Ten Major Flaws of Evolution – A Refutation
February 12th is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. This year is also the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of the Species – arguably one of the most important scientific publications ever. In honor of Darwin’s idea and the subsequent scientific triumph of evolutionary theory, I am posting my refutation of a popular creationist internet meme. Creationists love to imagine that they have dismantled evolution or discovered it’s “major flaws,” however they only succeed in exposing the major flaws in their understanding of evolution and ability to reason.
TEN MAJOR FLAWS OF EVOLUTION – REVISED
by Randy Alcorn (with additional editing by Jim Darnall). I wrote the following article many years ago, but it needed to be thoroughly revised and updated. Thanks to Jim Darnall for adding some important new information.1) The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.
This statement is not an argument at all, but merely an assertion. It is simply asserting what appears to be the point of this list of supposed arguments – that evolution through natural forces is impossible. But it contains many implied claims. It refers to irreducible complexity and gives the examples of vision and blood clotting. It does not address the century and a half old refutation of this argument – that biological systems could have evolved from simpler systems that were functional but served a different purpose from their current one. Further, all the examples (stated here and elsewhere) of supposed irreducibly complex systems have been shown to have simpler antecedents.
The statement also implies that evolution is “random.” This is false. Mutations are random, and variation may be random, but natural selection is decidedly not random, and therefore evolution is not random. Evolution is the non-random survival of those traits that provide an advantage to survival and reproduction in the current environment. Evolution is a designing force.
The watch analogy is not valid because a watch is an inanimate object. Biological evolution occurs within systems that are self-reproducing and contain variation and differential survival and reproduction. Life can use energy to grow, reproduce, and therefore evolve. Watches do not.
2) The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human’s DNA. While we’re waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we’re ignoring those built into us.
Information science does NOT say that all complex information has an intelligent source. In fact, it has been shown that complex information can emerge spontaneously out of blind and natural processes following relatively simple rules. Creationists abuse information theory by making claims about information without ever defining the term. They then drift as needed from one definition to another in order to make false analogies – like the one here about SETI.
Here is a detailed refutation by Jeffrey Shallit of information claims by ID proponents. Here I deal with the SETI false analogy.
3) No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from “amoeba” to “man” would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
All mutations increase genetic information (again we see the misuse without proper operational definition of the term “information”). If you start with one version of a gene and then it mutates in one offspring but not in another – now you have two versions of that gene. That represents an increase in information. Also, entire genes may be duplicated in the reproductive process. If you start with one copy of a gene and end up with two copies – that is an increase in information. This is especially pertinent to evolution, because one copy can continue to perform its original function while the redundant copy is free to mutate and evolve a new function.
The statement that such increases in the raw amount of information actually represent “preprogrammed variation” is nonsensical. This is a meaningless statement that has no bearing on information. How, exactly, are new mutations “preprogrammed.” If this statement is meant to refer to recombination – the formation of new combinations of genes without mutations – that absolutely increases information by increasing variation, which is the raw material for natural selection.
The idea that natural selection removes variation from the gene pool is true but a non sequitur. Mutations, duplication, and recombination increase information and increase variation and then natural selection causes differential survival of that variation which is better adapted to its niche.
Here is an article by me further discussing the abuse of information theory by creationists.
4) Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or “the least energetic state”). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.
I can see by the above paragraph that at least the author is making the attempt to account for prior criticisms of the “violates the second law of thermodynamics” argument, but in so doing he has simply included more misconceptions, factual errors, and logical fallacies. In this extremely confused statement, however, are the kernels of truth where the correct analysis lies. The author admits that “local order can increase, but at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere.” If I set aside the fact that the author is grossly oversimplifying thermodynamics and falsely equating entropy with disorder, the statement is essentially correct. What this means is that the biosphere of the Earth can experience a local increase in order because it is being more than offset by a decrease in thermodynamic order (an increase in entropy) in the sun. The sun is burning through its fuel and spewing energy at the earth. The entropy of the sun-earth system (and the universe as a whole) IS increasing, but there is nothing in thermodynamics that states that the Earth cannot use energy from the sun to create a local decrease in entropy.
The author has a glimmer of awareness of this fallacy, which is why he anticipates and tries to refute this argument by stating that “Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction.” This is a gross misdirection. Biological systems on the Earth are not just being cooked by “raw” (whatever that means) energy. Biological systems use solar and other energy in a very directed and purposeful way. They use energy to grow, reproduce, and evolve. Energy by itself may not be able to generate information, but a biological system that can use energy in the processes of life can.
An acorn can grow into an oak tree. According to the author, energy could only cook an acorn.
Here is a longer article by me on the second law of thermodynamics.
5) There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms (“missing links”) required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized “kinds.” Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.
The “there are no transitional forms” argument is a simple lie – and a lie that is getting more bold and desperate as more and more fossils are discovered. In reality – all species are transitional. Transitional does not mean some impossible monster or bizarre hybrid (like Kirk Cameron’s ridiculous crockoduck). Transitional just means that one species can be seen to bridge two other species (morphologically, genetically). All the transitional species can both be extant, or the transitional species can be ancestral to the other two, or three species may lie in a temporal sequence.
The notion that the categories of living things can be cleanly divided into “kinds” (without, by the way, ever defining what a “kind” is) is patently wrong. The categories of life are frustratingly fuzzy – precisely because evolution is a chaotic process. Are duck-billed platypus mammals? What about fish with lungs, are they fish or terrestrial vertebrates. The notion that dogs are dogs is nonsensical, because there is no objective demarcation line. What about wolves, coyotes, hyenas, foxes, etc.? There is no objective place to draw a line and proclaim that you have a “kind.” There is rather a branching order of relatedness.
The fossil record has served to fill in the morphological gaps between extant species, as evolutionary theory predicts. We have discovered early mammals that are part reptile and part mammal, early birds that are still half theropod dinosaur, early terrestrial vertebrates that are still part fish (Tiktalik). We have discovered walking whales (Ambulocetus) that are only half-way adapted to aquatic life. We have even discovered numerous hominid species that are a mixture of modern human and ape ancestor features. Only the willfully blind can deny the transitional nature of these fossil species.
6) Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the “missing link” (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn’t come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones.
This is a monster straw man. The evidence for the transitional status of hominid species is not dependent upon the artists’ reconstruction or interpretation of what these species may have looked like. That is a monumental bit of scientific illiteracy. Paleontologists have published countless careful and detailed anatomical analyses of the fossils. They clearly show transitional ape-human species. The species that have been clearly established are not based upon mixed ape and human fossils, but multiple specimens collected and documented in such a way as to prove they are one species.
What creationists do with any such sequence is simply take the first half and declare them members of the ancestral group (in this case apes) and the second half and declare them members of the derived group (in this case humans). They have done the same for dinosaurs and birds. But this is just misdirection through labeling. Calling a Homo erectus a human will not change the fact that it has features not seen in any modern human, and has a brain capacity for its size that is comfortably between that of modern humans and modern apes. That is the very definition of transitional.
7) The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions. Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It’s common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don’t fit their expectations. What’s not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.
This is nothing more than a collection of unreferenced false assertions. The reality is that dating methods are very accurate and reliable. There are error bars, like everything in science, but multiple methods can be used on multiple samples and an average can be taken to make a very accurate estimate of the ages of various rocks, strata, and fossils. Dating methods are generally in very good agreement. Typically what creationists do is say that because one dating method yields a result of 3 billion years and another of 2.5 billion years – the two dates do not agree (again, without defining what that means - agree to what degree?) and therefore argue that the true age could be thousands of years. That there may be problems with some samples does not invalidate the dating of all samples. For example, moon rocks taken from the highlands (which geologically likely represented the oldest lunar crust) have been dated to about 4.6 billion years old, and none of the processes discussed above have been present during that time on the moon.
Also, much more than our dating methods for rocks points to an ancient Earth and universe. All of cosmology, astronomy, stellar science, physics, etc. points to the same timescale for the age of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe.
More information of dating methods.; And here.
8) Uses continue to be found for supposedly “leftover” body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That’s been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It’s worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed ( e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.
The existence of vestigial organs is not an essential line of evidence for the fact of evolution, but it is further evidence for evolution. It is true that conclusions about the lack of utility of an organ are always tentative and can be overturned if a use is discovered. It is probable that few organs or structures will be found to be totally useless, for such structures tend to be quickly selected against and removed.
It is funny that the author brought up the subject of blind cave species that still have vestigial and useless eyes. (Eventually such species lose their eyes entirely, but species recently adapted to the dark environment of caves still retain vestigial eyes.) In a laughable non sequitur the author admits such structures are vestigial (even though his premise was that there are no vestigial organs) but then changes criteria mid-stream to say that vestigial organs are only evidence of “devolution” not evolution. What is “devolution?” This is based on a misconception of evolution – that it must produce greater complexity. Evolution only adapts creatures to their local environment, and there is nothing that states that such evolution cannot produce a simplification or elimination of structures if that is what is advantageous.
So the author admits vestigial organs exist, and that they are evidence of evolution, but then dodges the whole issue with an ignorant misconception about the nature of evolution.
I will also point out that genetic analysis has given us another window on vestigial parts -namely vestigial genes. For example, chickens, who do not have teeth at any part of their life cycle, still retain the vestigial genes for teeth that can be reactivated. Chickens with inactivated genes for teeth – it doesn’t get more vestigial than that.
9) Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.
This paragraph proves that no argument is so bad or often disputed to be discarded by creationists. Evolution is NOT about the origin of life but the subsequent change in life over time. It is not even dependent upon the naturalistic origin of life. They are completely separate scientific questions.
But that non sequitur aside, it is also ridiculous to compare the quaint notion of “spontaneous generation” with the science of life origins. It is true that we do not yet have a complete model of how life arose (lack of knowledge does not render something impossible – that’s the unknown equals unknowable logical fallacy). But we have figured out many interesting pieces to the puzzle – amino acids are readily made and are abundant, for example. The raw material of life was abundant on the early Earth, as was energy for organic chemical reactions.
The only thing that really would have had to happen spontaneously is the formation of a molecule that could make crude copies of itself. That’s it – that is enough to get a foothold in evolution. The rest is not random, but the very non-random accumulation of improvements by evolutionary processes.
10) Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.
The author – like all prominent creationists – has proven himself to be a master of the non sequitur. The pattern should be entirely clear, now. Start with one criterion then subtly shift to another. The paragraph starts out talking about probability, and then after essentially proving the case for evolution by acknowledging that time (and multiple opportunities, I would add) does render low probability events probable, he then shifts to another point entirely. So then we discover that his real premise is that evolutionary change is inherently impossible (a point that has nothing to do with probability). But this is just asserting his premise – the point he is allegedly trying to prove. Evolution does not require coins to sprout legs.
11) The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn’t mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word.
by Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2229 E. Burnside #23, Gresham, OR 97030, 503-663-6481, http://www.epm.org
Ah – the last refuge of the truly desperate. Unable to provide a single cogent argument against evolution the author tries to do away with all historical sciences. Since no one was around millions of years ago, the lame argument goes, we can never scientifically explore the past, and so we must rely upon faith. This is the ultimate moving back of the goalpost.
But science is not limited to direct observation. We can scientifically infer what happened in the past by the traces it has left in the present. Life itself is a record of its own history. The past is recorded in our genes, in our anatomy, and our development, and in our physiology. It is recorded in the fossils that our ancestors left behind.
But to get more directly to the point – the core quality of science is that it makes testable predictions. Evolutionary theory makes many testable predictions about what we should find when we look at the world – and so far it has passed every predictive test with flying colors.
What does creationism predict? It depends on how you formulate it, but in practice, it predicts nothing because any possible observation can be interpreted as the unfathomable and unlimited will of the creator. What we can say about an alleged creator by looking at life is that, of all the possible designs and patterns for life a creator might have chosen, they appear to have chosen to create life to look exactly as if it had evolved.
So the ten (really 11) major flaws in evolution turn out to be major flaws in the understanding of evolution, the logic, and the intellectual integrity of creationists. And this is really the best they have.
Happy Darwin Day, everyone.
comments (126)
“February 12th is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. This year is also the 200th anniversary of the publication of Origin of the Species”
People from History sure got their work done quickly. Puts those child prodigies who get PhDs when they’re 14 to shame.
Very cool article, thanks Steven.
Trying to understand science through the eyes of Evolution destroy credibly.
Regardless of the existence of GOD how is it that you people can’t just admit that Evolution is based on conjecture, supposition, and speculation?
You put so much faith in your intellectual prowess I believe that if you proved yourself wrong you would conceal the findings on a bases that a GOD cannot exist.
Until you answer the basic questions on the origin of our Universe and Biomass you will continue to go down the path of insurmountable unlikely assumption!
ack – thanks, corrected – 150th anniversary of Origin
Argument #9, about the origin of life, is actually the core of the whole issue. The Creationists use “evolution” as a shorthand for “origin of life from nonliving precursors.” The tip-off is the very term we use for them — “Creationists.” Not “anti-evolutionists” or “species stasis theorists” but “Creationists” — people who believe that life was created.
Note that many of them are even willing to admit that something LIKE evolution occurs — they call it “variation” or “adaptation” or even “devolution.” The more sensible ones will admit that species change over time. The only absolute sticking point is the origin of life.
I wonder if this might be a way to find common ground and/or outmaneuver them. Perhaps allow more vagueness in the origin of life (since it’s still poorly understood anyhow) and focus biology studies on the process of “adaptation.”
The real question is why don’t ID proponents accept “theistic evolutionists” into their massive non-denominational tent. Christians ignore entire chunks of the bible, especially the parts that claim Jesus was just a nice guy, not the son of God. Why cant they deny that the earth was in 6 days, or its only a thousand years old. In my opinion, evolution seems like a pretty laid back dare i say “intelligent” way of creating.
“it doesn’t bet more vestigial than that.”
Should “bet” be “get?”
Excellent article Dr Novella.
@Cambias: Even if abiogenesis was a well-understood and easily repeatable process, I’d wager that creationists still wouldn’t care for the evidence. If someone can disregard fossils such as Tiktaalik or Archaeoptrix, they’d disregard biochemical evidence for abiogenesis, no matter how well explained.
Blah, blah,blah. Why will NONE of you debate in a public forum ?
Knapp – what are you talking about? There have been many debates. Our own Michael Shermer took on the infamous Duane Gish. So you are just making stuff up.
And to be clear – I will debate any creationist or ID proponent in public, as long as the format is fair and appropriate.
“We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form.”
However, this statement struck me as particularly funny. Your point that all forms are transitional is a good one. But, let’s take it from the creationists’ perspective. To them, the fossil record is irrelevant. Therefore, we have to rely on what we can see in the here and now. Thus, how would we know if we are “surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms?” In order to see something is transitional, we have to be able to observe a starting point, middle (transition) and end product. Given that we exist only at this time and can’t observe the ‘final product’ of the transition that will exist at some unknown poing in the future, it can’t be done. And, given that creationists won’t accept a reasonable interpretation of the fossil record, it becomes clear to them that transitional forms will never be observed.
Mark Knapp: the only public forum that has any relevance to science are the scientific journals. I think evolution is doing just fine there. Of creationists harp on public debates, because it’s a forum where you’re not bound by truth.
Pathetic, Mr. Knapp. Simply pathetic.
Regarding #5: “There is a total lack of undisputed examples…of the millions of transitional forms…required for evolution to be true.”
This one is a self fulfilling prophecy on the part of creationists, and the key is the word “undisputed”. All it takes is one creationist to say, “Nah, that’s not transitional”, and instantly your transitional fossil is disputed. And how hard is it to find a creationist who is willing to dispute any fossil’s status as transitional.
They might as well be saying, “There is a total lack of transitional fossils that we will ever admit to be transitional.”
Would that be Argument from Living in Denial?
Also, Steve, you are a hero.
I suspect the many people know as much about creation as they do about evolution, nothing. I considered jumping into this fray when I realized that no one commenting here knows both sides of the equation well enough to carry an intelligent debate on the matter. This is not intended as an insult, merely a go out and make sure you know what your talking about before you start giving any facts on the matter.
To know is unemotional for within knowing lies truth.
To believe is emotional for its not based in truth but instead the hope that it is true.
Im picking up a lot of emotion here.
How many of you have read The Origin of Species? Tell the truth.
With or without life on Earth, the Sun will still shine.
If life is responsible decrease of the local entropy, then the global entropy will also decrease, since life does not speed up the nuclear reactions in the sun.
But what if life is not responsible for a decrease of the planet’s entropy? What if it actually helps increase it?
Life could be described as nature’s way of optimising the second law of thermodynamics. I’m sure I read an article about it, I’m still searching for the link.
@chickenfish: who cares? People shouldn’t read Darwin if they want to be up-to-date with cutting edge science.
Try scientific journals.
Creationism? There is no such theory. There’s only anti-evolutionism through fallacies.
Also, given the context of the “blind watchmaker” argument, someone built a genetic algorithm system which actually would breed watches (with survival being based on how well it kept time), with some interesting results.
Chickenfish, If we are to learn more about the creationist’s debate, who’s creation story should we be researching? Should we be learning about how an “intelligent agent” poofed all current species into existence? Should we be learning about how God took a rib from Adam to make Eve, and which day of the week that occurred? Or should we take a page from the Scientologists and learn about Xenu and the Galactic Confederacy? (I refuse to learn the latter as the cost of research is out of my price range).
And to be clear – I will debate any creationist or ID proponent in public, as long as the format is fair and appropriate.
Score!!! Excellent article, Dr. Novella.
Can anyone explain why Creationists don’t understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? I’ve never been able to fathom their incessant error with making those two terms tantamount … ?
These are the three biggest errors in Creationist thinking, in my experience:
(1) There is only one possible solution to any evolutionary problem.
(2) At any instance of time there is only one individual trying to solve it.
(3) That those who do not solve it are not penalized.
Do they even bother to read the plethoric and ubiquitous volumes of scientific information and data?
Here’s how I respond to the straw-man that evolution is all “by chance”:
The way I see it, just four ingredients are necessariy and perhaps sufficient for an evolutionary process to happen:
1. Self-replication.
2. Small changes that are passed to the next generation.
3. Selective pressures.
4. Many generations for any big changes.
Most of the false analogies like “tornado in a junkyard” or “monkeys on typewriters” don’t meet any of these criteria.
But genetic algorithms and “memes” do meet all four. Even “designed” products like cars and software meet some of these criteria.
Hey Knapp,
This is not a debate. It is a refutation of creationists who argue from a place of ignorance, denial, or arrogant deceit.
chickenfish, you don’t need to be an expert to refute many of the Creationist misconceptions and lies. You got Ben Stein saying stuff like “Darwinism cannot explain gravity” and “Science leads you to killing people.”
I actually just watched his movie and I’m pretty certain he never said those things.
Are mutations random?
I could argue that they are not – we simply call the process “random” because it is so complex that prediction is not possible. Many argue that there are no truly random processes.
Knapp – I really thought that was a joke. Isn’t THIS a public venue? I’ve been to several public debates. If creationists could produce VALID arguments using ACCURATE premises, it might actually get interesting. As it is, it’s simply pathetic.
chickenfish – I have read it. Have you? I have also read the Bible. Have you?
The way to refute the assertion, “How can THIS (reality) have occurred by chance?”:
1 – Ask them to pick a number between 1 and 6 million.
2 – Ask them to tell you the number they picked.
3 – Respond to whatever their number is with, “WOW! The chances of you picking THAT number are 1 in 6 million! There is a God!”
Knapp is asking for strong criticism, but I have a legitimate response.
Public debates aren’t really a part of scientific discourse. Science is done primarily through writing. When there are conflicting ideas in science, peer-reviewed publications reporting experimental or computational results are the means of resolving them. When public presentation is used, it’s in the form of presentation of such results. “Public debates” utilize:
-quick retort and out-witting your opponent
-skill of language and persuasion, at times to the point of subversion
-appealing to emotion and use of charisma to make a point
-attacks on the credibility/character of your opponent (not always, but often enough)
NONE of these are valid in scientific inquiry. Observation and confirmed prediction are what validate claims. When a claim is made, time and thought need to be put into it and experiment is used to test or try to refute. This is best done in writing. If you watch debates between scientists and creationists, you see that they aren’t even speaking the same language. Even if the scientist is a good speaker (as are both Dawkins and Shermer, for instance), they will present evidence and data supporting their scientific claims. Creationists generally stick to emotion-invoking statements. When they do present data, they often do so erroneously and out of context. They will also use data that might sound solid in isolated presentation only because they ignore/don’t present the other data since that has refuted/invalidated it since. Since the scientist doesn’t know what data will be presented falsely, they cannot present a list of citations showing the more recent counter-proofs. This is why scientists don’t like public debates: it’s an exercise in futility.
As has been said by others, there have been public forum debates despite all this (search on Youtube). If you watch them, you will see the pattern I described above. As a result, most scientists know it’s a waste of time.
Ah jeez, I wrote that in too many fragments and didn’t proof-read it carefully. I am actually intelligible most of the time. I swear…
…as a scientist and a Christian … well done, let us progress toward the truth!
Excellent article. It’s a nice rundown of how to refute the creationists arguments if I come across them myself. Thanks for giving your readers these kinds of resources. Best Darwin Day present ever.
I have read Origin of the Species. It is a fantastic and painstakingly thorough book. I knew before reading the book that the theory of evolution that Darwin put forth in the book was not complete and wrong in some places, but I still and in awe of what he accomplished.
I have not yet read the Bible though I will probably get around to it when I am not in college. I did go to church when I was younger and attended Bible school. While learning Christianity I started to notice holes in inconsistencies. This worried me and I remember many a night typing furiously on forums about how this person did not understand the evolution and Christianity could work at the same time.
In the end I realized that religion flies right in the face of reason. Science will embrace any challenge to it’s current form. Just like Darwin was challenged with his theory and his theory was eventually modified. Science; however, celebrates the very people of history who were wrong or didn’t get the whole picture because each incremental step in science is a hard fought fight for truth against agents of unreason like Religion.
I swear those typos were not there when I hit submit. :O
Great post (not that I’m being redundant or anything). Spot on about the fundamental reality of creationism–it is emotional charlatanry, meant to appeal to people by telling them what they want to hear ahead of time.
Perfect example in the author’s appeal to what he learned in his high school biology class to refute ‘evolution’. Even setting aside his inability to differentiate between the ‘origin of species’ and the ‘origin of life’, the fundamental rule of science is that observation–that is to say reality–trumps everything else. Certainly maggots don’t come from raw meat and rats don’t grow from garbage. Which has nothing to do with the question of the origin of self-replicating molecules. But he took what he wanted to hear, manufactured it, and then distributed it.
Regarding part of #1: “A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.”
Ok , if we were to concede this point (and we don’t), then who again was it that created the creator? He must have been very complex and couldn’t have just come into existence.He must have been designed by someone. Right? Oh, and then who created that creator? Do you see a pattern here or should I go on?
That is an illogical statement like asking in a race who comes before first place.
Actually the flaw is in your logic. A creator would be ‘ahead’ of us in that race, but there is no way to be sure that ‘ahead’ of us is first place or second or nineteenth. “Turtles all the way down” is an answer based on willful ignorance and denial of reason. Learn from your mistakes.
Well, if I were a creationist, I’d go with “All living species and all evidences concerning them were created by an intelligent, omnipotent Designer, but the Designer evolved from ancestral deities in exactly the ways Science wrongly credits to evolution for all He Designed.”
Then, while all the scientists and sane people were acratching their heads, I’d skeet right out the back door, taking their failure to respond quickly as their admission of defeat.
“Who created the Creator” is about as persuasive as “Who created the Universe” and “What’s infinity plus one?”
If I were a Creationist, there would be only two viable options:
1. A lovely and enticing cocktail of Haldol and Thorazine.
2. Eat the bullet, and verify the existence of the Creator and thereby the validity of ID.
Option 1 is definitely more valuable, better living through chemistry and all.
Chickenfich said
“How many of you have read The Origin of Species? Tell the truth.”
I haven’t but I’m reading Paley’s Natural Theology to familiarize myself with the roots of the ‘Watch-Maker’ argument. Not a bad read. Dead fucking wrong but not a bad read.
It’s kinda like when you give your kid brother a game you just finish and watch him trying to get through all the levels. You feel for him but you can’t help but smirk (in a totally none condescending way!) when he does something that (admittedly with hindsight) you know was profoundly stupid.
Chickenfich said
“How many of you have read The Origin of Species? Tell the truth.”
I swear upon my copy of “Harold and Kumar got to White Castle” That I have read Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”.
Way to go, Steve.
Dr Novella, others:
Darwin’s famous 1859 publication is titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Please correct the first paragraph of your post. Thanks
And call Darwin by his full name, Charles Robert Darwin FRS.
conard – why? did you or anyone else not know precisely what book I was referring to?
conard – why? did you or anyone else not know precisely what book I was referring to?
I, for one, am pleased that conard brought this up. I had never heard of the book before, or this evolution thingy … whoda thunk it!!!
Steven Novella,
Incorrect = Correct as long as somebody knows the difference? What an odd formulation.
By all means cite the more common short name if you prefer but at least locate THE to it’s proper place. I expect this mistake from the religious crowd where mankind is the center of the universe but in this context the error is particularly prominent.
So you’re just nit-picking.
The full title might confuse people who’d think the “favoured races” refers to human races rather than “the several races, for instance, of the cabbage”.
Has anyone ever refuted the “complexity implies design” axiom with its opposite — “simplicity implies design?” It seems to be that the watch shows design because of its simple regularity — perfect circle, synchronous action, straight lines, etc. To cite an analogy, if you take a number of objects from the base of a waterfall, wouldn’t the perfect sphere showing an umblemished color be assumed to be “designed?”
On the other hand, with random forces acting on objects over time, complexity is a natural outgrowth. Just ask anyone who’s ever had to fix code on a program “designed by committee.”
Some individuals simply cannot grasp the concept that posing as a posterior facing, crevice sunken, orifice closure muscle for the sole purpose of being a blatant, inane and uninteresting ego validation machine: just makes you a pointless asshole.
conard – I referred to the book by it’s commonly understood shorthand title. That does not make it incorrect. I did not say that “the full tile of the book is…”
I am all for being a stickler for details when they matter, or getting things correct just for the sake of being correct. But when it comes to communication – shorthand that is completely precise and unambiguous is perfectly acceptable and is a matter only of style.
My favorite gambit ever, the “watch maker.” There are certainly naturally occurring things we could call clocks, which to me is a means by which you can consistently measure elapsed time (leaving aside what relativity tells us about time). Examples would be various rates of atomic decay and the rotation rates of pulsars (correct?). I am sure more learned parties than myself could add to the list.
The reason a watch is designed is because we need a clock that is calibrated to our liking, not because there is an absence of naturally occurring means for tracking elapsed time. A wrinkle to this may be that all the natural ‘clocks’ I can think of exist independently of any evolved biological system (are there such examples?). So, even without the operations of time, variation & selection (i.e., evolution) the laws of physics result in naturally occurring clocks.
Dedalus1953, in the SETI vs. ID debate, it’s been argued that SETI looks for a simple narrowband signal amid the cosmic noise.
But if simple regularity, spheres, and synchronous action indicated design, then the solar system would qualify.
“A wrinkle to this may be that all the natural ‘clocks’ I can think of exist independently of any evolved biological system..”
Plus you can’t strap a pulsar to your wrist.
Here are a few things (I’m limiting myself to three) that some (but it sure seems like ALL) creationists do that leave me shaking my head at their willful ignorance.
1. The claim that those that believe in the theory of evolution are too emotional or biased in their arguments. Classic re-direction whether the debate has gotten emotional or not! And biased?! Wow!!! Pot calling kettle black!!!!! (Sorry, got a little over-excited!)
2. Attempt to use science to disprove science. Actually, they attempt to use pseudo-science which ALWAYS backfires on them. You’d think they would have learned by now. (j/k) I’m amazed at how little, if any, credible research they provide. Then again, that tracks back to the often heard “Evolution is only a theory” statement, proving that creationists trying to use the scientific tact only expose their utter disregard for even the most basic understanding of the Scientific Method.
3. Whine that no one will debate them when…well, see comments 6, 7, & 9 above. And how telling is it that Mr. Knapp makes a brief appearance and then disappears without engaging in anything remotely substantive? I understand the creationist’s reluctance. Understanding even the fundamentals biology is difficult. I read “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins twice and it took time, patience and a willingness to seek out clarifications for concepts beyond the scope of the text. Creationism is Intelligently Designed for the lazy and unmotivated: believe that life just spontaneously erupted and you can go home for the day.
One last detail that I tried and failed to ignore. In the quote from #2 is the following sentence: “A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive.” I may not be a science guy but I am an IT guy and there are no gigabit hard drives. Gigabyte, yes. A tiny detail, possibly a typo, but certainly demonstrative of the inherent laziness of creationists when they can’t proof read their most important documents.
Anyone else have any “favorite” creationist/ID propagandist tactics?
You have written an incomplete sentence regarding your last question, are you a lazy IT guy?
Of course there are gigabit hard drives, a 1 gigabyte hard drive would be an 8 gigabit hard drive. 1 byte equaling 8 bits and all. Bits and bytes are just size references. I have several 3 foot long yard sticks but I wouldn’t be so foolish to say a 36 inch long yard stick doesn’t exist.
Steven Novella,
I remain perplexed at your attitude toward a friendly suggestion to correct a common mistake ( incorrect 1872 title ). However, it is possible for reasonable people to disagree on the same set of facts and I will leave the matter alone and wish you the best. On 12Feb I will drink a toast to Darwin, his ideas, and those who defend and extend them. Cheers.
Max,
Darwin did indeed suggest that the traits of domestic cabbages would “reverse” to those of the wild population. You and Mastriani have demonstrated the point quite nicely.
Incorrect = Correct as long as somebody knows the difference? What an odd formulation.
Brevity and/or abbreviation are only an error if obfuscation can or does become an issue. “Most” adults understand this, without unnecessary explanation. He didn’t instate a neologism.
Your effete attempt at a disguised quip is duly noted.
Mastriani,
There was no disguise: Your comments have given me little cause for respect. I do not know how to make this is any easier to understand:
1. 1859 1st edition has a long title
2. 1872 6th edition has a much shorter title.
3. Neither contain the words “Origin of the Species”
As to which to which title is 150 years old is a quibble which I conceded in my second post.
LOL … respect. That’s absolutely stellar.
Considering that your validation necessity appears to be beyond your own ability to comprehend, allow me to elucidate for you:
1. This is the internet; respect is not an objective option. “Respect”, in this medium, is an illusion that only ego validating cretins speak about.
2. Dr. Novella’s “allusion” to Darwin’s published work was understood by everyone; up until your arrival. (35 consecutive posts without confusion … hmmm.)
3. This is the internet. If you can post on a blog, but are bereft of the “cerebral dexterity” to Google, lobotomy is likely the only viable option.
Max, regarding post 32, my intent was to show that it is pointless to ascribe an necessary “intelligent” creator because of complexity, since this leads to the circular reasoning of “where did the creator come from ?” I never have understood why religion can accept the “given” of a God, but is unable to accept the “given” of natural processes.
Ah, just finished the full article & it was very enjoyable and a great resource.
btw – in re:the section of “transitional forms’ and the fuzzy demarcation between species — aren’t hyenas felines? Minor point in the context of the argument; dogs & wolves interbreed, after all. And I think the very fact that a hyena seems to naturally fall in with dogs rather than cats, shows that not all cats “are clearly [cats]“
Chris – Yes, my favorite is the assertion that humans could not have evolved by chance (see my comment #22).
Oh, yeah, and the banana thing is pretty funny, too.
We can also approach the watchmaker from the other direction.
I find a watch in the desert and realize it can count time. I also know that my brain which is the product of evolution can count time. There can only be one way for a time counting mechanism to arise so that has to be evolution. Ergo the watch has to be the product of evolution.
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 2/11/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Conard,
Your attempt at providing intelligent input to this discussion is laughable. You clearly don’t get out much and have little understanding of how things become the social norm. Your comments are worthless and add absolutely no value to anything at hand. If you want to waste time, please proofread your pathetic grammar before forcing us to suffer through your incoherent statements. I’ll give you a hand.
By all means cite the more common short name if you prefer but at least locate the (Indirect quotes are not made by capitalizing words) to its (Are you kidding me?) proper place. I expect this mistake from the religious crowd, in which (A group is not a place) mankind is the center of the universe, but in this context, the error is particularly prominent. (You expect this mistake from a certain group, therefore the context of this article makes the mistake noticeable?)
I expect these mistakes from an idiot. No one cares how many times you’ve read the title of a book. Until you can formulate a comprehensive understanding of multiple complex topics and communicate them to the laymen as well as Dr. Novella has, please refrain from the backhanded compliments and worthless contribution.
The disjointed posts by Conard (canard is more apt) look like the result of hastily done cut & paste editing of his own post before submission, which brings up a rather comical image of him pounding away at the keyboard in a fury, trying to get it just right.
I suggest we give him a pin, mention something about angels, and leave him to his accounting.
Fission,
Not being a willful idiot I would very much like to learn which of the three statements in #51 are so incorrect as to be ludicrous?
I noticed a simple error, no doubt made in haste as Dr. Steven Novella’s other articles have it right, and thought it should be corrected. That this simple observation should be regarded as an invitation for insult is truly surprising. I mean no disrespect to Dr. Novella nor is it my intention to provide intelligent evidence for or against one point of view or the other; which is fortunate me being an idiot incapable of coherent thought.
As for the grammar I do apologize for English not being my native language, though in fairness to your point of view I have been writing and speaking English for many years now and should be more proficient. I really though that “its” denoted possession and “it’s” was a contraction of “it has”. I will be sure to look that up because I am genuinely surprised at your objection to my usage.
You will be relieved to know that I took the time to run this post through my word processor’s spelling and grammar function. Much to my relief the only thing in dispute is my previous usage of “its”. You should note the use of quotes not capitals. I credit you for this; the steps may be small but with your help I may yet have value.
Ah, I see. I took a minute to review my previous post and I did indeed use “it’s” when is should have been “its”. Sometimes there is a disconnect between what one knows and what one does. You may assume that I have suffered an appropriate amount of embarrassment.
Devil’s Advocate,
canard: “damned fool” ? How lovely.
Conard,
It’s very obvious through your original wording that you’re trying to nitpick unimportant details and disrespect Dr. Novella by comparing his mistakes to those of creationists (in a community that clearly thinks little of creationists). To say that you were making a simple observation and friendly suggestion is a lie.
Frankly, I suspected that conard was a creationist taking a jab at the racist-sounding title, so I’m relieved that conard is merely anal-retentive.
Amusing as this has been, this is my last post.
On reflection this exchange has not been all bad; especially rewarding was the post where Fission pointed out one of my mistakes. I hastily read “it’s” several times and did not see anything wrong– even after the spelling and grammar function clearly pointed it out. One hallmark of a good skeptic is the ability to account for the biases in our own thinking and experimental design. I clearly failed as each subsequent reading confirmed what I already knew. I am sure that many of my critics read the title in Dr. Novella’s article and my request for correction did not see the mistake, or focused on a minor detail to satisfy the needs of a favorite schema. (There is another group that recognize the mistake only to claim that it does not matter. I admit to being baffled by this approach to skepticism)
There should be no shame in making, admitting, discussing, and ultimately correcting mistakes. It is no surprise that people pursue and vigorously defend mistaken ideas when faced with personal attacks like those from Max, Mastriani, Fission, and [the] Devil’s Advocate.
I stand by my observation that the placement of “the” as in “Origin of the Species” is a simple mistake and probably made in haste. Considering the setting it stands out. There is no conflict between those observations and the assertion of respect for Dr Novella.
Fission, et al
Striking a personal note, I would be ashamed and sickened if I were to formulate such a hostile interpretation of a complete stranger. Of course you are free to fill your mind with whatever trash you desire.
Until next time,
cw
“There should be no shame in making, admitting, discussing, and ultimately correcting mistakes.”
Unbelievable this guy would lecture others on skepticism, self-examination, and self-correction, and then allude only to a misplace apostrophy in the common it’s/its error.
The disjointed conard post I was referring to, that seemed like a bungled C & P job, which evoked the pathetic image of a nitpicker worrying over a simple blog post, included these errors. Note that I wouldn’t care were not this clown such a condescending ass-clown:
“There was no disguise: Your comments have given me little cause for respect. I do not know how to make this is any easier to understand:”
and
“As to which to which title is 150 years old is a quibble which I conceded in my second post.”
There are extraneous words, as opposed to extra letters which would indicate a simple typo. This guy is worrying and editing and C & P-ing simple 2-3 sentence blog posts – and making errors anyway. This is practically diagnosable in itself.
Again, I woouldn’t give a rat’s patootie ordinarily, but for the same guy to take all around him to task over absolutely nothing is hilarious. Admit it, conard – you sought to impress, not understanding we all know full well the actual title of the book, and got hoisted by your own petard.
OK, listen up. To accomodate the anally-retentive, from here on in we shall refrain from abbreviations, shorthand techniques, and anything less than exactitude in all postings. From now on we cannot type TOE. We must fully type out Theory Of Everything. I hope I don’t need to iterate internet culture shorthand, such as laughing out loud or laughing my conard off. No more ID. It’s Intelligent Design, lest someone confuse it with a driver license, workplace badge, or western American state. No ad hoc nonsense – it’s ad hoc ergo propter hoc, got it? OK, what else…. lemmesee… ah, yes. NO MORE CHEMICAL SHORTHAND. H20 must be spelled out – two atoms hydrogen, one atom oxygen. And you didn’t see a funny old MASH rerun on TV last night. It was a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital rerun. Hmmm. That can’t be everything… Well, you get the drift of the new direction, so let’s try to be careful. After all, how can we communicate when some clown with a superiority complex thinks we’re confusing each other?
I could not resist one more attempt to restore civility after reading the following from the comment section of Dr. Novella’s previous post.
“Excellent point. So many internet discussions and debates devolve into flame wars because of simple miscommunications, due to the limitations of the written (typed) word and our respective writing skills or lack thereof. It once took me ten posts to extricate myself from the response to one sentence, written as sarcasm but taken as agreement and support for the opposition who mistook it.”
I will happily respond to any post free of of the “38 ways” and will respond in suit. I am equally happy to leave things where they stand.
After due consideration, I have realised that I am no longer willing to be defined as an atheist; too many of said ilk seem to be lacking in logic, and greater, devoid of rationality.
I invoke a grand neologism: pragmatic kitapsiz.
Damn that’s cool.
“pragmatic kitapsiz”… hey, I like it, laughing out loud.
It’s especially likable when you understand the derogatory nature of the word “kitapsiz” in Turkish culture.
::chuckle::
Here’s my answer to the “tornado in the junkyard” argument:
The creationist will tell you that evolution is similar to having a tornado blow through a junkyard and randomly assembling the junk into a Boeing 747. That of course is pure idiocy for any number of reasons.
However, what the creation hypothesis is really saying is “No, it’s actually an intelligent and sentient tornado that blew through the junkyard to build the 747. And there weren’t even parts in the junkyard at the time. It was all just dust.”
But overall I’m stunned by how all of the creationist arguments come down to analogies and logical fallacies. Not once is there the slightest bit of actual evidence, prediction, or falsifiable testing. They don’t do science, they just repeat dogma. It’s bad enough to be ignorant of science. But to be willfully ignorant, to actually deny easily provable, testable and repeatable facts is just beyond reason.
It’s amazing to me that this level of willful ignorance is still so prevalent in America.
Wheras Evolutionist say that the tornado picks up the dust for a time period, after which will result in a Boeing 747.
Why do you feel the need to misrepresent evolution in this way? Shouldn’t that be an indication that you don’t have reality on your side?
One of my favorite quotes concerning creationist argumentation:
“I always admire the almost preternatural ability of creationists to pack so many logical fallacies into so few words.” – Steven Novella, MD
From his highly recommended Neurologica blog:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php
Hmm, trying to submit a post, but it won’t ‘take’, perhaps because I placed a link in it. Try it again without the link..
One of my favorite humorous quotes regarding creationist argumentation:
“I always admire the almost preternatural ability of creationists to pack so many logical fallacies into so few words.” – Steven Novella, MD
From his highly recommended blog – Neurologica
Loved the article. I argued with a creationist once who tryed to use the watchmaker arguement. I said that his analogy whould make sense if I took 2 watches, winded them, placed them in a box, and then 10 weeks later came back and found a dozen watches. But then there wouldn’t be a designer involved in the second generation.
Great job Dr Novella. This is a huge efort of your part to compile this. I get the feeling you could write a book in oh, say, a week! Actually, have you considered writing a book?
Nature is designed like an English garden, not like a French garden :-p
skepticalhippie: “Loved the article. I argued with a creationist once who tryed to use the watchmaker arguement. I said that his analogy whould make sense if I took 2 watches, winded them, placed them in a box, and then 10 weeks later came back and found a dozen watches. But then there wouldn’t be a designer involved in the second generation.”
I had to comment on this. I’ve never heard it, and it’s the PERFECT response. I love it!
How the folks at FoxNews remember Darwin:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/12/deseno_darwin/
No need to read the article but I thought I would share the closing paragraph– brace yourself:
“If you get the chance to argue these points with Darwinists, Secular Humanists or Ayn Rand-styled haters of religion, challenge them on the science of creation — The Big Bang. It drives them crazy when science confirms religion”
conard,
That’s a joke article right? Like from Onion … they couldn’t actually be seriously putting that forth in a news story?
I laughed
It isn’t a news story, it’s a editorial-type blog entry. In their news section the FOX story was highly lauditory of Darwin and clearly endorsed evolution in a news story yesterday reporting on a Gallup poll showing that only 39% of respondents believe in evolution. FOX has an online Evolution and Paleontology section, itself a subsection of its Sci Tech section, wherein many articles addressing evolution reveal their full acceptance and endorsement of evolution.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/evolution/
FOX’s blogs, like their editorial section, ran the gamut of opinions, of course, but their news section supports evolution.
PS: The blog entry Conard linked was hilariously bad though, by a true creationist ‘homer’.
Ummm, holy ****.
It would appear that I’ve been fortunate in not meeting Creationists that are this painfully … err, blind?
DNA contains information coded in the sequence of base pairs. The information can be compared to other forms of information like Morse code. There are no known natural laws that explain how information can arise from the random interactions of matter. The origin of information cannot be explained by evolution.
Sooo …
This is a statement about abiogenetic transition from inorganic to organic molecular information distribution, but is being attributed to evolution. We’ll go with his/her way anyhow. How the hell does anyone think the rudiments of Morse code are comparable in any manner to the molecular intricacy of DNA? I needs mo’ educatin’!!!
Even though fundamental physical laws were/are in play; reactions of matter in a closed system with known laws in play are inherently “random”, and this categorically prohibits the rise of new information on a biological level …
Even though it is distinctly unscientific, I think I’ll quote Joe Rogan here, “I’m not that retarded”.
This can’t be the world in which I exist, Baudrillard was spot on.
‘The disappearance of reality’, just so. He’s dead now, iddn’t he?
Anyway, till yesterday I used to frequent a blog that addressed daily events, mostly political events, tongue firmly in cheek, with equal parts sarcasm and absurdism. Then comes Darwin Day and the blogger ripped off a 5 page treatise (where most of his entries are no more than a paragraph or three) going on and on about how Science needs to quit pushing the importance of accepting evolution as a scientific fact. He endorsed evolution, sort of, backassedly, but said it just isn’t important enough for anyone but scientists to bother with, that he’d certainly “never use evolution” in anything he does, nor would any other average, non-scientist person out there. To him, evolution is a nonfactor in regular folks’ lives, a mental construct, albeit well-evidenced, that scientists play with for their own entertainment. I’d been reading and enjoying this guy’s goofy takes for several weeks and then this pops up.
It reminded me of a time long ago when I fell in love too quickly and found out during the 7-8th date with the next best only love of my life that she was a Scientologist. I entered a post asking if he’d ever eaten food or taken medicine, and he responded angrily, ‘why?’ I explained that the scientific disciplines of agriculture and pharmacology were based on evolutionary science, as was all of biology, and that without the practical applications that have emerged from evolutionary science, he wouldn’t recognize his own life, indeed, might not be alive. That’s when he revealed his deeply held religious beliefs and started twisting and squirming argumentationally, trying to justify his odd reaction to the fact of evolution and rectify it with his credo consolans so threatened by evolution’s implications. It was not pretty. I honestly felt sorry for him. You could tell he knew he was obfuscating and avoiding and trotting out every logical fallacy in the book, but could not do otherwise. I just stopped posting and won’t be going back. The poor guy just sweated cognitive dissonance and internal conflict because of the unremediable rift between what he knows due to evolution and what he believes due to religion.
The other comments freaked me a bit too. Among is readership are a lot of people who do not have Clue 1 about evolution, and all the usual errors abounded: it’s just a theory, doesn’t explain how the universe began (or Earth, or life), it’s just a tool atheists use to batter good God fearing folk, etc. One guy said that evolution isn’t science because it’s only science if you can observe it directly and replicate it.
I surrepticiously set their trash can on fire and got out of there while their attention was diverted. I’m slick like that.
Sadly, yes DA, he died March 2007. Quite the on task philosophical mind, and largely overlooked by the armchair wannabes who play at social commentary as if it is philosophy.
I would like to say that your story isn’t believable, but due to certain instances in recent days; opinions and beliefs are painfully unstoppable roadblocks to scientific education.
Is it really so uncomprehendingly necessary to have your existence be validated by the acceptance of opinions and refutable belief? Why?
It simply defies all logic and reason …
Could someone explain irreducible complexity to me? I don’t understand. Even if an organism is irreducibly complex why would that infer the existence of a maker? How does the logic go there? All the contra-arguments of evolutionists that I’ve seen concentrate on proving that no organism is irreducibly complex, so I assume if irreducible complexity were proven that would somehow present a problem for evolution. Why??
I confuse myself when I start thinking along these lines. Human beings are obviously not irreducibly complex, at least not as I understand the concept. You can remove a lung, a kidney, half a liver, both eyes, etc. and I will still survive and function adequately even though I was born with 2 lungs, 2 kidneys, a whole liver and functioning eyes. So??? How would the creationists argue here then? That some of the parts that make up humans are irreducibly complex but not the human as a whole? So, the parts need a maker but the sum of those parts (a human being) doesn’t? I somehow doubt that’s what they believe.
You see my point? I just don’t get it. I don’t see what irreducible complexity has to do with anything. And consequently, I don’t understand why one needs to refute this argument by proving that a mouse trap is reducible. I also don’t understand which part of humans is supposed to be irreducibly complex.
I would appreciate any thoughts and insights you have to offer. Thanks in advance.
Oh, I would also like to say that I don’t like the term “evolutionist”. It implies there’s a reasonable alternative. And there isn’t. Evolution is a fact. First time I met somebody who said they didn’t believe in evolution I laughed so hard. It’s like saying you don’t believe in rain. Or the moon. Or your left hand. ?? It’s right there for you to see, it’s not a question of belief.
I can’t quite grasp why there’s a debate with creationists. Giving them the time of day justifies their views to some degree. It gives them importance. It implies there is something unclear, something to argue about. As if the truth remains to be discovered.
“Is it really so uncomprehendingly necessary to have your existence be validated by the acceptance of opinions and refutable belief? Why?”
The guy understands his religious beliefs and their importance to him, if only by the discomfort caused by even considering their alteration or abandonment due to new knowledge. But he clearly had no idea how pervasive the applications of evolutionary science were in his life, so that side of the equation had been all blank variable to him, I guess. Factor in misconceptions, false dichotomies and constructions like, “if evolution is true, then my God didn’t create the universe and everything in it, therefore my god probably doesn’t exist, therefore accepting evolution science means the total abandonment of my faith”, and the predictable result is the noted internal conflict and the pretzel logic required to begin compartmentalizing the oil and water unmixables – as he experiences them – of evolution and religious belief. Once again, even a little education on the basic tenets of evolution would have ameliorated some of this internal pressure, but you see that typical reaction of clapping one’s hands over one’s ears while loudly mouthing “MA
“Is it really so uncomprehendingly necessary to have your existence be validated by the acceptance of opinions and refutable belief? Why?”
The guy understands his religious beliefs and their importance to him, if only by the discomfort caused by even considering their alteration or abandonment due to new knowledge. But he clearly had no idea how pervasive the applications of evolutionary science were in his life, so that side of the equation had been all blank variable to him, I guess. Factor in misconceptions, false dichotomies and constructions like, “if evolution is true, then my God didn’t create the universe and everything in it, therefore my god probably doesn’t exist, therefore accepting evolution science means the total abandonment of my faith”, and the predictable result is the noted internal conflict and the pretzel logic required to begin compartmentalizing the oil and water unmixables – as he experiences them – of evolution and religious belief. Once again, even a little education on the basic tenets of evolution would have ameliorated some of this internal pressure, but you see that typical reaction of clapping one’s hands over one’s ears while loudly mouthing “MA-MA-MA-MA-MA-MA-MA” so as to block out the offending words. From his POV I guess it’s sort of like he’s being asked to jump off the roof of a burning building before the safety net is deployed.
Waaaaa. Not sure what happened there.
DA,
I think this might be an area for Dr. Novella to offer some information possibly.
Have you ever been to church? I have, was forced to go until I was eighteen and off to college. But, the bunk never came clean in the wash, because there were always too many gaps in the presentation and science classes and history classes always made this apparent.
So why is it some are confronted with religion and take the route of “hrrmm, yeah, I don’t know about that …” and others swallow it like a last meal … ?
Genetic dysfunction resulting in certain neural pathways not working, maybe religion causes a break in the brain mappings that only allows for serial communication or causes a dissociative schism … ?
One thing about any religious individual that seems to occur in conversations pertaining to fact; they won’t be moved from untenable positions and the words, “I might be wrong” are never available.
?
“I think this might be an area for Dr. Novella to offer some information possibly.”
Oh, he has, and good stuff too, but it tends to be spread out over a large number of sources and venues: Neuroligica blog, The NESS, ‘guest spots’ on other blogs, podcasts, etc., which is why we see increasing calls for him to publish a book (HINT, HINT)
“Have you ever been to church? I have, was forced to go until I was eighteen and off to college. But, the bunk never came clean in the wash, because there were always too many gaps in the presentation and science classes and history classes always made this apparent.”
I had the odd occasion of being among the five children born to immigrants to the US, my father as an 8 yr old coming with his mother in 1934 from Scotland (grandpa came 5 yrs earlier, illiterate, didn’t know about Depression), my mother as a 6 yr old with family from Ireland in 1936. My father’s family were from a long line of Scottish atheists, though quiet and nonproselytizing about it, while my mother’s family were Irish Catholics. Once met and married, apparently my father won any argument as to how to raise us kids in regards to religion. As a result, I’ve never attended a regular church service and have only been in churches for weddings, funeral services, etc. Religion was not pushed, atheism was not pushed, in fact, I don’t remember either being mentioned during my childhood.
“So why is it some are confronted with religion and take the route of “hrrmm, yeah, I don’t know about that …” and others swallow it like a last meal … ?”
I think the larger part of the dynamic depends on when a person is introduced to the tenets of a given religion. In the US, I’d venture a guess that 90% of those who hold sincere religious beliefs in adulthood had them inculcated as children by their parents and family church members. Familial inculcation + church indoctrination + communal reinforcement = Deeply held religious beliefs. In that these beliefs were not formed on a reasonable reaction to evidence ala ’science’, they are not easily altered or abandoned in reaction to evidence ala science. Abandoning religious beliefs also suggests abandonment of a lot of peripheral value as well – the social aspects of church life, often with lifelong or even multigenerational friendships and inter-family relationships. This is powerful stuff. I think abandoning one’s internal consistency re: science comes far easier to most people who acquired the religious beliefs first, almost always as children.
My situation was reversed – I came by scientific awareness/knowledge before first being exposed to religion, as an adult, with my reaction: “He did what? With the jawbone of an ass? Hmmm. Go over that burning bush thing again. Yeah, right, look, I’ll get back you on converting…”
“Genetic dysfunction resulting in certain neural pathways not working, maybe religion causes a break in the brain mappings that only allows for serial communication or causes a dissociative schism … ?”
Perhaps, but I think there are sufficient socio-cultural explanations. I remembering hearing something about a “God gene” in the last couple years, but details have flown my mind.
“One thing about any religious individual that seems to occur in conversations pertaining to fact; they won’t be moved from untenable positions and the words, “I might be wrong” are never available.”
Yup, given that usually a particular religion’s biggest selling points are being right, infallible, unquestionable, and worthy of blind faith. There is a certain attraction to not having to think, to simply believing on faith, sans evidence, and even despite evidences. This is precisely how I came to be so handsome and so brilliant.
aoxsic,
An irreducibly complex system’s precursors are all nonfunctional. A true example of this would imply that the system did not come about by an iterative evolutionary process.
If you look at all the diseases and things that can go wrong in the body, you’ll get a better appreciation of how the different parts have to work together.
If genuine irreducible complexity exists, I would expect it to be very specific for a task and contain a minimal number of components without redundancies.
Thank you, Max. I understand.
This refutation is just a series of insults. The foundation of the scientific method is the ability to consistently replicate the results. Evolutionists say it takes millions of years to evolve from monkeys to humans. Thus, the theory of evolution cannot possibly be scientific, even theoretically. By the way, you dont have to be a creationist to see the flaws in Darwinism. Why do you have to subscribe to either? Is that the law?
mls,
Scientists only have to replicate the results of other scientists. Thankfully, they don’t have to replicate the thing they’re researching. You wouldn’t want seismologists to trigger earthquakes, astrophysicists to open black holes, or epidemiologists to start epidemics.
I hope my answer wasn’t too insulting.
mls,
Evolution does not say that man evolved from monkeys. It says man and apes had a common ancestor. This is a very, very basic point of evolution, and your unawareness of it suggests your feelings about evolution may be tainted by ignorance over what evolution theory actually says.
I could care less if my answer was insulting.
Come on DA, be fair. Readinfs arnt fundiementals fer ebrywon.
That’s the sort of ignurnce I ran into in that blog comment section I mentioned in the other thread: “Ah gots no ideer whut evolution is about, but ah knows it’s WRONG.”
I was referring to “the God gene” rather than the God particle, a hypothesis that humans carry a set of genes that predisposes them to belief in a suoer entity most call ‘God’. From a book by geneticist Dean Hamer. As I recall, I don’t think the idea stood scrutiny.
RE: Ph.D.s, my experience (anecdotal) is that while a certain level of intelligence is required to pass the undergrad and post grad work to obtain a Ph.D., the more common attribute in my field (psychology) was perseverance, that is, the ability to keep going forward with the effort in terms of paying for it, getting the work done when most candidates had to work full time, and simply slogging through it all while dealing with all other aspects of life. In my experience -again, this is anecdotal – when Ph.D. candidates dropped out it was more often due to finances and/or real life complicators than to insufficient smarts to get through the process.
As Forrest Gump reminded us, “stupid is as stupid does”, but the obverse is “smart is as smart does”. One can apply smarts incorrectly or blindly and the result is all sorts of Ph.D.s and other high degrees – MDs, JDs, etc. – applying themselves to all manner of nonsense, endorsing it all the way.
In my field, clinical psychology, I am frequently embarrassed at what emits from Ph.D.-level colleagues, such as a friend who heard an RN’s testimonial praising Therapeutic Touch and took it up without investigation, just bought it as pitched, and tried to formally incorporate it into the outpatient mental illness / substance abuse treatment modality of the County mental health center where she served as Clinical Director of Outpatient Services. It was eventually shot down as the pseudoscience it is after multiple complaints from clinical staff and public concern after a local newspaper story on TT reviewed the story of 9 yr old Emily Rosa, whose science fair project thoroughly debunked Therapeutic Touch with a simple single-blind protocol. This very smart Ph.D. Clinical director nonethless continued to try to defend TT until abruptly dropping it, probably due to a little sit-down with higher ups in the MH division.
The field of mental illness treatment is rife with pseudoscientific nonsense and a Ph.D. has proved no prophylactic against it, in fact, much of it is introduced and defended by Ph.D.s, as well as MDs (psychiatrists) and other clinical disciplines. A great many of those promoting pseudoscience, paranormal claptrap, and ufological horse hockey hold advanced degrees, though some of them are of the mail order variety to lend credence. The most egregious example might have been Dr. John Mack, psychiatrist and Harvard professor, who was the leading purveyor of the ‘alien abduction’ mishegoss prior to his death in 2004.
Any list of Ph.D.s and MDs promulgating woo and pseudoscience despite their degrees and innate intelligence would be a long one indeed: Roger Leir (alien implants), Michael Swords (UFOs/aliens), Harold Puthoff (ESP), Robert Jahn (psychokinesis), Jeff Meldrum (bigfoot), J. Allen Hynek (UFOs/aliens), Dean Radin (ESP), Gary Schwartz (ESP), and so many, many others. Many of the above were/are department heads at otherwise reputable universities. Where academic freedom meets the strictures of tenured professorships, woo may thrive.
[Sidenote on J. Allen Hynek - The next time any of us encounters that sneering sort of UFO believer who says something like "oh sure, Mr. Skeptic, I guess you're going to explain this one with 'swamp gas' too! Hahahahahaha!", remind them that only once has anyone attempted to explain a UFO sighting as swamp gas, and that was none other than the grandfather of modern day ufology, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, while nvestigating a 1966 Michigan UFO flap. If said UFO believer points out Hynek was then working for USAF Project Blue Book, point out Hynek's reversal from UFO debunker-for-hire to UFO believer was an open secret even five years earlier.]
Time to go – I’m late for a mandatory inservice on “Angels: Channeling The Divine To Heal Depression”.
Can we just use a non-reaction and non revoluiton view of point to look at the darkwin theory?
Since a theory, to be scientific, must be falsifiable, I would like to ask what would constitute an experimental falsification of evolution (descent from common ancestor)?
Steve Novella addresses this on his Neurologica Blog here:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=270#more-270
Thanks for the link. One of the examples given is: “(w)e won’t find horses in the Cambrian fossil layer (something that would falsify evolution without proving ID)”.
I take this to mean that we would falsify evolution if we found conclusive evidence of a fossil found only in one layer in a widely divergent, anachronistic layer.
Would you accept such a falsification, if it were to occur?
I’m a housewife and I like to read about different things to keep the brain functional, but all I got out of this article is that people like to impress others with how much (or little) they know by using scientific words that cannot be understood by 80% of the general population – much like politicians. The moment a guy can’t make himself understood in normal language I start to think he’s a liar and that he’s got something to hide.
No thanks. I prefer to believe that my origins lie with an almighty and allknowing God who gave his only Son for me to be saved from the coming wrath. The name of Jesus be praised!
So if you don’t understand the words, that means someone is lying. Yeah, that will get you really far in life.
You should rename this blog into “belief blog”…
I’d like to point out a flaw in both sides.
1)It is obvious that evolution is suspect, creationists haven’t evolved.
2) The creationists position dictates that god adhere to their beliefs, in which case, he isn’t god.
Our understanding of any philosophical concept even with what we are capable of observing scientifically follows an asymptotic line nearing ever closer but never touching what is the truth our limit becomes finer and finer but approaches the infinite. Perhaps we will never know everything
So, I’m not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics (as Mr. Alcorn interprets it at least) actually supports evolution.
If Alcorn is saying that all states gravitate towards increasing entropy and entropy is the measure of disorder, doesn’t that mean that evolution actually increases entropy, thusly following the SLoT?
Think about it. Evolution can take one species and through genetic mutation and natural selection, split the species into multiple species. That increases the disorder of the Earth.
Have any of you folks heard of the matter of opinion? I find it so imature how Evolutionists and New Earth Creationists, go on and on calling eachother wrong, and will willingly take each battle to the death. I am indeed among the creationist’s, and I do enjoy debating – but a good man once told me that with us feuding over such a faithless thing, we are no better then the one’s antaganising the war in the middle east.
For your information my friendly neighbors, like alot of things, Creationists can be split into two main catagories – Old Earth Creationists, and New Earth Creationists. The Old Earth’s believe that Evolution happened, but was guided by the hand of God, and the New Earth’s believe that many parts of Evolution are false, and that God created the universe acording to the Bible’s account.
By the way, be mindless of my spelling. :)
Kyle, you are wrong. It is not a matter of opinion. Creationism in any form does not explain evolution, nor does it explain increase in complexity, or emergence, i.e. observed and attested facts of life. It is a religious position, and therefore outside the scope of science. My opinion is that religion is nothing but a superstition and magical thinking, but that is not science either. Science is based on facts, not opinions. You can’t call a magical explanation a scientific one.
I am not wrong. I do agree, both sides do have their flaws. Creationism cannot explain how objects such as black holes and quasars come into being, especially after the aparent turn around of when Adam and Eve ate the fruit – this seems odd to even me. Creationism does conflict with it’s self in places – but part of being a New Earth Creationist requires that you have belief and faith in a god.
If you would you like to talk about magical thinking, explain to me how this “Big Bang” happened, or the ridiculous odds that stand against the Evolution of life.
Are you homeschooled by any chance?
Did you learn everything about evolution from Creationists?
Did you even read Steven Novella’s blog post? Be honest.
Young Earth Creationism, or New Earth as you call it, conflicts with just about every natural science.
If “faith” is your reason to reject science, then why don’t you have faith that Zeus casts lightning bolts from the sky?
Magical thinking means making untestable and unnecessary assumptions. The Big Bang is evident from the expansion of the universe, but claiming that God made it happen would be magical thinking.
Interesting article.
Regarding point 2…are you suggesting that the information/language/code contained in the DNA emerged spontaneously out of blind and natural processes?
“following relatively simple rules”
What simple rules? An algorithm?
Regarding point 9… in the author’s defence; he is talking about chemical and biological evolution. Chemical evolution is also known as “abiogenesis”. The title of the original article is “Ten Major Flaws of Evolution”.
“That’s it – that is enough to get a foothold in evolution”
I find your comments quite amusing. Solving the abiogenesis problem is akin to “what came first, the chicken or the egg?”
Well, here’s how she goes in my mind:
One day, when we die we’ll see who’s right, won’t we?
And, if the Creationists are right, then we’re happy in heaven, and if we’re wrong then who gives a crap anyways, right?
But, if the Evolutionists are wrong then it matters a whole lot… because you’ll be in hell. So I’m thinking it’s a far better bet to believe in Creation.
And, to whoever said that individuals who believe in Creation are ignorant… Creationists are definitely NOT ignorant. Neither creation or evolution can be proven. Don’t even bother trying to tell me that they can be, because you’re just straight up retarded if you try to say that. Both are theories, because science means you can create it over and over again. You CANNOT create evolution again. Neither can you create Creation. ‘Cause we’re not God. So it’s a matter of what you want to believe in.
If you belive in God, then you belive he is all-poweful, which means He can do whatever the heck he wants to do. That explains everything that seems unexplainable: humans, black holes, and whatever other crap there is that Evolution cannot explain.
So, next time you see a dust particle turning into a universe or figure out a way to change species, and make some bacteria into a human, you come and show me. How about that, eh?
Is it safe to assume that anyone who appears to have not read the article is in fact trolling?
I’m an atheist/complete believer in evolution. The two do seem to go together. In any case, I believe that studying and learning about things, even things that don’t make sense personally, is a good idea personally even if science isn’t involved.
For most people, they don’t see the evidence that evolution is correct. As far as they are able to perceive, it really is just a matter of opinion. Their preacher has a lot of information on the subject of how life came about (accuracy is another question), states that what he is saying is fact, and is a willing representative of his viewpoint.
Scientists appear to be the same thing. I think until there’s some sort of social stigma for spreading information that due diligence would reveal to be incorrect, nothing will change. Being wrong has to hurt.
As for the watch argument, I always saw it this way:
One can argue that you find a watch while searching for it and assume someone made it. That would be like saying that you find a three legged frog with seven red spots, a green tongue, 20/20 vision in one eye, and 15/20 vision in the other, AND can sing opera, and when you find it, you can attribute it to a creator. It’s way to specific. If one were to challenge the idea of finding something that could effectively tell time, they would have to be less focused on exact details such as 2 ticking arms, gears and a battery/spring. For example, a rock formation that casts a shadow to certain areas at a certain time, or how certain flowers close up at night both tell rough estimates of time and are examples of “watches” that the creationist argument should request. You can attribute the rock formation to a creator, but you could also attribute it to finding a rock formation by chance that effectively tells time.