February 20, 2009

Top 10 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.

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.

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.

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

inspired by cdk007

February 04, 2009

Infallibility Of Pope Questioned By Cardinal

A part of the dogma of Catholicism is the infallibility of the pope, The idea that the pope is preserved from even the possibility of error.

So when the pope decide to end the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson, The Holocaust denying Bishop, One would expect catholics to accept it. After all, The pope is "infallible", Isn't he? But what actually happened is they were almost unified in their condemnation (which is nice of them).

Even within the ranks there was descent with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, The leader of the roman catholic church in England, Sending a letter to Dr Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, saying the pope had done "great damage" with his "imprudent" remarks.

The Cardinal, in his letter, went on to say: "I am writing to express my dismay at the effect of the Vatican decree... Specifically I naturally deplore the comments made by the Englishman, Rev Williamson, in his denial of the full horror of the Holocaust. His statement and views have absolutely no place in the Catholic Church and its teaching."

So are catholics starting to question the authority of the pope? And does the pope harbour views he may been taught whilst he was in the Hitler youth.

Holy Communion, The Movie

Ritualistic, symbolic, human cannibalism anybody?

At least the director of the films left out the abuse of young boys, which is more than can be said for Catholicism.

February 03, 2009

Alternative Expelled Movie Poster

This, while being a parody, accurately describes the theme and motives of the recently forgotten and critically shit upon creationist propaganda movie Expelled: no intelligence required allowed, Which in turn is a perfect demonstration of the dishonesty, quote mining and fabrications of the "ID" movement.

I don't know who made this (if you know tell me and ill link to them) but i got it from defence of reason who in turn got it from PZ's blog.

February 02, 2009

Probably The Dumbest Creationist Argument Ever

On a forum i frequent they have a "politics and religion" section and it is brimming with creationist fundies, muslim fanatics and born again assholes. yeah, great fun.

Though most of the fundies have learned their lesson and don't try to debate evolution any more, we sometimes get the odd cretin who doesn't know the score come in and start parroting the creationist bullshit he has heard on a Kent Hovind (convicted fraudster) creationist propaganda video.

On the odd occasion, when one of these idiots ventures into unfamiliar water and tries to conjure an original thought, we get something quite spectacular. Spectacular in the sense of; wow, that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.

Yesterday one such moron made this argument against evolution.
Despite your evolution approach, its still yet a theory.

If Evolution happens, how come we don't see humans coming out of chimps and chimps coming out of humans?

If Evolution happens, what do fish evolve into?

Evolution is Pokemon's thing.
Stupid, eh? You haven't heard anything yet.

When i asked him if he was serious (you never know if these types of comments are atheists making fun of creationist argument), he said.
Try living in the arctic and see if you grow fur.
Try living in the desert and see if your body adapts to it.
Try living in a volcano and see if you can withstand being boiled alive.

With your dumb theory I would grow fur, I would be able to withstand heat and withstand being boiled alive.
Besides being a ridiculously stupid argument the thing that really angers me with these people is how they expect to hold an opinion regarding the validity of a science when don't even understand what the science is claiming.

It wouldn't be too bad if they admit that their beliefs are based on bronze age dogma and creation myths and stop pretending they have come to an informed conclusion after studying all the evidence.