I was recent asked by Youtube user ‘GoodScienceForYou’ to “Go study these videos based on peer reviewed data.” The links to the videos can be found at the bottom of my response.
I have begun to watch the first video he sent me: DNA Genetics; Mutations in Detail, the Real Science of Genetics. The following is my response.
First off, it seems that a video is a somewhat inappropriate choice of media, considering the way he has decided to present his case. The video is comprised of slides with distracting animations and a harmonica laced melody. But to the content.
He begins his presentation by an attempt to define the process of biological evolution as the following:
that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character.
His source is cited as “Webster’s.” Although that particular trademark entered the public domain in 1834, and has since been used as a generic trademark for many, many dictionarys of the English language, I set out to find the true source of the definition. When I used the entire given definition as a search term in Google, I was surprised to find that the only other examples of the text that I could find were in comments at the end of articles about evolutionary biology. These comments were all written under the name ‘GoodScienceForYou’.
Given this, I imagine there are two reasonable options for where he got his definitition. Either he found it in a dictionary that includes a severely outdated and innaccurate definition, or he fabricated it entirely.
The following is an accurate definition of evolution in a biological sense as it is understood and accepted today:
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population fromgeneration to generation by such processes as mutation,natural selection, and genetic drift. (Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.)
Although this only gives a bare-bones idea of evolution, there is an important distinction that must be made. Evolution is not a process from simple to complex. This bears repeating. Evolution is not a process from simple to complex. It is the change in the gene pool of a population over the course of generations due to other processes.
I hope not to spend this much time on every slide from now on.
GoodScienceForYou goes on to define point mutation and then assert that sicle-cell anemia is an example of a point mutation, which it is not. Although it is caused by a point mutation, that is not what it is. Sickle cell anemia, or drepanocytosis is an autosomal recessive genetic blood disorder. In other words, it is caused by two alleles of the sickle cell disease being passed to a child by its parents. It is most common in places where malaria is common, and in people of Sub-Saharan African descent, as there is a benefit in carrying only one of the alleles. A human with a single sickle-cell allele is more resistant to malaria, therefore, there is a selection pressure that allows the sickle-cell gene to remain in the gene pool at consistant levels.(http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html, Wellems TE, Hayton K, Fairhurst RM (September 2009). “The impact of malaria parasitism: from corpuscles to communities”.)
After this , he explains the concept of a frame shift mutation and asserts that they are “always bad for complex creatures with many cells, like humans.” Although I agree that probability-wise, a frame shift mutation is far more likely to be harmful than beneficial, I think it would be wise to leave it at that, and save the word “always” for a more appropriate situation.
A misunderstanding of insertion mutation is added for good measure. Rather than being “similar to” frameshift mutation, an insertion mutation is a type of frameshift mutation. The other type is deletion. It is at this point of the video that I begin to grow tired of the constant misspellings and typos.
The given explanation for a missense mutation non-scientific, but nothing is unforgivably wrong, so I will move past it.
He explains the concept of a nonsense mutation and asserts that it stops the production of the “necessary” amino acid sequence. Although often the protein that is affected by this is in fact necessary, it is not true that all proteins that are synthesized are necessary, and therefore, it does not logically follow that every nonsense mutation results in a non-functional or severely weakened cell.
The way this video presents information is quickly becoming unbearable. Watching text fly in a manner akin to Star Wars, but at a significantly higher speed, is not conducive to critical reading.
The final two explanations of types of mutations are similar to the previous ones. They are mostly accurate, but make the incorrect assumption that all changes are bad. In the case of genetic mutation, it is certainly true that most changes are detrimental, but it is simply not the case that all are that way.
Finally, he makes an assertion that is glaringly, painfully incorrect. He states that in order for evolution to happen, 51% of mutations must be benifitial. Ignoring the fact that he obviously makes no distinction between evolution and selection, this assertion remains impossible to defend. Genetic mutations with positive results happen far less than 51% of the time, and this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of biological evolution. As I watch further into the video, he makes clear the flaws in logic that have led him to this false conclusion.
His very next assertion contains what I have found to be the most important mistake he has made thus far. He states. “Genetic mutations in the DNA have a NET reduction in fitness (if the creature survives), and cause death and many of the diseases that have been mapped so far today.” It is the part in parentheses that I take issue with. To assume that every creature that receives a genetic mutation survives betrays a massive lack of understanding of the forces that direct evolution. The whole point of natural selection is that living things are not equally likely to reproduce. An animal that bears the product of a deleterious mutation is less likely to survive, reproduce, and pass its unfortunate genetic code on to future generations.
That is the point. Evolution is not random. If it were the case that evolution was the idea that genetic mutations just happen to result in living things that are more capable of survival, GSFY might have a defendable point. However, it is not. Those with unbenefitial mutations will not be able to pass them on, while the few genetic mutations that result in a positive change are passed on by virtue off their benefits.
He continues by citing the mastodon and the elephant as an example of what he refers to as ‘de-evolution’. His reason for this is that the mastodon had a stronger bone structure than the current species of elephant. First off, there is no objective, constant standard for fitness. It is not always better to be bigger. For example, the squirrel would not be more able to survive if it were the size of a bear. The niche it inhabits has a limited amount of resources that the squirrel can make use of. Secondly, the mammoth and the mastodon are not in fact ancestors of the elephant. They are cousins. In fact, there was a time when what we know as modern elephants inhabited the earth simultaneously with mastodons and mammoths. (http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html)
Following this is a number of similar fallacious arguments based on the idea that bigger is always better, and bigger means more complex.
His example of the Herto skulls having slightly more cranial capacity than the modern human average is no more compelling than suggesting a modern human with a particularly big head is a superior specimen of human. He also throws in a random assertion without evidence that radiometric dating is “nearly worthless” on replacement fossils.
For a few more minutes, he repeats his foolish concept of genetic degradation. He states that, rather than being ancestors of homo sapiens, all other hominid fossils found are in fact cousins of modern humans, and all are descended from ancient “super humans.” As there is no evidence for this whatsoever, I feel it is not worth elaborating on the falsehood.
Then he makes another stunning assertion: The radioactive elements that spewed from volcanoes where “all of the rich hominid finds in Africa came from” were the cause of the genetic mutations that caused their “extinction”. This idea is not only backed up by zero evidence, I have never heard it stated by anyone else ever, and it is entirely nonsensical. My patience wears thin as the video wears on.
Unfortunately, however, the absurdity comes on with an increasing pace. The next statement cannot be adequately paraphrased, so I will include it in its entirity (I took the liberty of correcting punctuation mistakes in order to make it more readable:
“The obvious isn’t obvious until it is obvious. Furthermore, this impatient, greedy attitude is responsible more than anything for the excessive stupidity we find in the world. Just as such people have no patience to chew up real food, so they do not take sufficient time to ‘chew up’ mental food. As modern times promote hasty eating to a large extent, it is not surprising to learn that a great astronomer said: ‘Two things are infinite, as far as we know — the universe and human stupidity.’ To-day (sic) we know that this statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved that the universe is limited.”
To be perfectly honest, I don’t really know what to do with this passage. It is both nonsensical and unrelated to the rest of the video. I am becoming concerned that I have chosen an idea to refute that is only held by one person in the world. If this is so, I have chosen a very inefficient way to contribute to the acceptance of evolution.
The final 3 minutes of video are composed entirely of quotes by Albert Einstein, which say nothing to back up his case.
And so the video ends. Not a single thing has been given that could be used as even the loosest idea of evidence for the stunningly incorrect ideas put forth by one GoodScienceForYou. The entire show was a combination of incorrect assumptions, incoherent rambling, and misused information. Although I previously said I would watch the other video as well, I have changed my mind. Unless GSFY is willing to transcribe his video, I will not watch another 20 minutes of nonsense when it could easily be condensed into a few paragraphs of nonsense.
The video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spuZtAa80qI&feature=channel_video_title
bevolve 