Science Disproves Evolution

by

New scientific evidence suggests that the more ancient creatures, according to the theories of evolution, are less diverse than the younger creatures. (link)

The most diverse creatures? Birds and mammals. The least? Reptiles, particularly crocodiles and the lizard-like tuatara.

What does it mean? It means that yet another assumption of evolution has been turned on its head. The longer a creature has been around, the less evolving it has done, but the shorter it has been around the more evolving it has done. How can one kind of creature evolve 10,000 times faster than the same creatures it has come from? Either it has been around 10,000 times longer or shorter than we thought, or the creatures do not come from the same stock. 6,000 years times 10,000 is about 60 million years, which is interesting.

As Answers in Genesis points out, any sane scientist would question evolution rather than rush to try and adapt the failed theory to the new evidence. (link) After all, science shouldn’t start with a conclusion and try to make the facts fit.

The scientists at AiG point out that that’s exactly what they do: start with the Bible and look around the world for evidence corroborating it, and that’s what they get criticized for, and rightly so. After all, AiG is less about science and more about religion, pointing out how science doesn’t contradict the Bible as is popularly believed.

Evolutionists who do it while claiming the mantle of science are lying to you. Those evolutionists are motivated by articles of faith, not science, and should be treated as religionists who believe in the theory of evolution, not scientists. Scientists, after all, question and disprove prevailing theories, proposing new ones in their stead.

In fact, a truly honest and objective assessment of the facts would lead most people to believe that creatures were either transplanted or created through some unknown force, and that creatures are gradually becoming more and more degraded over time. This, of course, suggests something closer to the account in the Bible and farther from the story of evolution.

I strongly doubt any evolutionist will attempt to understand the points I make in this article, instead blindly attacking me as unqualified to make such statements. This attack is a logical fallacy called ad hominem, meaning, they are attacking the messenger and not the message. Those who use it tend not to hold the winning side of the argument in science.

Advertisements

42 Responses to “Science Disproves Evolution”

  1. Matt Says:

    You obviously haven’t bothered to do any actual research into the topic.

    We’ve known for decades upon decades that creates such as crocodiles have remained essentially the same for millions of years and there is no problem with that at all. Why? Because they’ve found their ecological niche and their forms have been just fine to cope with the few environmental changes they have encountered – thus no pressure to guide change and thus only minimal change has occurred.

    This is not new information. This does not conflict in the least with the Theory of Evolution.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      You obviously haven’t bothered to do any actual research into the topic.

      Ad hominem. A logical fallacy.

      We’ve known for decades upon decades that creates such as crocodiles have remained essentially the same for millions of years and there is no problem with that at all. Why? Because they’ve found their ecological niche and their forms have been just fine to cope with the few environmental changes they have encountered – thus no pressure to guide change and thus only minimal change has occurred…. This does not conflict in the least with the Theory of Evolution.

      If crocodiles remain the same, why do birds change so rapidly? Are their ecologies changing so differently? Of course not. Then why?

      Is the Theory of Evolution an article of faith for you, never to be questioned even when contradictory evidence is seen?

      This is not new information.

      Perhaps you should let Michael Alfaro at UCLA, the study leader, know.

      • Matt Says:

        Ad hominem. A logical fallacy.

        Actually, it’s not since my statement is supported by the available evidence – eg, your own statements strongly indicate you don’t know even the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution. I suggest you don’t throw around terms you don’t understand.

        But if you want to play that game then your entire original post can be quite safely labelled as being no more than an Argument from Incredulity.

        If crocodiles remain the same, why do birds change so rapidly?

        Amazing response, especially since I’ve already said why. Environment (climate, resource availability, predators, etc) dictates change. Many forms of reptiles (Crocodiles, for example) found their ecological niche and thus there was no external pressure to change thus they did not. Birds, on the other hand, were venturing into a relatively new niche which brought all sorts of new opportunities and obstacles hence change came a lot faster as various organisms shuffled to find their place.
        This has been known by science for decades upon decades.

        Is the Theory of Evolution an article of faith for you, never to be questioned even when contradictory evidence is seen?

        First you’d actually have to produce some contradictory evidence as opposed to what you have here.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        Ad hominem. A logical fallacy.

        Actually, it’s not since my statement is supported by the available evidence – eg, your own statements strongly indicate you don’t know even the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution. I suggest you don’t throw around terms you don’t understand.

        I know this might shock you, but my personal understanding of science has no bearing on science. In other words, the messenger and the message are two entirely distinct things. Top professors can be just as wrong as little children.

        Environment (climate, resource availability, predators, etc) dictates change. Many forms of reptiles (Crocodiles, for example) found their ecological niche and thus there was no external pressure to change thus they did not. Birds, on the other hand, were venturing into a relatively new niche which brought all sorts of new opportunities and obstacles hence change came a lot faster as various organisms shuffled to find their place.

        How do you know this? You are declaring fact where top scientists dare only to speculate. Honestly, the evidence that is the foundation for evolution is so spotty and limited that it really isn’t as solid as you are lead to believe.

        First you’d actually have to produce some contradictory evidence as opposed to what you have here.

        That’s the point. The research discovered evidence that contradicted a hypothesis based on the Theory of Evolution. That means the theory, as it is today, is incorrect since a hypothesis based on the theory was incorrect. It needs to be changed and updated.

        Extrapolate that out and what do you get: All human theories, no matter how bleeding edge, may one day be falsified through experimentation and data. In fact, we have no way of knowing which theories will still be standing in a hundred year’s time.

        Therefore, don’t put your faith in these ever-shifting theories.

        The only thing science has really taught us is that skepticism is always healthy, and only experimentation can give you real answers, and even then, only when they are reproducible and only under the circumstances of the experiment. In other words, the only thing we have learned is that we know nothing.

      • Matt Says:

        I know this might shock you, but my personal understanding of science has no bearing on science.

        Not shocking in the least though it certainly is a reassuring statement; since all evidence thus far strongly indicates that your understanding of science ranges somewhere between non-existent to extremely minimal.

        How do you know this?

        Because the research has been done, the evidence tallied, etc. I can remember this information from high school text books and again studied at University. It’s very old information and not a shock or contrary to the Theory of Evolution in the least.
        Certain animals only exhibit minimal change because they have their ecological niche and are comfortable there; crocodiles and alligators are but two examples of this.

        On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence to outline where birds and reptiles split millions of years ago; Chen (1998), Xu (1999), Paul (2002), Norell (2002) etc etc etc. We also have a great fossil record of ancient reptiles which show us just how little certain reptiles have changed, compared to how quickly avian life has. And those differing levels of change are already explained by the Theory of Evolution.

        You are declaring fact where top scientists dare only to speculate.

        I don’t know which ‘top scientists’ you’re listening to but all the biologists, geologists, zoologists and many other fields I know of all agree with, oddly enough, my side.

        Honestly, the evidence that is the foundation for evolution is so spotty and limited that it really isn’t as solid as you are lead to believe.

        So the fossil record, genetic analysis, geology, zoology, verified predictions (such as fused genomes) and so forth (and that really is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg) aren’t enough evidence for you?
        What would you count as enough, then?

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        So the fossil record, genetic analysis, geology, zoology, verified predictions (such as fused genomes) and so forth (and that really is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg) aren’t enough evidence for you?
        What would you count as enough, then?

        There is never enough evidence to ever prove any theory correct. All it takes is one observation to throw any theory to the wind.

        Even without contradictory evidence, there are multiple theories that explain the same phenomena. Until someone can devise an experiment that would validate one while invalidating the other, both are possible explanations. (Before you shout Occam’s Razor, please go back and read what Occam said about his own razor rather than trust in what others have said about it. You will see why what I said is wholly plausible.)

        That’s the true nature of science.

        And that’s why no one should ever believe in any theory.

        As a physicist, I understand, quite well, that no theory explains all the phenomena we have observed. That is, all theories we have are incorrect and need adjustments or replacements. At least in physics we are honest with ourselves and are continually reminded of the foolishness of man’s logic and reasoning. We never dare to put forward to the people that any of our theories are worthy of faith.

        A scientist telling someone what should or should not be believed… No profession knows less about belief than science. We might as well ask the Soviets about individual liberty.

  2. demo kid Says:

    I don’t think that indicating that you’re unqualified to make these statements is “blindly attacking” you… it’s more like relaying the sad truth about your fundamental ignorance of science.

    The flaw in your thinking (and that of other creationists) is in confusing a “hypothesis” with a “theory”. Reassessing theory and reshaping it to incorporate new evidence is EXACTLY what science is all about. And yes, evolution is a theory, but it is a theory that provides the best explanation for all the data that exists today. Understanding the flaws in the theory is important, but assuming that the ENTIRE field of evolutionary biology needs to be thrown out if the interpretation of one study doesn’t precisely fit the theory is absolutely wrong. If the data doesn’t fit, alternative hypotheses are tested… and if those don’t work, evidence against the theory begins to accumulate until a different theory can be developed.

    What does creationism provide? Nothing. It’s a cheat. It consists of conclusions that cannot be tested or scientifically verified. Handwaving, as it were. However, unlike “evolutionists”, no amount of evidence can disprove the theory to the adherents of creationism.

    But it is good that you’ve admitted that creationism isn’t science, at least.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      What does creationism provide?

      Creationism provides a religion that has been the foundation of the modern world. Simple concepts such as “Love your neighbor”, “Worship only God and nothing else”, “Don’t murder”, “All people, no matter skin color, are equal” are the fruits of creationism. The results of these concepts is Western Civilization.

      But it is good that you’ve admitted that creationism isn’t science, at least.

      When evolutionists realize the difference between the science and religion of evolution, I will be satisfied. As long as someone says, “I believe in the theory of X”, then they are conflating science and religion.

      • Florin Says:

        So when I believe in the theory of gravity, I am being religious?

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        Yes. You used the word “believe”, and I assume you meant, “to accept as fact with little evidence.” That’s the foundation of all religions.

        If, on the other hand, you accept the Theory of Gravity, and do so because you yourself have measured it an experimented with it, and have gone through various lines of reasoning that are used to explain phenomena you see everyday, then you are practicing religion because you believe that these methods can be used to explain a universe you believe is well-ordered and follows laws.

        Religion is inescapable.

  3. Chase Says:

    Species only need evolve when they must adapt to specific change- example- food sources, climate changes. That’s why creatures like the croc haven’t changed- they have always done well in their niche since the last stage of their evolution. Other species, like birds, evolve at a faster pace- they fly around and end up strange places where their evolution helps them to survive in their new habitat. Good try though.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Species only need evolve when they must adapt to specific change- example- food sources, climate changes. That’s why creatures like the croc haven’t changed- they have always done well in their niche since the last stage of their evolution. Other species, like birds, evolve at a faster pace- they fly around and end up strange places where their evolution helps them to survive in their new habitat. Good try though.

      How do you know this? You seem to know more than the top professors in the field of evolution, who can only speculate about what you claim to be fact.

  4. bloggernacleburner Says:

    This article is about the current genetic diversity of Reptiles versus the current genetic diversity of Mammals. This does not take into account the historic diversity of reptiles or mammals or any climate/geological influences on a species evolution.

    This does not disprove evolution as a whole, it disproves one specific hypothesis as applied to a 47 species sample of two classes of Animalia.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      … it disproves one specific hypothesis as applied to a 47 species sample of two classes of Animalia.

      Thank you. You win the prize.

      As far as evolution as a theory, this does prove that some of it is wrong. That means that perhaps all of it is wrong. Sure, one part will be discovered wrong one year, and then another part in another year, but over the span of a hundred years, the entire thing will have changed. Am I incorrect?

      In fact, since the theory of evolution was proposed by Darwin, significant parts of it have been found to be incorrect. The theory as we have it today is dramatically different than the theory as it was had in Darwin’s day. The theory as we have it in a hundred years will be dramatically different than the theory as we have it today.

      This is the nature of science. There is nothing you can build a religion on in science, except the fact that what we know by science today will be wrong someday in the future. Also, the conclusion that no theory can ever be correct. The best we can hope for is that the theory is only less incorrect than the other theories proposed so far.

      Thus, statements such as “I believe in evolution” are absurd.

      Now, statements like “I believe in God” are completely different, because God is not something bound by science nor human reasoning and thus, among all things, can be correct.

  5. Matt Says:

    There is never enough evidence to ever prove any theory correct.

    By that theory the entire medical thinking that germs cause disease has to be thrown out the window and all related treatments immediately stopped because … there can never be enough evidence to prove it!
    What absolutely absurd thinking.

    Even without contradictory evidence, there are multiple theories that explain the same phenomena.

    Name just one other widely accepted scientific theory that explains diversity of species as we know it today. Oh wait … there aren’t any.

    As a physicist

    Your thus far demonstrated understanding of science, which has been minimal at best, strongly indicates that you are not actually a physicist. If you have the qualifications for being such, then where-ever you got said qualifications probably needs to have a really close examination of it’s course requirements.

    There is no field in science which claims 100% certainty of knowledge, obviously. But you go where the evidence leads you; and in Biology (and related fields) then that evidence conclusively (as far as is possible) shows that the Theory of Evolution is correct. Which is why it is so widely accepted by the scientific community – even though evidence that would blow it out of the water would certainly gain that research endless acclaim and general kudos.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      By that theory the entire medical thinking that germs cause disease has to be thrown out the window and all related treatments immediately stopped because … there can never be enough evidence to prove it!

      What absolutely absurd thinking.

      You are certainly correct. That line of thinking is absurd.

      Name just one other widely accepted scientific theory that explains diversity of species as we know it today. Oh wait … there aren’t any.

      Have you not considered alternatives to the Theory of Evolution today? Are you so unimaginative that you cannot think thoughts that haven’t been thought before?

      Besides, one alternate explanation is sitting right in front of you. Yet you have no courage to even consider is claims.

      …in Biology (and related fields) then that evidence conclusively (as far as is possible) shows that the Theory of Evolution is correct.

      Interesting you should bring that up, because if you look at the history of biology, you will recall that abiogenesis is the foundation of evolution, while biogenesis, the theory that life, and only life, creates life, was the foundation of Germ Theory. Back in the day, evolutionists were discrediting Germ Theory because it contradicted evolution.

      • Matt Says:

        Have you not considered alternatives to the Theory of Evolution today? Are you so unimaginative that you cannot think thoughts that haven’t been thought before?

        I’m still waiting for you to present a scientific theory that matches the available evidence, which is what I asked for.
        Of course, there are no other such scientific theories because the only one anyone has ever come up which explains the evidence is the Theory of Evolution.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        There are plenty of valid explanations. Please take some time to read the scientific articles at AIG.

      • Matt Says:

        Been there, done that. What AiG has to offer is neither convincing nor scientific in nature. It certainly does not meet the criteria for being considered a scientific theory (which is but two of the reasons AiG is generally laughed at and considered nothing but an unintentional parody).

        Your response is also incredibly lazy and does not actually provide any actual information. Please try a lot harder.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/08/21/andrew-snelling-on-research-activities-at-answers-in-genesis/

        They don’t do research?

        It’s incredibly easy to prove your arguments wrong. The fact that they have PhD’s on staff and publish their scientific work means nothing to you, apparently. If it’s the wrong kind of scientific research, then it’s not scientific research at all?

  6. Matt Says:

    1) Just having a PhD means nothing. You also have to do the peer reviewed research to justify it and gain a solid academic reputation.

    2) Creationists, to date, have done absolutely no peer reviewed research. Not one little bit. And yes, peer review is an extremely important part of science … but something organisations such as AiG seem steadfast in completely avoiding.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Creationists, to date, have done absolutely no peer reviewed research.

      So science didn’t exist until Darwin, and even then, only for Darwinists?

      Are you willing to recant that statement, or are you going to insist that science is defined such that creationism is not accepted? If you define science that way, then of course anything to do with creation isn’t part of science.

      • Matt Says:

        I have no idea how you could possibly come to the statement you just made, based on what I wrote. You’re just being absurd.

        But let’s work on a very quick definition of science:
        1) Based on empirical evidence
        2) Based on peer review
        3) Scientific theories must be testable on a repeatable and independent basis
        4) Scientific theories must make testable predictions
        5) Scientific theories form hypotheses and theories based on the evidence.
        6) Scientific theories must be falsifiable.

        At a quick count, creationism fails at numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Guess creationism is not science at all and is instead probably in the same category at healing crystals and palm reading.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        Again, you attacked creationists because you said they cannot be scientists.

        And, no, creationism does satisfy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

        Empirical evidence: The Bible. The natural world.

        Peer review: Yes, they do.

        Testable and repeatable: To the same degree that evolution is. All historical science, as well as astronomy, suffers from the same weakness—that we can’t reach through time or through space to the stars to change the parameters of the experiment. The test and repeatability, however, is evidenced by multiple, clear historical evidences.

        Testable predictions: Sure, it makes predictions.

        Hypothesis and theories: What in the world do you think they are doing at AiG?

        Falsifiable: Certainly. When we encounter evidence that contradicts our theories, we will have to come up with new ones to explain them. Is evolution falsifiable, or have you come to the conclusion that science is evolution is science? Do you believe in evolution, or do you simply claim it as a really good theory that will stick around until something better replaces it? (Hint: there is no use for the word “believe” in science.)

        Creationists are very able to separate science from belief. We can talk about both things without confusing each other. We say, “We believe that God created the universe as he described in Genesis.” And at the same time, we can say, “What do these dark circles in the rocks mean? Where does these bone-shaped rocks come from? Can it be construed as evidence of creation, or perhaps a flood such as is mentioned in the Bible?” Should a creationist ever encounter evidence that contradicts creation, they will happily say, “I still believe in the Bible, even though today it appears like science is contradicting some of the evidence in the Bible. What we need is more research and study, and new theories, not less. And we certainly don’t need to adjust our beliefs.”

        Look, your arguments are absurd on a number of levels. Your definition of science is simply everything to do with evolution and nothing to do with creation. That’s fine. That simply means that creationists cannot do science in your universe. It is also an inconsistent definition with the history of science.

        I am sure you feel silly since it was creationists who invented science. See, it was creationists (Christians, Muslims, Greeks, Romans, and Jews) who believed that the universe had to made sense because it was created by a God or gods who made sense. Logic and reason arose because of their religious beliefs, not despite of it. Read Socrates, a creationist, (or at least Plato’s reporting of it) and you will see quite clearly that Socrates insists logic must be consistent, not because of observations of the natural world, but because of his religious beliefs. Read Aristotle’s work in using logic to describe nature. Fast forward to Newton, a well-known creationist, religionist, and Biblical literalist, who also sought to find order in the natural world because God is a God of reason and order.

  7. Keri Says:

    You’re right to say that scientists should be generally skeptical rather than blindly accepting of the status quo. Prevailing scientific theories at any given time are the best-fit ideas we have to explain what we know at a given time about a particular collection of phenomenon. Where evidence contradicts a theory, the theory ought to be examined. In my personal experience, scientists are incredibly conservative when it comes to admitting new data and reconsidering long-held theories. It’s difficult to move scientific consensus. Some of that conservativism is warranted, though. For instance, here, I do think that you’re overstating the case made by this particular study. A much stronger argument needs to be made to infer that “another assumption of evolution has been turned on its head.” A stronger would need to be made to bring a theory (or parts of a theory) into question.

    To answer your question about how rates of evolutionary change can differ, let me suggest that organisms have different lifespans that allow classes of organisms to can evolve at different rates. For sake of argument, let’s say mice have an average lifespan of four years while a human has an average lifespan of seventy years. Let’s also say there’s a certain rate of genetic mutation that occurs with every generation. In mice, any genetically transmissible changes will turnover to the next generation every four years rather than seventy. Therefore, transmission of any genetic changes can penetrate the mouse popoulation at a higher rate than that of humans. Amount of offspring produced and length of reproductive lifespan can also mitigate the rate at which a population’s genetic makeup changes.

    Other factors that can affect rate of change in organisms include metabolic rate. More carbohydrate metabolism -> more reactive oxygen species -> higher incidence of genetic change.

    As other comments have mentioned, environment can limit or permit genetic diversity. I’d actually counter a prior a specific comment’s assertion, here: “Many forms of reptiles (Crocodiles, for example) found their ecological niche and thus there was no external pressure to change thus they did not.” Environmental pressures exert the specific influence that limits genetic change. Lack of environmental pressures lead to greater biological diversity within a given population because the changes that occur from generation to generation are not tried by those pressures; in the absense of environmental pressures, there is not a high level of selection for favorable characteristics. In other words, only suitably strong environmental pressures would narrow the genetic diversity.

    I’ll be honest: I didn’t entirely understand the argument as you wrote it, so I might not have rebutted the specific claims you made. Specifically, I don’t understand how you can make the jump from rate of evolutionary change to making statements about the origins in the first few paragraphs?

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      You’d have to go to the study to see specific details. I’m just exposing it here.

      As far as your point about scientists being very conservative in adopting new data and ideas, I totally agree with that, and I completely understand why.

      However, any scientist that says things like “such-and-such theory is a proven fact” is not doing science anymore. Science isn’t about proving the prevailing theory. Science is about working to find evidence refuting the prevailing theory, or expand it, or otherwise take the current scientific consensus and change it.

      Imagine how much egg on the face Newtonian physicists had who boldly declared that Newtonian mechanics could explain any phenomena in the universe. It was Einstein, who showed how the photo-electric effect was anything but Newtonian, and how the only reasonable Newtonian explanation was to imagine the light as a bunch of tiny, energetic canon balls, that made them all look like fools for believing in such a theory.

      And, of course, not too many years later, Einstein is spending his time finding holes in the prevailing theories of Quantum Mechanics.

      That’s what real science looks like. Not consensus, but dissent. Any science where you have people who respect each other working full-time to disprove each other’s theories is a real science. Any science that only has one point of view is a really a religion.

  8. Dylan Says:

    Science does, of course, start with a conclusion, and we try to figure out ways to understand the conclusion. We cannot hypothesize about, for instance, how life began if we’ve never observed life itself. Not to say that the life we see is a conclusion in any way. Life is continually changing.

    You speak of theories as if they were simply an idea that a scientist had one day. For something to become a scientific theory, the idea must not only be experimented upon in hundreds of different ways, it must be accepted by an extensive scientific community. Theories are not simply thrown into the public. What scientist would want to take credit for a half-baked idea fit to be ridiculed? None, would be the correct answer.

    Do you, sir, or do you not believe that all living things are related?

    It’s okay to be steadfast in one’s religion and also practice logic.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      For something to become a scientific theory, the idea must not only be experimented upon in hundreds of different ways, it must be accepted by an extensive scientific community.

      When theories are proposed, before any experiments or any acceptance by anyone but the proposer. what are they called?

      What scientist would want to take credit for a half-baked idea fit to be ridiculed?

      Funny you should say that, because all theories are half-baked. As we accumulate more observations and more data, we can write better theories. I would be fascinated to hear which scientist would like to have their theories survive longer than most for vanity’s sake, because that would be testament to the scientist’s inability to divorce the idea from the thinker of the idea, and is a sign of bad science.

      In the physical community, it is completely normal to have one scientist propose two alternate theories that contradict each other. Is that scientist merely trying to stake a claim in the space of ideas, or is he proposing two genuine explanations for the phenomena observed?

      Science must be divorced from the scientists and from everything else that is not science, including religion. Scientists are merely actors who propose experiments to disprove theories, and who propose theories to explain experiments. The experiments and the theories must be wholly separate from the scientists, surviving on their own based on the validity of their merits, not on any reputation of the scientist. Conversely, the quality of a scientist is not shown in the longevity of his proposed theories but in his ability to generate new theories and experiments.

      Do you, sir, or do you not believe that all living things are related?

      Yes, but not in the way evolution claims.

      It’s okay to be steadfast in one’s religion and also practice logic.

      Logic is a religion. It is founded on a set of unprovable beliefs that seem to match the way the real world works.

  9. jay Says:

    John, you’re the man.. thats all i have to say. Im glad you’re so steadfast in your faith and able to articulate and use your knowledge in a way that refutes such questionable theories. keep it up man, hopefully your responses will make some of the readers dig a little deeper in search of the truth.

  10. CK Says:

    Nice post. Evolution is just another in a long string of what I refer to as “yellow science”. One could add into that mix, “global warming”, established causes of some diseases (Mad cow “prions” or stomach ulcers (proven to be bacterial in nature) as a small sample) and countless other theories surrounding physics.

    By far the most significant issue with the theory of evolution is that it flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law hasn’t been disproven as of yet even on a very minute scale. The only way to ‘violate’ it is by adding external intervention into the system (e.g. “intelligence”). Evolution would be such an incredibly wild violation of the law it’s insane. There are those that argue that the energy from the sun is what adds to the system. However, it’s been shown time and time again, that when heat is added to any system, entropy increases.

    Of course, this is ignored, along with countless other simple observations which effectively disprove most of the theory outright.

    Yup – it’s a religeon in and of itself.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I wish the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics were a sure nail in the coffin of evolution, but unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. It is conceivable to imagine a set of assumptions that would allow for a higher degree of order over time. You’d have to cross off one or more of those assumptions as valid if you’d like to apply the 2nd Law and disprove evolution.

      Your comments about “yellow science” are spot on. I will be using that term now.

      • Nick Gardner Says:

        “However, it’s been shown time and time again, that when heat is added to any system, entropy increases.”

        respiration disagrees
        endothermy disagrees

        as long as the increase of entropy is offset by decreases in entropy elsewhere, there is no problem here.

  11. Logan R Says:

    All that i am going to say is that there are some pretty inmortant facts that both of you are missing. God says that he created the earth in 7 days. He also says that His time is much slower than ours so 7 days to Him may be that Precambrian time when the earth was forming that is billions of years long. Even more amazing is the fact that the order of creation in the 7 days seems to match up to that of the geollogic time scale but on a 7 day scale, again in God’s terms, instead of the 4.6 billion year scale.It surprises me that no one has ever seemed to realize this. Im proud of Johns abilyity to defend his faith and support him being a Christian myself. I also believe that if God loves every man and walking animal that is his creation as stated in Genesis. If He loves every creature then my would he not want them to live. I’m not completly sold on this idea but maybe God alows animals to change and adapt to live.
    Thanks and please comment.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I know where it says he created the earth in 7 days, but where does it say that God’s days are longer than our own?

      I don’t think anyone can argue that creatures don’t adapt to their environment. That’s rule #1 of living in this world: adapt or die.

      We can see the great variety that a single species can express, such as in the domesticated dog or in the corn we eat.

      The problem, I believe, is that people don’t want to accept the gospel story as the overarching theme of life. That’s fine, it’s our choice whether to believe or not. When you go beyond disbelief and begin trying to disrupt the happiness of those who do believe, or when you exaggerate and lie about your claims and misrepresent things you do not believe in, then you cross a line and begin to commit error. That’s what we do here, commit errors, some minor, some major. But if we resist adaptation to the truth when we see it, we condemn ourselves to living in eternal error.

  12. tensor Says:

    The longer a creature has been around, the less evolving it has done, but the shorter it has been around the more evolving it has done.

    Evolution explains this nicely, as other commenters have noted: once a species fills a niche, it will stop evolving if that niche does not change.

    How can one kind of creature evolve 10,000 times faster than the same creatures it has come from?

    Again, evolution explains this very well: the descendent species moved into unfilled niches, where competition for resources rapidly led to many diverse forms.

    If crocodiles remain the same, why do birds change so rapidly? Are their ecologies changing so differently? Of course not.

    Of course they are. First, let’s note that crocodiles are one species of reptile, while there are many different species of birds. All reptiles, being cold-blooded, need to live in warm climates; birds, being warm-blooded, can live in cold or warm or variable climates. So both the number of species and their diversity reflect their adaptations to their very different environments, just as evolution explains.

    You know so little about science that you mistake evidence in favor of evolution for evidence against it.

    Finally, I want to echo and amplify demo kid’s point. Creationism fails as an alternate explanation to evolution primarily because it does not explain anything. The “explanation” always reduces to “because the creator so wanted it this way.” Not only is that not an explanation, it precludes real explanations. We can take our knowledge about crocodiles and birds and use it in other regions of biology, if we can tie it together within the over-arching theory of evolution. Just saying “because the creator said so” in the cases of crocodiles, birds, and anything else we observe doesn’t help us to understand anything else. It’s intellectual laziness and cowardice, the very opposite of science.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      You are so very clever. Your “god of the gaps” is evolution. If there is something strange happening, you simply claim, “Evolution!” Us who actually try to understand are labeled ignorant or worse, because we refuse to accept your “god of the gaps”.

      It’s amazing that you can suppose that the environment that crocodiles live in hasn’t changed for millions of years, while the environment of the animals they live with changes thousands of times more rapidly. You can’t have it both ways. After all, it can’t be the case that for every instance of reptiles, their “niche” hasn’t changed, while for every instance of mammals and birds, it has, can it? Or do you claim that it has?! What an extraordinary coincidence that is! No more extraordinary than the unlikelihood of one animal giving birth to another kind animal. Of course, maybe you have some theory on why the unlikelihood of your theories are the correct explanation for everything, what is called the “Anthropic Principle”. “If we weren’t here to understand it, it didn’t happen.” With a few words, you can change unlikelihood into likelihood. Marvelous! Now absurdity is reality!

      The explanations you offer are interesting, but only interesting in the way of “how many angels dance on the head of a pin” way. I mean, there is no way we are ever going to build a time machine and go back in time and see what was really happening millions of years ago. The only evidence we have is bits and pieces of rocks and fossils scattered randomly throughout the earth’s crust, a very tiny sample of a sample of a sample of life on earth from ancient times. You know how the high-energy physicists who spent billions of dollars trying to find the Higgs boson are reluctant to say that they are certain it exists at the energy levels they think it does? They have billions of times more evidence than evolution can ever have, even if we thoroughly dug through the crust of the earth and discovered every fossil that was ever created. And yet you are so certain, SO CERTAIN, that evolution is correct!

      The only observer of the past is God, and you’re unwilling to trust anything he says, because he’s not the sort of God you want to believe in. I get that, but don’t be surprised when you end up as a fool. You’d rather create your own god to worship, a god who makes you superior to everyone else and gives you the “freedom” to act contrary to the natural order of things. Good luck with that. There’s a long record of civilizations built on idol-worship, and it never ends prettily.

      I wonder what it would take to disprove evolution in your mind. After all, a theory which has no possible disproof is no better than “God did it that way because he wanted to.” Global Warming is a farce today because both cold winters and warm winters, and the increase in storms and the decrease in storms are signs of it, donchaknow?

      Darwin offered some possible evidences that would contradict his proposed theories, many of which have been shown to be the case. For instance, he suggested that our fossil record should show a continuous change from one species to another, rather than many of one kind and then many of another kind. What do we see in the fossil record? “Punctuated equilibrium”, meaning, we don’t see transitional species at all, but we see lots of one kind and lots of another.

      This is, of course, considered even more evidence in favor of evolution, by “scientists” so smart I shouldn’t even bother reading their papers.

      In fact, in many instances, we find species which are supposed to be transitional but have qualities and attributes that are not present in either the former or latter species. How do they explain this? Why, somehow the genes transferred laterally between species. This theory is so advanced, you have to be a Double-Super-Secret Evolutionist Mason of the 23rd Order and a Half Between to understand what in the world they are talking about, otherwise, you should just “trust” the scientists because “they know what they are doing”. (Us laymen shouldn’t use our gray matter, because it is of the inferior sort that evolution will eventually rid humanity of anyway.)

      Modern science is a direct byproduct of the assumption of the Creation. After all, why would the universe be ordered except it was ordered? Why would nature follow laws of logic and reason except there should be laws of logic and reason imposed upon it? You falsely assume that science and religion are contradictory, when modern science is a direct byproduct of religious people like Isaac Newton and others who believed nature should behave in certain ways because God said so. Science would not exist if it weren’t for Christ’s incarnation and the spread of the gospel and brilliant men who turned their hearts to God for knowledge and understanding. If man did not dare believe that they could become like God, why would they thirst for the same knowledge God has, and if man did not believe that God was reasonable, why would they exercise their own reason to pursue the knowledge and power of God?

      In other words, without assuming a Creation, you cannot have science at all. Indeed, when you try to create a science without Creation, you end up only with chaos and meaningless nothingness. Just like the assumptions about how the universe originated leads to absurdities like “dark matter” and “dark energy”, assuming something came from nothing leads to the evolution of the species and other scientific absurdities. It must feel great, though, to boldly declare, “I know better than God.” Of course, your pathetic understanding of the universe is foolishness and folly, but in your pride you refuse to admit how pathetically ignorant you are.

      You can pretend that these contradictions are perfectly reasonable things, and even go on and preach to the world about how crazy, we the Realists who accept that nothing is nothing and something is something, are. But ultimately it is you who embrace the fundamental opposition to logic, that something is what it is not, that are living a very real and very absolute lie.

      Your science, my friend, is the science of contradiction. Your science is founded on the ultimate lie: something is nothing. And so you live your entire philosophical life guided by “light” that is really darkness, rejecting light as darkness.

      • demo kid Says:

        If there is something strange happening, you simply claim, “Evolution!”

        As opposed to you? Apparently when something strange is happening, you simply claim, “God did it!” Nothing about the mechanism by which it happened, nothing about the reasons for it, simply that a divine being decided that humans should have appendixes and beavers should have big teeth.

        The simple truth is that NO theory can possibly explain all possible data, or the actual, true phenomenon that has been occurring for millions of years. Still, creationists have yet to prove that their approach provides any better or more reasonable explanation.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        This is your folly.

        Do you know what “God did it” implies? It implies logic, reason, order, and law. The natural response for a Christian who says “God did it” is to then say, “By what law / rule / logic is it done in accordance to God’s will?”

        If our God was a God of disorder and randomness, then we would have no inspiration to examine the data further, think about the results, or theorize on the implications. We would be left like the ancient philosophers who believed in a heaven that was disorganized and in chaos from eternal struggles and strife.

        But because our God is a God of law, logic, order, and reason, and because we believe that what separates us from God is our imperfection of His godly attributes (knowledge being one of them), we can rightly surmise that we can investigate “God did it” and learn more about God and the universe he created. Not only that, but our God invites us to reason with him, to experiment and try things out, to investigate and to learn. It is clear that God reveals his will to the righteous, and not to the unrighteous. And so ignorance, like poverty or sickness, is a sign of some attribute within us that falls short of God’s intended perfection.

        Thus, the Christian religion is the breeding ground for modern science. Those Christians who claim salvation in ignorance do not know the Bible nor the God who wrote it.

        Creationists created modern science. Modern science would not exist if it were not for the claims of the Creationists. I think that is enough reason to think seriously about their claims. Many Creationists work and have worked in the science field.

        The claims of the Creationist were directly responsible for Pasteur’s evidence of modern germ theory. After all, if God created life, and (according to God’s word) life is created after its own kind, then there must be some contamination to begin with before germs can spread, and if you can eliminate the source of life, then no life will spring spontaneously within the substance. I think that’s something that is inarguable, and a direct and obvious result of a belief in the Creation.

        And yes, there is an explanation for all things, or at least I believe there is, because I believe in God. And so I will continue investigating the universe until I have discovered and understood the entire mind of God.

  13. tensor Says:

    You can’t have it both ways.

    The only person trying to “have it both ways” here is you. You want the sloppy products of your religious/reactionary ideology accepted as equal to real knowledge, knowledge acquired through the hard work of science. Even after commenters here gave you a solid explanation for the differences in evolution between crocodiles and birds, you just kept pounding away with the obviously false “fact” you’d simply made up:

    If crocodiles remain the same, why do birds change so rapidly? Are their ecologies changing so differently? Of course not.

    There are no crocodiles living high in the Andes. No crocodiles make homes in the many lakes of Finland. Great flocks of crocs do not migrate north and south across the Plains of North America with the seasons. Yet birds live in all of these places. Your equation of the crocodiles’ ecology with that of the birds is just nonsense. Not just questionable by the exalted standards of evolutionary biology, but just nonsense, in the simplest meaning of that term. Matt noted that your statements belie your claim to be a scientist; your claim about birds and crocodiles sharing the exact same environment for all time makes me wonder if you’ve ever stepped outside, much less gone for a nature walk along Commencement Bay.

    And on the basis of this one, nonsensical “fact” you’ve simply made up, you castigate real scientists for delivering real explanations, based upon real facts, and conversant with an explanatory framework — evolution — which has grown and thrived with the evidence for decade after decade.

    After all, it can’t be the case that for every instance of reptiles, their “niche” hasn’t changed, while for every instance of mammals and birds, it has, can it? Or do you claim that it has?! What an extraordinary coincidence that is!

    It’s not a coincidence. We’ve already explained to you the clear, causal connection between a species’ environment, a species’ fit to that niche, and the resultant level of evolutionary activity by that species. All you’ve offered in return is one blatantly, obviously false “fact” you’ve just made up. Your claim to be a scientist continues to suffer under the weight of your own statements.

    The only evidence we have is bits and pieces of rocks and fossils scattered randomly throughout the earth’s crust, a very tiny sample of a sample of a sample of life on earth from ancient times.

    The fossils are not “scattered randomly”; that’s just another blatantly false “fact” you’ve simply fabricated out of absolutely nothing, in complete contradiction of the actual fossil record. The British naturalist, Haldane, famously replied that a wildly out-of-order fossil (“rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian”) would, for him, disprove evolution. No such thing has ever been found, although creationists have falsely claimed otherwise, as you have here. And, even if not a single fossil existed, the rest of the evidence Matt cited above would suffice to validate evolutionary explanations.

    I mean, there is no way we are ever going to build a time machine and go back in time and see what was really happening millions of years ago.

    Nor have we any reason to do so. We can observe evolution happen right before our eyes, in real time. Every year, I take a new vaccine against influenza. Why did the first one not suffice for all time? Because that vaccine made my body a hostile environment for any flu bug from that year, and so the flu bugs had to evolve to survive, which they did. (If you self-proclaimed evolutionary skeptics would just please “walk the talk” every time a new version of a vaccine was offered to you, Mr. Charles Darwin’s discovery would, all by itself, eventually eliminate creationism. A nice irony, don’t you agree?)

    Meanwhile, demo kid’s point remains valid:

    Nothing about the mechanism by which it happened, nothing about the reasons for it, simply that a divine being decided that humans should have appendixes and beavers should have big teeth.

    Again, you offered nothing but fabricated, evidence-free assertion:

    Do you know what “God did it” implies? It implies logic, reason, order, and law. The natural response for a Christian who says “God did it” is to then say, “By what law / rule / logic is it done in accordance to God’s will?”

    Strangely, in the huge pile of self-congratulatory bloviation you typed in response, you never did explain why birds have evolved and crocodiles have not. How about you show us the “logic, reason, order, and law”, which explain, from a creationist perspective, why crocodiles have not changed in a long time, and some birds have? Then, we can take your creationist explanation, compare it to the evolutionary explanation, above, which you have so hopelessly failed to understand, and apply the ever-sharp razor which William of Okham gave us. We’ll see which explanation it cuts down, and which it leaves standing. Until you do so, evolution wins by default.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      You want the sloppy products of your religious/reactionary ideology accepted as equal to real knowledge, knowledge acquired through the hard work of science.

      I’m sorry, I must be missing something here. I believe in logic and reason because my religion tells me so. And that’s not the same as believing in logic and reason because… why exactly?

      Even after commenters here gave you a solid explanation for the differences in evolution between crocodiles and birds, you just kept pounding away with the obviously false “fact” you’d simply made up:

      If crocodiles remain the same, why do birds change so rapidly? Are their ecologies changing so differently? Of course not.

      The fact that I made up is a scientific study. The “solid explanations” I have been subjected to here are just ideas with no support. You did read the original post, right, along with the paper I cited?

      If you want to live in the world of supposition and imagination, then you are free to do so. Just don’t try to pretend that your imagination has anything to do with logic and reason because you think it does. That’s not how logic, reason, and science work.

      The British naturalist, Haldane, famously replied that a wildly out-of-order fossil (“rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian”) would, for him, disprove evolution. No such thing has ever been found, although creationists have falsely claimed otherwise, as you have here. And, even if not a single fossil existed, the rest of the evidence Matt cited above would suffice to validate evolutionary explanations.

      If only it were so simple.

      Do you know what happens when you find a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian? Geologists start rushing around trying to show how the rock record has actually been turned upside down. There is no rest until some explanation—any explanation—is given to show how Evolution is still a good theory despite the rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian.

      And Matt’s explanation? Imagination and fantasy. Where is the research, the studies, the so-called facts? He can’t produce them, and top scientists in the field dare only to speculate about the things he has sworn as an article of faith for himself.

      The fact of the matter is that for people like you and Matt and many others, your assumption is that Evolution is true and Creationism is not. When you start with a set of assumptions like that, then of course you’re going to find that Evolution is true and Creationism is not. This is no different than historians who reject revelation as impossible, examine Joseph Smith’s history, and find the man to be a fraud. Of course they’ll find the facts that they assumed to be true to begin with. That’s the nature of logic.

      The question is, and always has been, what do you start with as your assumptions? You obviously can’t start with logic as an assumption and claim it is logical. I might as well start with illogic as an assumption and show it is not logical.

      Your example of one kind of thing changing into another kind of thing neither proves nor disproves macro-evolution. You can’t prove that things actually did occur a certain way simply because it could have occurred a certain way. You’d have to prove that the only possible explanation is that things occurred the way you proposed, and then disprove every other alternative explanation. This is an insurmountable task, even if you were able to collect every fossil and every living creature, catalog them to the minutest detail, and organize the information.

      In Physics, we have the same problem, which is why you don’t hear a lot of physicists use the word “impossible”. In the hunt for the Higgs boson, Physicists had to cross off possibilities one at a time in an exhaustive search for the thing. It wasn’t until they had actually found it that they could declare that it exists (and even then, it’s only likely to exist according to our evidence), because even if they examined all of the possibilities that they could experiment with, there are other possibilities that we could not experiment with. At no time could any physicist declare that the Higgs did not exist, even though many were thinking that was more likely due to the scope of the search they made.

      I know this is a difficult concept to grasp. You want science to be something easy and tightly packaged and clear and concise. It’s not. You wish science could prove science, or that science could be the foundation of everything. It can’t. It never will.

      I don’t have an explanation for why the creatures are the way they are. I don’t need an explanation. My understanding of the Creation of the earth isn’t something that’s testable anyway, and I don’t care to see it put to the test. The important bits are the things that affect my day-to-day actions, not what happend thousands or millions of years ago on this earth.

      I’ve been able to cross of Evolution as the explanation, because the evidence simply doesn’t point that direction. If I take the interpretation of the geological record of the earth as it is understood today, then I’d have to come up with some theory that explains why life suddenly exploded into the world in the Pre-Cambrian, then showed periods of relatively stable diversity, with sudden introductions of new species from time to time. Evolution cannot explain that. Darwin’s version of Evolution has not stood up to the evidence. No one believes in that anymore. (Or do you?) There’s new theories emerging, theories which bear hardly any resemblance to Darwin’s original theory but share the same name, but I feel like these are more of a PR campaign against religion than an actual search for truth.

      I don’t even believe that the current understanding of the geological record is correct; my own attempts at understanding what they understand have lead me to conclude that geology is a science closer to Art History than to something like physics or chemistry. There are numerous contradictions in the observations. There has been remarkable research done on the various isotopes found in the rock record, and from what I’ve seen, no one can supply a good explanation of why things are the way they are.

      And so, the whole matter of where the earth came from, according to evidence we have, is a big question mark. I’d rather rely on eye-witness testimony of the history of the earth (Genesis 1) than rely on the explanations “science” is so sure are true today. “Evolution” does not win by default. Because it is inconsistent with the facts at hand, it cannot win, even if no better explanation exists.

      Now, would you care to explain to me what justifies saying I’m trying to have it both ways? Where, exactly, in my belief system is the contradiction and confusion? I have laid out, clear as day, how my religion demands science, how only my religion (the belief that the universe is ordered, that we can determine the order by which the universe is ordered through experiments, and how the order must not be illogical) can be the basis of science?

      Or do you just like throwing out baseless charges to try and support your arguments? Good one there, but it’s not logical or reasonable or should be considered science by anyone.

  14. Jim Smith Says:

    Eye witness testimony?

    Your description of the Cambrian Explosion is incorrect. The “explosion” has been statistically shown to be no more explosive than any other radiation of species. What is interesting is that all current species have a similar species preceding it, that is what the fossil record shows, not an instantaneous appearance.

    Geologist can easily tell when strata has been flipped over, so older rock is at the top. For example ripples always appear on top of sandstone, shells flip so they are hydrodynamically stable.

    Of course flipping a rock doesn’t change the age, it just puts the fossils upside down. Yet there still has never been a rabbit found in the Pre-cambrian, Cambrian, Silurian, Ordovician, up until after the appearance of the earliest mammals. Yet, between reptiles and rabbits are several intermediate species, even mammal like animals that lay eggs just like reptiles This is not compatible with Biblical creation.

    The flood is not represented by the geologic record. There are several major unconformities in the record, which disprove a single continuous flood.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Jim, thanks for carefully answering and not resorting to any ad hominem attacks. It’s a pleasure talking with someone who sees things differently from myself but still respects that people may have different ideas and understandings of the way things are.

      “Eye witness testimony” refers to the logical fact that if there is a God, and God witnessed the creation of the earth, and God does not lie, and God has revealed to man what the creation of the world looked like, then we would have to trust his opinion over whatever evidence we see in the earth below.

      My own study of geology has revealed a number of circular reasonings. The age of the rocks are defined by the fossils found in them, and the age of the fossils are defined by the rocks they are found in. I have studied, in detail, a textbook which I thought was reliable, and found this to be the measuring stick geologists and biologists use to measure time.

      There are, of course, other guideposts that geologists use, but these assume that over the history of time, the rates of change have not changed. My background in physics suggests to me that this is a terrible assumption. It’s like assuming it took a car 3 days to travel 1,000 miles because you see it approaching you at 25 mph. Even the rates of decay of radioactive material do not appear to be constant, and so we cannot rely on them to give us a clear picture of the age of things, without assuming things we simply cannot assume about the physical properties of matter. Physicists say things like, “Assuming the laws of physics are constant over all time and space” because it is an assumption, an assumption we are well aware could simply be wrong.

      In the end, for all we know, a million years according to geologists and biologists could have passed in mere seconds. In more scientific terms, the error bars are so wide that we can’t really be certain of anything.

      I wish geology were a science built on the same solid foundation as chemistry and physics; unfortunately, besides telling us the physical compositions of rocks, and the relative likelihood of finding certain formations in the earth’s crust, it is almost useless as a predictive or retrospective science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: