Evolution & Unintelligent Design
87Lies Spread by Creationists
- Darwin recanted on his death-bed
- Evolution is just a theory
- Evolution is a religion
- No transitional fossils have been found
- Evolution rules out God
- Evolution is abiogenesis (explains the beginning of life)
- Evolution has never been observed
Assumption of an Intelligent Designer
I've heard many a creationist say, 'Everything in nature is so complex and beautiful...someone had to create it...there must be an intelligent designer...God.'
Creationists are sold on the Intelligent Design propaganda: 'it's too complicated to understand, therefore God did it.'
Yes, a lot of things in nature are beautiful and complex, but does that mean a supernatural being put it in place? Before science, phenomena humans didn't understand like lightning, rainbows, wild weather, earthquakes, illness were attributed to God.
Those that say evolution is just a theory don't understand what a theory in science is - a model backed up by a huge body of evidence and open to refinement. Pathogens and electricity are 'just' theories too and are well accepted for understanding our world.
Scientific method is opposite to religion, where believers claim to be "absolutely sure" of an intelligent invisible being's existence based on subjective experiences. A christian accepting evolution would need to take a loose rather than literal interpretation of the bible.
In the past 150 years since Darwin published his work, there has been huge advances and discoveries in understanding the mechanisms of inheritance, natural selection, DNA, cell biology, disease, cancer, IVF, geology, fossils and more.
An intelligent designer isn't named by the anti-evolutionists. For all we know, this designer could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This hub will demonstrate some examples of 'unintelligent design'.
Atavism
Atavism is the term used for "throw-backs" - the reappearance of a lost character, last seen in a recent ancestor but not observed more recently. They are rare, but there have been many documented cases.
Examples of atavisms:
- crocodile-like teeth in embryos of mutant chickens (from dinosaur ancestors);
- bird tissues that can be induced in the laboratory to produce teeth;
- dolphins and whales with bone-containing hind-limbs with leg bones and occasionally foot bones (from a terrestial ancestor; whales and hippos are genetically very similar);
- human tails with nerves and muscles - over a hundred documented cases; a third were "true" tails with bones, not the fused bones of the tailbone (coccyx), but up to five, well-developed, articulating vertebrae. Humans have a gene for a tail, but it gets switched off early in development in the majority.
- extra toes in cats and fingers/toes in humans - polydactyl (ancestors had 7 or 8 toes per limb).
- extra nipples and breasts in humans, including males (in a "milk line" running from armpit to groin).
- excessive hair in humans, male and female (hypertrichosis)
Vestigial Limbs & Traits
Vestigial limbs are those that are useless for their original function. Vestigial characters include anatomy, behavioural traits and non-functional pseudogenes ("broken genes"). These are reminents from their ancestors.
Examples of vestigal characters include:
- the appendix - a vestige that sometimes gets infected in humans (life-threatening, requiring urgent surgery) that is used in other mammals to digest plants
- wings of flightless birds like emus, ostriches, penguins
- wings of flightless beetles (separated wings trapped and hidden under fused wing covers)
- leg bones concealed inside the body of legless vertebrates (whales and dolphins)
- dolphins have 5 finger bones hidden inside their front flippers
- degenerate eyes in Mexican blind cavefish, blind cave salamander and burrowing moles (an eye starts to form in the embryo, and then is covered over). Why build an eye and then bury it?
- hidden vestigial pelvises floating free in the abdomen of pythons and boas
- vestigial legs in "legless" lizards
- complex mating behaviour in whip-tail lizards, even though reproduction is now exclusively by parthenogenesis (without fertilisation from males)
- humans have a non-functioning gene for synthesis of vitamin C (most other mammals can make vitamin C)
- dozens of other genes that are non-functional since divergence from the human-chimp ancestor (humans have more than 98% identical genes as chimps, our closest relatives).
- nipples and breast tissue on males (embryos start off development as females, and then males require a switch by action of male hormones in the seventh week of development, after nipples and some breast tissues has already been formed). Males getting breast cancer is surely unintelligent design!
- wisdom teeth (I had to have my impacted wisdom teeth surgically removed, otherwise they would have absessed)
- toenails (often ended up painfully ingrown)
- unnecessary teeth - the numbat (a cute, rare marsupial of Australia) has 52 teeth, but only eats soft termites - what a waste of teeth!
- Chimpanzees (98% shared DNA with humans) have been observed murdering other chimps and engaging in wars. Bonobos (an ape gentler than the common chimp and human's closest living relative) often walk upright have and have sex for non-reproductive purposes.
- As far as spare parts go, some animals have more than one penis - some insects and lizards have two. The male earwig has two identical, fully functional and independently operable penises.
Disappearing Limbs
Embryos of vertebrates are difficult to distinguish from one another compared to their adult forms. The development of embryos is consistent with branching evolution. Where an ancestral character is abandoned in adult forms, it is often retained in early stages of growth.
Examples of disappearing limbs:
- legless vertebrates such as snakes have limb buds that appear during embryonic development, which are reasborbed before hatching (evidence of descent from a four-legged ancestor)
- hind limbs appear in whale and dolphin foetuses, complete with bones, nerves and blood vessels, only to disappear before birth. Why bother developing limbs that aren't used?
- the human embryo develops a tail, which is re-absorbed. Why develop limbs to have them disappear?
- hair covering pre-term humans (lanugo), which usually sheds prior to birth.
- the recurrent laryngeal nerve in mammals (which connects the larynx to the brain) loops down around the heart - not very economical for an animal like the giraffe. In the giraffe, the nerve goes from the throat down a 2.5 metre (15 feet) long neck, into the chest, around the heart and back up the length of the neck to the brain, rendering the giraffe nearly mute.
- giraffes have to make do with 7 neck vertebrate (like humans and other mammals); a sparrow has twice the number of neck-bones and has a shorter neck.
Bonobos - Apes with Human Characteristics
Fossils
There are many intermediate/transitionary fossils showing gradual transitions from fish to four-legged animals, from dinosaurs to birds, from reptiles to mammal, from land-dwelling mammals to whales and sea cows, from limbed reptiles to snakes, from apes to man. Even insects trapped in amber illustrate the transitions from wasps to ants.
The fossil record includes many extinct forms, including trilobites and dinosaurs. It is estimated that over 90% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. The fossil record matches our expectations from morphology - invertebrates before vertebrates, fish before frogs, reptiles before mammals.
Molecular studies show that the closest living land-relative of whales is the hippopotamus - the last common ancestor of whales and hippos is sometimes called a whippo!
Some transitional fossils:
- Tiktaalik - a fishapod linking fish and four-legged animals - has fish gills and scales, intermediate ears and limbs, tetrapod neck, ribcage and lungs, flat crocodile-like skull with eyes on top.
- Archaeoptheryx - with bird and dinosaur features. Had teeth & claws on its wings. Check out useless wing-claws in an emu. Usually fingers can't be seen in a bird's wing, but claws are sometimes seen as claws in chicks such as moorhens and hoatzins, left-over reminents of front claws of dinosaurs.
- Microraptor- a feathered, four-winged dinosaur
- Pakicetus - wading land-dweller with hoofs and whale-like teeth, an ancestor of whales
- Ambulocetus ("walking whale" in Latin) - crocodile-like mammalian with hind-legs adapted for swimming and changes to structure of nose and ear with partially aquatic lifestyle
- Basilosaurus - resemble modern whales, but smaller-brained & lacking in "melon organ" for ultrasound; tiny hindlegs; transitional arrangement of nostrils between snout and top of skull
- Neanderthals - an extinct human species (but not our ancestors), also had a hyoid bone (bone at base of tongue for speech)
Contemporary transitional animals (as our contempories, these are not our ancestors):
- the platypus - mammal, reptile & unique features (confirmed by genome). Has egg-laying, venom and single hole for egg-laying, poo, pee like reptiles. Has milk production and hair like mammals, plus adaptations to aquatic life.
- the australian lungfish - has gills and a single lung, which it uses to take gasps of air from at surface.
 | Amazon Price: $3.00 List Price: $16.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $8.99 List Price: $16.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $8.72 List Price: $15.00 |
Not-so-intelligent Patterns
Why would an intelligent designer bother with evolution? So much death - more than 90% of all species that ever lived have been wiped out - to finally get to humans? All for a plan for a woman to disobey by eating a piece of fruit, meaning all other humans are eternally damned except for a small proportion that believe in a man-god hybrid that was brutally murdered.
And if this intelligent designer didn't use evolution, but created Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago - how does all of this make any more sense? Why make eyes that develop then disappear? Why make breasts appear under armpits? Why are sex-crazed bonobos okay, but sex-crazed humans aren't.
Evolution doesn't rule out a supernatural being. Evolution doesn't require a supernatural being either. If there was a supernatural being involved in creating life, whether by evolution or not, one has to wonder what this being was smoking.
Dishonest politics of anti-evolutionists
Darwin - the Man Who Killed God
Majority of factual information sourced from The Rough Guide to Evolution by Mark Pallen.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (13)
- Funny (4)
- Awesome (9)
- Beautiful (5)
- Interesting (3)
CommentsLoading...
Well written and informative.
Exactly as Pcunix saiys, It won't change the dumbos minds. Maybe it will change one mind, though. That will be one less human spreading mis-information around. Well documented hub here, thank you.
Nobody knows with certainty what this thing is all about so it's all just speculation and to call people dumbos (Pcunix and Austinstar) because they have a different opinion is as unintelligent and egotistical as it gets! Peace!! Tom
I totally believe in evolution, but that does not exclude the idea of creation. The first form of life may have very well been an act of divine creation while the rest is with no doubt an act of evolution. To exclude one or another is to look at life from a narrow perspective, but if I have to choose just one of the two possibilities I will go with evolution.
Whit all the proof we have it seems absurd that some people would rather flatter themselves as being “sons of God” than accepting that their ancestors were cute, or not so cute, monkeys.
kathryn - thanks
Pcunix, Austin, justom - the real dumbos are those that reject it without honesty and open-mindedly examining it. It takes a lot of courage to consider that one's belief system might be wrong, as I illustrated in my hub: http://hubpages.com/hub/Ex-Christian-from-believer
Petra - You are correct in that evolution doesn't exclude a creator. If I had to choose, I would go with the one that is most logical and has the most evidence, which is science
Tanks for an informative and useful Hub. Well, I guess you know where I stand on the issue!
Love and peace
Tony
Tony, comment came through twice, so deleted one. Glad you liked it
Pardon me. It's as accurate to call "them" dumbos as it is to call an atheist a follower of satan. I stand corrected and I apologize.
So let me get this right, you're all calling folks that disagree with you dumbos? That's really going to help. Amazing!! Peace!! Tom
there's a difference between someone that disagrees with you and someone that calls you evil and a follower of satan. Agree that the latter are dumbos :)
Baileybear, this is awesome! Another tour de force in favor of evolution. A lot of beautiful detail, here.
I like the fact that you included, "Evolution doesn't rule out a supernatural being." But find it curiously illogical that you added, "If there was a supernatural being that used evolution, it does cast doubt on intelligence of the designer."
Why would it cast doubt on the intelligence of the designer? If the aim of any putative "designer" was to create flawless creatures without the curious anomalies you detail in your article, then I would say, "Yes, pretty dumb." But you are jumping to an assumption about a great many things not in evidence.
If a "creator" exists, then He might have some other purpose in mind.
I find a lot of "dumb" arguments for and against the Bible (and God), for instance. Both camps are displaying perhaps laziness or disinterest. Disinterest is okay, but the conclusions and pronouncements of a disinterested party are suspect. Can a disinterested party be trusted to give a subject due diligence?
For the other "dumbers" who are displaying laziness, the problem is one of not exploring all possibilities.
The creation "scientists," for instance, make some outrageous claims in support of their "small" universe. They are merely being lazy (and perhaps dishonest), because they are clinging to one interpretation that clearly does not work. It can be said that those who ignore reality are courting delusion. Some Christians do this with wild abandon. Science has the market cornered on understanding physical reality, and those "creationists" are ignoring reality.
Walt Brown, on his creation science website, has a self-published book which is hilarious and tragically sad. The guy supposedly has a PhD from MIT (one of the world's most renowned technical schools). And yet the logic and scientific acumen in his book are laughable, at best.
Everything that disagrees with a young universe is automatically labelled "evolutionary." In one outrageous example, he points to the direction of satellite orbits around the various planets of our Solar system. He claims that an "evolved" Solar system would have all moons going in the same direction (prograde rather than retrograde). Yet, he is thinking inside a rather narrow box and missing a lot of possibilities by his fixed ideas. His blinders and arrogance are blinding him to the fruits of discovery. All of the retrograde moons are smaller, captured asteroids, and it's just as easy to capture one coming on the left (retrograde) as it is one coming on the right (prograde). Duh! Creation pseudo-science loses, again.
Brown's book is full of such illogics and poorly thought-out reasoning.
By the same token, though, critics of the Bible all too often don't use enough imagination to find possible ways that truth is in there. I understand that some don't want to take the time or effort. But their statements are sometimes "dumb" out of disinterest.
Einstein said that imagination is far more important than knowledge. He also said that logic will get you from A to B, but imagination will take you everywhere. Why was this important to him? Because some problems cannot be solved by the methodical nature of experimentation, observation and logic, alone (the literal approach). Imagining relativity was like that. And it took many years to find proof of relativity. I believe one of the Gemini orbital missions included a relativistic test which proved the time-dilation effect of fast moving objects.
The real enemy is ego. Ego is too frequently attached to ideas and cannot see beyond them. Ego likes to be right and loves to condemn others who are viewed as wrong. Some scientists do this, not just the religious nuts.
Thanks, Lonestar. I actually deleted a lot of content, because I had way too much information.
On the forums, when the bible bashers were contradicting themselves and the bible, someone said, "what was this intelligent designer smoking?"
Believers know that evolution does not actually require a supernatural being, and it (along with geology etc) put a giant question mark on the bible (actually looking into the history of religion does that too).
Some believers try to see a different interpretation of the creation story etc to try and make things fit, which they don't. So really, to believe in both creation and evolution, one needs to accept that their designer wasn't all that smart
Well written hub.
goddunit!
thanks, getitrite
Another excellent hub Baileybear! Unfortunately a lot of folks who deny evolution will probably never be swayed by the overwhelming factual evidence. Seems to me that religious faith means believing what you want to believe, even if it means denying the reality of what is right in front of you.
You know Einstein had some great ideas, but not all of them were correct. As we grow as scientists and discover new things and new ways of looking at things, we must evolve or continue to perpetuate inaccuracies. My only fault with creationists is that they insist on perpetuating old ideas.
There are still people around that "believe" the earth is flat. Einstein was continually learning and revising his theories. People after him have learned and revised things. Why can't creationists do the same?
Joyous - great to have approval from a highly qualified biologist! Yep, people will believe what they want to believe. I'm open to the idea that a god exists, but I don't see any evidence.
Austinstar - I like how science is open and ideas are refined with new evidence. Maybe creationists will become extinct? (Or form a cult)
Creationists are already part of a cult (i.e. religion). Unfortunately it's very large and wields a lot of political power.
yep, I read about some of the politics and court cases over the years with creationists attempting to discredit science. There's plenty of blatant lies everywhere that the gullible willingly lap up. Religion and politics are intertwined
Intelligent design is what God set up first, way back then, since then, UNintelligent design can be seen in the damage done by millennial abuse. Species of trees and animals gone extinct, not by undesign but by mans abuse of planet. Dinosaurs extinct by a flood.
What you have missed is that all the dna switches are in every animal. Code for short beak, long beak, curved beak, large wings, developed eyes or optical spots. These switches are turned on and off as the animal requires. This is why the dna strand is so awesomely long and very complicated, so complicated that perhaps an occasional switch goes on when it should be off.
But i would not discount God just because a few switches seem to be out of place.
No new life on the planet they found but i could have told them that as soon as they found it. lol. Look at a bunch of mistakes and say 'God is unlikely', is a big mistake. Too bad you never learned anything other than what supported the conclusion you wanted from the beginning.
Bailey,
This hub is very well written and informative. I was interested to see all those crazy 'unintelligent' designs, and that section about the developing embryos showing certain traits that the developed organisms no longer possess, very interesting.
I recently watched a great video at a science museum about black holes, which convinced me that black holes are like the driving force of the universe, the way a power plant makes our cities run. There is some pretty convincing evidence that black holes are a result of the big bang, they keep the universe expanding and working the way it's supposed to. My opinion is that black holes and the big bang are the result of an intelligent creator who has a hands-off approach. Almost like a scientist who stood back to observe what happens when you add baking soda and vinegar. The way we are progressing right now, science will soon be able to explain some things that religious people have believed in for a long time. I wonder if science and religion would finally be at peace then?
hanging out - yes, it does seem you have a grasp of some of the basic concepts of genetics - ie the on/off "switches". What flood are you saying killed the dinosaurs? Noah's flood, LOL? Plenty of extinct species before humans arrived.
AC Sutcliff - I haven't looked at depth into cosmic theories, but I did read somewhere that the big bang theory was put forward by creationists ie to give the universe a beginning. The alternative is to say that matter has always existed. I'm skeptical science and religion will be at peace - there's a lot of politics involved. Different types of religion are never at peace either.
I'm going to check for a tail as soon as I get home tonight! LOL! Lots of detail here...hope you don't rile them up too much! WB
Wayne - he he. Won't change any of their minds, I'm sure!
Congratulations to a very good hub!
It's yet another great tool to point out all the absurd and irrational ideas among the religious types.
Maybe if natural forces were to provide an ever stronger negative impuls to their minds the more irrational their mental activity becomes?
Naaa ... they'd be just lining up for painkillers at their local church instead of learning how to add a bit of science and logic to how they use their brains! :)
thanks, f_hruz - I read a ridiculous post by an extremist christian that evolution is in conflict with the rest of science! This christian also says "Eve was white because made from a rib and ribs are white" and "all atheists are evil"! This person is a very good writer, but I stopped following them because of their hateful views.
The little bit of science jargon mixed in with a whole lot of rubbish to come up with an alternative creative theory is so laughable - something about Noah's flood coming from below the earth (or was it disappeared below the earth), making the earth bigger and breaking up the "tectonic plates" (science jargon), and somehow radioactive waves (science jargon) are involved, and most the dinosaurs were sucked deep beneath the earth's crust with the dinosaurs (or some garbage like that!)
Bailybear, I'm skeptical too. Sometimes I think they disagree just for the fun of it.
Awesome hub! Very well written.
Thanks, Jake. I could have put so much more in, but thought it would have been too long. Sounds like you know a lot about evolution (seen you in forums) - should write some hubs
You intentional ignored my response to joy, Or you wanted a reason to advertise your hub, either way here, I am. I know you have habit of deleting posts, but I am optimistic.
The evolution model AND the Creation model BOTH rely on the interpretations of historical evidence, not direct empirical evidence. All data must first be interpreted and the way the data is interpreted is based on the interpreters’ worldview. Evolutionists try to squirm out o this fact, but they cannot. Molecule to man evolution is as observable as the creation event. Both sides first assume their interpretation/worldview true.
Both sides have the same earth, universe, stars, fossils, and even the same science when is come to observational. It is interpretations of the evidence (worldview) in which we base our arguments, not the evidence itself. Science does not “say” anything, scientists do.
Just because evolution is, the most propagated interpretation of the evidence does not make it true. All the facts and evidence are neutral and must be interpreted before it can "point" to any conclusion.
With that in place, let us move on to your super fallacious article.
“Spiderpam is incorrect in her claim that microevolution results in loss of information.”
Really, can you back this statement up?
“What is the evidence that shows that mutations can supply increase new information rather than just modifying existing genetic information?”
What evidence/facts do evolutionist have that ID proponents and biblical creationist are not privy to?
“Unintelligent Design”
The arrogance of you evolution believers never ceases to amaze me. When was the last time you built a human? Therefore, since you do not know why we have certain parts they must be useless.
“Tonsils had been considered useless until science more recently proved that they are an important part of the immune system. Years ago, doctors would routinely remove tonsils any time they were inflamed. Eventually, it was discovered that this could actually cause many problems.
Recent discoveries have also proved that the appendix plays an important part in the body's health. It aids in digestion and produces antibodies that defend your body against bacteria and it crucial to your immune system. Removing you appendix can shave 8 years off your lifespan Some studies have shown that the appendix has an important role even before a person is born.
Sadly, many science textbooks still talk about “vestigial organs.” They are very outdated. Even evolutionists now agree that the appendix has a purpose. Charles Darwin was apparently wrong”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOdftd6c2f8
How much of your “proofs” are witnessed, tested, or observed, ad how much is interpreted, based of the presupposition that molecule to man evolution took place. If you are honest, you see you are begging the question with 99% of your hub.
When you dig up fossils, are digging up the past or present, In order words when does the fossils exist?
“Whales legs”
“While the proponents of Darwinian evolution hold up the fossil evidence for whale evolution as one of the best examples of Darwin’s theory in the fossil record, the reality is far different from the hype. It is good to keep in mind that most paleontologists believe that a single-celled organism evolved from inorganic matter and continued to evolve into virtually every living organism that lives today, ever has lived in the past, or ever will in the future live on planet Earth. There is real debate, even among the evolutionary faithful, concerning whale evolution.” Therefore, the search for photographic evidence of an atavistic leg, dangling uselessly from the underbelly of a whale, ends in failure. The reason such myths find a home in Darwinian Theory, is because ‘just so’ stories rarely provide any substantive evidence. Whether it the atavistic leg in whales or the prehensile tails in neonates, looks can indeed be deceiving, especially if the entire theory is based upon a faulty premise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM
If the whale did not have those bones, there would be no more baby whales (if you get my drift.).
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/chimeras
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/p
“Human tails”
More like Human tails and fairy tales
“If malformations may possibly be due to the expression of genes inherited from distant ancestors but long suppressed, one can think of interesting suggestions. For example, some human females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long-suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands, in fact, have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?”
http://creation.com/human-tails-and-fairy-tales
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio
“Etc.”
Coccyx - tonsils - appendix - cecum - goose bumps - etc. - Evolutionists still assert that many structures in the bodies of animals and people (and even in plants) are useless remnants, i.e., "vestiges," of organs which functioned only in evolutionary ancestors.
They have even gone as far as to change the very definition of the word vestigial.
“How does your theory explain atavisms (e.g. hens’ teeth, horses’ toes, whales legs, human tails, etc.)?”
Let me say many of your colleagues do not use these as proof of evolution any more
“Hen’s teeth”
“A number of extinct birds possessed teeth or ridges, while at the same time many reptiles of today do not have teeth. This is true of other vertebrates. Some fish have teeth, and some do not. Some amphibians have teeth, and some do not. Most mammals have teeth, but some do not. Some people have teeth, and some do not. ;)
Archaeopteryx did not have reptile-like teeth, but teeth that were distinctively bird-like, similar to teeth found in a number of other fossil birds. Its teeth were unserrated with constricted bases and expanded roots, while theropod dinosaurs, from which it supposedly evolved from, had serrated teeth with straight roots. They also had different methods of tooth implantation and replacement.”
http://creation.com/teeth-developing-in-bird-embry
“98% similarity between the DNA of chimps”
Actually, it is more like 95% according to the latest evolutionary research.
The National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect. Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.
The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’
The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books? of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross"
DNA can replicate and diversify, BUT there are limits meaning there are restricted to separate populations (bacteria stay bacteria, dogs stay dogs with great diversity), which flies into the face of molecule to man evolution and adding the time god and generally harmful mutations do not help matters.
Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp
“How does it explain the phylogenetic family trees can be reconstructed from these sequence similarities?”
A phylogenetic tree is a hypothetical reconstruction of lines of descent. Both creationary and evolutionary biologists use phylogenetic trees, because both acknowledge at least some degree of common descent. However, while evolutionists believe that all life stems from a single, universal phylogenetic true of common descent, creationists believe that life stems from a number of independent phylogenetic trees -- a model known as baraminology. Creationists stay with evidence while evolutionists are force to go way past the actual evidence because of their worldview.
Phylogenetic illustrations are not proof, but you should always read the fine prints
http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/dinochrt.gi
See the solid fossil record supports creation, but the dotted lines of common ancestry must be added because it is support by actual fossils evidence.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-na
"[Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians.
Spiderpam, I see you've just cut and pasted from Jame's hub instead of writing something original.
"I know you have a habit of deleting posts." I rarely delete comments. I deleted over 2-dozen from my ex-christian hub because people were attacking each other and I don't condone that. I'm sure I deleted at least one of yours for aggressive personal attacks, "as you have a habit" of doing. I note that your own pro-religion hubs attack science, but you do not have comment boxes, so who are you to judge whether I delete comments or not?
I queried your statement about information loss, because I don't recall anything of the sort from my studies of genetics at university. Mutations can involve in some losses, some gains, not overall deterioration.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
It's obvious you didn't read my hub, as the point of my hub wasn't to defend evolution, but rather to question the intelligence of the "intelligent designer" (whether by means of evololution or creation.
The link to James' hub is http://hubpages.com/hub/Darwin-and-Evolution
I don't agree with James' hub - it is heavily biased by anti-scientific anti-Darwin proproganda put out by creationists (the non-science junk Spiderpam referred to above and more, including hate sites promoted by Spiderpam - James raved how "knowledgeable" Spiderpam is - whatever!). There are some excellent comments on there well worth reading by secularist, joyus, manna, jane, tonymac - all of whom were respectful & objective in their comments, as well as being knowledgeable about science, Darwin and religion.
As for SP's reference to atheism being a religion - what a crock! Yes, some atheist's have the "evangelical zeal" like religionists - Dawkins is one apparently, but how is not believing in invisible superbeings a religion - duh! I don't have hurt feelings over SP calling my hub a superfallious article - I didn't make stuff up - I provided the source of my factual information - I merely viewed it from a different angle. I don't respect anything SP has to say - her hubs are aggressive, antiscience, antievolution etc and aggression is her style - even if it means spouting misinformed proproganda (lies) to defend her religion. I make no apologies for feeling this way, SP - you should have known better than to post on my hub with your attacking attitude - you can have it right back.
Interesting and very thorough Hub, BaileyBear
I largely gave up debating evolution due to the huge amount of pseudoscience and junk science online. Sadly, it has far more to do with politics than science, and it seems that activists try to force you to pick a side in an 'Us vs Them' battle.
Sadly, everyone thinks that they are an expert - it is very easy to cut and paste 'facts' without understanding the underlying principles of a very complex theory!
"Evolution doesn't rule out a supernatural being." - That just about sums it up - evolutionary theory is a very poor philosophical tool for proving/disproving the existence of a divine being. Unfortunately, this irrelevant and needless debate will run for a long time :(
Rated up :)
"Anti science" what does this mean?
You mean anti evolution, evolution is not science, it's interpretation of the evidence, that's all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5PKukgkEbU
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1
You fault me for repeating my work from James hub here, but when I ask you a question, you don’t give me your answer, but a link to a dogmatic evolution apologist website.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHiJ7q-KRCA
"worth reading by secularist, joyus, manna, jane, tonymac - all of whom were respectful & objective”
Really? Why? because they agree with your interpretation of the evidence. Are you even talking to me or are using the appeal the audience fallacy, AGAIN. The argument by emotive language using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience's sentiments instead of their minds.
This fallacy uses strong accusatory language (“aggressive personal attacks", “attack science”, “anti-scientific anti-Darwin proproganda put out by creationists (the non-science junk”, “her hubs are aggressive, antiscience, antievolution etc and aggression is her style - even if it means spouting misinformed proproganda (lies) to defend her religion”)
“that's why it's such a joke that James' thinks SpiderPam is so informed and knowledgeable - because neither of them know much about science - only the lies fed to them by the anti-evolution anti-science brigade”
Does these qualify as a personal attacks?
Where did I lie? Because I don’t agree with your interpretation of the evidence doesn’t make me a liar. Mr. Ruse, an evolutionist is the one who said “Evolution was a religion” fault him, not me.
You are angry, bitter, poor a victim of religion, I feel sorry for you, but rambling off ad hominem, ridicule, and emotive appeals, won’t heal that wound.
Surfidreamer - there's so much out there debating back and forth, and people rigidly hold their views. I wanted to write something from a different angle.
Spiderpam - I gave you an answer - I said I don't recall anywhere in my studies mutation resulting in repeated losses - mutations can result in gains, loses, or are neutral. What science background do you have?
There are cases where chromosome counts have increased, but I won't bother finding it for you, as you are not receptive.
Why did you come onto this hub if you just want to post your propoganda? I asked a question on James' hub, why couldn't you answer it there?
It is obvious that you didn't even read my hub, as I wasn't arguing evolution vs creation, but rather was pondering the intelligence of a supernatural designer.
I don't take anything you say seriously, SP, including the claim that I am bitter etc. I'm not bitter, but I have been burnt by closed-minded religionists, so I am wary of people that push their view without considering the other side (clearly, you have come on here on the attack, without understanding the angle of my hub). I am not interested in dialoguing with you further. I know from past experience (you were the most viscious person on my ex-christian hub, on of only 3 or so out of hundreds).
"There are cases where chromosome counts have increased"
How is new information added?
Take this sentence:
"Evolution vs. Science"
If you copy it 100,000 times, do you have new information of more of the same? Now add generally harmful mutations, now add the non-creative ‘force’ of natural selection.
http://www.randommutation.com/
I read your hub, and I answered your assumptions, you made a great case against theistic evolution (thank you).
Evolution is a religion of death and suffering. The god that would use evolution is evil and wasteful.
I was taught evolution in public schools, all my life, and started to question the after I was out of college, I’ve been on your side of the coin, that’s how I know you’re wrong, you on the other hand were not a Christian, you were religious like many new atheists.
"I apologize for not knowing enough to scientifically refute the evidence for Creation, nor for being clever and manipulative enough to "scientifically" support the theory of evolution. I do have above-average knowledge of computers and computer software operations. I know that my computer cannot randomly write the 4 billion byte problem contained within A SINGLE DNA molecule no matter how much time a give it to do so. Ergo - I do not believe a "primordial soup" could have randomly written the program either. Even with the alleged billions of years to do so. I don't have that much faith!"
I can see you are upset, I won’t respond again. Be Well.
SP - I was a christian, but you continue to insult me by claiming I wasn't. I am now agnostic, and more on the side of atheist than any religion. Thanks for going back and reading properly. Agree that it would be best not to dialogue further.
Human Perception of Reality can be misleading due
false Beliefs and Knowledge.
Creation ... Is ... Perfect ... !
Shahid - I agree with the first part of your comment and disgree with the second (because of the first part). Thanks for visiting
Maybe Creation is a metaphor... The Bible never says how God does what he does, it's we who assume that he says something and it happens. Whose to say that evolution denies God? Evolution denies literal interpitation of Genesis...
ChildofGod - anyone that accepts findings in modern biology, geology etc cannot accept a literal 6 day creation & young Earth. Those that accept science and still believe in God see the creation story as a metaphor.
Fascinating stuff!
Trish, I had to cull lots, as would have been too long. Maybe I will write a hub on genetic quirks at some stage?
Oh wow, right over my hed... sorry about clulessness, i cant sleep so i go on these things after my brain starts to shut down...
ChildofGod - hope to see you back for another go. I tried not to use too many technical terms.
"one has to wonder what this being was smoking"
That made my day, Bailey. And obviously God sprinkled dinosaur bones cause he thought it was funny. He's such a joker.
The questions at the end of your Hub only show that believing in a literal translation of the Bible just doesn't make sense any way you slice it. Yes, the Bible has some good things in it - and a ton of bad things in it - but nothing we couldn't figure out on our own. Besides, I think the entire point IS to figure it out on our own. Being told to obey a set of rules in an attempt to be "moral" only shows how obedient you are to authority, not that you understand what morality even is. My brother, who takes the Bible literally, demonstrates this all too well.
Anyway I'm probably rambling off-topic, so I'll just say that this was a great Hub and I'll definitely keep an eye out for more like these in the future!
One thing though - there's a slight typo in the Bonobo point: "often walk upright have and sex".
mrpopo - thanks for commenting and I've fixed up the error. Not off-topic at all. This is one of the hubs I wrote as part of my series about my de-conversion from christianity. My two most recent hubs are about Darwin & evolution.
Baileybear, I like this hub. Yes the fossil records long ago convinced me that there was something in the theory of evolution. This was long before I knew about DNA. And of course there are creatures that appear to be in transition just further adding to the argument for evolution.
Rod - thanks. I didn't just want to do a evolution vs creation hub; this one is a bit different. Yes, there are lots of transitional fossils. No matter what evidence though, those that oppose will deny.
Baileybear, when I was a kid I remember seeing these church sponsored posters at the local train station. They were against evolution. One argument they pushed forward for the idea that evolution was rubbish was that anomalies, freaks turn up all the time and that scientists were mistaking past anomalies, freaks for links in the chain of how we became what we are today. This notion has had the benefit of making scientists more cautious which isn't a bad thing. Lucy, for example, couldn't have been a freak of nature because after she was discovered others who were similar to her were found nearby.
Rod, I've put some links on my 'Darwin - killed God' hub about the dishonesty of the ID. They believe evolution makes people atheists (and they think atheists are evil), so their sole purpose is to 'destroy evolution', even by dishonest means
I reckon, Baileybear, the only way to absolutely destroy the theory of evolution is by dishonest means.
Right now James and his lot are pushing the WW2 death camps saying Darwin is responsible.
Maybe Darwin is also responsible for it raining in Queensland on Christmas Day this year and also for the recent financial hole the USA and Greece have gotten themselves into.
Hey! Let's go for broke and say that terrible person Darwin is responsible for all the wars of the 20th and 21st Century and all our economic woes. There that will do it. Oh, last year you didn't get that Christmas card from your maiden aunt till a week after Christmas? Yes that dastardly rotter Darwin would have to be responsible and he'll be responsible for it getting to you late this go round as well.
Rod, I've decided my next hub will be about the dirty politics of the IDiots. I hate politics & social 'science', but I am prepared to do the research to address this. I've already found plenty of useful links.
If they're going to blame Darwin, why not go for Pasteur & Koch, who were Hilter's inspirations? Get rid of anything to do with microbes, just incase it makes some moron political leader decide to do some more "racial hygiene" and eugenics. Sure that would go down well!
Rod, I noticed James is now attempting to tar scientific research by inappropriately linking the evil actions of 'medical scientist' war criminals. Gosh, politics is an ugly beast.
Well, Baileybear, I am no longer prepared to take James so seriously. Life is too short. Mind you I can't help but poke holes in some of his arguments. Hey! Its that devil Darwin in me making me do it! Good luck with your next hub.
Hey, Rod. I'm still sticking holes in his arguments (well making the holes that are already there even bigger) - just can't be bothered doing it as comments on his hub, as he is so obstinate. He's actually inspired me to write another hub or two. I've started writing one about the ID politics.
just as long as you are having a good time, Baileybear.
Great Hubpage mate! COngrats!!
Thanks, copernico
This is another great one. I really enjoy your topics and your writing. Thanks.
Thanks TahoeDoc - I have around 4 topics that particularly interest me for writing about.
Wow, that was a really great post! Keep up the good work.
sic334 - thanks, it was fun to research and write
Two words, my friend; 'Angler', and 'Fish'.
O.O - huh?
Again Late,
Not an 'intelligent design' proponent.
But there is an observable order in reality. At least enough to let us have the thoughts to speculate on its nature. If its illusory, so is our reason.
Why would a creator use evolution? Perhaps its the only way a soul can be created: By setting life in motion.
Life means death.
If the objection to a creator is that it requires
'magic', then remove the assumption that the creator can do whatever the creator wants 'magically'.
Now, given that the creator cannot just wave his arms and things instantly appear, how to make life out of nothing, or out of lifeless chemicals? How do we make sentience develop without having the chemicals go through eons of change? (life, death, life again).
Humans haven't been able to create intelligence, even with all the ordered attempts in computers and faster processing and 'better' materials, we still haven't made something instantaneously the way we want it. Why, in the absence of magic, do we expect the same of the creator?
If we plan to envision 'god', we need to look outside of our expectations and our current capabilities. We also need to do so if we plan to refute god.
Otherwise, we are guilty of the same limitation that rationalists accuse theists of.
Stating to a certainty that god can't exist because if he did he would have done a better job implies that we know what creation is for, how it works, and what the alternatives were. We don't.
That we exist at all, with enough order in reality that we can ponder the question is a pretty improbable thing too. Probability is about the future. The probability of an event that has occurred is always 100%
If 'god did it', it doesn't matter how unlikely it was.
If it was chance, it doesn't matter how unlikely it was.
It happened.
The questions are how and why, not if.
cheers
Anton, yes there is order in nature, but that doesn't support the creationist camp any. I studied chemistry and biology, and chemicals have 'patterns' but if you break them down, they're all really made of the same stuff.
If there is some external creator force, I'm pretty certain it isn't the god of the bible, that punishes humans for ridiculous things.
Yes, the god of the bible is pretty much created himself.
I very much doubt the writer of leviticus would agree with the gospel of luke as to the nature of that god.
My only point about order is that it is counter-intuitive that chaos would develop a complex order on its own. Why should order spontaneously generate? And if order is the result, can it be said to be spontaneous? If it can, what keeps it that way? Why does gravity work today just as reliably as yesterday? Why are the rules so consistent that rudimentary science can determine and prove them?
I don't know the answer, but clearly there is one.
No truth without faith (religion) is a limitation on discovery
No truth without reason (science) is also a limitation on discovery.
I try to use both. Oh yes, I fail (often) but I think the 'trying' is why I'm here. So I am content.
cheers
Anton - the god of the bible is adapted from older mythology & is created by men.
As far as order on earth, science says order can happen when energy is input into a system. Earth is not a closed system as energy comes from the sun (which is why the entropy argument creationists use is inappropriate).
Interestingly, if you dissect the concept of energy enough, it is not really any different from what the alchemists believe.
Hi, this was amazing, great information and detailed explanations, I watched the video above about the Bonobos and my first thought was, well, there goes the bigfoot! I am sure after watching this that many people have seen these, as they stand upright. My belief is that we learn something new every day, I think that evolution is an amazing thing, and God? well, to be honest my answer to that one is, who knows? I think people forget that the Earth is only a small part of the Universe, so maybe somewhere there was a creator, but that doesn't take away the fact that we as a species obviously have evolved over the centuries or thousands of years, fascinating hub! cheers nell
Nell - many christians now believe in evolution, but believe God was behind it
Excellent article. Comprehensive and knowledgeable. And your last comment above says it all. It is the only logical and rational conclusion to how man came to be. From the sea to today. People can speculate all they want, but we will never know until after we leave this planet (if there truly is a consciousness that remains).
hi, well it seems you have saved me the trouble of responding to these highly intelligent Phd's and DR's who choose to say and promote that there is no evidence of evolution in earths history of life. the fact that humans all start off as girls and the developement of the human larynx should be enough to leave them speechless but no they have to nit pick and ignor all kinds of evidence. why do certain species of caterpillars release phermones of queen ants as a survival strategy? why do some jumping spiders mimic ants. no bible sheds any light on these odd behaviors only the theory of evolved genetic traits give any light to these behaviors. creationism has been around far longer then the "new" theories of evolution yet their biggest argument is you haven't come up with all the proofs yet. you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. a big thumbs up on this hub. thanks, gconeyhiden
Sorry all you quoting the bible, but let's face it. That book is full of stories that were handed down first person to person before it was ever written down. the stories that were recorded on paper were written or told by "Men" men of religious background who were the only ones that were educated. these stories were used to control the population and to explain to people who we are and where we came from. You can't take what it says as necessarily how we came to be or why we came to be. Evolution is the only thing that makes any sense. I really don't think ( if there is a God) that he would sprinkle the earth with all these fossiled remains just to to confuse us. sorry this is just my opinion.
There's something for everyone. Why does life have to be a debate?
-a biologist that loves God
Pcunix Level 7 Commenter 18 months ago
Nicely done. It won't change any of the dumbos minds, but then nothing ever will. It might make them squirm just a little before they shut off their brains again.