Expelled Movie Clip Feat Berlinski

[falconjblack2008]

The only numbers evolution uses are millions and billions of years. Add another million or two to thicken the smoke. Great clip!

[mcmanustony]

@falconjblack2008

you dont know what the hardy weinberg equation is, do you?

what an utterly stupid comment you made.....

[Tibberclaw]

Creationists love this guy, because he's the only person who can sound intelligent while attempting to bash evolution. Unfortunately, he's just simply wrong. He claims such and such facts are missing when they simply aren't. How can somebody possibly study ERVs, non-functioning DNA (introns), and the fact of vestigial organs and NOT be forced to the conclusion evolution is true? Or at the very least, recognize that the intelligent design hypothesis just doesn't make any sense.

[edlgotbanged]

@Tibberclaw oh but the hypothesis of us coming from nothing with no will makes more sence ... haha fail.

[Tibberclaw]

@edlgotbanged The only one who believes something doesn't have an explanation for its existence is you (i.e. God). Oh, and for your information, evolution has NOTHING to do with something coming from nothing. It simply explains how simplicity -> complexity. I mean, do you even know what evolution is? There is this nice little site called wikipedia. It might help you with the basics.

[edlgotbanged]

@Tibberclaw Lol you idiot it basically is from nothing you think amino acids ALL BY THEM SLEVES WITH NO MIND BEHIND THEM, started to form life now that is a frikking fairy tale indeed. LOL.

[Tibberclaw]

@edlgotbanged Just because you are too retarded to understand what natural selection is and how it works, doesn't make it a fairy tale. Whether or not you're too small-minded to comprehend it, evolution has been OBSERVED in real-time. You are willfully ignorant! I've told you where you can go to learn how it works, and you refuse to do so. You prefer to stick with the nonsense you have been fed since birth, because it's easier for you to grasp and more comforting to your psyche.

[edlgotbanged]

@Tibberclaw No its a FAIRY tale idiot, and NO EVOLUTION has NOT been observed no one has witnessed it, how come all the anchient Civilisations did not find this out ? huh, do not think we are the most advanced civilisation, becuase we can not even REMAKE the Pyramid of Giza with all of the so called advanced teck. This is BS face it. Life can NOT arise by chance so what ever keep blabbing.

[chrisman737]

I really like what David Berlinsky. However, and I don't know how others feel about this, but the way he is photographed I find very irritating. He is leaning way back and lounging as if half asleep, and the camera work accentuates this. If you disagree or agree with what he says, I would still be interested in what you think in general of the set up here, because I think it makes him look like he is half asleep.

[VladislavGomulka]

David Berlinsky is one of the contemporary brightest minds. He is not afraid to talk about Darwiniam swindlers.

[ArchRascal]

This guy should spend less time lounging and more time thinking.

[Baddboy187]

This guy is an idiot

[lalalangliza]

"...gradual decent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology." lol true

[gregrutz]

'We' know what a species is,

WTF is a KIND?

[bbiermanster]

The most prudent thing to say about Tiktallik is that is nothing more than an extinct fish.....unless we find one some day.

[bbiermanster]

....unless we find one living that is.

[gobaskof]

It is quite obviously not just a fish. It has boned limbs at the front, like primitive arms, it has a neck.

It has many fish features many tetrapod features, to dismiss it as a fish is ludicrous. I mean the least stupid (but still rather stupid) thing you could say is your sky wizard (God) created a half fish, half tetrapod because he thought it looked cool.

[gobaskof]

Maths is the only subject where we have proof.

Physics is a subject where we have mathematical models that fit the data.

Evolution has many complex hypotheses that fit the data.

Intelligent Design has a few brain farts that don't fit with the data.

[bbiermanster]

"Evolution has many complex hypotheses that fit the data." - WRONG Evolution is an unsupported extrapolation on breeding that basically states anything is possible given enough time; pretending to be empirical science and ignoring the data.

[gobaskof]

xD, Are you serious? (Poe's law)

Anything is possible is defiantly not what evolution predicts. First of all nothing can break the laws of physics. Also evolution has to follow small steps, so certain things may be impossible.

Ignoring what data? there is copious amounts of data in support, and none that falsifies it. We have evidence from: Transitional fossils, DNA, retroviral, documented speciation, etc.

Please, do some real research instead of listening to creationist propaganda.

[bbiermanster]

Evolution is contrary to entropy and thus defies physics. There is no REAL evidence to support it.

There is nothing empirical about "fossil evidence" which is circumstantial and subject to interpretations that are overturned all the time. Transitions only exist in the viewers imagination.

DNA is the most efficient, densely packed information system known. Information has only been observed to be formed by an intelligent agent. It is irrational to claim DNA is evidence for evolution.

[gobaskof]

Ok, you obviously know nothing about entropy, first of all entropy is a measure of the number of possible micro-states that can produce the same macro-state. Thus you can argue we have evolved to a low entropy state. The entropy of a adiabatically isolated system always increases. The earth is not adiabatically isolated because there is heat flow into it from then sun. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply.

In conclusion, please learn the actual physics.

[bbiermanster]

We are open systems yet we die. This is observed currently and the magical scenario painted by evolution is not.

[bbiermanster]

Oops I lost my post. This should actually come before the "open systems" comment.

Entropy applies. Nearly 100% of all mutations are deleterious. Beneficial mutations are so rare that they don't deserve mention. Read population geneticist Kimura. Couple this with the fact that most mutations are at the molecular level and not selectable. You now have genetic entropy and this is all we observe. Natural selection is reduced by analogy to a man bailing a sinking boat with a dixie cup.

[BRtankbuster]

Plain wrong.

Every human has about 130 unique, and neutral mutations.

[bbiermanster]

That's 130 unique neutral or deleterious mutations. Neutral mutations are only classified as such because they happen to nucleotides classically referred to as junk by evolutionists.

As we learn more about the genome, we find this junk DNA to be crucial in regulating expression. More and more geneticists are saying there is no such thing as junk DNA. So mutating those nucleotides can no longer be considered neutral change.

[YourGodAnswersToMe]

@bbiermanster

What are you saying there aren't any beneficial mutations? LOL, give me a break. Stop reading creationists websites.

[bbiermanster]

@YourGodAnswersToMe - I was reading Cornell geneticist John Sanford. Name a beneficial mutation that hasn't simultaneously damaged.

[YourGodAnswersToMe]

@bbiermanster

If you want an example, just look one up. Read a science book, go to a forum and ask a biologist. Here's a good place to go:

rationalskepticism(dot)org

Start a thread, and ask about beneficial mutations.

[bbiermanster]

@YourGodAnswersToMe - If you read my previous posts, you would realize that I don't claim that positive mutations cannot occur. Whether or not they actually do is another matter. If they do occur, do they amount to much? Empirical evidence says no.

I've read plenty of claims for beneficial mutations. Some have even argued that sickle cell mutation is beneficial. With benefits like these, who needs malaria?

Why don't you present one of the cases you buy and let's look at it together.

[mcmanustony]

@bbiermanster

the benefit is sickle cell TRAIT, where you inherit ONE copy of the mutated gere, not the disease. to get the disease you need to inherit 2 copies of the mutated gene- bad! one copy, you get resistance to malaria- good.

[bbiermanster]

@YourGodAnswersToMe - Read "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" by Cornell geneticist John Sanford. It's short and I think you can get it on Amazon.

[bbiermanster]

When enough mutations accumulate, we see extinction. Mutations tear down. They don't invent. Loss is a benefit when it can keep an antibiotic from binding and killing but the degraded survivors are always outnumbered by non-mutated versions when the threat is removed.

Do you believe life was started by spontaneous generation or seeded by aliens?

[gobaskof]

Entropy does not apply, the genome is not adiabatically isolated!

Kimura's work was on mutations being neutral, not harmful. And computer simulations have shown with only a very very small percentage of mutations being positive we can still have natural selection. Think of the vast number of possible genomes and the large number of generations.

[gobaskof]

When you say mutations tear down they don't create, this makes no sense, there are many different types of mutations, that involve one "letter" changing to another, or one being inserted, or deleted, etc.

It is completely illogical to say it can only decrease information, because if AAAA mutating into AAGA is a decrease then, mutating AAGA to AAAA by the same process is an increase. Ok, completely oversimplified, but you can't state mutations can only be harmful with out a reason or evidence.

[gobaskof]

Read Evolution Of Biological Information - by TD Schneider. Think about real life mutations that we have studied, e.g. nylon eating bacteria, the actual frame shift mutation has been spotted there.

As for my opinion on the origin of life, I think there are many, interesting hypotheses and I am awaiting more evidence. Obviously Occam's razor the aliens. This is a different topic to evolution, this is abiogenesis.

[gobaskof]

Sorry, that was unclear about DNA, the DNA itself is not the evidence for evolution, but the results of comparing DNA of different species is.

Combine this with ERVs and the idea that we didn't evolve is ludicrous. Did your God create us with the vestiges of past viruses built into our DNA? And then build the same vestiges into chimpanzee DNA to fool us?

Fossil evidence isn't circumstantial when it is predicted then found in the predicted location. Tiktaalik for example.

[bbiermanster]

The idea of vestigial DNA and organs are for those willing to say "we don't know what it does therefore it does nothing". What is defined as functional DNA is growing all the time. Just because a gene doesn't code protein doesn't mean it's useless. Junk DNA is routinely found to regulate gene expression.

Like Tiktaalik, Coelacanth was once thought to be transitional until we found one living. It is entirely intuition to claim a fossil is transitional.

[gobaskof]

I mentioned ERVs not vestigial organs and Junk DNA, don't change the topic!

Coelacanth, is not the transitional lungfish. It is just an descendant that's phenotype has had relatively little change compared to other descendants, e.g. you and me.

The point I was making about Tiktaalik, was that we knew what kind of rocks it was likely to be found in, by both age and type, before we even looked. Then when we looked we found what we predicted. That is real science.

[kirk703]

A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

Done