An amazing video about evolution

#21
Appologies. I believe I may have accidentally removed someone's contribution to this debate as a result of finger trouble - I was about to agree with him/her. If that was you, please put your comment in again!

David
 

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
#22
I think we all understand the concept of NS.

David
I don't know David, if you keep assuming that there is direction where there is none.
The 'direction' you apply to longer necks is perceived after the fact, in reality evolution simply has no direction.

And i do not see how it is evidence against evolution, that similar evolutionary pressures result in similar adaptations.
 
#25
Malf - don't you ever want to contribute any thoughts of your own - as opposed to echoing what you perceive as the consensus scientific view of anything we discuss?
My thoughts are that the genetic record alone puts this to bed. You invariably reply with links - long video and audio no less!

At the start of the Berlinski video, you were reminded of the scientific credentials of this guy - the fact that he is so very dubious of the 'official' line, is surely significant in itself!
Please. Are you going to be impressed if I present the views of a well credentialed evolutionary biologist?

You also posted a video made by some guy who cut up Berlinski's video and inserted his own comments. Do you really think that is a fair way to to 'debate' with anyone?
Someone had spent time exposing the tired old nonsense he was spouting, better than I could have done.

My view is that the current models are just the best we have. If you want to put another model up against it go for it; has the Discovery Institute actually discovered anything lately?
 
#28
Yes but you must also consider that there are problems in that the 2 studies done to try and provide evidence for macroevolution have failed miserably

Namely lenskis bacteria and the fruit fly study where they accelerated the rate of evolution to the point of a million years yet no macroevolution . The mutant flies were less adept to survive then their non mutant counter parts
Links please. I'm pretty sure you're misrepresenting Lenski's work here.

I'm also unsure what you are suggesting. How would speciation occur without macroevolution?

In the meantime, some light reading:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
 
#29
I'm also unsure what you are suggesting. How would speciation occur without macroevolution?
The point (made by Berlinski) is that macroevolution may be impossible by the mechanism of natural selection. There is a very good reason for this. If A is going to evolve into B, but it needs a large number of steps to get there, most or all of those individual steps have to be valuable enough in themselves to spread through the population.

NS only works by small steps that are individually beneficial.

Berlinski is rubbishing a mechanism that he and others think is wholly inadequate to explain macroevolution. It is logically valid to do that without immediately providing an alternative explanation. It is better to know that you do not know something than to pretend a totally inadequate mechanism provides the explanation.

Indeed - that helps science to advance - it is only when it is realised that an explanation doesn't cut it, that people start to explore alternatives.

Logically we should probably say speciation is a mystery.

I mean even if you leave out non-materialist explanations, I suppose it might just be possible that an epigenetic explanation of macroevolution might work. This is because epigenetic changes happen in response to the environment, and sometimes get passed on to the next generation. However, nobody is going to look for such a mechanism while they are locked into believing that Darwin's mechanism is adequate.

David
 
Last edited:

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
#30
The point (made by Berlinski) is that macroevolution may be impossible by the mechanism of natural selection. There is a very good reason for this. If A is going to evolve into B, but it needs a large number of steps to get there, most or all of those individual steps have to be valuable enough in themselves to spread through the population.

NS only works by small steps that are individually beneficial.

Berlinski is rubbishing a mechanism that he and others think is wholly inadequate to explain macroevolution. It is logically valid to do that without immediately providing an alternative explanation. It is better to know that you do not know something than to pretend a totally inadequate mechanism provides the explanation.

Indeed - that helps science to advance - it is only when it is realised that an explanation doesn't cut it, that people start to explore alternatives.

Logically we should probably say speciation is a mystery.

I mean even if you leave out non-materialist explanations, I suppose it might just be possible that an epigenetic explanation of macroevolution might work. This is because epigenetic changes happen in response to the environment, and sometimes get passed on to the next generation. However, nobody is going to look for such a mechanism while they are locked into believing that Darwin's mechanism is adequate.

David
Can you point to a source where we can see how Berlinski makes his case for that?
Preferibly one that does not come from the Disco tute.
 
#31
Why has science been allowed to grow into something akin to a religion?
This is a huge question and I think it has many answers and I think this is the crux of the issue, since Neo-Darwinian evolution is such an obvious fairytale, (though all of life does share a common source). Evolution cannot account for consciousness, it can't account for thought or memory or reason. It cannot account for itself, the mechanism of evolution or even the desire and will to survive. So at some point it is also superatural, the mechanism of evolution itself is supernatural. Humans seem to need to believe. (which Schermer showed in spades- Faith In Science). It takes faith to do science so in fact it is a form of religion.

Evolution theory also serves an agenda that serves the elite, who invented it. Evolution was used to push Eugenics and racial superiority, which suited the elite who could gain even more power and do gain much power from science. I think the elites want to create a new religion, which is waht Scientology is. By using it to tear down established religions they create disarray and discord and can fill the power vacuum with the state. Though religions always served the state pretty damn well! Getting people to believe in SCIENCE holds many benefits for those in control, as does the technology itself is useful for that control.

Everything gets turned into a belief system and a religion of sorts. USA is a religion.

To really believe in Darwinian random-mutation evolution one would have to deny the realm of spirits and the afterlife no?

Anyway I like Stephen Meyer, who I feel demolishes Evolution the same way Berlinksi does, by showing how fantastical the odds would have to be, just to get a usable mutation in one protein, much less a land mammal into a whale.
 
#32
The point (made by Berlinski) is that macroevolution may be impossible by the mechanism of natural selection. There is a very good reason for this. If A is going to evolve into B, but it needs a large number of steps to get there, most or all of those individual steps have to be valuable enough in themselves to spread through the population.

NS only works by small steps that are individually beneficial.

Berlinski is rubbishing a mechanism that he and others think is wholly inadequate to explain macroevolution. It is logically valid to do that without immediately providing an alternative explanation. It is better to know that you do not know something than to pretend a totally inadequate mechanism provides the explanation.

Indeed - that helps science to advance - it is only when it is realised that an explanation doesn't cut it, that people start to explore alternatives.

Logically we should probably say speciation is a mystery.

I mean even if you leave out non-materialist explanations, I suppose it might just be possible that an epigenetic explanation of macroevolution might work. This is because epigenetic changes happen in response to the environment, and sometimes get passed on to the next generation. However, nobody is going to look for such a mechanism while they are locked into believing that Darwin's mechanism is adequate.

David
If you ignore all the evidence that supports macro evolution it can seem quite incredible.

Like I said earlier, because of that evidence, it's currently the best model we have. To suggest people have accepted 'Darwinism' and have given up the pursuit of investigation in this area just makes you look foolish.
 
#33
If you ignore all the evidence that supports macro evolution it can seem quite incredible.

Like I said earlier, because of that evidence, it's currently the best model we have. To suggest people have accepted 'Darwinism' and have given up the pursuit of investigation in this area just makes you look foolish.
Well If I look foolish alongside a scholar like Berlinski, I don't feel so unhappy :)

David
 
#34
Anyway I like Stephen Meyer, who I feel demolishes Evolution the same way Berlinksi does, by showing how fantastical the odds would have to be, just to get a usable mutation in one protein, much less a land mammal into a whale.
Right - it is at the molecular level that the whole concept breaks down. To be fair to Darwin, he knew nothing of the nature of DNA, and it is quite possible that he would never have proposed his theory of evolution if he had.

Almost every little step in evolution dissolves into hundreds or thousands (remember multiple proteins may be needed to achieve some new functionality) of smaller steps when you think about the evolution of a new piece of functionality (e.g.. a new enzyme). Most of those steps offer no conceivable advantage to the organism, and so combinatorics rules.

David
 
#35
Why has science been allowed to grow into something akin to a religion?
This is a huge question and I think it has many answers and I think this is the crux of the issue, since Neo-Darwinian evolution is such an obvious fairytale, (though all of life does share a common source). Evolution cannot account for consciousness, it can't account for thought or memory or reason. It cannot account for itself, the mechanism of evolution or even the desire and will to survive. So at some point it is also superatural, the mechanism of evolution itself is supernatural. Humans seem to need to believe. (which Schermer showed in spades- Faith In Science). It takes faith to do science so in fact it is a form of religion.

Evolution theory also serves an agenda that serves the elite, who invented it. Evolution was used to push Eugenics and racial superiority, which suited the elite who could gain even more power and do gain much power from science. I think the elites want to create a new religion, which is waht Scientology is. By using it to tear down established religions they create disarray and discord and can fill the power vacuum with the state. Though religions always served the state pretty damn well! Getting people to believe in SCIENCE holds many benefits for those in control, as does the technology itself is useful for that control.

Everything gets turned into a belief system and a religion of sorts. USA is a religion.

To really believe in Darwinian random-mutation evolution one would have to deny the realm of spirits and the afterlife no?

Anyway I like Stephen Meyer, who I feel demolishes Evolution the same way Berlinksi does, by showing how fantastical the odds would have to be, just to get a usable mutation in one protein, much less a land mammal into a whale.
I agree that science has turned into a religion of sorts
I think science started out with good intentions : to free the mind to observe the natural world as it appears but in differentiating itself from religion it deified it's own methodologies and presuppositions and put them in opposition to what it saw as religion. I think because science was a revolution of sorts it has an element which is socially positive, which is to free people to see and understand reality through their own rational observations and not have to capitulate to the state which was the church. Unfortunately because of a lack of understanding of psychology and the unconscious(shadow) the scientific establishment has become the very thing it sought to liberate us from although scientist in general still stand against fundamentalist religion but unfortunately they go to far and attack anything which does not conform to a materialistic model of reality.
 
#36
If you ignore all the evidence that supports macro evolution it can seem quite incredible.

Like I said earlier, because of that evidence, it's currently the best model we have. To suggest people have accepted 'Darwinism' and have given up the pursuit of investigation in this area just makes you look foolish.
I'm curious as to whether you have listened to any of the debates with Stephen Meyer and many top evolutionary biologists.
 

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
#37
The point (made by Berlinski) is that macroevolution may be impossible by the mechanism of natural selection. There is a very good reason for this. If A is going to evolve into B, but it needs a large number of steps to get there, most or all of those individual steps have to be valuable enough in themselves to spread through the population.
What you do not seem to understand, is that A does not have to get to B, it could have been C, or D, or Z.

You keep seeing B as the goal of evolution, it simply isn't.
If we flipped a coin ten times, the chance of getting a specific sequence of 10 heads or tails would be 1 in 1024.
On the other hand the chance of getting any sequence of 10 heads or tails is simply one.

Now evolution of a certain species tells the story of a series of adaptations, not the story of a specific series of adaptations.
This is the mistake that you, Berlinski, and all the other Discoverites make.

ID'ers are asking evolutionary biology to explain the teleology they themselves impose on nature.
Of course that does not work, not because the science is lacking, but simply because science cannot explain something that is not there.


NS only works by small steps that are individually beneficial.
Evolution does indeed work in small increments, but naming these steps beneficial, is a value judgement that illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution by natural selection really is.

Berlinski is rubbishing a mechanism that he and others think is wholly inadequate to explain macroevolution. It is logically valid to do that without immediately providing an alternative explanation. It is better to know that you do not know something than to pretend a totally inadequate mechanism provides the explanation.
Berlinski is a senior fellow of the Discovery institute, a religious/political think tank that has it as it's only goal to promote ID/creationism.
He is not rubbishing anything, he is just repeating the old and stale, much refuted, ID/creationism arguments.
If he is rubbishing anything, it is his own reputation. By claiming to be an agnostic, while vigorously defending ID/creationism, and religion as the only source of morality, he becomes a joke.

Logically we should probably say speciation is a mystery.
Even if you were right, ID/creationism does not do that, they simply know there is an intelligent designer/creator, and work from there.
 
#38
I'm curious as to whether you have listened to any of the debates with Stephen Meyer and many top evolutionary biologists.
I have. I also doubt that they are conducted in a way that thoughtfully and painstakingly looks at the evidence (from either side). Can you point me to Meyer's model for common descent that explains the evidence for macroevolution that I referenced above?
 
#39
I have. I also doubt that they are conducted in a way that thoughtfully and painstakingly looks at the evidence (from either side). Can you point me to Meyer's model for common descent that explains the evidence for macroevolution that I referenced above?
Once again you do not seem to get it. It is possible - and valuable - to prove a scientific theory is wrong without having another theory to replace it.

Somehow life proliferated into umpteen species, the question is how. Science can flourish better when false ideas are pulled down, because it focused attention on what we do not know.

David
 
#40
  1. For macroevolution to be a Darwinian mechanism there would have to be GAZILLIONS of mutations for just one single species! A DNA mutation makes a new and unusual protein. That's all it does. Period. How that protein becomes a tissue and goes about its function at a new location in the body is a total mystery. Proteins are incredibly complicated and there are possibly untold googles of them in one body. Besides being made of amino acids they are folded in strange and intricate and very complex, sculptural ways. Sometime a DNA mutation will just change the fold of one protein, which usually results in catastrophe like mad cow disease.
  2. Protein Misfolding links- http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/protein-misfolding-and-degenerative-diseases-14434929
  3. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mis-folded+protein&ia=web
  4. Random genetic mutation is just not nearly sufficient enough to explain speciation. It's a completely absurd proposition. Perhaps a few instances of natural selection, but natural selection is not speciation. Nobody is really arguing about natural selection. Geography is destiny.
  5. If you believe in Darwinian evolution you believe that you are a random product of chance. that absolutely everything about you and your life was determined by chance, governed by four fundamental physical forces and evolution. That's it. End of story. It means there is no spirit world, no life after death. Consciousness itself is a bizarre by-product of chemicals and so is love and any meaning at all. So is the simple desire to stay alive as long as possible that all organisms seem to just randomly and mysteriously have. It's such a crazy story I have to quote the South Park (and Book Of Mormon creator):
Out of all the ridiculous religion stories - which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous - the silliest one I've ever heard is, 'Yeah, there's this big, giant universe, and it's expanding, and it's all going to collapse on itself, and we're all just here, just 'cuz. Just 'cuz.' That to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever. Trey Parker
protein (also the above graphic is a protein)


Science is not supposed to require a new theory to replace one that is outmoded. Thomas Kuhn discusses this in his groundbreaking and justly famous work "The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions". It ain't right and it ain't science. (paraphrasing). But as our friend above stated, because of the shadow and the need to believe in SOMETHING rather than beautiful mystery, we get stale protectionism CYA faculty bullshit. (also possible social engineering conspiracy by the Royal Society-that's another discussion) There is a lot to hate about religion but it should not color your Science. Peace
 
Top