Berlinski needs to learn about embryological development. His 50,000 figure becomes nonsense as soon as you understand how organisms grow. He even used the word "engineering" - which is about as far from how living creatures work as you can get.
Argument from ignorance (even Doctors can be ignorant it seems).
he and his ilk need to be slaped in the face and told to shut the fuck up, denounce there illgotten degrees that they clearly dont deserve, and just sit the fuck down and get the hell out of the way of real progress.
hear that berlinsky?!?!? shut the fuck up and sit down...you are an overeducated asshole.
So Dave thinks it's perfectly plausible that a chihaua evolved from a wolf in 2,000 years but thinks it's impossible to get a whale from a land dwelling creature in 50 million years. Dave you're and IDiot.
dude, protocetus was ADAPTED to the water, besides, at 8:30 u go trolling saying that rodocetus and ambulocetus were separated by 4MY, but richard dawkins and the bristol university says that the pakicetus (older than ambulocetus) lived 48,5MYa and protocetus (younger than rodocetus) first appeared 47MYa, so clearly you are decieving YT users, how do you fit 4MY into 1,5 MY?? that's what happens when an amateur tries to "debunk" a Doctor with direct links to the REAL information
I never said it wasn't, and I specifically said otherwise. This is another blatantly dishonest tactic of creationists.
The rest of your post shows that (again like most creationists) you don't know the first fucking thing about evolution or how it works. Pakicetus could STILL BE AROUND TODAY and it would STILL have taken just as long for whales to evolve.
The 10 commandments ev/mut from the listing in the Egyptian Polytheistic Book of the Dead
The Abrahamic Creator G-D ev/mut from PolyTheism
J(the)C ev/mut from Spiritual PreCursors / Julius(the)Caesar
YOU were not created by a Creator but when the Penus(the)Christus, iow the flesh of your biol.Dad RESURRECTED and spit the Milkey River Of Life into your Mom's Cave Of Creation.You cannot censor me here and it's where the fun starts.
Earth to water transition was much much faster, dawkins says so:
watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg
actually, that video conviniently omits protocetus which appeared 47MY ago, thus making the habitat transition in just 1,5 million years
Oh, btw, at 7:16 this moron says that apes n whales arms are SO similar, but Dawkins teaches that whales-hippos MRCA was a clooven hoofed animal, not a primate, now what? convergent evolution? in water?
@IloveYOUviruses You creationists appear more and more ignorant with every post. A hoof is nothing more than an extended middle finger with a very big fingernail. Look at the bones and you'll see!
@shanedk says someone who lied on the video at 6:40.. oh and now believes that apes, cloven hoofed and cetaceans extremities all look alike... this is new, convergent evolution in water and trees... this is madness.
@IloveYOUviruses Random link? Those are pictures of EXACTLY what you were wanting. Figures you, being a typically dishonest creationist, would come up with a pathetic excuse not to look at them.
And "land to mammal transition"? ALL of those fossils are mammals! If you don't even know that, then how can you speak with ANY kind of knowledge?
@IloveYOUviruses Besides, you're moving the goalposts here (another common dishonest creationist tactic). Berlinski talked about the transition to MODERN WHALES. Protocetus was NOT a modern whale, even though it was fully aquatic. So you dishonestly try to avoid the evidence by changing the time scale not to modern whales but to the first fully aquatic genus in the line. You're pathetic.
@shanedk I'm not correcting Berlinsky, I'm correcting your straw man, you say at 6:40 "whales [from pakicetus?] took 40MY to ADAPT to the water" but protocetus (47MYa) was fully ADAPTED to the water, and Dawkins says that pakicetus lived 48,5 MYa and the MRCA for hipos n whales lived 55MYa, you may want to change one radiometric study but not 3 :)
I see now that you deliberatedly lied on this video and will never correct it
Who knows what else is decietful about this video or your channel...
@IloveYOUviruses No, YOU are deliberately lying. You QUOTE me as saying it took that long for WHALES to evolve and try to refute it with just the time it took to get to protocetus!
Here is my argument against evolution....can you show me that the whale cannot mate with its "previous" form? I know the answer as do you. We can't. I would say it is more safe to assume that they would logically speaking, but evolutions sake let's say they can't. Then the next part would be showing that the transition is in fact a transition. But since none of this is testable or observable this part of evolution is not scientific.
@sgatesofa7x That isn't how evolution works. It's a tree, not a ladder. The confirmation would be the whale not being able to mate with its cousins, which it most decidedly cannot.
Also, see my video "Fuzzy Logic and the Definition of Species."
Man, I've looked through the comments of this video and seen the "debates" between Shane and various users. I have to say, Shane, you missed your calling, you should be a psychiatrist due to your ability to wrap your head around the warped and nonsensical comments to see what they're trying to say. So many of them were so bizarre that I had to rely on your response to work out what they actually meant! Oh, and brilliant video.
Dr Berlinsky comes with his Cow Engineering to swing under water, as if that was proof of something the isl impossible.
If we take as an example the physiological change that Astronaut go trough in as little as three month in space. They lose Bone Pass, the extremities lose strength, It is clear that even in one generation a body change rather quickly in respond to the environment.
I think Dr Berlinsky is the missing Stooge, who never made it because it was too mean.
Thanks for this video. The August 22, 2010 issue of National Geographic has a nice article on whale evolution. A quote from it: "...whales, once celebrated by creationists as the best evidence against evolution, may be evolution's most elegant proof". :-))))
'We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, but we ARE entirely certain that a bronze-age book about a jewish carpenter, a talking snake and a murderous invisible ghost written by a commitee of self-flagellating paedophiles will provide all the explanations we need.'
Well, we all know it's been scientifically proven that evolution, if it occurs, must occur at 1 fixed constant rate (X number of new species/year). Because every functional relationship in nature is a straight line. The 12th law of thermodynamics guarantees universal linearity.
@robocong7420 "we all know it's been scientifically proven that evolution, if it occurs, must occur at 1 fixed constant rate"
We know nothing of the kind! In fact, we know from both evolutionary theory and direct observations, that depending on things like climate and population size evolution can happen in fits and starts, with fast periods of great speciation and longer periods of relatively little change.
And I have NO idea what orifice you pulled the 12th Law of Thermodynamics from.
you asked the other guy about the PCE, not me. I don't know much about it other than i think it was a period of immense diversification over a fairly short (geologically speaking) time. prior to the PCE most life was very simple... like bacteria ...i think
@robocong7420 And I STILL wanna know what you think the 12th Law of Thermodynamics is. In every physics book I've ever looked in, there are only four.
yes, made up. and your inability to sense my sarcasm is laughable. well... on second thought, maybe your excuse can be that believers tend to make arguments so stupid that they are often indistinguishable from sarcasm.
it's amazing how these people are interested enough in evolution to do interviews and write books yet don't even bother to educate themselves on the subject. instead, they just say god did it.
yes, this is also a personal theory of mine - that their ONLY intention is to learn just barely enough of the science to ...figure out a specious angle they can use to argue against it and sound 'scientific'.
Berlinski's 50,000 isn't, as you assume, some mythical limiting-number which evolution could not achieve. Certainly, if random-change-driven evolution were true it could create many tens of thousands of changes for an infinite amount of outcomes. You're not arguing against Berlinski here, you've simply folded your mind back on itself.
Berlinski is saying there should be 50000 transitional forms. Not 5. If whales changed gradually, so should their fossils.
@EmptyHouseGuy Their fossils did change gradually. "Transitional forms" is a division between animals similar to "species". We humans made this division, it is not present in nature. If Pakicetus took 40 million years to transform into a whale, and we assume that every single animal in this line had kids when it was 10, there were 4 million generations, and therefore 4 million transitional forms. However, the transitions from one to the next would be so minute we probably couldn't even spot them
@jursle The fossil record flatly refutes your point. If gradual evolution occurred the fossil record would necessarily have records of many gradually evolved species. It does not, it displays nothing for us but complete and distinct species, NO spectrum is evident in any evolutionary chain. Not even whimsical surmising could rectify the fossil record to Darwin's prediction of gradual changes.
@EmptyHouseGuy "the fossil record would necessarily have records of many gradually evolved species. It does not,"
Um, yes, it does. Thousands upon thousands of them.
"it displays nothing for us but complete and distinct species"
Why would you expect a transitional form to be anything other than complete and distinct in its own right? Yet, their arrangement fits the nested hierarchy perfectly, and you can see the transition between forms clearly.
@shanedk "Many" to you is in the order of perhaps 3-10 presumably intermediary types. As Berlinski points out it'd more likely be in the 10's of thousands.
@EmptyHouseGuy - "As Berlinski points out it'd more likely be in the 10's of thousands."
The 'more likely' phrase in this sentence presupposes an understanding of geology and fossilization, and the fact that you've made it shows you haven't even a rudimentary understanding of either.
Go back to google where you revised your "NO transitional fossil" stance to "some" and learn a bit about the fossilization process and what it actually takes to make one. Then let's talk about likelihoods.
@EmptyHouseGuy As I said in the video, I REALLY have to wonder why! How many transitionals do you think we need between, say, Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus?
@shanedk Again, just a bunch of cartoon drawings and some pictures of random bones laid out on the table in the form of whatever they want it to be. Next...
@ironman197268 No, LIAR! NONE of those links are cartoon drawings, and they ALL depict entire skeletons! But you didn't even bother to look at them, did you, liar? Because if you had, you would have known not to say that pathetically stupid thing. You have to close your mind to ALL evidence, because your pathetic dogma is more important than the truth.
Many of these complete skeleton fossils you're seeing are actually only casting. Museums don't usually put actual fossils on display. You think they drilled holes in the actual fossils and pieced them together for display?..
I like how you spend the majority of this video arguing with his presentation, then say "the real story is much more complex", which was Berlinski's point in the first place. So instead of answering his actual question you only debated his examples and analogies.
@knowwaie Another big reason is that there aren't enough skeletons to go around. Remember that the farther back in time you go, the chances of a surviving fossil diminish. There are actually more specimens of Ardipithecus collected in the few years since its discovery than there are of T. Rex.
Museums will display fossil skeletons under glass, though (not put together like you say), usually on tour.
@knowwaie The point of the video is, if you'll watch it again, that Berlinski just does not know the first thing about what he's talking about! His analogy could not POSSIBLY be more flawed, he can't even cite ONE example of the 50,000 changes he supposedly compiled, and he directly ignores the transitionals that have been discovered.
@shanedk Right, but you're being dishonest here. Berlinski is making a valid observation, and you do recognize it. The point he's making is, if it took millions of years and millions of changes then there should be millions of fossils. What he's saying gets to the heart of the theory. The conclusion is most of these evidences are only saying evolution 'could' happen but has yet to definitively say that evolution 'did' happen. I hope you understand.
@knowwaie "Berlinski is making a valid observation"
NO...HE...IS...NOT! There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER in his "observation" that stands up to ANY scrutiny--and it isn't even an observation at all! It's just something he made up, and has refused to do ANYTHING to even begin to back it up.
You're missing a crucial point in the argument, which has been disputed for decades in the form of "macro or micro" evolution . The point is, there is a difference between showing how something 'could' have happened and showing that it in fact 'did' happen. How can we ignore the complexities when discussing this issue? For example, the whales pelvis, and rear fins. There is a gap between losing their legs and gaining fins. Without this all these fossils are nothing but alligators.
@knowwaie "The point he's making is, if it took millions of years and millions of changes then there should be millions of fossils."
Anyone who knows anything about the process of fossilization knows how ridiculous that claim is. But we have PLENTY of fossils demonstrating the transition, and that's all we need to show that Berlinski is just another creationist LIAR.
I'll play devils advocate to demonstrate the point. I'll argue that whales evolved from shallow water amphibious fish. So, sea mammals actually predate land mammals. All the fossils you cited are in reverse order showing protocetus developing to land mammal features. Clearly, alligators have a four chamber heart, as do whales but most reptiles and mammals do not. You have mammals losing then regaining a four chambered heart. How can that be?
@knowwaie "I'll argue that whales evolved from shallow water amphibious fish."
Then why do they have hair follicles and not fish scales? Why does the skeletal structure of their fins resemble mammalian forelimbs and not fish fins? Why do they have live birth and suckle their young instead of laying eggs? Why do they have all of the mammalian features and none of the features particular to fish?
Neither do amphibians have have scales, hence "amphibious fish". But you have a mammal that does lay eggs but do not have fins, and even some reptiles and amphibians that give live birth, clearly they would have evolved during an early mammalian/amphibious transition if animals gave live birth before the development of fur.
You really don't get it do you? I even said i'm only "playing devils advocate", and you attack the demonstration instead of recognizing the point.
You keep demonstrating my point and defeating your own case at the same time. It's amazing. Salamanders are amphibians and they give live birth and platypus are mammals that lay eggs. So your case for whales coming from mammals is still failing even if my demonstration is false. Understand? You're actually arguing against your own case.
When you were in grade school did you attend prevocational courses for the more advanced students? You're very smart.
You really are retarded aren't you? I'm not even attempting to 'invalidate' evolution, you are actually doing that with your own responses, earlier you said "Then why do they have hair follicles and not fish scales?" Amphibians don't have scales either but reptiles do. Are you telling me that they lost scales then regained them again? Then mammals somehow later regained the ability to lay eggs? I'm attempting to show you that evolution has not be validated in the first place.
btw, the platypus' genome has been sequenced lately: they split off from the rest of the mammalian stock-before marsupials and placentals evolved their respective means of giving birth.
and fish scales are not quite the same as reptile scales-give me a break. they don't even develop the same way. a simple google search can explain that. again, it doesn't show what you are claiming to "unprove" for lack of a better word.
I can't stand when another person joins into a debate they weren't part of. Everything you said is completely irrelevant and you're following the same pattern of ignoring the point. I'm waiting for Shanedk to respond or i'll be repeating myself a lot more than i have to. But in short the point is Berlinski is right and whale evolution is no more established fact than my model of whales evolving from amphibians, and my model is actually a lot more reasonable.
@knowwaie "Berlinski is right and whale evolution is no more established fact than my model of whales evolving from amphibians"
Fine: show the transitional forms from amphibians to whales (WITHOUT going through mammals). Show the genetic sequences showing common ancestry. We can do ALL of this with the mammal-whale line.
It's youtube-I have the right to butt in as much as you can in my conversations. when we are in a salon in RL, maybe I'll show more consideration. until then, quit bitching.
and no, I'm not ignoring your point: you want to prove that evolution isn't necessarily "proven". And how on earth was what I said irrelevant? you're the guy who brought up platypuses, not me-if directly responding to two examples YOU cited was irrelevant, then your answer was from another planet. get a clue.
anyways, to continue my point: if you are going to show that several current models of animal evolution are largely incorrect, you're going to have to do a better job; especially since you think whales evolved from amphibians. for example: how can you account for the fact that whales only have one bone in the lower jaw, whilst amphibian mandibles are compound? what about the inner ear stricture?what about whale's eyelashes? amphibians have none.
you can't just pull shit out of your ass you know.
I didn't say you denied evolution: reread my replies. you did however, express doubts about the current model, specifically that of whales evolving from Mammals.
and I did disprove that whales evolved from amphibians, in that they do not exhibit any derived trait, unique to amphibians: where is the compound mandible, the genomic similarity to Frogs and salamanders, the inner ear structure? care to explain how I magically failed to mention those?
and let me continue: what about the Whale genome? how can you account for the fact that it clearly shows mammalian traits to it, rather than amphibian? or finally, what of the whale's sigmoid bone, the structure of which is the same in Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, or similar animals-the ones you say were not ancestral to Whales?
If whales didn't evolve from mammals, then you have a lot of explaining to do...and I mean a lot, because every feature I mentioned whales having are purely mammalian.
@knowwaie "Amphibians don't have scales either but reptiles do."
Not fish scales they don't. Completely different structure. Likewise, some amphibians have live births, but aren't placentals.
What is it about a branching hierarchy that you don't get? This is NOT a ladder, with every single organism in a sequence. One line can develop live birth while the other continues to lay eggs; yet another branch of the latter could develop live birth on its own.
I'm sorry, did you lose track of the subject? You have yet to disprove my evolutionary model of whales evolving from amphibians. Every attempt has failed. You've accused me of misunderstanding, but clearly it was your own misunderstanding, as i had said amphibians branched into both land and sea creatures. You said whales do not lay eggs, but there are some amphibians who also do not. Placental mammals clearly evolved from whales not from reptiles.
"Whales are placental mammals. Those amphibians you mentioned ARE NOT PLACENTALS."
Of course not, and scientist don't claim amphibians are placentals. This shows that amphibians predate whales in the evolutionary tree. You don't understand evolution.
@knowwaie But YOU are the one saying that amphibians are the DIRECT ANCESTOR of whales, and you're using this as a piece of evidence!
The amphibians you're talking about work COMPLETELY differently than placental mammals. The young ARE in eggs, the eggs are just internal; they're still fed from a yolk, and they have no placental connection to the parent.
And that doesn't explain other things, like why whales suckle their young or have hair follicles. You have to account for ALL of these.
I never said amphibians are the 'direct' ancestors of whales. I said whales and modern amphibians had a 'common' ancestor.
This is how evolution works, we wouldn't expect that amphibian and whale reproduction be the same. You don't understand evolution. Whales did not evolve FROM amphibians, amphibians are also modern animals.
We have plenty of fossils showing this evolution, for example, ambulocetus and protocetus both of which are placental marine mammals, an early form of the whale.
You're so retarded though. The fact that you didn't answer my question of whether you attended prevocational classes tells me that you in fact did. I know you did, and i know that you know your brain isn't up to par.
ok, sarcasm aside: yes, they do, and it doesn't prove whatever you believe. I could easily argue it proves the opposite, since mammals supposedly evolved from egg-laying ancestors; if that was the case, you would expect some descendants to lay eggs.
In fact right in your video your examples keep losing and gaining that rear fin.. That fin isn't just a detaching, disposable part. It's quite crucial for swimming. All of them are shown to have functional legs with no examples of any having the remnant bone of a useless legs as the rear fin developed. I google image searched protocetus and found no fossil evidence of that rear fin, and no reason why it would have one before that point. Then you show rodhocetus.losing the fin?
I felt your excerpts were a bit lacking, so I watched the entire series put on my Dr. Berlinski. You seem to have hit every logical fallacy in the book in refuting him; I really enjoyed some of this thoughts on the topic.
I liked some of your other videos, but your logic falls apart in incompleteness. It's a straw man. You don't even address the arguments that he makes.
I think u missed a lot of he said. For example the 50.000 changes was not to say there wasnt time but there wasnt FOSSILS of this changes, only a few dozens. Darwin expected a LARGE number of intermediate, am I wrong on that? Do you have a paper that counted all the visible morphological changes from Ambulocetus to Rodhocetus? I am really interested on that.
And as I pointed out, we HAVE intermediates. You and he are also completely ignorant of how evolution works: it doesn't work on selecting individual traits, but suites of them, as single genes control more than one function and regulatory sequences control more than one gene.
@MikeMooreAC No, you're completely ignorant FOR THE REASON I SAID, which you apparently don't want to deal with. Evolution does NOT deal with one-at-a-time changes the way Berlinski says. If you can't even be bothered to educate yourself on the basics, then where do you get off acting all smug and self-righteous about it?
@MikeMooreAC 1) YES!!! This whole argument is about Berlinski's mythical 50,000 changes and how that means there MUST be 50,000 transitionals!
2) If single genes control multiple functions (they do), and if regulatory sequences control more than one gene (they do), that means that Berlinski's counting of features is BOGUS. Do you not see that?
1) You are IGNORANT. How many changes constitutes a new "form"? How many transitionals do YOU think there should be between Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus? They're practically the same! There's not some demarcation point between one and the next.
2) YET AGAIN, evolution DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus are practically the same animal; the nostrils are slightly further back, the front legs a bit better adapted for the water, etc. Do some BASIC RESEARCH.
@MikeMooreAC We have THOUSANDS of intermediate fossils. But NO ONE who actually understands the process of fossilization expects there to be one for each and ever change!
As I undersand Berlinski, he is not asking "for each and ever change" he is just repeating de Darwin prediction that should be "numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together".
There is? No. In the whale case. 50.000 changes. How many possible intermediates? One dozen. As an objetive observer one cannot say this is a good evidence for Darwin gradualism.
@MikeMooreAC Learn how fossilization works and stop spewing your idiocy until then. Do you HONESTLY expect EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM to leave a fossil? We'd be standing on 200 miles of fossils if that were the case!!!
"Learn how fossilization works and stop spewing your idiocy until then."
So, the presence of fossils and also the absence is evidence for darwinism. Wonderful logic! Stop been emotive, boy, this will not help you.
"Do you HONESTLY expect EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM to leave a fossil?"
I do expect what the theory predicts, not all but a large number of them. But if want to forget Darwin or change his theory to another thing that will be another question.
@MikeMooreAC We have THOUSANDS of intermediates. Stop lying. We have thousands, and YOU keep bleating that we don't have enough. You're a lying weasel, nothing more.
"Again, how many transitionals would you want between, say, Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus?"
Again, give me a professional paper that compare them and count the number of different addaptive features and we can talk about the number of fossils the theory rigorously require. I dont know if mr Berlinski is correct. I am just been honest to search for. Do you have a different count than 50.000?
@MikeMooreAC Science does NOT work by "number of changes." It's a load of ignorant CRAP. What if the fourth metatarsal is 8mm shorter? Does that count as one change? Then what would it count as if it were only 4mm shorter?
Learn how this stuff works and stop being an ignorant cretard.
Then Darwinism is not science. Small, incremental changes. This is what he says like u or not.
"What if the fourth metatarsal is 8mm shorter? Does that count as one change?"
If you dont have a way or criteria to identify most of changes them u cant count them therefore u can say what evidence to expect therefor u cant say darwin is right. Your question destroys your own gospel.
@MikeMooreAC The only flaws you've pointed out are in your own understanding and your own refusal to learn. You deliberately avoided answering the question: How many changes does an 8mm reduction in length comprise? One? Two? Half?
You have NOTHING. You're just another pathetic LIAR trying to avoid the evidence in order to cling on to your pathetic bronze-age delusion.
The question is very simple and objective. Lets count more or less the mumber of morphological changes and see what we get. Honest seekers of truth dont dodge this because of fear.
"Learn how this stuff works and stop being an ignorant cretard. "
@MikeMooreAC "Lets count more or less the mumber of morphological changes and see what we get."
Again, SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. Do you understand ANYTHING about morphology or phenotype? You're talking YOUR arbitrary criteria and trying to force it into a phenomenon THAT DOES NOT ACT THAT WAY.
So, your personal criteria is agaisnt professional people like Dr Ken Miller, for example. He had the guts to estimate a number, do u know what it was?
"Do you understand ANYTHING about morphology or phenotype?"
Well, honest people can see and undersand that cows are not wales, protocetus arent Ambulocetus etc. But we do need a professional AND HONEST observer to point the number of differences. For obvious reason u have to avoid this very inconvenient question for your gospel.
That was fun but it is enough for me, i will not respond u anymore. ;)
Your lottery example is stupid. Berlinski is pointing out the problem in terms of statistical odds applying permutation with repition where your example is using simple odds. In other words using 16 billiard balls, the odds of picking out ball #16 is 1 in 16. The odds of picking out the balls in order is 1 in 20,922,789,888,000. Two different problems.
Whats really funny is that you guys try to say "OMG that number is soooo huge! NO WAY is that possible!!"
Basically you argue with fallacious logic. Ever play a card game or gamble in your life? Not only that, but the moment you try to use that argument, you simply fail.
Cretards like Berlinski have the good fortune of being someone everyone can point to and laugh at.
@ThatOneQuestion The problem is, human beings stink at probabilities. There's a whole city (Las Vegas) built upon that fact. Consider that Newton invented calculus in a few weeks just so he could describe why planets orbit in ellipses, yet probability theory had to be developed very slowly over centuries by many incredibly intelligent minds.
@ThatOneQuestion said "Ahhhh yes, statistics and Creationists... goes quite well together, as they both stink of bullshit.'...........That's like saying "rock n roll is a tool of the devil and should be treated as sin" So basically statistics should be ignored by evolutionary science because its bullshit?? Tell me, where can I get a copy of your hymnal.
@anolmec Your (and Berlinski's) bullshit version of statistics, yes. We understand REAL statistics--at least, far better than you do. And Berlinski is a mathematician, not a statistician. They're two completely different fields.
@shanedk now you want to change to different argument, to cover YOUR misconception of Berlinski's application of stats...........your are being a bore..
@anolmec Berlinski's "application" is just "ZOMG itz a big numbr!!!!!11!1!!!11one!111one11!!1eleventy-one11"
He doesn't relate it to anything realistic, nor does he consider the other possibilities the way a statistician would. In REAL statistics, you have to state AHEAD OF TIME what kind of numbers you're looking for to know whether or not the result fits. Berlinski didn't do ANY of that.
"now you want to change to different argument, to cover YOUR misconception of Berlinski's application of stats"
HAHAHAHAHHA!!! Anolmec, YOU just changed the subject yourself in your comment to me by saying ALL statistics should be removed because this Creationist dumbass made a mockery of the field.
Thanks for exposing your ignorance on the subject.
"So basically statistics should be ignored by evolutionary science because its bullshit??"
When someone says "OMG look at the odds!! There is NO WAY it could have happened, THEREFOR Magic Man is real and everything you think you know about the world is WRONG!!!!111"
Yes, THAT is when Cretards and their bullshit statistics should be ignored.
Yep! Being a creationist is the mark of a bad education. Being an educated creationist is the mark of a liar.
Ackers555 4 months ago 3
I just never get tired of this video...I've watched it at least twenty times. Good times!
amaxamon 4 months ago
Note how he moves his hands, I hate this guy's fake intellectual gestures...
shumbusgumbuli 7 months ago
the ood! vote up if you got the doctor who reference :)
sabin97 8 months ago
Berlinski needs to learn about embryological development. His 50,000 figure becomes nonsense as soon as you understand how organisms grow. He even used the word "engineering" - which is about as far from how living creatures work as you can get.
Argument from ignorance (even Doctors can be ignorant it seems).
p0rtaccio 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Commentary by a real mathematician and computer scientist:
recursed.blogspot.com/2008/04/david-berlinski-king-of-poseurs.html
NEUoJBh1Ngtj 10 months ago
LIAR! Cows can individually change over time.......into steaks, ribs, and hamburgers.
ThePyro3825 1 year ago 9
berlinsky is an over educated fucking moron.
he and his ilk need to be slaped in the face and told to shut the fuck up, denounce there illgotten degrees that they clearly dont deserve, and just sit the fuck down and get the hell out of the way of real progress.
hear that berlinsky?!?!? shut the fuck up and sit down...you are an overeducated asshole.
zencat999 1 year ago
@zencat999
Good Call! Over education is the problem.... "over educated moron"
Really though?
dhwhat11 11 months ago
So Dave thinks it's perfectly plausible that a chihaua evolved from a wolf in 2,000 years but thinks it's impossible to get a whale from a land dwelling creature in 50 million years. Dave you're and IDiot.
baldurus1 1 year ago
IloveYOUviruses, you persisting in this LIE after being corrected TWICE now violates this channel's Rule #5. First warning.
shanedk 1 year ago
dude, protocetus was ADAPTED to the water, besides, at 8:30 u go trolling saying that rodocetus and ambulocetus were separated by 4MY, but richard dawkins and the bristol university says that the pakicetus (older than ambulocetus) lived 48,5MYa and protocetus (younger than rodocetus) first appeared 47MYa, so clearly you are decieving YT users, how do you fit 4MY into 1,5 MY?? that's what happens when an amateur tries to "debunk" a Doctor with direct links to the REAL information
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses "dude, protocetus was ADAPTED to the water"
I never said it wasn't, and I specifically said otherwise. This is another blatantly dishonest tactic of creationists.
The rest of your post shows that (again like most creationists) you don't know the first fucking thing about evolution or how it works. Pakicetus could STILL BE AROUND TODAY and it would STILL have taken just as long for whales to evolve.
shanedk 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses I agree you don't even have the brain to have a conversation about this guy please.
nacho2354 5 months ago
@nacho2354 Name calling, wow, you are full of surprises!
IloveYOUviruses 5 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses
Whales evolved / mutated from Land Mammals
The 10 commandments ev/mut from the listing in the Egyptian Polytheistic Book of the Dead
The Abrahamic Creator G-D ev/mut from PolyTheism
J(the)C ev/mut from Spiritual PreCursors / Julius(the)Caesar
YOU were not created by a Creator but when the Penus(the)Christus, iow the flesh of your biol.Dad RESURRECTED and spit the Milkey River Of Life into your Mom's Cave Of Creation.You cannot censor me here and it's where the fun starts.
kleenex3000 1 week ago
"whales took 40MY to adapt to the water" 6:40
Earth to water transition was much much faster, dawkins says so:
watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg
actually, that video conviniently omits protocetus which appeared 47MY ago, thus making the habitat transition in just 1,5 million years
Oh, btw, at 7:16 this moron says that apes n whales arms are SO similar, but Dawkins teaches that whales-hippos MRCA was a clooven hoofed animal, not a primate, now what? convergent evolution? in water?
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses You creationists appear more and more ignorant with every post. A hoof is nothing more than an extended middle finger with a very big fingernail. Look at the bones and you'll see!
Trust a creationist to argue with PICTURES...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
It's even worse when they try to use math.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd Or argue with it.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Indeed.
I still remember when that one creationist tried to multiply 4 and 3 and got 1200.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@shanedk says someone who lied on the video at 6:40.. oh and now believes that apes, cloven hoofed and cetaceans extremities all look alike... this is new, convergent evolution in water and trees... this is madness.
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses It's NOT convergent evolution, it's common ancestry. I linked you to the pictures. Look how similar they are!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk open a random link? how can I trust in someone who is incapable of correct his decietful video?
remember 6:40, Dawkins says NO! watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg land to mammal transition took 6MY top, research protocetus.
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses If this guy lied at 6:40 about land to water (to correct my oher comment) transition, who knows what else could be wrong here...
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses Random link? Those are pictures of EXACTLY what you were wanting. Figures you, being a typically dishonest creationist, would come up with a pathetic excuse not to look at them.
And "land to mammal transition"? ALL of those fossils are mammals! If you don't even know that, then how can you speak with ANY kind of knowledge?
shanedk 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses Besides, you're moving the goalposts here (another common dishonest creationist tactic). Berlinski talked about the transition to MODERN WHALES. Protocetus was NOT a modern whale, even though it was fully aquatic. So you dishonestly try to avoid the evidence by changing the time scale not to modern whales but to the first fully aquatic genus in the line. You're pathetic.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I'm not correcting Berlinsky, I'm correcting your straw man, you say at 6:40 "whales [from pakicetus?] took 40MY to ADAPT to the water" but protocetus (47MYa) was fully ADAPTED to the water, and Dawkins says that pakicetus lived 48,5 MYa and the MRCA for hipos n whales lived 55MYa, you may want to change one radiometric study but not 3 :)
I see now that you deliberatedly lied on this video and will never correct it
Who knows what else is decietful about this video or your channel...
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses No, YOU are deliberately lying. You QUOTE me as saying it took that long for WHALES to evolve and try to refute it with just the time it took to get to protocetus!
YOU are the liar. ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk If you correct someone who makes fun of wisdom, you will be insulted. If you correct an evil person, you will get hurt.
Do not correct those who make fun of wisdom, or they will hate you. But correct the wise, and they will love you.
Teach the wise, and they will become even wiser; teach good people, and they will learn even more.
-Pr 9
This thread was very very funny to me :D
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses So, wait, your Holy God Damn Book(tm) actually SAYS that no one is supposed to correct those spouting bogosity?
Well, how convenient for the damn creationists!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk yeah... King Solomon predicted antitheism 3 millenia ago so he made that convenient teaching :)
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses Yeah, as if no one at the time was telling them what bullshit it was...
shanedk 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses Another picture for you to dishonestly ignore:
gooDOTgl/JfrIS
shanedk 1 year ago
Here is my argument against evolution....can you show me that the whale cannot mate with its "previous" form? I know the answer as do you. We can't. I would say it is more safe to assume that they would logically speaking, but evolutions sake let's say they can't. Then the next part would be showing that the transition is in fact a transition. But since none of this is testable or observable this part of evolution is not scientific.
sgatesofa7x 1 year ago
@sgatesofa7x That isn't how evolution works. It's a tree, not a ladder. The confirmation would be the whale not being able to mate with its cousins, which it most decidedly cannot.
Also, see my video "Fuzzy Logic and the Definition of Species."
shanedk 1 year ago
@sgatesofa7x what you're describing is called speciation
Fernoe 1 year ago
Man, I've looked through the comments of this video and seen the "debates" between Shane and various users. I have to say, Shane, you missed your calling, you should be a psychiatrist due to your ability to wrap your head around the warped and nonsensical comments to see what they're trying to say. So many of them were so bizarre that I had to rely on your response to work out what they actually meant! Oh, and brilliant video.
CWJacksBirthday 1 year ago
Dr Berlinsky comes with his Cow Engineering to swing under water, as if that was proof of something the isl impossible.
If we take as an example the physiological change that Astronaut go trough in as little as three month in space. They lose Bone Pass, the extremities lose strength, It is clear that even in one generation a body change rather quickly in respond to the environment.
I think Dr Berlinsky is the missing Stooge, who never made it because it was too mean.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
Train a Cow into a whale?
this is actually more idiotic and more fantastic than the Behold the atheist nightmare, the Banana. Ray conform should feel vindicated.
What is the most scariest and dangerous aspect of this, is that this moron is teaching science in some colleges.
Poor students.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
Thanks for this video. The August 22, 2010 issue of National Geographic has a nice article on whale evolution. A quote from it: "...whales, once celebrated by creationists as the best evidence against evolution, may be evolution's most elegant proof". :-))))
bersa888 1 year ago
thank you for putting the ood, i loved watching the progressions of the oop on dw..yay, damn spell check, OOD IS A WORD
pandamanman89 1 year ago
'We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, but we ARE entirely certain that a bronze-age book about a jewish carpenter, a talking snake and a murderous invisible ghost written by a commitee of self-flagellating paedophiles will provide all the explanations we need.'
MilesB1975 1 year ago
yet, the cambrian explosion poses a problem for evolution as Darwin himself noted regarding the problems in the fossil record.
DeanTheMarine 1 year ago
@DeanTheMarine Okay, explain the Cambrian Explosion for us. My guess is that you don't even know what it is.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Well, we all know it's been scientifically proven that evolution, if it occurs, must occur at 1 fixed constant rate (X number of new species/year). Because every functional relationship in nature is a straight line. The 12th law of thermodynamics guarantees universal linearity.
robocong7420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robocong7420 "we all know it's been scientifically proven that evolution, if it occurs, must occur at 1 fixed constant rate"
We know nothing of the kind! In fact, we know from both evolutionary theory and direct observations, that depending on things like climate and population size evolution can happen in fits and starts, with fast periods of great speciation and longer periods of relatively little change.
And I have NO idea what orifice you pulled the 12th Law of Thermodynamics from.
shanedk 1 year ago
@robocong7420 And you didn't answer the question: do you even know what the Cambrian Explosion IS?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
you asked the other guy about the PCE, not me. I don't know much about it other than i think it was a period of immense diversification over a fairly short (geologically speaking) time. prior to the PCE most life was very simple... like bacteria ...i think
robocong7420 1 year ago
@robocong7420 You responded to the post, though.
shanedk 1 year ago
@robocong7420 And I STILL wanna know what you think the 12th Law of Thermodynamics is. In every physics book I've ever looked in, there are only four.
shanedk 1 year ago 3
@shanedk
the 12th law is the one that says the rate of evolution, i.e. number of new species per year, must be equal to a constant. (hardey har har)
robocong7420 1 year ago
@robocong7420 Ah, so it's made up shit, then.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
yes, made up. and your inability to sense my sarcasm is laughable. well... on second thought, maybe your excuse can be that believers tend to make arguments so stupid that they are often indistinguishable from sarcasm.
robocong7420 1 year ago
@robocong7420 That's Poe's Law.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
So he poe'wned, you? ;P
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@shanedk
"And you didn't answer the question: do you even know what the Cambrian Explosion IS? "
That's what Marcus Camby calls one of his dunks! hehe
Galactu5 1 year ago
it's amazing how these people are interested enough in evolution to do interviews and write books yet don't even bother to educate themselves on the subject. instead, they just say god did it.
robocong7420 1 year ago
@robocong7420 That's just the thing: they're NOT interested in evolution. They're interested only in propping up their religion with bogus science.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
yes, this is also a personal theory of mine - that their ONLY intention is to learn just barely enough of the science to ...figure out a specious angle they can use to argue against it and sound 'scientific'.
robocong7420 1 year ago
@robocong7420 That squares with my observations as well.
shanedk 1 year ago
Ood, hahahahaha
CristianApostol 1 year ago
More notes on stupidity.
Berlinski's 50,000 isn't, as you assume, some mythical limiting-number which evolution could not achieve. Certainly, if random-change-driven evolution were true it could create many tens of thousands of changes for an infinite amount of outcomes. You're not arguing against Berlinski here, you've simply folded your mind back on itself.
Berlinski is saying there should be 50000 transitional forms. Not 5. If whales changed gradually, so should their fossils.
EmptyHouseGuy 1 year ago
@EmptyHouseGuy Their fossils did change gradually. "Transitional forms" is a division between animals similar to "species". We humans made this division, it is not present in nature. If Pakicetus took 40 million years to transform into a whale, and we assume that every single animal in this line had kids when it was 10, there were 4 million generations, and therefore 4 million transitional forms. However, the transitions from one to the next would be so minute we probably couldn't even spot them
jursle 1 year ago
@jursle The fossil record flatly refutes your point. If gradual evolution occurred the fossil record would necessarily have records of many gradually evolved species. It does not, it displays nothing for us but complete and distinct species, NO spectrum is evident in any evolutionary chain. Not even whimsical surmising could rectify the fossil record to Darwin's prediction of gradual changes.
EmptyHouseGuy 1 year ago
@EmptyHouseGuy "the fossil record would necessarily have records of many gradually evolved species. It does not,"
Um, yes, it does. Thousands upon thousands of them.
"it displays nothing for us but complete and distinct species"
Why would you expect a transitional form to be anything other than complete and distinct in its own right? Yet, their arrangement fits the nested hierarchy perfectly, and you can see the transition between forms clearly.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk "Many" to you is in the order of perhaps 3-10 presumably intermediary types. As Berlinski points out it'd more likely be in the 10's of thousands.
EmptyHouseGuy 1 year ago
@EmptyHouseGuy - "As Berlinski points out it'd more likely be in the 10's of thousands."
The 'more likely' phrase in this sentence presupposes an understanding of geology and fossilization, and the fact that you've made it shows you haven't even a rudimentary understanding of either.
Go back to google where you revised your "NO transitional fossil" stance to "some" and learn a bit about the fossilization process and what it actually takes to make one. Then let's talk about likelihoods.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
@EmptyHouseGuy As I said in the video, I REALLY have to wonder why! How many transitionals do you think we need between, say, Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Yeah, thousands and thousands of cartoons.
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268 No, LIAR, they have the ACTUAL FOSSILS of the ACTUAL SKELETONS.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 1 year ago
@ironman197268 Here's the Ambulocetus skeleton, LIAR: w w wDOTphilvazDOTcom/apologetics/AmbulocetusDOTjpg
Here's Basilosaurus, LIAR: daleyDOTmedDOTharvardDOTedu/assets/Willy/BasilosaurusDOTjpg
And here's Dorudon, LIAR: uploadDOTwikimediaDOTorg /wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/ Dorudon_atrox_SenckenbergDOTjpg /800px-Dorudon_atrox_SenckenbergDOTjpg
I found these with a simple Google Images search. So how much research do YOU claim to have done, LIAR?
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE *ALWAYS* LIARS.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Again, just a bunch of cartoon drawings and some pictures of random bones laid out on the table in the form of whatever they want it to be. Next...
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268 No, LIAR! NONE of those links are cartoon drawings, and they ALL depict entire skeletons! But you didn't even bother to look at them, did you, liar? Because if you had, you would have known not to say that pathetically stupid thing. You have to close your mind to ALL evidence, because your pathetic dogma is more important than the truth.
shanedk 1 year ago 9
Many of these complete skeleton fossils you're seeing are actually only casting. Museums don't usually put actual fossils on display. You think they drilled holes in the actual fossils and pieced them together for display?..
I like how you spend the majority of this video arguing with his presentation, then say "the real story is much more complex", which was Berlinski's point in the first place. So instead of answering his actual question you only debated his examples and analogies.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie Another big reason is that there aren't enough skeletons to go around. Remember that the farther back in time you go, the chances of a surviving fossil diminish. There are actually more specimens of Ardipithecus collected in the few years since its discovery than there are of T. Rex.
Museums will display fossil skeletons under glass, though (not put together like you say), usually on tour.
shanedk 1 year ago
@knowwaie The point of the video is, if you'll watch it again, that Berlinski just does not know the first thing about what he's talking about! His analogy could not POSSIBLY be more flawed, he can't even cite ONE example of the 50,000 changes he supposedly compiled, and he directly ignores the transitionals that have been discovered.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Right, but you're being dishonest here. Berlinski is making a valid observation, and you do recognize it. The point he's making is, if it took millions of years and millions of changes then there should be millions of fossils. What he's saying gets to the heart of the theory. The conclusion is most of these evidences are only saying evolution 'could' happen but has yet to definitively say that evolution 'did' happen. I hope you understand.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie "Berlinski is making a valid observation"
NO...HE...IS...NOT! There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER in his "observation" that stands up to ANY scrutiny--and it isn't even an observation at all! It's just something he made up, and has refused to do ANYTHING to even begin to back it up.
shanedk 1 year ago
You're missing a crucial point in the argument, which has been disputed for decades in the form of "macro or micro" evolution . The point is, there is a difference between showing how something 'could' have happened and showing that it in fact 'did' happen. How can we ignore the complexities when discussing this issue? For example, the whales pelvis, and rear fins. There is a gap between losing their legs and gaining fins. Without this all these fossils are nothing but alligators.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie "which has been disputed for decades in the form of "macro or micro" evolution"
There is no such distinction ANYWHERE in science. It's a distinction the creationists just made up to try and dismiss evidence.
"For example, the whales pelvis, and rear fins."
There are very nice transitionals there, from Ambulocetus to Kutchicetus to Rodhocetus to Protocetus.
shanedk 1 year ago
@knowwaie "There is a gap between losing their legs and gaining fins."
No, there isn't. As the above transitionals show, legs developed into fins.
shanedk 1 year ago
@knowwaie "The point he's making is, if it took millions of years and millions of changes then there should be millions of fossils."
Anyone who knows anything about the process of fossilization knows how ridiculous that claim is. But we have PLENTY of fossils demonstrating the transition, and that's all we need to show that Berlinski is just another creationist LIAR.
shanedk 1 year ago
I'll play devils advocate to demonstrate the point. I'll argue that whales evolved from shallow water amphibious fish. So, sea mammals actually predate land mammals. All the fossils you cited are in reverse order showing protocetus developing to land mammal features. Clearly, alligators have a four chamber heart, as do whales but most reptiles and mammals do not. You have mammals losing then regaining a four chambered heart. How can that be?
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie "I'll argue that whales evolved from shallow water amphibious fish."
Then why do they have hair follicles and not fish scales? Why does the skeletal structure of their fins resemble mammalian forelimbs and not fish fins? Why do they have live birth and suckle their young instead of laying eggs? Why do they have all of the mammalian features and none of the features particular to fish?
The nested hierarchy blows your point away.
shanedk 1 year ago
Neither do amphibians have have scales, hence "amphibious fish". But you have a mammal that does lay eggs but do not have fins, and even some reptiles and amphibians that give live birth, clearly they would have evolved during an early mammalian/amphibious transition if animals gave live birth before the development of fur.
You really don't get it do you? I even said i'm only "playing devils advocate", and you attack the demonstration instead of recognizing the point.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie "Neither do amphibians have have scales"
So?
"hence "amphibious fish"."
No, an amphibious fish would be something like a mudskipper.
Your entire post shows that you don't have the first clue how the nested hierarchy works.
shanedk 1 year ago
You keep demonstrating my point and defeating your own case at the same time. It's amazing. Salamanders are amphibians and they give live birth and platypus are mammals that lay eggs. So your case for whales coming from mammals is still failing even if my demonstration is false. Understand? You're actually arguing against your own case.
When you were in grade school did you attend prevocational courses for the more advanced students? You're very smart.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie "Salamanders are amphibians and they give live birth and platypus are mammals that lay eggs."
And why would you think that somehow invalidates evolution? I challenge you to go to ANY biology professor and say that, and post his response here.
shanedk 1 year ago
You really are retarded aren't you? I'm not even attempting to 'invalidate' evolution, you are actually doing that with your own responses, earlier you said "Then why do they have hair follicles and not fish scales?" Amphibians don't have scales either but reptiles do. Are you telling me that they lost scales then regained them again? Then mammals somehow later regained the ability to lay eggs? I'm attempting to show you that evolution has not be validated in the first place.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie
btw, the platypus' genome has been sequenced lately: they split off from the rest of the mammalian stock-before marsupials and placentals evolved their respective means of giving birth.
and fish scales are not quite the same as reptile scales-give me a break. they don't even develop the same way. a simple google search can explain that. again, it doesn't show what you are claiming to "unprove" for lack of a better word.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
I can't stand when another person joins into a debate they weren't part of. Everything you said is completely irrelevant and you're following the same pattern of ignoring the point. I'm waiting for Shanedk to respond or i'll be repeating myself a lot more than i have to. But in short the point is Berlinski is right and whale evolution is no more established fact than my model of whales evolving from amphibians, and my model is actually a lot more reasonable.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie "Berlinski is right and whale evolution is no more established fact than my model of whales evolving from amphibians"
Fine: show the transitional forms from amphibians to whales (WITHOUT going through mammals). Show the genetic sequences showing common ancestry. We can do ALL of this with the mammal-whale line.
shanedk 1 year ago
@knowwaie
It's youtube-I have the right to butt in as much as you can in my conversations. when we are in a salon in RL, maybe I'll show more consideration. until then, quit bitching.
and no, I'm not ignoring your point: you want to prove that evolution isn't necessarily "proven". And how on earth was what I said irrelevant? you're the guy who brought up platypuses, not me-if directly responding to two examples YOU cited was irrelevant, then your answer was from another planet. get a clue.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
anyways, to continue my point: if you are going to show that several current models of animal evolution are largely incorrect, you're going to have to do a better job; especially since you think whales evolved from amphibians. for example: how can you account for the fact that whales only have one bone in the lower jaw, whilst amphibian mandibles are compound? what about the inner ear stricture?what about whale's eyelashes? amphibians have none.
you can't just pull shit out of your ass you know.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
"how can you account for the fact that whales only have one bone in the lower jaw whilst amphibian mandibles are compound?"
Evolution.
"what about the inner ear stricture?"
Evolution.
"what about whale's eyelashes?"
Evolution.
You're going to deny evolution now? How can you disagree with science?
knowwaie 1 year ago
I didn't say you denied evolution: reread my replies. you did however, express doubts about the current model, specifically that of whales evolving from Mammals.
and I did disprove that whales evolved from amphibians, in that they do not exhibit any derived trait, unique to amphibians: where is the compound mandible, the genomic similarity to Frogs and salamanders, the inner ear structure? care to explain how I magically failed to mention those?
Albukhshi 1 year ago
I answered. These things have evolved. What exactly is the issue?
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie
that either you're pulling our legs, or you are just wrong, by saying whales come from Amphibians.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@knowwaie
well, that was the smartassed way of putting it.
nevermind, I'll just leave you to Shane.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@knowwaie
"I'm not ignoring your point: you want to prove that evolution isn't necessarily "proven""
correction: current model of evolution.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
and let me continue: what about the Whale genome? how can you account for the fact that it clearly shows mammalian traits to it, rather than amphibian? or finally, what of the whale's sigmoid bone, the structure of which is the same in Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, or similar animals-the ones you say were not ancestral to Whales?
If whales didn't evolve from mammals, then you have a lot of explaining to do...and I mean a lot, because every feature I mentioned whales having are purely mammalian.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@knowwaie "Amphibians don't have scales either but reptiles do."
Not fish scales they don't. Completely different structure. Likewise, some amphibians have live births, but aren't placentals.
What is it about a branching hierarchy that you don't get? This is NOT a ladder, with every single organism in a sequence. One line can develop live birth while the other continues to lay eggs; yet another branch of the latter could develop live birth on its own.
You don't understand THE BASICS.
shanedk 1 year ago
I'm sorry, did you lose track of the subject? You have yet to disprove my evolutionary model of whales evolving from amphibians. Every attempt has failed. You've accused me of misunderstanding, but clearly it was your own misunderstanding, as i had said amphibians branched into both land and sea creatures. You said whales do not lay eggs, but there are some amphibians who also do not. Placental mammals clearly evolved from whales not from reptiles.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie "You have yet to disprove my evolutionary model of whales evolving from amphibians."
Shifting Burden Fallacy.
"i had said amphibians branched into both land and sea creatures."
No one denies this; it's the order in which you have them do it that defies all the evidence.
Whales are placental mammals. Those amphibians you mentioned ARE NOT PLACENTALS.
shanedk 1 year ago
"Whales are placental mammals. Those amphibians you mentioned ARE NOT PLACENTALS."
Of course not, and scientist don't claim amphibians are placentals. This shows that amphibians predate whales in the evolutionary tree. You don't understand evolution.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie But YOU are the one saying that amphibians are the DIRECT ANCESTOR of whales, and you're using this as a piece of evidence!
The amphibians you're talking about work COMPLETELY differently than placental mammals. The young ARE in eggs, the eggs are just internal; they're still fed from a yolk, and they have no placental connection to the parent.
And that doesn't explain other things, like why whales suckle their young or have hair follicles. You have to account for ALL of these.
shanedk 1 year ago
I never said amphibians are the 'direct' ancestors of whales. I said whales and modern amphibians had a 'common' ancestor.
This is how evolution works, we wouldn't expect that amphibian and whale reproduction be the same. You don't understand evolution. Whales did not evolve FROM amphibians, amphibians are also modern animals.
We have plenty of fossils showing this evolution, for example, ambulocetus and protocetus both of which are placental marine mammals, an early form of the whale.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie "I never said amphibians are the 'direct' ancestors of whales."
You most certainly did! That's what STARTED this whole conversation! You said that whales EVOLVED FROM amphibians. YOUR words.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk You're just a creationist retard.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie That's the laugh of the decade! You're pathetically desperate now...
shanedk 1 year ago
You're so retarded though. The fact that you didn't answer my question of whether you attended prevocational classes tells me that you in fact did. I know you did, and i know that you know your brain isn't up to par.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie "@shanedk You're just a creationist retard."
LOLWUT
vspqbd 1 year ago
@knowwaie
really, platypuses do?
ok, sarcasm aside: yes, they do, and it doesn't prove whatever you believe. I could easily argue it proves the opposite, since mammals supposedly evolved from egg-laying ancestors; if that was the case, you would expect some descendants to lay eggs.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
In fact right in your video your examples keep losing and gaining that rear fin.. That fin isn't just a detaching, disposable part. It's quite crucial for swimming. All of them are shown to have functional legs with no examples of any having the remnant bone of a useless legs as the rear fin developed. I google image searched protocetus and found no fossil evidence of that rear fin, and no reason why it would have one before that point. Then you show rodhocetus.losing the fin?
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie "In fact right in your video your examples keep losing and gaining that rear fin."
No, they don't. Look at the fossils.
"All of them are shown to have functional legs with no examples of any having the remnant bone of a useless legs as the rear fin developed."
Bullshit. Not only do transitionals such as Squalodon and Basilosaurus clearly show it, it's still present in some cetaceans today!
Oh, but you Googled, so that makes you an expert...
shanedk 1 year ago
I felt your excerpts were a bit lacking, so I watched the entire series put on my Dr. Berlinski. You seem to have hit every logical fallacy in the book in refuting him; I really enjoyed some of this thoughts on the topic.
I liked some of your other videos, but your logic falls apart in incompleteness. It's a straw man. You don't even address the arguments that he makes.
EmptyHouseGuy 1 year ago
I think u missed a lot of he said. For example the 50.000 changes was not to say there wasnt time but there wasnt FOSSILS of this changes, only a few dozens. Darwin expected a LARGE number of intermediate, am I wrong on that? Do you have a paper that counted all the visible morphological changes from Ambulocetus to Rodhocetus? I am really interested on that.
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC No, he said there WASN'T TIME.
And as I pointed out, we HAVE intermediates. You and he are also completely ignorant of how evolution works: it doesn't work on selecting individual traits, but suites of them, as single genes control more than one function and regulatory sequences control more than one gene.
shanedk 1 year ago
"No, he said there WASN'T TIME."
No, he did not. He is talking about the large number of gradual intermediate body plans that Darwin theory predicts that should be found (but wasnt).
"we HAVE intermediates."
He doesnt deny that, does he?
"You and he are also completely ignorant of how evolution works"
I am a "complete ignorant" because a have ask a FEW questions? Haha.
Dont bother to answer both questions from my previous post. bye
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC No, you're completely ignorant FOR THE REASON I SAID, which you apparently don't want to deal with. Evolution does NOT deal with one-at-a-time changes the way Berlinski says. If you can't even be bothered to educate yourself on the basics, then where do you get off acting all smug and self-righteous about it?
shanedk 1 year ago
My friend, I DO bother to educate myself or I wouldnt ask u questions!
Did I say a word about (1) evolution works selectin single traits and (2) single genes controling just one function? NO. So, just strawmen from u.
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC 1) YES!!! This whole argument is about Berlinski's mythical 50,000 changes and how that means there MUST be 50,000 transitionals!
2) If single genes control multiple functions (they do), and if regulatory sequences control more than one gene (they do), that means that Berlinski's counting of features is BOGUS. Do you not see that?
shanedk 1 year ago
I am making very simple questions! Do you have papers that:
(1) Estimate how many transitional forms are necessary to a full land cow evolve into a full whater whale?
(2) Counted all the visible morphological changes from Ambulocetus to Rodhocetus?
But if u think I am "acting all smug and self-righteous" because I making some questions ok. Dont bother to answer them and bye.
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC
1) You are IGNORANT. How many changes constitutes a new "form"? How many transitionals do YOU think there should be between Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus? They're practically the same! There's not some demarcation point between one and the next.
2) YET AGAIN, evolution DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus are practically the same animal; the nostrils are slightly further back, the front legs a bit better adapted for the water, etc. Do some BASIC RESEARCH.
shanedk 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC We have THOUSANDS of intermediate fossils. But NO ONE who actually understands the process of fossilization expects there to be one for each and ever change!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
As I undersand Berlinski, he is not asking "for each and ever change" he is just repeating de Darwin prediction that should be "numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together".
There is? No. In the whale case. 50.000 changes. How many possible intermediates? One dozen. As an objetive observer one cannot say this is a good evidence for Darwin gradualism.
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC "As I undersand Berlinski, he is not asking "for each and ever change"
He says (but refuses to support) that there are 50,000 changes, so there should be 50,000 fossils. THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS!
"There is? No."
YES. Ask ANY biologist.
"As an objetive observer one cannot say this is a good evidence for Darwin gradualism."
Again, how many transitionals would you want between, say, Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
And even if we didn't have a single fossil, we'd still have vast evidence from the genetic record.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd Yes, in fact, whale genetics has been extensively studied and the genetic tree mapped out.
Which actually makes Berlinski's claim of 50,000 changes ludicrous--whales don't even have 50,000 genes!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"He says (but refuses to support) that there are 50,000 changes, so there should be 50,000 fossils. THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS!"
No, It is not. Assuming he is right in the 50.000 chances than the darwin theory REQUIRES a very large number of fossil, not a dozen.
"YES. Ask ANY biologist."
r u shure u understand my question?
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC Learn how fossilization works and stop spewing your idiocy until then. Do you HONESTLY expect EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM to leave a fossil? We'd be standing on 200 miles of fossils if that were the case!!!
Idiot.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"Learn how fossilization works and stop spewing your idiocy until then."
So, the presence of fossils and also the absence is evidence for darwinism. Wonderful logic! Stop been emotive, boy, this will not help you.
"Do you HONESTLY expect EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM to leave a fossil?"
I do expect what the theory predicts, not all but a large number of them. But if want to forget Darwin or change his theory to another thing that will be another question.
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC You can't conclude ANYTHING from the absence. You don't make conclusions based on what you DON'T find, only what you DO.
"I do expect what the theory predicts,"
The theory ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT predict one fossil for every single morphological change.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"You can't conclude ANYTHING from the absence."
Therefore the alleged problem of fossilization does nothing to explain the lack of large numbers of intermediates predicted by the darwinian gospel.
"The theory ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT predict one fossil for every single morphological change. "
U r just repeating your strawmen. Read again what I wrote as many times as u need until u understand.
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC We have THOUSANDS of intermediates. Stop lying. We have thousands, and YOU keep bleating that we don't have enough. You're a lying weasel, nothing more.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"Again, how many transitionals would you want between, say, Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus?"
Again, give me a professional paper that compare them and count the number of different addaptive features and we can talk about the number of fossils the theory rigorously require. I dont know if mr Berlinski is correct. I am just been honest to search for. Do you have a different count than 50.000?
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC Science does NOT work by "number of changes." It's a load of ignorant CRAP. What if the fourth metatarsal is 8mm shorter? Does that count as one change? Then what would it count as if it were only 4mm shorter?
Learn how this stuff works and stop being an ignorant cretard.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"Science does NOT work by "number of changes.""
Then Darwinism is not science. Small, incremental changes. This is what he says like u or not.
"What if the fourth metatarsal is 8mm shorter? Does that count as one change?"
If you dont have a way or criteria to identify most of changes them u cant count them therefore u can say what evidence to expect therefor u cant say darwin is right. Your question destroys your own gospel.
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC
[correction] therefore u CANT say what evidence to expect....
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC Way to completely avoid the point that shows how pathetically ignorant you are.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"Way to completely avoid the point that shows how pathetically ignorant you are."
Boo hoo! A way to you complete avoid the deadly flaws on your gospel.
"ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS."
Your delusion makes you see what isnt there. Berlinski is a creationist? hahahaha
U r just using your emotions to atack people. Thats pathetic. Grow up, man.
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC The only flaws you've pointed out are in your own understanding and your own refusal to learn. You deliberately avoided answering the question: How many changes does an 8mm reduction in length comprise? One? Two? Half?
You have NOTHING. You're just another pathetic LIAR trying to avoid the evidence in order to cling on to your pathetic bronze-age delusion.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
The question is very simple and objective. Lets count more or less the mumber of morphological changes and see what we get. Honest seekers of truth dont dodge this because of fear.
"Learn how this stuff works and stop being an ignorant cretard. "
Me, right.
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC "Lets count more or less the mumber of morphological changes and see what we get."
Again, SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. Do you understand ANYTHING about morphology or phenotype? You're talking YOUR arbitrary criteria and trying to force it into a phenomenon THAT DOES NOT ACT THAT WAY.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"Again, SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY."
So, your personal criteria is agaisnt professional people like Dr Ken Miller, for example. He had the guts to estimate a number, do u know what it was?
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@shanedk
"Do you understand ANYTHING about morphology or phenotype?"
Well, honest people can see and undersand that cows are not wales, protocetus arent Ambulocetus etc. But we do need a professional AND HONEST observer to point the number of differences. For obvious reason u have to avoid this very inconvenient question for your gospel.
That was fun but it is enough for me, i will not respond u anymore. ;)
MikeMooreAC 1 year ago
@MikeMooreAC "Well, honest people can see and undersand that cows are not wales,"
No one says they are.
"protocetus arent Ambulocetus etc."
No one says it is. I'm asking how many intermediates you would want to see that one came from the other. You have REFUSED to answer that question.
shanedk 1 year ago
Your lottery example is stupid. Berlinski is pointing out the problem in terms of statistical odds applying permutation with repition where your example is using simple odds. In other words using 16 billiard balls, the odds of picking out ball #16 is 1 in 16. The odds of picking out the balls in order is 1 in 20,922,789,888,000. Two different problems.
anolmec 1 year ago
@anolmec The problem is, evolution doesn't work the way Berlinski describes.
shanedk 1 year ago
"Berlinski is pointing out the problem in terms of statistical odds"
Ahhhh yes, statistics and Creationists... goes quite well together, as they both stink of bullshit.
"There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics." -points if you actually guess who said that.
The mere fact that idiots like Berlinski is trying to assert that he knows ALL the variables in order to make such statistics is just laughable.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@anolmec
Whats really funny is that you guys try to say "OMG that number is soooo huge! NO WAY is that possible!!"
Basically you argue with fallacious logic. Ever play a card game or gamble in your life? Not only that, but the moment you try to use that argument, you simply fail.
Cretards like Berlinski have the good fortune of being someone everyone can point to and laugh at.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion The problem is, human beings stink at probabilities. There's a whole city (Las Vegas) built upon that fact. Consider that Newton invented calculus in a few weeks just so he could describe why planets orbit in ellipses, yet probability theory had to be developed very slowly over centuries by many incredibly intelligent minds.
shanedk 1 year ago
"The problem is, human beings stink at probabilities. There's a whole city (Las Vegas) built upon that fact."
Yeah-its pretty interesting to think about that city and consider the psychology behind numbers and how we deal with it.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion said "Ahhhh yes, statistics and Creationists... goes quite well together, as they both stink of bullshit.'...........That's like saying "rock n roll is a tool of the devil and should be treated as sin" So basically statistics should be ignored by evolutionary science because its bullshit?? Tell me, where can I get a copy of your hymnal.
anolmec 1 year ago
@anolmec Your (and Berlinski's) bullshit version of statistics, yes. We understand REAL statistics--at least, far better than you do. And Berlinski is a mathematician, not a statistician. They're two completely different fields.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk if this video is an example of your understanding of REAL statistics, I think it's safe to say you understand nothing.
anolmec 1 year ago
@anolmec You have NO CAUSE to say how much someone else understands statistics after making the pathetically ignorant comments that you did.
Do you not understand why things that are only a one-in-a-million chance happen SEVERAL TIMES EVERY DAY???
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk now you want to change to different argument, to cover YOUR misconception of Berlinski's application of stats...........your are being a bore..
anolmec 1 year ago
@anolmec Berlinski's "application" is just "ZOMG itz a big numbr!!!!!11!1!!!11one!111one11!!1eleventy-one11"
He doesn't relate it to anything realistic, nor does he consider the other possibilities the way a statistician would. In REAL statistics, you have to state AHEAD OF TIME what kind of numbers you're looking for to know whether or not the result fits. Berlinski didn't do ANY of that.
shanedk 1 year ago
"now you want to change to different argument, to cover YOUR misconception of Berlinski's application of stats"
HAHAHAHAHHA!!! Anolmec, YOU just changed the subject yourself in your comment to me by saying ALL statistics should be removed because this Creationist dumbass made a mockery of the field.
Thanks for exposing your ignorance on the subject.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
"So basically statistics should be ignored by evolutionary science because its bullshit??"
When someone says "OMG look at the odds!! There is NO WAY it could have happened, THEREFOR Magic Man is real and everything you think you know about the world is WRONG!!!!111"
Yes, THAT is when Cretards and their bullshit statistics should be ignored.
Dont be a moron.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago