religion

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Dior [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually, evolutionary biology doesn't run contrast to theists ideas of the world. God is simply the catalyst for everything. Theists want to add an extra step.

Evolution is a biological process. It has nothing to do with cosmology or philosophy, which is what the whole god talk is about.

But you knew that already I'm sure.

Now, who created god since design requires intelligence?

That has already been answered.

[Dior]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah I mean he should know that providing evidence is not how the internetz works. You have to claim to have proof and then tell everyone they're wrong and stupid without providing any actual proof of your claim. Go away RobotElvis! No one wants you backing up your beliefs with actual facts and data! Rabble rabble rabble rabble.

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting. Stop.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But there are no transitional forms showing alleged changes in the development of the horse from the four-toed creature of squirrel like size.

I have already explained that isnt how evolution works nor is it even close. You keep repeating the same crap even though it has been explained a thousand times.

Since you are basically doing nothing but posting long since debunked bullshit from talkorigins then I will resort to posting page after page of long winded quotes too:

"Creationists acknowledge what they call “micro-evolution” (observed changes due to mutation and selection, as with Darwin’s finches) but they insist that what they call “macro-evolution” (the result of cumulative changes over time) is impossible. We sometimes call this the “micro-macro mambo."

If you ask a creationist why “macro” changes are impossible you’ll be told that it’s just impossible — some magic barrier interferes to preserve the integrity of scriptural “kinds.” Because of that unevidenced magical mechanism, which only the magic designer — blessed be he! — can overcome, creationists flatly assert that regardless of time, one species cannot evolve into another — despite the abundant fossil evidence to the contrary. Therefore, creationism requires belief in a two-part dogma consisting of: (1) the Great Barrier; and (2) the miracle that breaks through the barrier.

The error is enormous, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.

Being clueless as to how anything might have come to be, the creationist quotes some big number he copied from somewhere to claim that the universe (or a protein molecule, or life, or DNA, or human evolution) coming into existence or happening “by chance” is improbable, therefore … Oogity Boogity! But ignorance isn’t evidence of anything, except the need to get to work trying to figure it out.

The typical “odds” argument is easily rebutted. Here’s how we do it: There are 52 playing cards in a deck. The odds against the sequence resulting from a good shuffle are — as the mathematicians say — 52 factorial. You need to multiply 52 x 51 x 50, etc., and keep going until you get to the last card. That’s what factorial means. Fifty-two factorial is a big number. It works out to be 8.06581752 × 1067. That’s 8 (and a tad more) times 10 to the 67th power, a far larger number than the creationist usually quotes (or makes up) to “prove” that the odds are against evolution. For comparison, 52 factorial is much larger than the estimated number of stars in the universe, which is “only” 1021 (source: this NASA webpage). But there are decks of cards all over the place; and each of them is arranged in an extremely improbable sequence. Further, as we explained three years ago, the algorithm of evolution can easily defeat those odds. See The Inevitability of Evolution (Part III)."

[Dior]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That has already been answered.

No. It hasn't. It was sidestepped and avoided.

A++ for effort. Next time put some more sarcasm in your comment. That seems to really work for your arguments.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have already explained that isnt how evolution works nor is it even close. You keep repeating the same crap even though it has been explained a thousand times.

Since you are basically doing nothing but posting long since debunked bullshit from talkorigins then I will resort to posting page after page of long winded quotes too:

"Creationists acknowledge what they call “micro-evolution” (observed changes due to mutation and selection, as with Darwin’s finches) but they insist that what they call “macro-evolution” (the result of cumulative changes over time) is impossible. We sometimes call this the “micro-macro mambo."

If you ask a creationist why “macro” changes are impossible you’ll be told that it’s just impossible — some magic barrier interferes to preserve the integrity of scriptural “kinds.” Because of that unevidenced magical mechanism, which only the magic designer — blessed be he! — can overcome, creationists flatly assert that regardless of time, one species cannot evolve into another — despite the abundant fossil evidence to the contrary. Therefore, creationism requires belief in a two-part dogma consisting of: (1) the Great Barrier; and (2) the miracle that breaks through the barrier.

The error is enormous, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.

Being clueless as to how anything might have come to be, the creationist quotes some big number he copied from somewhere to claim that the universe (or a protein molecule, or life, or DNA, or human evolution) coming into existence or happening “by chance” is improbable, therefore … Oogity Boogity! But ignorance isn’t evidence of anything, except the need to get to work trying to figure it out.

The typical “odds” argument is easily rebutted. Here’s how we do it: There are 52 playing cards in a deck. The odds against the sequence resulting from a good shuffle are — as the mathematicians say — 52 factorial. You need to multiply 52 x 51 x 50, etc., and keep going until you get to the last card. That’s what factorial means. Fifty-two factorial is a big number. It works out to be 8.06581752 × 1067. That’s 8 (and a tad more) times 10 to the 67th power, a far larger number than the creationist usually quotes (or makes up) to “prove” that the odds are against evolution. For comparison, 52 factorial is much larger than the estimated number of stars in the universe, which is “only” 1021 (source: this NASA webpage). But there are decks of cards all over the place; and each of them is arranged in an extremely improbable sequence. Further, as we explained three years ago, the algorithm of evolution can easily defeat those odds. See The Inevitability of Evolution (Part III)."

Decks of cards are created things. Thanks for lending more credence to creation.

[leewong]

"Kent Hovind (or, to use his correct academic title, Mr. Kent Hovind) is an Independent Baptist young Earth creationist and convicted felon from Pensacola, Florida. He promoted young Earth creationism and dominionist views in lectures and videos sold through his Creation Science Evangelism organization, and started Dinosaur Adventure Land, a small amusement park in his backyard.

In November 2006, he was convicted on a variety of tax-related charges, and received a 10-year sentence. Hovind is scheduled for release in summer 2015 [1] but faces further criminal charges before then. [2] Following his imprisonment, his son Eric Hovind took control of the businesses and renamed them.

Hovind refers to himself as "Dr. Kent Hovind" or as "Dr. Dino" to provide a veneer of respectability to those who have not examined his education or background.[3] He also claims to have "taught high school math and science" for fifteen years.[4] These are less impressive than they sound: he obtained his doctorates by mail-order and never taught at a school requiring accredited credentials.

As of 2013, Hovind claims four doctorates, in education, theology and biblical ministry with an honorary degree in divinity.[5]

His first Ph.D., obtained before his vacation in club fed:

is from Patriot Bible University, a degree mill.[6][7][8][9][10] Patriot sells doctorates for approximately $2,000.[11][12]
is in "Christian education." Hovind ignores the "Christian" part, instead describing it merely as in "education."
is not recognized by any legitimate university, professional association, or governmental agency. Patriot Bible University only offers "programs which are religious in nature" and their "degrees or diplomas have no state recognition."[13]
is officially unavailable to the public. Real doctoral dissertations are readily available through libraries or online. On December 9, 2009, Hovind's dissertation was uploaded to WikiLeaks[14] and that copy mirrors the substandard quality - with spelling and grammar mistakes typical of a high school student - previously described by the few who had read it.[15]
was reviewed by only one person, Wayne Knight[16], the president of Patriot[17][18]. In contrast, the standard practice for PhD dissertations is four or five doctoral committee members.

His 2013 Doctorate of Biblical Ministry (D.Min) is also from Patriot. His dissertation was made for sale as an e-book, entitled What on Earth is about to Happen... for Heaven's Sake?: A Dissertation on End Times According to the Bible, and claims Jesus will return in 2028.[19]

Hovind neglects to mention which institutions awarded the theological doctorate and honorary divinity doctorate, probably because - like the Patriot doctorates - they are also the educational equivalent of an online ordination by the Universal Life Church.[20]

Hovind listed himself as "Dr." in the Pensacola phone book, which is unusual even for someone with a real M.D or Ph.D. His blog, however, warns supporters that any mail addressed to "Dr. Kent Hovind" at the prison where he resides will be returned by the prison's mailroom staff.[21]

When Hovind says he "taught high school math and science," he really means he taught children at three private Christian schools run out of churches (one of which he founded)[22]. At no point did Hovind earn any recognized credentials that would allow him to teach at public school or any school that requires accreditation.

Despite having no scientific credentials or even an accredited degree, he presents himself as someone who understands the science of evolution better than people with advanced science degrees who research in labs and publish peer-reviewed papers. During his presentations, he sounds like an auctioneer or a used car salesman when he is attempting to make a point by getting his audience to buy a video or book from him. Many of his slideshows read like a top 10 list of commonly seen (and refuted) "evidences" for creationism that contain little to no actual data or proof. These arguments are interjected with unfunny "jokes" and anecdotes, which are topped off with a healthy serving of mined quotes. And like any good creationist, he is not above and in fact seems to enjoy spreading the false claim that Darwin caused the Holocaust.

Many of Hovind's claims can be easily refuted by merely reading Hovind's alleged references or doing basic math. For example, in Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? series, Hovind is quoted saying:
“”One drop of water will cover the world if you spread it real thin.
—Kent Hovind[23]

Hovind's error is off by a factor of one trillion. The surface area of the Earth is about 500,000,000 km2 (or 5x1012 m2, which is 5x1032 angstroms squared) and the size of a water molecule ("the smallest identifiable unit into which a pure substance can be divided[24]") is about 10 angstroms.[25] To find out how much water you would need to coat the world in a monolayer of water you divide the surface of the world by the water molecule; the result is you would need a minimum of 150,000 tons of water. Comparing the 150,000 tons of water you would need to Hovind's statement that one drop of water (about 0.00002 kg) could cover the world is off by 1,000,000,000,000.

Besides his poor math skills, Hovind doesn't fare much better in biology or being honest about what scientific papers say. Hovind seeks to "debunk" carbon dating by citing scientific literature, but what he actually does is mine quotes, take material out of context and invent alleged quotes out of whole cloth. In Seminar 7: Questions and Answers, he speaks about a scientific paper and displays this alleged quote on a slide:
“”One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the ‘wood immediately around the carcass’ was 9-10,000.
—Slide used and discussed by Kent Hovind[26]

In less than ten seconds, Hovind presents the quote and reference as evidence radiometric dating doesn't work and skips to his next slide. In checking the claim, the quote does not exist and article cited does not even refer to the correct species, date or even continent.[27] Sadly many creationists take Hovind at his word and simply recycle his claims without checking the references.[28]

Yet, there are some creationists who do investigate Hovind's claims and have concluded that Hovind's statements do not stand up to scrutiny. For example, a Creation Ministries International article by Carl Wieland, Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati reported: "Kent Hovind’s document repeatedly misrepresents or misunderstands not only our article, but the issues themselves."

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have already explained that isnt how evolution works nor is it even close. You keep repeating the same crap even though it has been explained a thousand times.

That actually is how evolution works. Maybe that is why you are so ignorant, you don't even know what you are defending in the first place.

[leewong]

1. “Where is the missing link/ transitional fossils?”

First of all, it should be noted that fossils are not easily found. They are rare, as general conditions do not always favor the formation of fossils. This being said, we actually have a HUGE number of transitional fossils and links between species. While it’s true that we won’t be able to find every single fossil for every single species that has ever existed, we have more than enough to accept the fossil record as extremely important evidence. An analogy would be this: ABCD_FGHIJK_MNO_QRST_VW_YZ. We have some blanks, but we can pretty much figure out which letters (or in evolution’s case, species containing certain traits) fit into these holes. Keep in mind that not having a perfectly complete fossil record is NOT evidence against evolution. It simply implies that there’s still room for improvement, and we still continue to fill in the blanks with new fossil finds. Here is a great reference with an enormous listing of different fossils and links: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

and here’s another: http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

and ::gasp:: here’s ANOTHER: http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

2. “My grandfather is not a monkey!"

It’s a common misconception to think that we directly came from monkeys. In reality, we actually share a common ancestor with apes (kind of like a family tree that branches off). To defend the claim that we share a common ancestor with apes, we have many evidences (such as the fossil record), but we have recently discovered two newer, amazing pieces of evidence. The first is that our chromosome pair #2 is consistent with the fusion of two ape chromosomes, and the second is a series of perfect matches between our endogenous retroviruses. The latter essentially proves ape common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt. You may not understand these two genetic terms, but these two videos do a very good job of explaining just how important these are for evolutionary theory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYz...eature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI


3. “Evolution is *just* a theory!”

Evolution is a scientific theory. It is labeled as such for two reasons. The first reason is that it has accumulated so much scientific evidence defending the claim, that it has gone from being an unjustified hypothesis to a justifiable theory. A “scientific theory” is not the same as a “guess” or “hypothesis” (or a regular “theory” in layman’s terms). It is the official scientific explanation for a huge set of facts and evidence. Secondly, it is called a scientific theory because, by definition, it is possible for it to be falsified. If a piece of evidence were to contradict evolutionary theory, the current theory would be dismissed and discarded. This has never, ever happened. Ever. This should show just how powerful this scientific theory really is. It should be noted that other scientific theories that are just as widely accepted in the scientific community include gravity, cell theory, plate tectonics, the big bang theory, and the atomic theory. These are all scientific theories. Yes, gravity is on par with evolution. Too many people think that a scientific theory could potentially be raised to a higher level (*if only there were enough evidence *). There is NO higher level. For instance, a scientific theory does not have the potential to become a scientific law, because they are completely separate things. A scientific law is not above a scientific theory. A law is a principle or guideline to keep in mind (such as the laws of thermodynamics), whereas a theory is the best current explanation for a set of facts. A scientific theory is the highest possible achievement of science. Evolution is not *JUST* a theory… it is TRIUMPHANTLY a theory (http://notjustatheory.com/)

This site also gives very good explanations: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm


4. “Evolution can’t be proven!”

I redirect you to my third misconception; theories, by definition, can’t be proven due to the fact that they are hypothetically falsifiable. For instance, if I held an apple in mid-air, and let go of it… and it didn’t fall, but just floated there… then I would have just falsified the theory of gravity. Similarly, if a scientist found that, on a genetic level, humans have more in common with oak trees than monkeys, it would falsify our nested hierarchies and evolutionary chain. These things have never happened.


5. “Evolution is wrong because the fossils indicate a young earth.”

The young earth argument basically says that if the earth is 10,000 years old (or less), then evolution simply would not have had enough time to run its course (which is true). However, an old earth (billions of years old) is accepted due to radiometric dating (not just carbon dating) and is mathematically and scientifically sound. Many people who say, “well this organism was dated to be two million years old when in reality it was only fifty years old” don’t realize that certain isotopes can only accurately date certain eras (based on their half-lives). For instance, carbon dating is very accurate for things that have been around for the past 10,000 years, but not to date things millions of years old (and so scientists use other isotopes for the older stuff). Here’s a site about which isotopes are used to date back to which eras (and more general information about radiometric dating): http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2019

We can also check these dates against other dating methods, which include varve counting, pollen analysis, ice core dating, tree ring dating (dendrochronology), coral dating, fluorine testing, thermoremanent magnetism, thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, cosmic-ray exposure tests, and more. We have more than enough ways to date fossils AND eliminate any large inaccuracies. Whether a fossil is 37 million years old or 39 million years old is hardly something to lose sleep over. Most dating methods give ranges, anyway.


6. “Evolution is wrong because fossils are consistent with a global flood.”

This argument from ignorance actually amazes me. All fossils found in the same era are found in the same layer of earth. Older fossils are found in lower strata, while newer fossils are found closer to the surface. It’s as simple (and logical) as that. The only initially-puzzling special case is when we find older fossils on mountain tops… however, this is because of how those specific mountains were formed (two earth plates pushing against one another for millions of years caused the mountains to form; the earth used to be flatter way back in the day). For a global flood to be correct, ALL fossils from ALL species of living things would need to be found in the same layer of earth (whenever the global flood occurred); that means that you should be able to find a human’s skeleton next to a dinosaur’s. This has never been the case. Ever. Furthermore, here is a video that explains a logical alternative to the “global flood” myth, which is often created due to the Biblical flood story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq0dBFqJZc0


7. “What about Noah’s Ark?”

This is similar to number six. This is also where it gets ugly, when people try to mix religion with science. You simply can’t do that. Religion is faith-based, whereas science is evidence-based. There is no proof that the Ark was real, or that there ever was a global flood. Since this is such a weak argument against evolution (there are actually many ways to disprove the global flood myth from a scientific standpoint, including the facts that the food/waste for/from every animal could not also fit onto the ark, plus carnivorous animals would eat the other animals, plus all of the plants on earth would die of drowning, plus all of the saltwater fish would have died due to the freshwater rain changing the ocean’s salinity, plus the fact that the animals would have had to carry all of the viruses and bacteria, plus apparently rabbits decided not to “screw like rabbits” for a whole year, plus the fossil record disproves it… but I digress), I’m just going to cut to the chase and post a video that shows one example of irrefutable scientific evidence (the bottlenecking of the cheetah) against the Noah’s Ark/global flood claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50


8. “I believe in Intelligent Design.”

Quite frankly, you shouldn’t believe in Intelligent Design (the umbrella hypothesis that includes Creationism). That’s the problem right there. It is unfortunate for those who like the idea of ID, because not a single shred of evidence has been presented to defend this hypothesis. The foundation of ID is Irreducible Complexity, and every supposed “example” of this has been found out to not apply. Exactly what things ID and IC claim are explained in the following video. Here is an example of the main argument for IC (and it’s debunking), the Bacterial Flagellum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

ID doesn’t impress the scientific community (the people who matter when it comes to facts and evidence) because there is no logical reason to believe in it.


9. “Evolution contradicts God’s existence… and… therefore, science is wrong."

Besides being a clearly illogical argument, I’d like to say: Nope. It does not. Evolution (and science, in general) says NOTHING about the existence of God. Evolution and the rest of science are SECULARIST, not ATHEISTIC. It may disagree with the Creation story in the Bible’s Genesis chapter, but it does not, in any way, falsify or contradict the concept of a general deity. It is possible for God to exist with the intent of creating the universe in such a way that this scientific process of evolution could have run its course (I recommend looking up the very smart and *safe* religion of Deism). Therefore, God and evolution can both exist. Of course, it should be noted that possibility is very different than probability. Quite frankly, Christians should be relieved that science is incapable of disproving God, or else evolution would be proof that their deity can’t exist (based on Biblical claims)


10. “There’s evidence for micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.”

This is actually just plain false, but allow me to first explain the terms. Many people choose only to note the tiny steps (a mutation here, a new function there) and thus believe that only micro-evolution occurs and not macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are terms used by IDers to try to weasel their way around the truth of evolution. Micro-evolution is supposed to be changes within a species, while macro-evolution means changes that connect one species to another. In reality, scientists decide when enough small changes have been generated (usually through multiple generations) to label a new organism as a new species. Evolution is evolution, period. Skeptics need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We all know that micro-evolution is observable and testable. A very simple and common example of this is the fact that every few years we need brand new flu vaccines; viruses and bacteria often evolve rapidly and overcome our current treatments. You USUALLY won’t witness a macro-evolutionary step in your lifetime, because a macro-evolutionary step could take tens of thousands of years to occur. However, one macro-evolutionary step could be the same as a hundred micro-evolutionary steps, and a few of those we CAN see in our lifetime. Looking back on our fossil records, we see all of the tiny steps (through our transitional fossils) and then choose to label a certain group of them as a single macro-evolutionary step. Here’s an analogy:

AARDVARK (original word)

AASDVARK (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

AASDVARL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

AASDBARL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

AASEBARL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

AASEBALL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

BASEBALL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter; new word )

To go from AARDVARK to BASEBALL, six micro-steps took place in between the two real words. However, the first six “words” could be labeled as A-species, while the last word could be labeled as a new B-species (based off of the first letter of each “word”). Therefore, A-species to B-species could be considered a macro-evolutionary step, while the little “in-between” steps are micro-evolutionary.

Another very simple word analogy is this: Accepting micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is like accepting that seconds exist but not whole minutes.


***It should be noted that macro-evolution HAS been observed. Unique polyploidy generations result in speciation (which is the same as macro-evolution) due to there being more than the expected two homologous sets of chromosomes. This occurs more frequently in plants than animals. Here’s a reference regarding examples of unique polyploidy types and hybridization (as well as other examples): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...ion.html#part5


The REASON this is an example of macro-evolution is because there are certain unique and beneficial capabilities that polyploidy organisms have over organisms with only two homologous sets of chromosomes. This is why they are classified differently. However, we have found that sometimes the latter organisms can produce offspring that (through mutations) have the polyploidy characteristic. Therefore, we have witnessed macro-evolution.

Allow me to give some examples and references to back up my claim (as it is ALWAYS important when discussing science):

"Ultrafrequent establishment of poly- ploidy in the homosporous Pteridophy- ta appears to be necessary to create and maintain genetic variation in the face of the homozygotizing effects of habitual self-fertilization in the monoe- cious gametophytes of these plants."

~http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/153/3733/305

"Somatic polyploidy, defined as genome multiplication, was found in all differentiated mammalian tissues. The highest level of such a polyploidy was found in the myocardium. This phenomenon was shown to be associated with changes in the pattern of gene expression. Hence, polyploidization may create cells with new physiology. ... Thus, we suppose that additional genomes may serve for cardiomyocyte protection from oxidative damage in the hearts."

~http://www.tsitologiya.cytspb.rssi.r...atskaya_en.htm

Check out this abstract as well (I can’t copy/paste this one, sorry guys): http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/...Code=ecolsys.1


If anyone ever says that macro-evolution has never been observed, you can safely correct them.***

11. “Evolution doesn’t explain how the very first living thing came about.”

It’s not supposed to. Evolution is the study of how living organisms have changed throughout history. Evolutionary theory does NOT deal with how the first living organism came from non-life. This is a separate scientific field of study, know as Abiogenesis. Evolution and Abiogenesis do not rely on one another. Whether the first living organism came from self-replicating RNA or proteins or amino acids or Zeus or Thor or the Christian God does NOT affect the fact that we have substantial evidence for evolution. Abiogenesis contains hypotheses, but is currently not up to “scientific theory” status. However, it should be noted that we HAVE created life from non-life. We know that Abiogenesis is an absolute possibility (though we’re not 100% positive if this first experiment is the correct one, which is why it is not yet a scientific theory): http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...d-team-cr.html


12. “You can’t prove that God simply didn’t set up everything to fool us!”

This is true. God could have planted every single fossil correctly, decided (unimaginatively) that all living things should be connected genetically, and every other fact we have for evidence could have been a front for a designer. Most people believe in some sort of God; however, most of them do NOT believe in a deceitful one. Based on facts, evidence, observations, experiments, logic, and common sense, there is no reason to believe that evolution is incorrect, or a trick devised by a deceptive deity. Genetics can tell us who our mum is just like genetics can tell us who our grandparents are and (if we go back far enough, which doesn’t make it any less accurate) we can also find out other ancestors (species-wise). In the Creationist line of thinking (doubt EVERYTHING in light of obvious evidence), one couldn't even prove that you're related to your mum! Even when she was pregnant with you, the fact that you look like your mum and have her DNA and genetic make-up CLEARLY only says that God implanted an intelligently designed fetus inside of her to make you APPEAR to be related Come on now. This isn’t logical or scientific, and it shows that some people are simply grasping at straws.


13. “All of the alternatives should be taught in the classroom anyway. Everyone has a right to speak their minds. Let the children decide for themselves. It’s only FAIR.”

This obviously is not even an argument against evolution, but an argument to try and convince an audience that science is subjective. This argument, however, presents the dangerous fact that some people want unscientific hypotheses (or possibly even religion) taught in science class. This is terrible, and must be stopped at all costs. There is no scientific alternative to evolution. There is no controversy. Intelligent Design/Creationism does not impress the scientific community, because it is a religious belief system and it has no evidence behind it. Teaching science in schools is not about freedom of speech or ideas. It’s about teaching what we know is correct. In fact, there are many instances where education is simply NOT open for interpretation. Should a math teacher say, “If you WANT, you can believe that a triangle has four sides?” NO. Should an English teacher say, “If you WANT, you can say ‘I brang my lunch to school,’ instead of ‘brought’?” NO. Should parents say to small children, I want you to go to bed at nine o'clock and always do your homework... but it's up to YOU to make the final decision on those things ? NO. Using this faulty argument, we should also teach that since gravity is also *just a theory*, we should encourage children to jump off cliffs so that they can make their OWN decisions on whether or not to accept it as truth. Remember, evolution is on par with gravity (they’re both at the status of “scientific theory”… neither have ever been disproven, and both properly explain all of the facts). It's NOT up to the children to decide. It's up to the experts. It's up to the scientists and the teachers. Parents and other adults need to set a good example for children. Teaching ignorant alternatives is not healthy, and it will, quite frankly, screw up the next generation. The concept of fairness may seem appealing, but this extremely short video will explain how teaching ID (or other unscientific alternatives) in classrooms is anything BUT fair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc


14. “A butterfly is a butterfly is a butterfly.”

This is the argument that a butterfly will only give birth to a butterfly (or that a dog will never give birth to a “non-dog”). Popularized by Kent Hovind, this argument against evolution actually defies the very definitions of evolution, speciation, and macro-evolution. I will use the butterfly scenario. An animal is considered a butterfly if it falls into Kingdom Animalia + Phylum Arthropoda + Class Insecta + Order Lepidoptera + any number of Families ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly ).

This being said, there are still smaller classifications (Genus and Species), ALL of which are still considered butterflies . This means that a butterfly parent could hypothetically even have an offspring in a different GENUS (not just Species) and it STILL wouldn't fall under the ridiculous ID goalpost-moving fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost ).

You might as well move the goalposts all the way back from the get-go and say evolution hasn't occurred because animals only give birth to animals .


15. "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics."

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body. [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the second law is phrased in another equivalent way, The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always ) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the second law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the second law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the second law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

~http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html


16. “Darwin recanted his belief in his own evolutionary theory when he was on his deathbed.”

This is a misconception taken grossly out of context. The backstory here is that a woman named Elizabeth Cotton (also known as Lady Hope) visited Darwin when he was nearing the end of his life. The following is taken from a website that is famous for its ANTI-evolutionary and pro-Biblical literalist opinions:

“Further, it is fascinating what Lady Hope’s story does not say. It does not say that Darwin renounced evolution. It merely says that Darwin speculated over the outcome of his ideas. He never backed away from evolution. Nor does the Lady Hope story say that Darwin actually became a Christian.”

~http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...version-legend

And, of course, pro-evolution websites explain the same thing (such as http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html). Lady Hope actually visited Darwin months before he died, and she wasn’t even with him when he was on his deathbed. Most importantly, even if this whole fairy tale were true, it would not make evolutionary theory any less valid If Newton had renounced his scientific views on his deathbed, he wouldn’t have flown into the ceiling.


17. “Mutations never provide *new* genetic information.”

This is a very common misconception, and probably one of the funniest arguments ever; EVERY mutation technically provides new information.

If a base pair is inserted, then that's the addition of new information.

If a base pair is removed, then the resulting shift from the rest of the bases in the sequence causes new information.

If base pairs are switched, then that's new information also.

In every single mutation, new triples emerge. Therefore, there is always new information.

Let's say we start with: ...-ATA-CGC-ATA-CGC-...


Insertion of C between first T and second A: ...-ATC-ACG-CAT-ACG-C...

Deletion of first G: ...-ATA-CCA-TAC-GC...

Switching second A with first C: ...-ATC-AGC-ATA-CGC-...


As you can see, regardless of what mutation occurs, new triples form. This means that new information is being processed. To say that no new information ever occurs due to mutations could not be more wrong; new information ALWAYS forms due to mutations.


Finally, here is a huge reference defending the entire scientific theory of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


Only 2% of scientists even consider Intelligent Design as a HYPOTHESIS (not even close to a scientific theory), which is about the same percentage of geologists who consider the possibility of a flat earth (check out the Flat Earth Society if you want a few good laughs). There will ALWAYS be a small group of people who refuse to accept facts that may go against personal belief. It's called denial. The other 98% of the scientific community recognize evolutionary theory (and, in the analogy, a round earth) as truth. If the experts accept evolution as the prominent, unifying biological theory, why should the less-educated disagree? It’s always good to be initially skeptical and ask questions (this is how science progesses), but it should be painfully obvious that scientific theories have already gone through rigorous processes (make sure you watched the short video at the end of misconception thirteen). There is an abundance of evidence for evolution; there is none against it (or for any alternative). There is no controversy. It’s vital that we silence the myths and correct the misconceptions. Personally, I’d like to stick twenty Creationists in a room with twenty tigers and show them that survival of the fittest really DOES work… but as for right now, I’ll stick to the Facebook debates.


18. “Evolution is wrong because of the Piltdown Man, Haeckel’s Embryos, or any other famous scientific hoax!”

Like other areas of science, evolutionary theory has had its fair share of greedy scientists who fabricate finds and make up data in poor attempts to gain a quick path to fame and fortune. However, it has always been the case that, through peer review, OTHER scientists have discovered the occasional forgery and refuted it. Science is, after all, self-checking. The rare fake does NOT discredit the hundreds of thousands of other genetic, geological, and biological facts that all agree with one another and validate evolutionary theory. Besides, there have been plenty of fake religious propaganda and forgeries as well (Paluxy tracks, Peter Popoff, Shroud of Turin, Kinderhook plates, etc.); you wouldn’t want us saying that your entire religion is false just because some religious fundamentalists fabricated “evidence” to further THEIR own agendas, now would you?

[leewong]

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].

The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.

When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.

Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)

Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.

Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.

The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.

Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.

Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That actually is how evolution works. Maybe that is why you are so ignorant, you don't even know what you are defending in the first place.

No, it isnt. You are a fucking idiot.