Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

At the next Vioxx or Rely™ incident?

What?

 

[BCP1928]

We shouldn't be too hard on the fellow. He's a Kiwi, and it can't be too easy for him being a Fundamentalist down there. The sources he's using, though old to us seem new and exciting to him. He doesn't really understand the arguments he's trying to make and doesn't really know anything about the theory of evolution itself except what those sources tell him, and we all know how misleading they are on that subject. Consequently, I think he was shocked by our responses, at how little respect we showed for the intellectual integrity of the sources he is relying on, that seem so compelling and self-evident to him.

 

[AV1611VET]

What?

An "overconfident flame-out" thread will appear the next time there's a scientific disaster.

 

[NxNW]

The fossil record doesn’t ‘speak for itself’; it’s interpreted within assumptions about time, process, and cause. As for fine-tuning, the constants critical for life show extraordinary precision, so finely set that even secular physicists speak of them as 'improbable.'

You didn't address most of my points. The fossil record supports different species developing over millions of years. Creation supposes everything within a week. Nitpicking the details of evolution does not reconcile the massive differences in timeframes.

That some creationists explore variability in non-essential constants doesn’t invalidate fine-tuning,

Which constants are non-essential?

it emphasises how delicate life’s conditions are.

I've already addressed that fact.

Regarding creationist research: dismissing it out of hand isn’t a scientific rebuttal; it’s a philosophical bias.

What research has been done with falsifiable hypotheses? What have they discovered?

And citing Nobel winners proves agreement, not truth.

In post 303 you're talking about why variation in constants shouldn't be accepted because it's outside mainstream science. Now you're saying mainstream science can't be trusted.

Which is it?

Life shouldn't exist at all if the universe were truly random.

Why not? Who says there aren't multiple universes with different constants, and this one happens to be Goldilocks, just as Earth is the rare planet in the Goldilocks zone.

Yet here we are, conscious, moral, intelligent, asking ultimate questions. That alone points to something more than particles and chance.

Who says we're moral?

You’ve reiterated standard evolutionary responses, stepwise processes, stochastic variation, assumed co-option of independently functional parts, but that doesn’t actually answer the core challenge. You're describing mechanisms that operate once systems exist, not explaining how functionally integrated systems originate in the first place.

You're avoiding the fact that it defeats the false argument of irreducible complexity.

Look, you'll make an IC argument and we refute it. Then you claim we failed to refute a different question from the one you actually asked.

When I speak of complex specified information or irreducible systems, I’m not saying “we don’t know, therefore design.” I’m saying: the origin of systems where parts are mutually dependent and lack individual function outside the whole remains unexplained by stepwise Darwinian processes.

Now you're back to IC. You've been given multiple examples of it.

Saying, “they were once independently functional” is an assumption, not an explanation,

Saying that "blood has a function" is a pretty safe assumption, isn't it?

and that assumption often lacks empirical support.

What empirical support do you need for that?

A plausible model is not the same as empirical demonstration. The sheer improbability of coordinating numerous interdependent elements through unguided mutations, without foresight, remains a massive explanatory gap. Pointing out that models exist or that “could have happened” scenarios can be imagined doesn't make them scientifically conclusive.

A plausible explanation defeats your claim this it couldn't possibly have happened.

Those are interesting examples, but they don’t address the core challenge I’m raising. The E. coli citrate use and icefish antifreeze involve modifications or losses of existing functions, not the de novo origin of entirely new, integrated systems.

You're doing it again. Those examples refute the irreducible complexity argument, by adapting existing systems, which you claim is impossible.

They show flexibility within already functional networks,

Which you claim is impossible.

The Tiktaalik example also presupposes a coordinated shift involving bones, muscles, nerves, and control systems, all integrated and functional together. But evolution can only act on immediate advantage

Says who? Mutations can carry forward even without immediate advantage.

so how do non-functional partial changes get preserved? That’s the irreducible complexity challenge: what drives the stepwise preservation of parts that do nothing on their own?

You're misrepresenting IC, which claims that interdependent systems can't change function.

Yes, evolution explains modifications, but the origin of biological novelty, new systems, body plans, and integrated machinery, remains an open and critical question.

The "origin of biological novelty, new systems, body plans" is not related to irreducible complexity. Stop trying to avoid the question that you actually asked.

 

[AV1611VET]

We shouldn't be too hard on the fellow. He's a Kiwi, and it can't be too easy for him being a Fundamentalist down there. The sources he's using, though old to us seem new and exciting to him. He doesn't really understand the arguments he's trying to make and doesn't really know anything about the theory of evolution itself except what those sources tell him, and we all know how misleading they are on that subject. Consequently, I think he was shocked by our responses, at how little respect we showed for the intellectual integrity of the sources he is relying on, that seem so compelling and self-evident to him.

Frankly I was surprised that academia was willing to critique a mathematically-based critique of a scientific theory.

After all, doesn't this apply:

And if mathematics is two steps ahead of biology in that diagram -- (the final step being miles ahead of the one before it) -- then I find it interesting that such "purity of fields of science" isn't worth the paper it's written on.

But then, that's what I've come to expect anyway.

Only on paper.

 

[NxNW]

We shouldn't be too hard on the fellow. He's a Kiwi, and it can't be too easy for him being a Fundamentalist down there. The sources he's using, though old to us seem new and exciting to him. He doesn't really understand the arguments he's trying to make and doesn't really know anything about the theory of evolution itself except what those sources tell him, and we all know how misleading they are on that subject. Consequently, I think he was shocked by our responses, at how little respect we showed for the intellectual integrity of the sources he is relying on, that seem so compelling and self-evident to him.

But he's also being less than honest by trying to change the goalposts when we refute one of his arguments.

Q: Irreducible Complexity says that components of interdependent biological systems can't change function.
A: Here is an example, like the ice fish.
Q: But that doesn't explain how those systems originated!

 

[BCP1928]

But he's also being less than honest by trying to change the goalposts when we refute one of his arguments.

Q: Irreducible Complexity says that components of interdependent biological systems can't change function.
A: Here is an example, like the ice fish.
Q: But that doesn't explain how those systems originated!

No, he's just incapable of producing a coherent argument about a theory he really doesn't understand very well, snatching from this source and that. And, of course, he doesn't believe it's a real theory, but a concoction. Don't forget the founding principle of modern creationism: "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God." --Henry Morris. He actually believes it.

 

[NxNW]

No, he's just incapable of producing a coherent argument about a theory he really doesn't understand very well, snatching from this source and that. And, of course, he doesn't believe it's a real theory, but a concoction. Don't forget the founding principle of modern creationism: "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God." --Henry Morris. He actually believes it.

That may all be true, but the example of the changing goalposts is exactly what happened with me.

 

[linux.poet]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has had a cleanup to remove some disruptive behavior.​

Please do not complain about each other’s posts.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[River Jordan]

And here's a practical example: Scientists have studied fruit flies (Drosophila) for decades across tens of thousands of generations under intense mutation-inducing conditions. What did they observe? Minor variations, yes. But no new organs, body plans, or species.

That's not true. New species of Drosophila have been seen to evolve.

But the origin of integrated, complex systems, where multiple parts must work together, requires far more than isolated protein function. That’s the distinction I’m making.

Then go read some papers on it! A lot of work has already been done on that subject, so why haven't you been staying up to speed?

I don’t need to start my own research program, there are already several active ones challenging evolutionary assumptions. Groups like Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and Discovery Institute are doing exactly that: offering alternative frameworks, publishing critiques, and conducting research from different starting assumptions.

And their results are? What new contributions have they made to our understanding of the history of life? What new fields of science have come about as a result of their efforts? Have any biotech firms utilized their work, or ditched the evolutionary framework for the creationist one?

Also, the Discovery Institute shuttered their "research arm" years ago without doing a single significant thing.

That’s a bold claim, especially when no one here has actually refuted the core of Haldane’s dilemma, only waved it away.

The argument put forth in the video in the OP was based on the astonishingly ignorant notions that every nucleotide difference between two genomes requires it's own individual mutation and must have a beneficial effect.

That you actually thought that argument "destroys evolution in less than 5 minutes" speaks volumes.

The argument highlights real mathematical constraints on how fast beneficial mutations can realistically spread, and despite decades of evolutionary research, it hasn’t been decisively answered.

How would you know? You've already admitted that you don't stay up on the science, so how can you say that and why should anyone believe you?

Mocking the OP doesn’t erase that. If undergrads can “spot the errors,” maybe you can point to a peer-reviewed paper that definitively resolves Haldane’s dilemma rather than just dismissing it.

Honestly, there's a lot more to that topic than you're likely aware and I very, very much doubt you're equipped to discuss it at the required depth. If you disagree, my first question is, just how much time have you spent studying population genetics?

Yes, I did refer to functional biological information as sequences that produce meaningful outcomes (like proteins), but you're oversimplifying my position.

Not really, you're just backpedaling after your earlier claim that "functional, meaningful sequences like this don’t arise by chance. They point to design, not random origin" was shown to be laughably wrong.

Saying “functional sequences have been seen to evolve countless times” ignores the deeper question: how do such sequences originate in the first place, and what are the probabilistic limits involved? That’s the heart of the information argument, not just that sequences exist, but how they arise in the first place, especially in the absence of prior function.

To reiterate, a lot of work has already been done on that, so why haven't you read any of it?

After hundreds of posts, one thing stands out clearly: no one here has actually resolved Haldane’s Dilemma. It remains a serious challenge to the speed and scope of evolutionary change, especially when it comes to explaining the rise of complex, integrated systems purely through unguided mutation and selection.
We’ve gone in circles over examples like citrate-eating E. coli and Tiktaalik, but none of these address the core mathematical and informational limits raised by Haldane. Variation within types? Sure. Functional tweaks? Observed. But the origin of entirely new, specified, functional systems, and the cost of substitution over time, still stand as serious issues.
So despite all the noise from you guys, the original point remains unshaken: evolution, as currently framed, does not adequately account for the emergence of complex biological information. The video I posted—“Destroying Evolution in 5 Minutes”—still stands.
That's it for me today. Blessings. Enjoyed it.

That's not true at all, but you wouldn't know since you don''t stay up on the science. And that you still think the video in the OP "still stands" is very revealing, given its fundamental errors.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not true. New species of Drosophila have been seen to evolve.

But they're still fruit flies, correct?

 

[River Jordan]

Funny how these overconfident OPs and subsequent flame outs occur every few months or so. I wonder when the next one will roll around.

It astounds me how often I see people assume their level of knowledge of a subject represents the entire state of the science. It never seems to occur to them that maybe there are some things they aren't aware of (which is especially weird when they also admit they don't stay up on the science).

 

[River Jordan]

We shouldn't be too hard on the fellow. He's a Kiwi, and it can't be too easy for him being a Fundamentalist down there. The sources he's using, though old to us seem new and exciting to him. He doesn't really understand the arguments he's trying to make and doesn't really know anything about the theory of evolution itself except what those sources tell him, and we all know how misleading they are on that subject. Consequently, I think he was shocked by our responses, at how little respect we showed for the intellectual integrity of the sources he is relying on, that seem so compelling and self-evident to him.

Except that what it really amounts to is someone just throwing rocks at scientists from the sidelines. The good thing though is, 99.99% of scientists will never be aware of any of it.

 

[BCP1928]

But they're still fruit flies, correct?

Don't know. That's a popular term, not a scientific one, so you'd have to know more about what non-scientists who use it thought it meant.

 

[River Jordan]

But they're still fruit flies, correct?

Irrelevant. The claim was that no new species of Drosophila have evolved. They have (Drosophila is a Genus).

 

[BCP1928]

Frankly I was surprised that academia was willing to critique a mathematically-based critique of a scientific theory.

The mathematics of the "mathematically-based critique" was badly flawed, which was why it is very old news--except to 1tonne, who apparently just stumbled across it.

 

[jasperr]

÷3How so?

White elephant - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"Because the animals were considered sacre₩₩¥d and laws protected them from labor, receiving a gift of a white elephant from a monarch was simultaneously a blessing and a curse"

I thought it might describe your "gift" in a similar kind of a way...

 

[AV1611VET]

It astounds me how often I see people assume their level of knowledge of a subject represents the entire state of the science. It never seems to occur to them that maybe there are some things they aren't aware of (which is especially weird when they also admit they don't stay up on the science).

From AI Overview:

Speaking outside one's area of expertise can be referred to as ultracrepidarianism. It can also be described as epistemic trespassing. Other terms like "out of one's wheelhouse" or "not in one's forte" are also used in less formal contexts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Irrelevant. The claim was that no new species of Drosophila have evolved. They have (Drosophila is a Genus).

My bad -- sorry.

 

[AV1611VET]

The mathematics of the "mathematically-based critique" was badly flawed, which was why it is very old news--except to 1tonne, who apparently just stumbled across it.

It was "badly flawed" on purpose.

"Flawed" in favor of evolution, so as to give evolution a very large benefit of a doubt.

And evolution was still pwned mathematically.