I'm sorry Swenson, but I just can't take it seriously. The whole idea that complex systems arose from random mutations is laughable. Extinction, via natural selection, now that I can see. But that's not evolution; that's extinction. Evolution is premised upon random mutations compiling into more and more functionally complex forms. That's what I find very easily dismissed.
That's it? That's your contribution to the discussion? My mom had a dog like you. It was a miniature toy poodle. It would hide behind the couch and yip, yip, yip. It could be annoying, but it had no real bite. Set to ignore.
It's the response that your posts deserve. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The "I find it laughable" argument doesn't really hold up, since it could just as easily be applied to any argument. Reality is funny sometimes, and we learn by discussing the positions, not by dismissing it as laughable when there are unanswered questions on the table. You keep bouncing between different questions. You were talking about transitional species, I invited to a discussion on the topic by suggesting lizards as a transitional species between fish and bird. You ignored that discussion and went on to talk about complexity and where it arises. I answered that specifically by pointing out that the complexity only arises where there is evolutionary pressure. You ignored this point as well, and went on to call it laughable, an argument so vague that I don't really know what aspect of it to address. More often than not, the version of evolution you seem to find laughable is so misinformed that I would find it laughable too.
Swensson, I understand why you are using generic terms but, I take issue with you trying to imply that lizards are transitional between fish and birds. Lizards and birds share a common ancestor but, there is no path that goes directly from lizards to birds. He is trying to argue a strawman position because it is the only argument he has however, I acknowledge that the reason for arguing a strawman is usually because someone knows what the real position is but, chooses not to argue that because the argument against it is either non-existent or weak. I may be giving him too much credit with that but, I hope that it is true. He is Gish Galloping between topics because he thinks that he can win the debate by simply flooding the topic with incredulity; knowing that it is easy to throw out these opinions but, actually correcting them accurately takes time and patience. Until we see any significant focus on a single topic I will simply respond by dismissing that which is asserted without evidence.
True, I use lizard in a very loose way, mostly because it's the term that bricklayer has used themselves. I think dinosaurs can be referred to as lizards, although I acknowledge that it's a matter or definition, rather than anything fundamental, and I could be wrong. I don't think he thinks he can win it, if anything I think he might think he can tire me out. Or at least thought, he hasn't replied in a while. We'll see.
The science is weak in the entire issue. Look up "rapid evolution", rate of evolution, rate of mutation, mutation rate and evolution. Because observed mutation rates are too slow to support evolution there is a large amount of effort spent in trying to prove that mutation rates are actually faster than what is observed.
This is an easy subject to read about, its in the reviewed journals and there is plenty on the internet. If you are too lazy or uninterested to spend a few minutes seeking it out, then I'm not going to do lead you by the nose.
It's not my assertion. You practically just admitted that you have nothing. That's why I dismissed it
I didn't mean to resort to "laughable" as an argument. I just meant to point out that we are essentially repeating ourselves. You believe that random mutations can accumulate into functional complexity, and I do not.
I agree that we are repeating ourselves. That's why I invite you to answer my questions, ones that investigate our actual disagreements, instead of going onto a different topic. In the evolution from a fish to a bird, is a lizard not a transitional form? In an existing but simple individual, might a complex internal system not be beneficial and therefore selected for?
That approach of "if you can't respond to all of my requests then you have nothing" is a total fail. You want to converse, then converse. You want to be lazy and play games, then you are a waste of time.
Lizards don't evolve into birds because random mutations cannot accumulate into functional complexities. Random mutations can only degrade functional complexities.
Ok, points for effort, but not actually an answer to either of the questions. In response to your argument that there are no transitional forms, I suggested lizards (or their ancestor) as a transitional form between fish and bird. Do you have a justification for your statement? In computer science, we have genetic algorithms and evolutionary programming, processes inspired by evolution, and good examples of random "mutations" and simple selection giving rise to complexity and optimisation. Random mutations are not unable to be beneficial, only unlikely to. However, natural selection makes sure that those rare events dictate the gene pool.
I got to the 8th minutes and all I saw was people pointing out the vastness of space and the power of stars. Where is the actual evidence or is this just a grand argument from ignorance?
I got to the 4th minute before I couldn't watch anymore. This list of fallacies kept piling up, but the kicker is when he said that "Science" described the beginning of the universe as "the Big Bang". It was at this point I realized this person, whoever they are, is just making stuff up. It was Fred Hoyle who coined the term "Big Bang" as a pejorative. While he was a scientist (astronomer), he mocked the idea that the universe started from a single point and expanded. He believed in Panspermia (the idea that bacteria traveled on comets here to earth). However the term "big bang" stuck and here we are. Most scientists wouldn't describe it as a "bang" rather an expansion. Neither of your video's offer falsifiable evidence to their "truth". Rather claims made against ignorance. God of the gaps. God has always fit into the gaps in our knowledge and no matter how much we know, there will always be gaps for god to fit into. As far as Truth. Personally, I believe it is elusive, perhaps even unknowable. What I do know is that science has always and will always try to describe circumstances with a specific set of facts that best fits. If something comes along that's better, science will replace it and be better for it. Religion hasn't made any significant advances because those that believe that god is the reason and the cause for everything start with the idea that they know and search the world looking for justification. Science says "I don't know" and searches evidence of the truth.
