Sal vs Dapper: Evolutionary Fitness (Mirror)

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[kenthovindsemployee]

Definitely one of the most relaxed debates I've ever seen. I always like debates like this.

[robertadsett]

“We need to look at biology in terms of engineering machines” Why??

[robertadsett]

Electric field sensitivity of sharks appears to be nV/cm according to wiki (no doubt better sources are available). Humans can apparently measure micro volt/m according to the papers I found in a quick search. These don’t appear to be fundamental limits though.

For obvious reasons (I hope) there’s more effort put in to high field and non-dc measurements

[coopertownsend]

Yes I agree for someone with so many degrees it’s a very simple concept even for a high school student like myself and the fact he doesn’t understand it is very concerning

[Lorre]

he knows that object can't repropduce sexually, right?

[elibella]

FYI, a "God is Dead" trailer ran as a commercial while I was watching lol

[EdwardHowton]

"I want to produce biased propaganda for creationists"
Fixed that for Sal.
Sometimes when you know what the words you're saying mean, it helps you understand why you're wrong.

[wcdeich]

@Evidence and Reasons @Dapper Dinosaur The Sci-Show channel had an episode about when the estimate that 80% of the human genome might be functional. In fairness to Sal's viewpoint, a large part of the Sci-Show episode did boil down to "An 80% functional genome would mutate too quickly for homo sapiens to remain relative healthy for 200, 000+ thousand years, therefore we cannot have an 80% functional genome." However, the Sci-Show episode did go further & suggest an mechanism for how our genome might appear to be 80% functional, but not really be 80% functional. As Hank Green summarized "There are a lot of placed where proteins stick to DNA but proteins are not actively being synthesized there, so there might not be much going on there but stickiness." I have a compromise / intermediate hypothesis - what if that "stickiness" is in some way important to the functioning of our cells, but, not nucleotide specific? If this is correct, then it is true that 80% of our genome is functional by some definition. However, if the "stickiness" is important but not nucleotide specific, then this would not be a problem for the long term genetic fitness of our species.

[robertadsett]

Wait, is sal arguing only humans get cancer?

[rhanak]

"We need to look at biology in terms of engineering machines" ....because that's the only way my creationist analogies and objections appear relevant. Engineers are helping with studying organisms because we want to better understand and reverse-engineer their capabilities, but it is irrelevant to the process of biological adaptation over time and genetic inheritance.
you got there a moment later, haha.

[gracesprocket]

33:03 -things like the willfull ignorance of YEC don't help with that. Stop feeding students convenient lies for ideological reasons.

[Nowpinion]

Hmm.. I really tried to follow his arguments in his opening, but even though he promised nerdy-ness and logic he failed to deliver. It seemed as he actually tried to equate an “unfit” or fat human in our modern society with an unfit or fat animal in nature. Shouldn’t it be obvious to anyone that fitness, in this context, equates to whatever leads to survival and reproduction? One way to see it, the nature and the environment decides what’s fit or not.

[sundogfarseer]

Surely the fantastic abilities of natural systems compared to man-made systems is an argument for evolution, since it implies that the natural systems have had longer to get it right compared to man-made systems. I.e., natural systems have had billions of years to get it right whereas human designed machines have had a lot less time to be perfected ?
Good debate btw, nice to have polite debaters who do not play word games and get to the actual point. Well done.

[Lorre]

how someone can repeat the word Fit/fitness in less tha 5min? is he a personal trainer? so now the theory of evolution is dismiss brcause the meaning of a word is vague, cone on! fit is the new kind

[thinboxdictator]

10:20 - 10:32 .. engineers said that its about a limit of physics..
mmm...
nothing against engineers, but wouldn't physicists know better than them about.. physics?

around 12:00 ...
what the f are you talking about?
yes, 'fit' can mean different things in different context.
what that has to do with anything?
I guess you are going with it in 'fit as selected by natural selection' ...
you know what 'fit' means in that context.. why focus on word instead of the meaning?