"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

mickrock wrote: »

David Berlinski makes some good points here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

What an utter asshat.

How can anyone think that those are "good" points.

The man has clearly no understanding of what evolution is or what it predicts.

Just two examples to show this.

1. He conflates laws and theories by comparing evolution and gravity. He talks about Newton's Law of Gravitation and then asks why evolution hasn't come up with something similar. First of all, Newton's law, this one:



is just an approximation. It's not a very good approximation on smaller scales as we discovered from general relativity but it's ok for everyday life and teaching kids. Secondly, a law in science is descriptive it explains how something happens, like above how gravity works as a relationship between mass and distance. It doesn't however explain why things happen, why there is gravity and why it behaves as it does. That is what theories are for.
Oh and since we're on the subject, even if he hadn't made a category error, he is still dead wrong. There are laws in evolutionary biology such as Dollo's law of irreversibility.


2. He mentions towards the end of the video that dogs still remain dogs and bacteria still remain bacteria. Well of course. Evolution would fall apart if they didn't. This is a principle in biology known as Darwin's 2nd Law of Common Ancestry or more commonly monophyly. You can't outgrow your own ancestry. To do so would violate the most basic evolutionary principles. Yet this is what creationists constantly demand in order to "prove" evolution, a crocoduck.

Now if you want, I can guide you through all the mistakes that this creatard makes but I'm guessing you're happier with your delusion.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You mean like this:

Visual evolution: Snakes with legs

That's exceptionally interesting. A "reactivation" of a vestigial structure? (I know little about snakes).

mickrock wrote: »

If Darwinism is true why don't we see a lot of living transitional forms between the species? We would expect these intermediate forms to be plentiful if the theory is correct.

They can't all have died out.

You see them everywhere. Look in a mirror, for example.

mickrock wrote: »

If Darwinism is true why don't we see a lot of living transitional forms between the species? We would expect these intermediate forms to be plentiful if the theory is correct.

They can't all have died out.

I don't understand the question.

Every living thing is a transitional form between what it's lineage used to be and what it's lineage might become.

edit: I'm going to sneak this in here because I found it very interesting when I first encountered it as an example of the kind of genetic madness evolution has wrought upon species. It's a nature paper though so probably not freely available to anyone without a subscription/institutional access (Although iirc, nature subscriptions are cheaper than new scientist ones, they aren't exactly amateur friendly).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7192/full/nature06936.html

Platypus (Platypi? platypodes? Platypuses?) are pretty freaking cool.

robindch wrote: »

You will be banned temporarily if your next post doesn't either substantiate or withdraw the unsubstantiated claim you made earlier today.

I withdraw my claim. I think Darwinism is really fab.

Those snakes with legs are interesting. Why aren't there more of these type of inter-species forms around? The place should be full of them.

Sycopat wrote: »

Every living thing is a transitional form between what it's lineage used to be and what it's lineage might become.

Your answer reminds me of what Ringo Starr said when he was asked why he was the Beatle that got the most fan mail:

"Because more people write to me."

Sarky wrote: »

How do viruses fit in, do you know? Some of them mutate really rapidly to the point where "species" becomes an awfully fuzzy term for them.

I've thought about it a bit before but I don't really know. I mean, we're still using the Linnaean classification system although one which we have heavily modified to cope with the massive amounts of information that we've learned about the natural world since the 1700s. The problem from my perspective is that we are essentially trying to attach a fixed system of nomenclature to a process which is in continual motion. The only reason we haven't noticed so much is that there are a lot of biologists who are concerned with lifeforms an awful lot bigger than bacteria. Ultimately though I think we're going to paint ourselves into a corner if we haven't already done so. Let's take H. sapiens for example. So far we're already pretty close to the bottom of the Linnaean system as a species. Now, eventually we could end up with two daughter groups splintering off from the parent group but then we have a breed or sub-species. The problem with that then becomes that we already have a working definition of breed. So eventually, further down the line, even if those daughter groups don't diverge themselves they may become isolated from each other to the point that they can no longer interbreed and so we would call them two different species, but then what does that make H. sapiens, being the parent clade of both groups. It's a bit of a noodle scratcher.

mickrock wrote: »

If you have a creadesk, sit at it now and listen to filthy creationist scumbag Phillip Johnson waffle about Darwinism:

Why do you think Philip Johnson was a filthy scumbag? He seems a pleasant enough chap from what I can find online. Pity about the neocreationism, though. And the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS.

I can't actually see the video in this territory, so can I ask you to give me the gist of what it says?

mickrock wrote: »

He's critical of Darwinism which automatically makes him an asshat cretard.

If you do a bit of googling I'm sure you can find out what his views are.

Really? It depends on his reasoning (and reasons), I suppose. Though I'd be more inclined to call him an asshat cretard (where did you get that term?) if he criticized Darwinism again and again and again using the same tired logic and sloganeering, without actually engaging with others. That would be asshattery cretardation.

pauldla wrote: »

Really? It depends on his reasoning (and reasons), I suppose. Though I'd be more inclined to call him an asshat cretard (where did you get that term?) if he criticized Darwinism again and again and again using the same tired logic and sloganeering, without actually engaging with others. That would be asshattery cretardation.

Exactly.

Although, whether something is the same tired logic and sloganeering is all in the eye of the beholder.

pauldla wrote: »

Yes, that is true. Evidence, however, tends to be a little more definitive. You have evidence to use to show how evolution can happen in a non-Darwinian manner?

I prefer to concentrate on Darwinism and look at its evidence.

mickrock wrote: »

I prefer to concentrate on Darwinism and ignore its evidence.

Fixed your post for you there.