How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution

[psi29a]

That is all well and good, but YOU still have not answered my question.

[ZoddsNo1Fan]

Why would i believe a lie?

[psi29a]

Why would i believe a lie?

Really? No one is asking you to believe.

Scientists do not believe in evolution just as don't believe in general relativity and quantum physics. Nothing in science is 100% true, nor does it claim to be.

What would it take to convince you that evolution is not a lie?

Say, to same reasonable extent that general relativity AND quantum physics are also not a lie?

edit: I'm in contact with a few graduate students at W&M and they are going over what the guy on the previous page wrote about. However, I did find spelling, grammatical mistakes, and a few logic flaws. I'll post about it later.

[MsNomer]

I am sure Carl was moved to consider the material presented to him. Most people do find sympathy with well presented information regardless of it truth, provability or factual nature. Especially if the speakers are charismatic, seemingly educated and intelligent and others in the room are buying into it as well.

I would like to address the mitochondria issue.

As mitochondria contain ribosomes and DNA, and are only formed by the division of other mitochondria, it is generally accepted that they were originally derived from endosymbiotic prokaryotes. Studies of mitochondrial DNA, which is often circular and employs a variant genetic code, show their ancestor, the so-called proto-mitochondrion, was a member of the Proteobacteria.[11] In particular, the pre-mitochondrion was probably related to the rickettsias, although the exact position of the ancestor of mitochondria among the alpha-proteobacteria remains controversial. The endosymbiotic hypothesis suggests that mitochondria descended from specialized bacteria (probably purple non-sulfur bacteria) that somehow survived endocytosis by another species of prokaryote or some other cell type, and became incorporated into the cytoplasm. The ability of symbiont bacteria to conduct cellular respiration in host cells that had relied on glycolysis and fermentation would have provided a considerable evolutionary advantage. Similarly, host cells with symbiotic bacteria capable of photosynthesis would also have an advantage. In both cases, the number of environments in which the cells could survive would have been greatly expanded.

This relationship developed at least 2 billion years ago and mitochondria still show some signs of their ancient origin.

Mitochondria existed outside and separately from any other living cells for quite sometime before it's survival pushed it into a symbiotic relationship.

The trouble with being stuck in a room with a bunch of people with a particular agenda is that there is no debate. The other point of view is not presented alongside and therefore an honest comparison, point by point, cannot be made. When creationists and Intelligent Design proponents take the spotlight, they leave things out that do not support their perspective.

You enter with an open mind and leave with it all filled up with whatever they want to put in it.

[Eldo]

Why would i believe a lie?

There are no lies presented here, nobody fabricated anything. The evidence presented are facts, not fraudulent or made up data. This isn't some anti-Christian group that came up and support this concept. It's evident that your religious beliefs are at play here. You cherry-pick your arguments, and I don't blame you, it's hard to be credible when you say 'God made it that way'.

[uncempt]

I've known a couple of doctors and physicists who didn't accept evolution. They didn't vocally refute it, just quietly kept it to themselves unless directly queried. And while I think that respectful debate on any subject is a good thing, perhaps it is better for them to adopt an air of detached mystery on this subject, matching their views.
Certainly, 'creationism' has no scientific credibility as it just seems to attack evolution. Even if evolution was shown to be false, would that prove intelligent design? No! There is nothing to be achieved by claiming creationism as science, religion should stay labeled as religion.

[Brainpiercing]

Aliens made life on earth.


Unfortunately it doesn't make sense to go on with his discussion. Zodds#1butthole is clearly not up to the task of providing evidence, and even more intelligent people would have to keep bringing up the same manipulative speculation that "creation scientists" so like. I believe one thing the creationists know how to do is convince stupid or under-educated people, because to them, arguments count the same as evidence.

I commend him for his tenacity, unfortunately that's not a substitute for intelligence. Inability to comprehend things does not make them too complex to function.

All those probabilities quoted are worth nothing. Probabilities on a potential hyperplane (and that's the closest simple analogue I can find to natural selection) are very very different.

[arke]

Where do you get this tripe?

DNA Demands Creation By Design
It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome.

Er, what? There are only two base pairs, that's it. Second, the longest chromosome has about that 220 million base pairs. The shortest? Much, much less (poor X chromosome). The math here is all so very wrong.

You have to understand that evolution is a random process which requires the use of mathematics to analyze its probability.

Er, no. Evolution is very often directed via outside (predation is a prime example) forces. Mutation is essentially random.

In one strand of DNA there are more than one billion molecules with 1/3 of them being the programming nitrogen bases. Since there are four different nitrogen bases used for the programming, we have 333+ million to the fourth power different possible molecular structures which equals 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power.

More bad math.

For simplicity's sake, I rounded this down to 122 x 10 to the 32nd power.

Proof positive the author sucks at math (122 * 10^32 would be rounded to 10^34).

This is very important because, in a random process, any and all of the different structures can come into existence at the same time. Now let's make a very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these structures could support any form of living organism.

Conservative by whom? Where are these numbers originating?

Next we make another very conservative assumption...

More magic numbers, here we come!

...favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these strands would have survived four billion years of evolution. This means that for every DNA strand that survived until today, 999,999,999 strands became extinct which is extremely conservative. This would be a very high rate of extinction.

Out of all species to have ever existed, the vast majority of them are, prepare for this, extinct.

There is a little problem with this; there are only two to three million different species on the planet or 2,000,000 to 3,000,000.

Nope. The number keeps rising. Some have guessed as high as 50 million (the math leading to this is still bad).

With this in mind, by the most phenomenally conservative estimate which grossly favors evolution to the extreme, there must be tens of thousands of different base strands of DNA for evolution to be true. This is an absolute requirement.

Er, no it isn't. There is no requirement whatsoever.

The concept of one ancestor violates the fundamental principles of a random process...

Except it isn't random.

Then how do you get one base strand in all organisms?

Really simple. Once life existed, it now has a huge advantage over nonliving things. It can actually, you know, eat them!

Let's say we go where man has never gone before to the planet I mentioned on the page for the feasibility analysis. When we decide to use molecular construction of living organisms to farm life on our new planet, would you reinvent a new base strand of DNA for each new organism or use the same base strand and simply make the modifications and additional strands needed for each new organism? Of course you are not going to reinvent the DNA strand every time you create a new organism. That would be stupid. So every organism on our planet would have the same base strand. Therefore, a single base strand of DNA for all organisms proves creation by design and disproves evolution. On the other hand, I guess this does mean that we all had one common ancestor...God. See, we evolutionists were partly right. :-)

Fallacy of affirming the consequent.

[Shaka Zulu]

I pity the fool who expects a real answer and rebuttal instead of the already pre-made hogwash he will only copy paste yet again to convince himself ( dont flatter yourselves, he's not saying it to any of your benefits, but to convince himself by repeating it).

[Brainpiercing]

He has to copy/paste it, he cannot even write a correct sentence by himself.

[psi29a]

http://www.hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html
I suggest you go to his site. He has tens of other articles on complexity of things(this man is smart)
This is from Carl Cantrell.

Well, apparently even great men can fall short. I've forwarded this link along to a few researchers I know at William and Mary and here is one of their responses.

I read the original article that the guy had written on DNA and creationism. I pretty much stopped taking it seriously after the phrase "evolution is random".

I don't think I'll do any posts myself on that thread, but I'll look in some back issues of Scientific American where Michael Shermer has a pretty biting critique of the whole theory/fact issue. He basically points out how science is a self-correcting discipline, and that theories are never treated as cold hard fact because they are progressively modified with new evidence. However, two incorrect theories aren't necessarily equally wrong - he calls this misconception "wronger than wrong". A good example is the shape of the earth - first we theorized it was flat. Then we theorized it was a sphere. And then we realized it's a sphere with equatorial bulges.

Same with evolution - we have observed in happen in the present, and seen mountains (literally) of evidence for it happening in the past. Progressively changing the theory of exactly how it works (e.g. through modern genetics, ideas about punctuated equilibrium, etc) doesn't negate past evidence of its fundamental truth.

Creationists have distorted both the definition and the utility of "theory" pretty atrociously. Their rationale that the truth must be constant to really be the truth is the cognitive hallmark of religious faith, and it cannot and SHOULD NOT be mixed with the scientific method, lest both systems of thought be defiled.

-Alex

I thank Alex and his cohort in crime Kelsey for helping me out on this.

[rubicon]

DNA Demands Creation By Design
It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. (...) Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.

Er, what? There are only two base pairs, that's it. Second, the longest chromosome has about that 220 million base pairs. The shortest? Much, much less (poor X chromosome). The math here is all so very wrong.

Actually it doesn't exactly matter whether the math is right or wrong, the argument stays the same: The DNA is incredibly complex and it seems incredibly unlikely if not even impossible, that something that complex could have developed through mere coincidence. How could a mere single cell become something as complex as a human body? The scale of evolution is just way beyond all imagination...

... but that's the mistake: Life on earth doesn't only exist for only a few thousand years. There were about 4.5 billion years of development with a VAST amount of lifeforms that existed before we emerged. An example: In each liter of sea-water alone are up to one billion (!) bacteria from up to 20.000 different species and 10 billion viruses. And how much water is there, in this world's oceans? Even if it, at first, "seems" incredibly unlikely that a chain of random mutations could lead to complex multi-cell organisms, you should keep the imense amount of lifeforms in mind, that existed for over 4.5 billion years and ultimately lead the current state.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene.

There are a lot. The most easy experiment is the following: Just put a random kind of bacteria on a petri dish, add a random kind of antibiotic and you must expect them ALL to die. At least they should, because bacteria replicate by simple duplication. They are basically clones, each one with exactly the same genes as the one it emerged from. If an antibiotic can kill one of them, then all others must die as well. But miraculously there will always be some bacteria left that are resistant to that antibiotic. How is that even possible? Random mutations caused a select few of those billion bacteria to be resistant, there is no other explanation. And there you have it, your positive mutation, that single gene with a positive effect.

Evolution on a larger scale usually doesn't work that fast, though. One reason is that complex lifeforms are - well - more complex. Random mutations can often cause quite severe problems, just as if you'd throw a grain of sand into a well working clockwork. And of course, if someone has a severe defect, everyone will notice right away.

But what if the mutation has a positive effect? How could you know? Imagine your child for example has a completely positive mutation that causes the amount of neurons in the brain to be slightly larger than average... How could you tell that this is the effect of a mutation? It is pretty unlikely that some random mutation causes humans to suddenly grow four arms or laser-eyes. Instead, the steps are way too tiny. Unnoticeable even in several generations. Evolution takes its time.

And above that it needs a reason, a direction, caused by some kind of defined, evolutionary pressure. In the petri dish example that pressure came as antibiotic and caused a drastic change by killing most of the bacteria's population. On the other hand, if you didn't do anything to that petri dish, you would have never known if there were mutated bacteria or not. The same can be applied to any population: If you put some kind of evolutionary pressure on the, let's say, human population that is comparable to that petri dish experiment, for example by some kind of outer force that kills all dumb people in frequent intervals and only leaves the intelligent alive, humanity would certainly become smarter and smarter over the time - far above the potential of mere genetic recombination. Just like the bacteria's new ability of being resistant to a certain antibiotic only emerged after a pressure from the outside induced that development.

In the past centuries evolution was researched way too thoroughly to leave gaps large enough for a complete falsification. There are no real gaps, no occurences of organs or whatever that don't fit at all.

However:

While the mechanisms that cause the genetic variety necessary for any kind of evolution may be truly random, Evolution itself always requires some kind of reason, some kind of outer impact that determines the direction. Noone can possibly say something against that. So it is quite possible that humans are the mere result of a long chain of coincidences... but who can tell for sure? Were the outer influences that made our evolution possible pure coincidence? Or was there a reason behind all that?

If you want to believe in god, if you want to believe that some kind of "intelligent designer" caused the occurence of humans on this planet... then there's still a way. But that's as metaphysical as religion usually is: It can only be believed in, not proved.