@irhjma30000 The uneducated are so easily impressed. Mr. Butinski is a math teacher he is not even a scientist. He is paid by the Discovery Institute to 'promote the controversy''. He has not answers and adds nothing to science.
"Has physics progressed beyond Newtonian mechanics, well it's certainly been enriched.."..
Well.. how about quantum mechanics? General relativity? It's only few of the most revolutionary ideas in physics since, well, Newton probably. Either, I am completely misunderstanding the man, or he is just talking, pardon my language, "shit".
"Either, I am completely misunderstanding the man, or he is just talking, pardon my language, "shit".
No, its not you. He is talking shit. This is present in this entire series of clips. With intelligent and careful objective analysis is is difficult to get any points of value. Berlinsky blathers incessantly without any point. Go ahead and pick any clip at random and you'll see.
It hardly "replaced" it. Relativity is a modification of Newtonian Mechanics which accounts for the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum as well as its being the absolute speed limit in the universe. Engineers rarely deal with Relativistic effects because they only become substantial at about 1/3 the speed of light or in applications which require very high accuracy.
Science is a process, not a thing. We understand the process rather well. Has there been progess since Newtonian Mechanics? QM and the Special and General Theories of Relativity seem to have been rather significant progress.
Newtonian Mechanics is 300 years old, it seem rather obvious that we've made some progress in science since then.
I also find it interesting that you ignored my statements that demonstrate, clearly, that Berlinski is talking out his ass. You only focus on my conclusion that he must be an idiot for making such stupifyingly ridiculous statements.
Credentials do not keep people from talking like idiots. Berlinski demonstrates it rather clearly.
what's being said in these videos is that he has done calculations, tests, and research himself. given his credentials, he has all the right in the world not to agree with the average evolutionary scientist.
the problem with your argument about education not being important: dr berlinski is smart enough to draw his own conclusion from his, and others, work. whereas you regurgitate what your favorite scientists say.
you may disagree with dr berlinski, but that doesn't make him stupid
What Berlinski says here is FALSE. What I said about education is that it does not make him immune from saying stupid things. He says quite a lot of stupid things here.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and it has come a long way since Newton, clearly. If you agree with Berlinski that it has not, then how do you explain the computer in front of you. That is the result of Quantum Mechanics, another thing that Berlinski says is bollocks.
but you didn't say 'what he's saying is stupid' you said 'berlinski is an idiot'.
one is a cometary on what he is saying, a criticism of his criticism; the other is defamation and/or slander.
how do i explain the computer in front of me? a sophisticated machine that required a designer.
further, science is real, no rational person has said it's not. but evolutionary science, which doesn't effect our health/well being directly, can be biased and bullied, like dr berlinski has said.
The statement that evolutionary science does not affect our health and well being directly, is simply false. Modern medicine has been advanced dramatically by the insights provided by evolutionary science.
However, even if that was not the case, evolutionary theory provides us with insights into the functioning of biological systems that no other theory has ever provided. ID is a farce, it explains nothing....it's worse than that, it stops inquiry in its tracks.
Your computer is the direct result of insights provided by Quantum Mechanics. Without such insights, we would not have been able to construct such things as computers, iPhones, MP3 players, etc.
@kshackleton he's talking out of his ass because of... iphones?
from watching some of the other videos, he's probably not refuting technological advancements, but the science involved in evolution/carbon dating and all the jazz... pretty much the stuff that has no affect on our future.
When we are able to use these theoretical models to construct things, and make predictions about how things in the universe behaves, consistently, and accurately; that lends strong support for those models.
Berlinski simply waves his hands and says these theories are seriously flawed, without being able to provide a coherent critical argument.
Radiometric dating techniques, including carbon dating, work. They are accurate and reliable. Get an education.
His claim, is that science has not progressed since the time of Newton. This is nonsense. In other videos, he questions the validity of Quantum Mechanics and Evolutionary Theory. You have made reference to radiometric dating.
These things work very well. Berlinski is best ignored, he offers nothing of any intellectual value.
@kshackleton is he questioning the validity of quantum mechanics and evolutionary theory? or the validity of the conclusions quantum mechanical and evolutionary scientists make?
when he challenges a scientist's findings, rather than a clairvoyant response, he's met with "shut up you idiot, and don't question me." attitude.
He questions the validity of the theories, and he does not understand what the theories claim. That is clear in the way he questions them. His questions are nonsensical.
He says that evolution should have given women tails, since men find tails sexy....which is bizarre. In the first place, do men find tails sexy? In the second place, even if that were true, he fails to explain how that might come about. He just makes the assertion.
I calso checked out the Carbon dating reference. They make a few critical errors.
They describe the past as "unobservable". We can clearly deduce what has occured in the past.
They claim that the earth's magnetic field is decaying....please, really? That old saw? We know that it changes over time, it fluctuates, it's not "decaying".
Another old saw is the "radiocarbon has not stabilized yet". Did you know that we use tree ring data and other sources to calibrate C14?
@kshackleton instead of criticizing a one minute clip of a much longer video, why don't you watch a whole segment of dr berlinski, or read his books and educate himself.
He makes the assumption that whales evolved from cows. He goes through this description of converting a cow into a whale. Cows and whales are cousins....each descended from a common ancestor. Berlinski has not even the slightest clue about how evolution operates.
@kshackleton i believe he said 'a cow like animal', i wouldn't assume he thinks daisy the dairy cow turned into a whale.
dr berlinski DOES however understand how evolution is SUPPOSED to operate, but questions a lot of what the scientific community says is fact, though they have little evidence aside from educated guesses... at least that's what i've gathered from his work.
please pretend the words written in cap lock at italicized; i was going to ephmasis, not yelling.
Using Berlinski as a source for evolutionary theory would be like using Dawkins as a source for mathematics.....except Dawkins will admit up front that he's no mathematician.
Read a few books on evolutionary biology by Stephen Gould, Jerry Coyne, or Dawkins himself if you want to understand how evolution actually does work. Berlinski gets too much wrong.....pretty much everything actually.
" i believe he said 'a cow like animal', i wouldn't assume he thinks daisy the dairy cow turned into a whale."
Don't be too sure about that.....he said "You take a cow, and you want to teach it, to live all of its life in the open ocean." This is not the picture that any evolutionary biologist would paint.....because nothing like that ever happened.
@kshackleton the berlinski/dawkins biology/mathematics thing is a good point. though a brilliant mathematician such as berlinski applying mathematics to the process of evolution should yield results that complement evolution... yet they don't.
if the animal a whale evolved from was very cow like, or enough to be called a cow-like-creature, then there's nothing wrong in saying just "cow" for the purposes of imagining the process of evolution from that animal to a whale like animal.
Math is nothing more than a tool for modeling the universe. If Berlinski does not understand how evolution operates, and he clearly does not....then we would not expect him to create a valid mathematical model no matter how brilliant he is at math. It's a garbage in, garbage out problem.....Berlinski puts garbage in, and we see garbage coming out of his analysis.
The ancestors of modern whales were artiodactyls. Modern members of that group include cows, deer, sheep, goats, giraffes, pigs, hippos, and other even-toed critters. The ancestors of whales were not cows, they were not "cow-like". They would most resemble a modern wolf with hooves on their toes.....although they would be very distantly related to modern wolves.
There is nothing even remotely correct with the comparison to a modern cow. Berlinski continues to fail.
Another thought. Why did not Berlinksi use the hippo as the creature from which he makes his hypothetical path of evolution to whales? The evidence today indicates that whales are slightly more closely related to hippos that to cows [and other ruminants]. Perhaps it's because that path is quite plausible, even for anyone unfamiliar with evolution? That would never do for Berlinski though.....would it?
you were absent when they were passing out the brains in class weren't you? we went over the modern cow/cow like animal. that's done. shut up about it.
the reason he used the cow as the hypothetical path was because when this video was recorded he was just told from evolutionists that whales came from cows and they could prove it, and when he began asking too many questions the scientists he was talking to essentially said "we're done talking unless you shut up and agree with us".
I am sorry....you mentioned cow again and I responded to what you said. So now you can shut up about it.
No biologist ever told him that whales came from cows, that's a lie. Either he made it up, or you just did. What was claimed, and supported by evidence is that whales are descended from, and are nested entirely within....artiodactyls....the group which today includes modern cows.
If you or Berlinski are too stupid to understand what is being said, shut the fuck up.
@kshackleton can you post a link to a site where i can read about artiodactyls, rather than saying "believe me or shut the f up"
also, it doesn't matter if the animal was cow like, dog like, rat like, cat like, or goat like. the process of a land based animal evolving to a water based is essentially the same. discredit me with facts.
Google "whale evolution" and read the hits that are written by actual biologists. You will find a lot of facts and you will notice that none of the ancestors of modern whales look anything like a cow.
A hippo is a land animal that has adapted to life spent mainly in water. So are seals and sea lions, but to a greater degree. The transition from land to water is rather common in the history of life. There are many examples besides whales.
@kshackleton but with all of the common transitory animals there are few, if any fossils to back up claims that evolution brought them to where they are. eg, artiodactyls were "discovered" because of a few fossilized teeth.
You need to read some real, actual, scientific literature. It is not the teeth that are diagnostic, it was ankle bones, actually. Genetic studies have confirmed what the fossils have implied.
You can educate yourself, or you can choose to remain ignorant and continue to demonstrate that ignorance in your postings; the choice is yours. Have a nice day.
Google "artiodactyla" please. Have a good read, and come back when you want to have an intelligent discussion rather than just looking foolish. The classification was created on the basis of living creatures, specifically....even toed ungulates.
@kshackleton so you still haven't brought scientific reasons dr berlinski's doubts are invalid. it doesn't matter if i said artiodactyla, when i meant Archaeocetes which are the "descendants" of Pakicetid.
there's no proof that these "links" are anything more than their own species. the evolutionary line from one animal to another is assumed, based on educated guesses. it doesn't matter how brilliant the guesser is, it's still only a guess.
You need to type what you mean, I cannot read minds even under the best of cirumstances.
I doubt that science can ever provide "proof" in they way that you likely mean. Science looks for the most likely explanation given the evidence available and our current understanding of things. That's the best that you will ever get for anything.
Like I said, Berlinski does not understand evolution enough to provide any valid critique. Do some reading of real science. Good luck.
All fossils are [were] members of their own species, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Here's a brain twister for you.....no creature gives birth to anything other than a member of their own species. If you don't understand that this is entirely consistent with evolution, then you don't understand how biological systems operate.
If you disagree with what I have said, then you need to educate yourself by reading what real biologists have to say.
@kshackleton you keep trying to put berlinski down, saying he "doesn't get it". please list your credentials, where did you go to school? what letters are after your name?
I freely admit that I am a layman. However, I have studied the subject for many years, and I have read a great deal on the subject, I have read what both biologists and creationists have to say. It is quite clear who makes a good argument on the basis of evidence, and who simply makes claims without support and arguments filled with logical fallacies.
What I have asked you to do is go to the source material, my credentials are not relevant. Do some research youself.
If you actually care about knowing what is true or not, you'll take the time to conduct your own research from first-hand sources.....scientific sources on the relevant material.
You will find that what biologists say about evolution is nothing like what a creationist claims that biologists say.
One last point, if you believe that my lack of creditation provides you with a win.....congratulations....you have just committed another typically creationist fallacy.
@kshackleton you know berlinski isn't a creationist... right? and i'm not saying that i win this argument because all you've done is read books, i just think it's funny that you can say he desn't know what he's talking about when he makes his living off of what he's talking about.
1. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Intelligent Design is creationism in a new suit. Perhpas he is not a creationist, but he belongs to a creationist organization and flys their banner. If he is not a creationist, then he's a hypocrite.
2. The world is full of people who make a very good living by saying things that are not true to gullible people.
1. irrelevant, you don't need to be a christian to join the YMCA. same principle.
2. evolution, case in point. thank you.
i suggest you conduct your own research into the actual criticisms of evolution by reading literature that has been published by scientists and doctors who don't agree 100% with evolution. you will find that there evolution are key points in evolutionary science with gaping holes, and misinformation. you will become enlightened rather than being a parrot.
1. In order to preach, you need to be a Christian, Berlinski preaches creationism, he's a creationist.
2. I was thinking of most preachers actually.
This will be lost on you, but I have read every argument against evolution, they all fail, all of them. Biologists in the field argue about the relative importance of the mechanisms involved. None say that evolution is a bad theory....in fact, it's a fact in every sense of that word.
1. Berlinski does not seem to be able to actually criticize evolutionary theory. You first need to understand a thing before you can make intelligent commentary. He does not, and therefore cannot.
No, I have actually read the arguments, they all fail miserably. The arguments are based on strawman fallacies mostly.
@kshackleton It is painfully ironic to read your unsubstantiated strawman argument that most criticisms of neo-darwinian evolution are based upon strawman fallacies.
Show me a single creationist argument that is logically consistent, lacking in some basic error, and based on evidence. All I said is that I have never seen any such argument, and that *what I have seen* is typically a strawman fallacy. I await your example with breathless anticipation.
So, do yourself a favor. If you are actually interested in learning what evolution says....and you do understand that it is possible to consider a position without accepting a position? Yes?
Read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. Then come talk to me.....until then....go away.
The exact opposite appears to be the case. People tend to believe that science explains much more than it actually does. For instance, in my own field of mechanical engineering, we don't even have an equation which can predict many of the important features of turbulent flow. In fact, out knowledge is so sparse, that when civil engineers build a structure, they will build it for stresses two to twenty times more than what they would expect to encounter.
@periechontology The gap between what Scientists know and what the average person on the street knows is getting wider all the time. How much do you know about turning genes on and off in DNA? Show me all the math you know explaining why you can't go faster than light. How much do you know about the Higg's Boson?
I know christians are all experts on flood geology and radiocarbon dating but it is hard to keep up on everything. Nanotubes?
Changing the subject are we? I hope scientists know more than the average person knows about their respective fields int he same way that I hope my plumber knows more about my toilet than me. What I said was "Science knows a whole lot freaking less than THE AVERAGE PERSON THINKS IT DOES".
I suggest that you conduct your own research into the actual science of evolution by reading literature that has been published by evolutionary biolgists. You will find that the picture that they paint bears scant resemblance to anything that comes from a creationist or ID proponent.
You might actually find that the material is supported by strong evidence and reasoned argument.
Also, you are the one who started the "shut up" nonsense. You wanted me to shut up because you apparently felt that all that needed to be said, was said.
What I would like is for you to actually acquaint yourself with the facts on the subject in question so that you can make intelligent commentary.
No, so what? If you think that it was created 3 days ago with the appearance of age, then that's your burden to bear.....your claim to demonstrate.
The simpler answer is that it is really as old as it appears, that answer is much more likely to be correct. I'll go with that answer unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
See how this works? If you make a claim, it is incumbent on you to support that claim.
@kshackleton thats not my burden its the burdern of people who belive the method of science is the end all and be all of knowing the truth.and are you asking me to prove the negetive it would seem to me as atheist like to say on the ? of the existance of god the burderen of proof is not on me to prove the negitave im not trying to be a smart alec but i hope you understand my point im not one to express my ideas very well on a keyboard so forgive me like to talk to again sometime i sure we will
The burden rests with the one making the claim. It's that simple.
If you claim that the earth was created 3 days ago with the appearance of age, then good luck with that. The simpler explanation is that it really is as old as the evidence indicates.
The method known as scientific enquiry is the best method....in fact it's the only method that can demonstrate its worth in determining the truth of things. Science is a quest for knowledge, and it works very well, if imperfectly.
You made no point.....you made a claim which cannot be substantiated or falsified. Claims within the realm of science are testable, non-testable claims are ignored because they are meaningless.
Other methods, such as revelation, or testimony....are fraught with problems. The methods are simply unreliable, as history has borne out.
If you want to believe that God exists...be my guest. If you want to claim that such belief gives you special knowledge and authority when proposing public policy.....then you and I will have a problem. Keep your unsubstantiated beliefs to yourself please.
I said "all the cells of the new individual come from mitosis." Mitosis, not meiosis.
I've lost track of what you're saying, though. Do you think mitosis is impossible too, because of chromosomal fracture?
Why would a risk of chromosomal fracture make the accumulation of mutations impossible, while the same risk from mitosis and meiosis does not threaten the species?
@Fuglebolle It's a question of probabilities. Now, if mutations that weaken a chromosomes strength, such as pyrimidine dimers, are not repaired and accumulate, then the odds can be very much in favor of chromosomal fracture. Even in mitosis fracture can occur, because it is driven by the same mechanism as meiosis. The whole thing hinges on whether or not the chromosome is able to properly repair itself (which they do most of the time). The problem is that mutational cumulation is generally bad.
@Fuglebolle Now mitosis & meiosis happen all the time, but if a chromosome has been degraded past a certain point of structural integrity, then you will get chromosomal breakage. The problem is that every time you have a mutation that is not repaired, then you increast those odds just a little bit. Every time that happens you take your role at the dice. The next problem with mutations is that all it takes is one to throw off the reading frame and render a gene sequence unreadable.
@pittland44 My point is that the fact that mutations can be problematic does not in any way disprove or even shake the foundation of the theory of evolution as it considers this fact.
Natural selection keeps the mutations with positive effect and disregards the negative ones, therefore it is not a problem that most mutations are negative.
I am also sceptical to the picture you present of chromosome breakage, but I don't have the time or motivation to look it up thoroughly.
@Fuglebolle It is a problem if a negative mutation(s) wipes out or removes the benefit afforded by a positive mutation. The next problem is that mutations do not create new chromosomes, they only act on existing genetic material. There's another problem with this, one I didn't even consider till today; regression towards the mean. Both organismically and genetically.
@Fuglebolle regression towards the mean is an observed phenomena in biology (and other fields as well) where in individual organisms will differ their parents in an attempt to move towards the mean average for the population. Case in point, height. With people in the US the average height for adult men is 6'0". If a man is 5'8" then his son is almost surely going to be taller, even if he is only 5'9". The entire population fluctuates trying to reach the mean.
@pittland44 If your interpretation of this were correct, then the whole population would be of equal height after only a few generations.
The only reason for a son to probably be closer to the mean than his father is because his mother is more likely than not to possess genes that are closer to the mean than the father's.
This fact has no effect what so ever on the genetic variation in a population. The genes of the infant is still a "random" combination of both the parents genes.
@Fuglebolle Actually that is not correct, what is happening is a sinosoidal fluctuation. Also, how can this not have an effect? The effect is such that despite the fact that there is variation, the population will stay within a particular distance from a mean. Now there is variation, but we are seeing a degree of unnatural selection drawing the population back to the mean. If that is happening, then what would it take to shift a population from that mean, given the regression to the mean?
@pittland44 Natural selection will limit the variation in a population (around a mean, if you like), I dont know what you mean by "unnatural selection", I would normally interpret that as selection by human beings, i.e breeding.
Natural selection will also shift the mean of the population towards the traits offering the most survivability in the environment.
@Fuglebolle Again, after a period of time that is going to weed out certain differences, not promote them. There's a reason that polar bears aren't lime green or wood ducks are neon pink & orange. Again, going back to wolves and dogs. With wolves we don't see much in the way of variation, but selective breeding amongst dogs produces some wild variations, but those variations don't really surface naturally amongst wolves. Why? Because in the wild there is a certain genetic ideal to regress toward
@Fuglebolle The question is, after what period of time will a species stop fluctuating. Also, that is microevolution, which is not the actual appearance of a new type of organisms. The next question is the problem of staseasis, which is the phenomena of organisms remaining the same. Such as bivalves (clams) arachnids (scorpions) and cnidarians (corals) which have remained largely unchanged since the cambrian period. The next question is why do some things change and some don't.
@Fuglebolle Also, we see from population genetics that natural selection weeds out the far outliers. That over time the population will become more homogeneous. That only under particular genetic duress will any outliers be allowed to survive, and almost never will these outliers become the dominant wild type. Natural selection produces a better wolf, not a whale. Why? First because the information for a whale isn't there, but second because you can only refine a population with natural selectin
@pittland44 The information for a whale (which is a bad example, but I'll go with it) isn't there, and neighter is the the information for a "better wolf". The wolf will be genetically closer to a "better wolf" than something we would concider an entirely different species. The exact same processes are involved in both scenarios, but in the latter one it takes more changes i.e more time.
@pittland44@pittland44 Please answer this: If a populations of wolves, for example, are seperated and now live in a different environments with no contact with the others, they will start evolving to adapt to their new environment (micro evolution).
Is there a limit to how much they can evolve to adapt to their environment, since the two different populations at all times will have to be similar enough to be concidered the same species?
@Fuglebolle Actually, it's funny you should ask that, because there are a series of experiments that have been done comparing dingos to north american timberwolves. Now, both come from more or less the same genetic stock, but have been split off from each other for about 10,000 years, when the north america and asia became cut off and people emigrated to australia bringing dogs with them, which ran away, became wild again and are now called dingos. Now, there are several distinct differences
@Fuglebolle between dingos and timberwolves, dingos are slightly smaller, differently colored and have less body fat (all of these are statistically varied of course and naturally there are other differences as well). All of this is of course due to the fact that dingos live in the australian outback where as timberwolves live in the canadien rockies. Despite those differences, and the temporal and geographic distance between them, Dingos & NA wolves are still genetically viable with each other
@Fuglebolle Now the question this raises is what is the precise amount of genetic differences needed to cause two populations of originally related organisms to lose viability and become two species. Now despite those various changes that have occured, dingos and wolves can still interbreed and produce offspring that can reproduce. Keep in mind, due to genetic studies, the term species has lost some of its meaning (as well as order, families etc) because those classification systems
@Fuglebolle have become a bit anachronistic. So to answer your question, I don't actually know what those limits are. Given what we observe in canids, plants ( which are actually very viable with a wide range of their relatives) fungi and others, the limit to which they can change is somewhat high. Now, remember, a lot of viability issues are complicated by the variety of traits within a species as a whole and a particular population. there may not be an exact number of gene changes for it.
@pittland44 But is it impossible for dingos to evolve past the point where they are no longer the same species as timber wolves? (using any reasonable definition of a species)
How does the mechanisms of natural selection know when the evolution of the dingo crosses the definition of becoming a different species?
The belief in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution seems to imply some supernatural bond between all individuals concidered the same species, without geographical restraints.
@Fuglebolle Why are horses and donkeys unable to produce reproducable hybrid offspring? Mules are viable organisms, but they cannot reproduce other mules, they actually can reproduce (they mate with either horses or donkeys and can have either horses or donkeys) but mules as a viable independent species don't exist. Zoologists classify dingos & wolves as different species, but geneticists are unsure, & ethologists classify them together. Reasonable definition doesn't mean much because different
@Fuglebolle disciplines use different criteria for what a species is. Now there does seem to be a barrier between different groups of organisms. Humans & chimpanzees, very very similar genetically, but completely incompatible, so the question becomes is that barrier preexisting, or is it the result of a genetic split. The next question becomes what is the precise nature of our relationship. Now natural selection does not know that distinction, but I don't believe that natural selection is the
@Fuglebolle The next question that always comes up is where did that ideal come from. Now let's think about this, where does this ideal come from, because genetically speaking, that ideal would have to exist in the complete form in order for natural selection to select for it. Why? Because if the wild type is not complete (or inactive) then natural selection cannot select for it. Either genotypically or phenotypically. You have to have the wild type complete genetically and perfectly expressed.
@pittland44 A certain trait of an animal will at a certain point in time be more ideal than another.
A complex absolute ideal for an animal is at best a thought experiment. The more complex you make this ideal the bigger the chance gets that the ideal will be obsolete within the time it takes for evolution to occur.
Natural selection selects only for the ideal abilities and traits that are improvements valuable to the animal over a large enough period of time.
@Fuglebolle Which is precisely my criticism of natural selection. Natural selection reduces the amount of available genetic information, it does not expand it. Also, the next problem is that one must have a definite functional advantage conferred by each individual change every time in order for natural selection to select for it.
@pittland44 If natural selection is always reducing the amount of genetic information, wouldn't this imply that the amount of genetic information is ever decreasing? Meaning that all life is going towards an end. (I guess this is fairly compatible with christianity)
A better question is where is the information for a chihuaua in wolves? How did we breed the different shapes of dogs with abilities that are not present in wolves?
@Fuglebolle If we learned anything from the mass extinctions it is that there are fewer species now than have been in the past. Wouldn't you agree?
The information for chihuauas is not in a single wolf, but all the traits are there in a dilute, weakened form, spread out amongst the population. Selective breeding allows for gene concentration, where by unrelated traits are selected for at the same time, whereas they might not be, such as less hair and smaller body size. The next thing is gene
@Fuglebolle amplification, where by the potency of gene are increased through increasing the frequency of a gene in a population. The next thing is to increase the frequency of autosomal genes (two of the same genes on both chromosome).
Also, keep in mind that dogs don't really have any abilities wolves don't have, they just have amplified abilities. For example, bulldogs have much stronger jaws than wolves do on average. However does that mean that wolves can't bite hard? Of course not.
@pittland44 No wolves are even close to the size of the chihuahua. If the genes coding for a body weight of less than 6 pounds exist in wolves, why have we never seen this type of wolf?
How can genes coding for a 6 lb body exist in a species where this feature surely will destroy the individuals ability to survive?
Individuals with these genes will be selected against by natural selection and be extinct within a few generations. Variation in a population is limited.
@Fuglebolle We have seen these types of wolves, their called puppies. Also, size is not a single gene, and those genes that push chihuauas towards a smaller body size are generally recessive traits, so they won't be expressed. Think of it like this: The genes that enconde size are scattered throughout the population, some are dominant, some are recessive, so not all of them will be expressed or be present in the wild type. Now size is not just a feature of genetics, it's also a feature of how
@pittland44 You're not suggesting that puppies are small in size because they all have chihuahua genes?
Variation is definitely limited. Just how limited it is is more complicated to go into, and this varies for different species. I know how selective breeding works, my point is that the genes coding for traits as extreme as chihuahua size are so far from the ideal wolf size that they will be selected against very quickly by natural selection.
@Fuglebolle My point was that you can have dogs that small. Now chihuauas are small because they've been able to turn the growth factors off, not because they've been shrunk down. Now it's true chihuauas would be selected against, but those genes are extremely concentrated and not in their natural frequency or combination. Again, the size and shape of a chihuaua is a feature of gene amplification and bottle necking. By removing the wild type via selective breeding the desired traits are selected
@Fuglebolle much you eat. Now, you're a breeder who wants a small short haired dog for deep frying (it's why chihuauas were bred) then you start by breeding the smallest dogs you have. Then you repeat the processSee, it's not going to happen over one generation, because you have to seperate and concentrate the particular gene combination that you want. Also, Individuals with certain genes turned on in certain environments will be selected against. Again, dingos have much thinner fur than wolves
@Fuglebolle Have you ever done anything with punett squares? Those are the best way to explain selective breeding. Because each time you select for a gene pattern, you get a little closer to a particular combination, but because the wild type population is varied, you have to go through several selective generations where you pick the gene you want. Also, wolves within packs vary, and different types of wolves vary, N. American Timberwolves are about 25%-30% bigger than Indian Wolves.
@pittland44 You are asking someone to explain the answers you should have, being that you and others that take your position impose it on the rest of us and our children at schools. The REAL question is why do you feel the need to put faith in this farce that is evolution just because you can not wrap your brain around the idea that maybe the phrase "I don't know" can enter into the vocabulary of these pompous "scientists" who feel they have an answer which is really an impossible one.
@TruthSeekingOne I'm opposed to darwinism you dumbass! I've been arguing against it for almost a month with this guy. Why the hell are you attacking me?
@pittland44 I am sorry if I clicked the reply to the wrong person, I guess my statements were directed to Fuglebolle.
My basic point was just that the teaching of evolution in schools is wrong because it is a religion and not scientific fact, if they are going to teach a religion in school they might as well unbiasedly teach every religion instead of just this theory of Evolution. I dislike it when an evolutionists expect a creationist to have all the answers they can't get from evolution.
@TruthSeekingOne I'm sorry for getting mad at you. I also agree with you 100%. As far as science is concerned, modern neodarwinian evolutionary doesn't meet a lot of the basic criteria of being a theory.
@TruthSeekingOne I was not questioning my own world-view (well, at least not in the comments below), I was questioning pittland44s view that it's impossible for new genes to appear through mutation, and that all evolution is based on variation alone. This theory does not explain how you can breed forth extreme variants of an animals from a very limited group of individuals (i.e limited genetic variation). Or even double-winged fruit flies, no mather how functional their wings might be.
@TruthSeekingOne There are alot of things in the universe that science can't explain, however, the evolution of life is Not one of them.
The fact that scientists do not value super natural explainations over natural ones does not make them pompous, it just makes them scientists. If you want to learn about how God created life on earth you should consult your priest, not a scientist.
There have been alot of attempts of invoking God in science, Isaac Newton, for example, solved
@Fuglebolle Furthermore, evolution is not only unprovable without something that can be tested and observed (which has never happened), but it also unthinkable that it could be possible! The mathematical improbabilities are staggering to say the least, and you CHOOSE to believe in this religion that leads to nowhere instead of believing a more plausible answer to your questions which is the mere fact that we DO NOT KNOW the exact ways in which things happened thousands or more years ago.
@TruthSeekingOne the problem with instability in our solar system with the notion that God once in a while comes and rewinds the system so that all the planets are in order again.
This theory, which, like ID, can not be proven untrue, is also of not useful as it does not help us understand anything.
In science there are and will always be things we dont understand, but invoking God as an explaination for it means we will never actually learn it, and that attitude have no place in science.
@Fuglebolle You are an idiot sir, you are bashing religion when you yourself believe in a very popular religion called Evolution, there is ZERO evidence for this belief yet millions believe that we evolved from NOTHING into SOMETHING, you see a fossil you use inexact dating methods and assume that it transformed slowly over the years, all of these things can not be proven therefor they are called theory, and it is taught as fact in many schools, this is a religion and nothing more.
@TruthSeekingOne I dont believe that nothing evolved into something, you obviously have alot of misconceptions about both evolution and science in general.
Science is not an axiom system, and can therefore never prove anything (how would you prove the theory of gravity?). What science can do is create theories consistent with empirical findings.
The theory of evolution, like gravity, is supported by an ever increasing pile of scientific observations, and it has never been contradicted.
@Fuglebolle Gravity does not need proof, we live in its force, there is no need to prove gravity any further than needing to prove wind. It is proof in and of itself, we see wind move things and we can USE it, we can also use gravity and we see its functions in case after case, it certainly is a proven part of our existence, anyone who says otherwise has missed the concept.
If you believe in evolution and that there was no god involved, you DO believe that we came from lifeless material.
@TruthSeekingOne No, gravity cannot be proven just like evolution cannot be proven. However, both of these theories are concidered true because we've lived with them for several hundred years and we have not once observed nature contradict/disprove them.
We use our understanding of evolution in the breeding of new animals, also the principles of it is used in computer science as a very powerful tool to model complex realities.
@Fuglebolle You are so wrong! WE CAN prove that evolution is at the very least a WEAK theory that is not proven whatsoever, the "evidence" you claim is not even evidence, give me one single shred of evidence that is falsifiable and can not be interpreted as anything but evolution-caused. You can not.
Also, we are not talking MICRO evolution as you implied with your "breeding of new animals" this is not a NEW kind of animal this is simply micro-evolution which is surely credible. MACRO is not.
@TruthSeekingOne Gravity is no more a proven truth than evolution, ID or TFS, but with both gravity and evolution we have every reason to believe it is true because both theories are compatible with the current evidence and have predicted what we've observed for hundreds of years.
Yes, I do believe that life originated from lifeless material (not from nothing), this is not the theory of evolution, though.
@Fuglebolle There is a HUGE difference between micro and macro evolution, if you do not know this difference then I will assume you are a 13 year old kid who is being brainwashed by your junior high school science teacher.
Gravity we have OBSERVED for thousands of years, macro-evolution has NEVER been observed.
Evidence of gravity besides observation is VAST as we can feel its force for example, evolution has NO evidence, all of the supposed evidence is VERY weak and has a ton of gaps/questions.
The belief that there's a difference between micro- and macroevolution seems to be rooted in the idea that mutations cannot happen, at least I think that's pittland44's view.
This is absolutely incorrect, and we have observed mutations that are both beneficial and unbeneficial to the species.
Also, science is not based on how you're feeling, that's religion.
@Fuglebolle Give me one example of a beneficial mutation.
And after you have done that, give me an example of beneficial mutation that was actually passed on to the offspring.
You can't give me one single example ESPECIALLY without the intervening of a scientist, and of course the scientist would represent god because your theory of evolution presumes no intelligent creature was tampering with these life forms.
So WHERE is your proof? You have none I already know, so give up on your religion.
@TruthSeekingOne Here are a bounch of examples: w w w.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html.
And why would I not seek support in scientists to explain science? The scientific theory of evolution is not a religion and it will not become so no mather how much you like to believe it or say it. As an atheist I do not believe in the supernatural.
Calling science religion is a huge redefinition of the word religion, which is wildly misleading, but I guess that is the purpose of it.
@Fuglebolle No the purpose is to expose it for what it is, a BELIEF in something that is unproven, you have what we like to call "FAITH" in something. You have faith that this theory is correct so much so that you like to teach it as fact, which obviously shows that you do not know about the subject.
The whole theory is based on speculation and no facts at all, except what people think are facts such as the fossil record, which clearly is not fact supporting evolution theory.
@Fuglebolle IF evolution theory is correct you would easily be able to prove it with science using the scientific method, but guess what, you CAN NOT observe something that supposedly takes millions of years to happen. YOU CAN NOT assume that there are thousands of species of intermediary fossils that SHOULD have or MIGHT have existed only according to the theory, and that since they are NOT found you can't just make an excuse of why they aren't found and call it proof of your theory.
@Fuglebolle By the way you gave me a link which I looked into and yea that's great how you show me an example of bacterial MICRO-evolution, this does not help your case at all.
You do not get the point I am making at all, you are trying to go AROUND the arguments I am making instead of facing them.
Bacteria are not proof of macro-evolution in animals at all, please do some research into that.
Zero proof of belief = Faith = Religion
Sorry to ruin your day but your "science" is biased and wrong.
@Fuglebolle I said a genetic mutation passed on to the offspring, you took my words out of context, the meaning of my words were related to a species of animal or insect or something like that, I was not referring to something smaller than a piece of dirt that is not considered to be a creature or animal. (At least not to me, I don't know if you keep bacteria as pets..)
David Berlinkski actually says something about this exact topic on another video. Heh..
@TruthSeekingOne All the mutations given as examples were not only passed on to the offspring, but also spread troughout the entire population.
What you concider a creature is irrelevant to science. Bacteria is a life-form based on DNA in the same way we and other animals are, and bacteria has therefore evolved, and is evolving, in the same way we have. But due to the fact that bacteria reproduce alot faster, we find more concrete examples of evolution here.
''WE'' Why does he talk like he is a scientist?
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz why do you talk at all? i guarantee you don't have a thousandth of the brain cells this guy has
irhjma30000 2 weeks ago
@irhjma30000 The uneducated are so easily impressed. Mr. Butinski is a math teacher he is not even a scientist. He is paid by the Discovery Institute to 'promote the controversy''. He has not answers and adds nothing to science.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz cool story. and how do you know all of this?
irhjma30000 2 weeks ago
@irhjma30000 Well I know how evolution works and Berlinski doens't.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz haha cool.
irhjma30000 2 weeks ago
"Has physics progressed beyond Newtonian mechanics, well it's certainly been enriched.."..
Well.. how about quantum mechanics? General relativity? It's only few of the most revolutionary ideas in physics since, well, Newton probably. Either, I am completely misunderstanding the man, or he is just talking, pardon my language, "shit".
ttcmp0 4 months ago
@ttcmp0
"Either, I am completely misunderstanding the man, or he is just talking, pardon my language, "shit".
No, its not you. He is talking shit. This is present in this entire series of clips. With intelligent and careful objective analysis is is difficult to get any points of value. Berlinsky blathers incessantly without any point. Go ahead and pick any clip at random and you'll see.
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede
I know.. I think I've commented (on his bad arguments) on every video in this series..
ttcmp0 3 months ago
''Has Physics progressed beyond Newtonian Mechanics''
YES dummy. Every hear of Einstein? His Theory replaced Netonian Mechanics.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
It hardly "replaced" it. Relativity is a modification of Newtonian Mechanics which accounts for the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum as well as its being the absolute speed limit in the universe. Engineers rarely deal with Relativistic effects because they only become substantial at about 1/3 the speed of light or in applications which require very high accuracy.
praxus 5 months ago
''WE''? He talks like he is a scientist. LOL Math teachers are not scientists, he has never had a job as a scientist.
gregrutz 7 months ago
i Love this guy ! ! he's awesome!!
lunabirdie 8 months ago
on youtube watch einsteins idiots
76reliant 10 months ago
Comment removed
derman077 11 months ago
Science is a process, not a thing. We understand the process rather well. Has there been progess since Newtonian Mechanics? QM and the Special and General Theories of Relativity seem to have been rather significant progress.
Newtonian Mechanics is 300 years old, it seem rather obvious that we've made some progress in science since then.
Berlinski is an idiot.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton it's kind of ridiculous to say that berlinski is an idiot, considering his credentials.
from where did you graduate, and what is your job?
if your resume is as profound as his i'll back away. if not, try a bit more civility in the future.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
A person's education does not necessarily correlate with their ability to think clearly.
Berlinski talks nonsense, he says things that are demonstrably false.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
I also find it interesting that you ignored my statements that demonstrate, clearly, that Berlinski is talking out his ass. You only focus on my conclusion that he must be an idiot for making such stupifyingly ridiculous statements.
Credentials do not keep people from talking like idiots. Berlinski demonstrates it rather clearly.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
what's being said in these videos is that he has done calculations, tests, and research himself. given his credentials, he has all the right in the world not to agree with the average evolutionary scientist.
the problem with your argument about education not being important: dr berlinski is smart enough to draw his own conclusion from his, and others, work. whereas you regurgitate what your favorite scientists say.
you may disagree with dr berlinski, but that doesn't make him stupid
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
What Berlinski says here is FALSE. What I said about education is that it does not make him immune from saying stupid things. He says quite a lot of stupid things here.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and it has come a long way since Newton, clearly. If you agree with Berlinski that it has not, then how do you explain the computer in front of you. That is the result of Quantum Mechanics, another thing that Berlinski says is bollocks.
Science works, it's real.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
but you didn't say 'what he's saying is stupid' you said 'berlinski is an idiot'.
one is a cometary on what he is saying, a criticism of his criticism; the other is defamation and/or slander.
how do i explain the computer in front of me? a sophisticated machine that required a designer.
further, science is real, no rational person has said it's not. but evolutionary science, which doesn't effect our health/well being directly, can be biased and bullied, like dr berlinski has said.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
The statement that evolutionary science does not affect our health and well being directly, is simply false. Modern medicine has been advanced dramatically by the insights provided by evolutionary science.
However, even if that was not the case, evolutionary theory provides us with insights into the functioning of biological systems that no other theory has ever provided. ID is a farce, it explains nothing....it's worse than that, it stops inquiry in its tracks.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
Your computer is the direct result of insights provided by Quantum Mechanics. Without such insights, we would not have been able to construct such things as computers, iPhones, MP3 players, etc.
Berlinski is talking out his ass.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton he's talking out of his ass because of... iphones?
from watching some of the other videos, he's probably not refuting technological advancements, but the science involved in evolution/carbon dating and all the jazz... pretty much the stuff that has no affect on our future.
in closing, dr berlinski believes in computers.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
When we are able to use these theoretical models to construct things, and make predictions about how things in the universe behaves, consistently, and accurately; that lends strong support for those models.
Berlinski simply waves his hands and says these theories are seriously flawed, without being able to provide a coherent critical argument.
Radiometric dating techniques, including carbon dating, work. They are accurate and reliable. Get an education.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
which flaws, specifically, is he criticizing in this video?
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
His claim, is that science has not progressed since the time of Newton. This is nonsense. In other videos, he questions the validity of Quantum Mechanics and Evolutionary Theory. You have made reference to radiometric dating.
These things work very well. Berlinski is best ignored, he offers nothing of any intellectual value.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton stop being a parrot and read a book.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
You are projecting.....careful about that.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton is he questioning the validity of quantum mechanics and evolutionary theory? or the validity of the conclusions quantum mechanical and evolutionary scientists make?
when he challenges a scientist's findings, rather than a clairvoyant response, he's met with "shut up you idiot, and don't question me." attitude.
ps, allaboutarchaeology. org/Carbon-Dating.htm
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
He questions the validity of the theories, and he does not understand what the theories claim. That is clear in the way he questions them. His questions are nonsensical.
He says that evolution should have given women tails, since men find tails sexy....which is bizarre. In the first place, do men find tails sexy? In the second place, even if that were true, he fails to explain how that might come about. He just makes the assertion.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
I calso checked out the Carbon dating reference. They make a few critical errors.
They describe the past as "unobservable". We can clearly deduce what has occured in the past.
They claim that the earth's magnetic field is decaying....please, really? That old saw? We know that it changes over time, it fluctuates, it's not "decaying".
Another old saw is the "radiocarbon has not stabilized yet". Did you know that we use tree ring data and other sources to calibrate C14?
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton who is "we"?
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
"We" are the ones who are reaonably well educated on the reality of the situation.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton dr berlinski is incredibly well educated on the reality of the situation.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
His comments would indicate otherwise.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton how so?
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
That's already been covered.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton covered yes, proven no.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
In this video, Berlinski makes the ridiculous claim that science has not progressed since the time of Newton.
Science is the process which we humans use to improve our understanding of the universe.
That understanding has improved immensely since the time of Newton on a wide number of disciplines.
I think that we can call that some substantial progress.
Berlinski's assertion is false.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton instead of criticizing a one minute clip of a much longer video, why don't you watch a whole segment of dr berlinski, or read his books and educate himself.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
I have watched quite a bit of Berlinski actually. He consistently gets it all wrong. His "critique" of whale evolution is particularly laughable.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton what is he getting all wrong? and why is his critique of whale evolution laughable?
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
He makes the assumption that whales evolved from cows. He goes through this description of converting a cow into a whale. Cows and whales are cousins....each descended from a common ancestor. Berlinski has not even the slightest clue about how evolution operates.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton i believe he said 'a cow like animal', i wouldn't assume he thinks daisy the dairy cow turned into a whale.
dr berlinski DOES however understand how evolution is SUPPOSED to operate, but questions a lot of what the scientific community says is fact, though they have little evidence aside from educated guesses... at least that's what i've gathered from his work.
please pretend the words written in cap lock at italicized; i was going to ephmasis, not yelling.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
Using Berlinski as a source for evolutionary theory would be like using Dawkins as a source for mathematics.....except Dawkins will admit up front that he's no mathematician.
Read a few books on evolutionary biology by Stephen Gould, Jerry Coyne, or Dawkins himself if you want to understand how evolution actually does work. Berlinski gets too much wrong.....pretty much everything actually.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
" i believe he said 'a cow like animal', i wouldn't assume he thinks daisy the dairy cow turned into a whale."
Don't be too sure about that.....he said "You take a cow, and you want to teach it, to live all of its life in the open ocean." This is not the picture that any evolutionary biologist would paint.....because nothing like that ever happened.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Comment removed
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@kshackleton the berlinski/dawkins biology/mathematics thing is a good point. though a brilliant mathematician such as berlinski applying mathematics to the process of evolution should yield results that complement evolution... yet they don't.
if the animal a whale evolved from was very cow like, or enough to be called a cow-like-creature, then there's nothing wrong in saying just "cow" for the purposes of imagining the process of evolution from that animal to a whale like animal.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
Math is nothing more than a tool for modeling the universe. If Berlinski does not understand how evolution operates, and he clearly does not....then we would not expect him to create a valid mathematical model no matter how brilliant he is at math. It's a garbage in, garbage out problem.....Berlinski puts garbage in, and we see garbage coming out of his analysis.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
The ancestors of modern whales were artiodactyls. Modern members of that group include cows, deer, sheep, goats, giraffes, pigs, hippos, and other even-toed critters. The ancestors of whales were not cows, they were not "cow-like". They would most resemble a modern wolf with hooves on their toes.....although they would be very distantly related to modern wolves.
There is nothing even remotely correct with the comparison to a modern cow. Berlinski continues to fail.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
Another thought. Why did not Berlinksi use the hippo as the creature from which he makes his hypothetical path of evolution to whales? The evidence today indicates that whales are slightly more closely related to hippos that to cows [and other ruminants]. Perhaps it's because that path is quite plausible, even for anyone unfamiliar with evolution? That would never do for Berlinski though.....would it?
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
you were absent when they were passing out the brains in class weren't you? we went over the modern cow/cow like animal. that's done. shut up about it.
the reason he used the cow as the hypothetical path was because when this video was recorded he was just told from evolutionists that whales came from cows and they could prove it, and when he began asking too many questions the scientists he was talking to essentially said "we're done talking unless you shut up and agree with us".
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
I am sorry....you mentioned cow again and I responded to what you said. So now you can shut up about it.
No biologist ever told him that whales came from cows, that's a lie. Either he made it up, or you just did. What was claimed, and supported by evidence is that whales are descended from, and are nested entirely within....artiodactyls....the group which today includes modern cows.
If you or Berlinski are too stupid to understand what is being said, shut the fuck up.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton can you post a link to a site where i can read about artiodactyls, rather than saying "believe me or shut the f up"
also, it doesn't matter if the animal was cow like, dog like, rat like, cat like, or goat like. the process of a land based animal evolving to a water based is essentially the same. discredit me with facts.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
Google "whale evolution" and read the hits that are written by actual biologists. You will find a lot of facts and you will notice that none of the ancestors of modern whales look anything like a cow.
A hippo is a land animal that has adapted to life spent mainly in water. So are seals and sea lions, but to a greater degree. The transition from land to water is rather common in the history of life. There are many examples besides whales.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton but with all of the common transitory animals there are few, if any fossils to back up claims that evolution brought them to where they are. eg, artiodactyls were "discovered" because of a few fossilized teeth.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
You need to read some real, actual, scientific literature. It is not the teeth that are diagnostic, it was ankle bones, actually. Genetic studies have confirmed what the fossils have implied.
You can educate yourself, or you can choose to remain ignorant and continue to demonstrate that ignorance in your postings; the choice is yours. Have a nice day.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
Google "artiodactyla" please. Have a good read, and come back when you want to have an intelligent discussion rather than just looking foolish. The classification was created on the basis of living creatures, specifically....even toed ungulates.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton so you still haven't brought scientific reasons dr berlinski's doubts are invalid. it doesn't matter if i said artiodactyla, when i meant Archaeocetes which are the "descendants" of Pakicetid.
there's no proof that these "links" are anything more than their own species. the evolutionary line from one animal to another is assumed, based on educated guesses. it doesn't matter how brilliant the guesser is, it's still only a guess.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
You need to type what you mean, I cannot read minds even under the best of cirumstances.
I doubt that science can ever provide "proof" in they way that you likely mean. Science looks for the most likely explanation given the evidence available and our current understanding of things. That's the best that you will ever get for anything.
Like I said, Berlinski does not understand evolution enough to provide any valid critique. Do some reading of real science. Good luck.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
All fossils are [were] members of their own species, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Here's a brain twister for you.....no creature gives birth to anything other than a member of their own species. If you don't understand that this is entirely consistent with evolution, then you don't understand how biological systems operate.
If you disagree with what I have said, then you need to educate yourself by reading what real biologists have to say.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton you keep trying to put berlinski down, saying he "doesn't get it". please list your credentials, where did you go to school? what letters are after your name?
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
I freely admit that I am a layman. However, I have studied the subject for many years, and I have read a great deal on the subject, I have read what both biologists and creationists have to say. It is quite clear who makes a good argument on the basis of evidence, and who simply makes claims without support and arguments filled with logical fallacies.
What I have asked you to do is go to the source material, my credentials are not relevant. Do some research youself.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Comment removed
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
If you actually care about knowing what is true or not, you'll take the time to conduct your own research from first-hand sources.....scientific sources on the relevant material.
You will find that what biologists say about evolution is nothing like what a creationist claims that biologists say.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
Two books that I can recommend:
Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne
The Greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins
I should also recommend The Third Chimpazee, by Jared Diamond.
No doubt you have read quite a bit of creationist literature, try reading something written by people who have actually done the basic research.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
One last point, if you believe that my lack of creditation provides you with a win.....congratulations....you have just committed another typically creationist fallacy.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton you know berlinski isn't a creationist... right? and i'm not saying that i win this argument because all you've done is read books, i just think it's funny that you can say he desn't know what he's talking about when he makes his living off of what he's talking about.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
1. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Intelligent Design is creationism in a new suit. Perhpas he is not a creationist, but he belongs to a creationist organization and flys their banner. If he is not a creationist, then he's a hypocrite.
2. The world is full of people who make a very good living by saying things that are not true to gullible people.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
1. irrelevant, you don't need to be a christian to join the YMCA. same principle.
2. evolution, case in point. thank you.
i suggest you conduct your own research into the actual criticisms of evolution by reading literature that has been published by scientists and doctors who don't agree 100% with evolution. you will find that there evolution are key points in evolutionary science with gaping holes, and misinformation. you will become enlightened rather than being a parrot.
PrizeFighter 11 months ago
@PrizeFighter
Have a nice day.
kshackleton 11 months ago
@PrizeFighter
1. In order to preach, you need to be a Christian, Berlinski preaches creationism, he's a creationist.
2. I was thinking of most preachers actually.
This will be lost on you, but I have read every argument against evolution, they all fail, all of them. Biologists in the field argue about the relative importance of the mechanisms involved. None say that evolution is a bad theory....in fact, it's a fact in every sense of that word.
kshackleton 11 months ago
@kshackleton 1.he doesn't preach creationism, he criticizes evolutionary science. 2. i was thinking of evolutionists.
you may have read ABOUT a lot of arguments against evolution. but you clearly have not read all of them.
it's not a fact. it's a religion.
PrizeFighter 11 months ago
@PrizeFighter
1. Berlinski does not seem to be able to actually criticize evolutionary theory. You first need to understand a thing before you can make intelligent commentary. He does not, and therefore cannot.
No, I have actually read the arguments, they all fail miserably. The arguments are based on strawman fallacies mostly.
kshackleton 11 months ago
@kshackleton It is painfully ironic to read your unsubstantiated strawman argument that most criticisms of neo-darwinian evolution are based upon strawman fallacies.
jkculberson 10 months ago
@jkculberson
Really? You have no idea what a strawman is then.
Show me a single creationist argument that is logically consistent, lacking in some basic error, and based on evidence. All I said is that I have never seen any such argument, and that *what I have seen* is typically a strawman fallacy. I await your example with breathless anticipation.
kshackleton 10 months ago
@PrizeFighter
So, do yourself a favor. If you are actually interested in learning what evolution says....and you do understand that it is possible to consider a position without accepting a position? Yes?
Read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. Then come talk to me.....until then....go away.
kshackleton 11 months ago
@PrizeFighter
I'll tell you what....you give me a book to read, and we will compare notes later.
kshackleton 11 months ago
@PrizeFighter Religion is defined as a dogma and rituals that centers around the belief in the supernatural, a deity or both.
Science does not use the supernatural or a deity.
Therefore, logic follows> this might be new to you, Science is not a Religion.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
This is true. However, there is a kind of cult of science; there are people who believe, what is absolute nonsense, that science has all the answers.
praxus 5 months ago
@praxus Science knows a lot more than the average person thinks they do. It is not trying to answer ALL the questions.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
The exact opposite appears to be the case. People tend to believe that science explains much more than it actually does. For instance, in my own field of mechanical engineering, we don't even have an equation which can predict many of the important features of turbulent flow. In fact, out knowledge is so sparse, that when civil engineers build a structure, they will build it for stresses two to twenty times more than what they would expect to encounter.
praxus 5 months ago
@praxus That is an engineering problem, not a science problem.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Science knows a whole lot freaking less than the average person thinks it does.
periechontology 3 months ago
@periechontology The gap between what Scientists know and what the average person on the street knows is getting wider all the time. How much do you know about turning genes on and off in DNA? Show me all the math you know explaining why you can't go faster than light. How much do you know about the Higg's Boson?
I know christians are all experts on flood geology and radiocarbon dating but it is hard to keep up on everything. Nanotubes?
gregrutz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz
Changing the subject are we? I hope scientists know more than the average person knows about their respective fields int he same way that I hope my plumber knows more about my toilet than me. What I said was "Science knows a whole lot freaking less than THE AVERAGE PERSON THINKS IT DOES".
periechontology 3 months ago
@PrizeFighter
I suggest that you conduct your own research into the actual science of evolution by reading literature that has been published by evolutionary biolgists. You will find that the picture that they paint bears scant resemblance to anything that comes from a creationist or ID proponent.
You might actually find that the material is supported by strong evidence and reasoned argument.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@PrizeFighter
Also, you are the one who started the "shut up" nonsense. You wanted me to shut up because you apparently felt that all that needed to be said, was said.
What I would like is for you to actually acquaint yourself with the facts on the subject in question so that you can make intelligent commentary.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton can you prove through the 'scientific method the world was not created 3 days ago with apperance of age
tonyteb 1 year ago
@tonyteb
No, so what? If you think that it was created 3 days ago with the appearance of age, then that's your burden to bear.....your claim to demonstrate.
The simpler answer is that it is really as old as it appears, that answer is much more likely to be correct. I'll go with that answer unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
See how this works? If you make a claim, it is incumbent on you to support that claim.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton thats not my burden its the burdern of people who belive the method of science is the end all and be all of knowing the truth.and are you asking me to prove the negetive it would seem to me as atheist like to say on the ? of the existance of god the burderen of proof is not on me to prove the negitave im not trying to be a smart alec but i hope you understand my point im not one to express my ideas very well on a keyboard so forgive me like to talk to again sometime i sure we will
tonyteb 1 year ago
@tonyteb
The burden rests with the one making the claim. It's that simple.
If you claim that the earth was created 3 days ago with the appearance of age, then good luck with that. The simpler explanation is that it really is as old as the evidence indicates.
The method known as scientific enquiry is the best method....in fact it's the only method that can demonstrate its worth in determining the truth of things. Science is a quest for knowledge, and it works very well, if imperfectly.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton well i revert back to my origanal ? i still think you missed my point
tonyteb 1 year ago
@tonyteb
You made no point.....you made a claim which cannot be substantiated or falsified. Claims within the realm of science are testable, non-testable claims are ignored because they are meaningless.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@tonyteb
Other methods, such as revelation, or testimony....are fraught with problems. The methods are simply unreliable, as history has borne out.
If you want to believe that God exists...be my guest. If you want to claim that such belief gives you special knowledge and authority when proposing public policy.....then you and I will have a problem. Keep your unsubstantiated beliefs to yourself please.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton this answer must be directed to someone other than me but anyway nice speaking to you
tonyteb 1 year ago
@tonyteb
Thanks, Happy New Year!
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton thanks you to
tonyteb 1 year ago
''critically-acclaimed documentary ''
Shows you how dilusional they really are.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I said "all the cells of the new individual come from mitosis." Mitosis, not meiosis.
I've lost track of what you're saying, though. Do you think mitosis is impossible too, because of chromosomal fracture?
Why would a risk of chromosomal fracture make the accumulation of mutations impossible, while the same risk from mitosis and meiosis does not threaten the species?
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle It's a question of probabilities. Now, if mutations that weaken a chromosomes strength, such as pyrimidine dimers, are not repaired and accumulate, then the odds can be very much in favor of chromosomal fracture. Even in mitosis fracture can occur, because it is driven by the same mechanism as meiosis. The whole thing hinges on whether or not the chromosome is able to properly repair itself (which they do most of the time). The problem is that mutational cumulation is generally bad.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 If the risks from mutations are also present in mitosis, why aren't the problems cumulating from mitosis equally problematic?
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Where do you think cancer comes from?
pittland44 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Now mitosis & meiosis happen all the time, but if a chromosome has been degraded past a certain point of structural integrity, then you will get chromosomal breakage. The problem is that every time you have a mutation that is not repaired, then you increast those odds just a little bit. Every time that happens you take your role at the dice. The next problem with mutations is that all it takes is one to throw off the reading frame and render a gene sequence unreadable.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 No scientific theory says that most random mutations have a positive effect.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle I've been arguing that, what's your point.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 My point is that the fact that mutations can be problematic does not in any way disprove or even shake the foundation of the theory of evolution as it considers this fact.
Natural selection keeps the mutations with positive effect and disregards the negative ones, therefore it is not a problem that most mutations are negative.
I am also sceptical to the picture you present of chromosome breakage, but I don't have the time or motivation to look it up thoroughly.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle It is a problem if a negative mutation(s) wipes out or removes the benefit afforded by a positive mutation. The next problem is that mutations do not create new chromosomes, they only act on existing genetic material. There's another problem with this, one I didn't even consider till today; regression towards the mean. Both organismically and genetically.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 Negative mutations are a problem to an individual, not to the species, as this individual will be selected against by natural selection.
Please explain your regression towards the mean theory.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle regression towards the mean is an observed phenomena in biology (and other fields as well) where in individual organisms will differ their parents in an attempt to move towards the mean average for the population. Case in point, height. With people in the US the average height for adult men is 6'0". If a man is 5'8" then his son is almost surely going to be taller, even if he is only 5'9". The entire population fluctuates trying to reach the mean.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 If your interpretation of this were correct, then the whole population would be of equal height after only a few generations.
The only reason for a son to probably be closer to the mean than his father is because his mother is more likely than not to possess genes that are closer to the mean than the father's.
This fact has no effect what so ever on the genetic variation in a population. The genes of the infant is still a "random" combination of both the parents genes.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Actually that is not correct, what is happening is a sinosoidal fluctuation. Also, how can this not have an effect? The effect is such that despite the fact that there is variation, the population will stay within a particular distance from a mean. Now there is variation, but we are seeing a degree of unnatural selection drawing the population back to the mean. If that is happening, then what would it take to shift a population from that mean, given the regression to the mean?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 Natural selection will limit the variation in a population (around a mean, if you like), I dont know what you mean by "unnatural selection", I would normally interpret that as selection by human beings, i.e breeding.
Natural selection will also shift the mean of the population towards the traits offering the most survivability in the environment.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Again, after a period of time that is going to weed out certain differences, not promote them. There's a reason that polar bears aren't lime green or wood ducks are neon pink & orange. Again, going back to wolves and dogs. With wolves we don't see much in the way of variation, but selective breeding amongst dogs produces some wild variations, but those variations don't really surface naturally amongst wolves. Why? Because in the wild there is a certain genetic ideal to regress toward
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 EXACTLY!! In the wild there is a genetic ideal (at least some genetic combinations that are more ideal than others).
Of course, this ideal will vary over time as the environment varies. The process of species adjusting to the genetic ideal is called evolution.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle The question is, after what period of time will a species stop fluctuating. Also, that is microevolution, which is not the actual appearance of a new type of organisms. The next question is the problem of staseasis, which is the phenomena of organisms remaining the same. Such as bivalves (clams) arachnids (scorpions) and cnidarians (corals) which have remained largely unchanged since the cambrian period. The next question is why do some things change and some don't.
pittland44 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Also, we see from population genetics that natural selection weeds out the far outliers. That over time the population will become more homogeneous. That only under particular genetic duress will any outliers be allowed to survive, and almost never will these outliers become the dominant wild type. Natural selection produces a better wolf, not a whale. Why? First because the information for a whale isn't there, but second because you can only refine a population with natural selectin
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 The information for a whale (which is a bad example, but I'll go with it) isn't there, and neighter is the the information for a "better wolf". The wolf will be genetically closer to a "better wolf" than something we would concider an entirely different species. The exact same processes are involved in both scenarios, but in the latter one it takes more changes i.e more time.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@pittland44 @pittland44 Please answer this: If a populations of wolves, for example, are seperated and now live in a different environments with no contact with the others, they will start evolving to adapt to their new environment (micro evolution).
Is there a limit to how much they can evolve to adapt to their environment, since the two different populations at all times will have to be similar enough to be concidered the same species?
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Actually, it's funny you should ask that, because there are a series of experiments that have been done comparing dingos to north american timberwolves. Now, both come from more or less the same genetic stock, but have been split off from each other for about 10,000 years, when the north america and asia became cut off and people emigrated to australia bringing dogs with them, which ran away, became wild again and are now called dingos. Now, there are several distinct differences
pittland44 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle between dingos and timberwolves, dingos are slightly smaller, differently colored and have less body fat (all of these are statistically varied of course and naturally there are other differences as well). All of this is of course due to the fact that dingos live in the australian outback where as timberwolves live in the canadien rockies. Despite those differences, and the temporal and geographic distance between them, Dingos & NA wolves are still genetically viable with each other
pittland44 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Now the question this raises is what is the precise amount of genetic differences needed to cause two populations of originally related organisms to lose viability and become two species. Now despite those various changes that have occured, dingos and wolves can still interbreed and produce offspring that can reproduce. Keep in mind, due to genetic studies, the term species has lost some of its meaning (as well as order, families etc) because those classification systems
pittland44 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle have become a bit anachronistic. So to answer your question, I don't actually know what those limits are. Given what we observe in canids, plants ( which are actually very viable with a wide range of their relatives) fungi and others, the limit to which they can change is somewhat high. Now, remember, a lot of viability issues are complicated by the variety of traits within a species as a whole and a particular population. there may not be an exact number of gene changes for it.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 But is it impossible for dingos to evolve past the point where they are no longer the same species as timber wolves? (using any reasonable definition of a species)
How does the mechanisms of natural selection know when the evolution of the dingo crosses the definition of becoming a different species?
The belief in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution seems to imply some supernatural bond between all individuals concidered the same species, without geographical restraints.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Why are horses and donkeys unable to produce reproducable hybrid offspring? Mules are viable organisms, but they cannot reproduce other mules, they actually can reproduce (they mate with either horses or donkeys and can have either horses or donkeys) but mules as a viable independent species don't exist. Zoologists classify dingos & wolves as different species, but geneticists are unsure, & ethologists classify them together. Reasonable definition doesn't mean much because different
pittland44 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle disciplines use different criteria for what a species is. Now there does seem to be a barrier between different groups of organisms. Humans & chimpanzees, very very similar genetically, but completely incompatible, so the question becomes is that barrier preexisting, or is it the result of a genetic split. The next question becomes what is the precise nature of our relationship. Now natural selection does not know that distinction, but I don't believe that natural selection is the
pittland44 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle engine driving this process.
pittland44 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle The next question that always comes up is where did that ideal come from. Now let's think about this, where does this ideal come from, because genetically speaking, that ideal would have to exist in the complete form in order for natural selection to select for it. Why? Because if the wild type is not complete (or inactive) then natural selection cannot select for it. Either genotypically or phenotypically. You have to have the wild type complete genetically and perfectly expressed.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 A certain trait of an animal will at a certain point in time be more ideal than another.
A complex absolute ideal for an animal is at best a thought experiment. The more complex you make this ideal the bigger the chance gets that the ideal will be obsolete within the time it takes for evolution to occur.
Natural selection selects only for the ideal abilities and traits that are improvements valuable to the animal over a large enough period of time.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Which is precisely my criticism of natural selection. Natural selection reduces the amount of available genetic information, it does not expand it. Also, the next problem is that one must have a definite functional advantage conferred by each individual change every time in order for natural selection to select for it.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 If natural selection is always reducing the amount of genetic information, wouldn't this imply that the amount of genetic information is ever decreasing? Meaning that all life is going towards an end. (I guess this is fairly compatible with christianity)
A better question is where is the information for a chihuaua in wolves? How did we breed the different shapes of dogs with abilities that are not present in wolves?
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle If we learned anything from the mass extinctions it is that there are fewer species now than have been in the past. Wouldn't you agree?
The information for chihuauas is not in a single wolf, but all the traits are there in a dilute, weakened form, spread out amongst the population. Selective breeding allows for gene concentration, where by unrelated traits are selected for at the same time, whereas they might not be, such as less hair and smaller body size. The next thing is gene
pittland44 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle amplification, where by the potency of gene are increased through increasing the frequency of a gene in a population. The next thing is to increase the frequency of autosomal genes (two of the same genes on both chromosome).
Also, keep in mind that dogs don't really have any abilities wolves don't have, they just have amplified abilities. For example, bulldogs have much stronger jaws than wolves do on average. However does that mean that wolves can't bite hard? Of course not.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 No wolves are even close to the size of the chihuahua. If the genes coding for a body weight of less than 6 pounds exist in wolves, why have we never seen this type of wolf?
How can genes coding for a 6 lb body exist in a species where this feature surely will destroy the individuals ability to survive?
Individuals with these genes will be selected against by natural selection and be extinct within a few generations. Variation in a population is limited.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle We have seen these types of wolves, their called puppies. Also, size is not a single gene, and those genes that push chihuauas towards a smaller body size are generally recessive traits, so they won't be expressed. Think of it like this: The genes that enconde size are scattered throughout the population, some are dominant, some are recessive, so not all of them will be expressed or be present in the wild type. Now size is not just a feature of genetics, it's also a feature of how
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 You're not suggesting that puppies are small in size because they all have chihuahua genes?
Variation is definitely limited. Just how limited it is is more complicated to go into, and this varies for different species. I know how selective breeding works, my point is that the genes coding for traits as extreme as chihuahua size are so far from the ideal wolf size that they will be selected against very quickly by natural selection.
And if they exist why haven't we seen them?
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle My point was that you can have dogs that small. Now chihuauas are small because they've been able to turn the growth factors off, not because they've been shrunk down. Now it's true chihuauas would be selected against, but those genes are extremely concentrated and not in their natural frequency or combination. Again, the size and shape of a chihuaua is a feature of gene amplification and bottle necking. By removing the wild type via selective breeding the desired traits are selected
pittland44 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle much you eat. Now, you're a breeder who wants a small short haired dog for deep frying (it's why chihuauas were bred) then you start by breeding the smallest dogs you have. Then you repeat the processSee, it's not going to happen over one generation, because you have to seperate and concentrate the particular gene combination that you want. Also, Individuals with certain genes turned on in certain environments will be selected against. Again, dingos have much thinner fur than wolves
pittland44 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Have you ever done anything with punett squares? Those are the best way to explain selective breeding. Because each time you select for a gene pattern, you get a little closer to a particular combination, but because the wild type population is varied, you have to go through several selective generations where you pick the gene you want. Also, wolves within packs vary, and different types of wolves vary, N. American Timberwolves are about 25%-30% bigger than Indian Wolves.
pittland44 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Also, if variation is as limited as you claim, then how do we have all the varieties of people that we have?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 You are asking someone to explain the answers you should have, being that you and others that take your position impose it on the rest of us and our children at schools. The REAL question is why do you feel the need to put faith in this farce that is evolution just because you can not wrap your brain around the idea that maybe the phrase "I don't know" can enter into the vocabulary of these pompous "scientists" who feel they have an answer which is really an impossible one.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne I'm opposed to darwinism you dumbass! I've been arguing against it for almost a month with this guy. Why the hell are you attacking me?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 I am sorry if I clicked the reply to the wrong person, I guess my statements were directed to Fuglebolle.
My basic point was just that the teaching of evolution in schools is wrong because it is a religion and not scientific fact, if they are going to teach a religion in school they might as well unbiasedly teach every religion instead of just this theory of Evolution. I dislike it when an evolutionists expect a creationist to have all the answers they can't get from evolution.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne I'm sorry for getting mad at you. I also agree with you 100%. As far as science is concerned, modern neodarwinian evolutionary doesn't meet a lot of the basic criteria of being a theory.
pittland44 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne I was not questioning my own world-view (well, at least not in the comments below), I was questioning pittland44s view that it's impossible for new genes to appear through mutation, and that all evolution is based on variation alone. This theory does not explain how you can breed forth extreme variants of an animals from a very limited group of individuals (i.e limited genetic variation). Or even double-winged fruit flies, no mather how functional their wings might be.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne There are alot of things in the universe that science can't explain, however, the evolution of life is Not one of them.
The fact that scientists do not value super natural explainations over natural ones does not make them pompous, it just makes them scientists. If you want to learn about how God created life on earth you should consult your priest, not a scientist.
There have been alot of attempts of invoking God in science, Isaac Newton, for example, solved
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Furthermore, evolution is not only unprovable without something that can be tested and observed (which has never happened), but it also unthinkable that it could be possible! The mathematical improbabilities are staggering to say the least, and you CHOOSE to believe in this religion that leads to nowhere instead of believing a more plausible answer to your questions which is the mere fact that we DO NOT KNOW the exact ways in which things happened thousands or more years ago.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne the problem with instability in our solar system with the notion that God once in a while comes and rewinds the system so that all the planets are in order again.
This theory, which, like ID, can not be proven untrue, is also of not useful as it does not help us understand anything.
In science there are and will always be things we dont understand, but invoking God as an explaination for it means we will never actually learn it, and that attitude have no place in science.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle You are an idiot sir, you are bashing religion when you yourself believe in a very popular religion called Evolution, there is ZERO evidence for this belief yet millions believe that we evolved from NOTHING into SOMETHING, you see a fossil you use inexact dating methods and assume that it transformed slowly over the years, all of these things can not be proven therefor they are called theory, and it is taught as fact in many schools, this is a religion and nothing more.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne I dont believe that nothing evolved into something, you obviously have alot of misconceptions about both evolution and science in general.
Science is not an axiom system, and can therefore never prove anything (how would you prove the theory of gravity?). What science can do is create theories consistent with empirical findings.
The theory of evolution, like gravity, is supported by an ever increasing pile of scientific observations, and it has never been contradicted.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Gravity does not need proof, we live in its force, there is no need to prove gravity any further than needing to prove wind. It is proof in and of itself, we see wind move things and we can USE it, we can also use gravity and we see its functions in case after case, it certainly is a proven part of our existence, anyone who says otherwise has missed the concept.
If you believe in evolution and that there was no god involved, you DO believe that we came from lifeless material.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne No, gravity cannot be proven just like evolution cannot be proven. However, both of these theories are concidered true because we've lived with them for several hundred years and we have not once observed nature contradict/disprove them.
We use our understanding of evolution in the breeding of new animals, also the principles of it is used in computer science as a very powerful tool to model complex realities.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle You are so wrong! WE CAN prove that evolution is at the very least a WEAK theory that is not proven whatsoever, the "evidence" you claim is not even evidence, give me one single shred of evidence that is falsifiable and can not be interpreted as anything but evolution-caused. You can not.
Also, we are not talking MICRO evolution as you implied with your "breeding of new animals" this is not a NEW kind of animal this is simply micro-evolution which is surely credible. MACRO is not.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne Gravity is no more a proven truth than evolution, ID or TFS, but with both gravity and evolution we have every reason to believe it is true because both theories are compatible with the current evidence and have predicted what we've observed for hundreds of years.
Yes, I do believe that life originated from lifeless material (not from nothing), this is not the theory of evolution, though.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle There is a HUGE difference between micro and macro evolution, if you do not know this difference then I will assume you are a 13 year old kid who is being brainwashed by your junior high school science teacher.
Gravity we have OBSERVED for thousands of years, macro-evolution has NEVER been observed.
Evidence of gravity besides observation is VAST as we can feel its force for example, evolution has NO evidence, all of the supposed evidence is VERY weak and has a ton of gaps/questions.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne @TruthSeekingOne I'm a 20 year old Norwegian physics student, though I don't see how that's relevant.
The belief that there's a difference between micro- and macroevolution seems to be rooted in the idea that mutations cannot happen, at least I think that's pittland44's view.
This is absolutely incorrect, and we have observed mutations that are both beneficial and unbeneficial to the species.
Also, science is not based on how you're feeling, that's religion.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle Give me one example of a beneficial mutation.
And after you have done that, give me an example of beneficial mutation that was actually passed on to the offspring.
You can't give me one single example ESPECIALLY without the intervening of a scientist, and of course the scientist would represent god because your theory of evolution presumes no intelligent creature was tampering with these life forms.
So WHERE is your proof? You have none I already know, so give up on your religion.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne Here are a bounch of examples: w w w.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html.
And why would I not seek support in scientists to explain science? The scientific theory of evolution is not a religion and it will not become so no mather how much you like to believe it or say it. As an atheist I do not believe in the supernatural.
Calling science religion is a huge redefinition of the word religion, which is wildly misleading, but I guess that is the purpose of it.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle No the purpose is to expose it for what it is, a BELIEF in something that is unproven, you have what we like to call "FAITH" in something. You have faith that this theory is correct so much so that you like to teach it as fact, which obviously shows that you do not know about the subject.
The whole theory is based on speculation and no facts at all, except what people think are facts such as the fossil record, which clearly is not fact supporting evolution theory.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle IF evolution theory is correct you would easily be able to prove it with science using the scientific method, but guess what, you CAN NOT observe something that supposedly takes millions of years to happen. YOU CAN NOT assume that there are thousands of species of intermediary fossils that SHOULD have or MIGHT have existed only according to the theory, and that since they are NOT found you can't just make an excuse of why they aren't found and call it proof of your theory.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle By the way you gave me a link which I looked into and yea that's great how you show me an example of bacterial MICRO-evolution, this does not help your case at all.
You do not get the point I am making at all, you are trying to go AROUND the arguments I am making instead of facing them.
Bacteria are not proof of macro-evolution in animals at all, please do some research into that.
Zero proof of belief = Faith = Religion
Sorry to ruin your day but your "science" is biased and wrong.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne What's on the site is examples of beneficial genetic mutations, which is EXACTLY what you asked for.
Is that going around your arguments? Go back and read your own statements before you make such a fallacious claim.
I'm not interested in reading your gibberish propaganda and misconceptions about micro and macro evolution.
But if you believe you have a valid argument, and you manage to present it in a manner without preconceptions I will answer you.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
@Fuglebolle I said a genetic mutation passed on to the offspring, you took my words out of context, the meaning of my words were related to a species of animal or insect or something like that, I was not referring to something smaller than a piece of dirt that is not considered to be a creature or animal. (At least not to me, I don't know if you keep bacteria as pets..)
David Berlinkski actually says something about this exact topic on another video. Heh..
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne All the mutations given as examples were not only passed on to the offspring, but also spread troughout the entire population.
What you concider a creature is irrelevant to science. Bacteria is a life-form based on DNA in the same way we and other animals are, and bacteria has therefore evolved, and is evolving, in the same way we have. But due to the fact that bacteria reproduce alot faster, we find more concrete examples of evolution here.
Why do these examples not mather?
Fuglebolle 1 year ago