Dr. David Berlinski: Afraid of Controversy (Clip 17)

[BillKiernan]

"It's amazing that anyone would confuse Darwinist speculations with real science, which is properly verified by experiments" if only those actually trained in the biological sciences agreed with you here. but alas, you're just another ignoramus with a worthless opinion about something you know absolutely nothing about.

[Onieracraft]

@BillKiernan So you are arguing by appealing to authority? Brilliant.

[BillKiernan]

@Onieracraft It's not an appeal to authority. It's a statement of fact, ACTUAL biologists, those who work in the field, use evolutionary theory every day in their work. it has been "verified by experiments" over, and over, and over again, which is why it is considered the unifying theory of modern biology, and why biologists, theist and atheist alike, use it and accept it. so no, it's not an appeal to authority, it's a statement of how much of a dishonest slippery prick Berlinski is.

[irhjma30000]

@BillKiernan there is much about evolutionary theory that cannot be "verified by experiments"

...even all the people you're speaking of know that too

[BillKiernan]

@irhjma30000 there's much about gravity that can't be verified by experiments.

[nolobede]

@callingheyzeus

"Most of what I have learned is just how much I don't know."

Hence why we reach out to discover. But with real science. Creationism, has nothing to do with science. Life is HIGHLY unlikely, no likely impossible to be isolated to this planet. But for your comment of "it happening here" is as baseless a conjecture as a god. Abiogenesis regarding Earth, does not necessitate any correlation with life anywhere else in the universe nor with any creator.

[gregrutz]

@nolobede Look at how common life is on earth, it probibly evolved on millions of other planets. It's too bad those other places are so far away, really far away.

[jkculberson]

@gregrutz Actually, the ineffable improbability of life according to neo-darwinian evolutionary theory would point to the conclusion that, even in an infinitely expanding material universe, to expect the emergence of life on 'millions of other planets' indicates a patent misunderstanding of evolutionary biology, philosophical cosmology, and astronomy.

[LesPaul2006]

@jkculberson What would stop an Earth-like planet in a Sol-like solar system to develop life as we know it somewhere else?

[nolobede]

@callingheyzeus

Hahaha... Look at you, are you afraid to even type the word Fuck? Do you think your god would be fucking pissed if you did?

"how smart you are depends on where you are standing."

I'd agree, and judging from your posts, you are standing neck deep in a pile of stupid.

[nolobede]

@callingheyzeus

"We used to believe the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. How long did it take to disprove that idea? "

Uh, I dunno, you tell me! Just how long did it take?... Since IT STILL FUCKING DOES!

Perhaps you are referring to the old belief that the sun revolved around the Earth?

Eeesh, it's frustrating communicating with morons.

[nolobede]

@callingheyzeus

"You can do your own experiment with all the components you need for life in a jar of spaghetti sauce"

Hahahahaha... I just read this post of yours again. Guess I gnored your complete stupidity the first time around.

Your comment is not only comical, but typical evidence of lacking a science education. You're a bit confused about the difference betweeen abiogenesis, and evolution - not even the same category. And try reading a little about the pasteurization process

Wow.

[kshackleton]

Berlinski lies again. The scientific community does not care...at all...if there are attacks on evolutionary theory. Scientists expect their claims to be met with criticism and skepticism.

The only source of contention is that the criticism actually contain an argument, that they actually critize what evolutionary theory really claims. This is never done....never.

[nolobede]

@callingheyzeus

Scrutinize your sources of information.

[nolobede]

Because the Cambrian Explosion (CE) was puzzling to Darwin, he made note of it, a whole chapter. The creationist community sees this as a target... as they always grasp desperately for any topic they think they can cause confusion. Yet a period of hundreds of millions of years is not even a topic. Its a "so what?" See theory of punctuated equilibrium. Environment, long periods of stasis are expected In fact, stasis period validates the process of evo Evolution is not a linear process.

[nolobede]

@callingheyzeus

"we can only suggest degrees of plausibility."

Completely agree! And the plausibility ratio between evolution and intelligent design... cannot even be portrayed in a numeric value limited to 500 characters.

Evolution... staggering amounts of verifiable, testable repeatable, predictable evidence heretofore irrefutable.

Creationism... Nothing still.

[nolobede]

@callingheyzeus

"The origin of species is only one thing on the list and it can neither be proved nor disproved, we can only suggest degrees of plausibility."

Sorry Cal, the list is endless. The proof is staggering and unerringly consistent. Evolution is as subsstantiated as gravity, but moreso viable since we know how it works and gravity, not so much. Evolution, has/does/will happen. Stone cold fact proven every day. MIracles?... just religion. Religion?... just imagination as always.

[nolobede]

@callingheyzeus

"In the mean time naturalism has to explain away spontaneous healing/recovery, Near Death Experiences and many other documented "miracles".

-Wrong. "Naturalism" (a creationist term) has Nothing to explain regarding such things that have not been proven true in the first place. Those assertions are yours, burden of proof is on you. And so far, just conjecture. No such thing as a "miracle."

And "documented" only means "Written," it does not mean evidence. Bible as example

[nolobede]

@callingheyzeus

"We used to believe the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. How long did it take to disprove that idea?"

-Relevance? "we" know better now, proven. Whats your relevance?

"Similarly, the theory of evolution is still a baby."

Similarly how?... In that they are both substantiated by irrefutable proof? We *know* the earth is round, and gravity happens. And JUST as evident is Evolution. There is no argument that evolution happens, outside of a creationist agenda.

[nolobede]

Evolution not true?... then it should be easy to disprove to the world... go ahead, we're waiting... still... as always.

[nolobede]

Too bad, your side has been losing the debate for 150 years. Be lind, we don't care. But then don't bitch when a mockery is made of your myth.

Just a single shred of evidence is all it will take and you will gain a Nobel, fame & credibility. But until then.... creationism is still a futile pathetic show of intellectual clotting.

[nolobede]

And guess what... wrong again about speciation there bible boy.

Its fact. And if your brain were capable of absorbing information without stagnation by bias, you'd have a healthier grasp of reality and the actual truth.

Want observed example of speciation? Plenty, it's been seen, documented and repeated. Sorry, but your Discovery institue bullshit just falls flat on its ape face.

Hundreds of examples at your fingertips if only you would choose to accept facts, its your loss, we don't care

[enoch1844]

@nolobede The rats are still rats, the flowers are still the same flower, the bacteria is still the same bacteria.

Hey! You should watch the 4 part series Four for Faith on Google video! He makes some pretty neat points on there... love to hear your rants on that. :) His Pascal's Wager is good too.

[foobarsnow]

HL Mencken, and Robert WHAT? What is the surname of the man he is speaking about? Is it Ingersoll? I would appreciate the answer, thanks in advance!

[nolobede]

@foobarsnow

Robert Green Ingersoll

[foobarsnow]

@nolobede thanks!

[Fuglebolle]

The reason why criticism on evolution must be justified is because it's such a fundamental theory with much evidence to support it. Criticising evolution is like criticising the fundamental laws of physics.

There was a time when evolution was debated and criticised among scientists and it passed with flying colors, nothing significant has changed since then, so bringing up the arguments all over again makes you look like the guy who doesn't bother to read the book, but asks everyone for answers

[gregrutz]

Mr. Butinski is a paid spokesman of the Discover Institure.

It does not matter that he is a Jew or does not support ID.

He is preaching creationist crap.

[acidgawd999]

Dipshit with vacuous position on evolution says what?

[sherwoodstars]

Darwin was a fairly good observer of some things in nature. But the theory he advocated was nothing but unverifiable speculation and daydreaming. Any theory of evolution of species by chance plus natural selection has always been controversial among scientists, and in recent years the controversy has rapidly increased. It's amazing that anyone would confuse Darwinist speculations with real science, which is properly verified by experiments.

[gregrutz]

@sherwoodstars Evolution has been verified by experiments.

Scientists don't argue about it any more, not for 140 years anyway.

Only religious, uneducated people try to make it look like it is not proven science.

[gregrutz]

There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed 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.

[circusOFprecision]

@gregrutz

Evolution via natural selection acting on random variation?

[gregrutz]

@circusOFprecision Yes, the mechanism Darwin discovered. Do you have a better theory as to how evolution happened?

[circusOFprecision]

@gregrutz

No, I'm not a scientist. I just have my own personal opinions.

[eugeniobb]

@sherwoodstars yes amaziong how 99% of the scientist consider evolution by natural selection (darwinism) as a theory proven beyond any possible doubt... that is if you exclude evangelist prechers, would be scientists with a PhD in theology, and the dozens of thousands morons that believe in what they say just because it matches the Bible to the letter.

[gregrutz]

@sherwoodstars Evolution has been properly verified by experiments. It hasn't been controversial for 140 years. It has been proven, try and keep up.

[enoch1844]

@gregrutz Not one iota of evidence. Not one mutation that adds information or increases an organism chance of survival in the real world... put back with the general population and environment. No source for DNA, or even the amino acids(all left handed) from which even one protein for life COULD HAVE sprung If you did have the amino acids no process to fold it so it is usable, no plethora of intermediate species, if any. Evolution could be a poor hypothesis but never a theory, let alone fact.

[gregrutz]

@enoch1844 Darwin did not even know about mutation and still showed how evolution works. You can't prove him wrong so you change the subject to how life started. ''intermediate species'' like what, dinosaurs with feathers? Fish with legs? Every and all species were complete species.

[nolobede]

@enoch1844

"Not one iota of evidence."

I think we all stop reading your comments right there. Complete and utter ignorance..

[enoch1844]

@nolobede You've said nothing of value. Most evolutionists cannot stand 2 think 4 themselves or critically of what they believe. I honestly think most of them have more faith than 'people of faith' blindly taking the word of scientists(with an agenda) rather than thinking and researching 4 themselves.

Their are over 300 different types of amino acids. But only 20 different amino acids are used in life. Thus to have life, the selection process for building proteins must be very discriminating.

[enoch1844]

@enoch1844 Second, each type of amino acid molecule comes in 2 shapes commonly referred to as right-handed and left-handed forms. Only left-handed amino acids are used in biological proteins but the natural tendancy is for left and right handed amino acid molecules to bond indiscriminately. Third, the various left-handed amino acids must bond in the correct order or the protein will not function properly.

Many evolutionists believe it to avoid God so they continue in their sins & avoid guilt.

[enoch1844]

@enoch1844 4th, if there was a pond of chemicals "primordial soup" it would have been diluted with many of the wrong types of amino acids & other chemicals available for bonding making the proper amino acids unusable. This means there would have been fewer of the required amino acids used to build the biological protein. 5th, amino acids require an energy source for bonding. Raw energy from the sun needs 2 be captured and converted into usable energy. Where did the energy converter come from?

[enoch1844]

@enoch1844 It would require energy 2 build this biological machine. But before this energy converter can capture raw energy, it needs an energy source to build it, a catch-22 situation. 6th, proteins without protection of the cell membrane would disintegrate in water (hydrolysis), disintegrate in an atmosphere containing oxygen and disintegrate due to ultraviolet rays of the sun if there was no oxygen present 2 form the protective ozone layer.

[enoch1844]

@enoch1844 7th, natural selection cannot be invoked at the pre-biotic level. The first living cell must be in place b4 natural selection can function. Considering all 7 of these hurdles, how probable is it that a single protein could have evolved from a pool of chemicals?

The simplest single cell organism has 200-250 different proteins the simplest of which have about 250 amino acids and you would need millions of each of these proteins. Then you would need DNA! Information.

[enoch1844]

@enoch1844 The DNA(information) for the simplest single cell organism would fill several volumes!  Science has proven, and common sense(which isn't very common) says information only comes from an intelligence. Always! Not one single mutation has been found that adds ANY new information! One species becoming a new species has NEVER been OBSERVED.

The chance of getting only ONE small usable protein is about 1 in 10 to the 130th power. You would need millions of them for one cell! Foolish!

[nolobede]

@enoch1844

...and you could spew out the same rhetorical bullshit for 200 more pages. It doesn't change anything. You must spend alot of time reading the discovery institutes page, 'cause its almost verbatim the false.. and disproven... nonsense-nonscience they publish. And I'm not as obsessive as you to spew 90 paragraphs. I don't need to because the evidence is already published by the those with credentials enough to do so... the worlds scientific community. of which you have no credence.

[enoch1844]

@nolobede Yes, I have read the Discovery Institutes site but haven't been there for several weeks. Thanks for the reminder. 90 paragraphs? Where? I don't care to have the credence of the close minded fools(God's words, not mine) that say there is no God. And they and you have no credence with me if it's not science. It is not science to say life arose from non-life if you cannot reproduce it. Nor if you say one species can become another if you cannot reproduce it. It is fairy tales.

[nolobede]

@enoch1844

You spew nothing of value... discovery institute rhetoric... it nonscience nonsense, and you know it, or are too ignorant to "think for yourselve" or "critically of what you believe"

We all know this. You ignoring the staggering inarguable evidence does nothing to change the fact of evolution. Its just mimic-spewage Discovery institue bullshit-verbatim. And those with actual credibility in the field, know better. The ACTUAL scientists of the world, have already proven it, fact.

[nolobede]

@enoch1844

But here's the difference between you and I. When thinking for oneself, and critically analyzing the data... I choose to accept truth. I don't choose to interpret to avoid realization of that which I might not like. I choose truth over hope

Evolution has/does/will happen. A fact as substantiated as gravity or electromagnetic theory. Not only that, but we know how evolution works. That's more than we can say for gravity. Your uneducated opinion, does nothing against the facts.

[nolobede]

@enoch1844

Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991 Canadian Journal of Zoology v 68(8)

Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991 Journal of Theoretical Biology v 145(4)

Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991 Australian Journal of Zoology v 37(2-4)

Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991 AM-Natural v 137(4)

Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, P-NAS-US, v 88, no 4

Nevo, E., 1991, Observed Active speciation in spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies mole rat, Evolutionary Biology, v 25

[nolobede]

@enoch1844

Hundreds more examles of OBSERVED proof of speciation.

You just offer the same old tired nonsense.

Still the same score...

Evolution... proven

Creationism... still wallowing in imagination

Time to grow up and take responsibility for your own delusions.

[enoch1844]

@nolobede Yes.. and I too critically analyze the data and chose to accept truth and the Truth. You said it best... you have no hope... or peace.. I can tell. I hope you find It... and Him.

Gravity and electromagnetic theory have been shown to be scientific, demonstrable, practical; macro evolution has not, will not, cannot as much science, especially in the field of mathematics, information, and biology has proven. It is sad that you would resort to such a low standard of derogatory remarks.

[nolobede]

@enoch1844

You can spew rhetoric all day long, but guess what... Macro evolution isn't even a debate outside of those so desperately grasping at validating a myth. It is as simple as this. Wether you accept it or not... Speciation is proven, evolution is/does/will happen despite your ignorance of it. Like I said, stone cold fact, and all you need to do is to show ONE bit of evidence that disproves evolution.

JUST ONE will negate the millions of instances of positive evidence validating TOE

[enoch1844]

@nolobede Hey, I haven't been to the Discovery Institute web page for weeks, if not months. Nice of you to advertise their page though. Can see there are things there that really frustrate and upset you though. Must be tough!

[nolobede]

@enoch1844

I just gave you six references for OBSERVED, PROVEN, TESTED and VERIFIED ACTUAL INSTANCES OF SPECIATION. -or as creationists lacking a science education term it, "macroevolution (a non-scientific term)

And as expected, you ignore it. THAT issue is yours. I don't really give a shit about your wish to remain stupid. see, I dont get frustrated over people willing to embrace ignorance, but I AM active at making sure your religious bullshit stays out of my gov't & my kids schools

[nolobede]

@enoch1844

Nobody cares about Pascals wager... stupid and childish as the rest of religion...

ooooh... Because your god isn't the real one... you better belive in my god or you'll have snakes biting you for eternity.

Uh, no... what if you're wrong? ...Stupid drivel

[gregrutz]

@sherwoodstars Scientists accepted Evolution 150 years ago, try and keep up. It has been observed in nature and in the lab. Proven.

[sherwoodstars]

Darwinism is backed by no good evidence; hence it's been rejected outright by such eminent biologists as the great zoologist Pierre Grasse, in his 1977 book The Evolution of Living Organisms. Grasse believed that life had indeed evolved, in the broad sense that existing species descended over long time periods from other, different ones; but that such descent wasn't due to chance and natural selection. He assumed "evolution" had some "natural" cause, but that nobody knows what that cause was.

[gregrutz]

There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed 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 !

[MikeTMerciless]

@gregrutz I notice someone hid this false assertion. Did you just discredit yourself?

[gregrutz]

@MikeTMerciless What false assertion? Evolution has been proven by DNA.

[MikeTMerciless]

@gregrutz DNA, eh? Really? Are you sure?

[JonnyTorres18]

@gregrutz no the verry opposite actually

wht darwin new about the complxity of the cell and dna then are far beyond wht he could ever even imagine.you speak like you know but you talk like virgin who lies about having sex .you dont know you just pretend you do for the sake of arguing.

[gregrutz]

@JonnyTorres18 Correct, he did not know about the cell, mutations or DNA.

And he still figured out how evolution works.

[eastjones]

Did he really justhe shouldn't have to justify his claim that one of the most solild scientific theories ever is wrong ?

WTF??!!? ALL arguments need to be justified, backed up by facts gained from observation and experimentation, prediction and post-diction.

That is just nonsense. He is stoned or something.

[lalalangliza]

"freedom of the press is limited to those who have one" - funny and true, especially in this country

[sherwoodstars]

Darwin-fans still try to claim that Berlinski is a creationist. In reality he's not even an intelligent design theorist. ( And intelligent design theory does not automatically require any creationist conclusion.) In his article "Has Darwin met his match?" in the magazine "Commentary," Dec 2002, Berlinski criticized both Darwinism and intelligent design theory. His view is simply that science doesn't know why any species appeared, and that it's better to admit our ignorance in the matter.

[gregrutz]

@sherwoodstars Stop telling lies.

Mr. Butinski is paid by creationists, The Discovery Institute!

.

'' admit our ignorance ''

Just because you are uneducated does not mean scientists don't understand.

[AwesomeSuperbaws]

A very well written comment even though I don't agree ;)

[nolobede]

@AwesomeSuperbaws

I've listened to hours and hours of Berlinsky.

And to give him full credit and fair analysis: I've never heard another human being (Wm Craig is close) as capable of eloquently and articulating absolutley nothing relevant to his cause. He is paid by the Discovery Institute to sound viable to the undiscerning or uneducated ear.... This he likely achieves.

But for relevant context and argumentative content?... Berlinsky is articulately vacuos, a black hole of verbage.

[BillKiernan]

@nolobede yes it's interesting isn't it. he sounds so official, so "academic." and he's so smug that he pulls it all off, IF you have no knowledge of the subject he's prattling on about. which i think is the whole idea.

[Onieracraft]

@nolobede

There is a good chance you wasted your time and understood none of it.

And what the heck does William Craig lane have to do with anything? he doesn't have a background in science, he is a theologian.

[Onieracraft]

@nolobede

Well i won't speak for Lane, but as i implied previously, the success of "making" a point also depends upon the caliber of the mind that is to grasp it.

[nolobede]

@Onieracraft

" the success of "making" a point also depends upon the caliber of the mind that is to grasp it."

-That was my point, exactly why he cannot pass rhetoric to those of us who have the ability to percieve it. In contrast, as the caliber of the speaker might have the ability to direct by articulation to the less discerning target audience, a persuasion into his realm of "slight of hand."

Yes, don't worry, we know which seat in the audience you occupy.

[nolobede]

@Onieracraft

And what the heck does William Craig lane have to do with anything? he doesn't have a background in science, he is a theologian"

-The simile is that Craig is a "brother in vacuous rambling"as they are both paid by Discovery Institute to attempt to discredit the science behind Evolution. They both can spew copious baseless drivel for hours without making any valid points while counting on those uneducated enough to discern empty bullshit to accept an abyss of rhetoric

[LeonhardEuler1]

@sherwoodstars Science, and indeed any rational person, doesn't require there to be a "why" any species appeared- if you truly admitted that you don't know, then you wouldn't start with that presupposition. And Dr. Berlinski's position, as displayed in this video, is nonsense- evolutionary biologists are not against commentary and reasoned arguments against their theory- they are against the inane babble ID proponent's try to pass off as reasonable.

[levonet33]

I believe gregrutz is so full of hatred towards everything Christian that he  is unable to see the scientific facts against this communist ideology called evolution.

[gregrutz]

@levonet33 Like what?

All scientist accepted evolution 150 years ago, where have you been?

[gregrutz]

Who is talking about christians?

I am talking about science, sorry if it does not match your book.

[spincold]

"they ask him, If evolution is wrong, what is your theory? He didn't have one."

Because anyone worth his salt knows how his own mind came into being. Please, gregrutz you need to move on.

[reaguirre]

he's smart, savvy, rich, well spoken. I bet he get's laid alot in france

[PriestDuren]

i'm surprised this guy isn't quoted more than shakespeare...everything he says is quoteworthy.

[gregrutz]

He is a bull shitter for the Discovery Inst.

Most of what is says is creationist crap.

[levonet33]

I would like someone like Dr Berlinski to teach my kids.

[gregrutz]

they ask him, If evolution is wrong, what is your theory? He didn't have one.

He is a science basher, paid by christians to debunk evolution.

[Dreammotive]

I was thinking the same thing. Can you imagine how genius the next generation would be if all our kids had a teacher like this who teaches by example how to question everything with pure logic and open minded reason.

[murphymagick]

ALL the scientists I know would WELCOME attacks on Darwin's Theory of Evolution if you have another better theory. But the attacks are coming from religion, i.e. Intelligent Design or Creationism. And Mr. Berlinski, you're allying yourself with the religious ID movement.

The health of American Society was greatly enhanced by your side losing in Dover and in Edwards v. Aguillard. Thank god!

[Limbsy]

id isnt religious

[mafarmerga]

Learn before you speak:

Google "Flavobacterium" and "Nylon"

Happy reading.

Oh, and keep watching the work of Jack Szostak and Jeff Bada. They are doing great stuff that will most likely prove you wrong within a decade.

[chadpron1]

Who will it prove wrong?

[mafarmerga]

It will prove lexscripta1 wrong. lexscripta1 writes "There is NO VIABLE explanation of the theory of evolution as it pertains to the origins of life."

There are in fact many viable explanations of abiogenesis. Most will certainly be wrong. Perhaps all will be wrong. But that does not make them inviable. Their viability rests on data, evidence, and reason. Things that can be tested and falsified. Things that seem to be unimportant to lexscripta1 and Dr. Berlinski.

[chadpron1]

ahh I see.

[lexscripta1]

There is NO VIABLE explanation of the theory of evolution as it pertains to the origins of life.

Mutations are never beneficial moving towards a new genus - never been seen. All mutations lose something from what it was, meaning it devolves, not evolves.

[lexscripta1]

Another clearly deceptive practice of evolutionists is the definitions are moving targets. They say that variation of a genus or a taxonomy ("Kinds" as spoken of in Genesis) is evolution rather than variation and adaptation. Then, when someone comes along and says evolution is absurd (because all know what is generally meant by the term "evolution") they say it is proven. However, what they don't say is that the definition merely covers variation, or adaptation - not the origins of life.

[mafarmerga]

I have to laugh because in a debate I had with Terry Mortenson of AiG he refused to give a definition of "species" even though his arbitrary distinction between micro and macroevolution hinged on it.

Oh, and BTW abiogenesis is not the same as biological evolution.

And this is coming from me, a tail-less monkey with a Ph.D. in biology.

[jim0watkins]

You can't beat an argument by turning around on the arguer, that's a fallacy. It's not a formal fallacy to argue a point by flashing credentials, but the lack of validity and confidence in your argument is made apparent by the assertion that you're right because you have a Ph.D. So does David Berlinski, but of course you'll attack the soundness of his arguments, not because he's wrong, but because he's debating your worldview, your meme, and you can't stand cognitive dissonance lol.

[mafarmerga]

I can stand all the cognitive dissonance you or Berlinski can dish out. You have no idea of my worldview but I will tell you that a part of it does not allow for charlatans like DB to pass themselves off as experts in my field.

Yes, my Ph.D. is in Biology. Berlinski's is in Philosophy.

I read the latest research on paleontology, cell biology, genetics, etc.

He thinks that someone proposed that cows turned into whales and then offers 50K "proofs" that it could not have happened.

[lexscripta1]

Yes, thats what he said - In principle, you cannot attack evolution because the high priests of atheistic/evolution don't allow it. Plain and simple. The problem has turned 180 degrees what it was back in the days of Aristotle.

There is a plethora of sound evidence that easily demonstrates that evolution has serious flaws. Get used to it.

[mafarmerga]

Did he just say that an attack on evolution "shouldn't require a justification"??

WTF!!!

So the way for science to progress is for a bunch of blow hards to stand up and say "Hey, we don't believe you and we have absolutely no data to support our position, but it deserves equal standing with your well supported hypothesis"

Is this what they mean by "teach the controversy"?

I'm glad this guy lives in France. Please keep him away from my kids in a U.S. public school.

[jim0watkins]

no that's not what he's saying... of course you have to back yourself up... he's talking about personal justification; for example, if you want to debate for evolution, you'll have to justify why you're choosing that side rather than support your argument, that's what he means... I saw a debate not long ago where the evolutionists knew an ID proponent, and were questioning him about why he was on that side rather than his actual arguments, it's a sneaky way of attacking someone to try and win

[mafarmerga]

I agree that personal attacks have no place in science, but neither do arguments from incredulity. That is ALL that Berlinski offers. His so-called "data" that purports to refute evolutionary theory is nonsense. A cow to a whale? C'mon, is that the best he can do?

Read the comment of honfridus above and my comment to lexscripta1. In science people are rightfully not given a podium if they have no data to offer, and that should be the case with Berlinski.

No data = no place at the table.

[jim0watkins]

that's true, but he's not trying to provide data against evolution, he's trying to introduce the option of discussing other possibilities which isn't there because because people who consider other options lose their jobs or are personally attacked, as a great example look up Wynne-Edwards; second, I know the data at least at the genetic level, and most of it is actually based on asssumptions, reasonable ones, but it nonetheless weakens data, and this happens all over the scientific community

[jim0watkins]

darwin came up with his ideas because he refused to accept the mainstream view, and because he refused to reject any idea no matter how ridiculous it seemed, he and all creative intellects pay attention to any possibility and build concepts that are most comprehensive; I've learned in my studies that evolutionary biology knows so little about how it all works... most even admit it in their articles! but they'll never admit that publicly because it looks bad and money's involved

[mafarmerga]

Darwin succeeded because he presented DATA!

When you say that we know "so little about how it all works" you and DB deny all that we do know. Truth is we know an awful lot and a lot more than did Darwin. He would love that!

Do we know it "all"? Heck no, and EVERY scientist I know will admit that both in public and in print. What we will NOT do is allow those whose doubts spring from their religious beliefs to try and distract people from what is, and what is not SCIENCE.

[jim0watkins]

Of course we know more than Darwin, he didn't have electron microscopes, he didn't have sequencing technology, nor did he have hapmap. What he did have was a small set of observations from which he inferred, not unreasonably I admit, billions of years of change. My opinion is that, knowing what we do and what we don't, he certainly wouldn't accept some ridiculous idea of some unknown designer, but he'd take a step back from his theory and encourage everyone to look at the bigger picture.

[jim0watkins]

Like you said, science is about data, not personal attacks (although it did only take me three paragraphs to make you pull out a snide, yet irrelevant, remark about religion). So let's look at the scientific data. In science, evidence has to be mathematically validated, otherwise you only have philosophical conjecture, even if you're dealing with biology.

[jim0watkins]

There's a lot mathematical evidence supporting evolution, and in all common sense, it's a much more logical idea than anything else I've seen. Having said that, most of that mathematical support is related to the statistical significance of observations, rather than evidence for a mathematical model of evolution. Thus, most of evolutionary facts rely on how the observations made are interpreted for meaning. You show me a valid mathematical model effectively simulating Darwinian evolution.

[jim0watkins]

But evolution makes sense; it's the discipline of evolutionary biology that's lost its credibility. The only SCIENTIFIC (which means mathematical in case you didn't know) support that effectively illustrates evolution without referring to the powerful yet vaguely defined guiding hand of natural selection is in the realm of population genetics; one that can actually define its stochastic model. The literature supporting evolution largely assumes the validity of evolution; no null hypothesis? tada

[mafarmerga]

Bull!

Pick a controversial scientific theory of the 2oth Century. E.g. Wegener or Margulis or Velikovsky or Fleischman & Pons. All proposed ideas that challenged dogma (and Marugulis did it in her 20's before tenure!) but only two actually succeeded. Why? The DATA!

If you want us to consider "other possibilities" then give us some! Even Paul Nelson honestly admits that ID has NOTHING to offer in terms of a competing theory.

DB is just a whiny blow hard and does not deserve a pulpit.

[jim0watkins]

What a load of crap. If she had gone with grain, Margulis would've been recognized by the time she'd died, it always happens, especially in science because data doesn't mean anything to a brain built to perform irrational processes; I can cite dozens of studies that show how easily scientists can be emotionally driven to make decisions. Science is rational, but we're only human. On top of that, Margulis herself supports evolutionary models that are considered heresy in evolutionary biology.

[mafarmerga]

You write "On top of that, Margulis herself supports evolutionary models that are considered heresy in evolutionary biology. "

Only in the sense that she thinks symbiosis plays a larger role than Darwin (and most other scientists) acknowledge. And in that she is correct. But to imply that she rejects Darwin's central premise of common descent and natural selection acting on natural variation. Well then I must tell you. You are dead wrong.

[jim0watkins]

not at all, it involves her support for the idea of global networking and superorganisms, I doubt she's even a proponent, but she has shown support for the idea.  Having said that, I enjoy going against the grain, and this is youtube, I'm saying completely ridiculous stuff here... I'd actually like to hear what you think about the idea that splicesomal introns originated from group II introns of the mitochondrial ancestor

[jim0watkins]

lol, what.. you'll pull out your fiery sword to defend biology, but when it comes to actually discussing it you tuck tail? too bad, I was hoping you'd have a worthy set of stones to compensate for a poorly endowed intellect

[mafarmerga]

Thanks degenerating this thread to the level of personal insults. In a way I expected no less.

Yesterday I taught four classes (including origins of the eukaryotes) and my work day finished around 9 PM. I only have time for dealing with folks like you and Berlinski on nights and weekends. I actually work for a living and do not exist solely on Youtube.

Sorry to disappoint.

Oh, BTW - introns late; the result of our being a chimera of a bacterium and an archean.

Good-bye!

[jim0watkins]

Let's see you do better. I'd love to see you write one page, if not two, about why evolutionary theory has no holes. Not only that, if you'll admit that evolutionary theory does have holes, I'd love to see proof that YOU, or any other scientist, went OUTSIDE of the scientific institution, and said "there are holes in the theory of evolution that we can't explain yet".. show me that, and I'll believe what you say. But I'm skeptical, I like to see evidence for what I'm presented with...go ahead.

[mafarmerga]

If by "holes in the theory" you mean "things we cannot yet explain" or "for which we are changing our ideas" then all you need do is look at what has happened since 1953. I myself have publicly abandoned a theory of mitochondrial origins that I was known for back in the 1990's. Why? Because someone someone found data that ran counter to my theory. We change our positions ALL the time. that is the nature of science.

To quote J.B.S. Haldane, show me a Cambrian rabbit and I will shut up.

[jim0watkins]

having said that, i'm not backing up berlinski, although i like arrogance in the context of an intellect such as his, i'm not a big fan of his pretentious attitude; I'm all for evolution, but I don't think it should be represented by narrow-minded people like dawkins and dennett; we can do much better than that by understanding that evolution is more than we know at this point, there's still lots to uncover, until then, no one should simply believe the "experts" because everyone else does

[lexscripta1]

You guys are either ignorant or naive.

Many scientists have testified that they cannot express their true perspectives on evolution for fear of losing tenure and other threats. Some have complained that they are not allowed to write papers that oppose evolution or Darwinism, nor are they given the respect of Peer Review when they write a well researched article or present a feasible alternative to a variety of evolutionist theories.

Wake up!

[mafarmerga]

Like Chris Comer who lost her job because she forwarded an email informing people about an upcoming speaker? How can someone who is hired to promote science teaching get fired for promoting a science?

Blind ideology, that's how.

ANY scientist who can present credible data that challenges long held beliefs can do so, IF they have the data! Google Susan Lolle and Arabidopsis and you will see what I mean. Her data challenged Mendel himself, and they put it on the cover of Nature!!!

[honfridus]

Well what DB says isn't true. Anyone can challenge Darwinian evolution as long as they back up their claims with evidence.

[macomoto]

That is correct. No one is censored if you have facts to back it up. Not this nonsense Berlinski is saying.

[procommenter]

Marxism, Owenism, Leninism, Stalinism each bring to mind, unsatisfactorily, the practices of these Fuhrers {or chairmen, generals, potentates, Saviors} of collectivism. Those who allude & defer to Charles Darwin worshipfully {& google-eyed} may, when so moved, renounce him.

[bobviously]

Not to American society as a whole...