Strong selective pressure for short genomes prevent the accumulation of longer nucleo

The argument is presented visually in this video: The relevant part starts around 15:45, but the gist of it is that storing and copying data is not free, the pressure of this cost is proportional to the complexity of an organism.So the argument is that this pressure does not allow the accumulation of longer nucleotide sequences, so you cant' get evolution started based on a relatively short piece of RNA or DNA.

I'm promoting this now, but I want to highlight a few items from the Forum Guidelines:

3. When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.
   ​
4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
   ​
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

In sum, we encourage people to present their evidence and arguments within their messages and use articles and videos only as supporting references.

Thread copied here from the Strong selective pressure for short genomes prevent the accumulation of longer nucleo thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

So far this is just advertising your YouTube video.Since this supposed selective pressure is not visible even in protists - let alone more complex organisms - I wonder what evidence you have that it is a real obstacle.

Make an argument with data and evidence. No one is going to watch a lame video. If you don't want to do that, you will get very little interaction. A youtube video is not evidence.
Read the Hitchens quote in my signature.

… and yet life evolved; maybe the 'argument' is wrong? Just a thought.

I had a similar situation with a local creationist who kept touting a claim about the hole in the ozone layer having been faked since, according to the creationist he got that from, refrigerant molecules (Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)) are not present in the ozone layer because they are too heavy to ever get there.The main problem for him is that scientists discovered the problem by having taken many air samples from that altitude using sounding rockets and directly observed and measured CFCs in those air samples.The entire sordid affair involved him knowing that I had proven his claim to be false but he deliberately chose to include that claim (which he knew to be false) over a period of 11 years in each iteration of his website despite my repeatedly pointing it out to him (his response each time was to immediately run away, further demonstrating his consciousness of guilt). When he finally removed that claim, he still maintained that it was impossible for CFCs to be present at that altitude because he knew of no mechanism for their transport. He immediately rejected fluid mechanics (ironic since he's a professional engineer who has talked about working with pumps, so he should be aware of and even knowledgeable about fluid mechanics).My final response to any reasonable explanation was to demand that he explain it then, because those CFCs are indeed present as determined by empirical examination -- empirical observation used to be the touchstone constantly demanded by creationists and there he is rejecting it; what's the world coming to?My old page about that is at BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: THE OZONE LAYER. I had saved and reposted the graphics from the NOAA article on that question, but the link to the article itself is broken and had changed a few times even before the Trump Administration came in to remove science from those agencies' websites. The claim posed several questions "scientists could not answer", but the claim had lifted those questions practically verbatim from that NOAA article which had then immediately answered those questions. Creationists' donation dollars at work!When Bill Morgan (well, his name's already out of the bag now) reported on this article in his newsletter, he included his own story of taking those "unanswered" questions to the real experts in the matter: air conditioning salesmen at a trade show. I shit thee not!

That's creationism for you.Creationists believe that reality is false, and only their imaginary world is real.

Is there any chance you will explain or defend your argument? Do you have any evidence that supports your argument?

Probably just a drive by

Yep, and they never have supporting evidence.

I think he only came here to try to get views for his video. But if he wants me to watch it he’ll have to do a lot better than that.