Re: Dr. David Berlinski Destroys Evolution In Under 5 Minute

A response to Berlinski's attempt to discredit Darwin and evolution "based on mathematics"

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Berlinski
• Darwin
• mathematics
• evolution
• Discovery
• Institute

[uppercutter21]

Look up genetic entropy.

[HowieInTheUK]

@uppercutter21 "Look up genetic entropy"

Haven't read that particular book but did have a chance to skim through a sister text - "Quantum Hairdressing"

[wbraddell2]

Correct me if I'm entirely off on this, I'm relatively new to biology and just putting forward an idea:

Ring species constitute an example of speciation because Salamander A and Salamander B can no longer breed. However, its now believed that modern humans bred with Neanderthals at some point (their DNA is found in most non-Africans I believe) yet Neanderthals are a different species. Doesn't this throw the definition of a species in question into some doubt?

Look forward to your response :)

[HowieInTheUK]

@wbraddell2

Well, in ring species it is only the two species at the two ENDS of a long chain of interbreeding but different adjacent interbreeders that cannot interbreed. It is at the ENDS that real speciation has occurred. So the Neanderthals, though different, might not have effectively been on the ends of such a chain.

Cheers

[logicCplusplus]

@gregrutz

Ok, Darwin was right about differential reproduction (ie: RM + NS), changes occur. The problem is adaptability vs. utility/function. Adaptation is dependent on function (before you can even have "fitness"), function is independent of adaptability. So we have first-order function which is obviously not dependent on any selection. ie: it has to exist first before any "selection" can even occur.

[gregrutz]

@logicCplusplus Darwin didn't even know about mutations and still showed how evolution works. He showed there is variation in species even though he didn't know what caused it.

[sprattysy]

some sweet info here

[msjessypp]

very interesting thanks

[rodswebdesign]

some really good stuff here

[willbirful]

very interesting thanks

[logicCplusplus]

@gregrutz

Mutations have always been shown to be reversible. This proves that mutations are not responsible for the differences between species, because species-level changes are all irreversible. Its these little facts that make Darwinian Evolution look very unscientific.

[gregrutz]

@logicCplusplus Can you turn a wolf into every kind of dog, Yes. That proves the variation in species IS already there. How it got there, mutation if you want to call it that, is not important., it happens.

[logicCplusplus]

@wbraddell2

continued...

Darwinian Evolution has always been good for two things:

1) preventing extinction

2) genetic entropy

Natural selection for example can only select from what already exists, it doesn't create initial function. Random Mutations is all Darwinist have and it is a completely random process (random input, random output).

Also,genetic algorithms only prove that when you have Intelligent selection guiding the process only than can you gain function.

[logicCplusplus]

@wbraddell2

continued...

Upon closer inspection, they found that A and B sub-populations of fruit-flies would no longer interbreed. For them, this meant that A and B fruit-flies were now different species. But the fact is (and this is primarily why species is an ill-defined term) it was not because they COULD NOT interbreed biologically, it was because they CHOSE NOT TO, as a matter of preference.

continued...