Evidence Macroevolution Does Not Exist

[Guy Threepwood]

Yeah, so it increases the chances of that gene being passed on, however marginally. That's how it works.

But 'superior' is a value judgement.

but if it's too marginal to actually make a difference it doesn't work does it?, if it's too marginal to outperform the pool significantly enough to drive more successful reproduction, zero evolution has taken place.

i.e. the individual changes have to be generally pretty insignificant, incremental as you say to allow a random mutation to account for it, but at the same time must be really quite significant for the process to work and the gene to be passed on at all- that's problematic

 

[Vishvavajra]

I wanted to share my new video with you guys that's on youtube called "Dear Atheists, Is there a God?" Here is the link:

I touch on some of the systems and organs in the human body and its functions showing how and why there must be a Creator or an intelligent designer. Hopefully some of you enjoys it.

The real problem is that "organs do stuff" isn't really an argument one way or the other. Evolutionary theory accounts for why the organs do what they do and is in fact the only evidence-based theory that does so.

On top of that, early in the video you imply that people who don't share your views have just arrived at their opinion based on their own biases or social pressures. You say nothing of scientific evidence and methodology, which is kind of the entire point. Then you opine how sad it must be to be trapped by preconceived notions like that, right before going on to exemplify that problem yourself. Chances are anybody who doesn't already agree with you from the start is going to be cringing a bit on your behalf there, as the whole thing seems to lack a basic self-awareness.

If you're preaching to the choir, I suppose it'll come off fine. But if you're actually trying to address people outside your group, you'll want to start by finding out what people actually believe and why, rather than making your own uncharitable assumptions. A good starting point would be to ask yourself, "What is the actual scientific consensus on this, and how did we arrive there?" Another thing I wish people would ask themselves more often is, "Has the entire scientific community really not managed to spot this simple refutation I think I've managed to come up with off the top of my head, or is it possible that I'm misrepresenting things in my ignorance?"

I'd also caution against using Job to support an anti-intellectual agenda. The thesis of that book is a moral one, addressing the question of why bad things happen to good people, not anything meant to suggest that people shouldn't investigate the natural world or think they know anything. Taking Job that literally ends up at some very unpleasant places, considering Yahweh spends much of the book acting like a ******* and literally gambling with people's lives in a manner that could only be described as morally depraved. But it's a framing story to an ancient myth with a very particular point to make, not something to pick random lines out of in order to support completely unrelated points.

 

[Kirran]

but if it's too marginal to actually make a difference it doesn't work does it?, if it's too marginal to outperform the pool significantly enough to drive more successful reproduction, zero evolution has taken place.

i.e. the individual changes have to be generally pretty insignificant, incremental as you say to allow a random mutation to account for it, but at the same time must be really quite significant for the process to work and the gene to be passed on at all- that's problematic

Well, that's true.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We don't have the ratio as we can't actively track harmful mutations in the gene pool as they are usually wiped out and have no living populations that work as their decadents to provide us an account. The gene pool only remembers the sucessful.

However we do know from medical records that far more harmful mutations occur than beneficial ones on an individual level. But we are talking populations. Within populations far more beneficial mutations occur than harmful ones.

I have entertained your question enough now. Is there any sort of point you are attempting to lasso?

whatever the number, bad mutations vastly outnumber good ones yes,

So a fairly 'vast' population can fail to even expect a single 'significantly' improved individual in a single generation.. yet it is all but guaranteed to have inferior individuals.

The gene pool remembers the successful yes, but as Kirran pointed out- that can be relative, subjective, amongst an inferior generation, the most successful means the least inferior . assuming constant generational improvement is not mandated by this algorithm in any way. Survival of the fittest says nothing in itself about increasing that fitness.

Entropy again, just like in classic physics, means that without blueprints, --random change, natural selection still happens yes, and we observe that. but not with the bias towards constant improvement that we take for granted as simply 'natural. inevitable', as we did gravity.

The temptation, the fallacy I believe, is to take the superficial observation of micro evolution, (apples falling from trees) and apply it alone to all natural history (the physics of solar systems) There is a fundamental and necessary distinction for both of them to work

must run will respond later

 

[outhouse]

The temptation, the fallacy I believe, is to take the superficial observation of micro evolution, (apples falling from trees) and apply it alone to all natural history

There is no fallacy or temptation in the facts observed that are factually applied to nature and not up for debate.

Knowns a evolution and biology. Its not up for debate in ANY ACADEMIC sense.


It is only refused by those with closed minds due to theistic bias and fanaticism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

whatever the number, bad mutations vastly outnumber good ones yes,

Yes. On the individual level. However the number of mutations that are neutral vastly out number the ones that are harmful. So in the grand scheme of things if you have a population of 100,000 you may have a few harmful mutations within a single generation. Depending on the species it may be as many as five and as few as zero. Not all gene pools are as subject to mutation as others for example. However if you have, lets say five, individuals in a population of 100,000. The chances that their inferior genes will infect the whole population that has more beneficial genes without this harmful mutation is highly unlikely.

So a fairly 'vast' population can fail to even expect a single 'significantly' improved individual in a single generation.. yet it is all but guaranteed to have inferior individuals.

Yes. Those individuals however have a far lower chance of ever having their less than optimal genes passed on and spread throughout the entire population. Over time even slight inferiority often are weeded out. If a population, such as humans now, get into a situation where their fitness level for their involvement is so great that the environmental factors do not impose a strong enough force to weed out the weaker genes they will weaken as a species. This has happened multiple times in the history of evolution and what always and invariably happens is that it reaches a point in which the environment either changes and begins to reinforce these pressures once again. Thus these forces of natural selection will again start to separate the beneficial genes from the ones that are not beneficial.

Though it should also be noted that within populations there is usually never (as in it is extremely rare, far rarer than beneficial mutations at any rate) that any population or species is so well adapted to the niche that it reduces the pressures. The norm is that all times only the successful and fit individuals survive and the weak die.

The gene pool remembers the successful yes, but as Kirran pointed out- that can be relative, subjective, amongst an inferior generation, the most successful means the least inferior . assuming constant generational improvement is not mandated by this algorithm in any way. Survival of the fittest says nothing in itself about increasing that fitness.

Entropy again, just like in classic physics, means that without blueprints, --random change, natural selection still happens yes, and we observe that. but not with the bias towards constant improvement that we take for granted as simply 'natural. inevitable', as we did gravity.

This is true. There is no "more evolved" or "less evolved". One would say that the T-rex would be more fit than a modern chiken. However that is not the case now is it? Fitness for example is only ever measured in its capability to successfully produce fertile offspring. Its individual fitness is of no consequence. Usually however the individual fitness level is what determines the eventual real goal of successful passage of its own genes but in and of itself is not necessary but merely common.

The temptation, the fallacy I believe, is to take the superficial observation of micro evolution, (apples falling from trees) and apply it alone to all natural history (the physics of solar systems) There is a fundamental and necessary distinction for both of them to work

Indeed. With just the evidence of micro evolution to make the claims that evolution has made would be ludicrous. However micro evolutionary changes with all of the evidence we have for evolution over time is. Furthermore for the fact that we would be able to say that it is "possible" even without that evidence. If we had never found a fossil in the world and we had inexplicably known somehow about the micro-changes in populations without knowledge of DNA and the family tree it provides us for life on earth, we could still say it is "possible" and even "probable". The fact that we have everything else means that its a smoking gun.

Now it is on the creationists' burden to provide evidence that these mirco-changes have some sort of limiter that stops them from making this track of evolution. They must provide evidence that these changes are somehow incapable of doing so. Since there is not we still have the iron clad evidence for the evolution of life and can witness it in motion.

 

[Vishvavajra]

whatever the number, bad mutations vastly outnumber good ones yes,

So a fairly 'vast' population can fail to even expect a single 'significantly' improved individual in a single generation.. yet it is all but guaranteed to have inferior individuals.

The gene pool remembers the successful yes, but as Kirran pointed out- that can be relative, subjective, amongst an inferior generation, the most successful means the least inferior . assuming constant generational improvement is not mandated by this algorithm in any way. Survival of the fittest says nothing in itself about increasing that fitness.

Entropy again, just like in classic physics, means that without blueprints, --random change, natural selection still happens yes, and we observe that. but not with the bias towards constant improvement that we take for granted as simply 'natural. inevitable', as we did gravity.

You seem to be laboring under the belief that "improvement" is this inevitable phenomenon. That is very much not the case. A few mutations turn out to be adaptive, but most aren't. Natural selection is the theoretical model for how the few adaptive mutations get passed on and sometimes result in what you might call "improvements" over time. But calling it a crapshoot would overstate the odds. The vast majority of viable mutations aren't actually adaptive at all, and adaptation to new environments really only occurs over many, many generations and is a testament to how many failures there are along the way.

If there were a designer behind it, this would have to be the single most inefficient means of accomplishing the designer's goals. On top of that, the results end up looking exactly like what they would look like if it were the product of random mutation + environmental pressures, which means our incredibly inefficient designer is also attempting to make it look like there's no design going on.

 

[Parsimony]

Designed improvements are the only ones we can be absolutely sure of, the jury is out on the rest.

That's not true. Look up genetic algorithms. They have been shown to produce design improvements without the programmers having to design those improvements in. Also, we have nylonase as a natural example of improvement (if by improvement you mean gaining new capabilities and/or increasing in complexity). We do know that evolution does not always result in increased complexity. Parasites, for example, often lose complexity because they can rely on their hosts to take up the slack for them. The vast majority of living things are still microbes even after 3.5 billion years. Whether or not a species becomes more complex or not depends on the selection pressures at play as well as what mutations happen to occur.

 

[Kirran]

That's not true. Look up genetic algorithms. They have been shown to produce design improvements without the programmers having to design those improvements in. Also, we have nylonase as a natural example of improvement (if by improvement you mean gaining new capabilities and/or increasing in complexity). We do know that evolution does not always result in increased complexity. Parasites, for example, often lose complexity because they can rely on their hosts to take up the slack for them. The vast majority of living things are still microbes even after 3.5 billion years. Whether or not a species becomes more complex or not depends on the selection pressures at play as well as what mutations happen to occur.

Also, E. coli has been observed to undergo improvements in its ability to survive in the lab, without being induced.

Spontaneously developed the ability to ferment citrate, which it naturally cannot do.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's not true. Look up genetic algorithms. They have been shown to produce design improvements without the programmers having to design those improvements in. Also, we have nylonase as a natural example of improvement (if by improvement you mean gaining new capabilities and/or increasing in complexity). We do know that evolution does not always result in increased complexity. Parasites, for example, often lose complexity because they can rely on their hosts to take up the slack for them. The vast majority of living things are still microbes even after 3.5 billion years. Whether or not a species becomes more complex or not depends on the selection pressures at play as well as what mutations happen to occur.

The genetic algorithm follows whatever fitness function is determined by the programmer, which I think is entirely consistent with evolution following a blueprint.

I use the same technique in programming and it's one thing that caused me to start questioning the 'classical' evolution where nature is selecting purely random mutations for the fitness function of reproduction alone.

I cant remember if it was you but someone used the example of a superior radio antenna being designed by random change and selection for it's fitness as an antenna - in support of evolution.

The algorithm finds the simplest most efficient way to best satisfy the fitness function, the program never creates additional emergent properties where the antenna ultimately becomes sentient, a great chess player and ponders it's own existence, and it never would in a trillion years, even though that may arguably help it 'be a better antenna'.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You seem to be laboring under the belief that "improvement" is this inevitable phenomenon. That is very much not the case. A few mutations turn out to be adaptive, but most aren't. Natural selection is the theoretical model for how the few adaptive mutations get passed on and sometimes result in what you might call "improvements" over time. But calling it a crapshoot would overstate the odds. The vast majority of viable mutations aren't actually adaptive at all, and adaptation to new environments really only occurs over many, many generations and is a testament to how many failures there are along the way.

If there were a designer behind it, this would have to be the single most inefficient means of accomplishing the designer's goals. On top of that, the results end up looking exactly like what they would look like if it were the product of random mutation + environmental pressures, which means our incredibly inefficient designer is also attempting to make it look like there's no design going on.

I'm saying it's not inevitable at all, without a blueprint.

As above, utilizing randomization and selecting for fitness function is a very elegant way to arrive at a design goal. I've used the same to determined the most efficient way to drive a car with specific parameters around specific courses, try a vast number of random teaks and keep selecting the fastest time. The interesting thing is that to reproduce the results, the most efficient way is the same as finding it in the first place- simply run the particular seeding of random numbers that produced the desired result. An alien investigating the code would see nothing but the appearance of random changes producing very 'un random' looking results. The result was both the result of random changes and very specific design at the same time.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The real problem is that "organs do stuff" isn't really an argument one way or the other. Evolutionary theory accounts for why the organs do what they do and is in fact the only evidence-based theory that does so.

On top of that, early in the video you imply that people who don't share your views have just arrived at their opinion based on their own biases or social pressures. You say nothing of scientific evidence and methodology, which is kind of the entire point. Then you opine how sad it must be to be trapped by preconceived notions like that, right before going on to exemplify that problem yourself. Chances are anybody who doesn't already agree with you from the start is going to be cringing a bit on your behalf there, as the whole thing seems to lack a basic self-awareness.

If you're preaching to the choir, I suppose it'll come off fine. But if you're actually trying to address people outside your group, you'll want to start by finding out what people actually believe and why, rather than making your own uncharitable assumptions. A good starting point would be to ask yourself, "What is the actual scientific consensus on this, and how did we arrive there?" Another thing I wish people would ask themselves more often is, "Has the entire scientific community really not managed to spot this simple refutation I think I've managed to come up with off the top of my head, or is it possible that I'm misrepresenting things in my ignorance?"

I'd also caution against using Job to support an anti-intellectual agenda. The thesis of that book is a moral one, addressing the question of why bad things happen to good people, not anything meant to suggest that people shouldn't investigate the natural world or think they know anything. Taking Job that literally ends up at some very unpleasant places, considering Yahweh spends much of the book acting like a ******* and literally gambling with people's lives in a manner that could only be described as morally depraved. But it's a framing story to an ancient myth with a very particular point to make, not something to pick random lines out of in order to support completely unrelated points.

This is a fair assessment wasted on a guy who was just spamming his video.

 

[outhouse]

utilizing randomization and selecting for fitness function is a very elegant way to arrive at a design goal.

You have no credible evidence for design.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You have no credible evidence for design.

If not by design, where do bananas come from?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If not by design, where do bananas come from?

Our youtube spamming friend should remake this video with sock puppets.

 

[outhouse]

If not by design, where do bananas come from?

Kirk Cammerons hands

 

[Parsimony]

The genetic algorithm follows whatever fitness function is determined by the programmer, which I think is entirely consistent with evolution following a blueprint.

If you want to consider a reproductive fitness function to be a blueprint, that is. It is still a demonstration of improvement resulting from an algorithm without the improvement itself being designed in from the beginning.

I use the same technique in programming and it's one thing that caused me to start questioning the 'classical' evolution where nature is selecting purely random mutations for the fitness function of reproduction alone.

Reproduction is an extremely broad fitness function that can be attained in a huge number of ways. Greater intelligence, higher strength, increased durability, etc. all have the potential to increase reproductive fitness if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Our intelligence has definitely been a huge benefit to our ability to survive.

I cant remember if it was you but someone used the example of a superior radio antenna being designed by random change and selection for it's fitness as an antenna - in support of evolution.

That particular example demonstrates that natural selection combined with random mutation can create functional designs. I don't know if Ouroboros intended for it to demonstrate anything else or not.

The algorithm finds the simplest most efficient way to best satisfy the fitness function, the program never creates additional emergent properties where the antenna ultimately becomes sentient, a great chess player and ponders it's own existence, and it never would in a trillion years, even though that may arguably help it 'be a better antenna'.

Because:
(1) Our best computers are nowhere even remotely capable of simulating 3.5 billion years of Earth-wide evolution. The mind boggles just thinking about how many DNA base-pairs alone that would constitute.
(2) There are only so many ways that an antenna can become a better antenna. Becoming intelligent doesn't help with that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you want to consider a reproductive fitness function to be a blueprint, that is. It is still a demonstration of improvement resulting from an algorithm without the improvement itself being designed in from the beginning.

by which you get the most efficient replicator, like the antenna, no more no less. It makes copies of itself, it does not debate the meaning of life at 12:30!

Reproduction is an extremely broad fitness function that can be attained in a huge number of ways. Greater intelligence, higher strength, increased durability, etc. all have the potential to increase reproductive fitness if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Our intelligence has definitely been a huge benefit to our ability to survive.

So is picking up radio signals, as above the antenna could certainly be better if it acquired sentience to will itself to create it's own tools and technology to perform it's function better.. but that is not going to happen unless sentience itself is a fitness function, which is easier said than done because we certainly can't. Even with creative intelligence and these specific goals in mind we can't reproduce these results. Most life developed in far shorter timescales, appearing abruptly in the fossil record, We can simulate billions of trillions of years self replicating generations and they never accidentally improve to the point of pondering their own existence.

Furthermore on Earth itself, among millions of species, only a single one developed our intelligence. So by this alone it's obviously not the sort of thing evolution tends to achieve[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[psychoslice]

No matter how we look at these arguments, all I k now is that no god in the sky created anything, therefore science to me makes much more sense than any of these god in the sky claims.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I notice that you failed to provide a citation to back up your claim that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

Flintstones. Duh!