Here is his latest error filled rant:
“Natural selection can only eliminate; it cannot create. Darwin’s fantasy was that NS could preserve variants, but it cannot. It can only kill and damage the deficient ones. So the ratchet idea is not applicable. Population geneticists are all aware that the human genome is currently degrading, not advancing. The law predicts this reality. Watch the video. It might surprise you.” and of course the classic:
“Low probability arrangements, not events. And specified (or particularly functional), not merely low probability alone. Anything can be said to be low probability after the fact. That is fallacious thinking in statistics. Random consists of large numbers of things that would individually be low probability, such as particular alignments of gas molecules. Taken together potential random arrangements are very high probability. The fewer the constraints on random, the faster this change happens. Yet, whether slow or fast, randomization still happens.” I cant make any sense of that paragraph? and of course the icing on the cake of Dunning Kruger:
natural selection has no mechanism for preservation–only elimination. I would love to debate this gentleman.
I did not say all geneticists. I said all population geneticists. They are the ones who know what the overall genome is doing. But then you seem to be getting your truth from BBC, so why would you care?
Lastly, you mentioned 25 million years of evolution. Sorry, you are not up do date with the hundreds of discoveries of original tissue amid fossils. Bio-polymers have no way to be preserved more than several thousand years under probable conditions, and no more than 900,000 years if it is cross-linked collagen under perfect laboratory conditions. Millions of years are simply not possible by the second law and by empirical science. Many scientists are slow to accept this data, but the data is in. Again, it doesn’t appear that you have watched my video carefully.
I am tired of this wannabe youtube star chew toy…even when his puppy nose is rubbed in his mess he goes straight back to the kitchen and wees on the mat. My last reply:
‘Dear Mark, your video and your subsequent posts are now being used as markers in fallacious and erroneous thinking. I, and my colleagues wish you all the best in your studies which can only bring even more hilarity as you proceed. We all look forward to seeing you claim your Nobel prize and receiving the homage of generations of actual scientists and the finest minds of the last century who you have so thoroughly discredited by your powerful insights and peerless intellect. I am sure we can all live with that shame. Perhaps you could calculate the probability of you not being a dick in future?’