Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
Lucas Nuckols has written an essay about Evolution raising a number of points. I plan to refute this essay point-by-point (hopefully). Also just for fun, I'll keep a fallacy count!
Edit, it may not be in-order, but hopefully I'll cover all the material.
First up: Lucas Nuckols opening paragraph!
Number of fallacies so far:1
Number of fallacies so far:2
I'll try and explain the big-bang in my own words... It may not go too well, I'm not a cosmologist after all... Also, if I'm wrong on the details, please correct me.
Here goes:
13.3-13.9 Billion Years ago, all the entire universe was contained an a small singularity. This includes all the laws of nature, all the energy, all the matter space, and time itself. For some reason unknown to us yet, the universe expanded extremely quickly, during a period known as the inflationary epoch. This very first moments of this expansion gave rise to matter, space, time and the laws of physics, such as gravity. Sub-atomic particles like quarks and leptons are formed from the newly born universe. Then over around three minutes, atomic nuclei begin to form. After about a about 400 000 years, the universe has cooled enough for the nuclei to capture electrons. This universe then cools and expands further, resulting in the formation of stars, galaxies and eventually planets.
My explanation is probably terrible, but at least it represents the theory a whole lot better.
Anyway onto the second paragraph:
Okay, next paragraph.
Additionally the theory of evolution has little to do with describing the origin of life. There is a whole different theory to cover that - it's called Abiogenesis. Also, what was legal back in the 1920s, has little to do with what is true.
Oooh, I sense another paragraph!
Let's take the example of the eye. It' is called an irreducibly complex system, but I'll get to that in one of my quotes.
In fact the whole irreducibly complex argument is an argument from ignorance. I think this is the chain of logic it follows:
This raises the fallacy count to 4! And with that, I'm getting tired of this... I think this is going to be the last point I'm going to address.
Also I think the quotes of the scientists are ad-vericundums so that raises the fallacy count to 5! This guy is amazing, he make so many fallacies in such a short time!
Edit, it may not be in-order, but hopefully I'll cover all the material.
First up: Lucas Nuckols opening paragraph!
Umm... That's just a logical fallacy! argumentum ad populum. So we'll disregard that.Lucas Nuckols said:According to a Gallup poll, less than forty percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. This poll sends a clear message that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution (Gallup, 2009).
Number of fallacies so far:1
Evolution is widely accepted by the scientific community, anyone who had an education should know this. Also, the general public shouldn't really matter when deciding matters of science. We didn't vote for General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics!. Also I'm fairly confident that National Geographic doesn't use the argumentum ad populum fallacy to support Evolution, when it has fossils and observed instance of speciation, observed instances of beneficial mutations, genetic evidence, and quite a bit more. Why would you use logical fallacies, when you have mountains of evidence? It doesn't really make sense.This survey is very shocking and is quite contrary to what is promoted by most of the evolutionist media sources, such as “National Geographic,” “Scientific American,” “Nova,” and more. These sources often attempt to lead people to believe that evolution is a fact and that almost everyone believes in it.
This is probably the one of the worst straw-man of the big-bang theory I've seen. Not only do us atheistic "evolutionists" not believe that crock of garbage, but it's just plain ridiculous. This man is intellectually dishonest, I'll bet he knows full-well that atheists don't believe this rubbish.Most atheistic evolutionists (not all) believe that the universe started with a “Big Bang,” a huge explosion that created the universe. They do not know where this energy came from or why it took place. They believe after a long period of time rocks were formed out of that explosion. Many evolutionists believe that after the “Big Bang” there was a “primordial soup” for millions of years, and out of that primordial soup a simple life form developed. After millions and millions of years that simple life form progressed to more “complex” life forms through series of mutations into where we are today.
Number of fallacies so far:2
I'll try and explain the big-bang in my own words... It may not go too well, I'm not a cosmologist after all... Also, if I'm wrong on the details, please correct me.
Here goes:
13.3-13.9 Billion Years ago, all the entire universe was contained an a small singularity. This includes all the laws of nature, all the energy, all the matter space, and time itself. For some reason unknown to us yet, the universe expanded extremely quickly, during a period known as the inflationary epoch. This very first moments of this expansion gave rise to matter, space, time and the laws of physics, such as gravity. Sub-atomic particles like quarks and leptons are formed from the newly born universe. Then over around three minutes, atomic nuclei begin to form. After about a about 400 000 years, the universe has cooled enough for the nuclei to capture electrons. This universe then cools and expands further, resulting in the formation of stars, galaxies and eventually planets.
My explanation is probably terrible, but at least it represents the theory a whole lot better.
Anyway onto the second paragraph:
I get the feeling, there isn't. When I hear the theory of evolution I think of biological evolution! The other "types" of evolution aren't really relavent, so I'll leave them be.There is often confusion as to what exactly evolution means, since there are so many types of evolution, such as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, macroevolution, microevolution, and chemical evolution, and others.
That's just plain wrong. Sure, he got the defintion of microevolution correct, but the bit about all the others not being observed is just wrong. Macroevolution is evolution that occurs above the species level. So new species are evolving is macroevolution. There are plenty of examples of this, some are here. And I can name several: The Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas), the Lab Rat Worm (Lab Rat Worm) and Maize (Zea mays).The only evolution that we see happening today is microevolution, which according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary means “comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level” (2009).
WHAT? That's rubbish! There's plenty of evidence for the others. Humans have seen stars die and be born (stellar evolution), we've seen them ageing, we've seen galaxies in the various stages of development (cosmic evolution), we've produced chemical evolution (fusion reactors, hydrogen bombs etc.), and we know it powers stars. Also there's background radiation from the big-bang that's being picked up by telescopes (cosmic evolution). That statement is just plain wrong. Almost all types of evolution are accepted as fact within the scientific community! (Though Cosmic evolution isn't really a subject though, it's a bit too broad) Especially microevolution and macroevolution. All the scientists agree that this happens, it's just the details they debate.Microevolution is accepted as a fact by most scientists, and it should not be confused with the others in reference to evolution. The others types of evolution have never been actually seen or observed happening, so there is no concrete evidence to support the theory that these types of evolution are happening.
Okay, next paragraph.
This isn't really of any concern, so I'll let that stand.Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution in 1837 (1859, p.27). He was on the H.M.S Beagle during a voyage in the Galapagos Islands and noticed the variety of beaks the finches had there, which sparked his interest to study natural selection. By studying natural selection he came up with the theory of evolution and printed his book, The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.
Sorry, there's plenty of evidence for evolution, in fact a whole book is devoted to it; "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. Some of the things mentioned are artificial selection (dog-breeders, farmers etc.), fossils (especially transition forms), genetics (comparing genomes), comparative anatomy, and observed instances of evolution (lizards evolving appendixes over a few decades, bacteria evolving to change their diet, etc.) That last statement is just false!Since the publishing of Darwin's book, there have been heated debates on the topic of the origin of life, which have sparked court battles, such as “The Scopes Monkey Trial”. The monkey trial, according to Douglas Linder (n.d.), took place in July of 1925 (para. 7). Even though “The Scopes Monkey Trial” was a major court battle, the debate of the origin of life is still unresolved. Thus, the theory of evolution should be questioned closely by more scientists and not treated like a scientific law, because there is very little evidence for it.
Additionally the theory of evolution has little to do with describing the origin of life. There is a whole different theory to cover that - it's called Abiogenesis. Also, what was legal back in the 1920s, has little to do with what is true.
There are few to no flaws with the theory of evolution, it does exactly what it sets out to do. Irreducibly complex systems don't exist, transitional fossils have been found, genetics provides plenty of evidence for evolution, and there is plenty of evidence for a 4.5 Billion year old Earth. Also creation science is illogical, and requires the supernatural to work. Therefore, it isn't scientific. Additionally there is no method of falsifying creationism, making it even less scientific. Also, where in nature is evidence for creation science?There are also major flaws in the theory of evolution, such as irreducibly complex systems, lack of transitional fossils, genetics, and evidence for a younger earth. Apart from very little evidence for evolution and numerous data that does not support the theory, evolution also devalues life. If this topic is looked at objectively, creation science is by far a more logical explanation.
Okay, that's really bad, I think that's a straw-man, raising the fallacy count to 3. I mean a chicken evolving into a hamster, that's ridiculous!The problem with the theory of evolution is not only with irreducibly complex systems; it has yet another problem: macroevolution. Macroevolution is, according to Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, “evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)” (2009). “Species formation” is referring to changes outside a species, e.g., a chicken evolving into a hamster.
Okay, that is just plain wrong, visit that link and you'll see a whole number of observed instances of speciation. In fact just google observed instances of speciation! Also, what about transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx or Australopithecus, one half bird- half dinosaur the other half-human and half ape respectively. In fact there are a whole number of fossils that show how the horse, or how us humans, or how birds evolved.There is only one problem with macroevolution, and that is that there is no proof for it. This may seem like a rash statement, because evolution has been accepted as a fact by so many of the scientists and other individuals today. By looking at all the new discoveries in the field of science and scientific facts known, there is no proof found for changes outside a species. There are other problems with this conclusion that Darwin made.
Oooh, I sense another paragraph!
These people don't understand that structures can evolve indirectly, so any so called irreducibly complex structure could have actually evolved indirectly. Evolving first as something, and then taking that something and evolving it into something else! Also the mention of the mousetrap is pure gold! Kenneth Miller debunked the Mousetrap as an irreducibly complex system! Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically, if you were to take out the catch and the holding bar you get a working tie-clip. Therefore an incomplete mousetrap has a use, and isn't irreducibly complex!One major problem with the theory of evolution is that of irreducibly complex systems. According to Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, an “irreducibly complex system” cannot be made by minute, consecutive changes of a previous system, since any change to remove a part of an “irreducibly complex system” will result in non-functionality (1996). This means that if one part is missing, the whole system will fail. The problem that challenges the theory of evolution is that an organism cannot evolve if it cannot live with one part missing. Michael Behe (1996) gives an example of a mousetrap as an irreducibly complex mechanism. The mousetrap has five basic parts to it: hammer, spring, catch, holding bar, and platform. If any one of these parts were missing, the whole mousetrap would fail to function (pp. 42-43).
What's even more ironic is that Darwin then describes how the eye may have evolved! In fact there are no examples of irreducibly complex systems, because all of them still function with parts removed. They may not do the same job, but they will have a use!This is the same way with irreducibly complex systems, such as the eye. The eye is a good example of an irreducibly complex system because if one part was taken out of the eye, such as the lens, the retina, iris, cornea, or optic nerve, the eye would be a totally useless system. In fact, Charles Darwin (1858) said it best when he wrote in his book, The Origin of Species, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down” (p.171). What Darwin wrote here is ironic, not only because he came up with the theory of evolution and will admit this, but because most other evolutionists today will not even acknowledge this. At the time when Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, he did not know about irreducibly complex systems like scientists do today. These irreducibly complex systems prove a major flaw in the theory of evolution.
Let's take the example of the eye. It' is called an irreducibly complex system, but I'll get to that in one of my quotes.
See, the eye isn't irreducibly complex.Bob Jane T-Mart said:Now imagine you had eyes without lenses, (these things actually exist, Flatworm eyes actually lack a lens and much more) You can detect light, dark and colour. Your vision would be very blurry and perhaps incoherent, but you still can tell day from night, or perhaps a sunny day from a cloudy one. It would allow you to see well enough to stop you walking off a cliff or getting run over by a truck. Thus, an eye without a lens, has use and cannot be considered irreducibly complex.
In fact the whole irreducibly complex argument is an argument from ignorance. I think this is the chain of logic it follows:
- I have a structure. The structure is complicated.
- This structure must have an origin. However I don't know how it evolved.
- Due to the fact that I don't know how it evolved, it couldn't have evolved.
- Therefore the structure is irreducibly complex.
This raises the fallacy count to 4! And with that, I'm getting tired of this... I think this is going to be the last point I'm going to address.
Numerous beneficial mutations have been observed in nature, this adds information to the gene pool. It's happened. There is NO evidence to suggest that "information" can't be added to the gene pool. There have been mutations in Humans that lower rates of heart disease that have sprung up fairly recently. Also in 1975 after the invention of Nylon, a bacteria was found that had developed a mutation to eat nylon!. This means that information is being added to the genetic code. This point is just wrong! Also Meciej must be a very poor geneticist, seeing as I have named two beneficial mutations and I'm not a scientist. Additionally Meciej's words may have been quote mined.Lucas Nuckols said:One of these problems is in the genetic code. The genetic code can change within the species from generation to generation, but it cannot have new information added to it. For instance, a person could take a wolf and pick out one trait like a black colored coat, and then breed it for several generations until all they would get are black wolf puppies. A person then could breed them with other homozygous (a genotype were both alleles are the same) black wolves, but you will not get brown ones. With those wolves, the genetic information is being lost, and after several generations the only color of wolves they could get would be black. The way evolutionists explain this is that there are mutations happening which give the animal an advantage over another. In theory that might sound good, but there has never been a beneficial mutation, and mutations have never added new information; they only take away something already there or add an extra arm, leg, or even head, from the information already in the DNA code. Dr. Jay Wile states “The hypothesis of macroevolution assumes that a given life form has an unlimited ability to change. This means that some process must exist to add information to the creature genetic code...there is precious little data supporting such a hypothesis and quite a lot of data contradicting it” (p. 281,1998). Maciej Giertych, a former professor of genetics to various universities in Poland said, “I felt uneasy lecturing about positive mutations when I could not give an example (para 8, 1995).” Unlike Maciej, many professors and scientists are not closely examining what they are teaching but rather just repeating what they read in their text books. As a result of parroting text books, evolutionists are not looking at science for answers to the origin of life, they are looking at the theory of evolution and trying to fit science into it. This type of approach to science does not work and never has.
Also I think the quotes of the scientists are ad-vericundums so that raises the fallacy count to 5! This guy is amazing, he make so many fallacies in such a short time!