Myths about evolution

deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Myths about evolution

Hi guys, I remember a post a while back about numbering theist arguments. I got thinking that there are so many theists who don't have the first clue about evolution. So help me out here, I'm trying to catalogue "stupid myths about evolution". Here is what I have come up with so far.

1. Evolution is a chance process

2. Life is too complicated to have been created without a designer

3. Irreducible complexity

4. Advantegeous genetic mutation is impossible

5. A jellyfish cannot turn into a giraffe (true), organisms cannot morph over time(not true)

6. Macroevolution is somehow different to microevolution 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
1) Confusing Biology and

7) Confusing Biology and Cosmology (Arguing about the Big Bang Theory)

Cool Arguments against abiogenesis.

9) If humans came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? (my personal favorite)

10) What good is half an eye?

11) The hurricane blowing through a junkyard to make a 747 argument.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
12. Modern cars didn't

12. Modern cars didn't evolve from old cars, therefore humans didn't evolve from earlier species (I've actually seen this! WTF!???!?!?) wtf

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Jeez how did we forget the

Jeez how did we forget the big one!

 

13. Evolution is only a theory (technically it is, but the myth is that a theory in science is the same as it is to the general public.)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I've also come up with 14.

I've also come up with

14. If evolution is caused by genetic mutation, it can somehow "go backwards"

15. Progressive cumulative mutation is impossible.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
16. Evolution has not been

16. Evolution has not been observed.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
I like this thread, lol! :D

I like this thread, lol! Laughing out loud


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
X+1: Evolution is an

X+1: Evolution is an atheist thing.

 

Someone else can take care of this list. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
18. Charles Darwin had a

18. Charles Darwin had a deathbed conversion (not only is this complete bullshit, but obviously has absolutely no bearing on the theory of evolution)

19. Fossils are sometimes found in the wrong striatations  

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10614
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Fossils were placed by god

Fossils were placed by god to fool everyone. Like a god has nothing better to do.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Thanks to everyone very much

Thanks to everyone very much for all their input. This is the list I have come up with.

1. Evolution is a chance process

2. Life is too complicated to have been created without a designer

3. Irreducible complexity

4. Advantegeous genetic mutation is impossible

5. A jellyfish cannot turn into a giraffe (true), organisms cannot morph over time(not true)

6. Macroevolution is somehow different to microevolution

7) Confusing Biology and Cosmology (Arguing about the Big Bang Theory)

Cool Arguments against abiogenesis.

9) If humans came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? (my personal favorite)

10) What good is half an eye?

11) The hurricane blowing through a junkyard to make a 747 argument.

12. Modern cars didn't evolve from old cars, therefore humans didn't evolve from earlier species (I've actually seen this! WTF!???!?!?)

13. Evolution is only a theory (technically it is, but the myth is that a theory in science is the same as it is to the general public.)

14. If evolution is caused by genetic mutation, it can somehow "go backwards"

15. Progressive cumulative mutation is impossible.

16. Evolution has not been observed

17. A theist cannot believe in evolution

18. Charles Darwin had a deathbed conversion (not only is this complete bullshit, but obviously has absolutely no bearing on the theory of evolution)

19. Fossils are sometimes found in the wrong striatations

20. Fossils are tests of faith by God, as if he has nothing better to do.

And, I'll just add one last myth to complete the list

21. Evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics

 

The reason I requested this list is because I have been making a lot of posts about evolution to theists lately, using old essays I wrote for molecular bio. But I have never completely assembled an individual debunking of each stupid theist argument. I will use this list to do so, and then when a theist starts spouting his gibberish, all I have to do is copy and paste.

 

Thanks everyone!

 

 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
22.  "Complexity" is never

22.  "Complexity" is never observed to increase in nature.

It's a warped argument from information theory.  See "A Devil's Chaplain" by Dawkins for the refuation.

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Every single one of

Every single one of Hovind's arguements should be on the list but then the list would be twelve pages long....

How about:

23. Intelligent design is a viable scientific "theory", fully testable and predictive.


laguna117
laguna117's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Very important ones i

Very important ones i thinks, because they are made up lies by the creationnists:

 

24. There is no transitory species in the fossil records.

25. Man to ape fossils are either modern man or modern ape or a fraud.

26. C14 and other dating methods are not reliable.

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
I remember talking to a

I remember talking to a girl a while back over the topic.

Me: How do you explain the fossils of early man that resembled monkeys?

Her: that RESEMBLED but were not monkeys, were they?


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
26a. (corrolary) Since C14

26a. (corrolary) Since C14 dating cannot actually say that the Shrowd of Torin is real, when we know it is real, how can we trust it?

27. The "missing link" still hasn't been found

28. How could Adam have named all animals if they weren't there, but later evolved, or got extinct before that? (Yes, I've heard that one...)

29. It's a primordial need for the snake to have been there to tempt Eve, so he must have been created (Yes, I've heard this one too... you must agree he's right from a biblical perspective)

30. Why would God bother making organisms evolve, when he could create them like they are? (Oh, I would soooooo much like to see a "Why would God bother...?" thread)

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


An_Atheist
An_Atheist's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2006-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Free will is impossible

Free will is impossible without god!!!

  A debate i had with a theist who insisted that if we had evolved, then we don't have true freewill!!   He also insisted that i cannot refer to myself as a freethinker if evolution is real and god is not!!!!   all i can say to that is LOL!

Your mind will take you far, the rest is just your heart, you'l find that fate is all your own creation.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
26b. Lava at Mt. Saint

26b. Lava at Mt. Saint Helens is dated much older then when the lava came out of the earth. (this is because the crystals in the lava were formed long ago and just now came up)

26c. "I don't know how you can date things, so you can't say we know the age of things."

31. Clams are on mountains. (i.e. they don't know how mountains are formed) This is more of an attempt to prove Noah's ark true which in their mind makes genesis true.

32a. Evolution is Social Darwinism. (i.e. evolution is the cause of things like hitler or school shootings)

32b. Darwin is racist. (never mind the bible being used for bad shit)

Those were among a few other were brought up during an Evo ID debate at my college.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote: 32b.

Voiderest wrote:

32b. Darwin is racist. (never mind the bible being used for bad shit)

If a christian ever says that Darwin was racist, I would point out that he was a christian. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Ophios I don't think he

Ophios I don't think he was, but that is a myth as well.

The worst thing about these claims is that they wouldn't say anything about the modern theory even if they were true.


HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
I think this might have

I think this might have been overlooked, or I might have overlooked it. Smiling

33: Evolution is a religion.

 

Oh and:

BGH wrote:

How about:

23. Intelligent design is a viable scientific "theory", fully testable and predictive.

Would that not be a myth about ID and not Evo? :P 

 

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote: Ophios I

Voiderest wrote:

Ophios I don't think he was, but that is a myth as well.

I thought so. 

Voiderest wrote:
The worst thing about these claims is that they wouldn't say anything about the modern theory even if they were true.

Of course, why do you think they keep going on about Darwin? Becuase they don't know that it has moved on from then. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10614
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Every single

BGH wrote:

Every single one of Hovind's arguements should be on the list but then the list would be twelve pages long....

How about:

23. Intelligent design is a viable scientific "theory", fully testable and predictive.

Part of it is. That's why it's flopped so spectacularly.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
HealingBlight wrote: I

HealingBlight wrote:

I think this might have been overlooked, or I might have overlooked it. Smiling

33: Evolution is a religion.

 

Oh and:

BGH wrote:

How about:

23. Intelligent design is a viable scientific "theory", fully testable and predictive.

Would that not be a myth about ID and not Evo? Sticking out tongue

 

Well.....

Yes it is about ID but ID is always compared to EVO as if they are both completely valid and testable when in truth only one of them can stand up to scrutiny.

I guess you have a problem with it being on the list? 


HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Oh, sometimes you can feel

Oh, sometimes you can feel an almost beardy nitpicking urge when you see something that could be more suited to "The myths of ID" thread than a "Myths of Evo" one

Some more would be "ID is within the scope of science*"

"ID is not creationism"

"ID is purposely ignored by the Science community (to explain lack of peer reviewed thingers) because they want to keep the religion of evolution alive." :P 

 

See? They work both well in their own right, and thinger is one of the best words ever! (Defenestrate is hard to beat though)

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.


laguna117
laguna117's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
i found a very "lol"

i found a very "lol" one:

"Neanderthal man was a old man with arthritis"

i think it's worth meantionning.

When we have a 100 of em it would be nice to create a page "100 myth about evolution" with 5 lines of answers for each. I'd be willing to contribute. And i think it shoudl't be about id or creationism, but just myth on EVO. Who's up for it?

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Five lines of

Five lines of answers....lol. Check out my article called My answers to creationist and intelligent design nonsense

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


laguna117
laguna117's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ty... link plz?   I'd

ty... link plz?

 

I'd still be interrested in creating a database (or FAQ) based on these questions with short answers each time, links etc.

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
http://www.rationalresponders

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
34 - vestiges are not

34 - vestiges are not vestiges, because they may still serve some funtion. (IOW - I don't understand what a vestige is).

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
35. Evolution not explaining

35. Evolution not explaining the origin of life and/or the universe is somehow a problem.


laguna117
laguna117's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
your link is awesome

your link is awesome deludegod, i'm very impressed. r u a biologist?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Indeed, my friend. I wrote

Indeed, my friend.
I wrote another (thankfully smaller) piece which is lurking somewhere on the recent posts called 'Creationists ought to be ashamed of themselves"

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
36. I don't understand

36. I don't understand evolution or it doesn't make sense to me. Therefore it's wrong.


HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
37. Proving Evolution wrong

37. Proving Evolution wrong makes Intelligent Design right. (I’m not sure if this would be something for ID myths, or both. Sticking out tongue)

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
This is brilliant. I can't

This is brilliant. I can't think of any others. I've never met that many people who refute evolution. The one's I've heard have been very simple we couldn't've come about through chance. I'll have to infiltrate the ranks of my Uni's Evangelical Christian Union for a laugh one day. They give free food so they aren't that bad *scoff*.


laguna117
laguna117's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hey deludedgod, i just got

Hey deludedgod, i just got a great idea. We should regrout these myth and the others post you did on the subject under categories, like 1. Plain lies and forgeries 2. Logical Fallacies 3. Against the evidence 4. Epistemological issues etc...

 

It could be cool this way, don't you think?

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Bumping this.

Bumping this.

Interesting link.

List of creationist arguments

{fixed link} 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 Evolution is a chance

 Evolution is a chance process

 

Wait a minute, it is my understanding that genetic mutations cause evolution. While natural selection favours the superiour genes (enhanced night vision for example), the gene mutations that cause these are random. (compare a cat's night vision to human's)

i.e the cat didn't say "I think I'll get better night vision encoded in me genes today."


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Evolution is a chance process

 

Wait a minute, it is my understanding that genetic mutations cause evolution. While natural selection favours the superiour genes (enhanced night vision for example), the gene mutations that cause these are random. (compare a cat's night vision to human's)

The mutations are random, yes.

But natural selection isn't.

think of it like this: 

 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote:   THE

Ophios wrote:

 

THE MYSTERIES OF THE COSMOS ARE UNFOLDING BEFORE MY EYES!!!!!!!!

Seriously what is that?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I have absolutely no idea

I have absolutely no idea what that pic is. It looks like a worm made of black dots.

Anyway, yeah, genetic mutation is a chance process, but evolution (the process by which random genetic mutations are selected, deleted, propogated etc) is not. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
I think that picture shows

I think that picture shows that the random genetic mutations (dots) make up the big picture of evolution (wave).


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote: I think that

noor wrote:
I think that picture shows that the random genetic mutations (dots) make up the big picture of evolution (wave).

And I admit a poor one at that.

 

But pretty much what you said.

 

The dots go in random(ish) different directions, but there is still a line in which they follow. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Mordagar
RRS local affiliateSuperfan
Mordagar's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: noor

Ophios wrote:

noor wrote:
I think that picture shows that the random genetic mutations (dots) make up the big picture of evolution (wave).

And I admit a poor one at that.

 

But pretty much what you said.

 

The dots go in random(ish) different directions, but there is still a line in which they follow.

 

Did you make that on paint? 

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]


laguna117
laguna117's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
lol it was pretty shitty all

lol it was pretty shitty all right!


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Mordagar wrote: Ophios

Mordagar wrote:
Ophios wrote:

noor wrote:
I think that picture shows that the random genetic mutations (dots) make up the big picture of evolution (wave).

And I admit a poor one at that.

 

But pretty much what you said.

 

The dots go in random(ish) different directions, but there is still a line in which they follow.

 

Did you make that on paint?

Pretty much. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
laguna117 wrote: lol it was

laguna117 wrote:
lol it was pretty shitty all right!

I had about a minute to make a little picture, upload it, and post it before I had to get off the computer. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.