You agree that microevolution occurs; however, you disagree that macroevolution doesn’t occur. What mechanism keeps microevolution from progressing into macroevolution? In other words, what limits evolution to the micro-scale? Please answer publicly with your I don’t know. The theory of evolution is backed by mounds of evidence. Creationism and ID do not explain biogeographical distribution, speciation, atavisms, vestigials, dead genes, the fossil record, embryology, etc.
Sorry, I don’t have the “I don’t know” answer you were looking for. I would like to hear your opinion on this (link), though. Also, can you explain how macroevolution can successfully defy the second law of thermodynamics? I love how you guys are all going “mounds of evidence” over and over and never really show me any conclusive experiment (which is how you scientifically prove things)…
Intelligent design sure does explain these important things (link) better than evolution.
You didn’t answer answer my question and neither do your links, but let’s address them anyway. That entire first link is a straw man. Evolution is driven by five mechanisms: natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and nonrandom mating. Why is that article going on and on about mutation as if mutation is the only mechanism driving evolution—specifically macroevolution? Talkorigins has already addressed the articles claims—specifically “mutations are rare” and “mutations are harmful.” Talkorigins has also addressed other common claims, some of which are alluded to in Parker’s article.
I personally don’t like the way talkorigins downplayed the rate of harmful mutation. Such an argument isn’t necessary to make a case. As long as there exists mutations that are beneficial and if their rate is sufficient enough to prevent harmful mutations from accumulating faster than natural selection can remove them, evolution will occur in the right direction. By the way, Gary Parker left the ICR some time after exiling Bill Thwaites and Frank Awbrey for challenging him (read here).
The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The Earth is broadly an open system. Rationalwiki has already refuted this however. Read, understand, don’t be obdurate and accept facts even they contradict what you believe:
The false analogy of entropy as disorder is used in a number of fields outside of science with varying success. Creationists have picked up on disorder terminology and attempted to apply the second law of thermodynamics as a refutation of evolution. The analogy would state that more complex life-forms could never evolve from simpler ones.
It seems obvious that this false analogy of a false analogy is incorrect. First, evolution does not imply that life is becoming increasingly complex; it only says that natural selection allows genes to be passed on and different characteristics hence preserved.
It also is a corruption to believe life is always “more ordered” than inanimate objects. In fact, life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics in strict energetic sense. The energy of the sun is converted into chemical potential energy, which is converted to mechanical work or heat (the Earth is not an isolated system.) In each case, the energy transfer is inefficient, and some energy is dissipated as heat to the environment, leading to a dispersion of energy. (In the same way, “ordered” snowflakes can form when the weather becomes cold but the entropy of the universe still increases.)
A quote in reference to chemistry education illustrates this point:One aspect of biological systems that intrigues students is the possibility of discovering violations of the well-known laws of thermodynamics and physical chemistry. It is easy to refute most of the examples suggested. A germinating seed or an embryo developing in a fertilized chicken egg are often naively cited as examples of isolated systems in which an increase in order, or decrease in entropy occurs spontaneously. It is evident, however, that respiration, assuming O2 is present, produces an increase in entropy in the form of heat, which more than compensates for the decrease in entropy that arises when the elements present in the seed or in the yolk of the egg are organized into tissues of the plant or animal. Indeed, neither germination nor embryonic development will occur in the absence of oxygen in the system in question.
In reference to evolution, PZ Myers put it: “The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It’s self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn’t he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen.”
(Also, ask them what the zeroth, first, and third laws of thermodynamics are. See if they know.)
Let us suppose that there actually were some process in nature which violated the second law of thermodynamics. Is that any reason to suppose that intelligent designers are responsible? The only intelligent designers that we have familiarity with, humans and other more-or-less intelligent animals, are as much subject to the second law of thermodynamics as are non-intelligent agents. Indeed, the laws of thermodynamics were discovered as limitations on what the clever engineers of the 19th century were able to design. Intelligent designers are not able to construct perpetual motion machines. Intelligent designers don’t bypass the second law of thermodynamics.
(See also, The Simpsons: “Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!”)
Some young Earth creationists have invoked “hydrodynamic sorting” in Noah’s flood to account for the organization of the fossil record. Thereby they implicitly acknowledge that an undirected mechanical process is capable of producing order from disorder, and contradict their naive version of the second law of thermodynamics.
“Intelligent design sure does explain these important things better than evolution.” Your link fails to prove that. What do abiogenesis, physics, cosmology, linguistics and the Bible have to do with evolution!? Absolutely nothing of relevance.
If you would like me to refute all 13 of them, I will gladly do so in a separate post. I’m tempted to do so right here and now, but I really don’t want to reduce you to tears. No, but she’s arrogant; don’t show her any mercy. Damn, it seems my alterego has gotten his way:
- “Always the result of an intelligence.” Says who? Presuppositions of that sort don’t work; it is a bare assertion with no evidence. Oh look, it’s Hoyle’s fallacy! Junkyard tornado building a 747 is the equivalent of “spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.” The mutation bit was already addressed above.
- Oh look, it’s Hoyle’s fallacy again! Abiogenesis is much more complex than that. That pathetic excuse for a paragraph didn’t even mention that there are 7 Theories on the Origin of Life.
- “Design is apparent in the living world.” What did I say about those presuppositions? And then they quote mine Richard Dawkins; yet what he says doesn’t imply that design is apparent. The Sun appears designed—so much so that if it were scaled to the size of a beach ball, it would be almost perfectly round (read here)! Unfortunately, the Sun isn’t designed; star formation has been observed countless times in the visible universe. It isn’t fully understood and there currently isn’t a strong theory to model the formation of stars, but one thing’s for certain: there is no designer involved (read here). The same can be said of Bombardier Beetles. Come on; let’s not play “looks designed, doesn’t look designed” because there’s plenty of animals that do not look designed. What about leg bones in whales? What about ichneumon wasps? What about the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe? What about the tusk of a narwhal? Flatfish anyone? See, I told you we can’t play this game. I always win.
- Ah, Michael Behe’s Irreducilbe Complexity—the very foundation of Intelligent Design. I like Ken Miller on this (read here). Look at that; he isn’t an atheist. He is a Roman Catholic and a theistic evolutionist. Even some of your brethren don’t buy ID!
- Second Law of Thermodynamics; let’s not beat a dead horse.
- Kalam’s Cosmological Argument. The argument is a fallacy of composition. Basically put, the argument is drawing conclusions on the whole based on its parts. In other words, since everything in the universe was caused to exist, the universe was caused to exist. Therefore, the argument is unsound. There are ways in which the universe could have come from nothing (i.e. the Higgs Field), but even if it was created, your god did not create it. I’m very certain of that.
- The goldilocks zone has nothing to do with creation. Mars and Venus are also in the goldilocks zone; unfortunately, Venus is on the extreme close edge whilst Mars is on the extreme far edge. Would you look at that? Sunsets on other habitable worlds according to the above artist’s conception. We have cataloged nearly 800 exoplanets—some of which are in the goldilocks zone. I thought humans were god’s image; I thought they mattered so much that he created a small speck of dust that revolves around an ordinary star in the outskirts of a galaxy that is one of billions! Planet formation is a process governed by blind gravity; it is not governed by your god. Planets are still forming in fact (read here); what the heck is god doing up there? Why is he creating in vain? Hint: he’s not up there, he never did create and he isn’t currently creating. We created him due to ignorance. Let us move beyond this Bronze Age superstition; it is no longer necessary.
- The Fine Tuning Argument. I like Victor J. Stenger on this one (read here). The Multiverse is outside of science? Tell that to Michio Kaku—the man who many regard as the Einstein of our time! We would have to prove where the other universes came from? Not at all. Every universe would be explained by the fissioning or fusing of universes (watch here). Watch the entire video; you might learn something. What I said is cited toward the end of the video when Kaku starts to speak of the multiverse. Besides, the multiverse would exist in an infinite omniverse and would thus require no explanation.
- We’ll get to that below when I give you some evidence for evolution.
- “A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you.” Dualism? Read my arguments against dualism. Neuroscience is beginning to explain all of those details: self-awareness, consciousness, reason, emotions, etc. Some are explained better than others currently (i.e. emotions). Ultimately, this amounts to an argument from ignorance.
- “Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language.” Another argument from ignorance. Once again, you’re discrediting evolution based on what it has not explained. Everything after “however” is faith-based nonsense. Adam did not exist. The Tower of Babel is a myth. You’re a biblical literalist? Don’t make things worse. If you’re a literalist, you’re definitely talking to the wrong guy.
- Sexual reproduction is a question mark in biology. Biologists don’t fully understand why that evolved, but to discredit evolution because of that gap in knowledge is yet another argument from ignorance.
- “The Bible is true. The history of the Bible is true.” Presupposition. Assertion without evidence. Wishful thinking; that’s fallacious. The Bible is not true. Here, let’s keep things simple; I’m afraid you’re crying hysterically on the other side of the screen. My Argument from Distinction is as follows:
P1 If any scripture be divine, we should expect it to be distinct from other scriptures.
P2 The Bible does not meet that expectation.
P3/C1 Therefore, the Bible is not divine.
P4 If the Bible is not divine, it could not have been written and/or inspired by a divine source.
P5 The Bible is not divine.
P6/C2 Therefore, the Bible could not have been written and/or inspired by a divine source.
From P6/C2, one can infer that since the Bible isn’t written and/or inspired by a divine source that it isn’t the word of god.
When I say distinct from other scriptures, I am not talking about scriptures that postdate it (i.e. the Qur’an, the Adi Granth, the Book of Mormon, etc.), I am speaking of scriptures that predate it or that serve as contemporaries of the Bible (i.e. the Enuma Elish, the Pyramid Texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Vedas, The Manusmriti, etc.). All 13 of your “evidences” have been refuted. Try again!
Expelled is propagandist garbage. I posted on it yesterday on my atheism blog; it’s a dishonest documentary just like Obama 2016, but hey, I guess anything that comes from a Christian’s mouth is honest enough to believe. That’s called confirmation bias.
LOL, Obama 2016 is a great and telling movie. Just because you don’t like what it says doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
It isn’t right because you like what it says. It’s wrong (read here)—a nice unbiased article from AP unlike your articles that are from ID, creationism and Christian websites. I’ll say it again: that’s called confirmation bias. Oh, here’s the article I posted regarding Expelled. Are you so sure you want to be associated with such dishonest people? If you didn’t read the article, you can’t answer the question.
Macroevolution is change at the species level or above. There is plenty of retroactive evidence for it and given how long it takes for it to occur, you would be lucky to witness it in your lifetime. Look at it this way: you believe in a creation event; did you see it happen? Is there evidence for it? No. So, why believe it? Did you see macroevolution occur? No, but at least there’s evidence for it.
Darlin’, I just sent you 12 creation evidences. Read them before you open your mouth with the “evidence” pap again.
Tone it down a little; I’m the last person you want to disrespect and I think I’ve made that quite obvious throughout this response. I will never curse you out or anything like that, but I will be blunt and brutally so. So yes (!), I’ll open my mouth about the evidence again; here’s the evidence:
Useful Sites and Articles
- Talk Origins: The best resource for evolution information and creationist refutations on the internet. Be sure to check out their FAQ, section on human evolution, observed speciation and near exhaustive index of refutations to creationist arguments.
- PBS: Evolution - A comprehensive look at evolution including media of all kinds
- UCBerkeley: Understanding Evolution - All encompassing site with huge resources.Evolution 101 and their resource library are particularly exceptional, including Transitional forms. More from Berkeley on Biogeographical Distribution.
- NCSE: The home of the a prominent defender of teaching evolution in U.S. schools
- Smithsonian Museum: Human Evolution - A great collection of the evidence for human evolution with a nice collection of multimedia
- New Scientist: Evolution: 24 Myths - A look at common myths spread to discredit evolution and to promote creationism
- Panda’s Thumb: Missing link: “cdesign proponentists” - Hard evidence that intelligent design is just rebranded creationism
- Conspiracy Science: Darwin Myths - Not that it matters because the evidence for evolution stands on its own but this site exposes the deception and lies behind many popular myths about Charles Darwin
- The Age of the Earth
- Changing Views of the History of the Earth
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
- Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods -Fossil dating is accurate since the method follows strict scientific guidelines: the age of rocks around a fossil can be considered, mathematical calculations are used, the state of decay, carbon-14, and isotopes figure in calculations and tree of life relationships often help sort the dates
- How fossils support the stages of evolutionary history
- Quality of the fossil record: Data bases and software for studying the quality of the fossil record.
- The basics of Radiometric dating methods
- Good overview with response to critiques by religious fundamentalists.
Stratigraphy and the succession of rocks
- The geologic time scale- basics and history, and the latest standard time scale
- The stratigraphic column: explanation and graphic illustration.
- Learn the names of the divisions of geologic time.
- A basic outline of geological time and links.
- QualiaSoup - Evolution, Irreducible Complexity Cut Down to Size and Rebuttals: Irreducible Complexity - Explaining what evolution does and doesn’t claim and where the popular argument irreducible complexity falls short
- Ken Miller: Bacterial Flagellum, Human Chromosome 2, Evolution and Religion - A few brief clips of Miller taking up common issues
- Don Exodus: Let’s Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism - A brief look at the predictions the two make and which side the evidence comes down on
- Miscellaneous Common Issues: Evolution of the Eye, How Dating Works, “If We Came From Apes Why Are There Still Apes?”, Transitional forms and “Kinds Only Bring Forth Their Own Kind”
Lengthy Videos, Lectures & Series
- Yale: Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior - An entire free semester long course that lays out the basics of evolution
- PBS: Intelligent Design on Trial - A NOVA documentary about the famous Dover vs Kitzmiller trial which shows exactly effectively banished intelligent design from U.S. schools
- Ken Miller: On Intelligent Design - A primary witness at the Dover trial retells the story and explains in great detail why intelligent design is not science
- Collaborative Effort: 15 Questions for Evolutionists Pamphlet Answered - A pamphlet touted by Creation Ministries featuring 15 common questions about evolution is answered
- NCSE: Creationism vs Evolution and Evolution of Creationism - Examining the tactics and history of the creationist movement.
- Richard Dawkins - Growing Up in the Universe: Designed and Designoid Objects &Climbing Mount Improbable - A lecture series on the universe and our place in it
- Potholer54: Made Easy Series - Natural Selection, Theory of Evolution, Human Evolutionand Human Ancestry - The series looks at the history of the universe and the development of life on earth
- AronRa: Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism Series - An extensive look at all the deception that has to take place by professional creationists
- Don Exodus: How Evolution Works Series - A walk-through showing how evolution works
- “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry A. Coyne, AAI 2009 - Jerry Coyne explains ‘Why Evolution is True’ (also the title of his excellent new book) at the Atheist Alliance International 2009 conference, sponsored by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.
- Evolution: How We Know it Happened & Why it Matters (with Dr. Donald Prothero) - The hottest cultural controversy of 2005 was the Intelligent Design challenge to the theory of evolution, being played out in classrooms and courtrooms across America. The crux of the argument made by proponents of Intelligent Design is that the theory of evolution is in serious trouble. They claim that the evidence for evolution is weak, the gaps in the theory are huge, and that these flaws should be taught to students. In this brilliant synthesis of scientific data and theory, Occidental College geologist, paleontologist, and evolutionary theorist Dr. Donald Prothero will present the best evidence we have that evolution happened, why Darwin’s theory still matters, and what the real controversies are in evolutionary biology.
- Was Darwin Wrong? - Is Darwin’s theory of evolution right or wrong? NGC puts Darwin’s theory to the test by investigating his claims one by one.
- Evolution Documentary - BBC, PBS, NOVA, Channel 4, Discovery Channel, National Geographic and more!!!
- Sexual Selection
- Artificial Selection
- Bad Design
- Full Audio Version
Read the articles and the quotes, watch the videos and the documentaries, listen to the lectures—do some honest research for education’s sake! Do not persist in this religiously motivated ignorance.
Furthermore, not being able to test and observe something to prove it means it’s not science. Your theories require faith, too.
Abiogenesis, the Big Bang and evolution require no faith. They are testable, observable and results within them are reproducible. What I said is absolutely valid! You deny macroevolution because you didn’t see it happen; using that logic, you should also deny creationism. Difference between the two: there’s evidence for one and not the other. Jump on the new wagon; most of your own have abandoned creationism in favor of a disguised form of creationism, namely intelligent design. I’ll have to admit though, ID has significant differences. In any case, it is the new anti-evolution campaign; you’re waving an old, defeated flag. You’re not doing yourself a favor by waving the new flag by the way; ID is also bunk. Educate yourself or keep your ignorance to yourself; do us the favor. For the record, I’ve had countless debates with stubborn creationists. Most, if not all, of them aren’t creationists currently; some of them aren’t even Christian anymore and some of them don’t even have a blog anymore. Seems you have fallen into the wrong hands. I don’t play nice with obdurate, religiously motivated ignorance. I’m sure you’ve already noticed.