Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tiger" data-source="post: 125369" data-attributes="member: 353">[USER=3556]@AN2[/USER] In response to James’s lazy and unscholarly attempt at refuting the concept of Irreducible complexity by posting a lame video by the obnoxious YouTuber and fake ‘professor’ Dave last night on his shambles thread, I have taken the liberty of dissecting the video below. It’s clear that James's has no dignity and cannot amount any argument of his own beyond posting videos. The 'Professor' Who Isn’t a Professor: An Obnoxious YouTuber Peddling IdeologyLet’s be perfectly clear from the outset: "Professor Dave" is not a professor, and he is certainly not a credible voice in the world of science. His YouTube channel is a platform for shallow, ideologically driven commentary masquerading as knowledge. When one considers his views on gender and biology—views that align more with a modern, politically correct agenda than with any semblance of biological reality—it becomes painfully obvious that his scientific opinions are rooted not in a pursuit of truth, but in the furtherance of a politically motivated narrative. He claims expertise where there is none, presenting himself as an authority while peddling the very same tired, unsubstantiated Darwinian dogma that has long failed to explain the complexity of life. For those of us who value real science, Professor Dave is a mere distraction—a charlatan whose utterances should be ignored.To show his ideological bias and complete disregard for any semblance of ‘truth’, here is a sample video of him explaining his position on ‘trans people’, trying to give it some sort of grounding in science. As we saw earlier this week, even Richard Dawkins refused to stoop this low in an effort to confirm to crazy societal norms. [MEDIA=youtube]fpGqFUStcxc[/MEDIA]<a href="https://youtu.be/fpGqFUStcxc?feature=shared" target="_blank">View: https://youtu.be/fpGqFUStcxc?feature=shared</a>To further highlight his shit lib bias as an establishment boot licker; here’s a video of YouTuber Dave’s position on Covid Vaccines. [MEDIA=youtube]-EPbylsBuzg[/MEDIA]<a href="https://youtu.be/-EPbylsBuzg?feature=shared" target="_blank">View: https://youtu.be/-EPbylsBuzg?feature=shared</a>Anyhoo, back to his video on ‘Irreducible Complexity’….An Analysis of 'Professor Dave's' Arguments: Shallow Rebuttals to Behe’s Substantial CritiqueDave’s rebuttal to Michael Behe is an exercise in misdirection, grounded in ignorance and a shocking disregard for the complexities of biological systems. His responses are a cocktail of half-baked theories and selective citations, aimed not at addressing Behe’s central thesis, but at defending the crumbling edifice of Darwinism. Let’s break down these arguments for what they are: vapid, ideologically driven, and thoroughly unconvincing.1. Recombination: The Magic Bullet FallacyDave’s attempt to redeem Darwinian evolution by pointing to recombination as some sort of "solution" to the problem of sequential mutations reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Behe’s critique. Behe’s argument isn’t that recombination doesn’t happen—it’s that recombination alone doesn’t resolve the problems of mutation order and the sheer improbability of successive beneficial mutations arising by chance. Recombination doesn’t magically solve the problem of the "waiting time" Behe highlights, where the accumulation of beneficial mutations within a population is too slow to account for the evolution of complex systems. Recombination might shuffle existing genetic material, but it doesn’t create the new, functional complexity required for the kinds of biochemical systems that Behe discusses. To call this a "solution" is to ignore the deep flaws in Darwinian theory that Behe has already thoroughly documented.2. Fitness Landscapes: Misunderstanding the ProblemDave’s critique of Behe’s use of fitness landscapes is a case of him missing the point entirely. Behe isn’t arguing that evolution doesn’t involve changes in fitness over time; he’s arguing that the very process of crossing fitness valleys is staggeringly improbable. The idea that organisms can traverse these valleys via beneficial mutations in the right order is a fantasy that fails to account for the extreme specificity required in such a process. Sure, fitness landscapes are dynamic, but they don’t become less steep simply because Dave wants them to. In reality, the more complex a biological system, the more unlikely it becomes that a random mutation will be beneficial at every step of the way. Dave’s dismissal of this is nothing more than wishful thinking, designed to preserve a narrative rather than confront the hard truth about the limits of Darwinian evolution.3. Darwinism vs. Modern Evolutionary Biology: A False DichotomyDave’s attempt to separate Behe’s critiques from modern evolutionary biology is nothing short of laughable. Yes, modern evolutionary theory has expanded beyond Darwin’s original ideas, but it still relies on the same basic mechanisms: random mutation and natural selection. Behe’s argument is precisely that these mechanisms are insufficient to explain the emergence of complex biological systems. The fact that Dave wants to redefine the debate as a struggle between old and new versions of Darwinism is nothing more than a semantic distraction. Behe isn’t simply refuting the old version of evolution; he’s highlighting the inherent flaws in the very framework that modern evolutionary biology still clings to. Dave’s failure to address this is the hallmark of someone trying to keep the Darwinian train chugging along long after it’s run off the tracks.4. Misuse of Evolutionary Examples: The Devil is in the DetailsThe examples Dave presents—drug resistance in malaria, HIV adaptation—are textbook examples of limited adaptation under intense selective pressures. But these examples don’t prove that Darwinism is a viable explanation for the evolution of complex biological systems. As Behe points out, these are cases of "devolution," where organisms adapt by losing function rather than developing new, complex features. Dave’s failure to distinguish between adaptation and true innovation is a glaring oversight. The fact that malaria evolves resistance to drugs doesn’t mean it’s evolving more complex systems—it’s just surviving in a specific context. That’s a far cry from the kind of large-scale, multi-functional innovations Behe discusses. The fact that Dave’s examples fail to address this distinction shows he’s more interested in scoring rhetorical points than in grappling with the real scientific issues.5. Devolution vs. Evolution: A Reality Check on 'Advancement'Finally, Dave’s dismissal of Behe’s point about "devolution" shows a lack of understanding of what real evolutionary change entails. Yes, mutations that reduce function can sometimes be beneficial in specific contexts, but this does not amount to the creation of new, more complex features. As Behe correctly points out, the evolution of systems like the bacterial flagellum requires a delicate orchestration of mutations that go far beyond mere survival adaptations. Dave’s attempt to minimize this by focusing on the occasional beneficial mutation in hemoglobin or metabolic pathways is a diversion. These examples don’t even begin to address the problem of how complex biochemical systems—systems that are irreducibly complex—could evolve through random mutations. This is the crux of Behe’s argument, and Dave’s shallow responses only reveal his inability to engage with the actual challenge.Conclusion: Ideological Defensiveness, Not Scientific RigorDave’s entire response is a series of distractions, half-truths, and ideological rationalizations designed to protect the failing theory of Darwinian evolution from the criticism it so richly deserves. His superficial knowledge of the subject is clear in his inability to engage with the real, substantive issues that Behe raises. The evolution of complex biological systems through random mutations is an idea that no longer holds up under scrutiny, and Dave’s feeble attempts to prop it up are an embarrassment to anyone who takes science seriously. In the end, his arguments are not the result of careful scientific inquiry, but rather the product of a stubborn commitment to an outdated and increasingly untenable worldview.</blockquote>

Name

Verification: Does Doxxie know his real father.

Latest Threads

How Dangerous is Israel?
- Started by Anderson
- Today at 4:04 AM
- Replies: 1
Nationalist Politics
Charlie Kirk Shot Dead ~ RIP
- Started by Anderson
- Yesterday at 3:29 PM
- Replies: 87
Nationalist Politics
J
Has anyone else kinda lost the will to live ?
- Started by Jay Homer Simpson
- Yesterday at 12:30 PM
- Replies: 4
Public Chat and Announcements
The 2023 National Party Coup D'état or Split: My Understanding of it
- Started by BelfastRatepayer
- Saturday at 12:59 PM
- Replies: 28
Nationalist Politics
RTE and Virgin - 2 Cheeks of the same.....
- Started by Anderson
- Friday at 3:46 AM
- Replies: 11
Nationalist Politics

Popular Threads

Ukraine.
- Started by Declan
- Feb 21, 2022
- Replies: 15K
World at War
US Politics.
- Started by jpc
- Nov 7, 2022
- Replies: 6K
USA
Mass Migration to Ireland & Europe
- Started by Anderson
- Feb 26, 2023
- Replies: 5K
Nationalist Politics
C
🦠 Covid 19 Vaccine Thread 💉
- Started by Charlene
- Sep 14, 2021
- Replies: 3K
Health
General Chat in The Marcus Lounge.
- Started by Declan
- Dec 30, 2024
- Replies: 2K
Public Chat and Announcements
The Climate Change scam
- Started by Anderson
- Jul 29, 2022
- Replies: 2K
Climate Change