What do biological Veeky Forumsentists think of this guy? David Berlinski is a critic of evolution. Thoughts...

>but can you predict the outcome?
Of course you can. There's a whole field of applied biology referred to as evolutionary engineering. For example, you can introduce microbes to unusual niches to direct their evolution towards a certain outcome. After a few generations (could be a few days for some species) they have evolved biochemical mechanisms that adapt them to better survive in the new niche.

Because there is none.

Oh really?

but that's microevolution once again, and you can't really predict the outcome as much as force it (by denying survavibility of unwanted traits).
But can you predict the outcome when you don't remove every possibility but one?

IF EVOLUTION IS REAL AND HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APES

WHY

ARE

THERE

STILL

APES?

>tfw school district was too cheap to buy 3 talking monkeys for each student

>mfw no matter how hard masons and sun worshippers try to pedal this meme most of the population of earth will never beleive it

feels good man

Beats worshipping a moon god.

Christians get mad if we don't teach creation.
However, their creation story is just as relevant as every other religion's story.

Should we teach that the world is flat and laid out on the back of a turtle?

How about the sun is being pulled through the sky by a chariot?

How are these obviously comically wrong creation stories any different from the non-scientific Christian creation story.
"The moon is a light"
"Days existed before the sun did"
"We are all the offspring of two people" (genetically impossible)

Should we teach The Flood too? Tell kids that it's entirely possible for every single species of every animal to fit into an ark, survive for months, and disperse in peace? Not to mention, Noah never collected any seed or grain to plant, and after a worldwide flood, there would be no vegetation left save algae.

There are so many things scientifically wrong with the creation story, it's a wonder it's still in the bible. Even most christians understand that it's only metaphoric.

>it's just microevolution guys!

>People who think there's really that much of a difference between microevolution and macroevolution need to go back to school.

>but that's microevolution once again
Yes... and?

Predicting the outcome of evolution in the wild, if that's what you mean, is a matter of data. If you have the data, you can predict it. Not to mention, there exist many ecological models that predict, depending on the circumstances of a population, whether they will evolve in a niche, whether certain alleles will be fixed or eliminated and so on.

The point of the microbe experiments is that we don't just throw them in a vat and hope that something happens, we can predict how they will evolve based on the surrounding factors that affect them. The reason I went with microbes is the simplicity of the example.

Don't forget dinosaurs and man living together and a flat earth.

IF COOKING IS REAL AND CAKES ARE MADE FROM FLOUR

WHY

IS

THERE

STILL

FLOUR?

Look at those beautiful vegetarian teeth!

That's not even a good comparison.

The reason apes still exist is because the first assumption is wrong. People didn't evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor with them. Those common ancestors don't exist anymore because they evolved into humans and apes.

It's all about interpretation.

>couldn't even get the number of fingers right

Would you prefer this?

Then it would really bother you to know that I don't need to read origin of the species to get my results, as they are backed up by numerous scientific discovery and observation. Why do you put a bible in the creationist's head? It's just as valid as a Koran, an old native american story, or the พระพุทธเจ้า. You have no evidence that your story is right, yet you lift it above the others. However, evolution is backed by outside observation. It isn't just blind faith from a book. We can predict where we should find links in the fossil record, and actually end up finding them. We can map out the evolution of many species, but a christian creationist would have you believe that they all existed together for some reason, and their bones all got scattered around during some impossible global phenomenon.

What is this then?

>one example of scientific imprudence disproves the entire theory

Give me ONE example of evidence for creationism. I'll only accept it as credible if it doesn't come from a Christian/creationist source. Anything else would have an obvious bias.

Forgot the picture: What is this then?

alien skull

Hisperopithecus, as well as your idol Lucy.

Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

show me a case of asexual reprocing species turning into a sexual reproducing species

10 minutes in and this guy hasn't given one example on the arguments he'a making. He sounds like a "everything i say is a fact" guy.

Almost like a prophet, huh?

I will do better!
I will show you the trunk of an Elephant transforming before your very eyes into the beak of a beautiful .. gofer?? Yes!
Gather round, children, for, you, too, can do this experiment at home.
All you need is an Elephant, some mentos, a blow dryer, two dozen condoms and an enlish translation of the quoran.

Now, before we engage in the execution of this activity, I feel compelled to facilitate a warning at this juncture, so as to ensure everyone can reap the full harvest of the experience without being unduly subjected to grave personal danger.

1.) Do not leave the blow dryer and the elephant alone in your living room.

This may seem overly paranoid, but it is vital both for your personal safety as well as for the succesful propagation of experimental results to proper fruition to observe this law, as one may delineate it

You can't predict mutation retard.

More like "similar problem, similar solution."

I like the dolphin(mammal), shark(fish), ichtyosaurus(reptile) convergent evolution example

Here ya go.

Is this what you got from the post? I hope you're baiting tbqh.

>Christians get mad if we don't teach creation.

No they don't. Christians aren't all American Protestants dumb ass.

>"Days existed before the sun did"

It's poetry. Check your autism.

>Anything else would have an obvious bias

So what? Everything is biased. That's no excuse to dismiss everything and only consider an echo chamber of people that agree you. You should be able argue against their shitty points and if you can't, that's your problem.

Saying that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution is like saying it's impossible for trees to grow from seeds.

>inb4 mitochondria

"the tooth belonged neither to a man nor an ape, but to a fossil of an extinct species of peccary called Prosthennops serum."
But I'm glad your PhD in archaeology has got this one figured out.

and Lucy is not a proof of creationism. I want physical proof outside of the bible. I know you can't provide it.

This guy gets it.

I am a biologist and I think his opinions are wrong. Evolution is the single most tested theory in all of science and has yet to be proven wrong.

People who deny evolution usually have ulterior motives, most commonly that it conflicts with their tradition of belief which is not based in science and cannot be trusted.

Of course, evolution has expanded far beyond what Darwin knew. His basic idea still holds, but he didn't even know about DNA, so it has certainly been improved over the years. That doesn't mean he was initially wrong.

>No they don't
"dumb ass"
>It's poetry. Chex your autism
I'm not the one trying to implement creationism into the public school system.

>Everything is biased
>Except my great big book of Jebus

There is no evidence because all of it was fit into an evolutionary worldview. If you were to take off the red-tinted glasses, you'd what I see.
I thought of a good one: how do birds fly?
By the will of Allah, that's how.

>"likely fully human, but with pathological features"
>"fully ape"
>Pertinent quote: "We seriously doubt the...bones were among the descendants of Adam and Eve"

Just stop, seriously, your incompetence is painful.

Fine, you dirty monkey-worshipper.

>"There is no evidence"
Are we done here?

(I know it's a troll)

Fuck yes. Is this a serious question?

This just proves my point. What are you even doing?

It's true, I'm really a troll. Moat of the arguements I've used come from the Chrisrian school I attended for several years.
When I asked the teacher what he though Homo Naledi was, he immediately said: "let's what Ken Ham has to say."
I weep for my people

*most
*"Let's see what
Godammit!

0/10

No because creatards still haven't raised up their conjecture to even a hypothesis, much less put it through the rigor which could graduate it to a theory which could explain things about the diversity of species that evolution doesn't or can't.

Schools also don't teach astrology, alchemy, or geocentrism but I hear next to nobody complaining about that. Your conjecture isn't any better proven than those others, why do you want schools to lower their standards for creationism?

Oh god.

I too came from a Christian school, I understand what it's like.

My school actually had a debate. The two sides (the only two sides) were young-earth and old-earth creationism (old-earth being a bit more scientific).

Can relate. The only one who wasn't (blatantly) young-earth was my Bible teacher. He was an old-earther. I'm more of a BioLogos guy myself.

>inb4 mitochondria
what about mitochondria?
can you adress my concern about asexual/sexual or are you going to ignore it

Not all American Protestants are creationists either, fuckwad.

Some regard anything else as comprimsing to their faith. Even old-earth. My old creationist biology textbook made this clear.

>the parts that are indefensible are poetry

Let's say all of the bible is poetry and teach non of it as scientific facts, okay?

Sage and report this thread people, please.

Way to compound the stupidity with popsci nonsense.

1. Humans are apes
2. The common ancestor between humans and other apes was an ape
3. Humans evolved from apes

Never.
And since apes and monkeys have a common ancestor, and that would be a monkey, humans are still monkeys then, yes?

No, monkeys are a paraphyletic group that explicitly exclude hominoid apes, such as humans. Humans evolved from a monkey but are not monkeys.

Fair enough. Where does Sahelanthropus sit in our family tree? With us, the chimps, the gorillas, or an offshoot?

We're not certain exactly where it sits. It could be a common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees or, as your graph depicts, a human but not chimpanzee ancestor.

This entire discussion you guys are having is utterly moot, these terms are just definitions created by scientists for the sake of categorization.

Some guy defined what a monkey is and some guy defined what an ape is. You could create your own categorizations if have too much free time. These terms just exist so people know what other people are talking about.

You should discuss genetical ancestry rather than play around with words.

Or a proto-gorilla, right? I've only seen the proto-gorilla arguement once, and that was on wikipedia (not the most reliable source).

Yes, there are several other possibilities. It might not be an ancestor of either. More data is needed.

If evolution is a thing, why some species (like crocodiles) won't change over thousands years.

I'm personally fine with anything. It's bipedal (as far as we know), which may mean that chimps, and maybe even gorillas, had bipedal ancestors. Creationists can finally stop using the "we came from chimps" assumption.

Because the environment hasn't changed enough to force crocodiles out of their evolutionary local maximum.

It might also be a evolutionary dead end and not the ancestors of any currently alive species.

>crocodiles
>haven't changed that much
You should've seen them in their glory days.

But say it shares a similar position to proconsul or dryopithecus, albeit closer to the chimp-human split. That could mean that it was an existing feature: a defining trait of both our lineages.

If evolution is real, then it's possible to create a computer simulation started with simple cells and ended with artificial intelligence. Where is that simulation?

In production.
revolutionarygamesstudio.com/

Watched 9 minutes. He keeps saying their aren't explanations to this and that, but literally their is. This video is a waste of time. Fuck that guy

Don't forget to mention: that everything originated form (fill in the blank)

I don't think we have enough juice to simulate the number of cells required over the period of time required to get from single cells to human level intelligence in a reasonable amount of time.

It's also worth noting that human level intelligence isn't some end goal of evolution, it's just a quirk of humanities adaption. It'd be possible to run a trillion years of evolutionary simulation and not get anything 'smart' as a result.

Abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with Evolution. You can argue about the origin of life all day. Evolution just describes what happens to the life once it starts reproducing.

Remember, the guy is listed as a philosopher and educator. To me, his opinion holds as much ground as a neurologist telling me what a fossil is.

1.) We have no clear definition of nothingness,
2.) We don't really even know much about GRAVITY, we know how gravity affects things on this planet (generally speaking) but short of observing, we can't harness it, and still don't know much about it at all. Hence the movie Interstellar wherein an hour on one planet is 7 years on this planet.
3.) Science says: give us the biggest most monumental magical *Miracle* of all known existence (The Big Bang) and we'll take it from there.
I could keep going and going, but it's astounding how little we know, but how much we pretend to know. We don't know shit. Ever heard of the word Omnipresence? Well so have I. Turns out there is this stuff called Dark Matter, that is ironically and oddly similar to an all omnipresent force keeping things together.

I have to disagree. In order to better define what people believe to be EVOLUTION, we ought first try and understand where it all began. I mean that is after all the brunt of evolution, something changing from species and DNA, into a completely different species with vastly different DNA. All we have been able to do thus far, is observe MINOR, MINUSCULE adaptation. And morons or idiots like to point at the adaptations as proof of evolution.

>hurr durr you can't turn a cow into a whale
>hurr durr mutations don't cause life to fail

good shit bro

Think of it this way. Think of a skinny, weak, pale white boy moving to Hawaii to work on the boat docks or in a sugar cane farm. He works hard for months. When you see him again, he is significantly darker (from tanning) or melanin changes, his bone density has increased form the rigorous work, his muscle mass and muslcle density has vastly increased from the strenuous work he preformed. I would appear he has undergone a form of evolution, when in all reality, all that happened was he underwent MINOR adaptations as do many species. He is still a man, with man DNA.

I can't tell if you're just talking about the development of a person or lamriackian evolution, so I'm gonna put this.

What's your point? Evolution doesn't exist because humans are flexible enough as an organism to adapt to different environments? By what process do you think this trait developed?

>that everything originated form (fill in the blank)

*Lamarckian

I'm not talking about evolution in really any facet. I'm pointing out that all most scientist have ever been able to observe, is the equivalent of what I mentioned. Nothing more than nature undergoing minor adaptations to adapt to the environment. And the idea of saying if you believe in one, then you HAVE TO by default believe in the other is pretty autistic. Of all the breeds of dogs, they are still dogs. Not cats. And as it stands, a dog can still even after hundreds of years only breed with other dogs.

Um.... something from nothing is fucking magic. Am I missing something? Nice try, but EPIC FAIL

Except we have fossil evidence for many transitional species. Through phylogenetics we can track the history of species and see when they deviated as species from a common ancestor. Given enough time the dogs won't be dogs anymore, they'll be something else.

>Um.... something from nothing is fucking magic.
No one is positing something from "nothing" except creationists, you hypocrite.