out, an opportunity arose not only for land mammals to evolve, but sea mammals as well. We know land mammals arose before sea mammals from the fossil record, and in fact the transition is pretty well documented from several relatively recent discoveries. Berlinski is a strange case, he has no problem with the transition from reptiles to mammals which are even better documented, but he seems hellbent on going into history as a creationist enabler. :p
"What would it take to turn a car into a submarine?" The military makes floating cars. And I read somewhere that someone actually built a car then can submerge and move under water. It's not as big a leap as it first appears. Evolution is the same.
How many changes need to be made, how much DNA is that, what's the population size, what's the rate of change, what's the fossilization rate, and above all, are these results consistent? You do the math creationists.
@Houshalter actually its evolutionists who are trying to prove evolution so the burden is on the evolutionist. the video doesnt dispute the premise of adaptation, it simply calls to the lack of definitive/quanitative evidence(s) that actaully prove the idea of common ancestry and evolution as it is theorized by its proponents.
@shockwaveization, we have the evidence, but more importantly, we have a theory that would be easy to falsify if it was wrong. To prove evolution, we have to show that all the data we have is consistent with it, which we have.To falsify it all you need to do is find or point out one piece that isnt.When we found that all animals occur in nested hierarchies like evolution predicted, that was proof. If a creationist found a single gene in a single organism that wasn't, that would be falsification.
@Houshalter It can't be falsified because the theory was based on the evidence. The evidence came before the theory. The theory is always modified to explain anomalous evidence.
@OysterLava as are all scientific theories. The simplest model that makes the most accurate predictions about the data is the one that is usually accepted by science, and this is by far the case with evolution. No need to make up conspiracy theories.
@Houshalter that's actually not true. not all credited scientists believe in evolution and its because they have reason to not believe in it. should they be labeled as idiots? creation and evolution focus on the same facts but the scientists from both sides interpret it based on what they follow. evolutionists would dismiss facts that favor creation. if it goes against their theory, they won't publish it. evolutionists aren't open minded as you think. they just don't admit when they're wrong
@surfthetube09 0.02% of scientists against evolution falls well within statistical leeway to say there is an overwhelming consensus. And you tell me, what impossibly high standard of evidence do we have to have to be able to label these people idiots? There is no more room for interpretation of whether or not evolution is true (or creationism is false for that matter) than there is for the sky being blue. You can assert as many conspiracy theories or possible biases as you want, I want evidence!
I really liked the part in the previous clip about the 50,000 morphological changes needed and the fossil record not showing the 49,999 thousand other changes. Is that true? What would an evolutionist say to that?
@hihelloheyhowsitgoin, it's not like that number is just pulled out of someones ass.The fossil record only shows bone structures by the way. I'm not even sure how many fossils we have and from what period, so it's not like you can claim there is a massive leap in a short period of time.
Look at examples of evolution, dogs from wolves, modern crops from ancient grasses, farm animals like pigs and cows, and non-domesticated ones like darwins finches and the like. We know this change is possible
@Houshalter- Many if not all of the examples you cite could well be within rather simple allelle variance. But i'll tell you what, if you can demonstrate were RV+NS ever produced a novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan, you would have my attention. You will search the literature far and wide and not find it. RV+NS may or may not be sufficient for the variety of bio-subsystems in living organisms, but there as still vast gaps of understanding with regard to its sufficiency.
@kornbelt, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. We can prove that random mutations can create novel structures similiar to what evolution would require. We can also show that the genes in organisms show signs of random mutations, or are at least consistent with what random mutations do. There is also no other mechanisms known to do such things, and no reason to believe there is, occams razor and the scientific method and all that.
@Houshalter, show me an example of RV+NS producing a novel cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan. Let's prove the concept. Build a computer simulator to proof the concept. And more to my interest, show me how RV+NS is sufficient to wire up a mammalian brain (including the one you're using right now) with the particular synaptic arrangements that yield the functions that exist. Is RV+NS sufficient to the task? Nobody knows. Because nobody understand the "programming" well enough to know..
@kornbelt, your goal post is so far back it would litterally take millions of years to reach it. But you want simulations of evolution? Look up darwinbots or any A-life simulator for that matter. What about nylonase? Dogs gaining new behaviours from wolves like being able to recognize humans? All crops from simple grasses 20,000 years ago? The long term E. coli Experiments?
@Houshalter, none of what you mention addresses what I specified: new cell types, tissue types, organs or body plans, or the neurological wiring of mammalian brains that yield known function. So, you admit that the concept is not proven and give an excuse why. Fine. That's the point: an unproven assertion, that the known evolutionary processes are capable of producing what I specified.
@kornbelt, "new cell types" If you mean a new kingdom, there are only 6 and they have evolved over billions of years. So of course we wouldn't make that observation if evolution is correct. Tissue types, look at domesticated crops. Neurological wiring, I think observing evolved behaviours like in domesticated animals counts. Everything is consistent with evolution. You have set your goal post so far back that nothing could prove it to you even if it was correct.
@Houshalter, "Everything is consisent with evolution." Yes, it is, if evolution is simply defined as "change over time." It's the mechanism of change that is at issue, namely RV + NS as the sole means. Limiting the scope to neurological wiring, how much of the observed changes in animal behavior is due to new brain structure and not allele changes of existing genes? How much differences in structure is required to get from an bonobos to a human to see the known differences of function? Cont...
@kornbelt, the only honest answer to the question of whether or not RV + NS can produce the function of mammalian brains in total is, we don't know, not enough information is known yet about these neurological systems. And it's only "consistent" in the sense that no known information contradicts the idea. Howerver, I fail to see how you derive any comfort from that given the sheer gulf of ignorance that exists on the matter.
@Houshalter, ... you can't answer that because the details of the structural differences leading to the known functional differences are not known. We see some changes over time in behavior and you extrapolate that to appearance of all structure and function. But you can't tell me what precisely is responsible for the functional difference. You fill your gap of ignorance with an assumption. I wouldn't get on an airplane made by an engineer who thinks like that.
@Houshalter, now the more general question is: what are the limits of the RV + NS mechanism? Can you quantify it precisely? We see evidence of finch beaks changing with respect to certain factors over time, but was RV + NS responsible for a generalized mammalian body plan or nervous system? You don't know and neither does anyone else.
@kornbelt, ok then, don't look at the structures. Go to the genes themselves and see if they mutate randomly and are homologous to others. Many of the predictions Darwin made concerning natural selection and decent with modification have been confirmed, does that not count for anything? Organisms select their mates, compete for dominance, etc. Obviously this wouldn't be necessary with an intelligent guidance. He even predicted a mechanism like DNA with his theory.
@Houshalter ... Because nobody understand the "programming" well enough to know what would be required of a system, "blind" or otherwise. As for Occam's Razor. That's fine. I'm not suggesting an alternative *scientific* model, except to say that intelligent intervention has occured, there may be no way to detect it. ID at present is not science.
@kornbelt, it's simple. Look at genes from different organisms. If there was intelligent intervetion we would see it. For example, there is a chromosome in humans which is just two ape chromosomes fused together.
@Houshalter, "If there was intelligent intervetion we would see it" - That's a stunning statement. If you can nail down the details of your methodology with regards to detecting design in nature, you will change the world and win a Nobel prize. Nobody else has been able to achieve this. Please let's hear it in detail. At any rate, I'm not making a claim that all things in nature are designed. Quite the opposite.
@Houshalter, now as for intelligent intervention, I ask, how could we determine the difference *scientifically* between natural selection and artificial selection, and random variation and artificially induced variation?
Floating cars are not submarines. In any case, intelligent humans are responsible for both.
At any rate, what kind of DNA sequencing over time is required to turn a cows brain into a whale brain, suitable and coordinated with the rest of the morphological change. The fact is, you have no idea, and neither does anyone else. The fossil record indeed indicates evolution has occured, but not necessarily Darwinian. There's no way to know if the profferred Darwinian scenario is suffici
@kornbelt, a car to a boat to a submarine is a rough analogy to land animals becoming whales.
Also, look at actual experiments of evolution. Domesticated animals and crops, petri dish evolution, MDR pathogens, etc. The rate of change that is possible is well within the observations. Dogs have gained a tremendous number of traits and morpholigical changes from wolves, and they can still interbreed and are only seperated by a few thousand years. Now take a few million.
@Houshalter, "rate of change" is misleading and worthless when it comes to things like the neurological wiring of mammalian brains. There's no way to know presently if random variation + natural selection is sufficient to drive for the simple reason we don't know what the kind of sequencing is necessary....
@Houshalter- ... what you're doing by appealing to "millions of years" is like asserting that a regular automobile can reach France from California just because it can reach New York. The fact is, we don't know to what degree the known processes "scale." You cannot assert that RV+NS is sufficient to build and wire mammalian brains if you do not understand the nature of the "programming" of those brains.
There's no way to know if the profferred Darwinian scenario is sufficient because we don't even know the details of the neuro-programming differences to the degree required to even starting knocking out quantitative estimates. In short, at the very primitive (origin of life) and the most sophisticated (mammalian brains) the naturalistic approachs are looking very weak.
@59arkady, I'm just pointing out how ignorant it is for creationists to make these assumptions without backing them up. Since evolution has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt, it is up to the creationists now to falsify the theory or the evidence supporting it. I don't see how you can disprove the existence of fossils or the origins of genes. At best they could hope to get "intelligent guidance" acknowledged. If that's the case, simply show me the math.
@Houshalter... No one I know is trying to disprove the existence of fossils. Do you mean, maybe, fossil progression through transitional forms? As far as genes go, I don't think anyone knows much about those origins, lots of speculation, but, as you say, no math. Berlinski? he's no creationist. He's happy to take on either camp. As for me - I do lean toward the creationisg camp - I see "evolution" but don't think what Darwin observed is responible for origin, more like preservation.
@59arkady, well there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and common descent, at least take a look at it before you draw conclusions. Wikipedia used to have a page with a nice layout of everything relevant called "Evidence of common descent".
As for genes, why would an intelligent designer give us various broken genes, like say, for vitamin C production? If you say they degraded over time, then why would chimps have the exact same genes degraded in the exact same way (which is impossible)?
@Houshalter That's a good question, and I certainly don't know enough about vitamin C production in primates to comment. Many of the ID proponents don't deny common decent, so, I suppose they might be comfortable with the idea that the damage occurred at some point and was passed on. Too, finding a "broken" gene might be an argument for design. Perhaps broken, now, impies working earlier - a superior antecedant. Concerning "why" Though, seems beyond ID, probably any science.
@Houshalter fail. he's not asking how many changes it would take for a cow to start swimming, but how many changes to become a complete whale from it's supposed ancestor.
@PrizeFighter, the whales ancestor started swimming before it became a whale. We know mammals can become semi-aquatic. The adaptions are not that numerous or unreasonable for that amount of time.
@Houshalter with that amount of time evolution will be changing ants to whales.....but they can't observe anything today anywhere close to these predictions...millions and millions of years have gone by ,nothing comes anywhere near darwins predictions...Things are the same now as they were in the fossil record.. If scientists looked at the whole genome they would see the irregular infrequencies...150 years of 1800 darwin dogma is crumbling with new research...
@Cherubim64 yes, because millions of years haven't gone by since then. Darwin predicted the existence of genetic code, inheritence, mutations, natural selection, transistional forms, nested hierarchies, etc.
Good bye creationists, no one gives a shit about you anymore.
@tonyteb, classic creationists. Being hyper-agressive to make themselves sound credible. How about we drop you into the ocean and see if a magical sky daddy appears and comes to your rescue. Or maybe you'll survive by getting eaten by a whale. Or maybe you'll learn to walk on water!
@Houshalter You are forgetting the role of INTELLIGENCE in DESIGNING floating cars...As for who is to do the math, forgive me my heresy, but is it not YOUR duty to do the math and convince us of your claims? You are the one making the claim that it is possible. The burden of proof is on you to show it.
@Jesrael1986M Nested hierarchies are predicted by evolution and not possible through random chance or intelligent design. That is proof. Fossil evidence is proof. Consistent temporal and geographical distribution is proof. Rates of evolution observed in nature and in the lab is proof. The case has been made to the point where only 0.02% of scientists still reject evolution, and those are hardly credible. The burden of proof is now on you to prove the consensus wrong by undermining even one fact.
@Houshalter. Creationists are not saying that there cant be any variations within species, but that the question is how a species can transform into another completely different species and what that would imply. It would, according to my thinking as well as Dr Berlinksi's, necessitate 'intermediaries'. So how many "intermediary species" would it take to transform an animal from living on land into live in the ocean as a whale?
@MrKiifen Just let scientists know how many you need. Every time we find an "intermediary species" you say it makes 2 more gaps. There are 6 intermediate fossils between Ambulocetus and modern whales.
-Dalanistes
-Rodhocetus
-Takracetus
-Gaviocetus
-Dorudon
-Basilosaurus
-Modern whale
HOW MANY DO YOU REQUIRE BEFORE YOU ACCEPT THAT EVOLUTION HAPPENS?
@gregrutz Have you seen the actually fossils they found for these creatures. Not the drawings, but the actual fossils? The illustrations are pure imagination based on a perceived notion. Dr David stopped at 50,000 needed transitions, you stopped at 6 fossils that don't even look like each other.
@joyjosh1 Yes, Scientists have the actual fossils and study them. The drawings are for really slow people with no imagination, like creationists. Saying there are gaps between the gaps proves you are not looking at the evidence, just the gaps. The gaps keep getting filled and you still deny the fossil record.
HOW MANY FOSSILS DO YOU REQUIRE BEFORE YOU ACCEPT THAT EVOLUTION HAPPENS?
Just tell scientists and quit moving the goalposts.
@Jesrael1986M There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
@Houshalter@Houshalter The military changes these things using forethought and design...not chance, the leap is made by mind. Not to mention the engineers do everything they can to eliminate chance in their designs as a chance event in engineering usually results in design flaws...and the need for more thought and further design.
Your argument is actually pro design. Doing the math correlating your argument to an evolutionary pathway would yeild an empty set.
@Houshalter Maybe like this - sit a car near the water and set a bomb off beside it. The shrapnel (liken it to ionizing radiation) blowing through hits one of the on-board microprocessors (maybe the eprom in it). The alteration on the chip likended to a mutation - in time a sub? Or, expose an animal to ionizing radiation. Random mutation will commence - it escapes before it dies, passes those mutations along...feeling hopeful? Or, drosophila many mutations ...still a fly
@59arkady it takes thousands of generations and a strong selection pressures from the environment to make any significant change. If you made hundreds or thousands of cars each with slight alterations to their designs, then selected just the few that did the best in the water, made many copies of them with slight alterations, and so on and so on, thousands or even millions of times, eventually you would get something not unlike a submarine.
@Houshalter Dude - the original analogy isn't valid - the military designs using existing design, and applied engineering science - they don't randomly change things...the analogy of cars and diving cars supports design by an intelligent agent...the modifications would be made, by an observer, based on percieved need or purpose. Rolling a car through a minefield would be more like a random process...
Isn't it funny (peculiar) that evolutionists get so worked up when non-evolutionists call their bluff. Or when they spit the dummy when non-evolutionists say we didn't evolve from Apes, saying that it was ape like and that it would be ridiculous to think we would come from apes... well, non-evolutionists "just go one animal further"! and say it's all ridiculous.
The Emperors new clothes are being seen for what they aren't by an increasing number! A good sign for real science.
@heloWelo ID is "real science"? I've never heard of one actual scientist who's not being paid by fundamentalist christians who says it's anywhere near science at all.
What gets people worked up is when people with the credibility of a higher education use it immorally to serve their audience lies.
People like Berlinski is a disgrace to our species.
@Fuglebolle - "I've never heard of one actual scientist who's not being paid by fundamentalist christians who says it's anywhere near science at all." -
You obviously dont get out much! Also, what YOU have heard is irrelevant. It's facts that mean something.
"use it immorally to serve their audience lies." - How do you account for morality in a materialistic universe? But I agree with you, particularly the atheopathic scientists pushing their conjectures as fact.
@heloWelo Well, I was kinda hoping that you would prove me wrong with an example, since you know of so many scientists crusading evolution.
"Morality" is found in all social animals, and is explained perfectly by evolution. In social animals selfishness is selected against since it weakens the group as a whole, and these animals functions best when they work together.
@gregrutz This moron again.. They do claim cows evolved into whales, you're just such a dumb fuck that you're arguing that 'cows' didn't evolve into 'whales', because we don't have a name for those 'cows' or 'whales'. Ok, so a 'cow's ancestor' evolved into a 'whale's ancestor'. You people are such fucking morons. In fact you're doing the same exact thing by saying we evolved from apes. No we didn't evolve from apes, did we? Be fucking consistent you stupid fuck.
Oh, i love this. This is my favorite part. I would like to see the fossils and use my own judgment. I would google search these but you and i both know the best we'll ever find are drawing and in most cases these fossils are fabrications, for example Dalanistes is nothing but a skull, yet they are commenting on it's rear feet. This is a joke. Regardless the point that is being made by Berlinski is that we should expect to find millions more transitions if it took millions of years. Common sense?
@knowwaie Almost every fossil IS a transitional fossil, 99% of all the species that ever lived on the earth are extinct. [ see fossil record ] No dinosaurs, No trilobites, No small Cambrian Period sea creatures.
@gregrutz You're kidding right? You're still using that "you don't understand evolution" card? Ok, so ancient whales evolved from ancient cows. You at least know the reason why they say this right? Because of the color of killer whales?
Look, for once in your life stop being a dope. You morons keep playing this game and you all look childish when doing it. No one actually thinks what you're suggesting, we're just using words that are common and understandable. What should i call these 'cows'?
So, some mammal (probably one that eats fish, which cows do not) repeatedly went into the ocean over generations and eventually adapted to the ocean environment. At first glance we might expect this animal to be closer to a bear. Since bears do eat fish. The point is, we're looking for the closest representation of the land animal and the ocean animal so we're better able to draw some comparability and distinction to determine the necessary changes.
Berlinski is using concrete examples, e.g. modern cow and modern whale, in an attempt to establish a guide of the required changes. This would even work if we used theoretical animals, but the two spectrum of ancient land based and ocean based mammals have, themselves, yet to be determined with certainty.
We'll put it this way. i'll play devils advocate and argue that these fossils you've linked are all reptiles, and aquatic mammals came before land mammals.
Ignorance dressed up with a drawling verbosity and pseudo-intellectual affectations just irritate the shit out of me. I find it difficult to forgive him as a mere fool....I'm more inclined to believe he's a knowing charalatan.
However, the real problem with his argument is that he is linking the number of changes to the number of intermediate fossils you would expect to find. That’s naive to say the least. You can’t expect a proportional relationship between the two. You have to take population size and selection pressure into account (not to mention all the factors involved in the probability of fossilisation, like habitat, predation, climate, etc).
@kandtell: Ahmm...what? "Linking the number of changes to the number of intermediate fossils" is "daft"? So...expecting the biological record to accord with quantitative analysis is naive? How so? Why if the transitions are patently necessary at some point in history, shouldn't we expect to actually have access to those intermediate evidence?
@krossdriven1 Yes it's daft. And, what's worse, he probably knows that it's daft.
"How so?" well, like I said, there are so many other factors involved in the chances of finding fossils that it is naive to expect a proportional relationship between the number of changes and the number of changes found in the fossil record (let alone the seriously stupid idea that we should expect to find them all!).
Fossilisation is extremely rare. (If you don’t agree I suggest you try an experiment, bury a dozen chicken carcases in random spots in the ground and dig them up after say 10 years and see how many you can even find).
Many species go extinct without leaving a single fossil, so even if we dug up the entire earth we would never find them.
Whether we find a fossil of a particular species depends (as I said) on many factors. Where it lived (water is best), how long it was around for, how many predators it had and how much of the carcase the predators typically left behind. To say nothing of luck! Some of the most famous fossils were found by pure chance.
The laughable part is the fact that a lot of the examples he gives, including the very first one (changing skin) are practically impossible to find because it’s almost impossible to fossilise those body parts. Whereas one of the other examples he sites, changing ears, *has* been found.
Basically this is an example of goal post moving. He’s saying “OK so you’ve found transitional fossils for many species between land mammals and whales, but what about the skin? Aye? Aye? Bet you can’t find the skin! Aye?”
In the highly unlikely event that we actually do find fossilised skin showing adaptations to an aquatic environment he’s just going to ask for something else.
Most scientists would stop believing in evolution if anyone found just one fossil of a pre-Cambrian mammal!
r.e. the chicken burrial experiment. I should point out that a shallow grave and loose soil is going to mimic what happens in nature better than burring them 6 feet under!
... and what are your qualifications? Do you have multiple degrees in math, molecular biology, and philosophy? Or is your lack of such qualifications the reason you resort to poetic ad hominem? If you have real answers to the points Dr Berlinski raises, I suggest you post them,rather than simply drooling droll drivel ...
@dragonsrightwing My qualifications are my business and they are extremely relevant to this subject. I do not debate people with breathtaking ignorance of empirical evidence and scientific data. People of my ilk work hard to progess knowledge and Dr David Berlinski cannot even be bothered to get his 'facts' right. Ad hominem was too lazy I will concede that..indeed it wasn't actually worth a post at all.
Richard dawkins says everything this guy says, and then says why its not true. Has he ever read a book on the subject that he's trying to refute? Of course you can't turn a cow into a whale. Cows are fucking cattle! However, if we had a whale ancestor, we could impose challenges on a populations survival to make them into a seafaring mammal that spends its entire existence in the ocean. It would take a while though.
I agree with Dr Berlinski, all believers in the faith of Evolution never look at the facts, its "just so" story after "Just so" story and "a long time ago and far, far away". It's time to start looking at the facts guys, the numbers and the Science just don't add up. Choose another faith!
Here is the evidence, The fossils are layered like this: In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, 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 and dinosaur fossils. No human fossils are found in any of these layers. No dating methods used Do you have a theory to explain this?
All anti Darwinians has the same problem. They can't fathom a million years. It is a bit like Sci-Fi geeks who believe we will fly out in space from world to world. They can't fathom the distances.
Elitism = death to self-sovereignty, redress of grievances against the govt., & free speech. Atheism {sans quotes} is the religion of the animal world as animals don't contemplate the Heavens nor wage planetary war.
( ̲̅:̲̅:̲̅:̲̅[̲̅ ̲̅]̲̅:̲̅:̲̅:̲̅ ) Religion is Man's attempt to explain the metaphysical world. "Atheism" is the elitists' religion designed to subjugate Man by denying his incomparable value. Elitism spawns Darwinism, infanticide, "terra"-forming, collectivism, eugenics, fluoridated water, animal "rights," the E.R.A., the Z.P.G. movt., fiat money, gun & water rights, land confiscation.
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Evolutionary theory is such a joke, it's just too bad that those who subscribe to it don't even realize it's a really bad one. Pity... And they accuse others of being fundamentalists when they themselves blindly defend baseless philosophical assertions only to try and justify a particular worldview...again...pity.
Ambulocetus (or the "'walking whale'") was an early cetacean that could walk as well as swim. It lived during early Eocene some 50-49 million years ago. It is a transitional fossil that shows how whales evolved from land-living mammals. Having the appearance of a 3 meter long mammalian crocodile, it was clearly amphibious, as its back legs are better adapted for swimming than for walking on land, and it probably swam by undulating its back vertically, as otters and whales do.
If you proove it with arguments, I'll start considering evolution in this part, but if you don't and you turned to be wrong, you have to start considering evolution to be wrong , deal??!!
So then why haven't hippos evolved into whales? They pretty much live in the water too. Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmm...
mjfoster0825 3 months ago
Its idiotic to suppose that evolution allows for cows to be able to become like whales in few steps. Of course there is a myriad of changes needed for a cow to transform into whale-like creature. How about letting the cow first live close to water, live in shallows, eat seaweed etc for, say, few thousands of years. I likely that some of the features will start to change. We will likely have hundreds or thousands of intermediate species before the end. Why does Berlinski insist on bad arguments?
ttcmp0 5 months ago
Alright fancy pants. Where did you get the fake eyebrows? This fine gentleman is a Star Trek fan, enjoys Pooktre tree shaping and is also a duct tape artist.
BestVideoResponse 5 months ago
Whales didn't evolve for cows, dummy.
gregrutz 6 months ago
The most important question was not asked.. WHY?
Why would the cow even evolve to a whale to begin with? If a cow is surviving as it is on land, then what is the need for it to evolve at all?
This is one of those things evolutionists never address..
nancycogar 6 months ago
@nancycogar The animal that lived near the water and ate meat and fish [not a cow] changed over time. By swimming in the ocean it could find an unlimited amount of food.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@nancycogar
"This is one of those things evolutionists never address"- "evolutionists" as you wrongly call them account for 99.99% of life scientists. how many have you asked?
mcmanustony 4 months ago
@mcmanustony
Questions: Breathing apparatuses, diving apparatuses, Lactation systems etc. Are all very complex systems. Every minute mutational step in their development is not likely to be so extreme it will lead lead to the eradication of all immediate predecessors true? So we are talking about long stretches of time where the animal has no unique competitive advantage over those predecessors but where they have the potential to develop more immediate advantages.
periechontology 4 months ago
Remember, they number in the millions, statistically, aren't they likely to produce something in the short term capable of edging it out of their collective ecological niche?
periechontology 4 months ago
David Berlinski is yet another of those academic nonentities that the Intelligent Design crowd has elevated to the status of expert, despite having a minuscule scientific publication record and not a single significant contribution to science or mathematics. Berlinski is fond of writing, mostly negatively, about the theory of evolution, despite understanding virtually nothing about the subject
Jeffrey Shallit
griefingtons 6 months ago
"we have the evidence, but more importantly, we have a theory that would be easy to falsify if it was wrong"
The point is that the "theory" can not be confirmed nor falsified. How do you see if a change is random or somehow pre-coded? How do you prove "beneficial"? All there is in darwinian theory are assumptions, that are taken as a starting point whenever you try to explain it. The "explanation" is self-confirming. And that is why it is not a scientific theory.
Consider it for a moment.
rmir2 6 months ago
Example: in one case we use the explanation of camouflage. In another we use the explanation of warning colours (because the species would kill whoever try to eat it). In a third example we talk about "false" warning colours. Put them side-by-side and ask: "so what would be the best colour(s) for a species?"
A similar problem exists with "transitional" forms. Once upon a time, neanderthal man was considered a transitional form between apes and humans. Today he is a side-branch!
rmir2 6 months ago
@rmir2 Yes Neanderthals were a side branch. How do you explain two different kinds of humans on the earth at the same time 30,000 years ago?
Evolution is easily falsified. Find a bunny fossil it the Cambrian Period. or A Bird with mammal DNA.
gregrutz 6 months ago
I am stll waiting for someone to show how a trilobite changed into a blackbird. Until now no one has been able to put up a model or in any other way to show how this change is possible according to Darwin. And the change has to contain at least some transitional forms found in nature - but they are not found. Not one. This is the point by Berlinski in this clip (forget the whale - it may seem to be too constructed to make his point).
rmir2 8 months ago
@rmir2 there are thousands of transitional forms, and even if there weren't any it wouldn't be evidence against evolution, it would be a lack of a specific kind of evidence for it. Every fossil is a transitional form when you consider evolution is a continuous process, just like every color could be considered a transitional form from black to white.
Houshalter 7 months ago
@rmir2 Or inorganic chemistry to a cell, protozoan to metazoan, heck, I'd settle for a natural mechanism to separate racemic amino acids into pure L and D forms (my prediction is - that's not going to happen).....These ideas hang on the slightest of threads, are best presented to the convinced crowd...
59arkady 7 months ago
The reason they cannot count the changes is because they never happened.
glendaweil 11 months ago
This happens every time a math teachers does biology.
And whales didn't come from a cow anyway.
They have found the transitional fossils, count them yourself.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This video just proofs how ignorant this guy is about evolution, just pathetic.
majereJ 1 year ago 2
Creationist do the math? We are not the ones making claims about evolutionary processes. To change a car into a submarine requires engineers. The same analolgy applies to changing a cow into a whale.
tmeece 1 year ago
Quite amazing...
This highly educated, well expressing himself creature – is, in fact a dumb, illogical moron. This man supposedly has a doctorate in mathematics ( logical thinking) and yet, his lack of imaginative intelligence is staggering.
Hitchens said: ‘Religion poisons everything’… Well, look at Berlinski. He could be a great help in the fields of science yet, he has chosen path of exposing himself as an idiot. Comparing a redesigning of a car to a biological transformation ?
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
@MrJurekGG Actually Berlinski isn't religious. He's a secular Jew.
redeemedsinner001 1 year ago
@redeemedsinner001
IMHO - he's more religious than anyone can even imagine.
Extremely dishonest, dark personality.
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
Just ignore gregrutz. How could anyone claim the theory of evolution is proven? Its still called a theory for a reason. Don't be that way.
hihelloheyhowsitgoin 1 year ago
@hihelloheyhowsitgoin, gravity is a theory. Theory is the highest level of certainty a scientific model can have.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@hihelloheyhowsitgoin
And, it's going to be called a theory for as long as the world revolves around.
Theory - the highest level of scientific method of explaining the physical, material things.
Biological evolution itself is a 100% proven fact. Theory of evolution is a scientific method of discovering as much as possible about that fact. And, if some day - the theory of evolution will discover that the evolution itself is a mistake - the theory of evolution will be corrected or discarded.
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
When the ferocious dinosaurs died out, an opportunity arose not only for land mammals to evolve, but sea mammals as well. We know land mammals arose before sea mammals from the fossil record, and in fact the transition is pretty well documented from several relatively recent discoveries. Berlinski is a strange case, he has no problem with the transition from reptiles to mammals which are even better documented, but he seems hellbent on going into history as a creationist enabler. :p
kaifroland 1 year ago
This happens every time a math teacher tries to learn Biology.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Whales did not evolve from cows. Berlinski suffers from his own ego. He's not so smart as he fansies that he is.
kshackleton 1 year ago
"What would it take to turn a car into a submarine?" The military makes floating cars. And I read somewhere that someone actually built a car then can submerge and move under water. It's not as big a leap as it first appears. Evolution is the same.
How many changes need to be made, how much DNA is that, what's the population size, what's the rate of change, what's the fossilization rate, and above all, are these results consistent? You do the math creationists.
Houshalter 1 year ago 8
@Houshalter actually its evolutionists who are trying to prove evolution so the burden is on the evolutionist. the video doesnt dispute the premise of adaptation, it simply calls to the lack of definitive/quanitative evidence(s) that actaully prove the idea of common ancestry and evolution as it is theorized by its proponents.
shockwaveization 1 year ago
@shockwaveization, we have the evidence, but more importantly, we have a theory that would be easy to falsify if it was wrong. To prove evolution, we have to show that all the data we have is consistent with it, which we have.To falsify it all you need to do is find or point out one piece that isnt.When we found that all animals occur in nested hierarchies like evolution predicted, that was proof. If a creationist found a single gene in a single organism that wasn't, that would be falsification.
Houshalter 1 year ago 9
@Houshalter It can't be falsified because the theory was based on the evidence. The evidence came before the theory. The theory is always modified to explain anomalous evidence.
OysterLava 11 months ago
@OysterLava as are all scientific theories. The simplest model that makes the most accurate predictions about the data is the one that is usually accepted by science, and this is by far the case with evolution. No need to make up conspiracy theories.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter that's actually not true. not all credited scientists believe in evolution and its because they have reason to not believe in it. should they be labeled as idiots? creation and evolution focus on the same facts but the scientists from both sides interpret it based on what they follow. evolutionists would dismiss facts that favor creation. if it goes against their theory, they won't publish it. evolutionists aren't open minded as you think. they just don't admit when they're wrong
surfthetube09 9 months ago
@surfthetube09 0.02% of scientists against evolution falls well within statistical leeway to say there is an overwhelming consensus. And you tell me, what impossibly high standard of evidence do we have to have to be able to label these people idiots? There is no more room for interpretation of whether or not evolution is true (or creationism is false for that matter) than there is for the sky being blue. You can assert as many conspiracy theories or possible biases as you want, I want evidence!
Houshalter 9 months ago
@shockwaveization Just because a math teacher does not look at the evidence does not mean evolution has not been proven. It has.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Houshalter
I really liked the part in the previous clip about the 50,000 morphological changes needed and the fossil record not showing the 49,999 thousand other changes. Is that true? What would an evolutionist say to that?
hihelloheyhowsitgoin 1 year ago
@hihelloheyhowsitgoin, it's not like that number is just pulled out of someones ass.The fossil record only shows bone structures by the way. I'm not even sure how many fossils we have and from what period, so it's not like you can claim there is a massive leap in a short period of time.
Look at examples of evolution, dogs from wolves, modern crops from ancient grasses, farm animals like pigs and cows, and non-domesticated ones like darwins finches and the like. We know this change is possible
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter- Many if not all of the examples you cite could well be within rather simple allelle variance. But i'll tell you what, if you can demonstrate were RV+NS ever produced a novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan, you would have my attention. You will search the literature far and wide and not find it. RV+NS may or may not be sufficient for the variety of bio-subsystems in living organisms, but there as still vast gaps of understanding with regard to its sufficiency.
kornbelt 1 year ago
@kornbelt, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. We can prove that random mutations can create novel structures similiar to what evolution would require. We can also show that the genes in organisms show signs of random mutations, or are at least consistent with what random mutations do. There is also no other mechanisms known to do such things, and no reason to believe there is, occams razor and the scientific method and all that.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter, show me an example of RV+NS producing a novel cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan. Let's prove the concept. Build a computer simulator to proof the concept. And more to my interest, show me how RV+NS is sufficient to wire up a mammalian brain (including the one you're using right now) with the particular synaptic arrangements that yield the functions that exist. Is RV+NS sufficient to the task? Nobody knows. Because nobody understand the "programming" well enough to know..
kornbelt 1 year ago
@kornbelt, your goal post is so far back it would litterally take millions of years to reach it. But you want simulations of evolution? Look up darwinbots or any A-life simulator for that matter. What about nylonase? Dogs gaining new behaviours from wolves like being able to recognize humans? All crops from simple grasses 20,000 years ago? The long term E. coli Experiments?
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter, none of what you mention addresses what I specified: new cell types, tissue types, organs or body plans, or the neurological wiring of mammalian brains that yield known function. So, you admit that the concept is not proven and give an excuse why. Fine. That's the point: an unproven assertion, that the known evolutionary processes are capable of producing what I specified.
kornbelt 1 year ago
@kornbelt, "new cell types" If you mean a new kingdom, there are only 6 and they have evolved over billions of years. So of course we wouldn't make that observation if evolution is correct. Tissue types, look at domesticated crops. Neurological wiring, I think observing evolved behaviours like in domesticated animals counts. Everything is consistent with evolution. You have set your goal post so far back that nothing could prove it to you even if it was correct.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter, "Everything is consisent with evolution." Yes, it is, if evolution is simply defined as "change over time." It's the mechanism of change that is at issue, namely RV + NS as the sole means. Limiting the scope to neurological wiring, how much of the observed changes in animal behavior is due to new brain structure and not allele changes of existing genes? How much differences in structure is required to get from an bonobos to a human to see the known differences of function? Cont...
kornbelt 1 year ago
@kornbelt, the only honest answer to the question of whether or not RV + NS can produce the function of mammalian brains in total is, we don't know, not enough information is known yet about these neurological systems. And it's only "consistent" in the sense that no known information contradicts the idea. Howerver, I fail to see how you derive any comfort from that given the sheer gulf of ignorance that exists on the matter.
kornbelt 1 year ago
@Houshalter, ... you can't answer that because the details of the structural differences leading to the known functional differences are not known. We see some changes over time in behavior and you extrapolate that to appearance of all structure and function. But you can't tell me what precisely is responsible for the functional difference. You fill your gap of ignorance with an assumption. I wouldn't get on an airplane made by an engineer who thinks like that.
kornbelt 1 year ago
@Houshalter, now the more general question is: what are the limits of the RV + NS mechanism? Can you quantify it precisely? We see evidence of finch beaks changing with respect to certain factors over time, but was RV + NS responsible for a generalized mammalian body plan or nervous system? You don't know and neither does anyone else.
kornbelt 1 year ago
@kornbelt, ok then, don't look at the structures. Go to the genes themselves and see if they mutate randomly and are homologous to others. Many of the predictions Darwin made concerning natural selection and decent with modification have been confirmed, does that not count for anything? Organisms select their mates, compete for dominance, etc. Obviously this wouldn't be necessary with an intelligent guidance. He even predicted a mechanism like DNA with his theory.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter ... Because nobody understand the "programming" well enough to know what would be required of a system, "blind" or otherwise. As for Occam's Razor. That's fine. I'm not suggesting an alternative *scientific* model, except to say that intelligent intervention has occured, there may be no way to detect it. ID at present is not science.
kornbelt 1 year ago
@kornbelt, it's simple. Look at genes from different organisms. If there was intelligent intervetion we would see it. For example, there is a chromosome in humans which is just two ape chromosomes fused together.
Houshalter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Houshalter, "If there was intelligent intervetion we would see it" - That's a stunning statement. If you can nail down the details of your methodology with regards to detecting design in nature, you will change the world and win a Nobel prize. Nobody else has been able to achieve this. Please let's hear it in detail. At any rate, I'm not making a claim that all things in nature are designed. Quite the opposite.
kornbelt 1 year ago
@Houshalter, now as for intelligent intervention, I ask, how could we determine the difference *scientifically* between natural selection and artificial selection, and random variation and artificially induced variation?
kornbelt 1 year ago
@Houshalter
Floating cars are not submarines. In any case, intelligent humans are responsible for both.
At any rate, what kind of DNA sequencing over time is required to turn a cows brain into a whale brain, suitable and coordinated with the rest of the morphological change. The fact is, you have no idea, and neither does anyone else. The fossil record indeed indicates evolution has occured, but not necessarily Darwinian. There's no way to know if the profferred Darwinian scenario is suffici
kornbelt 1 year ago
@kornbelt, a car to a boat to a submarine is a rough analogy to land animals becoming whales.
Also, look at actual experiments of evolution. Domesticated animals and crops, petri dish evolution, MDR pathogens, etc. The rate of change that is possible is well within the observations. Dogs have gained a tremendous number of traits and morpholigical changes from wolves, and they can still interbreed and are only seperated by a few thousand years. Now take a few million.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter, "rate of change" is misleading and worthless when it comes to things like the neurological wiring of mammalian brains. There's no way to know presently if random variation + natural selection is sufficient to drive for the simple reason we don't know what the kind of sequencing is necessary....
kornbelt 1 year ago
@Houshalter- ... what you're doing by appealing to "millions of years" is like asserting that a regular automobile can reach France from California just because it can reach New York. The fact is, we don't know to what degree the known processes "scale." You cannot assert that RV+NS is sufficient to build and wire mammalian brains if you do not understand the nature of the "programming" of those brains.
kornbelt 1 year ago
There's no way to know if the profferred Darwinian scenario is sufficient because we don't even know the details of the neuro-programming differences to the degree required to even starting knocking out quantitative estimates. In short, at the very primitive (origin of life) and the most sophisticated (mammalian brains) the naturalistic approachs are looking very weak.
kornbelt 1 year ago
@Houshalter
Perhaps you know and would be helpful by posting the data, or a link to it.
59arkady 1 year ago
@59arkady, I'm just pointing out how ignorant it is for creationists to make these assumptions without backing them up. Since evolution has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt, it is up to the creationists now to falsify the theory or the evidence supporting it. I don't see how you can disprove the existence of fossils or the origins of genes. At best they could hope to get "intelligent guidance" acknowledged. If that's the case, simply show me the math.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter... No one I know is trying to disprove the existence of fossils. Do you mean, maybe, fossil progression through transitional forms? As far as genes go, I don't think anyone knows much about those origins, lots of speculation, but, as you say, no math. Berlinski? he's no creationist. He's happy to take on either camp. As for me - I do lean toward the creationisg camp - I see "evolution" but don't think what Darwin observed is responible for origin, more like preservation.
59arkady 1 year ago
@59arkady, well there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and common descent, at least take a look at it before you draw conclusions. Wikipedia used to have a page with a nice layout of everything relevant called "Evidence of common descent".
As for genes, why would an intelligent designer give us various broken genes, like say, for vitamin C production? If you say they degraded over time, then why would chimps have the exact same genes degraded in the exact same way (which is impossible)?
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter That's a good question, and I certainly don't know enough about vitamin C production in primates to comment. Many of the ID proponents don't deny common decent, so, I suppose they might be comfortable with the idea that the damage occurred at some point and was passed on. Too, finding a "broken" gene might be an argument for design. Perhaps broken, now, impies working earlier - a superior antecedant. Concerning "why" Though, seems beyond ID, probably any science.
59arkady 1 year ago
@Houshalter fail. he's not asking how many changes it would take for a cow to start swimming, but how many changes to become a complete whale from it's supposed ancestor.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter, the whales ancestor started swimming before it became a whale. We know mammals can become semi-aquatic. The adaptions are not that numerous or unreasonable for that amount of time.
Houshalter 1 year ago 2
@Houshalter with that amount of time evolution will be changing ants to whales.....but they can't observe anything today anywhere close to these predictions...millions and millions of years have gone by ,nothing comes anywhere near darwins predictions...Things are the same now as they were in the fossil record.. If scientists looked at the whole genome they would see the irregular infrequencies...150 years of 1800 darwin dogma is crumbling with new research...
Cherubim64 9 months ago
@Cherubim64 yes, because millions of years haven't gone by since then. Darwin predicted the existence of genetic code, inheritence, mutations, natural selection, transistional forms, nested hierarchies, etc.
Good bye creationists, no one gives a shit about you anymore.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter how about we take your car strap you down drop you into the middle of an ocean and ill watch what happens from the sub
tonyteb 1 year ago
@tonyteb, classic creationists. Being hyper-agressive to make themselves sound credible. How about we drop you into the ocean and see if a magical sky daddy appears and comes to your rescue. Or maybe you'll survive by getting eaten by a whale. Or maybe you'll learn to walk on water!
Houshalter 1 year ago 2
wow fail
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@Houshalter You are forgetting the role of INTELLIGENCE in DESIGNING floating cars...As for who is to do the math, forgive me my heresy, but is it not YOUR duty to do the math and convince us of your claims? You are the one making the claim that it is possible. The burden of proof is on you to show it.
Jesrael1986M 11 months ago
@Jesrael1986M Nested hierarchies are predicted by evolution and not possible through random chance or intelligent design. That is proof. Fossil evidence is proof. Consistent temporal and geographical distribution is proof. Rates of evolution observed in nature and in the lab is proof. The case has been made to the point where only 0.02% of scientists still reject evolution, and those are hardly credible. The burden of proof is now on you to prove the consensus wrong by undermining even one fact.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter. Creationists are not saying that there cant be any variations within species, but that the question is how a species can transform into another completely different species and what that would imply. It would, according to my thinking as well as Dr Berlinksi's, necessitate 'intermediaries'. So how many "intermediary species" would it take to transform an animal from living on land into live in the ocean as a whale?
MrKiifen 11 months ago
@MrKiifen how many intermediates of gray does it take to change black into white? The question makes no sense.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@MrKiifen Just let scientists know how many you need. Every time we find an "intermediary species" you say it makes 2 more gaps. There are 6 intermediate fossils between Ambulocetus and modern whales.
-Dalanistes
-Rodhocetus
-Takracetus
-Gaviocetus
-Dorudon
-Basilosaurus
-Modern whale
HOW MANY DO YOU REQUIRE BEFORE YOU ACCEPT THAT EVOLUTION HAPPENS?
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz Have you seen the actually fossils they found for these creatures. Not the drawings, but the actual fossils? The illustrations are pure imagination based on a perceived notion. Dr David stopped at 50,000 needed transitions, you stopped at 6 fossils that don't even look like each other.
joyjosh1 8 months ago
@joyjosh1 Yes, Scientists have the actual fossils and study them. The drawings are for really slow people with no imagination, like creationists. Saying there are gaps between the gaps proves you are not looking at the evidence, just the gaps. The gaps keep getting filled and you still deny the fossil record.
HOW MANY FOSSILS DO YOU REQUIRE BEFORE YOU ACCEPT THAT EVOLUTION HAPPENS?
Just tell scientists and quit moving the goalposts.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@Jesrael1986M There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@Houshalter
Yes it requires intelligence it does not happen by CHANCE
ytbpenguin 7 months ago
@ytbpenguin no one said it did.
Houshalter 7 months ago
@Houshalter @Houshalter The military changes these things using forethought and design...not chance, the leap is made by mind. Not to mention the engineers do everything they can to eliminate chance in their designs as a chance event in engineering usually results in design flaws...and the need for more thought and further design.
Your argument is actually pro design. Doing the math correlating your argument to an evolutionary pathway would yeild an empty set.
59arkady 7 months ago
@Houshalter Maybe like this - sit a car near the water and set a bomb off beside it. The shrapnel (liken it to ionizing radiation) blowing through hits one of the on-board microprocessors (maybe the eprom in it). The alteration on the chip likended to a mutation - in time a sub? Or, expose an animal to ionizing radiation. Random mutation will commence - it escapes before it dies, passes those mutations along...feeling hopeful? Or, drosophila many mutations ...still a fly
59arkady 7 months ago
@59arkady it takes thousands of generations and a strong selection pressures from the environment to make any significant change. If you made hundreds or thousands of cars each with slight alterations to their designs, then selected just the few that did the best in the water, made many copies of them with slight alterations, and so on and so on, thousands or even millions of times, eventually you would get something not unlike a submarine.
Houshalter 7 months ago
@Houshalter Dude - the original analogy isn't valid - the military designs using existing design, and applied engineering science - they don't randomly change things...the analogy of cars and diving cars supports design by an intelligent agent...the modifications would be made, by an observer, based on percieved need or purpose. Rolling a car through a minefield would be more like a random process...
59arkady 7 months ago
Isn't it funny (peculiar) that evolutionists get so worked up when non-evolutionists call their bluff. Or when they spit the dummy when non-evolutionists say we didn't evolve from Apes, saying that it was ape like and that it would be ridiculous to think we would come from apes... well, non-evolutionists "just go one animal further"! and say it's all ridiculous.
The Emperors new clothes are being seen for what they aren't by an increasing number! A good sign for real science.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo ID is "real science"? I've never heard of one actual scientist who's not being paid by fundamentalist christians who says it's anywhere near science at all.
What gets people worked up is when people with the credibility of a higher education use it immorally to serve their audience lies.
People like Berlinski is a disgrace to our species.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle - "I've never heard of one actual scientist who's not being paid by fundamentalist christians who says it's anywhere near science at all." -
You obviously dont get out much! Also, what YOU have heard is irrelevant. It's facts that mean something.
"use it immorally to serve their audience lies." - How do you account for morality in a materialistic universe? But I agree with you, particularly the atheopathic scientists pushing their conjectures as fact.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo Well, I was kinda hoping that you would prove me wrong with an example, since you know of so many scientists crusading evolution.
"Morality" is found in all social animals, and is explained perfectly by evolution. In social animals selfishness is selected against since it weakens the group as a whole, and these animals functions best when they work together.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@heloWelo We are mammals because we evolved from a mammal. We are apes, because we evolved form an ape. Chimps evolved from the same ape. Get it now?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz This moron again.. They do claim cows evolved into whales, you're just such a dumb fuck that you're arguing that 'cows' didn't evolve into 'whales', because we don't have a name for those 'cows' or 'whales'. Ok, so a 'cow's ancestor' evolved into a 'whale's ancestor'. You people are such fucking morons. In fact you're doing the same exact thing by saying we evolved from apes. No we didn't evolve from apes, did we? Be fucking consistent you stupid fuck.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie Actually there are 6 intermediate fossils between Ambulocetus and modern whales.
-Dalanistes
-Rodhocetus
-Takracetus
-Gaviocetus
-Dorudon
-Basilosaurus
-Modern whale
I don't see 'cow' on the list.
'' Be fucking consistent you stupid fuck''
gregrutz 1 year ago
Oh, i love this. This is my favorite part. I would like to see the fossils and use my own judgment. I would google search these but you and i both know the best we'll ever find are drawing and in most cases these fossils are fabrications, for example Dalanistes is nothing but a skull, yet they are commenting on it's rear feet. This is a joke. Regardless the point that is being made by Berlinski is that we should expect to find millions more transitions if it took millions of years. Common sense?
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie Almost every fossil IS a transitional fossil, 99% of all the species that ever lived on the earth are extinct. [ see fossil record ] No dinosaurs, No trilobites, No small Cambrian Period sea creatures.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@knowwaie Cow to Whale !?! Cows have evolved as long as Whales, until today.
If you know how evolution worked, you wouln't sound so silly.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You're kidding right? You're still using that "you don't understand evolution" card? Ok, so ancient whales evolved from ancient cows. You at least know the reason why they say this right? Because of the color of killer whales?
Look, for once in your life stop being a dope. You morons keep playing this game and you all look childish when doing it. No one actually thinks what you're suggesting, we're just using words that are common and understandable. What should i call these 'cows'?
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie Call them>>
-Ambulocetus.
-Dalanistes
-Rodhocetus
-Takracetus
-Gaviocetus
-Dorudon
-Basilosaurus
It happened, just because he can't count doesn't mean it didn't.
''Cows eat grass'' So what? The ancestors of whales didn't.
gregrutz 1 year ago
So, some mammal (probably one that eats fish, which cows do not) repeatedly went into the ocean over generations and eventually adapted to the ocean environment. At first glance we might expect this animal to be closer to a bear. Since bears do eat fish. The point is, we're looking for the closest representation of the land animal and the ocean animal so we're better able to draw some comparability and distinction to determine the necessary changes.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie It happened, why can't you count the changes, as if it would change the past. LOL
Why don't you look at the land animal that has a whales ear structure.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz But you said whales and land mammals have been evolving at the same time. I think you got the point.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie I could tell you, but since you don't even know how evolution works it would not do any good.
Whales and cows share a common ancestor, the first mammal. Proven.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Berlinski is using concrete examples, e.g. modern cow and modern whale, in an attempt to establish a guide of the required changes. This would even work if we used theoretical animals, but the two spectrum of ancient land based and ocean based mammals have, themselves, yet to be determined with certainty.
We'll put it this way. i'll play devils advocate and argue that these fossils you've linked are all reptiles, and aquatic mammals came before land mammals.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie You can argue all you want but what you say has to match the evidence;DNA, the fossil record, etc.
But Creatards won't look at the evidence unless it matches a bible story.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Ignorance dressed up with a drawling verbosity and pseudo-intellectual affectations just irritate the shit out of me. I find it difficult to forgive him as a mere fool....I'm more inclined to believe he's a knowing charalatan.
exchangeisno 1 year ago
Comment removed
exchangeisno 1 year ago
Comment removed
exchangeisno 1 year ago
Comment removed
exchangeisno 1 year ago
Comment removed
exchangeisno 1 year ago
Comment removed
exchangeisno 1 year ago
Comment removed
exchangeisno 1 year ago
There are plenty of daft things in this video.
However, the real problem with his argument is that he is linking the number of changes to the number of intermediate fossils you would expect to find. That’s naive to say the least. You can’t expect a proportional relationship between the two. You have to take population size and selection pressure into account (not to mention all the factors involved in the probability of fossilisation, like habitat, predation, climate, etc).
kandtell 1 year ago
@kandtell: Ahmm...what? "Linking the number of changes to the number of intermediate fossils" is "daft"? So...expecting the biological record to accord with quantitative analysis is naive? How so? Why if the transitions are patently necessary at some point in history, shouldn't we expect to actually have access to those intermediate evidence?
krossdriven1 1 year ago
@krossdriven1 Yes it's daft. And, what's worse, he probably knows that it's daft.
"How so?" well, like I said, there are so many other factors involved in the chances of finding fossils that it is naive to expect a proportional relationship between the number of changes and the number of changes found in the fossil record (let alone the seriously stupid idea that we should expect to find them all!).
cont...
kandtell 1 year ago
Fossilisation is extremely rare. (If you don’t agree I suggest you try an experiment, bury a dozen chicken carcases in random spots in the ground and dig them up after say 10 years and see how many you can even find).
Many species go extinct without leaving a single fossil, so even if we dug up the entire earth we would never find them.
cont...
kandtell 1 year ago
Whether we find a fossil of a particular species depends (as I said) on many factors. Where it lived (water is best), how long it was around for, how many predators it had and how much of the carcase the predators typically left behind. To say nothing of luck! Some of the most famous fossils were found by pure chance.
cont...
kandtell 1 year ago
So I am being kind when I say it’s “daft”.
The laughable part is the fact that a lot of the examples he gives, including the very first one (changing skin) are practically impossible to find because it’s almost impossible to fossilise those body parts. Whereas one of the other examples he sites, changing ears, *has* been found.
kandtell 1 year ago
For the fossil record showing changes to the ears from Ambulocetus to modern whales: watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY
kandtell 1 year ago
Basically this is an example of goal post moving. He’s saying “OK so you’ve found transitional fossils for many species between land mammals and whales, but what about the skin? Aye? Aye? Bet you can’t find the skin! Aye?”
In the highly unlikely event that we actually do find fossilised skin showing adaptations to an aquatic environment he’s just going to ask for something else.
Most scientists would stop believing in evolution if anyone found just one fossil of a pre-Cambrian mammal!
kandtell 1 year ago
r.e. the chicken burrial experiment. I should point out that a shallow grave and loose soil is going to mimic what happens in nature better than burring them 6 feet under!
kandtell 1 year ago
let's just leave it. We disagree on this matter that is all. All the best and peace.
JohnnyZenith 1 year ago
Hahaha what a bloody buffoon. Insane inane dribblings coming from this imbeciles orrifice.
JohnnyZenith 1 year ago
@JohnnyZenith
... and what are your qualifications? Do you have multiple degrees in math, molecular biology, and philosophy? Or is your lack of such qualifications the reason you resort to poetic ad hominem? If you have real answers to the points Dr Berlinski raises, I suggest you post them,rather than simply drooling droll drivel ...
dragonsrightwing 1 year ago
@dragonsrightwing My qualifications are my business and they are extremely relevant to this subject. I do not debate people with breathtaking ignorance of empirical evidence and scientific data. People of my ilk work hard to progess knowledge and Dr David Berlinski cannot even be bothered to get his 'facts' right. Ad hominem was too lazy I will concede that..indeed it wasn't actually worth a post at all.
JohnnyZenith 1 year ago
I am not an evelutionist anymore. I give it up. It's rubbish.
shayneby 1 year ago
Richard dawkins says everything this guy says, and then says why its not true. Has he ever read a book on the subject that he's trying to refute? Of course you can't turn a cow into a whale. Cows are fucking cattle! However, if we had a whale ancestor, we could impose challenges on a populations survival to make them into a seafaring mammal that spends its entire existence in the ocean. It would take a while though.
freeofavia 1 year ago
Cows didn't evolve into whales. Yes whales changed, this change is called evolution. He is a math teacher, why can't he count them?
They have all the fossils showing the changes.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I agree with Dr Berlinski, all believers in the faith of Evolution never look at the facts, its "just so" story after "Just so" story and "a long time ago and far, far away". It's time to start looking at the facts guys, the numbers and the Science just don't add up. Choose another faith!
Catdui 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
All anti Darwinians has the same problem. They can't fathom a million years. It is a bit like Sci-Fi geeks who believe we will fly out in space from world to world. They can't fathom the distances.
LilFaerl 1 year ago
AND YOU CAN, oh i can fathom it al right, its simply an unscientific cop out to say oh we've have millions of yeasr so it could happen, wake up
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 did I say that? The science is there. Try to read it!
LilFaerl 1 year ago
They fucking die, stupid!
LilFaerl 1 year ago
Elitism = death to self-sovereignty, redress of grievances against the govt., & free speech. Atheism {sans quotes} is the religion of the animal world as animals don't contemplate the Heavens nor wage planetary war.
ScientificalnessUSA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
( ̲̅:̲̅:̲̅:̲̅[̲̅ ̲̅]̲̅:̲̅:̲̅:̲̅ ) Religion is Man's attempt to explain the metaphysical world. "Atheism" is the elitists' religion designed to subjugate Man by denying his incomparable value. Elitism spawns Darwinism, infanticide, "terra"-forming, collectivism, eugenics, fluoridated water, animal "rights," the E.R.A., the Z.P.G. movt., fiat money, gun & water rights, land confiscation.
ScientificalnessUSA 1 year ago
This is what happens when a math teacher tries to understand Biology.
''A cow eats grass''.......whales didn't come from cows, IDiot.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
haha you're right. A whale eats grass.
tabeflave 1 year ago
@gregrutz his a microbiologist too..
thinker6236 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Ambulocetus is another 'just-so' story of the evolutionist.
There is no proof that it is ancestral to whales, but the evolutionist has faith.
In fact, it was nothing like a whale.
It was more like a beaver.
Its fossils reveal that it was just another land mammal swimmer... one even less aquatic than today's sea otters and ocean seals.
Think a beaver swimming in a stream.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
The Ambulocetus is another 'just-so' story of the evolutionist.
There is no proof that it is ancestral to whales, but the evolutionist has faith.
In fact, it was nothing like a whale.
It was more like a beaver.
Its fossils reveal that it was just another land mammal swimmer... one even less aquatic than today's sea otters and ocean seals.
Think a beaver swimming in a stream.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
Life from non-life or "abiogenesis" is a mythical concept passed down to the evolutionist believer from ancient Greek myths.
It's never happened in the past and will never happen in the future, because quite frankly, it's impossible.
If you prefer factual science, study The Law of Biogenesis. All life comes from life. When put to scientific testing, it's been proven 100% of the time.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually theres 6 intermediate fossils between Ambulocetus and the modern whale.
-Dalanistes
-Rodhocetus
-Takracetus
-Gaviocetus
-Dorudon
-Basilosaurus
-Modern whale
gregrutz 1 year ago
A cow has evolved as long as whales have.
It was more like an otter, a meat eating, waterproof animal.
"Between Ambulocetus and..." And wait a minute !
Ambulocetus means ''Walking Whale'', it IS the intermediate fossil, half way between cow and whale.
Is he blind?
gregrutz 1 year ago
''All of these changes are coordinated"
"What is directing this change"
I thought Crationists said it was all 'Chance'
Darwin showed it was Natural Selection that directed the changes,
He should read a Biology book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Evolutionary theory is such a joke, it's just too bad that those who subscribe to it don't even realize it's a really bad one. Pity... And they accuse others of being fundamentalists when they themselves blindly defend baseless philosophical assertions only to try and justify a particular worldview...again...pity.
sonofthunder79 1 year ago
Ambulocetus (or the "'walking whale'") was an early cetacean that could walk as well as swim. It lived during early Eocene some 50-49 million years ago. It is a transitional fossil that shows how whales evolved from land-living mammals. Having the appearance of a 3 meter long mammalian crocodile, it was clearly amphibious, as its back legs are better adapted for swimming than for walking on land, and it probably swam by undulating its back vertically, as otters and whales do.
wikipedia
gregrutz 1 year ago
IF you want to turn a cow into a whale....
Wow, he says stupid shit like that just to make evolution seem silly.
He is paid to make crap up.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Evolution is silly, explain me the mecanism of abiogenisis?
AnInvitationToTheTru 1 year ago
If you listen to this dildo, you might think that.
If I prove Abiogenisis, then you will accept evolution?
They are two different things.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Well Im listening, explain to me how abiogenisis worked?
AnInvitationToTheTru 1 year ago
@AnInvitationToTheTru
You didn't answer the question.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
If you proove it with arguments, I'll start considering evolution in this part, but if you don't and you turned to be wrong, you have to start considering evolution to be wrong , deal??!!
AnInvitationToTheTru 1 year ago
Comment removed
AnInvitationToTheTru 1 year ago
@AnInvitationToTheTru
It is not proven with arguments, it is proven with facts. Fossils and DNA.
ID is an argument, no evidence, no theory.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Fossils can't prove abiogenesis!! Rather DNA on the melecular base...
So here!! Im lestening!!
AnInvitationToTheTru 1 year ago
@AnInvitationToTheTru
Fossils prove evolution. [what the IDiot in the video is talking about]
Why do you keep changing the question?
gregrutz 1 year ago