We know dozens of pseudo-scientific howlers are circulating in the info-sphere at any given time, and most over the internet- which is often a fact-free zone. Recognizing them is the first step to skewering them, and four of the more common ones are given below with the respective takedowns:
1) "Natural selection is a random process and we're expected to believe a single mutation can cause alligator eggs to hatch into beautiful swans"
This canard confuses mutation and natural selection. What natural selection does is to consolidate particular random mutations into a more stable, adaptive adjustment – governed by deterministic factors and inputs. Thus, that while the selected trait often appears at random, its preservation in the gene structure cannot be relegated to randomness.In other words, once the trait – say ligand recognition by a protein- is incorporated, and gene frequencies increase, the process ceases to be random. The failure here is being unable to recognize the distinctions between the condition leading to the initial mutation and the subsequent natural selection consolidating it into higher gene frequencies!
Rather than this misinterpretation, we know mutation (say via a cell’s interaction with a cosmic ray) is the same as a single step selection, as opposed to natural selection, which can be viewed as a cumulative process of selection. Let’s take an example that recently made the news: the identification of an apparent “superbug” resistant to antibiotics, and designated by reference to the NDM-1 "superbug gene” which can turn any bacteria into a "superbug" - totally resistant to antibiotic treatment.
At some point in time (t - to) in the past, some mutation occurred (likely in India) that converted a normal bacterial gene into the NDM-1. At that point, it could easily have been a "one off", in other words, a one time event limited to one bacterial type in one patient. Had it remained so, it would have been a totally random event. If an event only occurs statistically once, or is confined or limited by probabilities, then it is a chance event. But when the change is actually incorporated, as evidenced by a changing fitness in the organism (enhancing the gene frequency) then it is no longer governed by random chance but a level of determinism via natural selection, or cumulative selection.
The measures for success of natural selection are the fitness (w) and the selective value (s). These can be measured on either absolute or relative scales, but are related algebraically on the latter by:
w = 1 – s, or s = 1 – w
For a successful mutation deemed to have taken hold and become consolidated in an organism via natural selection, we expect that the fitness w = 1, while there is little or no reduction in selection value, so that s remains near 0 for the most favorable alleles. (For example, resistance to antibiotics.)
2) “The universe is like a giant watch”
This simplistic canard replicates the original error by William Paley. We know after more than three further centuries of scientific imnvestigation that Paley’s famously naïve argument: “A watch must always have a Watchmaker, so also the universe must have a Maker or Creator.” is flawed and outdated.
The analogy is flawed, first, because the universe is not a mechanical contrivance like a watch. Apart from the fact that – for the most part (certain limited domains in celestial mechanics excepted) the ‘clockwork universe’ was dispelled when quantum theory emerged. Unfortunately, while the practicing physicist has long since had to adopt an indeterminate, non-mechanistic world view (e.g. guided by the experimental results from quantum physics), the same cannot be said for non-physicists, including theologians, philosophers and multitudes of laypersons.
These groups continue to labor under erroneous assumptions of causality and “order” generated almost exclusively by an ignorance of modern physics. For example, an ignorance of the fact that simultaneous measurements at the atomic level are fundamentally indeterminate (Heisenberg Uncertainty principle).
In cosmological terms, the whole concept of "order" has been relegated to a minor and tiny niche of the extant cosmos. For example, the recent balloon-borne Boomerang and MAXIMA UV measurements to do with Type I a supernovae, have disclosed a cosmic content:
7% - ordinary visible matter
93% - dark component, of which:
- 70% is DARK (vacuum) energy and
- 23% is dark matter
In effect, 93% of the universe can't even be assessed for "order" since it can't be seen!
The analogy is flawed, first, because the universe is not a mechanical contrivance like a watch. Apart from the fact that – for the most part (certain limited domains in celestial mechanics excepted) the ‘clockwork universe’ was dispelled when quantum theory emerged. Unfortunately, while the practicing physicist has long since had to adopt an indeterminate, non-mechanistic world view (e.g. guided by the experimental results from quantum physics), the same cannot be said for non-physicists, including theologians, philosophers and multitudes of laypersons.
These groups continue to labor under erroneous assumptions of causality and “order” generated almost exclusively by an ignorance of modern physics. For example, an ignorance of the fact that simultaneous measurements at the atomic level are fundamentally indeterminate (Heisenberg Uncertainty principle).
In cosmological terms, the whole concept of "order" has been relegated to a minor and tiny niche of the extant cosmos. For example, the recent balloon-borne Boomerang and MAXIMA UV measurements to do with Type I a supernovae, have disclosed a cosmic content:
7% - ordinary visible matter
93% - dark component, of which:
- 70% is DARK (vacuum) energy and
- 23% is dark matter
In effect, 93% of the universe can't even be assessed for "order" since it can't be seen!
3) Evolution is only a theory and can’t be tested
The first major error is the misreprsentation of what "theory" means, which is here more conflated with speculation. In fact, a theory represents the highest order of scientific testing and predictive attainment. It means, essentially, that the original hypothesis has enabled predictions which have been tested or observed, and hence confirmed.
In the case of evolution, actual photographic evidence has been assembled for the telomeric fusion of the 2p and 2q chromosomes in apes, to become the ‘2’ chromosome in humans. In other words, prima facie evidence of a common ancestor. (See, e.g.: Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy')
Then we have the evidence from the DNA (genomic) sequencing of the human and chimpanzee which discloses the remarkable fact that BOTH have the exact SAME cytochrome –c sequence! If evolution were false we’d expect the human and chimp cytochrome-c sequences to vary dramatically given that it exhibits 10^93 variations in functionality with other organisms. That is, 10 followed by ninety three zeros. So the odds that coincidence would explain a perfect match for humans and chimps are 1 in 10 to the 93rd power!
Both of these disclose prima facie evidence for the hypothesis of common descent, a key component of Darwinian theory as applied to humans and chimps!
In the case of evolution, actual photographic evidence has been assembled for the telomeric fusion of the 2p and 2q chromosomes in apes, to become the ‘2’ chromosome in humans. In other words, prima facie evidence of a common ancestor. (See, e.g.: Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy')
Then we have the evidence from the DNA (genomic) sequencing of the human and chimpanzee which discloses the remarkable fact that BOTH have the exact SAME cytochrome –c sequence! If evolution were false we’d expect the human and chimp cytochrome-c sequences to vary dramatically given that it exhibits 10^93 variations in functionality with other organisms. That is, 10 followed by ninety three zeros. So the odds that coincidence would explain a perfect match for humans and chimps are 1 in 10 to the 93rd power!
Both of these disclose prima facie evidence for the hypothesis of common descent, a key component of Darwinian theory as applied to humans and chimps!
4) The second law of thermodynamics proves that complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists.
This well circulated canard (you can find it on almost any creationist blog or site, i.e. Ken Ham's) commits at least two fundamental errors:
a) The error which assumes that evolution means more primitive organisms develop into more complex or organized ones, and
b) The error that the second law (entropy law - because it refers to increasing disorder or "entropy") applies to all living things
Consider (a) first: At no point and no place do evolutionists claim that more organized forms are the inevitable manifestation of natural selection and adaptation, and represent evolutionary success.
What evolution states, which any high school biology student learns, is that the species which survive best are the most well adapted to its environment. Thus, the humble cockroach beats just about all other species on Earth for evolutionary success given it's been around for 150 million years. Humans, much more organized than cockroaches, have only been around in their modern form for barely 1.5 million years, if that.
Humans, up to now, have barely 1/100 th the evolutionary success of the cockroach!
Now, as to (b), this is a common error of those who've never taken advanced physics, but just read Google excerpts. It's basically a direct result of misinterpretation of the 2nd law, something I often see from those who've never taken a serious physics course. Strictly speaking the law states:
Entropy (the state of disorder) will tend to increase over time in any closed system.
The last part is very crucial but it is exactly the part that the creationist-ID crowd omits, which renders their question a non-starter. The reason is that neither the Earth nor its biological systems are "closed" systems, hence do not exhibit constantly increasing disorder. The Earth, for example, is open to the radiant energy of the Sun and receives some 1360 joules per square meter per second. Plants on the Earth are likewise OPEN to solar energy, and receive it and then use it in the process of photo-synthesis.
a) The error which assumes that evolution means more primitive organisms develop into more complex or organized ones, and
b) The error that the second law (entropy law - because it refers to increasing disorder or "entropy") applies to all living things
Consider (a) first: At no point and no place do evolutionists claim that more organized forms are the inevitable manifestation of natural selection and adaptation, and represent evolutionary success.
What evolution states, which any high school biology student learns, is that the species which survive best are the most well adapted to its environment. Thus, the humble cockroach beats just about all other species on Earth for evolutionary success given it's been around for 150 million years. Humans, much more organized than cockroaches, have only been around in their modern form for barely 1.5 million years, if that.
Humans, up to now, have barely 1/100 th the evolutionary success of the cockroach!
Now, as to (b), this is a common error of those who've never taken advanced physics, but just read Google excerpts. It's basically a direct result of misinterpretation of the 2nd law, something I often see from those who've never taken a serious physics course. Strictly speaking the law states:
Entropy (the state of disorder) will tend to increase over time in any closed system.
The last part is very crucial but it is exactly the part that the creationist-ID crowd omits, which renders their question a non-starter. The reason is that neither the Earth nor its biological systems are "closed" systems, hence do not exhibit constantly increasing disorder. The Earth, for example, is open to the radiant energy of the Sun and receives some 1360 joules per square meter per second. Plants on the Earth are likewise OPEN to solar energy, and receive it and then use it in the process of photo-synthesis.
Other organisms eat the plants and thereby incorporate that energy into themselves. Thus, the path is cleared for higher organizational development and speciation. We do not see a constant “wind-down” because all these systems are OPEN (or at least partially so), not closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment