Refutation of position on evolution

Rocas511's picture

This is a refutation of the creationist website "Bible Life Ministries" at which lists it's top ten "facts" which prove evolution to be false. Many of these so called facts are not only false, but show the authors lack of understanding of science in general and of evolutionary theory in particular. This website serves to demonstrate that most creationists really have no idea what it is that they are rallying against.

"Fact" No.1 - Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong.

"One of the best example of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment."

This first "fact" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of avian evolution and of the evolution of flight. Avian wings did not start out as "wing stubs" which then grew larger to the point of allowing that animal to fly. This implies that birds evolved from some sort of limbless bird like animal that gradually sprouted wings. That scenario is certainly ridiculous and has never been a part of evolutionary theory. In reality, birds evolved from small theropod dinosaurs that had fully developed forelimbs. These limbs were useful for reaching and grasping before they became adapted for flight.

“Fact” No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong.

No it doesn’t. This is an old creationist tactic which attempts to exploit the gaps in evolutionary understanding, which are no different than the gaps in the understanding of any other scientific model such as gravity, particle physics, astronomy, or quantum theory. The gaps in gravitaional theory do not negate the existence of gravity. Such gaps exist in every theoretical construct of every scientific discipline. They are the subject of future finds and research. And they are what is exciting about science. As for the lack of links (i.e. intermediate forms) many links are known from the fossil record. The fact that not all species have known intermediate forms is owed to the fact that fossilization is a relatively rare occurrence. Even so, more are being discovered all the time.

“Fact No. 3 - "Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong...this complexity required an intelligent design. It is much too complex to happen by chance." Once again this a myth of evolution promoted by creationists to mislead the public. Evolution does NOT happen by chance. Mutations are essentially random but the process of evolution is natural selection which is not random. Furthermore the concept (if it can be dignified by that word) of “intelligent design” is eventually self defeating. If complexity (like something as complex as a cell) cannot exist without a creator that is more complex than it is, then who created the creator? What? He has no creator? He always existed? How can that be? According to the basic argument, complexity MUST have a creator. It cannot exist on its own. If you accept that god had no creator than you violate your own basic premise that complexity must always have a creator. Therefore, argument from design does not solve the problem of complexity, it only makes it worse by manufacturing an even bigger mystery than the one you were trying to solve in the first place.

“Fact” No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong.

“The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The human female like other mammals has XX sex chromosomes, and the male has XY sex chromosomes. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a female or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a male. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs, contained within her ovaries at her birth, to make an intelligent genetic change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.”

What the fuck?!?! None of this has anything to do with evolution. There is nothing in evolutionary theory about a mother “changing chromosomes within her eggs.” This is a misrepresentation of what is meant by environmental influences on a species. Environmental influence refers to selective pressures in the species’ natural environment (that is, the environment in which it lives) that favor changes in the population’s genome. It has nothing at all to do with the development of the fetus in the womb. The bit about sperm makes just as little sense.

“Fact” No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong.

This is a typical misrepresentation of the second law of thermodynamics which deals with the loss of energy from active systems. It does not prohibit increasing complexity.

“No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong....there is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA.”

Chromosomes are composed of DNA, the amount of DNA in our cells is in continual flux. Changes such as point, frameshift, and Chromosomal mutations are constantly occurring which change the amount of DNA we carry. Furthermore, chromosomal mutations can dramatically change the number of chromosomes within a cell. One classic example in our own species is Chromosome number 2. This chromosome is a fusion of two previous chromosomes that are typically refered to as ancestral 2A and ancestral 2b. These two chromosomes are still present in their original form in chimpanzies. That 2A and 2B merged to forme human chromosome number 2 is evidenced by the positioning of the telomeres and centromeres present in chromosome 2. This is why we humans have one less chromosome our ape cousins have.

“Fact” No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

"Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere."

I've never met an evolutionist who "threw up his hands" at this. In fact the origin of matter has nothing to do with biological evolution at all. It is a subject for theoretical physics not biology. But Physicists don't throw their hands up either. See any decent source on big bang theory for more details.

“Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong.

This one is just desperate. The planet Mars is far from being completely explored. It is not yet known for certain if any life existed on Mars or if it still exists in some form. But weather or not it ever did exist there has nothing to do with the evolution of life on Earth. They are separate issues.

“Fact” No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong.

As unexplored as Mars is, the rest of the universe is infinitely more so. It makes no sense at all to draw conclusions about life in the rest of the universe as yet. Additionally the lack of radio contact with other civilizations at the present time has no bearing on the existence of life in the universe. Such radio signals may be common but not aimed in the dirrection of Earth, or have not yet reached Earth. There could be many alien worlds that are teaming with life but have only non-sapient life like plants and animals (or something similar). Thus there would be no technology and no sending of radio signals. Even an intelligent alien species would not necessarily be able to do this. Only a few hundred years ago our own civilization was incapable of sending radio signals into space. Does that mean that we did not exist at that time? But once again the evidence of extraterrestrial life is, at present, only within the realm of speculation. And it has nothing to do with the evolution of life on Earth.

Creationists have struck out again!



(if you would like to help make this refutation even more extensive, add your comments below.)

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

-James Madison-

Is there a reason why you

Is there a reason why you guys omitted #6 Dna Error Checking. I would like to see you guys refute that.

Thomathy's picture

Brad Kingman wrote: Is there

Brad Kingman wrote:

Is there a reason why you guys omitted #6 Dna Error Checking. I would like to see you guys refute that.

' The scientific fact that DNA replication, including a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process, proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is, any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed'

I'm not a biologist, I haven no speciality in genetics and even I can tell you why the creationist are wrong about that one too.  Anyone with a grade 10 science education should be able to.

DNA can only be repaired by enzymes when the DNA is damaged and a complimentary strand of the DNA or an homologous chromosome is available to be copied from.  The enzymes responsible for repairing damage to DNA cannot detect or repair mutations, only damage.  These two things are fundamentally different.  DNA damages and mutations are related, however, because DNA damages often cause errors of DNA synthesis during replication or repair and these errors are a major source of mutation.

Therefore the claim of the creationists that DNA repair would 'stop and reverse' any change to the DNA is wrong.  The person who came up with that clearly misunderstand the mechanisms of DNA repair and what they are responsible for repairing, namely damage (and at that it is not perfect).  Now, the rate of mutation is relatively low and the chance of the mutation leading to an inviable or cancerous cell are higher than either a neutral mutation or an advantageous mutation, but during the course of the evolution of an organism the rate of advantageous mutations is obviously great and advantageous mutations would magnify in successive generations.

Anyone who knows more about this can feel free to correct me, but I think I have everything quite correct.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."