Ok noze put a post on his blog stating some facts that disprove evolution. I’ve basically become discusted with this whole debate over intellegent design but I had to respond to a couple of things that noze mentions.
Question 1: But doesn’t evolution explain our existence?
However, it is logically absurd to believe that “everything made itself.” This is contrary to all our experience and undermines the principle of cause and effect– the very basis of modern science
Here is the problem with Noze’s post. The Big bang is not based off of nothing exploding into everything. The big bang is based off of a very small number of protons electons and neurtons being hit with electricity and then expanding into the universe that we have today. This may seem absurd that something incredibly small could become so vast and large as the universe today. But don’t forget that the univers is made up almost entirely of empty space. In fact that’s why something like a quasar is so heavy. A piece of a quasar the size of a sugar cube would way several tons. a quasar has it’s atoms packed very closly together. That being said there is still an amazing amount of room between protons electrons and to the sub level quarks.
Something else that is important is that scientists have been able to recreate the big bang on a much smaller scale in labortory experements. They basically took protons zaped them with electricity and got carbon, and several other gases and blah blah blah. None of that is important though because the big bang is not relavent to evolution. Even if it’s proved that a space being farted our universe into exsitance it doesn’t mean that life on earth didn’t evolve as darwin postulated.
For more information on what the big bang is really about go here.
1. Information and Complexity: Modern knowledge of biochemistry (genes, DNA, proteins, etc.) shows that even so-called “simple” bacteria are phenomenally complex– far more complex than the most sophisticated machine mankind has ever made– and they can reproduce themselves, some in less then 20 minutes. Such bacterial “machines” contain the equivalent of about 2 large books of coded information on their DNA. Books don’t write themselves and neither could the bacteria make themselves. If a book needs an intelligent creator, the bacterium needs a creator even moreso. The source of this information is an insurmountable problem for the origin of life without a creator– and the development of more comples life forms. A human being has about 1000 books worth of information on the DNA in each cell. How do you add 998 books of information to bacterium to get the information in a human being, as evolutionists claim happened over hundreds of millions of years?
This is one of the things that annoys the piss out of me when people talk about how complex DNA is and how it would be impossible for it to be created in nature at random. Statments like the one above misleads the reader into thinking that evolution on the celular level would have to happen instantaneously. It makes it sound like a complete random sequencing of proteins came together and formed a perfectly workable DNA sequence. This is an INCREDIBLY SMALL MINDED way of thinking.
Think of it this way. If you compare an 1888 automobile and compare it to a 2005 lexus it is obvious that there is very little similarity. How do you go from no windows to power windows with out a guiding hand, so therfore there can’t be evolution in the automotive industry. Well we know that’s not true. Every new model will build from the last model and add new features or improve apon new ones. No one ever looked at an 1888 vehicle and said “let’s add a moon roof, power steering, abs, side impact door beams, front and rear crumpel zones, On Star, Oh and let’s make it so that the windshild wippers come on automattically when it rains.” Instead it was a slow progression over 117 years in which each subsequent model new complexitys were added.
Why does Noze or who ever wrote the passage above assume that we went straight from one book worth of DNA information all the way up to 1000 books worth of information. That’s almost insulting to think that I would be stupid enough to rule out evolution based off of that insanly stupid logic.
2. Limits to variation: The breeding of animals and plants shows that there are strict limits to how far selection can go– whether it be artificial of natural. Breeding of pigs will never make them fly. Nor can natural selection grow feathers on a reptile. Things are created to reproduce true-to-their kind, just as the Bible says in Genesis chapter 1. The limited amount of natural variation drives modern molecule biologists to try to take genes from one kind of organism and get them to work in another kind. It’s all about transferring information, and much intelligence is applied to do this. Natural (non-intelligent) processes cannot, and therefore have never, created anything containing meaningful information.
Once again the author insults your intellegence by saying that “Nor can natural selection grow feathers on a reptile”. Natural selection has never said that if you put an alligator in a room with a pellican you will have an allican that can fly and has very powerfully teeth filled jaws. That’s what the author implies though. “Breedin of pigs will never make them fly.” Once again the author is using rediculous arguments. Will breeding of pigs make them fly? No. Could subtle changes built apon other subtle changes over the course of several millions years lead to a brand new animal that can fly in order to avoid danger? Yes. There are flying squirls aren’t there. How much more rediculous is that than A flying pig?
3. Mutations?: Mutations– random changes in the genetic information– are supposed to generate new information so that new features such as legs, feathers, brains, eyes, and so on, could “evolve.” However, random changes in information do not create new meaningful “paragraphs,” or “chapters,” of information. They only corrupt it. Mutations destroy; they do not create. They are known by the diseases they cause in humans (e.g. cancers). Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not due to an increase in meaningful information due to mutations. In all mutations studied, there has been a loss of function causing the resistance– for example, loss of control over the production of the enzyme that breaks down penicillin so that much more of the enzyme is produced. Sometimes information has been acquired from another type of bacterium, which then enables the recipient to resist the antibiotic. Mutations will never produce the new complex information needed for evolution to proceed.
Random changes in information rarely create new meaningful paragraphs or chapters. Above noze says this never happens. Here is the problem with that logic. If you take something small like one scentence and change one word will it destroy the scentence? Sometimes yes sometimes no. Anyone who has ever played mad libs knows that you can add seemingly random words to scentences and make a brand new meaning. Of course you can also destroy that meaning. how about this. When we are talking about paragraph and chapters the author also assumes that we are taking an entire chapter apart and tossing in random new words. But what if you take an entire paragrah and throw in just one new word. Maybe 99% of the time it doesn’t work. Well that’s cancer. What about the 1%. That 1% isn’t a new species, it’s just a variant. And what happens when that variant gets another new word added? probably 99% it fails, and 1% it works. These are subtle changes that usually are dormat over long periods of time.
Think about how many lines of DNA do not do anything? Scientists have worked for years to analyse DNA and have found that a lot of DNA sequences are dormat or have no use. Or let’s look on a larger scale. The appendix. Ok so in intellegent design something decided that humans needed an appendix eventhough doctors have never been able to determin what it does in the human body. That’s not intellegent.
There are fish that exsists in lightless caves that have bumps for eyes but no actual eyes. What does that tell you. It tells me at one point there were fish that needed eyes but over time they migrated somewhere where they were not needed and so they started to evolve without eyes. These are instances where slight variations didn’t hurt these creatures, but they didn’t really help either. The notion by the author that a mutation has to immediatly help in order to be passed on is well illogical.
Furthermore, research has revealed many examples of features in living things that are made up of highly complex parts where every part has to be present for it to function at all. They cannot be simpler and still function. It is not possible for small step-wise mutations and natural selection to create such systems because a series of functional intermediates is impossible. Examples are the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, the ATPase “motor,” the signalling system in cells, the DNA-coded protein synthesis system, etc.
I wonder if Noze knows that the man who came up with this logic above later recanted it. ID was started in a Washington (state) think tank where scientists tried to find out if the mathmatics behind evolution are possible. There were two leading professors in this think tank one of which was Michael J. Behe who wrote Darwin’s black Box. In that book he states that bacterial flagellum is too complexe blah blah blah.
Behe has confessed to “sloppy prose” and said he hadn’t meant to imply that irreducibly complex systems “by definition” cannot evolve gradually. “I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof,” “Let’s use the car example again. Car’s are now starting to add GPS systems. from http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact
Just because something is complexe doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have evolved from something non complexe. these arguments are based off of misleading facts. Evolution never says that something complexe just mutated that way. Like the appendix right now does nothing for us. Who is to say that a million years from now it changes into something that helps filter bacteria out of the body? another million years from now other organs might change.
4. Fossils: The fossils do not show that one kind of organism has changed into another. There should be millions of intermediate types of fossils showing the transitions if evolution has occured. There are a handful of disputed ones. Claimed evidence of fossils linking different kinds of organisms does not stand up to scrutiny (Gish, D. T., 1995. Evolution: The Fossils still say No! Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA, USA.) AS Colin Patterson of the British Museum of National History said, “there is not one… for which you could make a water-tight argument.” Furthermore, there are many hundreds of types of creatures in the fossil record which are still present today. Jellyfish, starfish, and snails, for example, are present in rocks supposedly hundreds of millions of years old and yet they are very like the ones we have in the oceans today. Things breed “true to their kind” just as the Bible says.
I think the key here is that this researcher mentions that Jellyfish starfish and snails are in rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old and they are very like the ones we have today. Yeah that’s kind of the point. They are alike, they are not the same. They are similar but not exact replications of the DNA strings that exsisted in those days. Aligators have been around for millions of years… but how many do you see today that are 50 feet long? Just because there isn’t “water-tight” proof of a step by step mutation doesn’t mean there won’t be. That passage is from 1995 how about something from discover magazine from this year.
That’s right there really were hobbits. So if we have skeletons of these smaller humans wouldn’t that be an indication of evolution. Is it complete proof? No. No one is saying that it is the missing link… ok some people are, but it’s just more supporting evidence.
5. The age of the Earth: The story about the age of the Earth has grown in the telling. However, fossils commonly show evidence of rapid burial in water-carried mud– as in a great Flood. Consequently, the rock layers containing these fossils were not laid down slowly and gradually– so fossils do not give to the millions of years so widely taught today.
Just because there are fossils that were quickly buried by a flood doesn’t mean there aren’t other fossils that are burried under thousands of years of sediment. Think about the floods in New Orleans. If someone died in those floods and someone found the bones 100 years from now, would that mean that anything prior to that is inconsiquential? God damn that’s stupid. There are records of floods all over the world because…. shit floods. We just had a tsunami of Bilcial porportians in the indian ocean. That stuff happens. It’s part of nature. It doesn’t mean that there was a flood that consumed the entire world.
So why do so many so called intellegent people dismiss evolution?
1. People so badly want to believe in a surpreme power that they will kling to small shreds of misleading scientific evidence in order to support thier bliefes.
2. People think that science of evolution can not co exsist with religon.
Here’s my thing. If you look at christinanity how important is it that god created everything? Seriously how does that really affect the way we treat and act with each other? Wasn’t Jesus’ message based around how you treat your neighbor. God doesn’t want you living your life just to sit around praising him. If he wanted that there wouldn’t be an earth everyone would just be in heaven sitting around telling him how great he is.
The fact is that there is a lot more evidence supporting evolution than there is detracting from it. I’ve looked at both sides of this argument and there is nothing that actually rules out evolution. There may be things that need changed or updated or things we haven’t found out yet, but that’s true about atoms, molecules, cells, the human body, and everything else on earth. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t teach it. i really hope that those who deny evolution look at multiple sources for their information and not just the ones that agree with what they already believe.