For those interested in Berlinski's response to this familiar, yet misleading critique, see his article: "Darwin and the Mathematicians" of November 7, 2009.
Your contentions against Dr. Berlinsaki are loosely constructed, playing with the truth even as much as you accuse Dr. Berlinski. Dr. Berlinski stated he "stopped" at 50,000. Also, his comparative analysis was designed to explain the lack of evolutionary mutations found in the geologic column known as the fossil record.
@shortist2003 Meh, Dr. Berlinski is a liar who put forward a terrible argument. He lied outright about von Neumann, and there is no getting around that, and his unsupported assertion of 50,000 (unless you count half a dozen examples as support) solely relied on the perception that 50,000 was too big a number for evolution to explain, which as I showed it wasn't. There are a huge number of mutations found in the fossil record given the number of fossil sites, Berlinski's demands are unrealistic.
@strattgatt Seriously though, what was your point? My video argued that Dr. Berlinski's argument ranged from smoke and mirrors (50,000 morphological changes) to outright lying (von Neumann). Your response was that it was good to see people moving away from evolution. Your response was a total non-sequitur, and I was wondering if you had anything of value to add.
So using the example of a cow turning into a whale is a bad example, but using the example of a nimble predator turning into a whale is a good example? Aren't they both as unlikely as the other?
Little changes like beak size, fur colour or whatever do not add up to big changes like new body parts or systems. Whales are whales, and cows or ambuloceti are cows and ambuloceti.
I love the bit mentioning those clever people that understand evolution. As if it makes any sense whatsoever.
The cow is a bad example because it would be hard for it to catch fish, which is almost certainly what led the cetaceans into that biological niche.
Most of the differences between Pakicetus and whales are adaptations. Front limbs become flippers. Hind limbs shrink and disappear (but recur in atavisms). Noses become blow holes. Actual innovations are a very small percentage of Dr. Berlinski's 50,000 changes.
As for cows are cows, are horses just horses or are they zebras and donkeys too?
so humans have been around for thousands of years and we see very little change in us, same with living fossils.. we see no change in them either... so the change every 800 years is very unlikley.
The phrase Dr. Berlinski used was "morphological change". These changes are quite minor and we can see dozens of them in dogs (ear shapes, body size, snout length etc.)
In humans there is a fair amount of morphological variation between races (skin colour, heights, nose shapes, eye shapes etc.) so differences of the scale Dr. Berlinski talks about in the last 50,000 years out of Africa. Add to this environmental push factor of moving into water and it becomes more than plausible.
some one please explain to me how the need to change makes someone change... balony.. we die if our environment changes.the likleyhood of extinction is higher then that of beneficial mutations to adapt.
It does not make someone change, but it means that changes which are beneficial to the new environment are more likely to be kept. In an old environment most adaptations beneficial for that environment have already been made, so very few of the mutations that occur are likely to be passed on. In a new environment there are changes that were not beneficial in the old environment but provide an advantage in the new one. This is why change occurs more rapidly in a species in a new environment.
You mean like frogs becoming resistant to acidity, or the apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation which flourished in humans as a result of a lifestyle which left humans susceptible to heart disease. Well, we've got those mutations and others. You are right that bacteria supply more of these changes.
As well as innovation, there are many cases of modification in reaction to an environment. Galapagos finches changing beak shapes and feral cats changing colour are two that come to mind.
as i said, we have yet to see major mutations.. all these things you mentioned are minor changes and easily observed. Watching a hand turn into a fin has yet to be observed. im talking about major mutations, like the shift from air holes to gill slits, etc...
Well, first air holes to gills seems to be unlikely. Not even whales developed those over 50 million years, so the chances of seeing that occurring over 100 years or so is practically nil. Also, the 50,000 morphological changes that Dr.Berlinski cited are all small changes, most far smaller than the changes I cited.
Hand to fin mutation is gradual. Plenty of people have webbed hands, and it's easy to see how they could become more flipper like over time. Lots of small changes = big change.
your right lots of small changes could mean big changes, but much like the finch beaks, they are cyclical, theybounce back and forth, yet we have never seen those finch beaks become a nose or something else with a different function. we have never seen these small changes progress to anything other then its DNA has already supplied. give me an example apart from bacteria, where an animal as added to its genome information that gave it a positive mutation for its environment.
Sorry I took a while to get back to you on this. I knew the example I wanted, I just couldn't remember the species. The example you are looking for is the development of cecal valves in Italian wall lizards. Quite frankly I am astounded that this example exists, because your argument looks to me like "We have seen the sort of changes we would expect to see over thousands of years, but we have never seen the sort of change we would expect to see over millions of years."
No thats not my argument at all... as i said, the changes can be cyclical, we always assume a forward motion in change, but almost 90 percent of the time its a loss of information not a gain in the dna. those lizards didnt necessarily gain dna info. also its still just minor changes within there body, but its still a lizard... one day it may lose those structures and die, but it will always be a lizard, so moving from one species to another isnt happening or being observed. hence we arent apes!
I'm sorry but those cecal valves are an entirely new structure. If you can't accept that then there is nothing I can say to convince you. The changes you are demanding to see take millions of years. I'd suggest looking to the fossil record, but I'm sure you won't accept that either (if you don't for whales or horses, why for anything else?)
Firstly the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Not one species can traced into another. Not one. All you have is seperate species represented in the fossil record. Of course some of the animals bear similarities, and even a child could make up a rudimentary tree of life. Then the child could point to it and say, "That evolved into that." The child will have just as much evidence as the lifelong evolutionary scientist.
You are wasting your time here. Evolution is balls.
I am sorry but I am going to have to yell. SPECIATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED!!!
There, that feels better.
As for the tree of life, you clearly do not understand this basic concept. The tree of life is impressive because if it was false we would expect to find the same features on different branches of any tree we drew up. It has been remarkably resilient, and this can't just be explained by "lucky guesswork".
Try to restrict your criticisms to things you understand daddypriam.
no your not wasting your time, you are learning something just like me... these valves in the lizard are new structures, but you dont know if they are dormant genes or new DNA thats my point. most likley they already had the info in there dna to change. And your right the kind of evidence does take millions of years, which means you dont have it, and the fossil record doesnt show it apart from assumptions and poor homology. nothing is for sure in any of the philosophies of evolution.
My understanding of the situation is that Italian Wall Lizards exist in a number of environments. In some of these they eat insects and in others they eat plants. The lizards that were moved went from an environment where they ate insects to one where they ate plants.
If the DNA for producing cecal valves was always there we would expect to see cecal valves in plant eating lizards, but we don't. It is an adaptation unique to this one population. That is why it is asserted that this is new.
"nothing is for sure in any of the philosophies of evolution. "
Evolution is not a philosophy. If you want a phrase we can both agree on try "methodological naturalism".
Methodological naturalism does not offer absolute certainty in any of its fields, but it can say that there is so much evidence for a theory that to believe otherwise is foolish.
What has made evolution compelling is that it has made predictions about fossils we might find, such as Tiktalik.
Tiktalik lol seriously dont bother with that.. again the whole argument for tiktalik is based on homology. so you found an animal with similar structures to other animals.. see this is where the philosophy comes in. all the evidence says is that you found another animal, but if you BELIEVE in evolution suddenly its transitional... nothing about it proves its transitional. similar structures or homology dont speak of past events. thus we have to make assumptions. thats not science.
So how did the people who were looking for a transitional form between fish and land animals know which layer of rock to look in? Why do we find no land animals in older rocks? There comes a time when there are simply too many coincidences to ignore.
The changes that a land dwelling mammal had to go through to become a whale are far more than "quite minor", conradleviston. Yet again the changes that dogs are subjected to by selective breeding is deliberately confused with the macro evolution fantasy. Dogs are dogs and all the different breeds would disappear in a few generations were they left to their own devices.
Nice vid. I'm a layman, but I'm fascinated by cetacean and pinnapid evolution. Seeing how a mammal evolved from a land creature ( though maybe creature is the wrong word, as it implies creation) to a sea creature is really interesting.
Thanks. Unfortunately this video is more of a debunking video than an explanation video, so I don't go into some of the really interesting details. Try Googling "Thewissen lab" and you'll get to a great site run by Dr. Thewissen, one of the more important researchers working on whale origins.
Really, is there anything in particular that you feel that I have not answered? I thought I dealt with the main thrust of his claim ( 50,000 is a really big number ) sufficiently. I also pointed out that he was dishonest in the extreme about Von Neumann. What else did you think I should do?
I would say that evolution is REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REA------LLY SLOW and it's so slow that you can't see it. It's kind of like a RELIGION, Evolutionary RELIGION.
Yes evolution is slow, but what you are forced to argue, and what Dr. Berlinski di in fact argue, was "sure, you've seen one change in many species over the course of 150 years, but you can't prove that we could have 100 changes over 1 million years, even though the maths suggests that's possible."
If you don't believe the evidence for evolution, then you would never convict anyone of a crime for which there was no eye-witness evidence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Don't worry Evolution is a Religion which uses millions and billions of years to dazzle its followers. LOL. Never been seen, never will be seen.. Just a fantasy.
Your response is a typical example of how much brainwashing has been done to you to even try to justify the level of the changes. fantasy. People will believe anything.
So what exactly hasn't been shown? Morphological adaptation? Speciation? Change of genetic information? All of these things have been shown, all of these things confirm that evolution can occur at the pace predicted. But then I suppose I am just so brainwashed that I can let my mind be swayed by independantly verefiable data, rather than the narrow interpretation of a self-contradictory book.
Shayneby, can you please go back and read over your comments here, and then think about how you would react if somebody were to argue the same way with you. You have not respnded to any of my points, and your only line of argument has been "You are all deluded, you don't have any facts" even though I have cited a number of areas in which evolutionary theory has provided results.
Would you accept your style of debate from a proponent of evolution, or would you dismiss them out of hand?
Out of curiosity, what evidence would it take for you to accept evolution?
Obviously you believe evolution does not meet it's burden of proof so what is your answer to why we find so many, now extinct animals, ranging back millions of years?
Radiometric methods are the best way to date rocks. I dont know what are your so debunked methods (once again you use a post to say nothing), but I assume you believe that Earth has just some thousand years...
Any geologist can help you to find some usefull reference...
What you've shown is variation within a species. I think what Dr. Berlinski was looking for was one species being transformed into a completely new species hence the cow to whale illustration.
He also admitted that the example was crude, he was simply using to illustrate a point; not to comment on how evolution works.
Dr. Berlinski is not silly enough to use the "Have you ever seen an ape give birth to a human?" argument. All he wants is 50,000 transitional fossils, whereas we only have six from Pakicetus to modern cetaceans.
His maths to show that it was impossible was sheer chicanery on his part. Over 10,000 years we have seen dozens of morphological changes in dogs.
Speciation has been observed, new morphological features have been observed. It adds up to evolution.
Well, I've heard that slight 2-step mutations in a fruit fly take up to 100 million years, not to mention there could be as many as 2 million changes in the cow to whale example; which Dr. Berlinski mentioned.
What kind of morphological changes? How do you know these are from mutation and natural selection? Do you have anything showing these morphological changes?
The purpose of this video was not to prove evolution, but to shw that Dr. Berlinski's critique of it was not valid. I haven't heard what you've heard about fruit flies, but I know for a fact that it does not apply elsewhere.
Morphological change is a scientific term. Obviously morphological changes are quite small. Examples in dogs would be overall size, hair length, size of nose, shape of ears, stiffness of ears, body length, length of legs, hair colour, hair length etc.
If you want to see evidence for a series of changes taking place simultaneously from Pakicetus to modern cetaceans, I woul direct you to "Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution" published in Bioscience on the 1st of December, 2001. A good University science library would have back issues of Bioscience.
Its like you didn't even watch the video. Moreover, even if Darwin was less credible, (what did you use to determine this?) why do you think that Darwin is the only scientist that researches evolution?
showtecc: This must be the most bizarre argument I have read against one of my videos. I went through the entire video and did not find a single comment that I made about Dr. Berlinski's credentials, except that by putting forward such weak arguments he had ruined his credibility.
Can you please furnish me an example of where I havem made reference to Dr.Berlinski's credentials, because when I looked at this video I noted three minutes of preamble, and sx minutes of tackling the arguments.
Anyone watching this video should have no problem understanding why the original video owner allows only creationist comments. This is exactly what he or she was hoping to hide.
Actually, I realised after I put up the video that what I needed to do was list a series of morphological changes we have observed. The list of morphological changes observed in dog breeds is astonishing. Shorter legs, different hair lengths, ear shape, nose shape, coat colour, tail shape, overall size etc.
Well, a part 2 wouldn't be a bad idea. I think many of us would enjoy seeing Berlinski torn down some more, especially in such an effective and eloquent manner as you did.
For those interested in Berlinski's response to this familiar, yet misleading critique, see his article: "Darwin and the Mathematicians" of November 7, 2009.
lourak 2 months ago
Your contentions against Dr. Berlinsaki are loosely constructed, playing with the truth even as much as you accuse Dr. Berlinski. Dr. Berlinski stated he "stopped" at 50,000. Also, his comparative analysis was designed to explain the lack of evolutionary mutations found in the geologic column known as the fossil record.
shortist2003 2 months ago
@shortist2003 Meh, Dr. Berlinski is a liar who put forward a terrible argument. He lied outright about von Neumann, and there is no getting around that, and his unsupported assertion of 50,000 (unless you count half a dozen examples as support) solely relied on the perception that 50,000 was too big a number for evolution to explain, which as I showed it wasn't. There are a huge number of mutations found in the fossil record given the number of fossil sites, Berlinski's demands are unrealistic.
conradleviston 2 months ago
whales, dolphins, etc closest living relatives are hippos.....who spend half their lives in water
kheim1954 8 months ago
Very good video...once again proving that religion has an agenda and science is simply studying the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Thanks
Barkeroni 11 months ago 3
I am glad evolution is finally being seen for the for the foolishness that it is. So many have been dying intellectually under the weight of it!
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt Troll?
conradleviston 1 year ago
@conradleviston Interesting response. Sadly, probably the most profound of all that i have heard from the evolutionist side. ( i am not kidding)
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt Seriously though, what was your point? My video argued that Dr. Berlinski's argument ranged from smoke and mirrors (50,000 morphological changes) to outright lying (von Neumann). Your response was that it was good to see people moving away from evolution. Your response was a total non-sequitur, and I was wondering if you had anything of value to add.
conradleviston 1 year ago
@conradleviston Yes i do. I am sorry. I was taught to not mock the afflicted but i can't seem to stop.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt You are not doing a very good job of convincing me that you are not a troll.
conradleviston 1 year ago
@conradleviston So what?
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt wow your a sad, sad, strange little man.
buktomsin 1 year ago
Great video! Definitely subbing.
urantivirus 1 year ago
So using the example of a cow turning into a whale is a bad example, but using the example of a nimble predator turning into a whale is a good example? Aren't they both as unlikely as the other?
Little changes like beak size, fur colour or whatever do not add up to big changes like new body parts or systems. Whales are whales, and cows or ambuloceti are cows and ambuloceti.
I love the bit mentioning those clever people that understand evolution. As if it makes any sense whatsoever.
daddypriam 2 years ago
The cow is a bad example because it would be hard for it to catch fish, which is almost certainly what led the cetaceans into that biological niche.
Most of the differences between Pakicetus and whales are adaptations. Front limbs become flippers. Hind limbs shrink and disappear (but recur in atavisms). Noses become blow holes. Actual innovations are a very small percentage of Dr. Berlinski's 50,000 changes.
As for cows are cows, are horses just horses or are they zebras and donkeys too?
conradleviston 1 year ago
so humans have been around for thousands of years and we see very little change in us, same with living fossils.. we see no change in them either... so the change every 800 years is very unlikley.
BigG99 2 years ago
The phrase Dr. Berlinski used was "morphological change". These changes are quite minor and we can see dozens of them in dogs (ear shapes, body size, snout length etc.)
In humans there is a fair amount of morphological variation between races (skin colour, heights, nose shapes, eye shapes etc.) so differences of the scale Dr. Berlinski talks about in the last 50,000 years out of Africa. Add to this environmental push factor of moving into water and it becomes more than plausible.
conradleviston 2 years ago
some one please explain to me how the need to change makes someone change... balony.. we die if our environment changes.the likleyhood of extinction is higher then that of beneficial mutations to adapt.
BigG99 2 years ago
It does not make someone change, but it means that changes which are beneficial to the new environment are more likely to be kept. In an old environment most adaptations beneficial for that environment have already been made, so very few of the mutations that occur are likely to be passed on. In a new environment there are changes that were not beneficial in the old environment but provide an advantage in the new one. This is why change occurs more rapidly in a species in a new environment.
conradleviston 2 years ago
you are right! but we have yet to see any major mutations lead a whole species in a new environment apart from bacteria and such.
BigG99 2 years ago
You mean like frogs becoming resistant to acidity, or the apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation which flourished in humans as a result of a lifestyle which left humans susceptible to heart disease. Well, we've got those mutations and others. You are right that bacteria supply more of these changes.
As well as innovation, there are many cases of modification in reaction to an environment. Galapagos finches changing beak shapes and feral cats changing colour are two that come to mind.
conradleviston 2 years ago
as i said, we have yet to see major mutations.. all these things you mentioned are minor changes and easily observed. Watching a hand turn into a fin has yet to be observed. im talking about major mutations, like the shift from air holes to gill slits, etc...
BigG99 2 years ago
Well, first air holes to gills seems to be unlikely. Not even whales developed those over 50 million years, so the chances of seeing that occurring over 100 years or so is practically nil. Also, the 50,000 morphological changes that Dr.Berlinski cited are all small changes, most far smaller than the changes I cited.
Hand to fin mutation is gradual. Plenty of people have webbed hands, and it's easy to see how they could become more flipper like over time. Lots of small changes = big change.
conradleviston 2 years ago
your right lots of small changes could mean big changes, but much like the finch beaks, they are cyclical, theybounce back and forth, yet we have never seen those finch beaks become a nose or something else with a different function. we have never seen these small changes progress to anything other then its DNA has already supplied. give me an example apart from bacteria, where an animal as added to its genome information that gave it a positive mutation for its environment.
BigG99 2 years ago
Sorry I took a while to get back to you on this. I knew the example I wanted, I just couldn't remember the species. The example you are looking for is the development of cecal valves in Italian wall lizards. Quite frankly I am astounded that this example exists, because your argument looks to me like "We have seen the sort of changes we would expect to see over thousands of years, but we have never seen the sort of change we would expect to see over millions of years."
conradleviston 1 year ago
No thats not my argument at all... as i said, the changes can be cyclical, we always assume a forward motion in change, but almost 90 percent of the time its a loss of information not a gain in the dna. those lizards didnt necessarily gain dna info. also its still just minor changes within there body, but its still a lizard... one day it may lose those structures and die, but it will always be a lizard, so moving from one species to another isnt happening or being observed. hence we arent apes!
BigG99 1 year ago
I'm sorry but those cecal valves are an entirely new structure. If you can't accept that then there is nothing I can say to convince you. The changes you are demanding to see take millions of years. I'd suggest looking to the fossil record, but I'm sure you won't accept that either (if you don't for whales or horses, why for anything else?)
I think I might be wasting my time here.
conradleviston 1 year ago
Firstly the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Not one species can traced into another. Not one. All you have is seperate species represented in the fossil record. Of course some of the animals bear similarities, and even a child could make up a rudimentary tree of life. Then the child could point to it and say, "That evolved into that." The child will have just as much evidence as the lifelong evolutionary scientist.
You are wasting your time here. Evolution is balls.
daddypriam 1 year ago
I am sorry but I am going to have to yell. SPECIATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED!!!
There, that feels better.
As for the tree of life, you clearly do not understand this basic concept. The tree of life is impressive because if it was false we would expect to find the same features on different branches of any tree we drew up. It has been remarkably resilient, and this can't just be explained by "lucky guesswork".
Try to restrict your criticisms to things you understand daddypriam.
conradleviston 1 year ago
no your not wasting your time, you are learning something just like me... these valves in the lizard are new structures, but you dont know if they are dormant genes or new DNA thats my point. most likley they already had the info in there dna to change. And your right the kind of evidence does take millions of years, which means you dont have it, and the fossil record doesnt show it apart from assumptions and poor homology. nothing is for sure in any of the philosophies of evolution.
BigG99 1 year ago
My understanding of the situation is that Italian Wall Lizards exist in a number of environments. In some of these they eat insects and in others they eat plants. The lizards that were moved went from an environment where they ate insects to one where they ate plants.
If the DNA for producing cecal valves was always there we would expect to see cecal valves in plant eating lizards, but we don't. It is an adaptation unique to this one population. That is why it is asserted that this is new.
conradleviston 1 year ago
"nothing is for sure in any of the philosophies of evolution. "
Evolution is not a philosophy. If you want a phrase we can both agree on try "methodological naturalism".
Methodological naturalism does not offer absolute certainty in any of its fields, but it can say that there is so much evidence for a theory that to believe otherwise is foolish.
What has made evolution compelling is that it has made predictions about fossils we might find, such as Tiktalik.
conradleviston 1 year ago
Tiktalik lol seriously dont bother with that.. again the whole argument for tiktalik is based on homology. so you found an animal with similar structures to other animals.. see this is where the philosophy comes in. all the evidence says is that you found another animal, but if you BELIEVE in evolution suddenly its transitional... nothing about it proves its transitional. similar structures or homology dont speak of past events. thus we have to make assumptions. thats not science.
BigG99 1 year ago
So how did the people who were looking for a transitional form between fish and land animals know which layer of rock to look in? Why do we find no land animals in older rocks? There comes a time when there are simply too many coincidences to ignore.
conradleviston 1 year ago
The changes that a land dwelling mammal had to go through to become a whale are far more than "quite minor", conradleviston. Yet again the changes that dogs are subjected to by selective breeding is deliberately confused with the macro evolution fantasy. Dogs are dogs and all the different breeds would disappear in a few generations were they left to their own devices.
daddypriam 1 year ago
Nice vid. I'm a layman, but I'm fascinated by cetacean and pinnapid evolution. Seeing how a mammal evolved from a land creature ( though maybe creature is the wrong word, as it implies creation) to a sea creature is really interesting.
CrixMakin 2 years ago
Thanks. Unfortunately this video is more of a debunking video than an explanation video, so I don't go into some of the really interesting details. Try Googling "Thewissen lab" and you'll get to a great site run by Dr. Thewissen, one of the more important researchers working on whale origins.
conradleviston 2 years ago
Thanks, I'll give that a go.
CrixMakin 2 years ago
good video , makes sence to me.
calanmoss 2 years ago
Very nicely done.
I'd like to have an actual measurement of the degree to which DB's asshole would pucker if he spent 9 minutes watching this video...
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
LAME! Not Good Enough
shayneby 2 years ago
Really, is there anything in particular that you feel that I have not answered? I thought I dealt with the main thrust of his claim ( 50,000 is a really big number ) sufficiently. I also pointed out that he was dishonest in the extreme about Von Neumann. What else did you think I should do?
conradleviston 2 years ago
I would say that evolution is REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REA------LLY SLOW and it's so slow that you can't see it. It's kind of like a RELIGION, Evolutionary RELIGION.
shayneby 2 years ago
Yes evolution is slow, but what you are forced to argue, and what Dr. Berlinski di in fact argue, was "sure, you've seen one change in many species over the course of 150 years, but you can't prove that we could have 100 changes over 1 million years, even though the maths suggests that's possible."
If you don't believe the evidence for evolution, then you would never convict anyone of a crime for which there was no eye-witness evidence.
conradleviston 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Don't worry Evolution is a Religion which uses millions and billions of years to dazzle its followers. LOL. Never been seen, never will be seen.. Just a fantasy.
Your response is a typical example of how much brainwashing has been done to you to even try to justify the level of the changes. fantasy. People will believe anything.
shayneby 2 years ago
So what exactly hasn't been shown? Morphological adaptation? Speciation? Change of genetic information? All of these things have been shown, all of these things confirm that evolution can occur at the pace predicted. But then I suppose I am just so brainwashed that I can let my mind be swayed by independantly verefiable data, rather than the narrow interpretation of a self-contradictory book.
conradleviston 2 years ago
keep "PREDICTING" and "SUPPOSING". That's all what your so-called "factual" theory is all about anyways.LOL
shayneby 2 years ago
Shayneby, can you please go back and read over your comments here, and then think about how you would react if somebody were to argue the same way with you. You have not respnded to any of my points, and your only line of argument has been "You are all deluded, you don't have any facts" even though I have cited a number of areas in which evolutionary theory has provided results.
Would you accept your style of debate from a proponent of evolution, or would you dismiss them out of hand?
conradleviston 2 years ago
Out of curiosity, what evidence would it take for you to accept evolution?
Obviously you believe evolution does not meet it's burden of proof so what is your answer to why we find so many, now extinct animals, ranging back millions of years?
redaaron8 2 years ago
"ranging back millions of years?"
how really do you date these fossils?
Please tell me some accurate method not the ones i already know which have been debunked.
And while you're at it. Do we date the rocks by the fossils or vice versa?
Just OUT OF CURIOUSITY?
shayneby 2 years ago
Radiometric methods are the best way to date rocks. I dont know what are your so debunked methods (once again you use a post to say nothing), but I assume you believe that Earth has just some thousand years...
Any geologist can help you to find some usefull reference...
troodon007 2 years ago
@redaaron8 said: "Out of curiosity, what evidence would it take for you to accept evolution?"
Evidence, ANY evidence and save the interpretation, speculation and opinions, they only add to the bullshit already rife in this idiotic theory
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
You don't have to go backwards from a cow, unless you are just following Dr. Butinski's line.
gregrutz 2 years ago
What you've shown is variation within a species. I think what Dr. Berlinski was looking for was one species being transformed into a completely new species hence the cow to whale illustration.
He also admitted that the example was crude, he was simply using to illustrate a point; not to comment on how evolution works.
jcrebel18 2 years ago
Dr. Berlinski is not silly enough to use the "Have you ever seen an ape give birth to a human?" argument. All he wants is 50,000 transitional fossils, whereas we only have six from Pakicetus to modern cetaceans.
His maths to show that it was impossible was sheer chicanery on his part. Over 10,000 years we have seen dozens of morphological changes in dogs.
Speciation has been observed, new morphological features have been observed. It adds up to evolution.
conradleviston 2 years ago
Well, I've heard that slight 2-step mutations in a fruit fly take up to 100 million years, not to mention there could be as many as 2 million changes in the cow to whale example; which Dr. Berlinski mentioned.
What kind of morphological changes? How do you know these are from mutation and natural selection? Do you have anything showing these morphological changes?
Maybe evolution, but not Darwin's theory.
jcrebel18 2 years ago
The purpose of this video was not to prove evolution, but to shw that Dr. Berlinski's critique of it was not valid. I haven't heard what you've heard about fruit flies, but I know for a fact that it does not apply elsewhere.
Morphological change is a scientific term. Obviously morphological changes are quite small. Examples in dogs would be overall size, hair length, size of nose, shape of ears, stiffness of ears, body length, length of legs, hair colour, hair length etc.
conradleviston 2 years ago
If you want to see evidence for a series of changes taking place simultaneously from Pakicetus to modern cetaceans, I woul direct you to "Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution" published in Bioscience on the 1st of December, 2001. A good University science library would have back issues of Bioscience.
conradleviston 2 years ago
Its like you didn't even watch the video. Moreover, even if Darwin was less credible, (what did you use to determine this?) why do you think that Darwin is the only scientist that researches evolution?
BEANMANOR 2 years ago
showtecc: This must be the most bizarre argument I have read against one of my videos. I went through the entire video and did not find a single comment that I made about Dr. Berlinski's credentials, except that by putting forward such weak arguments he had ruined his credibility.
Can you please furnish me an example of where I havem made reference to Dr.Berlinski's credentials, because when I looked at this video I noted three minutes of preamble, and sx minutes of tackling the arguments.
conradleviston 2 years ago
ehhh if you are refering to the video he did focus on his arguments.
logpepsan 2 years ago
Dr. David Berlinski doesn't appeal to America's impaled and stained (pierced & tattooed).
procommenter 2 years ago
Anyone watching this video should have no problem understanding why the original video owner allows only creationist comments. This is exactly what he or she was hoping to hide.
teaboyaudio 3 years ago
Actually, I've noticed that creationist videos more often than not disable both ratings and comments. I wonder why...
aliasbrush 3 years ago
word.
BEANMANOR 2 years ago
Well done. I Present you with the virtual equivalent of a cookie.
muadkak 3 years ago
Excellent video!
I'd love to see more of this. You present your arguments very well. :)
Gnug215 3 years ago
Actually, I realised after I put up the video that what I needed to do was list a series of morphological changes we have observed. The list of morphological changes observed in dog breeds is astonishing. Shorter legs, different hair lengths, ear shape, nose shape, coat colour, tail shape, overall size etc.
conradleviston 3 years ago
Well, a part 2 wouldn't be a bad idea. I think many of us would enjoy seeing Berlinski torn down some more, especially in such an effective and eloquent manner as you did.
Gnug215 3 years ago
Berlinski HAD credibility to destroy?
Atriviality 3 years ago 5
Good video
matias1428 3 years ago