Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. In humans, ERVs occupy about 1% of the genome. There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans. DNA is Proof of evolution.
Wgrargra! Why doesn't he stop talking about scientist endorsing the "darwinian theory". It's foolish (if I may use his very words). What is the last book on evolution he read? Origin of Species perhaps? Darwinian theory is NOT the modern theory of evolution. Why does he insist on being so inaccurate (and for a mathematician)
There is no modern Theory of Evolution, because there is no agreement on a mechanism or a particular combination of mechanisms. There are just a bunch of divergent ideas, this is part of criticism. What makes a scientific theory a scientific theory is the particular mechanism it posits. Modern scientists are not pushing a scientific theory, their pushing a creation narrative connected to a bunch of hypotheses that they can't agree upon.
I love her nose & her toes; her nits & her tits and jewelry. I love her crucifixion complex & her scorched-Earth policy. I love her legs & diminishing supply of eggs. Soon she'll be eating from rusty cans. Soon grubs will enjoy the popularity of other popular what's-her-name victuals. After a popular woman dies the reasons behind her popularity are dismissed by the legions of less-popular women who have yet to crap out.
Talk about a lot of talk and no substance from Berlinski. He's sitting there talking shit about biologists and geneticists while he has no other working model of biology, or a model which makes accurate predictions about biology like Evolution does every single day.
I'd like to see the Incredible Hulk fight Whitney Houston. Peter Cook & Dudley Moore = the answer: cook more, to the question: What kills bacterial contaminants? Here I recline menaced by lunar bleedings; weaked by monthly bloodlettings; discommoded by all acts menstrual. Here I swim by what's left of fish; hopscotch among the fallen blackbirds whilst breathing lungfuls of aluminum sprayed from aeroplanes to decimate in number of we who impugn mommy blue. [Beautiful women are privileged.]
Yes, maybe all the world's scientists just pretend to believe in evolution because this benefits them economically (I don't see how, as the biggest economic potential for scientist come from real world applications, and these are impossible to come by if working from an incorrect model). The much more probable scenario is of course that all biologists are being mind-controlled by the flying spaghetti monster.
Berlinski makes several unsupported claims at the end of this. Evolution and decent with modification are solidly proven and are TOTALLY backed up by thousands of observations, claiming otherwise is just silly for a man of his education. Thousands of fossils, the DNA code revealing a common ancestor, the obvious observations of decent with modification, lab experiments where we observe evolution happening, the Theory of Evolution is strongly supported by evidence. Berlinski is just plain wrong
@eastjones You are just plain wrong. There is not one iota of evidence showing that mutations add any information; new functions, body parts, information. Not even a theory of where the information came from, how enough of only left handed amino acids could be formed to even make one useful protein, let alone the millions needed for a single cell organism, how life could have started in an oxygen atmosphere(thus the consensus that it came from elsewhere), not one proven intermediate species!
@gregrutz The evidence that your point is shit is simply that it is a clear example of a logical fallacy called an argument from authority - albeit an inverse example of it. That is, Berlinski is not a scientist therefore what he says is wrong. So, now that I have provided the evidence, why don't you fuck off.
@kkkaldav There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
@gregrutz Lies! In 1997 Newsweek stated that 5% of scientists believed in creation, 40% in Theistic creation. In the total population 44% creation, 39% in Theistic creation.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research, FNC of Scientific Research
@enoch1844 Evolution is taught in schools as fact. It is just a matter of time before everyone gets educated.
I don't care what ''Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research, FNC of Scientific Research'' thinks. He is just one person.
@gregrutz "...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, Museum of Natural History in London,
@gregrutz "One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)
@gregrutz As I'm sure I've told you before many times, fuck off! And if I haven't told you it yet, I should have done, and am therefore telling you it now.
@gregrutz That's what I mean. Muslim's can pray in school, as can almost everyone in the first-world. However, in one particular third-world country (Yankee Doodle Dickhead land), it's banned.
Anyway, why are you getting so angry about it? Why are you ranting and raving at me, and having exactly the kind of hissy fit I said some would have at the points Berlinski makes. I mean, you are entitled to actually deal with points rather than just throw out insults like a little child.
@gregrutz 1. Your last point meant nothing. And, 2: why should I move to Iran, i'm happy enough where I live. Where I live prayer is neither banned nor compulsory. That's probably why we don't churn out dickheads like you every day.
Like what? He wants to open a discussion that has been settled 150 years ago already. Everybody who looks at the evidence has to admit that evolution occurs, no matter how grudgingly. That Berlinski doesn't understand the evidence doesn't mean it's not real.
@MomoTheBellyDancer The phrase, "an amusing 19th century collection of anecdotes that is utterly unlike anything we see in the serious sciences", aptly describes much of what is said about the theory of evolution when presented to a general audience, and maybe says something about much deeper problems too. For a thorough, sustained, and very funny, presentation of that point, see, for example, David Stove's book Darwinian Fairytales.
Berlinski has a history of spewing silly crap like this. How can anybody take it seriously? It merely shows that Berlinski knows nothing about the scientific research on evolution of the last few decades. He is an uniformed buffoon who is way out of his league and should either delve into the scientific journals or just shut the hell up already.
@kkkaldav No, science is not 'by majority'. "Darwin's theory'' is taught because it is the best answer to the question, 'How does Evolution happen' BUT>>> and the rest is all crap. All the evidence supports Evolution.
@kkkaldav Points he can't answer himself. Darwinian theory is 150 years out of date. The modern Theory IS supported by all the evidence, and proven by DNA.
@gregrutz That wasn't my point. My point was that it has been falsified but because nobody can think of anything better (except stuff that you are trying to make it illegal to think), you have to go with what you have. That's what Belrinski's point is btw, and that's why it's wrong to say he doesn't have the answers either. He does. His answer is, at least be honest about how shit the theory is and stop indoctrinating young minds with unqualified statements of your faith as if it was science.
@kkkaldav ''unqualified statements of your faith'' I was talking about the science of evolution, I have no idea what you are talking about ''unqualified or faith.'' You talk like you don't know the process of evolution has been proven. The theory that explains it just keeps getting better.
@gregrutz Your not addressing any of the points that either I, nor Berlinski, make. You are, as you always do, prattling nothing but shite. Your arguments are just a long list of fallacies. The particular one you just spouted below being an inverted version of the argument from authority.
@gregrutz Of course it's been falsified. Many of the predictions it makes are wrong. And that means there's something wrong with the theory or it wouldn't generate wrong predictions. And and, your argument about why evolution can't have been falsified is ridiculous. That is, the whole point of much that has been said is that you can't think of anything else, and thus you hang on to a false theory rather than admit you have none that come close to working. That's what you should be honest about.
@gregrutz I didn't say evolution didn't happen. I'm saying that the theory of evolution has been falsified. That is, the theory of evolution does not explain (on its own) the diversity of life on earth and, in other cases, some predictions it makes are plainly false. E.g, evolution predicts that if we look closely at any species every individual should be doing everything in its power to survive a pass on its DNA. But when we look at the world we see many examples where that is not the case.
@kkkaldav Theroies are falsified and updated all the time. Darwin was wrong about slow and gradual, he didn't know about the 6 great mass extinctions like the one that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
Just because the theory does not explain everything does not mean the process of evolution does not happen.
Mr. Bitinski is paid by the Discovery Institue to 'promote the contorversy' and passify creationists.
@gregrutz Once again you do not address the point made, you put words into my mouth, and you simply ignore what I am saying. You also seem to be going for the record in terms of fallacious arguments. So far we've had ad hominem, the (inverted) argument from a authority, and now, a new one, the argument from someone earning money to do a job. Berlinski's point is nmnot even about promoting or teaching the controversy - it is simply about coming clean about the massive holes in the ToE.
@kkkaldav Yes there are holes in the Theory. My point is, What good does it do for Mr Math to point that out. It does not mean evolution did not happen, and that is his point.
@gregrutz I think his point is more that given the number and depth of the holes, the theory as it stands is simply not credible as an an account of what it is said to explain. Maybe in 300 years... And given this, we should stop making massively inflated claims for it's explanatory power/completeness and we certainly shouldn't pass it off in those ways to children.
@gregrutz You tell them the truth. That is, you tell them we don't have any idea how life came to exist, and while there are some very basic suggestions about some aspects of the underlying processes of how life subsequetly developed, we don't have anything like good enough knowledge of what living things actually are to have any real idea of whether the processes identified could actually do that job. Even that would amount to letting them down gently, but it's better than telling them lies.
@kkkaldav Scientists know more that you think. They have a very good idea how evolution progressed and how it started. What difference does it make, we know it did.
Science tries to understand nature, we don't have to repeat everything to know what happened.
@kkkaldav Scientists know more that you think. They have a very good idea how evolution progressed and how life started. I studied chemisty and it seems easy enough to me. What difference does it make, we know it did.
Science tries to understand nature, we don't have to repeat everything to know what happened.
@gregrutz Scientists know a whole lot let less than you think. They have no idea how the first cell could ever have come to be. To claim otherwise is to lie. They have no idea how to even think about what consciousness might be - thus they cannot with almost anything about how such a thing might come to arise. To claim otherwise is to lie. And so on. Therefore to claim that we know this stuff, or to present evolution and not say anything about these things, is dishonest.
@kkkaldav Childern don't study Abiogenesis anyway. As far as evoltuion goes, we do know what happened over the last 3 billion years, we have the fossils.
@gregrutz Ah, but children ask questions about abiogenesis, and you just answer about evolution af if there was no other part of the question left unaswered. That is, you have falsely restricted the real point of interest in order to pretend to have answered it. As for knowing what happened over the last 3 billion years, I've already explained that you have no clue what some apsects of living things are and so you are in no position to say what is needed for them to arise.
I was willing to give this guy a chance, but his claims that the theory of evolution is not supported by fact is just silly. "utterly unlike anything we see in the serious sciences"? Say what? "biologists agree that this is the correct theory for the origin and diversification of life" umm. no they don't. Diversification, yes. Origin, no. Get it right, Dude, or stop criticizing. "The theory doesn't have any substance" "preposterous" "not supported by the evidence" ? ok, you flunk
Actually, he may be a little bit harsh, but he is largely correct. Especially if you consider real science to be repeatable experiment and observation, backed by rigorous math. So yeah, evolutionary biology is pathetic in terms of a science, at least compared to something like chemistry or quantum mechanics.
@circusOFprecision thank you for your polite response. however, I must object to your claim that Evolutionary biology being "pathetic science". E/B is the foundation of almost every area of science, and is supported by literally thousands of observations and laboratory experiments. From the fossil record to vestigial features, developmental biology to bio-geographics and predictive success, evolution is one of the most solidly proven Scientific theories we have. Berlinski is simply wrong
Well, many people share your sentiment. I continue to remain skeptical. But maybe Berlinski is wrong. In my mind he does raise some good points though.
I'd love to go dig up fossils and explain them. Now, can we be serious? You still don't understand that I am not trying to find a completely new explanation for biology. I'm not trying to purposefully abandon adaptation and natural selection, or the general idea of evolution. I'm trying to answer questions still left unanswered by these concepts. Unfortunately, I have to get almost all of my information second hand. I am not a practicing scientist with a huge budget.
@circusOFprecision Try reading a Biology book, you won't learn anything listening to creationists or PEOPLE PAID BY THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE like this math teacher.
I can pick up many different books and absorb concepts developed by other people through the words written on the pages. But without critical thinking and skepticism as part of my intellectual arsenal, I might as well be a Creationist who wants to be told what to believe through a bed time story. Now, you can say that Biology books are books of truth, but there is always speculation going on in science, even in the most rigid pockets of the current paradigm.
@circusOFprecision Yes, but Evolution is not cutting edge speculation, it was accepted 150 years ago. It has been proven by DNA, observed in nature and in the lab.
@gregrutz DNA has DIS-proven evolution! How could the information for the first living cell ever 'evolve'. It would be like several volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica 'just coming into existence' plus the whole system of interpreting that information, creating proteins from it, regulating the life of the cell, reproducing, etc., totally from dirt! Macro-evolutin has NEVER been "observed in nature and in the lab." Even after millions of generations of fruit flies. Still fruit flies! lol!
@enoch1844 DNA is now the best proof of evolution. Just like they use DNA to prove who's blood it is at a murder scene, They use DAN to show what is related to what. It matches Darwins tree of life!
@enoch1844 ." Even after millions of generations of fruit flies. Still fruit flies! lol!''
Yes, dogs make dogs, apes make apes. That is why Humans are still Apes. Millions of years from now we will still be apes. You can't outgrow your ancestry.
Evolution has been seen in nature and in the lab and in the fossil record and in DNA markers.
Why limit your God to ancient myths when he (or she?) is so much more than that? Mankind is clearly made such that we can observe and contemplate the universe, why deny God by pretending He is just an arrogant tyrant instead of a benevolent creator that brought forth all this life via a beautiful process such as evolutionary growth? Open your heart to God's power, we have discovered so much about how He brought it all together to bring life to this planet, rejoice in life and celebrate.
Human intellect {the intellect being the vessel in which knowledge is stored} remains a constant. It's the same now as it was at any time in human history. Human knowledge has advanced only because of our ability to record & store information. No man can run 100 M.P.H. No man will ever be able to reach a running speed of 100 M.P.H., therefore, as science is synonymous with knowledge, Man will never be able to know things that are beyond his intellect.
@gregrutz "No evidece, That is why it is taught a Yale, UCLA, Harvard, etc. as fact. "
That's why many have lost faith in supposedly 'objective' scientists in particular, and humanity in general. Molecules-to-man evolution will go down in history as the greatest and most destructive joke ever to plague humanity.
@gregrutz Already many don't presently - and that population is steadily growing with more and more new discoveries about the cell and dna. Stop deluding yourself. The fact is that many are closet dissenters, as societal repercussions are too damaging to be otherwise.
I don't necessarily have a dog in this fight, but Dr. Berlinski makes some very compelling arguments in this series of clips. Nevertheless, to the extent that evolutionary biology is a historical science, one where crucial theory-supporting evidence may be completely lost to us via the ravages of entropy and time, I sometimes wonder whether ANY explanation (even if true) could be rigorously supported from the data we do manage to mine.
The evolutionist believes all mammals on earth (panda bears, elephants, giraffes, whales, humans, pigs, goats, etc.) are the descendents of a single fish with legs.
Wow. That must have been some fish!
To actually believe such a thing without the slightest bit of evidence, let alone proof, is preposterous.
As Berlinski says, it's not asking for much to have the schools point out the many vast holes and absurdities that exist in the notion that species somehow emerged by natural selection. There are plenty of biologists around the world who reject that theory as unproven, impossible or absurd. The fans of that old dogma here are simply under-educated.
The so-called "peer reviewed" studies of the conventional theory of evolution by natural selection, simply assume that the theory is true and then speculate about how it might have operated in this or that instance. Thus biologists are actually paid to hatch mere uverifiable daydreams about how chance and natural selection "might" have turned this little fossilized critter into that one. And these fantasies are often supported by the taypayers' money, through "research grants."
That's a beautiful description of the hoax which has sucked untold billions from taxpayers.
Here is a statement which will shame every HONEST scientist: Given the tautology of random variation and natural selection, a small child can easily explain any animal. And the child's story will be irrefutable.
In other words, it's impossible for natural selection to rule anything out. Therefore, it's completely useless to science.
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
if you knew history at all you would understand the incredible importance that skeptics have played in the role of science, religion and politics.. your just a follower who doesnt ask the obvious questions.
your still avoiding the questions... you refuse to admit the underlying assumptions being made in mainstream science... oh and ps, i have a bachelors degree in biology nub.
your using an assumption right now bud. let me give you an example . in dating methods like radio carbon, they assunme that decay rates have always been a constant, and that the magnetic fields have always been close to what they are now, even though we didnt observe it in billions of years. so we assume it.... thats one of many.
Uniformitarianism says that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. If it were not true, we couldnt do science.
It is called, radiometric dating.
Carbon 14 is just one method and is not used to date fossils.
Amateurish Darwinists also have no idea what ID asserts. They can begin to find out by reading quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff's favorable review of an ID book. Of course I'm not holding that Mohrhoff must surely be right: nobody is always right; and I'm not perfectly sure that ID is correct (although, unlike Berlinski, I am generally supportive of ID theory.) There's a link to Mohrhoff's review on my blog; follow the link on my channel profile. Like myself, Mohrhoff isn't a creationist.
Darwin-fans are such amateurs in the discussion that they don't understand that Berlinski presents no evidence for ID, because he doesn't espouse ID! He criticized ID from a very skeptical point of view in the magazine Commentary, Dec 2002. Berlinski calls his view "intelligent uncertainty:" he simply doesn't think that there is any good scientific theory as to how species emerged. And ID, if valid, still doesn't require a creationist conclusion of any sort.
For those amateurs in this discussion, I urge you to read Jerry Cohen's "Why Evolution Is True", which gives a very clear description of evidence that suppoprts evolution
btw, notice Mr. B didn't present one bit of evidence in support of ID. From "Flood Geology" "irreducible Complexity" ID arguments are very weak and for the most part require us to imagine a capricious designer who is trying to fool humans, and who is a lousy designer, as evidence of poor design abounds in nature.
I'm undecided on this, but the 'evidence' that I see expounded in popular science books generally seems to be question-begging. Yeah, genotype, phenotype go hand in hand, and are both correlated with biological niches. There also seems to be lines of descent, in that, when a creature appears at a point in time, it looks as if it's part of a continuum, and follows on from what has gone before. That's not evidence that natural selection is the mechanism.
OMG, this guy is a trip! I habe in my hand three different books, all giving very clear explanations of all these points. Berlinski is wrong on every count. "Not supported by evidence?" "preposterous"? No realtion to what we see today? these are stupid comments. Since he doesn't appear stupid, he is either lying or in a serious state of denial.
if I hadn;t been watching the entire lecture, I would have thought he was jokikng in this short clip. What a bunch of hogwash! Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence! The theory explains the diversification of life we see today, and it is the only theory that does so. He is just plain lying, or perhaps he is insane. (yeah, that must be it .)
@sherwoodstars is now making the same type vacuous claims "totally discredited?" only if you ignore all the evidence and believe this clown
This clip incisively summarizes the state of ignorance about the real causes of the emergence of species that characterizes biology today. The notion that all life arose by chance and natural selection is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by "science." And it's being altogether discredited.
so by your poorly reasoned attack on him as a human being, may I assume that you are not able to counter his arguments? Let's be sensible. Talk reason, facts, evidences, logic, instead of hurling meaningless and unfounded insults that only make the insult-hurler look like a fool incapable of critiquing him any other way.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The great biologist Pierre Grasse, in his book The Evolution of Living Oragnisms, published in 1977, held that the conventional doctrine of evolution of all life by chance and natural selection is "pseudoscience" and "daydreaming, " which clashes with the evidence at many points. Grasse, who was a president of the French Academy of Sciences, believed that existing species descended from other, different ones over long epochs, but that the causes of such descent are unknown.
You people act like evolution has not been proven. Mr. Butinski trys to put Evolutionists and Darwiniininists on the defence by asking stupid questions.
David Berlinski is a secular Jew and an agnostic, who doesn't subscribe to any religion, but who analyzes and debunks the old dogmas of the conventional evolutionary biologists. His view is "intelligent uncertainty:" he doesn't think anyone really knows how species arose, or by what causes. Berlinski doesn't espouse intelligent design theory, but simply exposes the follies of Darwinism. It's too bad everyone isn't equally knowledgeable and rational.
Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. In humans, ERVs occupy about 1% of the genome. There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans. DNA is Proof of evolution.
gregrutz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What point?
Saying there is no evidence for evolution does not disprove the mountain of evidence supporting it.
gregrutz 2 months ago
Wgrargra! Why doesn't he stop talking about scientist endorsing the "darwinian theory". It's foolish (if I may use his very words). What is the last book on evolution he read? Origin of Species perhaps? Darwinian theory is NOT the modern theory of evolution. Why does he insist on being so inaccurate (and for a mathematician)
ttcmp0 4 months ago
@ttcmp0
There is no modern Theory of Evolution, because there is no agreement on a mechanism or a particular combination of mechanisms. There are just a bunch of divergent ideas, this is part of criticism. What makes a scientific theory a scientific theory is the particular mechanism it posits. Modern scientists are not pushing a scientific theory, their pushing a creation narrative connected to a bunch of hypotheses that they can't agree upon.
Califacience 2 months ago
@Califacience ''no agreement on a mechanism'' They agreed on NATURAL SELECTION over 150 years ago, try and keep up.
gregrutz 2 months ago
*part of his criticism
Califacience 2 months ago
I love her nose & her toes; her nits & her tits and jewelry. I love her crucifixion complex & her scorched-Earth policy. I love her legs & diminishing supply of eggs. Soon she'll be eating from rusty cans. Soon grubs will enjoy the popularity of other popular what's-her-name victuals. After a popular woman dies the reasons behind her popularity are dismissed by the legions of less-popular women who have yet to crap out.
procommenter 5 months ago
Talk about a lot of talk and no substance from Berlinski. He's sitting there talking shit about biologists and geneticists while he has no other working model of biology, or a model which makes accurate predictions about biology like Evolution does every single day.
jbass02 7 months ago
I'd like to see the Incredible Hulk fight Whitney Houston. Peter Cook & Dudley Moore = the answer: cook more, to the question: What kills bacterial contaminants? Here I recline menaced by lunar bleedings; weaked by monthly bloodlettings; discommoded by all acts menstrual. Here I swim by what's left of fish; hopscotch among the fallen blackbirds whilst breathing lungfuls of aluminum sprayed from aeroplanes to decimate in number of we who impugn mommy blue. [Beautiful women are privileged.]
procommenter 1 year ago
@procommenter I agree. Fully.
jkculberson 10 months ago
Yes, maybe all the world's scientists just pretend to believe in evolution because this benefits them economically (I don't see how, as the biggest economic potential for scientist come from real world applications, and these are impossible to come by if working from an incorrect model). The much more probable scenario is of course that all biologists are being mind-controlled by the flying spaghetti monster.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This happens every time a DR. of philosophy who only studied Math talks about BIOLOGY
gregrutz 1 year ago
Berlinski makes several unsupported claims at the end of this. Evolution and decent with modification are solidly proven and are TOTALLY backed up by thousands of observations, claiming otherwise is just silly for a man of his education. Thousands of fossils, the DNA code revealing a common ancestor, the obvious observations of decent with modification, lab experiments where we observe evolution happening, the Theory of Evolution is strongly supported by evidence. Berlinski is just plain wrong
eastjones 1 year ago
@eastjones You are just plain wrong. There is not one iota of evidence showing that mutations add any information; new functions, body parts, information. Not even a theory of where the information came from, how enough of only left handed amino acids could be formed to even make one useful protein, let alone the millions needed for a single cell organism, how life could have started in an oxygen atmosphere(thus the consensus that it came from elsewhere), not one proven intermediate species!
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844 all mutations are new information. Feathers on dinosaurs are new information.
Life did not start in a oxygen atmosphere. Life made the oxygen.
All species are complete, always have been. There are many transitional fossils.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Good points well made. No doubt the evolutionary fanatacists will have a hissy fit but the man makes some serious points.
kkkaldav 1 year ago 21
@kkkaldav What serious points? He is not even a scientist.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz How sad that you don't understand how silly your reply to me makes you look. And your other responses are no better.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaldav How sad that you have never read a science book and believe creationists bull shit. Evolution was proven 150 years ago, get over it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz The evidence that your point is shit is simply that it is a clear example of a logical fallacy called an argument from authority - albeit an inverse example of it. That is, Berlinski is not a scientist therefore what he says is wrong. So, now that I have provided the evidence, why don't you fuck off.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Butinski is a paid bull shitter. He adds nothing just like you. a dildo.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Your arguing skills clearly know no bounds.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav I don't have to argue, creatards are the only ones who don't accept evolution. They are the ones arguing with the people who study it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You're not able to argue, so it's just as well.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz all scientist except those who don't accept it.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaldav
"all scientist except those who don't accept it."
Really?... Can you name both of them?
nolobede 1 year ago
@gregrutz Lies! In 1997 Newsweek stated that 5% of scientists believed in creation, 40% in Theistic creation. In the total population 44% creation, 39% in Theistic creation.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research, FNC of Scientific Research
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844 Evolution is taught in schools as fact. It is just a matter of time before everyone gets educated.
I don't care what ''Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research, FNC of Scientific Research'' thinks. He is just one person.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, Museum of Natural History in London,
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844 Do they teach quote mining in Bible study, it seems to be all creationists do.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)
enoch1844 1 year ago
@kkkaldav No he doesn't, He just makes up crap. When ask his view he does not have one. He is just paid by the Discovery Inst. to make shit up.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz As I'm sure I've told you before many times, fuck off! And if I haven't told you it yet, I should have done, and am therefore telling you it now.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Evolution is taught as fact. Prayer is banned in schools. ID lost. fuck yourself LOSER
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Prayer, banned in schools? Only in the third world.
kkkaldav 9 months ago
@kkkaldav Wrong again, the Muslims pray in schools 5 times a day. dummy.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz That's what I mean. Muslim's can pray in school, as can almost everyone in the first-world. However, in one particular third-world country (Yankee Doodle Dickhead land), it's banned.
Anyway, why are you getting so angry about it? Why are you ranting and raving at me, and having exactly the kind of hissy fit I said some would have at the points Berlinski makes. I mean, you are entitled to actually deal with points rather than just throw out insults like a little child.
kkkaldav 9 months ago
@kkkaldav So move to Iran.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz 1. Your last point meant nothing. And, 2: why should I move to Iran, i'm happy enough where I live. Where I live prayer is neither banned nor compulsory. That's probably why we don't churn out dickheads like you every day.
kkkaldav 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaldav Then pray for a dick that works. Butinski doesn't make any good points.
Just Discovery Institute Bull Shit that dummies like you believe.
gregrutz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaldav Then pray for a dick that works. Butinski doesn't make any good points.
Just Discovery Institute Bull Shit that dummies like you believe.
gregrutz 9 months ago
Comment removed
kkkaldav 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaldav Then pray for a dick that works. Butinski doesn't make any good points.
Just Discovery Institute Bull Shit that dummies like you believe.
gregrutz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaldav Fuck YOU ass hole.
gregrutz 9 months ago
fail
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
"the man makes some serious points."
Like what? He wants to open a discussion that has been settled 150 years ago already. Everybody who looks at the evidence has to admit that evolution occurs, no matter how grudgingly. That Berlinski doesn't understand the evidence doesn't mean it's not real.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer The phrase, "an amusing 19th century collection of anecdotes that is utterly unlike anything we see in the serious sciences", aptly describes much of what is said about the theory of evolution when presented to a general audience, and maybe says something about much deeper problems too. For a thorough, sustained, and very funny, presentation of that point, see, for example, David Stove's book Darwinian Fairytales.
kkkaldav 10 months ago
@kkkaldav
"an amusing 19th century collection of anecdotes"
Berlinski has a history of spewing silly crap like this. How can anybody take it seriously? It merely shows that Berlinski knows nothing about the scientific research on evolution of the last few decades. He is an uniformed buffoon who is way out of his league and should either delve into the scientific journals or just shut the hell up already.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Maybe, but in this case it's obviously true rather than "silly crap". Go read Stove's book if you don't believe me.
kkkaldav 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaldav
"t's obviously true "
How? Berlinski doesn't give the impression he keeps up with the latest findings, to put it mildly.
"Go read Stove's book"
Who the hell is Stove?
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@kkkaldav Crap, this happens every time a Math teacher or a Philosopher why does not understand evolution opens his mouth.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@kkkaldav No, science is not 'by majority'. "Darwin's theory'' is taught because it is the best answer to the question, 'How does Evolution happen' BUT>>> and the rest is all crap. All the evidence supports Evolution.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@kkkaldav Points he can't answer himself. Darwinian theory is 150 years out of date. The modern Theory IS supported by all the evidence, and proven by DNA.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz The theory of evolution has been falsified thousands of times. So, far from being proven, the theory as it currently stands is false.
kkkaldav 2 months ago
@kkkaldav Well please let us know when Evolution is not studied in every university in the world.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz That wasn't my point. My point was that it has been falsified but because nobody can think of anything better (except stuff that you are trying to make it illegal to think), you have to go with what you have. That's what Belrinski's point is btw, and that's why it's wrong to say he doesn't have the answers either. He does. His answer is, at least be honest about how shit the theory is and stop indoctrinating young minds with unqualified statements of your faith as if it was science.
kkkaldav 2 months ago
@kkkaldav ''unqualified statements of your faith'' I was talking about the science of evolution, I have no idea what you are talking about ''unqualified or faith.'' You talk like you don't know the process of evolution has been proven. The theory that explains it just keeps getting better.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@kkkaldav ''The theory of evolution has been falsified thousands of times'' NO, Hovind does not count.
Give me you bet shot and I will prove you wrong
gregrutz 2 months ago
@kkkaldav No, saying there is no evidence is not the same a looking at the mountain of evidence.
Mr. Butinski is not a scientist, never had a job as a scientist, he was a math teacher.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz Your not addressing any of the points that either I, nor Berlinski, make. You are, as you always do, prattling nothing but shite. Your arguments are just a long list of fallacies. The particular one you just spouted below being an inverted version of the argument from authority.
kkkaldav 2 months ago
@kkkaldav You said evolution has been falsified, that is not correct. If it had then we would have a new theory to show how evolution works.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz Of course it's been falsified. Many of the predictions it makes are wrong. And that means there's something wrong with the theory or it wouldn't generate wrong predictions. And and, your argument about why evolution can't have been falsified is ridiculous. That is, the whole point of much that has been said is that you can't think of anything else, and thus you hang on to a false theory rather than admit you have none that come close to working. That's what you should be honest about.
kkkaldav 2 months ago
@kkkaldav more bull shit. What evidence do you have that proves evolution did not happen?
Why is it still studied at every major university if you proved it wrong?
What do you think evolution predicts? This should be good.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz I didn't say evolution didn't happen. I'm saying that the theory of evolution has been falsified. That is, the theory of evolution does not explain (on its own) the diversity of life on earth and, in other cases, some predictions it makes are plainly false. E.g, evolution predicts that if we look closely at any species every individual should be doing everything in its power to survive a pass on its DNA. But when we look at the world we see many examples where that is not the case.
kkkaldav 2 months ago
@kkkaldav Theroies are falsified and updated all the time. Darwin was wrong about slow and gradual, he didn't know about the 6 great mass extinctions like the one that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
Just because the theory does not explain everything does not mean the process of evolution does not happen.
Mr. Bitinski is paid by the Discovery Institue to 'promote the contorversy' and passify creationists.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz Once again you do not address the point made, you put words into my mouth, and you simply ignore what I am saying. You also seem to be going for the record in terms of fallacious arguments. So far we've had ad hominem, the (inverted) argument from a authority, and now, a new one, the argument from someone earning money to do a job. Berlinski's point is nmnot even about promoting or teaching the controversy - it is simply about coming clean about the massive holes in the ToE.
kkkaldav 2 months ago
@kkkaldav Yes there are holes in the Theory. My point is, What good does it do for Mr Math to point that out. It does not mean evolution did not happen, and that is his point.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz I think his point is more that given the number and depth of the holes, the theory as it stands is simply not credible as an an account of what it is said to explain. Maybe in 300 years... And given this, we should stop making massively inflated claims for it's explanatory power/completeness and we certainly shouldn't pass it off in those ways to children.
kkkaldav 2 months ago
@kkkaldav Even though it has been accepted for 150 years? What do you tell the childern when they ask how evolution happens?
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz You tell them the truth. That is, you tell them we don't have any idea how life came to exist, and while there are some very basic suggestions about some aspects of the underlying processes of how life subsequetly developed, we don't have anything like good enough knowledge of what living things actually are to have any real idea of whether the processes identified could actually do that job. Even that would amount to letting them down gently, but it's better than telling them lies.
kkkaldav 2 months ago
@kkkaldav Scientists know more that you think. They have a very good idea how evolution progressed and how it started. What difference does it make, we know it did.
Science tries to understand nature, we don't have to repeat everything to know what happened.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@kkkaldav Scientists know more that you think. They have a very good idea how evolution progressed and how life started. I studied chemisty and it seems easy enough to me. What difference does it make, we know it did.
Science tries to understand nature, we don't have to repeat everything to know what happened.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz Scientists know a whole lot let less than you think. They have no idea how the first cell could ever have come to be. To claim otherwise is to lie. They have no idea how to even think about what consciousness might be - thus they cannot with almost anything about how such a thing might come to arise. To claim otherwise is to lie. And so on. Therefore to claim that we know this stuff, or to present evolution and not say anything about these things, is dishonest.
kkkaldav 2 months ago
@kkkaldav Childern don't study Abiogenesis anyway. As far as evoltuion goes, we do know what happened over the last 3 billion years, we have the fossils.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz Ah, but children ask questions about abiogenesis, and you just answer about evolution af if there was no other part of the question left unaswered. That is, you have falsely restricted the real point of interest in order to pretend to have answered it. As for knowing what happened over the last 3 billion years, I've already explained that you have no clue what some apsects of living things are and so you are in no position to say what is needed for them to arise.
kkkaldav 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaldav I don't know what you are arguing about.
''you have no clue what some apsects of living things are '' You don't know what I know, go read a science book.
gregrutz 2 months ago
And he is sure that it is the scientists who's lying for money, and not the media whore who cant show evidence for any of his points?
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fuglebolle And he is sure that it is the scientists who's lying for money, and not the media whore who cant show evidence for any of his points?
Worth repeating.
Mr. Butinski is paid by The Discovery Institute to make shit up. He adds nothing, he is a dildo.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I was willing to give this guy a chance, but his claims that the theory of evolution is not supported by fact is just silly. "utterly unlike anything we see in the serious sciences"? Say what? "biologists agree that this is the correct theory for the origin and diversification of life" umm. no they don't. Diversification, yes. Origin, no. Get it right, Dude, or stop criticizing. "The theory doesn't have any substance" "preposterous" "not supported by the evidence" ? ok, you flunk
eastjones 1 year ago 2
@eastjones
Actually, he may be a little bit harsh, but he is largely correct. Especially if you consider real science to be repeatable experiment and observation, backed by rigorous math. So yeah, evolutionary biology is pathetic in terms of a science, at least compared to something like chemistry or quantum mechanics.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision thank you for your polite response. however, I must object to your claim that Evolutionary biology being "pathetic science". E/B is the foundation of almost every area of science, and is supported by literally thousands of observations and laboratory experiments. From the fossil record to vestigial features, developmental biology to bio-geographics and predictive success, evolution is one of the most solidly proven Scientific theories we have. Berlinski is simply wrong
eastjones 1 year ago
@eastjones
Well, many people share your sentiment. I continue to remain skeptical. But maybe Berlinski is wrong. In my mind he does raise some good points though.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision ''repeatable experiment and observation''
So repeat it ! Go dig up some fossils and explain them.
Sequence some chimp and human DNA and compare them.
Evolution has been ovserved in nature and in the lab.
Chemistry and all science supports evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
I'd love to go dig up fossils and explain them. Now, can we be serious? You still don't understand that I am not trying to find a completely new explanation for biology. I'm not trying to purposefully abandon adaptation and natural selection, or the general idea of evolution. I'm trying to answer questions still left unanswered by these concepts. Unfortunately, I have to get almost all of my information second hand. I am not a practicing scientist with a huge budget.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Try reading a Biology book, you won't learn anything listening to creationists or PEOPLE PAID BY THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE like this math teacher.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
I can pick up many different books and absorb concepts developed by other people through the words written on the pages. But without critical thinking and skepticism as part of my intellectual arsenal, I might as well be a Creationist who wants to be told what to believe through a bed time story. Now, you can say that Biology books are books of truth, but there is always speculation going on in science, even in the most rigid pockets of the current paradigm.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Yes, but Evolution is not cutting edge speculation, it was accepted 150 years ago. It has been proven by DNA, observed in nature and in the lab.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz DNA has DIS-proven evolution! How could the information for the first living cell ever 'evolve'. It would be like several volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica 'just coming into existence' plus the whole system of interpreting that information, creating proteins from it, regulating the life of the cell, reproducing, etc., totally from dirt! Macro-evolutin has NEVER been "observed in nature and in the lab." Even after millions of generations of fruit flies. Still fruit flies! lol!
enoch1844 1 year ago 6
@enoch1844 Just because you don't understand does not mean it didn't happen.
Yes fruit flies make flies. apes make apes, that is why humans are still apes. You don't understand evolution, you will never prove it wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@enoch1844 Well let us know when major universities stop teaching evolution as a fact. I will wait.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@enoch1844 DNA is now the best proof of evolution. Just like they use DNA to prove who's blood it is at a murder scene, They use DAN to show what is related to what. It matches Darwins tree of life!
gregrutz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@enoch1844 ''Even after millions of generations of fruit flies. Still fruit flies! lol!''
Correct, and after million of years, humans are still apes, still mammals, still tetrapods, still cordates.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@enoch1844 Have you studied and understood the full extent of the evolutionary theory?
PDracco 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@enoch1844 ." Even after millions of generations of fruit flies. Still fruit flies! lol!''
Yes, dogs make dogs, apes make apes. That is why Humans are still Apes. Millions of years from now we will still be apes. You can't outgrow your ancestry.
Evolution has been seen in nature and in the lab and in the fossil record and in DNA markers.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@enoch1844 ''How could the information for the first living cell ever 'evolve''' YOU not knowing something does not prove science wrong.
'' totally from dirt! '' The bible says we came from dirt, not scientists. You seem a little confused.
gregrutz 2 months ago
Why limit your God to ancient myths when he (or she?) is so much more than that? Mankind is clearly made such that we can observe and contemplate the universe, why deny God by pretending He is just an arrogant tyrant instead of a benevolent creator that brought forth all this life via a beautiful process such as evolutionary growth? Open your heart to God's power, we have discovered so much about how He brought it all together to bring life to this planet, rejoice in life and celebrate.
eastjones 1 year ago
Human intellect {the intellect being the vessel in which knowledge is stored} remains a constant. It's the same now as it was at any time in human history. Human knowledge has advanced only because of our ability to record & store information. No man can run 100 M.P.H. No man will ever be able to reach a running speed of 100 M.P.H., therefore, as science is synonymous with knowledge, Man will never be able to know things that are beyond his intellect.
LovingKimiKatkar 1 year ago
All science supports evolution, it all fits. The fossils record proves it, DNA proves it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
No evidece, That is why it is taught a Yale, UCLA, Harvard, etc. as fact.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "No evidece, That is why it is taught a Yale, UCLA, Harvard, etc. as fact. "
That's why many have lost faith in supposedly 'objective' scientists in particular, and humanity in general. Molecules-to-man evolution will go down in history as the greatest and most destructive joke ever to plague humanity.
jonyxy777 1 year ago
@jonyxy777 ''Many have lost faith'' Just the fuddymentalists you hang with.
Scientist accepted evolution 150 years ago.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Already many don't presently - and that population is steadily growing with more and more new discoveries about the cell and dna. Stop deluding yourself. The fact is that many are closet dissenters, as societal repercussions are too damaging to be otherwise.
jonyxy777 1 year ago
@jonyxy777 So prove evolution didn't happen then, please show us why we should ''open the discussion' on something already proven.
''It's proposperous'' is not evidence against evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I don't necessarily have a dog in this fight, but Dr. Berlinski makes some very compelling arguments in this series of clips. Nevertheless, to the extent that evolutionary biology is a historical science, one where crucial theory-supporting evidence may be completely lost to us via the ravages of entropy and time, I sometimes wonder whether ANY explanation (even if true) could be rigorously supported from the data we do manage to mine.
SetOfAllReals 1 year ago
The evolutionist believes all mammals on earth (panda bears, elephants, giraffes, whales, humans, pigs, goats, etc.) are the descendents of a single fish with legs.
Wow. That must have been some fish!
To actually believe such a thing without the slightest bit of evidence, let alone proof, is preposterous.
Evolution is a FAIRY TALE.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
Watch transitional fossils 1 new
for the evidence you can't seem to find.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually theres 6 intermediate fossils between Ambulocetus and the modern whale.
-Dalanistes
-Rodhocetus
-Takracetus
-Gaviocetus
-Dorudon
-Basilosaurus
-Modern whale
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Markus77x7
Time to go back to school, trog. That isn't what evolution is.
acidgawd999 1 year ago
As Berlinski says, it's not asking for much to have the schools point out the many vast holes and absurdities that exist in the notion that species somehow emerged by natural selection. There are plenty of biologists around the world who reject that theory as unproven, impossible or absurd. The fans of that old dogma here are simply under-educated.
sherwoodstars 1 year ago
@sherwoodstars
What are the absurdities that exist?
acidgawd999 1 year ago
It's foolish......
Amusing...
not serious sciences.....
What a jerk, then he says......
Biologists do agree! BUT blah blah blah
gregrutz 1 year ago
The so-called "peer reviewed" studies of the conventional theory of evolution by natural selection, simply assume that the theory is true and then speculate about how it might have operated in this or that instance. Thus biologists are actually paid to hatch mere uverifiable daydreams about how chance and natural selection "might" have turned this little fossilized critter into that one. And these fantasies are often supported by the taypayers' money, through "research grants."
sherwoodstars 1 year ago
@sherwoodstars
That's a beautiful description of the hoax which has sucked untold billions from taxpayers.
Here is a statement which will shame every HONEST scientist: Given the tautology of random variation and natural selection, a small child can easily explain any animal. And the child's story will be irrefutable.
In other words, it's impossible for natural selection to rule anything out. Therefore, it's completely useless to science.
Evolution is a cult and not science.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010
Evolution is the backbone of Biology!
gregrutz 1 year ago
Natural selection is so nebulous that it's child's play to concoct explanations for any creature or body structure (whether real or imagined).
This is not rigorous science but "story time".
ianmac2010 1 year ago
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
gregrutz 1 year ago
No there aren't.
You only get a number like that when you define EVERY scientific research paper as a study of evolution.
Just because someone is studying the reproductive habits of a slug, it doesn't automatically mean they are "studying evolution".
Why the need to embellish?
ianmac2010 1 year ago
"There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!"
Dogma.
There is a biased interpretive filter which all data and thought must pass thru.
If Evo were true, there must have been trillions of trillions of intermediates for the billions of species that have existed.
However, the fossil record contains only a few hundred intermediate "candidates".
Such data would have falsified a hard science theory decades ago.
Evo is a joke :D
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010
We have millions of fossils, all ate intermediates, 99% went extinct.
There is no debate, evolution happened. there is a theory that shows how it happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Dogma
ianmac2010 1 year ago
Gotta love this guy's honesty.
He talks without fear about a subject which philosophers fear.
I mean they FEAR to be on the wrong side of this subject.
To even admit there is room to talk about this is verboten!
"Persecute! Kill the heretic!" is the enlightened, modern view.
ianmac2010 2 years ago
Problem is, he is a philosopher, not a biologist.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gergrutz
It's not a problem when a philosopher talks about philosophy.
Philosophers gave us the scientific method, by the way.
ianmac2010 2 years ago
What is the scientific method?
gregrutz 2 years ago
"What is the scientific method?"
I refer you to Google.
ianmac2010 2 years ago
He studied intesively in Microbiology
hugeloads 1 year ago
@ianmac2010
He is paid by the Discovery Institure to make crap up, teach the fake contraversy.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The Discovery Institute is just one of many think tanks.
How does working for a think tank automatically invalidate one's words?
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010
They 'think' of ways to disprove evolution.
They add nothing to the world.
Just hold back teaching science.
gregrutz 1 year ago
if you knew history at all you would understand the incredible importance that skeptics have played in the role of science, religion and politics.. your just a follower who doesnt ask the obvious questions.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
go ahead and ask a question, Bigass.
gregrutz 1 year ago
did you even watch the video.. the questions have been asked. answer them sufficiently already.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
''Yes, Biologists do agree evolution happened''
read a science book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
your still avoiding the questions... you refuse to admit the underlying assumptions being made in mainstream science... oh and ps, i have a bachelors degree in biology nub.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
Science does not use assumptions.
They don't even call it Darwiniannaian Theory. Darwin was wrong about many things.
gregrutz 1 year ago
your using an assumption right now bud. let me give you an example . in dating methods like radio carbon, they assunme that decay rates have always been a constant, and that the magnetic fields have always been close to what they are now, even though we didnt observe it in billions of years. so we assume it.... thats one of many.
BigG99 1 year ago
Uniformitarianism says that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. If it were not true, we couldnt do science.
It is called, radiometric dating.
Carbon 14 is just one method and is not used to date fossils.
Decay rates don't change.
gregrutz 1 year ago
tell me how they know that? and was it assumed or can they really know what conditions were like 40 billion years ago?
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
the universe is only 13 billion years old, the earth is 4 billion years old.
Read a science book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
i was exagerating on purpose... man your dim.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
watch watch?v=l3fHrM_F6gg
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Big
Actually, you asked an interesting question, and a perfectly valid "philosophical" question.
Since we know the universe is around 14 billion years old, how can we know what was happening 40 billion years ago?
ianmac2010 1 year ago
there is something in discussion called exageration which is exactly what i was doing. please dont read to far into these things.
BigG99 1 year ago
@ianmac2010
The Discovery Institute does not do experiments, they just think or crap to make it look to the uneducated person that evolution is not proven.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@greg
The Discovery Institute is a think tank. You didn't know that?
ianmac2010 1 year ago
Yes, they think of ways to make evolution look bad and make it look like a global flood is possible.
It is an anit-science creationists org.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The Discovery Institute is an anti-science, creationist propaganda church.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He says, 'Biologist all agree evolution happened' then gives no evidence why he thinks it it wrong.
"The theory does not have an substance"
That is a lie. There is plenty of evidence, enough to prove evolution happened.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Amateurish Darwinists also have no idea what ID asserts. They can begin to find out by reading quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff's favorable review of an ID book. Of course I'm not holding that Mohrhoff must surely be right: nobody is always right; and I'm not perfectly sure that ID is correct (although, unlike Berlinski, I am generally supportive of ID theory.) There's a link to Mohrhoff's review on my blog; follow the link on my channel profile. Like myself, Mohrhoff isn't a creationist.
sherwoodstars 2 years ago
Darwin-fans are such amateurs in the discussion that they don't understand that Berlinski presents no evidence for ID, because he doesn't espouse ID! He criticized ID from a very skeptical point of view in the magazine Commentary, Dec 2002. Berlinski calls his view "intelligent uncertainty:" he simply doesn't think that there is any good scientific theory as to how species emerged. And ID, if valid, still doesn't require a creationist conclusion of any sort.
sherwoodstars 2 years ago
For those amateurs in this discussion, I urge you to read Jerry Cohen's "Why Evolution Is True", which gives a very clear description of evidence that suppoprts evolution
btw, notice Mr. B didn't present one bit of evidence in support of ID. From "Flood Geology" "irreducible Complexity" ID arguments are very weak and for the most part require us to imagine a capricious designer who is trying to fool humans, and who is a lousy designer, as evidence of poor design abounds in nature.
eastjones 2 years ago
@eastjones
I'm undecided on this, but the 'evidence' that I see expounded in popular science books generally seems to be question-begging. Yeah, genotype, phenotype go hand in hand, and are both correlated with biological niches. There also seems to be lines of descent, in that, when a creature appears at a point in time, it looks as if it's part of a continuum, and follows on from what has gone before. That's not evidence that natural selection is the mechanism.
gerontodon 1 year ago
@eastjones
I urge you to read a book "Why evolution is false". Poor design is not so poor after all.
logicCplusplus 1 year ago
OMG, this guy is a trip! I habe in my hand three different books, all giving very clear explanations of all these points. Berlinski is wrong on every count. "Not supported by evidence?" "preposterous"? No realtion to what we see today? these are stupid comments. Since he doesn't appear stupid, he is either lying or in a serious state of denial.
eastjones 2 years ago
if I hadn;t been watching the entire lecture, I would have thought he was jokikng in this short clip. What a bunch of hogwash! Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence! The theory explains the diversification of life we see today, and it is the only theory that does so. He is just plain lying, or perhaps he is insane. (yeah, that must be it .)
@sherwoodstars is now making the same type vacuous claims "totally discredited?" only if you ignore all the evidence and believe this clown
eastjones 2 years ago
This clip incisively summarizes the state of ignorance about the real causes of the emergence of species that characterizes biology today. The notion that all life arose by chance and natural selection is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by "science." And it's being altogether discredited.
sherwoodstars 2 years ago
Evolution was accepted 150 years ago, it keeps getting better, more proof found every day.
gregrutz 2 years ago
I think you mean 'proposed' not accepted. It's definitely accepted now.
jessc1979 2 years ago
He says, 'Biologist all agree evolution happened' then gives no evidence why he thinks it it wrong.
"The theory does not have an substance"
That is a lie. There is plenty of evidence, enough to prove evolution happened.
gregrutz 2 years ago
funny to hear all the comments that berlinski doesn't understand evolution. come on guys, seriously, is it very hard to grasp?
mathewjohn5174 2 years ago
He is paid by the Discovery Inst. to act stupid, which he does well.
gregrutz 2 years ago
so by your poorly reasoned attack on him as a human being, may I assume that you are not able to counter his arguments? Let's be sensible. Talk reason, facts, evidences, logic, instead of hurling meaningless and unfounded insults that only make the insult-hurler look like a fool incapable of critiquing him any other way.
dugw15 2 years ago
what?? you sound like a creationist,
breedofthe45 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The great biologist Pierre Grasse, in his book The Evolution of Living Oragnisms, published in 1977, held that the conventional doctrine of evolution of all life by chance and natural selection is "pseudoscience" and "daydreaming, " which clashes with the evidence at many points. Grasse, who was a president of the French Academy of Sciences, believed that existing species descended from other, different ones over long epochs, but that the causes of such descent are unknown.
sherwoodstars 2 years ago
You people act like evolution has not been proven. Mr. Butinski trys to put Evolutionists and Darwiniininists on the defence by asking stupid questions.
What a way to make a living, telling lies.
gregrutz 2 years ago
He is not a scientist,
He is paid by creationist.
There is no discussion because evolution is proven. Fact.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
David Berlinski is a secular Jew and an agnostic, who doesn't subscribe to any religion, but who analyzes and debunks the old dogmas of the conventional evolutionary biologists. His view is "intelligent uncertainty:" he doesn't think anyone really knows how species arose, or by what causes. Berlinski doesn't espouse intelligent design theory, but simply exposes the follies of Darwinism. It's too bad everyone isn't equally knowledgeable and rational.
sherwoodstars 2 years ago
"broad education in philosophy,"
But he doesn't know shit about evolution.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Comment removed
sherwoodstars 2 years ago