Hey, I think this is great you actually know your stuff and can deal with the content. Many people I have conversations like this with, have absolutely no ability to process any of the statements I make and simply regurgitate high school biology 101. .... When I was in high school, I was not taught the version of evolution you are presenting.
"In contrast, I presented (maybe too briefly) Evolution as a process of periods of great change, interspersed with comparatively longer periods of relative stability."
So what has occurred here is the historical version of evolution we were given in generations gone by never stated this. I will trust you that the modern version of evolution is as you stated. I have heard similar things talked about by some people in various research I have done. If you study the history of evolution, it has been a constant history of bait and switch. When the theory fails to meet the present data, modifications are made, but if we are changing the theory, then why must not the new theory be reproven and begin as a hypothesis and not a theory? And why should I believe the present version of the theory, if it is going to change in 20 years, since the current description fails to meet what is actually occurring? How does it get to keep theory status, if no one believed this version of the belief set 20 years ago? Keep in mind, evolution has no mathematical proof like the laws of physics, so it is not a gradual refinement such as Newton's equations required later refinement.
Certainly the theory of evolution did not hinge around major genetic changes if we go back 40 years? Historically, it has been taught as incremental change over time.
Now all of what I said is irrelevant if we assume that the current version of the theory which was given by you is correct. It being wrong in the past is irrelevant to whether it is wrong now.
At the crux of my multi-layered reasons for disagreeing with evolution still, the two I would point out are:
- If evolution cannot explain the creation of a protein, why would I believe the theory? Or if you're still believing it does explain it, if you study proteins much (and I am certainly relying on other talking heads rather than my own research here), how would a protein develop? Ultimately the point of many proteins is to yield a positive advantage to the organism. Some proteins are co-functioning (many?) with other proteins. Furthermore, the most advantages of those systems are not yielded until the proteins are effectively complete. I have no problem with the notion that existing proteins can be subtly modified to produce interesting results, I have never seen any evidence to the effect evolution is an explanatory process for protein formation because the mathematics a person might do which would use random mutations to attempt to generate a functional protein is abysmal. Evolutionists to my knowledge, have been trying to discover an incremental process for protein development, but I have never seen any evidence such a process exists, only that it very likely does not due to co-functioning proteins being 'statistical impossibilities'. As an example I was given by the talking heads of co-functioning proteins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum ... In this example, the issue is that if one part of the motor is removed it's no longer a motor but a non-functional system. Yes, you can make minor changes and it still works. So? Evolution requires far more than this. Just because I can break some components on my truck, does not mean my truck evolved. Even worse is that the whole thing is built from an information system which must exist to build the protein, its not like it arises on its own. This is the idea of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity ... If it is to be said that something is not irreducibly complex, to me that assertion needs to be proven. It needs to be demonstrated how such complex structures form from very basic, it can't be assumed without evidence. Citing mutation + natural selection and competitive advantage does not prove anything. It is words, not a demonstration. I would like to see how this structure formed from a simpler structure, and that structure from a simpler structure as evolution requires. And I would like to see the benefits that each structure yielded for a competitive advantage to that organism. Then also, we should be able to run the math on every step of the evolution, to demonstrate it falls within the capabilities of what random chance could produce, because random chance has strict limitations in what we can expect from it due to math. I've never seen any examples. If I had 5 really good examples of this happening, I would be fine with drawing an inference that it occurs in other situations.
- The second point, is that any sort of mutational change into an information system (such as DNA) will not produce major organ / protein development in a biological system or any information system for that matter. The rules of math and statistical probability, prevent development of an information system from occurring. Trial and error (random change + natural selection) ultimately does not generate major new information structures from the ether of chaos, when those structures are so large and complex that it makes it statistically not likely. Tweaking a small set of variables for better outcomes? Yes, this is doable. Writing an entire new codebase for an organism? No, it does not do this.
Finally, thank you for your thoughtful response. I wrote all this because you took the time to watch my video and respond to me. I really appreciate it. Do not feel obligated to go through your counterpoints if you are not feeling up to it. If you did have some evidences of the sort of gradual protein formation I am looking for, I am very interested in any scientific articles related to such. Thank you for your time.