Video: Randomness vs Evolution

[pitabread]

But did I get the direction (trickle down) right?

There is no direction. No up, down, sideways, forwards or backwards.

 

[Kylie]

But did I get the direction (trickle down) right?

As Pitabread said in post 92, your concept of evolution is flawed. Your statement that evolution is trickle down makes no sense. Perhaps you'd like to clarify exactly what you mean?

 

[_____a_____]

I feel like this discussion has hit a blockade in which both sides have just started chasing a tangent. I think that we need to bring this discussion back to the main issue, is evolution possible? From what I can see our Christian friend seems to think that there is a barrier to evolution's progress because a wolf can give birth to a coyote, but a wolf can't give birth to an elephant. That's how I understand what he is saying. But if you are saying that, then you missed the point of this video, being that random chance will never work, but through small evolutionary steps, then change is reachable.

I feel like we have hit a point where an argument is being used to disprove something disproving it, which is circular logic. If we structure our arguments logically then it is easier to prove or disprove. Here, let me show you an example of bad logic in the watchmaker argument:

Watchmaker argument:

1. All man-made objects that we observe are created.
2. Therefore, all objects are created.

This is quite illogical. We can call this argument false equivalence because just because both things are objects, doesn't mean both share the same properties.

Modal ontological argument:

1. If God exists, then God is the greatest imaginable being.
2. The greatest imaginable being must be necessary to existence.
3. Therefore God exists.

Let's simplify that.

1. If God exists, then God is necessary to existence.
2. Therefore God exists.

Let's simplify again.

1. If God exists, then God exists.

So, no the logic doesn't work there either.

 

[Ophiolite]

I feel like this discussion has hit a blockade in which both sides have just started chasing a tangent. I think that we need to bring this discussion back to the main issue, is evolution possible?

Let me be more direct than I have been till now. The difficulty is that your program, despite the nice production values, is worthless as tool for demonstrating evolution. It fails even as an analogy. The trajectory of the demonstration you are seeking to construct is plausible and possibly valid; however, the implementation isn't working. I suggest a return to the drawing board.

 

[Kylie]

Let me be more direct than I have been till now. The difficulty is that your program, despite the nice production values, is worthless as tool for demonstrating evolution. It fails even as an analogy. The trajectory of the demonstration you are seeking to construct is plausible and possibly valid; however, the implementation isn't working. I suggest a return to the drawing board.

Why do you think it fails?

I think that it demonstrates how certain traits are favoured over others pretty nicely.

 

[inquiring mind]

I think that we need to bring this discussion back to the main issue, is evolution possible?

I don’t understand the video at all (more me than you I’m sure), but as to your general question “is evolution possible?” Of course, biological changes happen, but they’re observed variations and adaptations (microevolution) only. Evolutionists just insist on taking it further than what is observed by pointing to patterns of similarity in physiology and genetics, and connecting-the-dots between the ‘observed’(microevolution) and the ‘unobserved’(macroevolution) in order to promote universal descent from a common ancestor. But, when it’s all said and done, patterns are all they have, with no observed biological mechanism for change that has resulted in any new ‘kind’ or ‘genus,’ an unfriendly fossil record for such a claim... and, they can produce no evidence that confirms a lack of Divine intervention.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't know where Scotland ends and Wales begins, but I know there's a boundary.

There you go.

 

[AV1611VET]

There you go.

Thank you, sir!

(LOL ... I thought they touched. )

 

[Speedwell]

I don’t understand the video at all (more me than you I’m sure), but as to your general question “is evolution possible?” Of course, biological changes happen, but they’re observed variations and adaptations (microevolution) only.

Macroevolution begins at speciation, which has been observed both in nature and in the lab.

Evolutionists just insist on taking it further than what is observed by pointing to patterns of similarity in physiology and genetics, and connecting-the-dots between the observed’(microevolution) and the ‘unobserved’(macroevolution) in order to promote universal descent from a common ancestor. But, when it’s all said and done, patterns are all they have, with no observed biological mechanism for change that has resulted in any new ‘kind’ or ‘genus,’

All that is requred for new genera is repeated speciation.

an unfriendly fossil record for such a claim...

Actually, the fossil record is quite friendly to evolution. No fossil yet discovered contradicts it.

and, they can produce no evidence that confirms a lack of Divine intervention.

The implication that scientists are attempting any such thing is a vicious falsehood which you should not be repeating.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why do you think it fails?

I think that it demonstrates how certain traits are favoured over others pretty nicely.

There is only the most tenuous analogy between the simplistic program and the details of how mutations impact coding, folding and protein function. If we know and accept evolution then it might just function as a kindergarten teaching version, but beyond that it is an embarrassment. I'm being brutal in my expression because I am quite taken aback that we are still giving it a measure of credence. This is doing nothing to support evolution.

 

[pitabread]

and, they can produce no evidence that confirms a lack of Divine intervention.

That's an unfalsifiable proposition.

 

[xianghua]

So you are talking about size? Are you saying that since proteins can't be smaller than a specific size that evolution doesn't happen?

at least its a potential problem. yep.

 

[xianghua]

Watchmaker argument:

what about this: all spinning motors are the result of design (self replicating or not self replicating). we find this spinning motor in nature, thus nature need design too:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-75b4f801849a571c4734aa03a564d33f.webp

(image from https://www.quora.com/Are-prokaryotic-flagella-and-eukaryotic-flagella-different-in-structure)

 

[Speedwell]

what about this: all spinning motors are the result of design (self replicating or not self replicating). we find this spinning motor in nature, thus nature need design too:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-75b4f801849a571c4734aa03a564d33f.webp

(image from https://www.quora.com/Are-prokaryotic-flagella-and-eukaryotic-flagella-different-in-structure)

That's right. If you use your conclusion as a premise to your argument you will prove it every time. It's called circular logic and is always conclusive.

 

[Astrophile]

I don't know where Scotland ends and Wales begins, but I know there's a boundary.

There isn't a boundary between Scotland and Wales. To go from Scotland to Wales by land you have to go through England.

 

[AV1611VET]

There isn't a boundary between Scotland and Wales. To go from Scotland to Wales by land you have to go through England.

Got it ... thanks.

 

[Ophiolite]

There isn't a boundary between Scotland and Wales. To go from Scotland to Wales by land you have to go through England.

Today yes, but after Scottish Independence, the reconstitution of the Kingdom of Strathclyde (which will absorb much of NW England) and some minor acquisitions around Liverpool, a land route will have been established. Thus alcoholism, misogyny and unintelligible speech will have been returned to the ancestral lands of the Brigante.

 

[Kylie]

There is only the most tenuous analogy between the simplistic program and the details of how mutations impact coding, folding and protein function. If we know and accept evolution then it might just function as a kindergarten teaching version, but beyond that it is an embarrassment. I'm being brutal in my expression because I am quite taken aback that we are still giving it a measure of credence. This is doing nothing to support evolution.

It's an analogy about how traits that are favoured due to their fitness in a particular environment are more likely to be passed on. It's not meant to reflect protein function.

 

[Kylie]

at least its a potential problem. yep.

Would you care to explain why evolution requires that proteins be able to form at any arbitrary size?

 

[pitabread]

all spinning motors are the result of design (self replicating or not self replicating). we find this spinning motor in nature, thus nature need design too:

Oh look, it's the False Equivalence fallacy again with some equivocation thrown in for good measure!

You keep making the same errors in your arguments, despite having this repeatedly pointed out to you. Why is that? Are you so determined to be contrarian that you don't care about making a proper argument?