This guy reckons he has debunked Evolution

Debate Room
41

Welcome to Part 6.

Finally, I’ll wind up by introducing Emory F. Bunn’s paper, which is a particular killer for creationist canards, because it involves direct mathematical derivation of the thermodynamic relationships involved in evolutionary processes, and a direct quantitative analysis demonstrating that evolution is perfectly consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Here’s the abstract:

Here’s the opening gambit:

Once again, I’ll let you all have fun reading the paper in full. :slight_smile:

So, that’s five scientific papers containing detailed rebuttals of creationist canards about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I think that’s sufficient to establish that the creationist canards ARE canards, don’t you?

1 Like
42

@Calilasseia Thank you very much.

43

One of the fallacies that needs to be covered in more detail is the Serial Trials Fallacy, which is endemic to much creationist vomiting on the subject of probability, and its application to mutations. I’ll cover this in more detail once I’ve had some sleep. :slight_smile:

44

I gave MOTs transcription from his When Scientists Ignore Science YouTube a more detailed read.
While I really appreciate the information that Nyar and Cal have provided for my own continuing education, I don’t think they are essential to exposing MOT as nothing more than a misguided evangelical creationist.

None of the following is going to surprise anyone who hasn’t the time or inclination, but I think it important to address the arguments to expose the bullshit supporting them. I hope I’ve done justice to the propaganda he has unleashed.

Essentially MOT hates and misunderstands evolution, especially natural selection. He insists several times during this video presentation and in others I have watched, (yes I am a masochist, why do you ask?) that natural selection is capable only of destroying, never building. He is specifically pissed that Darwin dared to use the word ‘preservation’ in the title of his book, “…the preservation of favoured races…”, an “objectively false statement” says MOT because, “natural selection works by causing death not stopping it. It works by blocking reproduction not making it happen. It is a culling mechanism not a preserving mechanism. Natural selection might constrain the overall population decay but it cannot stop it and it certainly cannot reverse it.”
[I imagine the source of this strawman is a traumatic experience MOT suffered as a young toddler left in front of the television by busy parents, leaving him to watch nature documentaries and witnessing one too many zebras getting done by the lions. Fucking killer selection, its evil.]

Its clear MOT has a distorted view of Darwin, evolution and natural selection. Initially I decided he was just mouthing the usual creationist propaganda, but then I discovered there was more to it.

Despite his disdain for ‘stupid scientists’ who have not understood the second law of thermodynamics as “clearly” as he has, he still presents what would pass for a reasonable explanation for it, that is, if you had no idea at all about science or more worryingly, understanding little enough to convince yourself his ideas at least sounded right without actually understanding why. [Some of the comments, suggest this is happening with some viewers.]
He gets the mathematical details absolutely wrong as Nyar has suggested and their application to genetic processes and he simply could not address the detailed counter arguments provided in the scientific papers supplied by Cal. But despite the lack of understanding it is his confidence in his own intellect and the utterly confounding use of large words and even larger numbers that propels him proudly forward to his own immensely self-satisfying conclusion.

In MOT’s view entropy is relentless. He understands the universe is probably headed to a entropic death. He fiercely denounces several more strawman arguments about evolution and desperate evolutionist claims that natural selection can stop and reverse entropy. I’ve never heard those claims before. In no way does he consider that evolution or natural selection could possibly delay the process of entropy, never. They can only hasten the headlong rush to oblivion.
He totally rejects the idea that the processes of evolution, natural selection and genetics increase order which is evidenced in both the vast population and variety of the biosphere. MOT does not reject this population evidence but he is committed to replacing evolutionary biology with ETMs. The reason is that he has claimed Energy Transfer Mechanisms as his own. From what I gather, ETMs are expressions of statistical and informational versions of the 2nd Law, somewhat modified but not fully explained by MOT.

“Local entropy can be transferred into the surroundings. This intervention can be performed by means of something Peter Atkins called “mechanisms”, Andy McIntosh called “machines”, Granville Sewell called “X entropy” and I call “entropy transfer mechanisms or ETMs””. The Nobel is in the mail no doubt. Darwin called it natural selection with variation and the old duffer never won a Nobel, did 'e?

MOT prefers to swap out all references and effects of evolutionary theory with his own variation of “ETMs” which is guided by his own distorted interpretation of the secondary law of thermodynamics as the only rational way to explain in detail things like life and the universe.

He seems convinced ETMs can be used to explain everything ‘loopy scientists’ fail to do. ETMs as ultimate black box facilitators for every thing in science. Then he starts expressing distinctly familiar comments:

“in the end all information has intelligent mind as its ultimate source. An intelligent mind is the ultimate ETM”.
[I think we can expect yet another “DNA is code” video from him at some point]

And he finishes brilliantly with a stab at cosmologists to round things off:

“A Big Bang is no solution at all because Bang is randomized things. They don’t build things. There must be an ETM for the universe. I believe his name is Jesus.”

Time for a looong walk along the beach.
Then come back and read the rest of Cal’s posts.
I’m not academically qualified at any level for this sort of review. I have just read a lot of popular science over the past forty years with diversions into a scant number of peer reviewed papers that only serve to remind me how little I really know. I hope I haven’t made too many errors in dismantling MOTs deluded views. I believe I know enough to identify his ramblings as delusional evangelical wishes.

…I’ve edited this several times…for clarity, I think…

45

Thanks for that Grinseed,

I couldnt get why he was harping on about "ETM’s like an old dog mouthing a marrowbone. After all as has been explained by you and most notably Calli and Nyar that is a complete furphy.

Anyhoo, after paraphrasing the two giants of Calli and Nyar and adding a few choice phrases from my own vocabulary he has knuckled his reddened eyes and fucked of complaining that I and others were cruel to him and just didn’t watch his video, poor petal.

Thank you all!

46

and guess what he has had rethink on retiring : “he law says, “The direction of spontaneous change is from an arrangement of lower probability towards an arrangement of higher probability.” Random amino acid sequences are high probability. Specific functional sequences are very low probability. The law says this low probability arrangement cannot happen, unless those probabilities are changed by an ETM. Similarly with DNA sequences, they cannot happen spontaneously, yet random mutations are the only mechanism available for building these instructions. Hence: impossible by law.”

47

Ignorant off me I know, but-----

Whenever I see such a sentiment expressed I think of Gulliver’s Travels. (uncensored version)

Gulliver is in Lilliput, I think. The court philosopher is telling Gulliver to go away, because he has just proved that a being such as Gulliver cannot possibly exist.

Great book, wicked wit. I’m particularly fond of the parts where he runs across a group of scientists trying to turn human faeces back into food— my favourite is the order of monks which eats only cabbages which have died of natural causes.

My fault entirely. A skeptic, I question everything and try to avoid truth claims and superlatives.

48

Again, even if we accept his value: low probability events happen all the time. I do not understand this notation that low probability means something can not happen. I’m pretty sure that low probability means low probability; not zero probability.

2 Likes
49

Well exactly, and since life has occurred, and natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, I am constantly amazed that theists believe violating Occam’s razor, by adding an unevidenced deity from a bronze age superstion using inexplicable magic, is a more probable explanation than an as yet unknown natural event?

I’m no expert on probability, but it seems to me that adding unevidenced and inexplicable claims makes your conclusion less probable?

Or am I missing something?

1 Like
50

I think what MOT was trying to say is.that the low probability events, those ‘irreducible complexity’ events, like bacterial flagellum, and coagulation cascades that Behe thinks proves intelligent design, are less likely to happen ** unless** “those probabilities are changed by an ETM” and by an ETM he means his black box ‘Energy Tansfer Mechanism’ as performed by the intelligent will of Jesus, whereas every one else might think of an ETM as being by all of the processes of modern evolutionary theory.
ETMs are apparently a thing in statistical studies in thermodynamics, but I am willing to bet MOT knows as much about them and how they work as I do.

The last two sentences about DNA don’t make any sense. I think it proves Old Man really rattled his cage. WTG Old Man, have a cookie.

1 Like
51

I will give the cookie to Nyar and Calli. I can hear the morons brain fizzing…

52

This video is yet another example of how hypocritical Christians are. Part of the social teaching of Christianity is open mindedness, yet this man is the most closed minded person I have ever heard, while thinking that “because I said so” validates his blind claims.

What’s even worse is that he denies the credibility of actual scientists. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was a flat earther.

53

Betcha a Trump supporter… sorry :neutral_face:. A rant because in California, with the wildfires- Trump doesn’t believe the climate scientists :man_scientist:… “it’s going to cool - real soon - you’ll see” (kinda the same denial or, what, not panicking his base??? as with Covid-19)

It’s one thing to debate or argue data or contributing factors - or even how it’s “sold” to the public” - BUT the climate is a changing and it’s not getting “cooler soon” (fucking pre-ice age shit)…

54

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?’

2 Likes
55

Here, Old Man, have a bag of cookies.
The way that ‘Mark’ wilfully distorted both thermodynamics and evolution does not bode well for his understanding of bio-polymers or cross linked collagen. He does love to use the presumed ignorance of his detractors to beat off discussion rather than explain his position, “my God has made you too dumb to understand, begone.”
I have to laugh at the claims about ‘slow’ scientists failing to comprehend his version of science. And to assert that simply watching his video should be absolutely sufficient to totally convince you of his creationist evaluation is hilarious theistic arrogance.

1 Like
56

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … I do this in class with my students. It’s called an idiomotor response. We make a little fortune telling chart and then the students ask each other questions while trying not to move the washer. IT"S ALL COMPLETE BULLSHIT! Does anyone actually believe these two are so fucking stupid as to believe the shit they are trying to sell to the ignorant public?

57

Let’s say snowflake crystal formation can grow in 1 of 20 different measurable directions, (it is actually infinite different directions, but we will go with a far smaller number of 20 to set up the comparison.) and let’s say this particular snow flake was small and only formed 125 “branches” of the snow flake off the dust particle it formed off of.

This snowflake is impossible! To make that snow flake requires more possible permutations then the lowball estimate of the number of atoms in the universe!

So how did this snowflake in front of us come to be? Why my snowflake making machine! That is way, way! more complex than this simple snowflake! Oh and to look extra smart, I converted 20^-125 into scientific notation! 4X10^162! To create a nice scary looking equation to my target audience. Look at me! I know maths! (Or maybe I just typed it into google.)

Where is this snowflake machine? Can I show it to you? One might (rightfully) ask.

Of course not! It is outside time and space!

To me anyways the argument of complexity is that terrible.

2 Likes
58

Eww Trump, the man’s a damn fool.

59

Indeed, but he seems to have a strategy for when he loses the election. He will simply refuse to accept the results and will appeal to the courts ,which is his right… The ensuing meshugenah will take months to resolve. US enemies such as Russia and China will love it.
.