An amazing video about evolution

Discussion in 'Why Science Is Wrong... About Almost Everything' started by David Bailey, Feb 17, 2017.

  1. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,468
    Ginko linked to this wonderful video about evolution:


    I think it is perhaps the best overall attack on evolution I have encountered - and worthy of discussion.

    David
     
    Typoz likes this.
  2. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    392
    When did he give the interview? (I did find it interesting. He's acerbic as hell too. ;) )
     
    Typoz likes this.
  3. Larry

    Larry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    134
    I haven't seen much new from the discovery institutehttp://www.discovery.org/multimedia/idtf/ or from the third wavehttp://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/ in quite some time. It seems like the movement has lost momentum since Darwins Doubt (Stephen Meyer) hit the scene a few years ago and stirred up a lot of controversy and push back from the science establishment.
    Darwinism is their big sacred cow. The science establishment won't even considerer any major modifications to random mutations and natural selection being the primary engine for evolution. When I've heard scientists present slight modifications or addendums they tread very lightly and make sure they properly laud Darwin as the great whose footsteps we humbly follow in.
     
    Steve likes this.
  4. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,049
    About 10 years ago I think. He makes some stuff up, ignores a lot of evidence, and provides no testable alternative. I don't think anyone really takes this guy seriously.
     
  5. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,468
    Well I guess his discussion about random mutations to Windows XP dated it!
    He is, and if he were arguing the other side I think I would find it irritating, but he made a hell of a lot of good points.

    One that I particularly liked, was his observation that successive cycles of luck/filter by NS would be independant. This is something that intrigues me - say for example (I know this is idealised) that you have an animal developing a long neck to eat the tops of trees. If each stop is utterly independent of its predecessor, evoution might lengthen the neck a little, then increase the bulk of the animal to help it knock down trees (as I think elephants do), then produce a change that would help it to digest grass...... There would be no direction to the process.
    It is not logically essential to provide an alternative theory in order to demolish the previous theory.
    I think the problem is, they have clearly won the argument, but the others don't concede defeat in public. As I think he said, in private a lot of biologists recognise the severe problems with the natural selection hypothesis.

    David
     
  6. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,468
    Another excellent point was that even when there is some chance of quantitatively estimating the number of steps needed to perform a change - such as shifting a land mammal into the sea, no attempt is made to exploit this to confirm or refute the adequacy of the theory.

    David
     
  7. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,049
    Yes. He seems to think a cow begat a whale (now that would confirm ID!)

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
     
  8. Arouet

    Arouet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,222
    The neck doesn't lengthen in order to eat the higher fruit. But the animals with longer necks would be able to eat those fruits and thus they survived to pass on those genes. You always reverse it.
     
  9. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,468
    The cow stood for any totally land based animal. Just think of that transition, and think how any creature from about the half way mark would survive! All those different changes can't happen (according to NS) at the same time, yet an arbitrary subset of the changes would probably be lethal.

    David
     
    Larry likes this.
  10. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,468
    I think we all understand the concept of NS.

    David
     
    Larry likes this.
  11. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,049
    I think that's covered in the link.

    A seal might demonstrate something like a half way mark?

    Anyhow:
     
  12. Larry

    Larry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    134
    These tree short podcast address the inviability of the transition hypothosis as currently viewed

    http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/01/a-whale-of-a-tale-cetacean-evolution-pt-1/
    http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/01/a-whale-of-a-tale-cetacean-evolution-pt-2/
    http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/01/a-whale-of-a-tale-cetacean-evolution-pt-3/
     
    David Bailey and Typoz like this.
  13. For anyone interested in more info, I have a number of related links/articles on my blog:

    Scroll down the contents on this page:
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-contents-evidence-for-afterlife.html
    (Origin of life and origin of species subsections correspond most closely to the video)

    Intelligent Design
    Overviews
    FAQs
    Origin of Life
    Origin of Species ("Macro-Evolution")
    Human Origins
    Cosmology
    The Politics of Intelligent Design​


    To summarize my views:
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/04/naturalism-is-extraordinary-claim.html (more info and supporting links at the link)

    The laws of nature seem to be relatively simple mathematical relationships. There are only four fundamental forces known by science. How is it that just by chance simple natural laws and a big bang would include or produce all the factors necessary for the universe to support life: 20 or 30 cosmological fine tuning parameters, at least 15 factors needed to produce habitable planets, at least 20 chemical factors needed for complex life? How is it possible that simple undesigned natural laws working alone could produce the complex machinery of cells and the information needed for simple life and macroevolution? How could such finely-tuned complexity arise at every scale from the atomic to the cosmic from simple undesigned unguided natural laws controlling chance interactions within the universe? The immensity of the problem is a compelling argument for design. If you wanted to design such a complicated thing from simple mathematical relationships, it would require a huge amount of intellectual effort. How could it happen just by chance? (The multiverse, for which there is no evidence, doesn't explain it.)

    But you have to understand the supporting information (first link at the top of this post) to fully appreciate the argument.
     
    Steve likes this.
  14. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    827
    I believe in some components of evolution, the theory has a lot of holes
     
    Wormwood likes this.
  15. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,468
    As Berlinski said, a lot of biologists have private doubts, but this has become such a stupid test of scientific faith - analogous to "I believe in the Virgin Mary, ..." that few want to stick their neck out.

    Why has science been allowed to grow into something akin to a religion?

    David
     
    Baccarat and Steve like this.
  16. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    827
    Ego?
     
  17. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,049
    I guess it's hard to bat off religious arguments without coming over that way.
     
  18. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    827
    I would just ignore religion. What is your opinion on evolution? Any components of it that you don't agree with or you think its 100 percent accurate?
     
    David Bailey likes this.
  19. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,049
  20. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,468
    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?

    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!

    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?

    In most of the 'dodgy science' areas we discuss, those who hold the orthodox position are very reluctant to debate with their critics (even though that is the only way science progresses). Here is one exception - a fascinating evolution debate:



    David
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2017
    Baccarat likes this.

Share This Page