VIDEO: The flaws of Darwinian Evolution (by Dr. David Berlinski)

[Hamayun]

A very interesting interview of a very respected scientist discussing the flaws of the theory of evolution.

For the record he does not belong to any religion.


Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpeOD593lCc


Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrT4eJBH5EE

[Hamayun]

I hope the Atheists on this forum have watched these videos...

[Dagless]

Doesn't he work for the Discovery Institute? That lends a certain bias to his view.
The amount of changes needed to go from one form to another doesn't really matter too much because of the millions of years these changes have to develop.
Lastly, what's up with the pen? Dude its an interview, not a book signing.

[CosmicPathos]

Doesn't he work for the Discovery Institute? That lends a certain bias to his view.
The amount of changes needed to go from one form to another doesn't really matter too much because of the millions of years these changes have to develop.
Lastly, what's up with the pen? Dude its an interview, not a book signing.

you are a pro-evolutionist? Please demonstrate to me live evidence of humans emerging from their ancestors. I would like to see step by step changes in fossils which capture every graded minute change that was required for humans to emerge from their primitive primate ancestors.

Mutation rates are slow and it will take millions of years? Fine. Develop a system that speeds up evolution yet mimics nature. And then demonstrate. Till then, its just a belief.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Italianguy]

I just got finished studying Darwinism in college.........Waste of time to say the least!:hmm:

[Nathaniel]

you are a pro-evolutionist? Please demonstrate to me live evidence of a species forming another species, very much like humans emerging from their ancestors. I would like to see step by step changes in fossils which capture every graded minute change that was required for humans to emerge from their primitive primate ancestors.

Is it necessary to have evidence of "every graded minute change" in order to validate evolutionary theory? It seems that neither you nor Berlinski understand how the scientific method works. Berlinski's radical skepticism entirely prevents him from forming any theories of his own. You have to base your theory on the available evidence, and the evidence (transitional fossils, live observation of bacteria evolution, etc, etc) strongly points towards an evolutionary model being correct.

[Nathaniel]

A very interesting interview of a very respected scientist discussing the flaws of the theory of evolution.

Respected within the religious or scientific communities? Certainly not the latter.

[CosmicPathos]

Is it necessary to have evidence of "every graded minute change" in order to validate evolutionary theory? It seems that neither you nor Berlinski understand how the scientific method works. Berlinski's radical skepticism entirely prevents him from forming any theories of his own. You have to base your theory on the available evidence, and the evidence (transitional fossils, live observation of bacteria evolution, etc, etc) strongly points towards an evolutionary model being correct.

Yes why not, after all those changes happened right? Now you will call this misplaced skepticism? Right? Something which you cant answer, even though it could be answered if there was evidence, you then call it "radical skepticism?" A strong claim needs a strong proof.

Fossils provide a direct observation of what happened in the past. I value fossil evidence to be of higher credibility than genetic evidence. Genetic evidence only points to similarity, not descent. "similarities in monkeys and humans genome are greater than the differences." So? That does not necessitate descent.

[CosmicPathos]

Respected within the religious or scientific communities? Certainly not the latter.

Maybe because he goes against the dogma? By the way he has a PhD from Princeton, so hes not an average joe. He is not a scientist but is a philosopher for whom it would not be impossible to think scientifically.

[CosmicPathos]

Is it necessary to have evidence of "every graded minute change" in order to validate evolutionary theory? It seems that neither you nor Berlinski understand how the scientific method works. Berlinski's radical skepticism entirely prevents him from forming any theories of his own. You have to base your theory on the available evidence, and the evidence (transitional fossils, live observation of bacteria evolution, etc, etc) strongly points towards an evolutionary model being correct.

Transitional fossils which are very few and far between? All species went through transitional species, there must be BILLIONS of such fossils. How many do humans have recovered? Supposedly 100s? interpretations which are based on pure conjecture? Live bacterial evolution does not lead to new species? Does it? There is tons of a difference in strains and species. Can Escherichia Coli become Slamonella typhosa, given appropriate selective pressure and time? If yes, then man, you are in for a Nobel Prize. Do it, show it, we will believe you.

Basing one's theory on incomplete evidence is not so smart an idea. Hold the horses till evidence is completely fool-proof.

[Dagless]

you are a pro-evolutionist? Please demonstrate to me live evidence of humans emerging from their ancestors. I would like to see step by step changes in fossils which capture every graded minute change that was required for humans to emerge from their primitive primate ancestors.

Mutation rates are slow and it will take millions of years? Fine. Develop a system that speeds up evolution yet mimics nature. And then demonstrate. Till then, its just a belief.

I'm not pro anything. I was just pointing out what evolution says in answer to his statement.

How can you possibly expect a step by step proof for change? Evolution suggests millions of changes. You cannot expect all this proof to be discovered in less than a century, if at all.

Yes why not, after all those changes happened right? Now you will call this misplaced skepticism? Right? Something which you cant answer, even though it could be answered if there was evidence, you then call it "radical skepticism?" A strong claim needs a strong proof.

Fossils provide a direct observation of what happened in the past. I value fossil evidence to be of higher credibility than genetic evidence. Genetic evidence only points to similarity, not descent. "similarities in monkeys and humans genome are greater than the differences." So? That does not necessitate descent.

Why should it necessitate descent? The theory does not say we are descended from monkeys. Both monkeys are humans branch off from a common ancestor.

Not everything which happened can be proven. Not everything which dies leaves a fossil.

Lastly, I just want to say that I am not heavily sided one way or the other. I'm just pointing out the basic answers to the things he was saying in order to prevent this thread from being one sided. Berlinski also says things which are unsubstatiated and irrelevant... like "there was a liberal attitude between mathematicians" - does he know all mathematicians?, "a group of mathematicians", "a group of physicists", etc. How is this relevant? There are plenty of mathematicians and physicists who do accept the theory. Its like me telling you I know a group of lawyers who accept quantum mechanics. Thats fair enough but it doesn't lend weight to the argument, because (a) even though they are smart people they not in the field, and (b) you cannot judge an argument or belief by how many people accept it.

[Nathaniel]

Basing one's theory on incomplete evidence is not so smart an idea. Hold the horses till evidence is completely fool-proof.

What you are describing is not science: evidence is never complete, and scientific hypotheses are forever being proposed, accepted as theories and modified on the basis of the evidence that we do have. Evolutionary theory was proposed over a century ago now, and has continued to be confirmed as new evidence has been taken into account.

Radical skepticism is Berlinski's philosophy, and it is incompatible with science (and history for that matter). No matter how much new evidence confirms the theory, he is able (in parrot fashion) to say "Sorry, not enough evidence to meet my impossible standards yet."

[CosmicPathos]

What you are describing is not science: evidence is never complete, and scientific hypotheses are forever being proposed, accepted as theories and modified on the basis of the evidence that we do have. Evolutionary theory was proposed over a century ago now, and has continued to be confirmed as new evidence has been taken into account.

Radical skepticism is Berlinski's philosophy, and it is incompatible with science (and history for that matter). No matter how much new evidence confirms the theory, he is able (in parrot fashion) to say "Sorry, not enough evidence to meet my impossible standards yet."

"Evolutionary theory was proposed over a century ago now, and has continued to be confirmed as new evidence has been taken into account."

What is this evidence? The evidence that we do have does not conclusively mean we have descended from the primitives. That is just one interpretation of the evidence. I stick to the interpretation that "similarities exist because why re-create a circle for a same function and God chose that for unique creation at cellular levels?" How is one interpretation superior over the other? Just because majority of scientists subscribe to the former interpretation, because they dont evidence for God, I should accept it too and if I dont then I am a misplaced skeptic? Right. Maybe to a disbeliever scientist, ONLY the former interpretation makes sense. To a believer, the later interpretation seems valid too because he starts with the assumption that God exists. I would not have any problem with accepting the former interpretation (still believing in that God exists with certainty), just show me speciation happening, as it did in case fo humans from primitive primates, in the lab and I'll give in.

[CosmicPathos]

I'm not pro anything. I was just pointing out what evolution says in answer to his statement.

How can you possibly expect a step by step proof for change? Evolution suggests millions of changes. You cannot expect all this proof to be discovered in less than a century, if at all.



Why should it necessitate descent? The theory does not say we are descended from monkeys. Both monkeys are humans branch off from a common ancestor.

Not everything which happened can be proven. Not everything which dies leaves a fossil.

Lastly, I just want to say that I am not heavily sided one way or the other. I'm just pointing out the basic answers to the things he was saying in order to prevent this thread from being one sided. Berlinski also says things which are unsubstatiated and irrelevant... like "there was a liberal attitude between mathematicians" - does he know all mathematicians?, "a group of mathematicians", "a group of physicists", etc. How is this relevant? There are plenty of mathematicians and physicists who do accept the theory. Its like me telling you I know a group of lawyers who accept quantum mechanics. Thats fair enough but it doesn't lend weight to the argument, because (a) even though they are smart people they not in the field, and (b) you cannot judge an argument or belief by how many people accept it.

By descent, I meant the same thing. I did not say humans descended from monkeys. I meant common descent of monkeys and humans from the ancestors which resulted in greater similarity over lesser differences.

For example, "Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans; human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

The assumption that they split off is based on testing for similarities in SNPs and other molecular markers. How they come to the conclusion that it was necessary to split off from a common ancestor for giving that 98.4% similarity? Just purely based on conjecture that if two things are more similar than dissimilar, they must have common origins sometime in the past. Just a belief.

"Not everything which happened can be proven." Fine. If it cannot be proven that it happened, then how does one know that it actually happened? there is a conundrum in that statement.

[Nathaniel]

"Evolutionary theory was proposed over a century ago now, and has continued to be confirmed as new evidence has been taken into account."

What is this evidence? The evidence that we do have does not conclusively mean we have descended from the primitives. That is just one interpretation of the evidence. I stick to the interpretation that "similarities exist because why re-create a circle for a same function and God chose that for unique creation at cellular levels?" How is one interpretation superior over the other? Just because majority of scientists subscribe to the former interpretation, because they dont evidence for God, I should accept it too and if I dont then I am a misplaced skeptic? Right. Maybe to a disbeliever scientist, ONLY the former interpretation makes sense. To a believer, the later interpretation seems valid too because he starts with the assumption that God exists. I would not have any problem with accepting the former interpretation, just show me speciation happening, as it did in case fo humans from primitive Great apes, in the lab and I'll give in.

The problem is that saying "God did it" is not an explanation of any kind. The question (at least from a theistic perspective, which I share with you) is "how did He do it?" For me, evolution is exactly the kind of beautiful and elegant process we would expect God to initiate, and coheres well with the idea of God starting off the Big Bang and allowing the universe to evolve in such a way as to be able to accommodate intelligent life.

The evidence for it is simply overwhelming: see here for a good look at some of the lines of evidence.

[Chuck]

"Evolutionary theory was proposed over a century ago now, and has continued to be confirmed as new evidence has been taken into account."

What is this evidence? The evidence that we do have does not conclusively mean we have descended from the primitives. That is just one interpretation of the evidence. I stick to the interpretation that "similarities exist because why re-create a circle for a same function and God chose that for unique creation at cellular levels?" How is one interpretation superior over the other? Just because majority of scientists subscribe to the former interpretation, because they dont evidence for God, I should accept it too and if I dont then I am a misplaced skeptic? Right. Maybe to a disbeliever scientist, ONLY the former interpretation makes sense. To a believer, the later interpretation seems valid too because he starts with the assumption that God exists. I would not have any problem with accepting the former interpretation (still believing in that God exists with certainty), just show me speciation happening, as it did in case fo humans from primitive primates, in the lab and I'll give in.

This is not what Berlinski is saying. He doesn't completely reject theory of evolution, but he is saying standards applied to evidence large changes are very loose compared to other fields of science. Carefully, watch what he said. He articulated very well his argument.

[CosmicPathos]

The problem is that saying "God did it" is not an explanation of any kind. The question (at least from a theistic perspective, which I share with you) is "how did He do it?" For me, evolution is exactly the kind of beautiful and elegant process we would expect God to initiate, and coheres well with the idea of God starting off the Big Bang and allowing the universe to evolve in such a way as to be able to accommodate intelligent life.

The evidence for it is simply overwhelming: see here for a good look at some of the lines of evidence.

a pretty extensive resource, ill go through it.

[Nathaniel]

a pretty extensive resource, ill go through it.

Yes there is a lot there: as I said, the evidence is overwhelming. Do you disbelieve in evolution simply on "lack of evidence", or do you think it conflicts with Islam?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Nathaniel;

The problem is that saying "God did it" is not an explanation of any kind. The question (at least from a theistic perspective, which I share with you) is "how did He do it?" For me, evolution is exactly the kind of beautiful and elegant process we would expect God to initiate,

I guess we are all left with our own beliefs, and evolution is not a part of mine.
God has the power to create life in the way that evolutionists describe, but I do not believe this is how life came about.
God created all creatures according to their kind, he created Adam and Eve, so I do not believe that we descended from apes.
We adapt to changing habitats, and that is as close as I can agree with the theory of evolution. Darwin’s example of differences in finch beaks, is not a convincing way to extrapolate back four billion years to single cell life.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[جوري]

Is it necessary to have evidence of "every graded minute change" in order to validate evolutionary theory?.

You need data to theorize and a mechanism of action that yields some results even if remote to validate a theory...

This isn't a matter of who is respected where and by whom. Are we tackling the subject or the subject matter! (poisoning the well?)

with that being said, I have no interest to labor over this topic!

all the best

[CosmicPathos]

Yes there is a lot there: as I said, the evidence is overwhelming. Do you disbelieve in evolution simply on "lack of evidence", or do you think it conflicts with Islam?

I cannot speak for whether it conflicts with Islam or not as I am not a scholar of Islam. From the scholarly opinion I've seen, most scientists-turned-Islamic students of knowledge (including reputable scientists with peer-reviewed publications) have denied the possibility of evolution. For example, Dr. Saleh el-Saleh, may Allah grant him Janna. At the same time, there are credible scholars who openly accept evolution as the work of Allah (swt) citing that one attribute of Allah is The Evolver and also the fact that when a baby is born it is said that Allah (swt) created it but it just followed some basic biological processes of mating and gestation and labor. For example, Dr. Israr Ahmed.

My concern with evolution is purely based on evidence. I do not have any problem with "evolution" as it is defined, for example, to explain the mechanism of emergence of MRSA or even VISA strains of S. aureus. In the human realm, this is very similar to a production of a human child who has lets say smaller lungs than average due to genetic reasons. Or to a certain population of humans who are resistant to R5 tropic HIV because they have mutation in CCR5 receptor. My issue specifically is with human evolution from primates. Other animals could have gone through evolution in the sense of descent from modification from primitive bacteria, evidence for that is scanty too, but human evolution (human species emerging for the first time from primitive apes) is tough to push down my brain.

[Snowflake]

:sl:

I don't know much about this topic but I watched a documentary which showed that the 'missing link' had finally been discovered. It was a fossil of a fish-like creature which began life in the water and then grew limbs as it evolved to adapt to its environment.

In another documentary, that had nothing to do with evolution, I saw fish with limbs that can crawl out of the sea just as the fossilized one had. All that the so-called 'missing link' did was prove that these creatures existed, while the other documentary proved they still do. In no way does that prove that humans evolved from a common ancestor by way of natural selection. I thought it was funny they were trying to make us believe that. ;D

[Snowflake]

THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION


http://www.kewego.fr/video/iLyROoaftxnZ.html

[CosmicPathos]

:sl:

I don't know much about this topic but I watched a documentary which showed that the 'missing link' had finally been discovered. It was a fossil of a fish-like creature which began life in the water and then grew limbs as it evolved to adapt to its environment.

In another documentary, that had nothing to do with evolution, I saw fish with limbs that can crawl out of the sea just as the fossilized one had. All that the so-called 'missing link' did was prove that these creatures existed, while the other documentary proved they still do. In no way does that prove that humans evolved from a common ancestor by way of natural selection. I thought it was funny they were trying to make us believe that. ;D

the missing link, did it adapt those legs in the same individual? If yes then it might not contribute to evolution because unless the emergence of new traits is in sex cells, evolution cannot take place. For example, a human can go start living on the top of mountains. His rbc count will increase, heart rate increase etc. All these changes will not mean that his child will be produced with increased RBC. it might but that would be due to the fact that his body produced more RBC to compensate for lower oxygen pressures, not because changes had been made in father's DNA.

[Nathaniel]

My issue specifically is with human evolution from primates. Other animals could have gone through evolution in the sense of descent from modification from primitive bacteria, evidence for that is scanty too, but human evolution (human species emerging for the first time from primitive apes) is tough to push down my brain.

You might find this page a useful source of information about human evolution.

[جوري]

You might find this page a useful source of information about human evolution.

you might find these:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf

equally useful on human evolution!

all the best

[Nathaniel]

you might find these:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf

equally useful on human evolution!

all the best

I see no issue with these two papers:

In the first: "We evaluate the probability Pr that the RNA of the first cell was
assembled randomly in the time available (1.11 billion years
[b.y.])." I see no reason to assume randomness (from a theistic perspective).

In the second, the conclusion in no way contradicts evolution - indeed theistic evolutionist do believe that evolution is directed (or "deterministic") towards a particular aim, namely human beings.

[جوري]

I see no issue with these two papers:

In the first: "We evaluate the probability Pr that the RNA of the first cell was
assembled randomly in the time available (1.11 billion years
[b.y.])." I see no reason to assume randomness (from a theistic perspective).

In the second, the conclusion in no way contradicts evolution - indeed theistic evolutionist do believe that evolution is directed (or "deterministic") towards a particular aim, namely human beings.

I doubt very much that you have taken the time to read all forty two pages of the first or even glanced at the second. Whatever the mechanism (directed or random), the tools used (Aka, DNA breaks, mutations, jumping genes) etc wouldn't yield Ape to human in fact, you are free to google any of them and see exactly what the outcome is of something like a frame-shift mutation or a 9,22 translocation. When you hypothesize with a certain set of data, said data should in fact yield a determined outcome for the theory to be correct and not some pipe dream!

The tools of creation belong to God and you only delude yourself into believing you know how without adhering to some other faulty belief!


all the best