Top Ten Myths About Evolution
by Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing. It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
1. Humans Evolved From Monkeys
Humans and great apes had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago. Nowhere, except in the most illiterate anti-evolution literature, will you find a claim that humans evolved from monkeys.
2. It's Only A Theory
"Theory" does not mean "hypothesis" or "guess". "Theory" means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a possible explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a theory. A theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly but incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing. All hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.
Number Theory is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of numbers. Theories don't get much more proven than this.
Quantum Theory is the theory that describes how and why atomic particles behave as they do. It has allowed us to build computers and lasers. There's nothing "theoretical" about it.
Stress Theory is what engineers use to build buildings, bridges, and keep the wings on airplanes. It works.
Music Theory illustrates another use of the word "theory," to mean the underlying principles of a subject as opposed to actual practice. Music Theory is the set of accepted conventions used in European music. Other conventions are possible. That's why Asian music sounds so different from ours.
The Phlogiston Theory was the notion that heat was a substance that reacted with materials to explain combustion. It's wrong. But it's still a theory. The term "theory" has nothing to do with whether the ideas in question are right or wrong.
3. If Nobody Saw It, We Can't Be Sure It Happened
If you find your house trashed and your TV and stereo missing, will you hesitate to call the police because nobody saw it happen? Would you want the judge to dismiss the case just because you only had forensic evidence, but no witnesses?
4. Science Can't Say Anything About Origins
Maybe not. But once the origin happens, everything after that is history. And historical evidence is preserved in the physical record.
5. Obsolete Concepts
Critics of evolution are fond of citing Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man (actually the tooth of a fossil pig erroneously claimed to be human). These both happened about 100 years ago. They can't cite any cases of false claims of ancient human fossils since then.
"Survival of the Fittest" was borrowed by Darwin from the economic writings of Herbert Spencer. What does "fittest" mean? It's not just a tautology, like saying "the winner of the Super Bowl is the team with the most points." There are objective features that make some creatures fitter than others. If you need to move fast in the water, there is one shape that works best and it's shared by squid, sharks, tuna, dolphins, ichthyosaurs, and nuclear submarines.
6. There Are No Intermediate Fossil Forms
This is a claim for which there is a monosyllabic definition: lie. Not error, which implies honest ignorance, but lie, because the people who make this claim are generally fully aware of the fossil record and simply choose to misrepresent it. Archaeopteryx, the earliest known fossil bird for a long time (some recent finds may be earlier) has a thoroughly reptilian skeleton with a bony tail, teeth, and four paws with jointed fingers (not merely the horny skin growths at the middle joint that a few modern birds have). And it has feathers. If that's not an intermediate, what is? More recently, evidence is accumulating that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. If we'd lived 100 million years ago, we might have put birds, mammals and reptiles in the same class or at least put the divisions very differently from today. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, crossopterygians and ichthyostegids are the intermediates between fish and amphibians, and so on.
7. Evolution Is Not Testable
Darwin suggested birds had evolved from reptiles in 1859; Archaeopteryx, a creature with a reptilian skeleton but feathers, was discovered in 1862.
Piltdown Man, the famous early fossil man hoax, actually vindicated evolution. The alleged fossil was controversial from the start precisely because it didn't match evolutionary expectations. It had a modern human skull but an ancient apelike jaw (altered by someone who knew what he was doing), rather than a mix of features on both parts. It was like trying to fake a 1950 car by mixing parts from a 1980 car and a 1920 car. As more and more hominid fossils surfaced, Piltdown Man was increasingly seen as a side branch even if it did turn out to be genuine. It just didn't match the other finds.
8. Evolution Means Humans are Just Animals
Are you a vegetable or mineral? Humans have hair and nurse their young just like all other mammals. Traits like nurturing, cooperation and monogamy are often favored by evolution because they enhance survival of the species.
9. Evolution is Just Random
Is the following number sequence random: 592653589793238462643383279? It not only looks random: it is random. But lacking in meaning? No. These are the digits of pi beginning with the fourth decimal place.
Random does not mean "meaningless." The scientific meaning of random is that something cannot be predicted with better accuracy than that predicted by statistics. The phenomenon is its own simplest description. Biological systems are far too complex to describe or predict mathematically. We have incomplete information, and significant events like climate change or asteroid impact are unpredictable.
10. Complexity Cannot Arise Naturally
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often paraphrased as:
"Things always go from bad to worse"
"Disorder in the Universe is always increasing"
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about entropy, which is defined as (Heat Absorbed in a process)/Temperature Entropy can decrease locally if it increases elsewhere. Intuitive notions of "disorder" are of no relevance whatsoever. Any discussion of the Second Law that does not specifically define entropy and show how it relates to evolution is worthless.
Chemical reactions are not random. For example, the atoms in a crystal of table salt are arranged as below, with sodium and chlorine atoms in a strictly alternating square array. If we take the simple-minded approach that we have a one-half probability of getting a sodium or chlorine atom in each spot, the chance of getting 100 atoms arranged as below is (1/2)100 or one in 1.26 x 1030. That's roughly one followed by 30 zeros. According to this reasoning, table salt is impossible.
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
But of course the reasoning is ridiculous. The chances of getting that arrangement of atoms is close to 100 per cent.
And we know DNA can arise from simpler chemicals because it does so every time your cells divide. Every haircut you get is proof of it. The missing half of the DNA strand is assembled from molecules in the cell fluids.
"But when cells divide, there's a pattern already available" say some anti-evolutionists. Try this: go to the lumber yard and buy the materials for a tool shed. Then put a set of plans on top of the pile, and let me know when the materials spontaneously assemble. I can pour gasoline onto a garbage pile and the molecules in the garbage won't suddenly get the urge to develop into gasoline, even though there's enough carbon and hydrogen to do it. The pattern means nothing. DNA replicates because it can spontaneously self-assemble.
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing. It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
1. Humans Evolved From Monkeys
Humans and great apes had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago. Nowhere, except in the most illiterate anti-evolution literature, will you find a claim that humans evolved from monkeys.
2. It's Only A Theory
"Theory" does not mean "hypothesis" or "guess". "Theory" means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a possible explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a theory. A theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly but incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing. All hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.
Number Theory is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of numbers. Theories don't get much more proven than this.
Quantum Theory is the theory that describes how and why atomic particles behave as they do. It has allowed us to build computers and lasers. There's nothing "theoretical" about it.
Stress Theory is what engineers use to build buildings, bridges, and keep the wings on airplanes. It works.
Music Theory illustrates another use of the word "theory," to mean the underlying principles of a subject as opposed to actual practice. Music Theory is the set of accepted conventions used in European music. Other conventions are possible. That's why Asian music sounds so different from ours.
The Phlogiston Theory was the notion that heat was a substance that reacted with materials to explain combustion. It's wrong. But it's still a theory. The term "theory" has nothing to do with whether the ideas in question are right or wrong.
3. If Nobody Saw It, We Can't Be Sure It Happened
If you find your house trashed and your TV and stereo missing, will you hesitate to call the police because nobody saw it happen? Would you want the judge to dismiss the case just because you only had forensic evidence, but no witnesses?
4. Science Can't Say Anything About Origins
Maybe not. But once the origin happens, everything after that is history. And historical evidence is preserved in the physical record.
5. Obsolete Concepts
Critics of evolution are fond of citing Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man (actually the tooth of a fossil pig erroneously claimed to be human). These both happened about 100 years ago. They can't cite any cases of false claims of ancient human fossils since then.
"Survival of the Fittest" was borrowed by Darwin from the economic writings of Herbert Spencer. What does "fittest" mean? It's not just a tautology, like saying "the winner of the Super Bowl is the team with the most points." There are objective features that make some creatures fitter than others. If you need to move fast in the water, there is one shape that works best and it's shared by squid, sharks, tuna, dolphins, ichthyosaurs, and nuclear submarines.
6. There Are No Intermediate Fossil Forms
This is a claim for which there is a monosyllabic definition: lie. Not error, which implies honest ignorance, but lie, because the people who make this claim are generally fully aware of the fossil record and simply choose to misrepresent it. Archaeopteryx, the earliest known fossil bird for a long time (some recent finds may be earlier) has a thoroughly reptilian skeleton with a bony tail, teeth, and four paws with jointed fingers (not merely the horny skin growths at the middle joint that a few modern birds have). And it has feathers. If that's not an intermediate, what is? More recently, evidence is accumulating that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. If we'd lived 100 million years ago, we might have put birds, mammals and reptiles in the same class or at least put the divisions very differently from today. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, crossopterygians and ichthyostegids are the intermediates between fish and amphibians, and so on.
7. Evolution Is Not Testable
Darwin suggested birds had evolved from reptiles in 1859; Archaeopteryx, a creature with a reptilian skeleton but feathers, was discovered in 1862.
Piltdown Man, the famous early fossil man hoax, actually vindicated evolution. The alleged fossil was controversial from the start precisely because it didn't match evolutionary expectations. It had a modern human skull but an ancient apelike jaw (altered by someone who knew what he was doing), rather than a mix of features on both parts. It was like trying to fake a 1950 car by mixing parts from a 1980 car and a 1920 car. As more and more hominid fossils surfaced, Piltdown Man was increasingly seen as a side branch even if it did turn out to be genuine. It just didn't match the other finds.
8. Evolution Means Humans are Just Animals
Are you a vegetable or mineral? Humans have hair and nurse their young just like all other mammals. Traits like nurturing, cooperation and monogamy are often favored by evolution because they enhance survival of the species.
9. Evolution is Just Random
Is the following number sequence random: 592653589793238462643383279? It not only looks random: it is random. But lacking in meaning? No. These are the digits of pi beginning with the fourth decimal place.
Random does not mean "meaningless." The scientific meaning of random is that something cannot be predicted with better accuracy than that predicted by statistics. The phenomenon is its own simplest description. Biological systems are far too complex to describe or predict mathematically. We have incomplete information, and significant events like climate change or asteroid impact are unpredictable.
10. Complexity Cannot Arise Naturally
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often paraphrased as:
"Things always go from bad to worse"
"Disorder in the Universe is always increasing"
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about entropy, which is defined as (Heat Absorbed in a process)/Temperature Entropy can decrease locally if it increases elsewhere. Intuitive notions of "disorder" are of no relevance whatsoever. Any discussion of the Second Law that does not specifically define entropy and show how it relates to evolution is worthless.
Chemical reactions are not random. For example, the atoms in a crystal of table salt are arranged as below, with sodium and chlorine atoms in a strictly alternating square array. If we take the simple-minded approach that we have a one-half probability of getting a sodium or chlorine atom in each spot, the chance of getting 100 atoms arranged as below is (1/2)100 or one in 1.26 x 1030. That's roughly one followed by 30 zeros. According to this reasoning, table salt is impossible.
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
But of course the reasoning is ridiculous. The chances of getting that arrangement of atoms is close to 100 per cent.
And we know DNA can arise from simpler chemicals because it does so every time your cells divide. Every haircut you get is proof of it. The missing half of the DNA strand is assembled from molecules in the cell fluids.
"But when cells divide, there's a pattern already available" say some anti-evolutionists. Try this: go to the lumber yard and buy the materials for a tool shed. Then put a set of plans on top of the pile, and let me know when the materials spontaneously assemble. I can pour gasoline onto a garbage pile and the molecules in the garbage won't suddenly get the urge to develop into gasoline, even though there's enough carbon and hydrogen to do it. The pattern means nothing. DNA replicates because it can spontaneously self-assemble.
posted by Admin | 5:18 AM
7 Comments:
Gracias Amigo,
it's always good to have something like your list of myths in one's wallet (or brain). To my mind, though, the key for persuading someone about evolution is to explain how we date fossils. I think starting with the fact that our standard time is now measured by atomic clocks based on the reliability of nuclear decay shows how we use nuclear decay to time our very lives. Then one can explain how nuclear decay (of a variety of sorts) is used to date fossils.
Salt was put here by the Flying Spaghetti Monster so that pirate ships would float better.
Your salt example is ludicrous. It consists of only two elements, of course they would readily combine as in table salt for example.
But when it comes to the elements that make up life the salt example is worthless. Just to make a 'simple' protein it takes the PRECISE assembly of thousands of precisely attached molecules for a cell to namufactured a single protein. Then it has to be folded in a PRECISE way or else the cell will likely commit suicide. The above just barely touches the fringes of the complexity of life.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
PS: Please don't lie about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????
Humans are very close to being able to create life from non-living material. It's slow-going, but eventually, we may be able to create it from scratch on day.
This, of course, is utterly irrelevant to whether life evolved in nature. It's only relevant to knowing how it happened.
Watching IDers and other creationists use logic is like watching a five year old use a steak knife.
thefalliblefiend said "Watching IDers and other creationists use logic is like watching a five year old use a steak knife."
Ooooo... That's intelligent. "Since we don't have any useful wisdom to impart lets poke fun at those who disagree with us. Since they will be so humiliated that will surely make them inclined to understand our point of view."
Seriously, though, mankind is nowhere close to creating a living cell out of non-living material. And here's the kicker...suppose we ever do manage to somehow assemble something so incredibly complex and incredibly tiny (that is, put everything together in the right sequence, proportions, programming, etc., just like a real "living" cell), how will they give it life? It was foolish enough in Frankenstein, but he stole/borrowed the pre-assembled parts from other people/cadavers who no longer needed them. He didn't create the unimaginably complex systems inside each of the trillions of cells that made up the monster...
I can (theoretically) "build" a computer that looks similar to a Dell or IBM, right down to manufacturing the microprocessor, RAM, video (high-end of course), power supply, and all the other component parts that are necessary for the computer to function, but if it doesn't have power (life), it don't go vroom...
Simply said, there is a spark of life that could never be duplicated, even if a cell were manufactured somehow. Study the intricate structure of the simplest living cell and you find that it is orders of magnitude more complex and detailed than anything we have imagined or built to date. And all the parts in a cell must work together or it couldn't survive (in about 1/2 a millisecond). Not only does the DNA control genetic reproduction of each cell and each organism, but also of each cell for a particular organ, and location on the organ, etc. as a creature grows... There is obviously other programming at work as well "within" the cell that controls said internal workings of the cell; so how is that programming going to be done? I think the cell is still a lot more complex than we know yet. And I think it would be presumptuous to rule out the possibility of programming at the molecular level even.
Oh, I know, I know, it all happened by chance... Which is as likely as the proverbial dictionary being created in the print-shop explosion, or a completely functional, gleaming, brand new space-shuttle being created while a hurricane wrangles through a junk-yard. Sarcasm aside, these examples are every bit as possible (which is to say that they aren't). And I can guarantee that if someone claimed that the dictionary or space shuttle happened by chance as I've explained it they'd be locked up in the loony bin faster than the shuttle could reach orbit. It takes intelligence, manufacturing facilities, innumerable "intelligent" people working untold hours, and a grand design to build something like a Honda automobile that is, as compared to the space shuttle, akin to the blobs Darwin was able to see under his microscope compared to the actual internal intricacies of a living cell. And yet I'm supposed to take an idea as incredibly preposterous and believe it! Puhlease! To believe in Intelligent Design is no less science or more "religious" than believing in Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, or Henry David Thoreau. And it's a lot more logical.
Oh ya...I almost forgot... I don't have to jump outside the realm of reality to believe in ID. And I can still study and accurately practice real science from that frame of mind. And even better yet, the weight of "scientific" evidence and logic is a lot more solid for ID than for evolution. Please: check out the solid facts instead of believing everything you're told or want to believe...
And the reptile/bird "transitional" evidence? There is no evidence that it's not a completely intact and unique species as opposed to a transitional one (just as the platypus is a complete and separate species unrelated to any other--it's nice to see our Creator has a sense of humor...)
Funny, the comments from those who think life was "intelligently designed". Do they then admit that if they are correct then things like the ebola virus, spitting cobras, mosquitoes, the polio virus, etc. were also "intelligently designed"?
Post a Comment
<< Home