Twenty Two Answers to Creationist and Intelligent

[Randall Lord]

www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/5274

Each one of the twenty two numbers represents one fallacious ID/Creation argument. Every one is ridiculous and deserves debunking. Let us start with the most basic stupidity…

Fallacy #1: Evolution is blind luck

If a person says this, you might as well just walk out and leave. This most basic of errors shows that they have no understanding of basic science. Evolution is a carefully guided process.

Organisms adapt to their environment through natural selection, meaning that the environmental factors both cull the herd and remove organisms with unfavorable traits, and propagate those with favorable traits. The mechanism for this is the second rule of evolution: Evolution is brought about by genetic mutation. An organism cannot adapt to its environment per se. It is the genes that must adapt, and that process takes millions of years.

The next rule is that the determinate of what constitutes an advantage is the environment. The rest of it is really simple, Evolutionary models study this axiom because it is complex. An environment includes lots of factors like other animals, temperature, gas concentration, climate etc. etc. This axiom is the driver of evolution, the guide, Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Genetic mutation is random. It is up to the environment to nurture useful genes and ensure they get passed on, and to eliminate poor genes. This is the fundamental rule of natural selection.

This incredibly ridiculous error, to state that evolution is luck, is a confusion of genetic mutation which is luck, and evolution which is the process that selects the genes and makes sense of the randomness of mutation.

Fallacy #2 Advantageous mutation is impossible

This one is ridiculous. To understand why, a short overview of genetic mechanisms and biochemistry is necessary.

DNA is made up of polymerated strings of bases, which are nucleotides bound to sugar-phosphate backbones. DNA has two functions:

Holds the code to create various proteins from amino acids

Regulating the rate of producing proteins: By definition, one gene is a string of nucleotides that codes for one protein

The language of DNA is base-pairs. DNA is entirely comprised of four molecules. Cytosine, Guanine, Adenine and Thymine. These are the nucleotides. The nucleotides are complementary. Like magnets, they will only fit to a certain opposite. G fits with C and A fits with T (A also fits with U, Uracil, but that is an RNA base). So there are only four possible base-pairs: CG, GC, TA and AT. But these four pairs will dictate every single protein imaginable.

Chemistry has absolutely everything to do with nucleic pairing. A fits with T and C with G. They are dipolar covalents. One side is slightly positively charged, the other negative. They will bind to each other much more easily if they correspond. Trying to fit A with C or T with G is sort of like trying to force two north magnets together. This kind of error can only happen in an abundance of adenosine triphosphate. It's like protons. Have you ever wondered why they don’t repel? They smash into each other with such force that they bind (gluons). (DNA doesn’t smash into each other of course, but you get the idea. So if you have a CGAT on one string, you will of course have GCTA on the other. This is called complementary encoding, and is the basis of DNA.

There are four ways that DNA can innovate.

Intragenic mutation: Errors during mitosis can swap base-pairs around, creating new strings of bases, and a new gene

Segment Shuffling: Two different genes can recombine and form two new hybrids

Duplication error: Sometimes during mitosis, a parent cell will by accident only pass part of it’s genome to the daughter cell, thus it retains a redundant copy of a gene string. This copy is completely free to mutate based on random frequency probability.

Horizontal/vertical Transfer: During sexual reproduction, organisms exchange genes. If the organism is a diploid meaning that it’s offspring has the code of two parents, then it’s offspring will have a completely new genome, combing both parents. This is the most successful method of innovation. Or an organism, particularly prokaryotes, can actually exchange genes by means of one actually encoding a packaged gene for another, which incorporates it into the genome. This is horizontal transfer, a tool that Eukaryota do not have

There are two types of genes. Introns and exons, which have these separate functions. Exons code for proteins. Introns are mostly junk or redundant, but they flank all the exons. Sometimes they are just punctuation, dictating where a gene starts and stops, but their most important function by far is to regulate the speed of protein transcription, a mechanism we will look at it more detail later. Exons dictate how a protein will be assembled. They do this because a protein is essentially a string of amino acids or a polypeptide. Therefore, exons dictate the order of amino acids in a protein. They do this by representing each amino acid with a codon. A codon is three nucleotides. Three nucleotides make up an amino acid. There are 20 possible amino acids, but 64 possible codons, therefore, exons are highly sensitive. They are also sensitive because they are ordered very precisely. For instance, let’s look at a simple string of three codons in a gene: AGG CTT GCC. Now let’s assume that an extra base is accidentally inserted (Like a G for example). The new string would be totally different, it would look like this. GAG GCT TTG CC, so every base would be shifted down one, and the entire gene would change. This would be completely devastating. This is why DNA repair mechanisms quickly target such errors.

On the other hand, Introns, which are not so sensitive or precisely executed, or are sometimes just junk or redundant, mutate based solely on random frequency. As there are 44 codons that don't correspond to an amino acid, these are used in introns. Therefore, the next axiom of evolution is that evolution is driven by the Introns. Obviously it is more complicated, Introns can become exons during shuffling/shifting, and exons can become Introns, and sometimes exons can be mutated harmlessly, so long as the mutation changes only a tiny chunk of the gene, but this rule still applies.

Now that you understand genetic mutation mechanisms, this can be applied to how advantage mutation works.

Intron mutation can change more than just transcription rate. It can change the protein fold. So, in all likelihood an organism won’t end up with one enzyme or protein morphing into another, but an identical polypeptide folding into a new enzyme. Only exon mutation will "change" an enzyme because it will change some codons, thereby changing the protein string order. From a probability standpoint, the odds of gaining a useful mutation because you can fold a protein in a new way vastly outweigh the possibility that you can get from producing a new protein. Mutations can have chain reactions on the cycle. Same string but different protein will produce a different catalytic function therefore will change another intron somewhere else down the line, or perhaps change an exon and make a new protein which, because it is bound to the cycle, not random, will be useful. If mutations operated independently, and outside the cycle, evolution would never get off the ground.

It can be understand like this:

A useless mutation occurs: Nothing happens

A bad mutation occurs: The cell dies, or the error is targeted because it is disrupting the cycle

A good mutation occurs: A new protein, rate of transcription or fold function is made. This is useful. It alters the cycle, producing a knock on effect.

For a mutation to occur which can be preserved, junk must be turned into non-junk. It is really easy to play with the introns. The prokaryotes that are the basis of life have almost no junk DNA. It is evident that such small organisms evolved to have conservative genomes. They have useful introns. It may seem extremely unreasonable in terms of probability but DNA mutates all the time. If the shift is Duplicate error, a popular method, then the gene advantage can be conserved, because it is a redundant piece. Evolution is just mathematics. As long as a gene exists, it will fight to survive...at the chemical level there exists a ruthless primal battle in which the best of the best are constantly being selected, and the weak crushed. The only phenotype affecting genes that are conserved are the ones that affect reproductive capacity. That will cause it to be conserved and cumulatively mutated upon. This is the mathematics of evolution.

Genetic drift drives evolution. Some mutations are good, some are bad, most do nothing, but through the endless cycles, organisms evolve. The analogy I like to use is the telemarketer. About 90% of people hang up on them, but the 10% who say yes make the enterprise quite profitable.

The statement advantage mutation is impossible is a confusion of possibility and probability. Advantage mutation almost never happens…the operative word being ALMOST. But if you have mutations working at quantum speed and three billion years on your hand, your odds improve dramatically.

The knock-on effect is a good demonstrator. All proteins do only one thing, they act as a catalyst for the body's catabolic chemical reactions. Without proteins, you would have to set yourself on fire to release enough energy to perform respiration. This is obviously not practical. All proteins lower the activation energy for a chemical reaction by providing an active site which works like a lock and key model. The chemical fits into the protein receptor and is broken into smaller molecules. Therefore, one can imagine that a different fold will mean that protein will have a different catabolic function which could offer a significant advantage if it allows an organism to synthesize a new chemical. The most effective way to do this would probably be base-pair swap exon mutation, which will only change a small chunk of an exon. Normally, the amino confirmation will predispose a protein to fold in a certain way, although this process is not understood (that would be the Levinthal Paradox). Natural selection, it seems, has selected a chemical interaction set which encourages the protein to fold, because in it's primary and secondary state, it is useless.

Protein folding is also a useful demonstrator of life's autoregulatory weirdness. They fold into elegant shapes after being translated from mRNA only for a tiny piece of it to serve as an active site. The hemoglobin molecule is the bizarre case and point. It is a colossal macromolecular protein snugly wrapping a single haemite (iron). This is somewhat akin to building a nuclear powered transformer to plug in a lamp.
There are 100 nucleic acids and 300 amino acids that exist in nature, we use only 4 and 22. The sugars and phosphates snap together to form the base backbone in the exact same way that nucleic acids bond together. From a chemical standpoint, the phosphorylate-saccharide (ribose)-nucleic acid structure is sensible. There are 100 nucleic acids and 300 amino acids that exist in nature, we use only 4 and 22. There is no reason why life could not be based on other amino acids and nucleic acids. The sugars and phosphates snap together to form the base backbone in the exact same way that nucleic acids bond together. From a chemical standpoint, the phosphorylate-saccharide (ribose)-nucleic acid structure is sensible.

We can look at the knock-on effect with respect to folding like this:

1) A small mutation changes a few codons

2) A different protein is made with a new fold

3) This catalyzes a chemical in a different fashion, most likely a new product

4) This new product has a different effect on the cell membrane receptors, which keep up the autocatalytic cycle. It causes a different command to be followed, as transcription is driven when a stimuli causes a protein to bind to the introns that flank the necessary exon.

Transgenic technology has revealed that changing a gene can start making a gene down the line do bizarre things. Why? Simple. Genes can control each other. The knock-on is established by introns controlling exons which in turn produce proteins which control introns which control exons which… you understand. If evolution operated like individual genes doing individual things, it would not get on the ground.

Knock-on effects work all across the genome. After all, what do genes do, they produce proteins, or they regulate the production of proteins. What do those proteins do? Well...everything: The big functions are of course:

-Catabolism of biochemical families (nucleotides, coenzyme factors, carbohydrates)

-Anabolism (glycogen synthesis, lipid synthesis)

-RNA synthesis control

-Ion channels and membranes (cell membranes, nerve membranes, particularly oligolipoproteins for myelin) , transport mechanisms including inorganic transport, ion flux and carrying

-Exocrine systems and secretory pathways/chemical production

-endocrine systems and hormone control Autocatalysis

-Maintenance of cell signal transduction and energy release metabolic pathways

The thing to notice about all of these is they are all dependant on biochemical triggers. You change one thing, you change a cascade. Making a new ion channel will change the electrochemical gradient or allow a different material influx, which will affect how protein receptors bind to introns. A new ion channel could trigger a hitherto unused intron. There are so many complex factors to genetic evolution, it is not a clear cut process.

The discovery of genes was probably one of the most important in the history of science. Before genomic sequencing, the human body or indeed any organism or indeed a single celled organism seemed unbearably complex. Of course, with the advent of new molecular biology techniques that was swept away. Everything can be explained in terms of metabolic pathways building macromolecules with remarkable properties. There are only thirteen families of Biochemicals (Terpenoids, Flavanoids, Carotenoids, Polyketides, Alkaloids Peptides, Polypeptides, Amino Acids, Nucleic Acids, Steroids, Enzyme Cofactors, Carbohydrates, Lipids and Tetrapyrroles). Everything can be explained in terms of these, and the manufacture, regulation, secretion and synthesis of these…can be explained by DNA. This explains everything from simple sugar metabolism all the way to the Progenitor…the stem cell with the potential to make a human body.

Fallacy #3 The probability of advantage mutation taking place is too low.

This error is almost exactly the same as the second.

With regard to probability, think about this. Things work at quantum speed at the size of molecules. Cells are always undergoing mitosis, copying, shifting, transcription, translation, receiving and processing chemical signals. Imagine the genome as a supercomputer and the environment, the determinate of what constitutes a genetic advantage that causes more reproduction like the password. The supercomputer has to guess the password. It does so by brute force. Go through the permutations. Mutations are happening so fast, so often, some are being chucked out in a blur, some are useless and ignored, the ones that are chucked out are automatically repaired because they are getting in the way, and then finally, the computer finds a permutation. Since this is not a disruptor, it is retained in much the same way that a useless mutation would be, passed on to children, who reproduce more...etc etc.

The environment is always playing around with genes, it just takes millions of years to nurture the ones it likes.

From a probability and mathematical standpoint, evolution makes perfect sense. There is a good example of this for contemporary society. The survival advantage of trait is inversely proportional to the amount of time it takes. It is relatively easy to observe genotype transition today. For instance, in parts of Africa where malaria is most prevalent, the allele containing the single copy of sickle-cell anemia can be found in almost 100% of the population. Another good instance of this is common lawn grass. Consider dandelions, a totally nuisance type of weed. As people of suburbia ruthlessly take their lawnmowers to the grass, the dandelions that happens to have genetic combinations that inhibit it’s Auxin growth factors find it useful because they are far more likely to survive, too short to be cut by the blades. These pass their genotype to their children who in turn will be unusually short and survive the lawnmower blades while their tall counterparts perish and in time, a new species, the lawnlion, may arise.

Fallacy #4 Life is too diverse to be explained by gene mutation

No it isn’t. Phenotype depends on genotype and the genotype does not change very much. When I hear creationists talk of the incredible diversity of life, I laugh. What makes life remarkable is how similar it is. The greatest diversity in life is seen among the prokaryotes, the humble single celled bacteria. We have more in common with a mouse than an Escheria coli has in common with Mycoplasmodium genetalium.

The phenotype refers to the trait. This is determined by external features and internal anatomy. Of course, today we understand that phenotype depends on genotype. The speciation variable is not that huge. A human shares 99% of his DNA with a chimpanzee. That means that 1% (5,000 genes) produces 5,000 proteins that the chimps do not have, or transcribes them at a different rate, or folds them differently (new theory suggests that human protein folding is far more complex). We only differ in 2 amino acids (out of 22 known to life) but these two can create vast combinations of proteins. These proteins control advanced neurogenesis, hair follicle growth, skin collagen makeup, eye colour variables, hormone-stimulated growth, all the ways in which we differ from chimps. Evolution works with scaffolding. The vast majority of genes in all mammals are the same, the genes that control enzymatic response, angio and vasculogenesis, the genes that control immunological responses and stem cell arrangements, they control basic development of brain functions that all mammals have, they control metabolism, mitosis, apoptosis, sensory development, the development of spermatogenesis in male mammals and mammary glands in females. By far and large, the genome across the mammalian class is identical. Massive changes in phenotype are caused by a few changes in genes. Even with the simple banana, 50% of our genotype is identical. This groundbreaking work was done by Richard Dawkins, who wrote about the crucial part of the genotype in his book The Selfish Gene.

This rule has a logical follow up: Small genetic changes can make massive phenotype changes. This is why the constant claims that “sometimes fossils are found in the wrong striations” is an idiot idea. In phenotype it may appear to be very different and cannot fit in the taxonomy, but now with recent advances in genetics, we can track tiny mutations with huge consequences, comparing genotypes with a keystroke. If the mutated gene in question sits atop a master chain, then a single mutation can make a huge change. For instance, in a petal flower, if a single protein is changed on the master chain, then a stem will grow in place of a flower. We used to class organisms by phenotype. Not anymore, the completely obvious axiom to be drawn is that DNA is the universal software language of evolution. There are 300 amino acids and 100 nucleotides that exist in nature, but all life is based on only 22 amino acids and a mere four nucleotides.

Fallacy #5 A symbiosis disproves evolution as it could not have come about through mutation.

Actually, symbiotic relationships are fundamental to evolution. There are countless examples, organotrophic bacteria in our guts, the mitochondria in every cell in our body, the chloroplasts in every plant cell.

The symbioses error is part of a larger error known as linear evolution fallacy. Creationists assert that large numbers of fossils found in spurts like the Cambrian are contradictory to the slow, gradual mutation which is evolution’s foundation. They misunderstand something known as punctuated equilibrium. Let us take the Cambrian as an example.

Genetics is only one of the mechanisms of evolution. Another crucial crux is that organisms can form symbiosis relations to survive. To understand it, we must travel back in time to the Mesoproterozoic, when the Earth was very different.

In fact, the Earth was mostly Carbon Dioxide. Simple Prokaryotic life forms survived by metabolizing Carbon Dioxide. They were happy and there was no need for them to evolve. They slotted perfectly into the simple taxonomy, into the mud and shale and very warm climate that made up the ancient Earth. But trouble was brewing. The by-product of their metabolism was oxygen, a gas that was toxic to these little prokaryotes. As oxygen in the atmosphere increased, it started to resemble more and more what we see today: A 21% oxygen atmosphere. As soon as the oxygen reached this number, it caused a bacterial apocalypse. Oxygen is highly reactive and toxic, it interfered with their metabolic systems and protein synthesis. Only a few hardy bacteria survived. They were the ones buried deep in the mud and shale, who could escape to the anoxic world, but it could not last. Eventually, a new class of protozoa arose by the very same process of genetic evolution I covered in detail before. These new cells could metabolize oxygen and thus gave rise to the next stage in evolution: The dawn of the Eukaryotes. The arisal of Eukaryota from prokaryotes is one of two known examples of rapid punctuated equilibrium. The other one is the arisal of proto-cells from self-replicating bimolecular structures. These two events are the quantum leaps in evolution, the understanding gaps where intelligent design still lurks. But both can be explained by catastrophic environmental changes that brought about rapid evolution. Obviously evolution cannot hinge on quantum leaps, it has long stretches of slow evolution, where all organisms drive to operate in better symbiosis with the environment.

Every cell in every advanced organism is more or less the same. A fluid filled membrane with a nucleus containing a series of base pairs that encode for all the proteins that make up the organism, surrounded a cytoplasm swimming with Lyosomes and Peroxisomes and other organelles that play a function in life. The endosymbiosis theory states that the oxygen-hating bacteria of the old world found their home in symbioses with the Eukaryotes. They became our mitochondria, safe from the oxygen of the outside world, metabolizing gases and powering their new homes. Indeed, there is vast evidence to support this (notice this is called endosymbiosis theory, not hypothesis).

The extraordinary structural similarities between Prokaryotes and mitochondria is obvious, they can be traced directly from very ancient proto bacteria that had highly simplified metabolic systems, perhaps making hydrogen sulfide, scratching out a living in the ancient shale and warm mud (Hydrogen sulfide metabolism is what gives Lithotrophes their distinctive yellow glow) Because of the symbioses, looking at our mitochondria is like looking back in time. They haven’t had to evolve, just like their oxyphobic brethren of the Mesoproterozoic world did not. And of course, the fact that this is the only organelle besides the nucleus that has its own genetic code is a clear indicator of endosymbiosis. We used to think the nucleolus contained all the genes. No more. Deep inside the twisting folds of the metabolic catalysis that operates inside our mitochondria is a tiny genome. 60,000 base pairs that contain the structural encoding to perform the metabolic pathways that keep us alive.

Charles Darwin knew there must be a Mesoproterozoic origin for the explosion. He thought the molecular stage was being set for a massive jump in life. He was right. The rise of the Eukaryotes was crucial. Oxygen is much more reactive than Carbon Dioxide, therefore metabolism involving it is much faster. Eukaryotic evolution could work so much faster because it was based upon a much faster fuel. Mitosis and breeding speed increased, and clumps of quasi-independent cells would clump to form tissues that would later make up plant-like organisms, as the process of photosynthesis developed from the simple carbon dioxide metabolism.

The punctuated equilibrium is obvious and brings up a standard mathematic rule. The harsher the environment, the faster the evolution and the steeper the advantage gradient. An environment has got to have some limiting factors, because if an organism is in happy symbiosis with the environment, nothing will happen. The prokaryotes that first inhabited the Earth did not evolve for a billion years, they just happily existed until their oxygen metabolism changed the atmospheric gas concentration to the point that most of them died, and that forced an end to their Camelot-esque existence in the warm mud and shale of the Mesoproterozoic.

Fortunately the environment is a cold hearted bastard who is always harsh as hell. The planet has gone through seven ice ages in the last 700,000 years, three mass extinctions since life began and numerous other cataclysms.

[Randall Lord]

Part 2

Fallacy #6 The imperfect organisms argument

This one is quite strange. It says that “well, humans have really poor noses and crappy eyesight compared to other animals, if evolution is survival of the fittest, shouldn’t that have been fixed”? Well, no actually. Evolution is the result of trade-offs. It takes a huge amount of free energy for evolution to go through the amount of trial and error to construct new mechanisms. Does a burrowing mole need vision? No. Are the pressures of natural selection going to give it vision? Will it give the mole an advantage? No. Evolution works with trade-offs. For instance, if you rip off a salamander’s leg, it will grow back. Deep within the active genetic code of the salamander, or indeed any amphibian, are twisting strands that encode for a protein cascade that will create a new leg. Evolution left us Mammals in the dark on that. Think about the priorities. Evolution is all about trade offs and compromises. A perfect organism cannot be built, after all, evolution is not a drive with foresight or design in mind, but rather survival. Pure probability and mathematics without marring, wholly uncaring and ruthless. This is what makes it so good at shaping life.

The example of amphibian regeneration is an example of such a trade-off. Mammals cannot do this. They cannot even regrow the tip of a finger if severed. Regeneration is an awesome biological feat that belongs to the amphibians. The reasons, when we think about it, are obvious. Take man for example. We have some patchy trauma responses given to us by evolution. In the event that a limb is severed, chances are that the Paleolithic man on the African Savannah would bleed to death. But if not, some ancient mechanisms kick in. Blood pressure lowers allowing the fibrin meshing to work it’s magic and patch the spurting arteries, body temperature lowers to keep metabolism low which prevents necrosis and apoptosis of cells starved for oxygen as blood is diverted to the most vital functions (hence the pale pallor of the face, skin is not important for the time being). In time, the wound heals and the skin grows around it, and a stump is formed. But why can we not regenerate the leg? For a mammal, the evolutionary-trade off would be too great a price. It would take utterly vast reserves of energy to do so, probably more than an animal in the Spartan world of the Paleolithic could spare, the animal would need to rest for weeks, an easy target for predators, and it would probably not regain full function of the leg until axongenesis fully kicked in. In short, it is not a worthwhile path for evolution to pursue. On the other hand, in low-metabolism small Poikiothermic animals, it works quite well.

There is actually another explanation which I will pursue because I like this example. A few years ago, molecular biologists tagging mice for transgenics were using a holepuncher to punch a hole in their ear to tag. When they came back, they noticed that the mice in question had filled the gaps in the ear with cartilage. That was odd. Mammals should not be able to regenerate. A quick check revealed that these were no ordinary mice…they were MRL mice, specially bred with no immune system. This led the researchers to hypothesize, could the immune system represent a trade off between regeneration and survival of the fittest? It makes sense, the Immune system, led by the hunter killer T-cells, is extremely ruthless and kills everything that is not tagged by MHC tissue, even it’s own cells if it is convinced it is foreign. Undoubtedly, the immune system would need to shut down such regenerative projects. We have traded our ability to grow limbs back with the ability to fight pathogens.

Evolution does not build perfect organisms, only a designer could do that. And since life has no designer…

Fallacy #7 The prototype/synchronicity error, aka “if man evolved from monkeys why are they still here” aka “50 organisms must undergo the same mutation for it to take hold” fallacy

Evolution works on individuals not species. This is one so many people don’t understand. For instance, I often hear theists say synchronized random mutations do not exist in nature, then they uphold this as proof of intelligent design/creationism. They do not understand the fundamental axiom of genetic mutation every mutation has a prototype. We’ve been through this already. An organism has an advantageous mutation. It reproduces more than the other organisms because of this. The mutation gets passed to his children, they reproduce more because of it, they pass it to their children…mutations are not synchronized. With each generation, it will become more and more prominent in the pool, until it is universal. This gives the illusion of genetic synchronicity.

This brings us to another stupid theistic argument: I often hear the argument, “if humans evolved from chimps, why are they still here”. A foolish argument. We can apply the previous axioms to this. Evolution by gene drift works on individuals, not species. If the new combination is successful, the individual will have a greater survival chance and reproduce more, passing the new gene to his children. As long as a gene exists in the pool, the individual and his offspring have the chance for further advantageous mutations to occur (and occur they will, for mutation happens during every single undergoing of mitosis, which happens millions of time per day). The survival of an organism matters little so long as s/he had reproduced, is the gene that matters. An old species does not “disappear” if a new one arises. It might disappear only if the new species is superior and destroys its predecessors (early humans most certainly undertook genocide against the Neanderthals).

Fallacy #8 Macroevolution is impossible.

This of course is the crux of the matter. This is why I have devoted four points to it. Much of evolutionary theory is not controversial, like adaptation and microevolution. On the other hand, speciation and macroevolution are. The idea that simple cells can progress to man. All of the axioms I mentioned can be observed in bacteria, which is why they are irrefutable even to the most ardent creationist idiot. From penicillinase secreting enzymes to VRE, bacteria have this extraordinary ability to evolve so fast because evolution works at a rather different scale in those sizes. Since the number of organisms and generations is so vast, the immediate survival advantage of the useful genetic mutations that allow certain individuals to survival antibiotic bombardment is massively multiplied, and bacterial resistance can be spawned very fast. Prokaryotic evolution is like speeded up Eukaryotic evolution because they reproduce so much faster and so many more offspring.

Theists often say: I believe in microevolution, I can see small changes in an organism, but I refuse to believe in macroevolution, the idea that organisms can completely change. This is an idiotic argument which uses subjective wordplay. At what point do we decide whether the cumulative mutation has been so much that it is macroevolution? If the organism changes color? During a speciation split? If it grows another eye?

In fact, macroevolution as so many successful mutations occurring within a pool that the phenotype of the organism is totally altered. This is essentially the same as microevolution, just over a longer time frame. DNA changes are not a microevolution topic. This is an extremely common misconception. Genes are very powerful, and they can easily massively alter the phenotype of an organism. You seemed to define macroevolution as speciation. That is, that the cumulative genetic change in an individual and their descendants has been large enough that the gametes no longer match with the original species of the prototype, that is the very first organism of a species that carried a mutation with a slight advantage, which over many hundreds of thousands of years and generations, eventually became so much that the gametes will no longer fuse with those of the original species, if it still exists.

The trick to macroevolution is a probability function called cumulative mutation. A prototype organism is bestowed with an advantageous mutation. He has increased survival probability and passes it on to his children. He reproduces more than the other organisms of the same species because of this advantage. So do his children, and the gene becomes more and more prominent in the pool. Since there are more of this mutated version of the organism of the sample, the probability function states that there is a higher likelihood that one of the mutated children will chance upon an advantage mutation, and then...the cycle continues. Go through this 200 times, and the organism will be unrecognizable. This is macroevolution.

The absolutely most common error ever in the history of evolutionary skepticism is claiming that scientists are extrapolating microevolution into the macroevolutionary model. There is no extrapolation involved. You cannot run a mile without taking steps. Macroevolution is the word we (the scientific community) use to define multiple micros strung together like a polypeptide. One change is micro. A change following a change following a change following a change…is macroevolution. We can see before our eyes cumulative mutation. One mutation is followed by a mutation followed by a mutation based on the mathematics described by the probability functions.

Fallacy #9 (Continuation of macroevolution error): New genetic information cannot arise.

This is totally ridiculous. The assertion goes like this. Creating a new function like a wing or an eye would require the introduction of new genetic information, mutation and natural selection only changes pre-existing information”.

Adding information in DNA terms is done by the process of templated polymerization, whereby strands produce complementary strands by nucleotide bonding whereby the nucleic acids can recognize their VDW bond counterpart by the activation energy needed.

Changing information occurs when a mutation occurs by one of the mechanisms mentioned above (page 2)

The problem with this statement is that DNA genomes are extremely redundant. 91% of the human genome is redundant, if you are interested. So changing one copy will add new information. Because most of the time the polymerization works out fine. Imagine it like a library. There is only one copy of each book. You remove one book and replace it with a different, new book. Are you adding information? No. You are changing information. This is the crux of the creationist argument. But imagine you have twelve copies of each book. You replace one copy of one book with a different, new book. Now you are adding new information because the pre-existing information is still there in the form of 11 other books.

Fallacy #10 Macroevolution is qualitatively different from microevolution in that microevolution culls existing organisms, while macro makes new ones.

I have no idea where this came from but it is just not true. The only difference is qualitative. A single microevolution like furrier paws on a bear in a cold environment still requires both mechanisms.

Natural selection has two necessary mechanisms

Mechanism 1: Darwinism: This means that individuals who have unsuccessful traits will not survive to reproduce and therefore be eliminated from the pool. This leaves only the advantageous genes.

Mechanism 2: Genetic Innovation: At the same time, organisms obviously must improve because if there was nothing to improve, there would be nothing to cull. Therefore, organisms can experience advantage mutations, and this is how we evolve.

Mechanism one is definitely favored by evolution. It is easier to destroy than create. Mechanism two takes vastly more free energy from the environment, but it is absolutely necessary, otherwise, we would all be little single celled organisms.

Even microevolution relies on genetic innovation and conserved mutation. Many microevolutionary steps, small steps up mount improbable, will eventually become macroevolution.

Eventually, the genetic split initiated by a prototype will accumulate so much that a speciative split will occur. This brings us to another rule speciative divergence occurs when a mutation prototype’s offspring differ so much that the gametes will no longer fuse with those of the prototype’s species. Normally, this has to be preluded by a geographic split to shut off the gene flow.

Macroevolution is nothing more than many microevolutions. If you accept microevolution, then all you have to do is string them together.

Here’s a simple example of two microevolutions together:

An organism, over several generations, changes color on the anthers to adapt to the fact that different species of bees are migrating in. This is simple macroevolution.

Over time, the organisms anther-colored descendants change the color of their petal to adapt to the fact that these different bees are pollinating their plants.

I suggest to the reader that at this point they go over the points on conserved cumulative mutation and the probability function.

All one has to do his put many micros together. Obviously it is not so clear cut as "An organism mutates, the mutation is passed on until prominence, then one of them mutates etc", There are mutations happening all the time, and some advantages that must be gleaned, an organism can be evolving in more ways than one at once. If evolution did one thing at a time, it would be way too slow. The job of the environment is to make sense of the mess. Macro makes sense one you view at is microevolutions strung together like a polypeptide.

The error is stating that micro deals only with genetic ebb and flow, while macro adds to the genome (adds?, the only thing that can add is templated polymerization, it changes the genome while retaining the old information via redundancy). Microevolution also changes the genome. An organism cannot change the color of it's petals through ebb and flow, there has to be conserved mutation.

Fallacy #11 There is no evidence for macroevolution

Notice the different wording. It does not attack the possibility of the concept but rather the veracity of the evidence. This seems to me an argument from ignorance. Let us take human evolution as the example of this. (I always notice that creationists attack ancient evolution for which evidence is not as strong, but never the solid evidence of human evolution) The genetic difference between men and chimps is not huge, but because it happened over a very short timespan (3.5 million years). Within that 3.5 million years are numerous species and three genus diversions. Because this is relatively recent, we have numerous fossils. In fact, human evolution is far better documented than ancient evolution. Lining up the skulls of fossils of early men, the growth of brain size and changing of mandible structure is obvious even to the untrained eye. On the Order of Primates, the evolution to Homo Sapiens took place among the Hominid Family, which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and as the latest additions, humans. Of the Hominidae, the other family, the Hylobatidae, went extinct, but the Hominids survived. Apes with slight mutations to their vertebrae structure could stand on trees more upright and thus see predators over the horizon and would have a better chance of surviving and passing this gene on. As more these upright apes survived to reproduce, the gene became more prominent in the pool, and thus the upright ape becomes more prominent. This increased survival rate paves way for more possible advantageous mutations, such as brainpower, crucial to these animals, once the most intelligent in the Kingdom before humans. The pan (chimp genus)/hominid split occurred 4 million years ago. The 99% sharing of humans and ape DNA is somewhat of a misnomer, more important to speciation is the karyotype.

Now, if we imagine the new upright hominid, still with a thicker skull, hairier and stouter body than a human ,thicker fingers, and only half the brain size. The Hominid family is special because of its brainpower. It is their advantageous trait, instead of outfighting enemies they outthink them. Thus, the brainpower evolution of the Hominid is crucial, and neurological mutations would have immediate massive advantages. There are over 25 notches of species evolutions from Sahelanthropus to Homo Sapiens occurring over a rather abrupt 4 million years. Lining them up, side by side, with accurate fossils, it is quite impressive. We can see before our eyes changes in brain capacity and facial structure, feet and hands, opposable thumbs and bone structure. We can see, by comparing brain scans of the different links that still exist, the many slow accumulation of advanced neurons and cognitive function development of the Higher cortex from the primitive brain and limbic system.

Fallacy #12 The Irreducible Complexity error

Moving more into intelligent design here. Irreducible Complexity is common, popular and fallacious. It was first put forth by Michael Behe and states that whereas in complex biosystems, if any single mechanism in a body function is removed, it fails to work. Thus it needs a designer. A laughable error. Every biomechanism can be broken down into simple components. We can track the evolution of an eye from simple patches of light emitting cells. Creationists like to use eyes or wings, but half a wing works fine, and might save your life if you fall out of a tree, likewise 51% of a wing will save your life from a fall from a slightly higher tree. We can see examples in nature of parachuting and gliding animals that are clearly partially and very slowly forming the systems that Behe deems Irreducible. We have fossils of birds which appear to have, half a wing or 60% of a wing. Half an eye (and there are organisms which do have half an eye) is better than no eye, and 51% of an eye might allow you to see a predator that half an eye would not. And this is how evolution works. The gradient of advantage accumulates until the “scaffolding” is no longer needed and a plethora of more advanced functions can spawn.

The organism that Behe likes to use is the bacterial flagellar motor mechanism. This device is remarkable in nature in that it is the only example outside human technology of a freely rotating axel as a means of propulsion. (Wheels on large animals really would be irreducibly complex and I suspect this is why they do not have them) It is powered by a tiny molecular motor. According to Behe, if any part were removed, the motor would stop working. Not only is this not irreducibly complex as each function works fine on its own, but we can track it back to simpler versions of it and see how it mutated. The axel bears clear resemblance to a simple mechanism used by bacteria to pump toxins into their hosts called a Type Three Secratory System (TTSS), and we can track that from simple proton pumps and ion channels.

Complex Systems do not evolve independently. You don’t see an eye in the primordial soup. A collection of simple systems accumulates more functions as these become advantageous. Darwin said in the Origin of Species: “Were it that a system could genuinely not function without the removal a mechanism, my theory would collapse completely”. So far, it holds.

There are three problems with irreducible complexity

1) Every biological function right down the level of RNA and viruses/ is self sufficient

2) Every complex system can be traced to a simple system, from photoreceptors to eyes, from ion channels to Secretion systems to flagellates and molecular motors

3) Complex systems evolve in mutual support of each other. An eye is useless without a patch of neurons to interpret it.

Fallacy #13 The Second Law of Thermodynamics

An even worse fallacy than irreducible complexity is using The Second Law of Thermodynamics to disprove evolution, that has got to be the worst understanding of science in history. The law is:

-All systems tend to progress towards entropy

The premise of this law is that essentially all useful work will release wasted energy in the form of heat energy, which is almost impossible to reconvert into a useful form of energy again (like chemical potential). But a system which receives constant influx and outflux (a system which is not closed) will not necessarily progress towards entropy. But even the Earth itself is not a closed system. There are very few self contained systems. Almost everything receives energy from something else because everything gives off radiation heat.

Also, the implication of this ridiculous fallacy is that not that evolution cannot be sustained but rather life itself because it is complex. A seed growing into a tree supposedly breaks the second law, this is ridiculous. Even if there was a God who engineered life (there is not) there are no ad hoc little workmen running around organizing life. Life is a set of autoregulatory processes that can sustain itself. So even if we make the baseless assumption that God created life, the reproductive process where life arises from old life is natural, not supernatural. If the second law of thermodynamics extended to open systems, every function of life would be impossible, not just it’s evolution. There is nothing about it that breaks the thermodynamic law because cells take in free energy and use adenosine triphosphate to correct the entropy.

Fallacy #14 Nucleic origins and the RNA/DNA transcription cycle error

Theists sometimes look at the autocatalytic cycle and transcription and translation and say: Well, if it is a cycle, and DNA cannot exist without RNA, and RNA without DNA, then how did it start?

Aside from sidestepping the issue and moving into primordial chemistry, they are completely wrong. Let me first go through the transcription/translation process

For DNA, nothing complex is required. A set of reactions that reads DNA is based on literally copying it. The key thing about DNA is that the nucleotides literally represent amino acids. One codon is identical to an amino acid. This is translation/transcription. I'll go through it step by step again.

1. A stimulus from the cell membrane causes proteins to bind to the introns flanking the necessary exon, this causes the string to unwind. This is initiated by transcriptase enzymes

2. Once unwound, the string splits

3. Through templated polymerization initiated by polymerase enzymes, free bases attach to the complementary string, producing the identical string (that which is precisely identical to the protein in question in terms of codon order), which is then tidied up using spliceosomes and ligases, enzymes that cut through the introns and glue the exons together to make the complete string.

4. The Free bases are RNA bases and attach to form the protein-identical RNA base. The reason for this is that a ribosome cannot read DNA, it must be converted into RNA. The only difference is that it has ribose instead of deoxyribose and uracil instead of thymine, but since nothing else can read thymine, that is an important difference. This string is called mRNA which is ejected from the nucleus.

5. tRNA strings which represent one amino acid bind to their corresponding amino acids on one end. On the other end they have an anticodon, which represents the base string identical to the amino acid.

6. The mRNA is captured by a ribosome, a giant macromolecular protein. The mRNA is lined up along it. The anticodon on the tRNA automatically binds to the codons on the mRNA. This forces all the amino acids to line up. They thread together automatically, which causes the now unnecessary tRNAs to detach and leave the ribosome. When the protein is finished, it is automatically detached.

Notice that every step of that process is automatic in much the same way that if I put an ionic compound into water, the dipolarity would cause it to dissolve. This is same principle that causes codons to automatically bind to anitcodons, tRNAs to amino acids, proteins to introns and mRNAs to ribosomes. Every chemical reaction is the result of the last. The ability to read DNA is a chemical process that naturally arose because every step of it is bound by chemical certainty. I can explain why, but that is really text-heavy and unnecessary.

So, where does it start in light of this process? The answer is RNA. DNA may need RNA, but that does not mean RNA needs DNA. RNA is a self-sufficient unit. It can assemble without DNA, it does not need DNA. This is the basis of the RNA World Hypothesis. Theists sometimes attack transcription forgetting (because they never knew to begin with) that there is also reverse transcription, whereby RNA can self assemble using templated polymerization. RNA is the oldest and most primitive self sufficient unit in biology. It is the foundation of our world. From RNA you get viruses...then bacteria, then DNA, then eukaryotes, the multi-celled organisms etc

[Randall Lord]

Part 3

Fallacy #15 Abiogenesis

One of the greatest mysteries in all of science is how the first life arose. Of course, here it is important to define life. Life is a set of autocatalytic chemical processes aimed at reproduction of the self. Unlike other chemical complex systems like crystals, biochemical molecules are remarkable for the reproductive capabilities. I suppose, by that definition, that Ribonucleic Acid is probably life. It is the building block from which all life was originally based, before being gradually phased out by DNA, although obviously RNA still retains a critical place in biochemistry.

The attempt to answer that has come in the form of a hypothesis known as abiogenesis . How did the organic polymerated strings of nucleic acids or indeed any necessary function of life arise? Whoever answers it will probably receive a Nobel prize from every field imaginable, although I imagine the awards will have to go to a great many people. There are numerous hypotheses out there, autocatalysis, RNA world, lipid-based world.

All The hypotheses begin with the Earth’s hydrogenesis, the formation of the oceans. Due to the polar nature of water, dissolving free ions with its slightly polar configuration, it is an ideal “primordial soup” to use the phrase, for the formation of simple self-replicating abiotic molecules. Due to the atmospheric difference of the Earth at the time, the Primordial Soup was very different. It was much warmer, an ideal incubator for the development of simple biomolecules. Experiments have shown that these simple amino and nucleic acids can arise in a hydrated anoxic environment provided there is sunlight. Molecules like Cytosine and Adenine are reasonably simple and will reassemble. This is not probable, but considering the vast size of the ocean and the span of time, the Law of Averages states it will eventually happen. The first abiotic reassembling molecules will vastly increase the chance that they will form life components like RNA; this is the basis of the RNA world Hypothesis.

Regarding the origin of life and RNA...evolution cannot answer that. The theory does not extend that far back. From the moment RNA appeared on Earth, evolution provides a god-free explanation. At the moment there are hypothesis on life's origin, including abiogenesis, Panspermia...and god. All three are assertions, so none have weight. However, science operates on an Occam’s Razor principle regarding hypotheses. Panspermia would require you to assume the existence of alien life that came to earth, the probabilities of which are astronomical. God requires you to believe that there is a extramaterial out of space and time deity who infused the primordial soup with RNA. The odds again, are astronomical. Abiogenesis on the other hand...merely requires you to assume that ancient molecules obeyed chemical law. Thus it is the most widely assumed.

But really it is a non-issue. Evolution does not deal in primordial chemistry. Primordial chemists deal in primordial chemistry.

Fallacy #16 Transitional fossils and the problem with “morphology”

A very popular and odd argument is “transitional fossils” and “missing links”. I had one guy tell me that if evolution is true we should see “bird-reptiles” or something along those lines. That is ridiculous. Those two Orders are separated by 200 million years of divergence. Evolution does not work along such broad lines. These three groups used to live in primordial single cell communities, promiscuously exchanging genes. This is how the foundation genes of all life were selected. But as the three groups went their separate ways, the gene flow pump shut off, and now, it is a rare occurrence when these groups exchange genetic material. By the same logic as the “bird-reptile” fallacy, molecular biologists should see weird Eukaryote-prokaryote hybrids. The divergence occurs long before different Orders proliferate. For instance, let us take the split on the level of Kingdoms. Plants and Animals, these are both Eukaroyta, yet their fundamental differences are much more then genetics. All plants have deep within them the result of an ancient symbioses, chloroplasts as well as Mitochondria, which have the astonishing ability to metabolize light (well, they don’t actually metabolize light, they just use it as a catalyst, but it’s still impressive) The truth is, all 300,000 species of plants are extremely closely related, and all have one thing in common How do we know this? Amino acid tracking. Evolution is dependent on homologous sets of genes called orthologs and paralogs. Genes in multiple organisms that obviously descended from the same common ancestor (anyone who bothers should check the amino acid tracking branching tree of hemoglobin evolution as an example) are called orthologs, while genes which occurred as the result of mutation descended from a single gene (thereby producing two or more new genes) are called paralogs. Both of these are called homologs.

The gene flow pump is shut off long before the divergence at order level. How can these groups interchange genetic material when only within a species can organisms breed? Obviously we are not going to see bird-reptiles or anything ridiculous like that. The different paths of evolution go their different ways.

Onto the issue of “transition fossils” or “missing links” or whatever you call them. There is no such thing. What on earth do they mean “transitional”? If they mean the “bird-reptile” hybrid or something along those ridiculous lines, they need to study classification biology. If they mean that the fossil record is incomplete, well of course it is! Fossils are almost never formed. When nearly all animals die, anoxic layers of silt pile on top of them, converting their organic remains into hydrocarbon sludge…that’s where we get our oil from (How do creationists explain oil anyway?) There are so many steps in evolution lost forever because the fossil record is not complete.

Fallacy #17 (Attacking young Earth Creationism now) Radiometric dating and the anti-uniformitarianism fallacy

Large atoms with concentrated, crowded nuclei are highly unstable. To correct the instability, they will either

a) Release a highly ionizing but low energy particle consisting of a helium nucleus with two protons and neutrons. This is called alpha radiation.

b) If the nucleon number is isotopically unstable, the atom will change a proton into a neutron or vice versa allowing an electron to be released or a positron depending on beta minus versus positive.

Another thing they can do is released an ultra-high energy wave called gamma which is irrelevant to my question below.

For instance, a carbon-14 isotope. 99.999% of all carbon is stable carbon-12. but carbon-14 isotopes are not stable and make up 1ppt (part per trillion) of all carbon. They release beta radiation to correct the nucleon instability by firing off an electron. This causes it to decay into Nitrogen-14. The great thing about radioactive decay is that it is a random process that obeys probability laws. The other good thing about it is that you can dip a radioactive material in molten lead, in acid, shoot it, burn it, fire particles at it, try to irradiate it again, pass a current through it...and none of these things will change the isotope clocks. They are fixed.

Now let me explain how we use this to measure the age of the Earth and organic material. Radioactive half-life is the amount of time it takes for the Geiger counter count rate (CPS) to fall by half. Radioactivity is a Zeno's paradox, because it falls to 1/2 then 1/4 then 1/8, but never to 0. It takes the same amount of time to fall from full to half as from half to quarter because the probability remains the same, because radioactive decay is an elemental nuclear cycle.

Depending on their isotopic properties, different isotopes and elements decay at different rates. Uranium 238 has a half life of 4500 million years...almost exactly the age of the Earth. Certain Thorium isotopes, and Polonium 221 for example, half in hours to seconds.

All life is made out of carbon, and all life is made out of roughly the same percentage of carbon-14, which is 1ppt (part per trillion). When something is alive, the amount of carbon-14 it has remains at a constant 1ppt, but once it decays, biological processes stop so the carbon influx/outflux stops too, and the C-14 starts to decay into N-14 and is not replaced. So if we examine a dead plant by giving it a radiocarbon test, and we find the amount of carbon 14 (can be calculated using the mass of total carbon) and the amount of C-14 has reduced to 1/8, it means that the plant is 18,000 years old roughly, because C-14 has a half life of 6000 years (actually about 5300 years). The N-14 that C-14 decays into is simply released into the atmosphere.

If you don’t like Carbon 14 dating, there are over 20 types of radioisotope dating, including Pb-Ur, Ar-Ar, K-Ar etc. Some of which can date back millions and billions of years because the isotope is more stable.

To prove that the dinosaur bones are 6000 years old, you would need to find some rocks in ancient geological striation, among the dinosaurs, and test them using multiple isotope tests, which should give you a dating of between 3000 and 10,000 years if you are right.

Radiometric dating is not exact science. However, dinosaur bone dating never drops below 65 million years. They cannot provide exact answers for ancient (millions to billions of years) dating, but using a range establishes consensus. If the Earth was only 6,000 years old, the radioactivity emitted by unstable materials would be huge. We would immediately notice it because almost none would have decayed...in fact, we would not be here because life could not survive in that environment.

Creationists typically answer this with two fallacious arguments:

1. Radiometric dating is erratic, different techniques give you totally different numbers. It cannot be trusted
2. Scientists assume uniformitarianism, while radiometric dating might have been greatly speeded up in the past.

Both of these are ridiculous. The error in the spectrum of radiometric dating is normal experimental error. Radioactivity, after all, is a completely random process. However, the use of multiple isotope tests is not designed to establish a precise age. It is meant to establish the magnitude. If you have three tests, one which says 50 million years, another says 70 million and another says 92 million, then that is your age range. Radiometric errata does not help creationists, because it is used only to establish the magnitude of age. Even with such error, we would notice if the Earth was 6000 years old because the spectrum would bluntly stop between 2000 years and 12000 years. Radiometric errata is not an argument for creationism. The magnitude of age always comes up on the order of millions and billions.

Uniformitarianism. Firstly, this argument is self-defeating. To assume anti-uniformitarianism (a legitimate scientific debate) one must assume the Earth is millions or billions of years old. We can measure the conditions of the last 10 000 years so accurately now that we can be certain that the cataclysm of the conditions necessary to increase radioactivity that much could only have existed long before advanced life, as such bombardment would have inevitably shut down any evolutionary projects. Anti-uniformitarianism only calls into question the accuracy of ultra-slow isotopes like U238, which halves in over 4.5 billion. years. It does not affect fast isotopes like C-14, which we can measure only to the past 60,000 years. Going back this recently, radioactivity could not have increased at all in such a short time span unless our Neanderthal ancestors were performing atomic blast tests.

Obviously, insisting the universe is 6,000 years old is completely ridiculous. As is the idea that the world was created in six days. I could present literally thousands of arguments from every scientific field in existence. Gaseous shifts, atmospheric depletion, spectroscopy, radioactive decay…all impossible if the universe is so young. At 6,000 years of age the universe was barely a tiny baby, and stellar evolution had not yet taken place with the result that matter was simple quark soup and dark energy. On the other hand, when the Earth was 6,000 years old, the Universe was fully mature. Hydrogenous ionization that had taken place during what cosmologists and astrophysicists call the “dark ages” had formed every element imaginable, and had created the fusion process necessary for the creation of stellar bodies and galactic clusters. The sun was still a little sun, because it was created roughly the same time as Earth was pulled together by it’s gravity. When Earth hit it’s 6,000th birthday, it was a lifeless boiling radioactive rock and an immature, barely existent atmospheric layer of carbon dioxide.

Fallacy #18 DNA replication string v pair fallacy

This confuses the bonding down the string with the bonding down the pairs. The strings are held together by interlinking alternate sugar phosphate (that's the deoxyribose). The pairs are held together by hydrogen bonds or VDW forces. This way they break apart and polymerate quite easily. This is why they are so tightly bound in karyotype. An ID theorist once suggested that without design, DNA would form a useless repetitive string of AGAGAGAGA. AGAGA would not happen because the coding down the string does not affect the coding of the pairs. The pairs recognize their counterpart (also, the suggestion was impossible anyway because adenine does not fit with guanine, it fits with thymine or uracil) through whichever requires the least activation energy to form a hydrogen bond, which depends on the amount of adenosine triphosphate present during polymerization.

Fallacy #19 The False Dichotomy

Even if we disregard everything we know about evolution, there is a big hole in creationist argument. It is a false dichotomy fallacy. If A is false, B must be true. This is ridiculous. Creationists essentially say “Look everyone, evolution is wrong, therefore the garbage of the Bible must be true!” By saying this they are shooting yourself in the foot twice because even if we throw out our scientific model, it does not in any way give an ounce of credibility to creationism. If they want to propagate this junk on scientific grounds, they have to design an experiment to prove their claims. It would be my great pleasure (as in, a free comedy show) to see them attempt to design a scientifically fair experiment to prove that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago in 6 days with all life forms exactly as they are now,.

Why do creationists use a false dichotomy? They spend all their time attacking evolution, to draw attention from the fact that they have no evidence for their claims? Evolution has evidence. It may be the subject of high controversy, most of which is not based in reality, but it does have evidence. It is this evidence that creationists spend all their time attacking. Instead, they should be trying to accumulate evidence for creation. No creationist has ever presented a convincing case based on geology, paleontology and biochemistry as to why the Earth is 6000 years old and it’s species existing as created kinds. Why? Because no evidence exists. Why? Because they spew a load of nonsense that has been extensively debunked.

The problem with creationism in light of the scientific method is this:

Evolution is a model that was built by observation. The facts were found, then conclusions were drawn from those facts.

Creation is a model that is built from scripture. The conclusions were in place, then facts were made up to support it.

In other words, creationism is the precise antithesis of the scientific induction process. The issues of uniformitarity and other things means the creationists are raising objections to the most fundamental precipts of the scientific method. Einstein said that “things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler”. He didn’t mean simple the way a simpleton (creationist) means simple, as science is extremely complex. He meant as few presumptions as possible. Science is based on Occams Razor. Obviously we have to make some presumptions, like that tomorrow will be like today etc, or that if we can test something over and over and it does the same thing, then it is constant, but really, we narrow it down to as few presumptions as possible. These criticisms reek of hypocrisy coming from non-scientists who believe the Bible is infallible.

Fallacy #20 Evolutionary scientists are being scientific fundamentalists/closed minded



Nonsense. If we were closed-minded we wouldn’t have bothered to answer creationist questions. I would not have bothered to put together this document were it not that I felt it necessary to answer creationist nonsense. If we were closed-minded we would say “just accept it, don’t ask questions”. We never say that (at least I don’t). We take the time to answer creationist questions. On the contrary, you are being incredibly closed-minded by refusing to accept overwhelming amounts of evidence and demanding extremely unreasonable burdens on the Fossil Record and visual observation proof.



On the issue of “scientific fundamentalism”, since evolution is used and proven and regarded as true by the entire scientific community, evolutionists are not “fundamentalists”. The correct definition of scientific fundamentalists is someone who adopts an Orthodox position which ignores other scientific theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory. For example a “Darwinian Fundamentalist” would be someone who refuses to accept that evolution happens by more mechanisms than described by Darwinian Natural selection, and ignored evidence about alternate mechanisms like endosymbiosis and epigenetic. For the record, I am not a Darwinian fundamentalist. A scientist who realizes that the Earth is billions of years old and life is the result of careful natural processes, is not a scientific fundamentalists. The term is an internal term within the scientific community as a reference to their closed-minded colleagues. Since the entire scientific community works with evolution, this term is not applicable.

Fallacy #21 Evolution is just a theory

the argument "evolution is a theory" is an awful argument that uses wordplay from people who are not scientists.

Theory:

TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC: A Possible explanation

TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: A hypothesis that has been tested fairly by experiment, evaluated, peer-reviewed and accepted.

People only attack evolution because it contradicts the worthless Holy Scripture. I sometimes wonder if all scientific theory would have to undergo such ruthless assault. Evolution has had the hell blasted out of it, but it is still smiling. Imagine that electromagnetic induction was contradicted by the Bible. We'd have all sorts of "intelligent magnetism" sites on the web trying to exploit the tiniest loopholes in electroquantum physics and flux cutting and oscillation kinetics theory.

The way that most people use the word theory, the scientific community calls a hypothesis. Evolution is not a hypothesis.

Fallacy #22 Evolution is incompatible with belief in God



For believers, evolution is sometimes seen as a terrifying force that undermines faith, destroying it like cancer. Ever wondered why?? Because it contradicts the Bible and the Old Testament? So what! I think here it is important to distinguish between God-initiated evolution and Intelligent Design/creationism. A significant portion of the world is religious, and outside of the United States no-one takes ID/Creationism seriously. So most people fall into the God-driven evolution camp. People like Ken Miller, whose book, Finding Darwin’s God, is an excellent read.

The God-driven evolutionists typically rest on the failures of abiogenesis to explain the origin of nucleic acids and basic biochemical processes. The usual explanation offered is that God sparked the primordial soup, perhaps infusing it with energy that allowed RNA to begin on it’s long journey. After that…evolution took its course. From the standpoint of someone trying to debunk ID/Creationism, this may seem a little God of the gaps-ish, but when it comes to destroying our misinformation spreading nemeses, the ID/Creation people, we need to unite.

If God is omnipotent, who cares whether it created the Universe 10, 000 years ago or 10,000,000,000 years ago? Who cares whether he snapped his fingers and “poof” life appeared, or allowed it to develop naturally? It seems to me that creationists are grasping at ancient straws in a modern world. Evolution has been proven beyond doubt.