Berlinski's question is quite reasonable. There should be many trasitional forms between land mammals and whales. Yes, fossils are rare. But I don't think it coincidence that there are hundreds of fossils of whales and hundreds of cows for example, but nothing in between. We don't ask for thousands of intermediaries, just a few to demonstrate the structural changes needed to produce a sea going animal from a land based one.
@Gommify "But I don't think it coincidence that there are hundreds of fossils of whales and hundreds of cows for example, but nothing in between" whales didn't evolve from cows, but anyway, there are in fact many transitional forms from land animal to whale, please go research them. "just a few to demonstrate the structural changes needed to produce a sea going animal from a land based one" well you'll be happy when you research it and find the few you're looking for.
@Gommify for a nice visual example, plug in "whales evolution" into the search bar here in youtube. how you have not done this kind of research already, before posting what you posted here, is really beyond me.
3:55 you misquote him from the get go. He didn't say that. He rather seems to have asked the question, "what evidence is required to really show that such a radical transition occurred" and "can it be as gradual as we suggest". ;). He pretty well always keeps an opening that evolution might be true.
Although I appreciate you taking the time to make all these videos showing how ridiculous Berlinski is, I have to say that I checked out the playlist linked in many (maybe all) of your videos on why you should be a Christian.... and just as Berlinski displays his astounding ignorance of evolutionary biology, arguments for Christianity based on the resurrection (which make up the majority of the playlist) display astounding ignorance of what it takes to justify claims of divinity.
@periechontology Completely agree, and I, in no way, implied that this was about religion- I specifically said that I noticed something about *other* videos that were linked to by this (and other) videos by the poster. Have a great day.
Rarity of fossils is not logical. It is just a way out of an embarrasing situation. We have unearthed over 100 million fossils. Fossilization is random. How many floods and volcanic eruptions since precambrian period? If animal A is assumed to gradually evolve to animal B in incremental steps via animal T1,T2,T3 ...TN, where N is a big number. Why we get fossils of animal A and B most of the time. The fossils for animal T should have outnumbered the number fossils we have today.
@daogdaog That is a result of a problem of demarcation. Some of the biggest debates in archaelogy and paleontology on which fossils belong to this species as opposed to this other one. In the past, species were demarcated from each other via morphology only. Some demarcations are completely subjective. If species A evolves into B, we should have some transitions. But the number of transitions is subjective unless we have an objective way of defining a "species". TN may not be large at all
@Emaniac69 Even if there is a problem in demarcation, evolution assumes fine gradation by natural selection. In the case of a giraffe a 4 meter jump in height from a supposed ancestor plus changes in internal organs to deal with abrupt changes in blood pressure is just almost magical. On the other hand bacteria never evolved for millions of years. This is precisely why some biologists questioned the validity of slow random mutation and natural selection, proposing contradictory theory instead.
@daogdaog You missed the point completely. Some times we propose demarcations between species that are completely subjective. The whole thing about looking for transitional forms is bogus. Every organism IS a transitional form. And no the changes of the giraffe are not magical. Evolution doesn't simply create anything from scratch, it just modifies what is already there. How does the giraffe handle blood pressure to the brain? It uses a similar mechanism to the panpiniform plexus (human penis)
@Emaniac69 My point is that it does not matter if we assumed that the ancestor of a giraffe and the giraffe itself be considered transistional. Just show some evidence of INCREMENTAL changes from a small four legged deer like assumed ancestor of the a giraffe that almost magically elongate almost all its body parts into a massive giraffe with 4 meter jump in height while bacteria never evolved into some other micro organism for millions of years.
@daogdaog How do you want to see evidence when we don't have a complete fossil record? You seem to have a hard time understanding that 1) we don't have fossil for every species that existed; and 2) all species do not fossilize equally. We don't have the giraffe fossil that YOU are looking for so desperately. But we have the ones for the transitions of the horse. We have tons of fossils of the large cats, but the smaller cats tend to be missing from the fossil record. Bacteria response in part 2
@Emaniac69 So you have nothing to show about the so called "massive and overwhelming evidence" of giraffe evolution, just speculation. Anyway, what is earliest known giraffid and how it is related to okapi?
@daogdaog Is this what people have been reduced to nowadays? Do you need to be spoon-fed the evidence, all of it, before you understand how things work? I bet that you didn't do anything, didn't research anything I recommended, just sat there and waited until I spoon-fed you everything. I can't babysit you. The only thing I can do is recommend that you watch Inside Nature's Giants, the episode on the giraffe, and then whatever you do after that is up to you. As I said, I can't babysit you.
@Emaniac69 This is not spoon feeding. I am just asking whether you know the earliest known giraffid and how it is related to okapi since you have not shown any evidence of incremental changes in giraffes evolution--a problem since Darwin time when he used giraffe as an iconic example.
@daogdaog The reason why bacteria took so long to evolve is the same reason why human technology took so long to evolve. The neolithic lasted forever. The chalcolithic lasted a long time, but not as long. And so on an so forth. Evolution is not as linear as you think it is. We have periods of explosive diversity, and we also have periods of stagnation. So tell me: 1) did you even look at the panpiniform plexus? 2) Please explain why human technology was stuck in the stone age for millenia
@Emaniac69 Human technology has nothing to do with incremental changes from a cell to complex animals. Punctuated Eq is contradictory to neo Darwinisn. One says move slow, the other one says make almost no movement for a very long time then run in bursts.
cow to whale transition it's skin has to become waterproof. does that mean we are aquatic animals as everytime i get a bath somehow my skin keeps out the water..
"I've got a few papers lying around right here on my hard disk on beneficial mutations and increased fitness."
What you are describing are transient changes in allele frequency in response to environmental stressors, ie. the natural selection of already intrinsic genetic characteristics. What you are being asked for is clear evidence of *new* mutational changes which confer a discrete benefit to the organism and do not break something physiologically vital.
@garb11144, how do you live with yourself, spouting such lies... or do you not actually know how intellectually dishonest you're being? Your question has been answered numerous times, here and elsewhere. An introductory biology book would be a good place for you to start. Honestly, you probably wouldn't even need to invest in a genetics textbook. Just Bio101. Please, take a class.
I wonder, is religion the basis of your doubt of common descent?
The "goalposts" were to provide sufficient evidence base for transitional sequences.
Any honest individual with the remotest interest in the paleontology will understand that this evidence is still insufficient, and the only way in which darwinists can justify their defunct musings and speculations is through further contortions: constant appeals to insufficient fossil data, the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" and other similarly ridiculous claims.
"Actually this is exactly what the evolutionist does. They constantly revamp whenever there is evidence found against their theory, making evolution unfalsifiable. What looks to you like 'moving goalposts' is really you failing to acknowledge that you didn't reach your goal."
Darwinian hypotheses = mandate of naturalism + ad hoc contortions/sophistry.
Actually this is exactly what the evolutionist does. They constantly revamp whenever there is evidence found against their theory, making evolution unfalsifiable. What looks to you like 'moving goalposts' is really you failing to acknowledge that you didn't reach your goal.
@knowwaie, and what is the evidence you (or anyone) has found that discredits the theory of evolution? The scientist who could discredit evolution would immediately be a hero, with a distinguished place in the history of science. So, biologists are trying... and yet no one, not one, has ever found a single piece of evidence that does not fit into evolution's paradigm. Does that not puzzle you? And, even if there weren't a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would STILL be overwhelming.
There is no evidence for common decent. What you have evidence for, and no one denies, is speciation. What you're saying is that speciation is evidence that humans evolved from bacteria over millions of years.
@knowwaie, I laugh when someone accepts MICRO-evolution, but denies MACRO-evolution. It shows that he really doesn't understand biology or the magnitude of the # of yrs in play (4 billion). What you're doing is like admitting that continents may move a few cm/yr, but then denying that they could've ever been together. Artificial selection distinguished Great Danes and Chihuahuas over a mere hundreds of years; imagine what natural selection could do over a few million times that! Just READ!
"I laugh when someone accepts MICRO-evolution, but denies MACRO-evolution"
That is part of the brainwashing. You really lost your grasp on the difference between empirical and the theoretical. You laugh because you've grown so accustom to your delusion that nothing will ever break your trance. Maybe when you get a little older you'll understand what empirical science is. Or maybe you already know and it was a nervous laugh because you know damn well what is required of you.
One of us is delusional, alright. One of us has the backing of science/empirical evidence, and the other has only the backing of... well... nothing. You have only a WISH, based on a book, which is merely one of many such books that humans wrote BEFORE they knew of better ways to explain their world.
Something tells me you're not as critical of the Germ THEORY of Disease, or of Quantum THEORY, as you are of Evolution THEORY. Again, are you a Christian?
I get a kick out of this. It only shows the mental handicap of the typical atheist. Are you really unable to see the difference between this different "theories"? or are you just making an excuse for yourself? If you'd bothered to try to think properly you might see the difference between things which are within the bounds of observation and things which are not.
Rational? Spontaneous combustion creating life is rational? You're delusional. And the record of history leaves you with no excuse.
@knowwaie, you obviously don't even know the details of the theory you doubt, because what does evolution by natural selection say about origins? Nothing.
You didn't answer this: are you a Christian?
I guess it's more likely that "God" separately placed each individual species here... like each of the 300,000 types of beetle... about 6,0000 yrs ago?
Please actually READ the science. It's clear you haven't. No crime, but I think if you understood the science, you'd find it truly beautiful.
@knowwaie Spontaneous combustion, you are probably talking about spontaneous generation which was debunked century agos by Pasteur and others. The fact is that creation is not a scientific theory, even if you think it is true, it is not a scientific theory it is pure religious dogma as it is unfalsifiable. Finding flaws in evolution does not prove creationism
@knowwaie, and by the way, I'm not that attached to evolution. (I AM attached to the ideas of rationality and belief based on evidence, though.). Therefore, unlike religious belief, I know EXACTLY what it would take in order for my belief to be shaken: evidence. And it wouldn't take much evidence to bring evolution crashing down. But that evidence has never been found. Scientists have tried damn hard to find that evidence, because it would be a HUGE discovery, but it's just not there.
@knowwaie, think about what you just said. You just said species become new species... but that there can't be common descent.
THINK of that. Do you not see the ridiculous conflict there?
Most people don't realize all that they must deny when they take a creationist stance. You're not just denying one sub-specialty called "evolution"; you must actually thumb your nose at chemistry, physics, genetics, embryology, geology, geography, botany, and on and on. Seriously, isn't that embarrassing?
"Have we ever observed mutations that IMPROVE a species, that in turn gets passed on along to the offspring? No."
hahahahahahahahahaha, riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So some creationist told you that crap and you just took it on good faith right? I've got a few papers lying around right here on my hard disk on beneficial mutations and increased fitness. There are countless papers and studies out there. You position is just plain denial.
"10 transitionals, 20 transitionals, 30 transitionals..?" Well how many adaptations would it take for the cow to become a whale? Certainly not just 10-30, and certainly we do not see the evidence in the "fossil record" of these changes taking place, we only see different creatures who are now extinct. This one example of a creature who has similar physical characteristics of both the whale and "cow" does not mean they are in any way related, or that they produced offspring!
Good idea, leace the transitional fossils at home, then there's no point in discussing them. Even so then, evolution is still a fact given the staggering amount of supported evidence even when omitting fossil records.
"I am sorry for you to be soo brainwashed and deceived into believing nonsense"
-
I am a scientist too. I am trained to accept opposing evidence when it is validated.
But... 150 years later, still waiting for anyone to provide ONE validated spec of evidence that disproves evolution. Just one spec. Against the MILLIONS of validated proven instances of evidence supporting the process of evolution.
Will someone ever explain to Berlinski (whom by the way I think recorded this vid a long time ago before many transitional forms were collected) that the event of finding a complete fossilized skeleton or creature is in itself almost a miracle? How can we collect a fully recorded evolution in fossils? Really, he does it on purpose to annoy people.
It's not Berlinski's problem that fossils are hard to find. If it is a problem, it's Darwin's. Berlinski is not the one running around promulgating a theory that requires INNUMERABLE, subtle, morphological mutations to be not only be non-detrimental, but actually advantageous. The person who is claiming that is the person who should be worried about a fossil record that only evinces (comparatively) gigantic saltations.
@NeoConvert In science, theories are not promulgated. They are constructed upon evidence and it´s understanding. "Gigantic saltations" are not linear as in "mankind come from chimpanzees" , a statement understood by most creationists. The gaps are horizontal, so to speak. Mankind and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. The gaps in the fossil record are (still) a necessity to jeopardize evolution. And arguments such as "You are confused" are typical of Berlinsky´s sympathizers frame of mind.
"It's not Berlinski's problem that fossils are hard to find"
Actually it is. The fact that fossilization is rare is simply a part of reality. If he wants to ignore that, it is indeed his problem. It is up to Creationists to explain why we have found such a plethora of transitional fossils already and why they match our predictions. Of course, none of that changes the fact that the strongest evidence does not come from the fossils but from molecular biology and various other fields.
@1SapereAude1 Actually you are wrong the WEAKEST evidence to support evolution comes from molecular biology! What evidence do you have from molecular biology to support evolution? ZERO. Have we ever observed mutations that IMPROVE a species, that in turn gets passed on along to the offspring? No.
The mathematical improbabilities of such a thing happening are staggering, and we are supposed to believe this type of action occurred billions of times? No wonder they fudge their science!
The fact that almost every animal that ever existed appeared during the Cambrian explosion, fully formed, and none has an ancestor in the fossil records falsifies the Theory of Evolution.
HOWEVER, there is a LOT of money and ego involved in this game, so nobody lets a little thing like "data" spoil the show.
Just listen to the "scientist priests" of Darwinism talk about how it's a fact and beyond debate. Well, that's not Science, is it?
@ianmac2010 The Cambrian explosion took place entirely in the oceans. There were no bunnies, deer, lions, bears or tigers created in the Cambrian explosion, so your claim that every animal that ever existed appeared fully formed is nonsense. BTW, if all animals appeared fully formed, maybe you could go out and fish up some living trilobytes for us, or perhaps a Dinocaridida or two.
I never said bunnies, etc appeared in the Cambrian Explosion.
I never said every animal that ever existed appeared then.
I never said the animals that appeared then still exist.
I said this: "The fact that almost every animal that ever existed appeared during the Cambrian explosion, fully formed, and none has an ancestor in the fossil records falsifies the Theory of Evolution."
“... the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.”
Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65
Darwin believed the fossil record was a problem for the theory, but he had faith we would find more data, and this would change. We have, but it hasn't.
Look at the Cambrian explosion. Almost all of the animals that ever existed appeared in a short timespan, and there is no fossil evidence that they got here via evolutionary processes.
No good waving your arms about rare fossil events. The precamb fossil record is rich with tons of soft and single celled creatures, just no ancestors.
did he really say "an enormous plethora"? (@ 3:40 or so) as opposed to what, a "SMALL plethora"?
StutteringDave's reasoned response gives Dr. dementedski too much credit. the Dr's examples are ALL wrong, out of a claimed 50,000 changes needed he didn't even give ONE correct example. Dr. Buttinski shows a complete misunderstanding of the subject at hand. I stopped counting at5 50,000 stupid things he said.
not just a plethora of idiotic comments, an enormous plethora
"I stopped at 50,000". yeah, right. Lying SOS. anyway, so far, you're 0 for 7.
"if you change a visual system you have to change it's ..cerebellum..nervous system.."
is this two wrong or just one? no matter, wrong again. 49,991 to go
"a different environment is going to impose severe design constraints on a possible evolutionary sequence" wait a minute... he is RIGHT! but this doesn't support his argument, it's exactly what Darwin said. Hey, thanks, Doc! Way to go!
lets play along... if we had to change a car into a submarine, what would it take? not really a "great many changes" nor is it a "massive engineering project of redesign and adaptation" All you would really have to do is waterproof the interior and the engine compartment, alter the driveshaft so that it would spin a propeller instead of the wheels, and bend the bumpers into fins. Take a week, maybe two. Cost a couple hundred bucks. oh, and work on the dipshit. I mean dipstick.
He says he did "these calculations" that "afterall the calculatins are not hard..." [dismissive look] "and I stopped at 50,000..." Who's he kidding? Give an example of one "calculation" what does he mean he did a calculation? Does he instead mean that he simply counted the number of changes? If so Dr. put them on paper - list them - these 50,000 whatever's you claim you went through! LOL! Calculations! Oh that sounds more like he's a scientist. LOL! 50,000 calculations. In a cow's eye!
LOL: Berlinki says you'd have to make the cow's skin impervious to water...??? What is he talking about. He just rambles on. He's like doing this overly calm fixed-face lying body posture.
For the car engine to run underwater, you just need to change where it "breaths" from, using a simple snorkel. Now LOL to point out what's different between a COW and CAR... Cows already swim, hold their breath, and have nostrils they can hold above water.
50,000 changes in 45 million years, thats 1 mutation every 1,000 years. The modern chihaua has over 200 mutations from ancient wolf. And that´s just in 2,000 years. So what´s the problem Dave?
He says he did "calculations." LOL and he stopped at 50,000 calculations. Wow "calculations" sounds scientific... this guy must be a scientist! LOL. I'd like to see an example of one of his "calculations." He stopped at 50,000! So he must have 50,000 examples of a "calculation." Wow, this guy is so FOS. Look at his fixed-face liar posture and that monotone ramble. Berlinski doesn't even believe Berlinski!
@Ekendil He is not a moron you are just upset that you don't have nearly enough evidence to support your lame evolution theory which makes no sense whatsoever.
If we have a crime scene and we can see evidence of it being a male suspect with black hair can we assume David Berlinski is the culprit? No, and the same is true for evolution, just because you lack evidence to support your claim does not make your claim any more plausible. It certainly isn't my fault you have no evidence.
Yo Dave, you mean like those Polar Bears adapting to retreating ice sheets by learning to spend massive amounts of time in the water? Yeah, their entire body needed to be altered... Who is impressed by this Nonsense???
Polar bears swimming longer equates to large scale evolutionary change? You just made your own point redundant, this is what their are built for, swimming, they still require land to survive, they can't live in it, which is why they are on the endangered species list! If they had adapted they would be flourishing, not dying off.
Slight problem with the example and the slant of the criticism. Berlinski isn't religious, and he certainly isn't a creationist. He's a mathematician who holds an opposing view. And as unlikely as it might seem. He's not the only academic with problems concerning the conclusions. Tipping windmills here methinks.
The prob is he is a mathematician. He doesn't understand how evolution works and if he does the math he doesn't add in thing that would chang the odds. Go look at the number biologists and why they think it.
@gregrutz, You'd think it was given the typical response to criticism of opponents in the scientific community when the notion of design is applied or, reasonable criticism against a sweeping evolutionary model. Especially from cosmological starting point where evolution is merged as something applicable when it's not. As for Social Darwinism, no there is no Social Einsteinism, but were it the opposite, it would be welcome.
dork, you need to go to college to study and get laid. you are unable to even coherently and accurately paraphrase what Berlinsky said. you have no argument; you do have a garbled brain. jack off and then squeeze your balls really, really hard - then watch Berlinski again and repost.
No I think Berlinski is making a good point. Talk about missing links!
The failure of the fossile record to reflect the incredible number of critters in an evolutionary sequence is not the fault of Berlinski (Who by the way is not a creationist).
It's a fair question. One that is not asked, or you are ridiculed for asking it. That's his point.
But when it comes to evolution, you can't ask such things. That's not what the scientific methodology is all about.
There are no transitional fossils on the record. None the meet the minmum requirements let alone, all the requirements. There should be thousands but I think 10 would do. Evo can not account for the missing fossils, therefore it can't account for macro evolution, or irreduciblecomplex systems, or the origens of life and the universe.
Pakicetus -> Ambulocetus -> Kutchicetus-> Artiocetus-> Dorudon-> Aetiocetus-> Basilosaurus-> Eurhinodelphis-> Rhodocetus-> Protocetus -> Indocetus -> Prozeuglodon -> Eocetus-> Modern Whales 99% of all species that ever lived on the earth, died off, they are dead ends or transitional fossils.
You would do well to research further than the popular media when referencing transitional fossils, even atheist evolutionary biologists admit the fossil record, and Darwins tree of life are incredibly unsupported in this regard. Reference Stephen Jay Gould, for one...all the transitional fossils are found, come on? If this was the case we would have literature, museums, movies, showing the step by step development of all phyla from single cell organisms to current...
I don't have any issue with the concept of micro-evolution at all, small scale change within species over time, their is loads of documented proof of that. They have been digging for 150 years +/- and the evidence is still not there, so I have a feeling I will be a candidate as a transitional fossil myself before that evidence would exist. Macro-evolution does have some serious questions to answer now though, so I have issue here, ie. DNA & natural selection at origins. Can't work
lol greg. i will wager u have not studied the fossil record.
please direct me to a site that shows comprehensive fossil records.
i dont want artist diagrams nor do i want reconstructions based on partial fossils.
just the fossil record. let it speak for itself.
how long would you like for this task?
as i said everyone accepts change over time.u will change over ur time on earth, mostly deterioration. this does not prove common ancestry of man...unless u can show ur evolution in2 a new species?
YOU need to study communication and learn about YOU statements.
I do understand Dr. Butinski, enough to know he doesn't know anything about evolution or he wouldn't make up stupid questions, but that is what he is paid to do.
hehehehe. the man is a genius compared with yourself.
He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.
Postdoctoral research is academic or scholarly research conducted by a person who has completed his or her doctoral studies, normally within the following five years. It is intended to further deepen expertise in a specialist subject, including necessary skills and methods.
greg...your a fireman.thats good.but berlinski is postdoctoral in molecular biology.
Molecular biology is the study of biology at a molecular level. The field overlaps with other areas of biology and chemistry, particularly genetics and biochemistry. Molecular biology chiefly concerns itself with understanding the interactions between the various systems of a cell, including the interactions between DNA, RNA and protein biosynthesis as well as learning how these interactions are regulated.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
really? or 5 different species that have no link whatsoever?
the case is not compelling. Pakicetus and ambulocetus are land based mammals and are no different to a wolf like creature. in fact very similar skeletoned creatures still exist today. so if they evolved into whales why did they stay the same as well?
What is the mechanism that causes evolution but at the same time doesnt cause evolution?
Isnt it fair2say that most of th whale transitions r assumed based on evolution & not proof of it?
Darwin came up with natural selection as a mechinism for evolution before DNA was discovered. Dr. Butinski does not understand evolution, he never had a job as a scientist.
He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York, the University of Washington, the University of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, and San Francisco State University.
He has also taught mathematics at the Université de Paris.
Mathematics is the science and study of quantity, structure, space, and change.
could u please inform wikipedia of their mistakes?
Biography
David Berlinski was born to Jewish-German refugees from Nazi Germany who immigrated to New York City, and German was his first spoken language.[3] He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University[4] and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.
I will agree with you on the Discovery institute, they certainly need to update their pages (for one they still exist after their silly ideas have been disproven both scientifically and in a court of law)
He is a postdoctoral fellow, however his doctoral is philosphy (which he extended to molecular biology). He at best has only studied theorhetical biology (which as you can see from his own comments he is dismal at since he doesn't even understand how what he criticises works)
also discovery institute need to update their page. you would think that both sources would have known. but thanks for correcting them for us.
David Berlinski, Senior Fellow - CSC
Articles by David Berlinski
David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.
This should have been evident if you would care to look up that be is unpublished in peer review for both molecular biology and mathematics (he has even lied about his credentials claiming to be a PHd in mathematics whilst touring Turkey).
The wikipedia article was not wrong, you simply misunderstood it or took it out of context.
Common creationist error.
if however you are willing to believe he is in fact qualified to criticise evolution I have an island to sell you
read it yourself and tell me how else you can interpret....." and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University."
i suppose they just hand them out in weeties packets?
if he was an evolutionist u would say he was a genius.
again i repeat ...get wikipedia to fix their mistake.
It is not a mistake. You simply don't understand what it means (I also explained this). 'Linski has neither a PHd nor appropriate education in molecular or indeed any biology. You need to look into what exactly a postdoctorate is (and remember that the "doctorate" referred to in the "postdoctorate" was the aforementioned philosphy phd)
He is clearly not a genius to suggest whales evolved from cows. Either he is that ignorant, or attempting to deceive
he said the cow thing as an example of how ridiculous the whole whale from a wolf thing is.
whales evolved from wolf like creatures??
thats intelligent but from a cow is foolish? lol.
have a look at my video on rodhocetus and u will see that the skeleton of it looks very cow like anyway. mesonychids look like otters. so2 prove a species evolved from another species that still has very similar species still existing u would want very convincing evidence wouldnt u?
We didn't really know what sort of tetrapod they descended from until we discovered the fossils. The facts came before we worked it out.
These 'wolf-like' creatures were adapedted to hunting in and around water.
A cow is a major contendor for *least* appropriate ancestor appearance.
If you think the skeleton of rhodocetus appears bovid, for get the island I have a *planet* to sell you. Especially since it possesses intermediate cetacean traits
They share similar envorinments and lifestyles and consequently have adapted similar traits. They look alike but cetacean-mesychonid fossil forms posses traits that exclusively modern whales have today and otters to not have while modern otters are closer related to seals and sea lions.
Delving even deeper than that you should recognise that transitional fossils are not determined by superficial similarity but by relative age, location and precise homology
yes greg your one of those guys who hurls abuse incessantly at people, disparages their character and then when someone says the truth which is that berlinski is a genius compared with you (and me....but i am not assassinating his character) you lose it altogether.
the truth shouldnt hurt. perhaps just respect peoples opinions a little more and realize that they are legitimate scientists and have different opinions.
in addition stuttering dave , berlinski is not a creationist. the fact that you dont get it just shows an entrenched bias against anyone who doesnt accept your beliefs as fact.
whales didn't evolve from a cow. It has been proven they decended from land animals (5 transitional fossils) Who cares how many changes it took, it already happened.
sorry stuttering dave but your review of berlinski is just so off the mark. your requirement for proof of ur beliefs is not rigorous his is. he doesnt have to tell u how many fossils it would require, the burden of proof is 4u to provide overwhelming evidence that cannot be refuted. He is saying that 2-3 so called transitional fossils r not sufficient2prove what u say they prove. To then claim that u dont have them becos the fossil record is poor is moving the goal posts yourself.
I don't know if you offered any argument against his. His question is basically "why there are so many fossils of distinct species (cows, whales and their small variations, etc.) but so few of the species in between while mathtimatical calculations shows there should be tens of thousands if they are indeed evolutionarily related?"
gould and eldredge have tried to address this by punctuated equilibrium. They have stated that stasis is the overwhelming evidence for the fossil record.
If transitionals dominated the fossil record then why did they come up with the theory?
Well, all the poor guy wants is a complete uninterrupted genealogy detailing every single generation of every member of every species to have ever existed dating back to the exact origin of life. Is that too much to ask for? Just because we have a complete fossil set detailing every significant change in whale evolution and can see similar evolutionary paths taking shape in modern animals (his cow, to something like a hippo, to something manateeis to whale) doesn't MEAN anything, does it?
No that is not true dave. He wants overwhelming proof not the 2-3 claimed transitions.
You do not have a complete fossil set detailing every significant change in whale evolution. This is a gross exaggeration dare i say a straight out lie.
Would u please provide us with this 'complete' fossil set? where may i view it so as to be convinced of the wolf to whale evolution?
There's a God brainiac, he died for your sins, everything you own, every good thing keeps getting handed over to you and in your ignorance you blow off the great loving God that died for your sins, for every dirty, filthy thought you had. His mercy is unmeasurable. Repent (turn from sin) and call upon the name of Jesus. Trust me kid, I used to be you.
Huh, that's actually pretty funny, because I used to be YOU, until I advanced by level of thinking past the dark ages, past the renaissance, the enlightenment, the age of reason, the age of scientific discovery, the modernist age and finally into post modernism and the age of information. It's pretty nice up here, let me give you a hint, the earth is round, it goes around the sun, and the sky is not made of a glass sphere, oh, and fire and water are not elements, there are more then four.
It can be said that evolution is difficult to prove with transitional fossils because fossilization is a rare event. But then it can also be said that it is difficult to prove immaculate conception because virgin births are a rare event. Both arguments defend the possibility of proof, but neither IS proof.
I would contend that fossils may be rare but have been confirmed on numerous occasions. To be fair though, you may counter with the brilliant retort of just how many virgin births are confirmed each year. In just the area where I live people fine several thousand fossils annually, but given the poor systems in place for predicting virgin births, I'll grant you a comfortable cushion zone.
Liberalism equals tunnel vision. The more liberal the individual the narrower their view point gets. Darwinism is more of a liberal ideology than a scientific study. Just read the comments about Dr. Berlinski. You can always point out the liberals because they're the ones that use childish name calling.
The theory of evolution explains how evolution happened?
oh really???
Nor did whales come from wolves but that is what they have taught. although the mesonychids skeleton is far more like that of an otter than anything else.
"It's an argument that can't be refuted" This is known as a tautology.
But have you noticed how evolution is a tautological concept? If one creature is not adapted to an environment then it would not exist, there are no alternatives. It doesn't really explain anything we dont already know, and hasn't really explained why we see variation in species.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you know what Tautology is, as your usage in context of ether of the meanings for the word makes no sense. Of coarse, nether does your following tirade, as evolution IS the explanation for why we see variation is species. Darwin's book was even titled "The Origin of Species" you don't so much as have to go past the TITLE to know that much, forget the contents or following 150 years.
Macro evolution can never be seen it has to be supported by the fossil record. "Sciences Dirty Little secret "again a phrase coined by an famous evolutionist.
Berlinski doesn't half waffle. He is arguing that it would be a massive design change, er... well so much for 'intelligent design'
scarletharlot69 5 days ago
This guy...thinks he is smart you are a monkey brain...
RunColorado100 6 days ago
Evolutionists owned...stop saying ...lies...monkey brains..
RunColorado100 6 days ago
hey, creationists....WHY THE FUCK WOULD GOD PUT MAMMALS IN THE OCEAN? anyway, back to our normal programming....
BillKiernan 3 months ago
This moron thinks evolution is a personal attempt by an individual cow to turn itself into a whale!
Tobytrim 3 months ago
Berlinski's question is quite reasonable. There should be many trasitional forms between land mammals and whales. Yes, fossils are rare. But I don't think it coincidence that there are hundreds of fossils of whales and hundreds of cows for example, but nothing in between. We don't ask for thousands of intermediaries, just a few to demonstrate the structural changes needed to produce a sea going animal from a land based one.
Gommify 3 months ago
@Gommify "But I don't think it coincidence that there are hundreds of fossils of whales and hundreds of cows for example, but nothing in between" whales didn't evolve from cows, but anyway, there are in fact many transitional forms from land animal to whale, please go research them. "just a few to demonstrate the structural changes needed to produce a sea going animal from a land based one" well you'll be happy when you research it and find the few you're looking for.
BillKiernan 3 months ago
@Gommify for a nice visual example, plug in "whales evolution" into the search bar here in youtube. how you have not done this kind of research already, before posting what you posted here, is really beyond me.
BillKiernan 3 months ago
so are you a chriatian who accepts evolution? i know theyre out there but its hard to find in my neck of the woods
oneadamtwelve86 4 months ago
3:55 you misquote him from the get go. He didn't say that. He rather seems to have asked the question, "what evidence is required to really show that such a radical transition occurred" and "can it be as gradual as we suggest". ;). He pretty well always keeps an opening that evolution might be true.
gejost 4 months ago
He is making a very good point. In essence he is asking an interesting question. Now, his questions don't necessarly imply evolution is false.
gejost 4 months ago
Nevertheless, keep up the good work with the Berlinski videos. :)
LeonhardEuler1 4 months ago
Although I appreciate you taking the time to make all these videos showing how ridiculous Berlinski is, I have to say that I checked out the playlist linked in many (maybe all) of your videos on why you should be a Christian.... and just as Berlinski displays his astounding ignorance of evolutionary biology, arguments for Christianity based on the resurrection (which make up the majority of the playlist) display astounding ignorance of what it takes to justify claims of divinity.
LeonhardEuler1 4 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1
Uhh.... what are you talking about? this video has nothing to do with religion, it is a discussion of a scientific theory.
periechontology 3 months ago
@periechontology Completely agree, and I, in no way, implied that this was about religion- I specifically said that I noticed something about *other* videos that were linked to by this (and other) videos by the poster. Have a great day.
LeonhardEuler1 3 months ago
Rarity of fossils is not logical. It is just a way out of an embarrasing situation. We have unearthed over 100 million fossils. Fossilization is random. How many floods and volcanic eruptions since precambrian period? If animal A is assumed to gradually evolve to animal B in incremental steps via animal T1,T2,T3 ...TN, where N is a big number. Why we get fossils of animal A and B most of the time. The fossils for animal T should have outnumbered the number fossils we have today.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog That is a result of a problem of demarcation. Some of the biggest debates in archaelogy and paleontology on which fossils belong to this species as opposed to this other one. In the past, species were demarcated from each other via morphology only. Some demarcations are completely subjective. If species A evolves into B, we should have some transitions. But the number of transitions is subjective unless we have an objective way of defining a "species". TN may not be large at all
Emaniac69 4 months ago
@Emaniac69 Even if there is a problem in demarcation, evolution assumes fine gradation by natural selection. In the case of a giraffe a 4 meter jump in height from a supposed ancestor plus changes in internal organs to deal with abrupt changes in blood pressure is just almost magical. On the other hand bacteria never evolved for millions of years. This is precisely why some biologists questioned the validity of slow random mutation and natural selection, proposing contradictory theory instead.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog You missed the point completely. Some times we propose demarcations between species that are completely subjective. The whole thing about looking for transitional forms is bogus. Every organism IS a transitional form. And no the changes of the giraffe are not magical. Evolution doesn't simply create anything from scratch, it just modifies what is already there. How does the giraffe handle blood pressure to the brain? It uses a similar mechanism to the panpiniform plexus (human penis)
Emaniac69 4 months ago
@Emaniac69 My point is that it does not matter if we assumed that the ancestor of a giraffe and the giraffe itself be considered transistional. Just show some evidence of INCREMENTAL changes from a small four legged deer like assumed ancestor of the a giraffe that almost magically elongate almost all its body parts into a massive giraffe with 4 meter jump in height while bacteria never evolved into some other micro organism for millions of years.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog How do you want to see evidence when we don't have a complete fossil record? You seem to have a hard time understanding that 1) we don't have fossil for every species that existed; and 2) all species do not fossilize equally. We don't have the giraffe fossil that YOU are looking for so desperately. But we have the ones for the transitions of the horse. We have tons of fossils of the large cats, but the smaller cats tend to be missing from the fossil record. Bacteria response in part 2
Emaniac69 4 months ago
@Emaniac69 So you have nothing to show about the so called "massive and overwhelming evidence" of giraffe evolution, just speculation. Anyway, what is earliest known giraffid and how it is related to okapi?
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog Is this what people have been reduced to nowadays? Do you need to be spoon-fed the evidence, all of it, before you understand how things work? I bet that you didn't do anything, didn't research anything I recommended, just sat there and waited until I spoon-fed you everything. I can't babysit you. The only thing I can do is recommend that you watch Inside Nature's Giants, the episode on the giraffe, and then whatever you do after that is up to you. As I said, I can't babysit you.
Emaniac69 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Emaniac69 This is not spoon feeding. I am just asking whether you know the earliest known giraffid and how it is related to okapi since you have not shown any evidence of incremental changes in giraffes evolution--a problem since Darwin time when he used giraffe as an iconic example.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog The reason why bacteria took so long to evolve is the same reason why human technology took so long to evolve. The neolithic lasted forever. The chalcolithic lasted a long time, but not as long. And so on an so forth. Evolution is not as linear as you think it is. We have periods of explosive diversity, and we also have periods of stagnation. So tell me: 1) did you even look at the panpiniform plexus? 2) Please explain why human technology was stuck in the stone age for millenia
Emaniac69 4 months ago
@Emaniac69 Human technology has nothing to do with incremental changes from a cell to complex animals. Punctuated Eq is contradictory to neo Darwinisn. One says move slow, the other one says make almost no movement for a very long time then run in bursts.
daogdaog 4 months ago
let's just hope that young people are educated enough so that we don't see such illiterate farts
shumbusgumbuli 6 months ago
cow to whale transition it's skin has to become waterproof. does that mean we are aquatic animals as everytime i get a bath somehow my skin keeps out the water..
scarletharlot69 8 months ago
Dawkins check under his bed and in the closet for Berlinski before putting on his night gown for the night
salmagnum 1 year ago
I wonder how many calculation has Dr Berlinsky done to find out how the bones composition of human bieng changes after few month in space?
JerezJulio 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy thinks he's a scientist?????
kusalaviro 1 year ago
The author of this video is an IDIOT. He is a little pest in comparison with David Berlinsky
VladislavGomulka 1 year ago
"I've got a few papers lying around right here on my hard disk on beneficial mutations and increased fitness."
What you are describing are transient changes in allele frequency in response to environmental stressors, ie. the natural selection of already intrinsic genetic characteristics. What you are being asked for is clear evidence of *new* mutational changes which confer a discrete benefit to the organism and do not break something physiologically vital.
Good luck.
garb11144 1 year ago
@garb11144, how do you live with yourself, spouting such lies... or do you not actually know how intellectually dishonest you're being? Your question has been answered numerous times, here and elsewhere. An introductory biology book would be a good place for you to start. Honestly, you probably wouldn't even need to invest in a genetics textbook. Just Bio101. Please, take a class.
I wonder, is religion the basis of your doubt of common descent?
Are you a Christian?
scottp118 11 months ago
The "goalposts" were to provide sufficient evidence base for transitional sequences.
Any honest individual with the remotest interest in the paleontology will understand that this evidence is still insufficient, and the only way in which darwinists can justify their defunct musings and speculations is through further contortions: constant appeals to insufficient fossil data, the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" and other similarly ridiculous claims.
garb11144 1 year ago
@garb11144 Absolutely right. They call themselves "scientists", but are ignoring the objective data. A wishful thinking is not a science.
VladislavGomulka 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Actually this is exactly what the evolutionist does. They constantly revamp whenever there is evidence found against their theory, making evolution unfalsifiable. What looks to you like 'moving goalposts' is really you failing to acknowledge that you didn't reach your goal."
Darwinian hypotheses = mandate of naturalism + ad hoc contortions/sophistry.
garb11144 1 year ago
Actually this is exactly what the evolutionist does. They constantly revamp whenever there is evidence found against their theory, making evolution unfalsifiable. What looks to you like 'moving goalposts' is really you failing to acknowledge that you didn't reach your goal.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie, and what is the evidence you (or anyone) has found that discredits the theory of evolution? The scientist who could discredit evolution would immediately be a hero, with a distinguished place in the history of science. So, biologists are trying... and yet no one, not one, has ever found a single piece of evidence that does not fit into evolution's paradigm. Does that not puzzle you? And, even if there weren't a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would STILL be overwhelming.
scottp118 1 year ago
There is no evidence for common decent. What you have evidence for, and no one denies, is speciation. What you're saying is that speciation is evidence that humans evolved from bacteria over millions of years.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie, I laugh when someone accepts MICRO-evolution, but denies MACRO-evolution. It shows that he really doesn't understand biology or the magnitude of the # of yrs in play (4 billion). What you're doing is like admitting that continents may move a few cm/yr, but then denying that they could've ever been together. Artificial selection distinguished Great Danes and Chihuahuas over a mere hundreds of years; imagine what natural selection could do over a few million times that! Just READ!
scottp118 1 year ago
"I laugh when someone accepts MICRO-evolution, but denies MACRO-evolution"
That is part of the brainwashing. You really lost your grasp on the difference between empirical and the theoretical. You laugh because you've grown so accustom to your delusion that nothing will ever break your trance. Maybe when you get a little older you'll understand what empirical science is. Or maybe you already know and it was a nervous laugh because you know damn well what is required of you.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie , are you a Christian?
One of us is delusional, alright. One of us has the backing of science/empirical evidence, and the other has only the backing of... well... nothing. You have only a WISH, based on a book, which is merely one of many such books that humans wrote BEFORE they knew of better ways to explain their world.
Something tells me you're not as critical of the Germ THEORY of Disease, or of Quantum THEORY, as you are of Evolution THEORY. Again, are you a Christian?
scottp118 1 year ago
I get a kick out of this. It only shows the mental handicap of the typical atheist. Are you really unable to see the difference between this different "theories"? or are you just making an excuse for yourself? If you'd bothered to try to think properly you might see the difference between things which are within the bounds of observation and things which are not.
Rational? Spontaneous combustion creating life is rational? You're delusional. And the record of history leaves you with no excuse.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie, you obviously don't even know the details of the theory you doubt, because what does evolution by natural selection say about origins? Nothing.
You didn't answer this: are you a Christian?
I guess it's more likely that "God" separately placed each individual species here... like each of the 300,000 types of beetle... about 6,0000 yrs ago?
Please actually READ the science. It's clear you haven't. No crime, but I think if you understood the science, you'd find it truly beautiful.
scottp118 1 year ago
If retardation were a crime you would be in huge trouble.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie Spontaneous combustion, you are probably talking about spontaneous generation which was debunked century agos by Pasteur and others. The fact is that creation is not a scientific theory, even if you think it is true, it is not a scientific theory it is pure religious dogma as it is unfalsifiable. Finding flaws in evolution does not prove creationism
TheGamanic 9 months ago
@knowwaie, and by the way, I'm not that attached to evolution. (I AM attached to the ideas of rationality and belief based on evidence, though.). Therefore, unlike religious belief, I know EXACTLY what it would take in order for my belief to be shaken: evidence. And it wouldn't take much evidence to bring evolution crashing down. But that evidence has never been found. Scientists have tried damn hard to find that evidence, because it would be a HUGE discovery, but it's just not there.
scottp118 1 year ago
@knowwaie
"the difference between empirical and the theoretical"
Both micro and macro evolution are empirical.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@knowwaie, think about what you just said. You just said species become new species... but that there can't be common descent.
THINK of that. Do you not see the ridiculous conflict there?
Most people don't realize all that they must deny when they take a creationist stance. You're not just denying one sub-specialty called "evolution"; you must actually thumb your nose at chemistry, physics, genetics, embryology, geology, geography, botany, and on and on. Seriously, isn't that embarrassing?
scottp118 1 year ago
Comment removed
knowwaie 1 year ago
"Have we ever observed mutations that IMPROVE a species, that in turn gets passed on along to the offspring? No."
hahahahahahahahahaha, riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So some creationist told you that crap and you just took it on good faith right? I've got a few papers lying around right here on my hard disk on beneficial mutations and increased fitness. There are countless papers and studies out there. You position is just plain denial.
1SapereAude1 1 year ago
"10 transitionals, 20 transitionals, 30 transitionals..?" Well how many adaptations would it take for the cow to become a whale? Certainly not just 10-30, and certainly we do not see the evidence in the "fossil record" of these changes taking place, we only see different creatures who are now extinct. This one example of a creature who has similar physical characteristics of both the whale and "cow" does not mean they are in any way related, or that they produced offspring!
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The fact that almost every animal that ever existed appeared during the Cambrian explosion, "
That's a lie.
"Fully formed,"
Every species is fully formed.
"and none has an ancestor in the fossil records falsifies the Theory of Evolution."
Another lie. Many have an ancestor. There are quite a bunch of them in the Ediacaran period for example.
"And that is a fact."
No, that is a lie popularized by the Expelled movie.
1SapereAude1 1 year ago
The biggest problem I have with creationists is that the alternative they present is "God did it" which is clearly ridiculous.
Read "Almost Like A Whale" by Steve Jones.
ThomasRepkaFanClub 1 year ago
bring the transitional fossils and let's line them up young man! They're just not there. Sorry
shayneby 1 year ago
@shayneby
Good idea, leace the transitional fossils at home, then there's no point in discussing them. Even so then, evolution is still a fact given the staggering amount of supported evidence even when omitting fossil records.
Evolution... still a fact. Sorry
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede SORRY? Don't be sorry for me. I am sorry for you to be soo brainwashed and deceived into believing nonsense
shayneby 1 year ago
@shayneby
"I am sorry for you to be soo brainwashed and deceived into believing nonsense"
-
I am a scientist too. I am trained to accept opposing evidence when it is validated.
But... 150 years later, still waiting for anyone to provide ONE validated spec of evidence that disproves evolution. Just one spec. Against the MILLIONS of validated proven instances of evidence supporting the process of evolution.
Anybody?
...waiting
Now, who is it again that believes in nonsense?
EVIDENCE
nolobede 1 year ago
Will someone ever explain to Berlinski (whom by the way I think recorded this vid a long time ago before many transitional forms were collected) that the event of finding a complete fossilized skeleton or creature is in itself almost a miracle? How can we collect a fully recorded evolution in fossils? Really, he does it on purpose to annoy people.
flounderize 1 year ago
@flounderize
It's not Berlinski's problem that fossils are hard to find. If it is a problem, it's Darwin's. Berlinski is not the one running around promulgating a theory that requires INNUMERABLE, subtle, morphological mutations to be not only be non-detrimental, but actually advantageous. The person who is claiming that is the person who should be worried about a fossil record that only evinces (comparatively) gigantic saltations.
You are confused.
NeoConvert 1 year ago
@NeoConvert In science, theories are not promulgated. They are constructed upon evidence and it´s understanding. "Gigantic saltations" are not linear as in "mankind come from chimpanzees" , a statement understood by most creationists. The gaps are horizontal, so to speak. Mankind and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. The gaps in the fossil record are (still) a necessity to jeopardize evolution. And arguments such as "You are confused" are typical of Berlinsky´s sympathizers frame of mind.
flounderize 1 year ago
@NeoConvert Thanks for your concern but I am not confused. To me (as to most of the scientific community) it is clear as water.
flounderize 1 year ago
@NeoCon
"It's not Berlinski's problem that fossils are hard to find"
Actually it is. The fact that fossilization is rare is simply a part of reality. If he wants to ignore that, it is indeed his problem. It is up to Creationists to explain why we have found such a plethora of transitional fossils already and why they match our predictions. Of course, none of that changes the fact that the strongest evidence does not come from the fossils but from molecular biology and various other fields.
1SapereAude1 1 year ago
@1SapereAude1 Actually you are wrong the WEAKEST evidence to support evolution comes from molecular biology! What evidence do you have from molecular biology to support evolution? ZERO. Have we ever observed mutations that IMPROVE a species, that in turn gets passed on along to the offspring? No.
The mathematical improbabilities of such a thing happening are staggering, and we are supposed to believe this type of action occurred billions of times? No wonder they fudge their science!
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
what, what what, cow cannot be trained to be whale, and that prove Evolution wrong.
and This Mans is mathematician that is teaching in an actual university?
Oh man I fell so sorry for the students how have the misfortune to get this intellectual moron as professor.
It is good we have these videos to expose this funnies, students can avoid taking classes with these moron and avoid wasting few thousand bucks .
And what University hired this man? Pat Robertson Regency College?
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@JerezJulio
No, just Stanford, Princeton, etc...
NeoConvert 1 year ago
The fact that almost every animal that ever existed appeared during the Cambrian explosion, fully formed, and none has an ancestor in the fossil records falsifies the Theory of Evolution.
HOWEVER, there is a LOT of money and ego involved in this game, so nobody lets a little thing like "data" spoil the show.
Just listen to the "scientist priests" of Darwinism talk about how it's a fact and beyond debate. Well, that's not Science, is it?
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 The Cambrian explosion took place entirely in the oceans. There were no bunnies, deer, lions, bears or tigers created in the Cambrian explosion, so your claim that every animal that ever existed appeared fully formed is nonsense. BTW, if all animals appeared fully formed, maybe you could go out and fish up some living trilobytes for us, or perhaps a Dinocaridida or two.
AHPMB 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AHPMB
I never said bunnies, etc appeared in the Cambrian Explosion.
I never said every animal that ever existed appeared then.
I never said the animals that appeared then still exist.
I said this: "The fact that almost every animal that ever existed appeared during the Cambrian explosion, fully formed, and none has an ancestor in the fossil records falsifies the Theory of Evolution."
And that is a fact.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
“... the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.”
Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65
ianmac2010 1 year ago
Darwin believed the fossil record was a problem for the theory, but he had faith we would find more data, and this would change. We have, but it hasn't.
Look at the Cambrian explosion. Almost all of the animals that ever existed appeared in a short timespan, and there is no fossil evidence that they got here via evolutionary processes.
No good waving your arms about rare fossil events. The precamb fossil record is rich with tons of soft and single celled creatures, just no ancestors.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
did he really say "an enormous plethora"? (@ 3:40 or so) as opposed to what, a "SMALL plethora"?
StutteringDave's reasoned response gives Dr. dementedski too much credit. the Dr's examples are ALL wrong, out of a claimed 50,000 changes needed he didn't even give ONE correct example. Dr. Buttinski shows a complete misunderstanding of the subject at hand. I stopped counting at5 50,000 stupid things he said.
not just a plethora of idiotic comments, an enormous plethora
eastjones 1 year ago
lets play along part 3
"I stopped at 50,000". yeah, right. Lying SOS. anyway, so far, you're 0 for 7.
"if you change a visual system you have to change it's ..cerebellum..nervous system.."
is this two wrong or just one? no matter, wrong again. 49,991 to go
"a different environment is going to impose severe design constraints on a possible evolutionary sequence" wait a minute... he is RIGHT! but this doesn't support his argument, it's exactly what Darwin said. Hey, thanks, Doc! Way to go!
eastjones 1 year ago
lets play along part 2;
"the skin has to change" not true, human skin works fine in the water
"breathing apparatus has to change" no, it doesn't, in fact it hasn't, whales and dolphins breathe air just like land dwelling mammals.
"lactation systems have to be designed". wrong again, plenty of design already exist in other mammals.
'Eyes, hearing, feeding, salivation'. wrong wrong wrong and wrong
is that the best you got? hope not, you only have 49,993 chances left.
eastjones 1 year ago
lets play along... if we had to change a car into a submarine, what would it take? not really a "great many changes" nor is it a "massive engineering project of redesign and adaptation" All you would really have to do is waterproof the interior and the engine compartment, alter the driveshaft so that it would spin a propeller instead of the wheels, and bend the bumpers into fins. Take a week, maybe two. Cost a couple hundred bucks. oh, and work on the dipshit. I mean dipstick.
eastjones 1 year ago
He says he did "these calculations" that "afterall the calculatins are not hard..." [dismissive look] "and I stopped at 50,000..." Who's he kidding? Give an example of one "calculation" what does he mean he did a calculation? Does he instead mean that he simply counted the number of changes? If so Dr. put them on paper - list them - these 50,000 whatever's you claim you went through! LOL! Calculations! Oh that sounds more like he's a scientist. LOL! 50,000 calculations. In a cow's eye!
AllenTheAllen 1 year ago
LOL: Berlinki says you'd have to make the cow's skin impervious to water...??? What is he talking about. He just rambles on. He's like doing this overly calm fixed-face lying body posture.
For the car engine to run underwater, you just need to change where it "breaths" from, using a simple snorkel. Now LOL to point out what's different between a COW and CAR... Cows already swim, hold their breath, and have nostrils they can hold above water.
AllenTheAllen 1 year ago
50,000 changes in 45 million years, thats 1 mutation every 1,000 years. The modern chihaua has over 200 mutations from ancient wolf. And that´s just in 2,000 years. So what´s the problem Dave?
baldurus1 1 year ago
He says he did "calculations." LOL and he stopped at 50,000 calculations. Wow "calculations" sounds scientific... this guy must be a scientist! LOL. I'd like to see an example of one of his "calculations." He stopped at 50,000! So he must have 50,000 examples of a "calculation." Wow, this guy is so FOS. Look at his fixed-face liar posture and that monotone ramble. Berlinski doesn't even believe Berlinski!
AllenTheAllen 1 year ago
This reminds me of Zeno's paradox.
RocIfan1978 1 year ago
A cow eats grass, a whale eats fish."
First Mr. Butinski, whales didn't evolve from a cow.
Second, we have all the fossils now.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Also, fossilisation of land mammals is rare. D Berlinski is a biologically illiterate moron.
Ekendil 1 year ago 3
@Ekendil He is not a moron you are just upset that you don't have nearly enough evidence to support your lame evolution theory which makes no sense whatsoever.
If we have a crime scene and we can see evidence of it being a male suspect with black hair can we assume David Berlinski is the culprit? No, and the same is true for evolution, just because you lack evidence to support your claim does not make your claim any more plausible. It certainly isn't my fault you have no evidence.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@Ekendil Wah! It's unfair! you are not allowed to be smarter than me, stoopid creationist wah :) Soggy Diapers need changing little buddy? :)
salmagnum 1 year ago
@Ekendil His a moron because he is ......RIGHT! you dumb clown. lol
whiteliketar 6 months ago
Yo Dave, you mean like those Polar Bears adapting to retreating ice sheets by learning to spend massive amounts of time in the water? Yeah, their entire body needed to be altered... Who is impressed by this Nonsense???
amaxamon 1 year ago
amaxamon...
Polar bears swimming longer equates to large scale evolutionary change? You just made your own point redundant, this is what their are built for, swimming, they still require land to survive, they can't live in it, which is why they are on the endangered species list! If they had adapted they would be flourishing, not dying off.
lankeedada 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BS, he is a philosopher.
He does not know about biology.
You've got a cow, and you want to teach it...... what a bunch of shit.
Whales didn't come from a cow.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Not only is he moving the goalposts, he's also ignoring the many other transitional forms in whale evolution.
MandaloretheYoung 2 years ago
Slight problem with the example and the slant of the criticism. Berlinski isn't religious, and he certainly isn't a creationist. He's a mathematician who holds an opposing view. And as unlikely as it might seem. He's not the only academic with problems concerning the conclusions. Tipping windmills here methinks.
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
The prob is he is a mathematician. He doesn't understand how evolution works and if he does the math he doesn't add in thing that would chang the odds. Go look at the number biologists and why they think it.
kokofan50 2 years ago
He is paid by creationists, the discovery inst., to make up bull shit.
Cow?!?
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz, So criticism is equatable to bs all around in so far as it criticizes Darwinism, correct?
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
Darwinism? Is that like Einstienism?
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz, You'd think it was given the typical response to criticism of opponents in the scientific community when the notion of design is applied or, reasonable criticism against a sweeping evolutionary model. Especially from cosmological starting point where evolution is merged as something applicable when it's not. As for Social Darwinism, no there is no Social Einsteinism, but were it the opposite, it would be welcome.
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cosmological starting point where evolution is .....
Evolution is Biology, not Cosmology.
Whales didn't evolve from a Cows.
They have the transitional fossils, no numbers needed.
gregrutz 2 years ago
dork, you need to go to college to study and get laid. you are unable to even coherently and accurately paraphrase what Berlinsky said. you have no argument; you do have a garbled brain. jack off and then squeeze your balls really, really hard - then watch Berlinski again and repost.
reaguirre 2 years ago
No I think Berlinski is making a good point. Talk about missing links!
The failure of the fossile record to reflect the incredible number of critters in an evolutionary sequence is not the fault of Berlinski (Who by the way is not a creationist).
It's a fair question. One that is not asked, or you are ridiculed for asking it. That's his point.
But when it comes to evolution, you can't ask such things. That's not what the scientific methodology is all about.
bodiezoffa 2 years ago
He had a good argument until they found all the trasitional fossils, now he is just making shit up.
gregrutz 2 years ago
There are no transitional fossils on the record. None the meet the minmum requirements let alone, all the requirements. There should be thousands but I think 10 would do. Evo can not account for the missing fossils, therefore it can't account for macro evolution, or irreduciblecomplex systems, or the origens of life and the universe.
laninarushy 2 years ago
gregrutz 2 years ago
@laninarushy Name your requirements for a transitional fossil.
gamesbok 1 year ago
You would do well to research further than the popular media when referencing transitional fossils, even atheist evolutionary biologists admit the fossil record, and Darwins tree of life are incredibly unsupported in this regard. Reference Stephen Jay Gould, for one...all the transitional fossils are found, come on? If this was the case we would have literature, museums, movies, showing the step by step development of all phyla from single cell organisms to current...
lankeedada 1 year ago
@lankeedada
and when they fill in the gaps, and fill in the gaps between the gaps, and then fill in more gaps, then you will accpet evolution happened?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
I don't have any issue with the concept of micro-evolution at all, small scale change within species over time, their is loads of documented proof of that. They have been digging for 150 years +/- and the evidence is still not there, so I have a feeling I will be a candidate as a transitional fossil myself before that evidence would exist. Macro-evolution does have some serious questions to answer now though, so I have issue here, ie. DNA & natural selection at origins. Can't work
lankeedada 1 year ago
@lankeedada
Stephen Jay Gould wrote a book explaining why we don't see more transitional fossils.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Berlinski has the same matter-of-fact, bald-faced lying tone as Sylvia Browne.
EGarrett01 2 years ago
Actually theres 6 intermediate fossils between Ambulocetus and the modern whale.
-Dalanistes
-Rodhocetus
-Takracetus
-Gaviocetus
-Dorudon
-Basilosaurus
-Modern whale.
baldurus1 2 years ago
Typical creatin - less raise some ludicrous strawmen arguments then devastatingly knock them down.
It is pathetic to what lengths these loonys will go through to defend their 3000 y/o goat-herder mythology.
Every fossil is a transitional fossil!
It is so weak to just say GODDIDIT
DivineBear 2 years ago
Watch the Video. Gaps then more gaps.
Think.
gregrutz 2 years ago
aha. gaps dont worry you?
i guess if you have already made up your mind then gaps or no gaps is irrelevant.
however its not very scientific but rather more philosophical.
cheers
arsjth 2 years ago
What gaps?
gregrutz 2 years ago
Why don't you look at the evidence, not the gaps between the proof.
gregrutz 2 years ago
The evidence is entirely unconvincing. Its only convincing if you believe it and want to believe it.
To an impartial observer you need far more evidence for proof of the common ancestry of man.
Evolution = change over time....everyone accepts this. even creationists.
Change over time = everything is derived from one common ancestor is not accepted by everyone.
Biologists seem to have a need to be able to explain everything by their theory and they are stretching it beyond its capabilities.
arsjth 2 years ago
So you think you have studied all the evidence, so it can't be true. LOL
Evolution = change over time
Now you have got the Idea, just study the fossil record and you will see the rest of it.
gregrutz 2 years ago
lol greg. i will wager u have not studied the fossil record.
please direct me to a site that shows comprehensive fossil records.
i dont want artist diagrams nor do i want reconstructions based on partial fossils.
just the fossil record. let it speak for itself.
how long would you like for this task?
as i said everyone accepts change over time.u will change over ur time on earth, mostly deterioration. this does not prove common ancestry of man...unless u can show ur evolution in2 a new species?
arsjth 2 years ago
Why do I need to study the fossil record, I have seen enough to understand it.
You are funny, I don't need to prove evolution, it is already proven, it's only bible packers who don't get it.
Evolution was proven without fossils or DNA, they just support it, part of the mountain of evidence for evolution.
gregrutz 2 years ago
as i thought greg. u havent seen it. u just believed what u were taught. u r not a critical thinker hence u dont understand berlinski.
Let me understand u...if u hav never observed a species change, u have no fossil record, no DNA evidence but u have proof all the same?
Please tell me what that proof would be? u sound like someone who states the bible is their proof for creation.
Where have u seen the fossil record that u should understand it?
at least tell me that!
arsjth 2 years ago
You act like fossils don't exist,
No one has compared human DNA to Chimp DNA.
No one noticed that whale have the same bones in there 'arms' that humans do.
Just because you won't go to a museum and look at a fossil doesn't mean people don't study them.
Go to my home page and watch a video about evolution if you are really interested in seeing the proof.
gregrutz 2 years ago
YOU need to study communication and learn about YOU statements.
I do understand Dr. Butinski, enough to know he doesn't know anything about evolution or he wouldn't make up stupid questions, but that is what he is paid to do.
gregrutz 2 years ago
hehehehe. the man is a genius compared with yourself.
He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.
Postdoctoral research is academic or scholarly research conducted by a person who has completed his or her doctoral studies, normally within the following five years. It is intended to further deepen expertise in a specialist subject, including necessary skills and methods.
ummmm?
arsjth 2 years ago
So what, he is a fucking philosopher.
He does not know about biology.
You've got a cow, and you want to teach it...... what a bunch of shit.
Whales didn't come from a cow, idiot.
gregrutz 2 years ago
greg...your a fireman.thats good.but berlinski is postdoctoral in molecular biology.
Molecular biology is the study of biology at a molecular level. The field overlaps with other areas of biology and chemistry, particularly genetics and biochemistry. Molecular biology chiefly concerns itself with understanding the interactions between the various systems of a cell, including the interactions between DNA, RNA and protein biosynthesis as well as learning how these interactions are regulated.
arsjth 2 years ago
So what, he is not an expert on evolution.
They have found 5 transitional fossils for whale evolution, who cares how many changes it takes, too late, it already happened.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
really? or 5 different species that have no link whatsoever?
the case is not compelling. Pakicetus and ambulocetus are land based mammals and are no different to a wolf like creature. in fact very similar skeletoned creatures still exist today. so if they evolved into whales why did they stay the same as well?
What is the mechanism that causes evolution but at the same time doesnt cause evolution?
Isnt it fair2say that most of th whale transitions r assumed based on evolution & not proof of it?
arsjth 2 years ago
Darwin came up with natural selection as a mechinism for evolution before DNA was discovered. Dr. Butinski does not understand evolution, he never had a job as a scientist.
gregrutz 2 years ago
He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York, the University of Washington, the University of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, and San Francisco State University.
He has also taught mathematics at the Université de Paris.
Mathematics is the science and study of quantity, structure, space, and change.
arsjth 2 years ago
Thanks for proving my point, he is not a scientist, never had a job as a scientist.
Mathematices is the study of numbers.
It is used by the real scientists.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Mathematics is the science and study of quantity, structure, space, and change. it is a science. U cant deny it.
he was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.
do u know what molecular biology is? is it an art?, a philosophy? or a science?
think carefully before you answer!
arsjth 2 years ago
"but berlinski is postdoctoral in molecular biology."
No, he isn't. He has no specialist knowledge if any knowledge in biology at all.
he has a PHd in philosophy (lol, of course). that is his only credential.
ProcInc 2 years ago
could u please inform wikipedia of their mistakes?
Biography
David Berlinski was born to Jewish-German refugees from Nazi Germany who immigrated to New York City, and German was his first spoken language.[3] He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University[4] and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.
arsjth 2 years ago
I will agree with you on the Discovery institute, they certainly need to update their pages (for one they still exist after their silly ideas have been disproven both scientifically and in a court of law)
He is a postdoctoral fellow, however his doctoral is philosphy (which he extended to molecular biology). He at best has only studied theorhetical biology (which as you can see from his own comments he is dismal at since he doesn't even understand how what he criticises works)
ProcInc 2 years ago
also discovery institute need to update their page. you would think that both sources would have known. but thanks for correcting them for us.
David Berlinski, Senior Fellow - CSC
Articles by David Berlinski
David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.
arsjth 2 years ago
(cont)
This should have been evident if you would care to look up that be is unpublished in peer review for both molecular biology and mathematics (he has even lied about his credentials claiming to be a PHd in mathematics whilst touring Turkey).
The wikipedia article was not wrong, you simply misunderstood it or took it out of context.
Common creationist error.
if however you are willing to believe he is in fact qualified to criticise evolution I have an island to sell you
ProcInc 2 years ago
mistook it or took it out of context?
huh?
common creationist error? huh?
is wikipedia a creationist conspiracy as well?
read it yourself and tell me how else you can interpret....." and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University."
i suppose they just hand them out in weeties packets?
if he was an evolutionist u would say he was a genius.
again i repeat ...get wikipedia to fix their mistake.
arsjth 2 years ago
"get wikipedia to fix their mistake."
It is not a mistake. You simply don't understand what it means (I also explained this). 'Linski has neither a PHd nor appropriate education in molecular or indeed any biology. You need to look into what exactly a postdoctorate is (and remember that the "doctorate" referred to in the "postdoctorate" was the aforementioned philosphy phd)
He is clearly not a genius to suggest whales evolved from cows. Either he is that ignorant, or attempting to deceive
ProcInc 2 years ago
he said the cow thing as an example of how ridiculous the whole whale from a wolf thing is.
whales evolved from wolf like creatures??
thats intelligent but from a cow is foolish? lol.
have a look at my video on rodhocetus and u will see that the skeleton of it looks very cow like anyway. mesonychids look like otters. so2 prove a species evolved from another species that still has very similar species still existing u would want very convincing evidence wouldnt u?
or maybe u dont need convincing?
arsjth 2 years ago
"wolf like creatures??"
We didn't really know what sort of tetrapod they descended from until we discovered the fossils. The facts came before we worked it out.
These 'wolf-like' creatures were adapedted to hunting in and around water.
A cow is a major contendor for *least* appropriate ancestor appearance.
If you think the skeleton of rhodocetus appears bovid, for get the island I have a *planet* to sell you. Especially since it possesses intermediate cetacean traits
ProcInc 2 years ago
"mesonychids look like otters"
They share similar envorinments and lifestyles and consequently have adapted similar traits. They look alike but cetacean-mesychonid fossil forms posses traits that exclusively modern whales have today and otters to not have while modern otters are closer related to seals and sea lions.
Delving even deeper than that you should recognise that transitional fossils are not determined by superficial similarity but by relative age, location and precise homology
ProcInc 2 years ago
the man is a genius compared with yourself
Fuck you too
gregrutz 2 years ago
yes greg your one of those guys who hurls abuse incessantly at people, disparages their character and then when someone says the truth which is that berlinski is a genius compared with you (and me....but i am not assassinating his character) you lose it altogether.
the truth shouldnt hurt. perhaps just respect peoples opinions a little more and realize that they are legitimate scientists and have different opinions.
your abuse is wasted on me.
best wishes
arsjth 2 years ago
Just like a creationist, no evidence, just piss people off.
gregrutz 2 years ago
The evidence is entirely unconvincing
It is if you don't study it or are to stupid to understand it.
Watch.....why do people laugh at creationist?
gregrutz 2 years ago
in addition stuttering dave , berlinski is not a creationist. the fact that you dont get it just shows an entrenched bias against anyone who doesnt accept your beliefs as fact.
arsjth 2 years ago
Butinski is not a creationist, No, but he is being paid by a Creationist Organization, The Discovery Inst.
So his views are that of ID
gregrutz 2 years ago
rude boy. gregputz.
he may well be paid by the discovery institute, who would fund him to argue against darwins theory if not them?
are you saying that because they fund him therefore he believes what they believe regardless of his stated non belief in God or creation?
arsjth 2 years ago
Yes, he is a lier.
" You have a cow and want to teach it .......
whales didn't evolve from a cow. It has been proven they decended from land animals (5 transitional fossils) Who cares how many changes it took, it already happened.
gregrutz 2 years ago
sorry stuttering dave but your review of berlinski is just so off the mark. your requirement for proof of ur beliefs is not rigorous his is. he doesnt have to tell u how many fossils it would require, the burden of proof is 4u to provide overwhelming evidence that cannot be refuted. He is saying that 2-3 so called transitional fossils r not sufficient2prove what u say they prove. To then claim that u dont have them becos the fossil record is poor is moving the goal posts yourself.
arsjth 2 years ago
I don't know if you offered any argument against his. His question is basically "why there are so many fossils of distinct species (cows, whales and their small variations, etc.) but so few of the species in between while mathtimatical calculations shows there should be tens of thousands if they are indeed evolutionarily related?"
mynameishanjoo 2 years ago
well said mynameishanjoo.
its sort of obvious isnt it!
gould and eldredge have tried to address this by punctuated equilibrium. They have stated that stasis is the overwhelming evidence for the fossil record.
If transitionals dominated the fossil record then why did they come up with the theory?
regards
arsjth 2 years ago
Why punctuated equilibrium?
Darwin thought that thing might evolve gradually, he didn't know about mass extinction that happened many times on the earth. Shit Happenes.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Well, all the poor guy wants is a complete uninterrupted genealogy detailing every single generation of every member of every species to have ever existed dating back to the exact origin of life. Is that too much to ask for? Just because we have a complete fossil set detailing every significant change in whale evolution and can see similar evolutionary paths taking shape in modern animals (his cow, to something like a hippo, to something manateeis to whale) doesn't MEAN anything, does it?
davethecat27 2 years ago
No that is not true dave. He wants overwhelming proof not the 2-3 claimed transitions.
You do not have a complete fossil set detailing every significant change in whale evolution. This is a gross exaggeration dare i say a straight out lie.
Would u please provide us with this 'complete' fossil set? where may i view it so as to be convinced of the wolf to whale evolution?
arsjth 2 years ago
WOW! your pretty smart - Not
mankind2112 2 years ago
There's a God brainiac, he died for your sins, everything you own, every good thing keeps getting handed over to you and in your ignorance you blow off the great loving God that died for your sins, for every dirty, filthy thought you had. His mercy is unmeasurable. Repent (turn from sin) and call upon the name of Jesus. Trust me kid, I used to be you.
lepointe 2 years ago
Huh, that's actually pretty funny, because I used to be YOU, until I advanced by level of thinking past the dark ages, past the renaissance, the enlightenment, the age of reason, the age of scientific discovery, the modernist age and finally into post modernism and the age of information. It's pretty nice up here, let me give you a hint, the earth is round, it goes around the sun, and the sky is not made of a glass sphere, oh, and fire and water are not elements, there are more then four.
davethecat27 2 years ago 2
It can be said that evolution is difficult to prove with transitional fossils because fossilization is a rare event. But then it can also be said that it is difficult to prove immaculate conception because virgin births are a rare event. Both arguments defend the possibility of proof, but neither IS proof.
thescowlingschnauzer 2 years ago
I would contend that fossils may be rare but have been confirmed on numerous occasions. To be fair though, you may counter with the brilliant retort of just how many virgin births are confirmed each year. In just the area where I live people fine several thousand fossils annually, but given the poor systems in place for predicting virgin births, I'll grant you a comfortable cushion zone.
davethecat27 2 years ago 2
We have found lots of transitional fossils but I don't know of any documented 'virgin births'.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Liberalism equals tunnel vision. The more liberal the individual the narrower their view point gets. Darwinism is more of a liberal ideology than a scientific study. Just read the comments about Dr. Berlinski. You can always point out the liberals because they're the ones that use childish name calling.
martidw 2 years ago
Evolution is scientifis study. People get sick and tired of Dr. Butinski's lies.......
"You have a cow and you want it to...."
Whale ancestors were not grass eating animals and you can't want evolution to do anything. He lies to make it look silly. He is an ass hole.
gregrutz 2 years ago
On the contrary greg i think he is refreshing because he is not spewing out the atheistic dogma that so many do.
he is a free thinker who is prepared to challenge the mainstream of thought. 'even a dead fish can swim downstream'.
He is a real scientist and in his disciplines they require proof not theory and conjecture.
near enough might be good enough for you but not for everyone.
arsjth 2 years ago
The Theory of Evolution will always be a Theory. It explaines how evolution happened.
And a dead fish can not swim.
And whales did not come from cows.
Lies.
gregrutz 2 years ago
The theory of evolution explains how evolution happened?
oh really???
Nor did whales come from wolves but that is what they have taught. although the mesonychids skeleton is far more like that of an otter than anything else.
arsjth 2 years ago
"It's an argument that can't be refuted" This is known as a tautology.
But have you noticed how evolution is a tautological concept? If one creature is not adapted to an environment then it would not exist, there are no alternatives. It doesn't really explain anything we dont already know, and hasn't really explained why we see variation in species.
metacarpi 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but I don't think you know what Tautology is, as your usage in context of ether of the meanings for the word makes no sense. Of coarse, nether does your following tirade, as evolution IS the explanation for why we see variation is species. Darwin's book was even titled "The Origin of Species" you don't so much as have to go past the TITLE to know that much, forget the contents or following 150 years.
davethecat27 2 years ago
Macro evolution can never be seen it has to be supported by the fossil record. "Sciences Dirty Little secret "again a phrase coined by an famous evolutionist.
benthemiester 2 years ago
....he said ignoring the previous examples.
ImTheGrey 2 years ago 2