Top 10 Flawed Arguments Against Evolution (and why they are wrong)

Irreducibly complex system exist which could not have evolved - This one was actually proven in a court of law to be false. Systems termed "irreducibly complex" are only irreducibly complex in their present form. But as long as at all stages it proved to be beneficial, Even slightly, Then the mechanisms would be retained, even if along the way, at different stages, it didn't resemble, or even perform the same function, as it presently does.

Ken miller explained this using the mousetrap. Behe said the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly because, like a mouse trap, if one part was removed it failed to perform it's function. ken miller shot this argument to pieces by wearing a mouse trap with only 3 parts as a tie clip to court. Does it's perform the function of a mousetrap? No. Does it perform a function which could be selected for and considered "beneficial"? yes.

Evolution is not testable - Every new fossil dug up, every genome sequenced, every new species discovered, every new simulation run is a test of evolutionary theory. If what we discover doesn't fit in with what evolution predicts then evolution is wrong. In the 150 years it has been around not a single new discovery, Including DNA and genomes which weren't even known of in Darwin's time, Has told us anything other than what we would expect to find if evolution were a fact. They all end up telling us the exact thing which we would expect to be true if evolution was a fact. The EXACT thing we would expect.

To prove it wrong just discover something which should not be true if evolution is right. I'll help you: The gene for feathers in humans or a chicken in the Precambrian.

There is evidence against evolution - No there isn't. There are poorly understood, fallacious arguments which are parroted, But not a single discovery which should not be true if evolution is a fact. Like i said, Find something which invalidates evolution, like the gene for feathers in humans of a Precambrian chicken; something beyond the flawed probability arguments and baseless assumptions. Find us something real, something tangible, Which should not exist if evolution were true.

Evolution has not been observed - At all levels evolution has been physically observed. Everything from new bio-synthetic pathways and speciation to variations of features in a population due to natural selection.

Even in the short time humans have been here we have changed, through selection, wolves into dogs and teosinte in to corn and we have caused the emergence of pesticide resistant insects and even the formation of a bacteria which eats nylon, something which has only existed for 50 years. Even the humble banana which ray comfort claimed was the "atheists nightmare" only exists because we cultivated it. Humans invented the banana through selection. This is what a wild banana, ya know, the one your god made, looks like.


All mutations are bad - Most mutations actually have no effect and sit happily in the genome not causing any problems. Every person is born with around 200 mutations. We all have 200 genes not found anywhere in our lineage. Some are bad, granted, But those organisms generally die off and so the mutation isn't propagated. The good ones, like a mutation that causes thicker hair growth in cold climates, rapidly propagate throughout the species. Examples of good mutations can be seen in antibiotic resistant bacteria, pesticide resistant insects of drug resistant HIV. Sure they suck for us, But for the organism concerned, they are beneficial mutations.

Speciation has never been observed - Another which AIG advises it's followers don't use. Speciation has been observed in everything from flies to plants. Search "observed speciation" for countless of documented examples.

The probability of cells spontaneously forming is too low - Cells, like all life, Slowly evolved. The first cell was nothing at all like the cells we find in modern day organisms. The first cell would have been nothing but a self replicating molecule, And we have created those in a lab.

No transitional fossils have ever been found - This argument is so weak and out of date even the mouthpiece of young earth creationism, AIG, warns it's follows not to use it. The fact is we have enough transitional fossils to tie together all the species in the class of eumetazoa. We even have transitional forms alive today. Cut open a snake and you'll find a pelvis, a whale and you'll find vestigial legs. Even humans have a vestigial flaps in their eyes which are remnants from reptiles (if you want to see it it's right near your tear duct) and smaller mammals (the tiny lump on your outer ear). we even have about half a dozen pre-human hominid fossils depicting our own evolution since we departed from the branch which lead to chimps, gorillas and baboons.

Evolution violates the 1st law of thermodynamics - Evolution does not operate within a closed system and as such is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - Same as above, plus; The increase of complexity gained by evolution comes at the cost of the decrease of order of the sun. As the sun "dies" the energy expended comes to earth and is used by organisms to grow.

A denial of evolution - however motivated - is a denial of evidence, a retreat from reason into ignorance; Dr Tim D White

 

I happen to agree with evolution. Thanks for bringing this awesome thread Stox. The mechanisms that can cause evolution are so dynamic and complex. This is what made me so curious about it as I love paleantology and the study of animals of earths past. We both agree that the creation of this universe couldnt have come by chance. Some amazing force had to have a hand in it. The alternative is to believe that this universe and reality popped into existence for no apparent reason.

Order is another reason that not only proves evolution but also proves the existence of god. The laws of physica, the chemical laws etc etc etc. I would imagine that one day that we will be able to biologically and scientifically prove that evolution itself also has a scientific law to it. As we have acquired more technology and knowledge we have continually proven that laws or order exist for almost anything.

Again your alternative theory was that these laws just developed randomly out of the first elements after the big bang theory. Throughout our existence scientists have continually looked to see some type of order to prove almost everything in the universe.

Thanks Stox, again you have helped me to gain more knowledge and insight into not only my faith but also to push the envelope and look for proof and reasoning that god does exist through evolution.

As you can see not all christians dont believe in evolution, many of us actually believe that evolution makes perfect sense. It can be observed happening in some less complex life forms and thats what darwin showed us.

 

I watched "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" the other night on PBS. It's about the court case that Ken Miller was a part of. It's a really good documentary.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...cM6L8qAOUrIGmDA&q=intelligent+design+on+trial

The best part is at 1:28:00 where the "missing link" is found between creationism and ID.

ID was pretty much debunked in court. The judge who made the decision was a Bush appointed republican.

Pretty powerful stuff.

Pong I'm glad to hear you don't reject evolution. I'm pleasantly surprised.

 

The fact that it was debunked in court and on top of that a bush republican means absolutely nothing to most people and rightfully so lol.
yea Stox I 100% agree with evolution and I believe that evolution is just the first part of science that validates god, and the reason that transitional phases most of the time arent in the fossil records because these transitional animals dont really survive on a grand scale to be found, but in paleantology they have found fossils of pro-sauropods which were the transitional stages of the sauropods (they looked like them a little but the necks werent as vertical and some could even run on 4 legs or 2). No Ken Cameron doesnt explain the scientific validfation of god in the right way as you cant do that and read the book of genisis literally. You must read it in the way it was meant to be read and that is figuratively.

Buty as far as what keeps our cells together, there are more forces at work there and these are all parts of some laws that couldnt have come out by chance. Someone had to have laid the ground work for thsi to be able to happen. The complexity of our universe could not have come about through random chance and chaos.

 

What? Are you serious? Trials are designed to expose the truth through rigorous examination of the evidence, criticism of the other party's position and defense of your own, where all parties are bound legally to be honest.

The best way to put something on trial metaphorically is to put it on trial literally, and that's what was done. Using the court system forced the defenders of ID to put up or shut up and they failed miserably.

Through the court proceedings it was shown that ID proponents believed themselves that they did not have something that constituted a theory and it also showed not only a link between creationism and ID but that the only thing that was really different about ID from creationism was the name and "packaging".

ID was exposed as a sham that was invented as a means to reintroduce creationism to the curriculum. (see cdesign proponentsists)

The fact that the judge was a Bush appointed republican isn't terribly significant aside from the fact that Bush himself had claimed that the 'verdict was out on evolution' and that republicans are seen generally as being more loyal to their leadership and more likely to favor christian causes.

 

nice of you to be so selective in your arguments -

Firstly - not to many creationists would argue against micro-evolution - evolution within the genome - i.e. there is a huge variety within the genetic material available within a given genus, hence why a large variety dogs can be breed from wolves over many generations, yet each is still within the same genus -a type of dog - they don't, can't be breed into a reptile - and in fact most dog breeds aren't due to mutations but the selected "pulling out" of various traits already present in the amazing genetic diversity God created. (I think to be fair you have to go to the genus level because there are often huge arguments what actually consitutes a seperate species). You make an argument saying this is what creationists believe when in fact you are quite wrong - i.e. you are setting up a false straw man just to knock it down. No serious creationist states there is no type of evolution - i.e. no forces of natural selection, genetic drift, or push to a mutiple of variety - we just believe it is limited - i.e. a reptile over time will not become a bird - no matter how much time you throw into the equations. Your bananna "evolving" is no more than the pulling out of already present genetic material - highlighting certain genes - not the creation of whole wades of new genetic material - the bananna is still a fruit, the corn is still corn. Only with genetic engineering and "new" genetic material introduced by man do we get glow in the dark wheat or a glow in the dark mouse - and that process is certainly not a result of natural means.

I wouldn't rely on a court of law to prove anything scientific - courts of law, both religious and secular have often been wrong - Galileo would tell you that one. How many innocent people go to Jail? A court is humanities attempt to legislate itself and control society - it is not a beacon of truth and one Judge can't define the whole of human knowledge.

There are serious arguments about time scales - how long it takes for a geological structure to form, how they form, fossilation, etc. Evolutionists like to pretend that dating is an exact science - it is not. Rangitoto Island, Auckland has been dated to between 30,000 to millions of years old depending on your dating method - true age - about 300 years. There are numerous anomolies:- pertrified material in coal mines - showing under ideal conditions that "fossils" can be created very quickly indeed. I went to a limestone cave system where the guide told me the structures we saw were tens of thousands of years old, when I saw a large limestone structure hanging off a electric wire I asked how long it had been there - she said since 1950 - when I said, "so in some circumstances it only takes 50 years to create a large limestone structure" - she was not impress that I questioned her beloved scientific ideas or dating methodology.

There are numerous examples worldwide of massive destruction with global consequences - evolutionists put it down to comets or meteor impacts - creationists would say a world wide flood - given the amount of massive buried material obviously done in water I go for the world wide Flood scenario myself. In laymans terms - if I go to a car crash I assume two vehicles have collided and in a moment of a catasophic event the wreckage is created - evolutionists looking at the same scene would have me believe the pieces of that car crash built up over a large period of time - I don't buy it.

We could argue it all day without changing anyone minds -

As for your argument most mutations are not harmful - go to a special school and see what a change in one or two proteins can do to a human being - destruction of brain tissue, muscle co-ordination, nerve damage - let's hope intelligent design by scientists can combat such "harmless" mutations, even a simple doubling of genes with no mutation can caused serious retartation.

Often evolutionist arguments go against the law of natural selection - I've just finished watching an episode of the series "evolve" totally evolutionist propaganda through and through - they tried to argue the natural selection proccess produced giffafes with longer and longer necks was the result of giffafes progressing from horned antelopes, with the males with longer necks being more sucessful in passing on their genes through winning dominance struggles, hence the process of creating the giffafes long neck - they then suggested the same process removed the sharp horns of the antelopes to the now hair covered stubbs of the giffafes because it was evolutionarily advantageous for the males not to kill each other - Natural selection in its true form does not work in this way - it would select the male giffafes that kept the sharpest horns that quickly killed their opponents so they were the ones that successfully passed on their genes (much the same way it is said natural selection creates a Moose with bigger horns) - it was funny to see the evolutionist argue against their own natural selection process - you can't just set up a selection process and then ignore it when it fails to explain an obvious end result.

How about putting up the top ten arguments against evolution that you have the hardest time explaining away -

perhaps something like - why are all human beings are related? - if evolution is such a powerful force surely we would have multiple successful progressions on multiple continents from the huge variety of primates around the planet, i.e. not all humans would have come from the same source

Why human evolution happens over such a short space of time?

Why haven't dinosaurs re-evolved?

Why do we still have creatures unchanged for millions of years - the croc., the tuatara, the coelacanth, creatures in the fossil record 80-100 million years ago but unchanged as if they hit an evolutionary brick wall - why does natural selection and mutation suddenly stop for them? Humanity is supposed to have evolved in that time period yet despite our alleged massive advances they have stayed dormant - doesn't really make logical sense.

Why have the mega-creatures died out? If you say because its evolutionarily advantageous to be small, why aren't humans getting smaller.


To be fair I'll pose a couple of difficult questions to myself as a creationist

how do I explain DNA drift out of Africa? (re: recent DNA studies)
how do I explain that I have no wisdom teeth - am I evolving?
how do I explain Native American's lack of resistance to european diseases arising within such a small time creationist time frame
how do I explain the Pineapple - a fruit "created by man"

 

Logic are you serious?????? If you want one example of court justice just look at the warren commission. Anyone who has read any part of this knows its bad comedy. Courts represent finding the truth???? Yea sure , this is what our high school history books tell us, but i dont believe in fairy tale history. Usually, the truth is controlled by men in power and to question this truth in a way that would make enough noise to change the outcome would entail a few people putting their lives on the line. Sorry logicflux but you really need to study our power and court system a bit more.

::Cough:: howasbushelected ::sneeze:: mockeryofjustice ::::ahhhchoooooooo:::: OJFOUNDINNOCENT lol

 

alstar70

1. Only creationists think there is a different between macro and micro-evolution. They insist, oddly, that a culmination of many small changes wont result in a big change. it's a bit like saying you agree that the continents move gradually but then insisting this doesn't account for the distance between them. The argument just doesn't make any sense.

2. The court didn't prove a scientific matter, it proved that "intelligent design" is a poorly disguised "biblical creation" and that irreducible complexity is a red herring.

3. dating methods are very accurate. sure they are susceptible to contamination, But so are blood tests. The method we use to limit the effects of contamination is to perform different types of dating tests which use different methods of determining age. If after all the independent tests have been run 5 say the sample is 3,000 years old and one says it's 2 years old it's safe to assume that the method which found the anomalous result was contaminated.

This doesn't even make sense. How would it even be possible for two individuals from the same species to have different evolutionary origins. We are the same species specifically because came from the same "source", if we didn't then we wouldn't be the same species.

It didn't. But nice tactic; State something untrue then ask me to explain it.

Why would they?

Because evolution isn't mandatory. Things don't have to evolve, and if they are well enough suited to their environment so that the environmental pressures are minimal, They wont.

it's not evolutionarily advantageous to be small, it's advantageous to be able to acquire enough food to sustain a certain size. So things wont generally evolve to get smaller, They will grow to a size which they can sustain. There are still pretty big animals about though. Elephants are big and the blue whale is the largest known animal to have ever existed.

There is no conscious will behind evolution. it doesn't have plans that it is working towards like "make things smaller", "make everything as close to human as possible or "oh crap, the dinosaurs have gone... we better get them back!".

All you have done is pose questions which you wrongly assume have no answers. I have answered them, But even if i couldn't, it isn't an argument against evolution and it's even less of an argument for creation.

If evolution is untrue why does every test, every experiment and every discovery end up giving the exact thing evolutionary theory would predict and why has nobody, in 150 years, found a single thing which shouldn;t exist if evolution was true?

If you want to disprove evolution it's a lot easier than asking questions which you assume have no answers. All you have to do is find something which shouldn't exist if evolution was true and win yourself a Nobel prize. Find a precambrian rabbit or the gene for feathers in humans. We have genes for gill slits because we used to be fish, Just like evolution would predict. We have the gene for scales because we used to be reptiles, just like evolution would predict. We don't, however, have the gene for feathers, because we were at no point birds. Just like evolution would predict.

 

You're right, everything is a conspiracy and putting something through the vigours of trial proceedings has no value, even if the evidence exposed is overwhelmingly clear and conclusive.
I would point you to the video I posted above and implore you to watch it but it was created through funding from the government and big corporations so it can't really be trusted. PBS probably killed teh kennedys.

You sure that you saying you believe in evolution isn't some sort of angle? I feel like I'm about to buy a timeshare.

 

Evolution itself is a process that God created. However, this is not to say that God wasn't the one who started it all.

Peace,

 

you act like evolution is a perfect agreed science - its not - even amongst evolutionist there are major arguments as to explaining various processes - i.e. - gradual change vs rapid transitional bursts. Evolutionists argue about fossils, dates, processes all the time - this doesn't disapprove the theory, but does mean there is no the universal agreement you try to pretend there is - you are being dishonest about "why does every test every experiment and every discovery end up predicting the exact thing" - THEY DONT, anamolies are thrown up all the time and often hidden from public view or thrown in the too hard basket. All dating methods don't agree.

If I was an evolutionist - I'd have to go for the rapid tranisitional bursts - as I would interpret the mass extinctions in the geological record then a rapid filling of those empty niches - i.e. no slow and gradual change, no gradual build up of beneficial mutations - rapid transitional evolutionists are still arguing how this proccess would occurr as the current understood mutation processes are slow as most as most mutations non-benficial.

There are numerous anomolies that support a creationist world view - the decay of the earth's manetic field, its slowing rotation, the rapid laying down of sediments in a short space of time (e.g. Mt Saint Helens) in a catastrophic event, and other such things that would tend to present a young age for the earth.

I won't pretend there aren't things that would tend to point to an old age for the earth - Great barrier reef, Antartic ice sheets - what I would have to argue is that it is possible for multiple, if not hundreds of layers to be made in a single season thus meaning the layers in the ice and corals don't each represent one year - but even then I have to admit we are dealing a huge number of layers - mind you nature is showing us change can happen very rapidly - look at the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

 

I think you would have to agree true DARWINIAN evolution is dead - slow randon and gradual change does not produce the mechanism needed for evolution - 99.9 of mutations are not beneficial and wouldn't create a better animal.

Pierre Grasse, considered the "dean of French zoologists," said that mutations are "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect." Further, he says, mutations are not complementary, nor are they cumulative." That is, they don't add up to anything

I would suggest if you are going to be an evolutionist admit DARWIN is dead - you need to find a new system to explain the periods of rapid change seen in your interpretation of the fossil record.

Evolution is about how new organisms developed via a greater quantity and quality of genetic information. i.e. simple to complex - yet currently understood genetic processes don't do this.

 

As for human evolution - we have alleged a tiny population over a long period of time, what we have now is a huge population 6 billion people and growing over a short period of time - therefore an equal is not greater evolutionary change should be seen occurring in humanity right now as thanks to population numbers, chemical and radiation pollution speeding mutation, we have more than ever a chance for beneficial mutation to occurr and evolution to happen before our very eyes - but it isn't.

 

you cannot be serious, are you for real?

 

I wont completely throw out evolution because it does happen in many cases, but I find it hard to believe that these things just came to be. I find it hard to believe that we are the perfect distance from the sun with the perfect atmosphere to live in, with the perfect about of green house gasses to keep this planet to comfortable temp.

I mean to me it just seems as though its impossible for everything to come together so perfectly with out a creator, ofcouse im just biased

One question how did life come from nothing? i mean like if the earth was once molten, and then only rocks, soil, water, and other "non living" things were there then where did the first cells come from? Like how can life come from these things after all we all know spontaneous generation is not real.

 

wowee, Pierre Grasse, The zoologist who was born over 110 years ago? credible, and up-to-date, stuff

Again, if you want to disprove evolution simply find something which should not exist if evolution was true. What are you waiting for? where are these discoveries?

 

and if you truly want to prove evolution try get a very primitive cell from non-living things. other wise where did everything come from?

 

That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a theory explaining the diversity of life, Not its origin.

 

Variation within the genomes explains the huge variety of life. i.e. wolves into numerous dog breeds, but let those dogs breed without human intervention they return to the standard - wolves.

I think your better argument would be repeation of similar species in niches - e.g. lions in Africa, Tasmanian Tigers in Australia - i.e. similar roles but vastly different genetic material - yet you see a repeating pattern - i.e. as if there is a need for certain creatures in certain roles. Why would an intellegent designer need so many models - maybe God just loves variety - I know although I like roses, I also like many other types of flowers.

As for your science flies you to the moon religion flies you into buildings - Isaac NEWTON the man who explained the laws that allowed the astronauts to fly to the moon was also a THEOLOGIN and believe in God - you wouldn't have got to the moon with the knowledge provided by a God fearing Christian. Plus not every agrees what was behind 9/11 - certainly politics had more to do with it than religion - but kept bashing religion if you need do if it is the only way to kept your conscience troubling you.

Also you have to ignore numerous opparts - out of place artifacts. No theory is perfect - every argument has two sides.

 

Nice post alstar , I didnt know newton was a believer in god. Its almost impossible for any atheist to go against intelligent design as it will open the crack and they must at least acknowledge the possibility of a creator . Most atheists will steer away from this argument most of the times. I guess Newton drove us right into buildings huh