It's so depressing. Charlie Kirk having arguments with college students , in some format I dn't grasp where they fight to get tot he chair across from him, but anyway, their point of view, which is obviously shaped by their leftist professors, is depressing. They believe and try to prove that abortion is justifiable apart from the usual exceptions for mother's health and so on, and it's just depressing that killing your child is regarded as a right by these kids and the fact that it is the killing of a human being means nothing to them. It's also depressing that they refuse to accept the obvious distinctions between men and women, the biological distinctions and try to jstify calling a man a woman who simply wants to be walled a woman. this is all dperessing to an abysmal level. And of course they have to prove that there is still systemic racism in America although for decades we've done so much to rid ourselves of it and succeeded. they are believing lies and it is abysmally depressing.
Oh, also the Econ student never studied Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell. Of course.
then anothr ejJerry Coyne video came up where he's giving the same speech but to a different audience adn that is depressing. of course. What he calls evolution is not evolution, it's variation which is built into the species genome, and this variation is limited by the genetic possibilities already available and you can't ge any kind of change that is not dependent on those genetic possibilities You also reach a point in small populations where further variations becomes impossible too because of the number of fixed enes or homozygous genes that have occurred in the making of the race or breed. And yes you can get different populations with different characteristics if they split and vary in isolation from each other. happens all the time in nature. All variation limited to the genome, not evolution. And then he goes to the fossil record to prove that life began with simple organisms and proceeded to more complex ones, exepct of course that the fofssil record doesn't exist becaue the strata they exist in can't possibly represent time periods as I've shown over and ove again.
Deressing beyond depressing. I hope the Rapture somes soon.
Later: I hadn't finished his whole talk and of course he covers the other stuff like vestigial organs and biogeography and all that as he did the first time too , and I have the same answers now that I had when I heard it the first time:
Vestial orgns are probably best explained as fnctions we once possessed in our originaloly created form, that we've lost over time because of the Fall which brought all kinds of diseases into our existence. Mutations have to be a disease process, they are random and make no sense as a process useful to life in any way at all despite scientist's attempts to make them useful for evolution. they can't be, they are random destructive mitakes in the replication of DNA, they may be insignificant enough to do no hardm in some cses, but they often create genetic diseases and we hve thousands of those we have to deal with.
So I figure that once sueful functions, for which we have evidence in the "junk DNA" which Coyne doesn't call junk DNA but that's what it is, evidence of dead genes that once had functions we no longer possess because those genes have been destroyed by mutations. He talks about this but of course from the evolutionistic perspective which says they were once useful when we were not yet human and we logost them later because we no longer need them. That gives mutation a useful function, which is fidicuilous. It's random, it has no useful function, it just maims and kills and that's all it does, it's a an instrument of the Fall, an instrument of destruction and disease and it's killed of an enormous nmber of onece useful genes in the human genome, and also in animal genomes. So vesgial organs are no doubt whatever is left half functioning in our makeup or not functioning at all because the genes that code for the function are dead. A yok sac for instance might once have contained the hyoulk he says is coded ffyor by three genes that are all now dead, was likely once useful for noursighing the embryo before the planecent a fully defeveloped. that would be my guess. Apparently we can do awithout it, sort of, so we go on without it, as we do without an appendix and a functioning or fully fiunctioning gallbladder, other organs we more or less easily do without. That were once probably very useful for some facet of our strength and health. Vitamin C is no longer functioning and Coyne explains that as due oto our getting it in our diets, I just figure it was killed as part of the Fall and we do better if we take C supplements which shows we do need it and don't get it in our diets that easily. That's how I would explain most evestigial orgnas, and some of them would need a lot more thought, such as the hind legs of whales, which proabbly have a dozen or so more genes associated with them that are now dead. And so on.
I still dnot get this biogeography argument at all Creationists are accused of avcooiding it because it's supposedly so teeling for evolution but I just don't get it and sdon't see why creationists would have any problme at all with islands being populated by creatures tht could float there and not by animals whathat have no easy way of getting there. What on earth is so evolutionistic about that? I don't get it at all.
I also don't see why creationists should hav a problem with natural selection. It must operate in some cases and his example of the finch eak is proably a good enough example of it. It would operate on the genetic material of the species genome jut fine, no need at all for any kind of evolution in the official sense of the term to operate.
One thing I think must e the case is that there are many design features that are repeated in the genomes of the diferent creatures, that is it can be design and not evolution that explains them.
He says vestigial organs can't be explained except by evolution and this is false. the Fall with its mutational disease processes goes a long way to explaining them.
I forgo to mention his example of the supposed evolution of horses. There are fossils of different kinds of horses in the so called fossil record which of course he explains as one type evolving from an earlier type, but to a creatinist therese are merely different kinds of horses what all lived before the flood and died in the Flood, and that's the case wilth all the creatures we find fossilized. Some variations were preserved on the ark, but many others died.
Whateve we find in fossil form was alive before the Floode, amany odd variations of creatures that are still living but many that no longer exist at all. You don't need to postulate vrarious extinction events, the Flood killed them all.
I'm sure he's right that it's becaue of our Christianity that we reject evolution. I had problems with evolution before I became a Christian. I'd tried to think through some ways a particular feature might have evolved over long periods of time and just keept being unable to imagine it all going in the right direction to produce something coherent. I still acan't imagine it. but when I became a Christian then it began to matter in a new eway because evolution contradicts the Bible. There was no death in the orginal Creation, that ws the consequance of the Fall whichn made edeath seem to be a normal part of life. Death is built into evolution and that can't be reconciled with the Bible. theistic evolution is a sham. At lest it's not biblical. Anyway when I became a CHristian in my late forties I read some books on creatinism and started tryhing to think it through for myself. It can't be easily dismissed, it has to be thought through. And I think I've done a decent job of that.
Although I had issues with evolution before I became a Christian I didn't pursue them and just figured evolution myust be true even if I culdn't see how, but when i became a Christian then I had the motivattion to think more acarefilly about it.
