Where's the evidence *against* evolution?

Great Debates
101

The spectrum itself is incomplete. The existence of “layers” in strata from which fossils are obtained results from changes in the deposition, and erosion of sediments. In some cases those depositions are disturbed by million year long periods of erosion, where no new material is deposited, and extant material is removed. No fossils can be obtained from the missing strata.

Fossilization itself is a process that only can occur under specific circumstances. The conditions under which it occurs require ongoing deposition of new material from current erosion in other areas. That disproportionately favors certain environments. The fossil record is mostly a record of low lying coastal regions, and shallow sea bottoms. (Micro-fossils are a somewhat different case, and can be found in other types of strata.) Keep in mind that the total number of fossil remains is tiny compared to the number of critters that ever lived. Continuous is not one of the possibilities, not even counting such things as periods of world wide erosion.

Tris

102

Finding what we now know to be non-contemporary fossils lumped together in the same rock wouldn’t really disprove evolution. If we found such a thing from the start (before we realized they weren’t contemporaries), we wouldn’t know any different. If we found such a thing now, it would certainly screw with our established, theoritical lineages (as well as throwing a major wrench into the workings of geology, bio-stratigraphy, biogeography, etc.), and the theories whereby these lineages are produced, but, again, it wouldn’t necessarily mean the end of evolution as we know it. In order to disprove evolution once and for all, you would have to show that organisms do not change over time.
Warning: philosophical and quasi-logical ramblings follow:
The reality appears to be, however, that if evolution (by my definiton, which I gave earlier on: descent with modification; nothing more, nothing less) were a complete crock, we may not be able to tell. As I’ve stated previously, the only alternative is Special Creation, which would mean that God created, and is currently and constantly creating, each and every new species / variant / mutant / breed / individual. Of course, this flies in the face of established Doctrine (and reason): on the seventh day, He rested (meaning, He was supposed to have finished everything in the first six ‘days’). And if this were the case, then it would mean that all ‘natural laws’ as we know them are likely false as well: if God’s actions create the illusion of evolution, then his meddlings must also give us illusions about all of our perceived knowledge. In short, if God is directly intervening with the workings of the Universe, we can never know anything, and this is all a pointless waste of time.
In summary, the observable, concrete and describable phenomenon (and this is the only evidence I would accept) that would completely disprove evolution, is if God Himself (if He exists, of course) appeared before me and said, ‘Mauve Dog, evolution is a crock. I did it all, and I’m still doing it. Live with it.’

103

Hmmm…

And I submit that if He did that, within a few hours you will have convinced yourself that you were delusional.

104

That is most likely true. It is not a matter of my Agnostic beliefs that leads me to state that evolution itself cannot be falsified, it is the fact that the alternative is, in fact, no alternative at all since it would go against everything that I have ever heard on the religious side (the whole Genesis thing), as well as against everything that I have been taught on the scientific side.

105

Hi, my name is Joel (obviously :slight_smile: ). I’m not an expert in the debate of evolution vs creationism, but I have been studying up on it becase I am a creationist an I want to make sure that I have some scientific arguments against evolution, and not just say that I believe in creation because “The bible says so.”
Anyway, from something I read, here are some numbers on mutations, as related to evolution…
Mutations occur on average, once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule, or
1 in 10,000,000.
Now, it would take several related mutations to cause the type of evolution that evolutionists believe in. Here are some more numbers…
For two related mutations to occur, the odds are
1 in 100,000,000,000,000.
For three related mutations to occur, the odds are
1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
And finally, for four related mutations to occur
1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
And as the book says, “Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough oranisms to make that very likely…” and “…four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution…”
Hope this helps.

106

**

Uh, no. Perhaps you mean one in every ten million bases?

No, it doesn’t. Clearly mutations happen a lot faster than you think they do- by your estimate, ten million generations would have to pass before one Amish kid was born with twelve fingers! Think of all the mutations which have been tracked in royal families- did you really have to go through ten million queens before one got the mutation for hemophilia?

Where did you get this argument?
Since you’re a creationist, perhaps you could answer some questions?

1.) How do you explain protein homology, and
2.) How do you explain segregational load?

-Ben

107

Thanks, Joel. I have a feeling that your assertion will shortly be disputed.

I’d like to make a small point. I asked two questions in this thread, and both received a similar answer. First regarding the number of mutations necessary, the consensus was that we don’t know and cannot possibly know. Second, concerning the fossil record, the only answer (supplied by Triskadecamus) was that we assume that there was a continuum but can’t check that because we have only a small fraction of the species that have ever lived, as fossils have only been preserved from certain eras (feel free to correct this if it is an incorrect summarization of Trisk’s post). Basically the answer to both is that we don’t know and can’t possibly know. Everything’s great.

My question is, does this not take away to some extent from the argument simultaneously being made that evolution must be true because it fits all the evidence. You can’t make too big a deal about fitting the evidence if you are at the same time claiming that there’s some very basic elementary questions that cannot be answered because you know so little about it.

This is not an attempt to disprove evolution based on the above argument. Merely a commentary on the “evolution fits all the facts” pro-evolution argument.

Comments?

108

Suppose you see a trail of footprints leading to a crime scene. Since they are discrete points, rather than a continuous trail like a bicycle might leave, does that make the footprints nearly worthless as evidence? The fact is that even if we only have a fraction of the fossil record, that’s more than enough to overwhelmingly prove evolution.

I’ve summarized some of what would have to be different in molecular biology if evolution weren’t true. I honestly can’t see how evolution can be false, in light of that evidence, any more than I can see how the earth could be flat, now that we have pictures of it from space. Would you like to comment on the biochemical evidence?

-Ben

109

No, it doesn’t. Clearly mutations happen a lot faster than you think they do- by your estimate, ten million generations would have to pass before one Amish kid was born with twelve fingers! Think of all the mutations which have been tracked in royal families- did you really have to go through ten million queens before one got the mutation for hemophilia?

The mutations you just listed don’t cause evolution from one species into a greater species, they just cause defects in existing species. What I was talking about is A SERIES OF RELATED MUTATIONS THAT CAUSE A CREATURE TO EVOLVE INTO SOMETHING GREATER.

Where did you get this argument?

What I posted came from “Creation: Facts of Life” written by Gary Parker.

Since you’re a creationist, perhaps you could answer some questions?

1.) How do you explain protein homology, and
2.) How do you explain segregational load?

Since I’m not an expert, and haven’t been studying this long, the only repsonce I can give is to question 1, by asking you to explain why hemoglobin is found in vertebrates, in some phyla, some annelids, some echinoderms, some mollusks, some athropods, and even some bacteria?
As for question two, since I am new at studying this, I haven’t read up on segregational load, so I can’t answer your question now. I’ll have to read up on that first.

110

Ben:

This is not a valid comparison. The reason why a trail of footsteps is enough is because you are hypothesizing that the criminal walked, and when people walk they leave a trail of discrete footsteps. Hence, you are fitting the evidence perfectly. If you were actually trying to claim that the criminal got away on a bicycle then it would be problematic if you only found footsteps and no bicycle marks. In this case, the suggestion is that there was a continous evolution. The evidence (apparently) does not suggest a continuum. The answer being given is that much of the evidence is missing.

To continue the crime scene analogy, if you hypothesize a solution that fits all the evidence it makes a lot of difference as to how much evidence there actually is. If there’s not a tremendous amount to begin with, than the conclusiveness of the fact that your solution fits all the evidence is lessened.

Frankly, no. I try to limit my comments to issues that I actually understand. Biochemistry is not one of them. If you feel that you can explain in a common sense manner and layman’s terms why evolution is fits all the evidence, I’d be glad to hear.

111

Stupid question time. Just out of curiosity, which side of the debate are you on? You seem to be pro-creation, but then again, I could be reading your posts wrong, or you could be playing devil’s advocate.
I’m just curious because I’d like to know if I have any allies on my side, any fellow creationists, posting on this thread (Yes, compleatly reading all of the posts, and not just skimming, will help answer my last question, and when I have to do so, I will).

112

**

What you said was that mutations take place every 10 million times a DNA molecule is copies. Now, however, you claim that you really were talking about only those mutations which cause a creature to “evolve into something greater.” How can we communicate if you don’t say what you mean?

**

But that’s not an answer at all- that’s just another question. I ask again: how do you explain the observed patterns of protein homology?

As for why hemoglobin is so widespread, isn’t the answer obvious? All those creatures inherited it from a common ancestor.

-Ben

113

Joel, it’s good that you are studying before arguing. I suggest you might be interested in the following quote from Dr. Hugh Ross, a creationist who appears to be making a sincere effort to reconcile creationism with science (unlike many other creationists). In The Unravelling of Starlight and Time he and Samuel Connor say:

"… A particularly acute form of this problem faces the young-earth movement in its attempts to use revisionist young-earth “science” for this purpose. If the science is incredible or manifestly false, then, rather than pointing unbelievers to God, it may drive them further away. Jesus’ question to Nicodemus 2000 years ago suggests a set of challenges to Christian apologists today: if our claims about earthly, empirically testable things such as natural history are demonstrably untrue, how can we expect unbelievers to accept our testimony on subjects which are not empirically testable and which call for a faith response? The answer is clear: we cannot. If our testimony on scientific matters is demonstrably false, rather than giving unbelievers reasons to consider the Gospel, we will give them grounds to reject it. To put it another way, if the Church demonstrates itself to be unreliable in the interpretation of scientific matters which are subject to verification by unbelievers, it undermines, by association, the credibility of our claims that unbelievers need to pay attention to the Bible’s statements about spiritual matters which are not empirically verifiable by unbelievers. If Christians’ claims about physical reality cannot be trusted, what grounds do unbelievers have to trust our claims about spiritual realities? Demonstrably false “science” gives the lost “reasons to reject” the Gospel — “reasons to disbelieve” rather than “reasons to believe.”

This is a serious obstacle to the efforts of the young-earth movement to minister the Gospel to unbelievers, particularly to scientifically literate unbelievers. Much of the young-earth apologetic depends on the idea that the earth and the entire physical universe is no more than several thousand years old. This position appears to us as believers to be impossible to reconcile with any reasonable interpretation of the data of nature; it is also manifestly false from the perspective of unbelieving scientists. Young-earth claims on the age issue are so obviously mistaken, in fact, that many non-Christian scientists do not believe that young-earth apologists are honest people, which gives them yet another reason (or excuse) to reject the Gospel35. Perhaps the clearest instance of the impossibility of young-earth “science” is the light-travel problem, but this problem characterizes the entire young-earth position on the age-of-the-universe/age-of-the-earth issue36."

I suggest that you read some non-creationist articles and literature, such as Talk Origins (particularly Evolution and Chance, because of the numbers you posted above) and Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism

114

quote:

Originally posted by Joel

The mutations you just listed don’t cause evolution from one species into a greater species, they just cause defects in existing species. What I was talking about is A SERIES OF RELATED MUTATIONS THAT CAUSE A CREATURE TO EVOLVE INTO SOMETHING GREATER.

What you said was that mutations take place every 10 million times a DNA molecule is copies. Now, however, you claim that you really were talking about only those mutations which cause a creature to “evolve into something greater.” How can we communicate if you don’t say what you mean?

Ok, let me try again. The figures I listed were about mutations in general. However, mutations in general don’t lead to evolution. It takes many related mutations to cause macro evolution, and the odds of that happening are pretty much ruled out by mathmatics.

quote:

Since I’m not an expert, and haven’t been studying this long, the only repsonce I can give is to question 1, by asking you to explain why hemoglobin is found in vertebrates, in some phyla, some annelids, some echinoderms, some mollusks, some athropods, and even some bacteria?

But that’s not an answer at all- that’s just another question. I ask again: how do you explain the observed patterns of protein homology?

To answer the question to your satisfaction, I’ll have to do some more research on it.

As for why hemoglobin is so widespread, isn’t the answer obvious? All those creatures inherited it from a common ancestor.

I evolution is true, then you can trace how hemoglobin evolved. Can you?

115

I don’t feel that I can call myself a creationist in that I don’t know enough science to have an intelligent scientific opinion on the matter. I am also skeptical as to whether evolution can be “disproved” from a scientific basis. However, I am also skeptical as to whether it can be proved either. Evolutionists are fond of claiming that evolution is a fact, not a theory, and that it is as provable as the fact that the earth is round. I find these claims hard to accept. In any event, I try to limit myself to common sense issues that I feel that I understand.

116

Well, “something greater” is not a scientific concept or part of the scientific theory; perhaps it’s a religous concept?

Now, if you are talking about evolution of different species, we haven’t been looking long enough to actually observe that on a large scale, but it has been observed. Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events.

117

I’m not sure why you posted something that mainly talks about the earths age. That is a sperate arguent all togeather. I don’t know how old the earth is and have not taken sides in that debate. The earth probably is millions or billions of years old. You don’t have to believe in a young earth to believe in creation. They’re two seperate issues.
Anyway, I am going to read up on both sides of the issue. That’s how you really get to understand your own side better (This applies for evolutionists and creationists alike).

118

Wow. You’re right. Dr. Ross makes an excellent argument to Christians.

For the record, this is the passage to which he refers:

119

**

I saw an article on George W. Bush the other day, and it showed pictures of him as a baby, at age 6, at age 9, at age 18, at age 25, and at his present age. Did he grow up in a continuum, or did he abruptly go from being a baby to age 6?

You know, people say that Star Wars was shot using real actors, but if you look at the actual reels of film, you just see a series of discrete photos, each slightly different from the next. Does that mean that the whole film was actually animated?

Have you ever seen all the transitional forms from Eohippus to Equus, laid out in a row?

Let me put it this way: do you believe in paternity tests? Do you believe that use of DNA fingerprinting can establish whether people are related? Because very sophisticated forms of DNA fingerprinting have not only reconstructed the family tree of living things, but that tree agrees with the one constructed from the fossil evidence.

Let’s also suppose you compare the DNA from humans and, say, chimps. The number of silent mutations will be greater than the number of mutations which actually have an effect.

There are also things called pseudogenes, which are genes that got eroded away by mutations because there was no selectional pressure to keep them. For example, the common ancestor of primates ate a lot of fruit, and didn’t need the gene to synthesise vitamin C, so that gene got switched off by deleterious mutations. If you look at pseudogenes across species, you see that the pseudogenes are precisely where you would expect them to be if they were being inherited as new species arose from pre-existing species. Moreover, the portions of the pseudogene which used to be coding regions have accumulated a number of mutations intermediate between what you see for normal coding regions and for silent mutations.

There are also processed pseudogenes. When a gene is activated, a copy of it is made from RNA and it undergoes a number of different kinds of processing. Sometimes it accidentally gets spliced back into DNA as a pseudogene. If you look at the DNA of different species, you see, once again, that these pseudogenes are inherited by new species just as children inherit their parents’ genes.

As for segregational load:

remember Mendelian genetics, where species could have a dominant allele “A” and/or a recessive allele “a” at a particular genetic locus? Let’s suppose (to take a real-life example) that there is a species of butterfly which can have a gene “A” for red forewings or a gene “B” for blue hindwings at a particular locus. The butterflies can then be homozygous, and be “AA” (and have red forewings) or “BB” (and have blue hindwings.) They can also be heterozygous, and be “AB” (and have red forewings and blue hindwings.) “AB” butterflies look like a different species of poisonous butterfly, so birds don’t eat them. The problem is that if two AB butterflies mate, some of their offspring will be AB, but some will also be AA and BB. AA and BB butterfiles get eaten, because they don’t have the full camouflage. The birds don’t mistake them for poisonous butterflies, so the extra coloration just makes them stand out. This is called “segregational load”; heterozygotes have a big advantage, but since some of their offspring will always be homozygous, a lot of their offspring end up getting killed.

If a chromosomal rearrangement duplicates the genetic locus, then that produces a big evolutionary advantage for the butterfly, because its offspring can be AA at one copy of the locus and BB at the other copy of the locus. Eventually all the butterflies will have the duplicate locus, because all of their offspring will be able to have both the A gene for red forewings and the B gene for blue hindwings.

So the question is, if creationism is true, why did God create organisms which have segregational load?
-Ben

120

There are gaps in the fossil record, not because we only have information from certain eras, but because, as Trisk pointed out, the process of fossilization is biased towards certain environments; you are much more likely to become a fossil if you die in a lake with a rapid sedimentation rate than if you died in a rainforest, for example.

The fossil record gives us evidence of changing lineages. It says nothing about the mechanisms for how these changes take place. One cannot study evolution by merely considering the fossil record. Darwin developed the theory of Natural Selection primarily by observing extant organisms, and spent a good deal of effort explaining the process using worms and orchids as examples, not fossils.

Evolution and the processes that drive it explain the fossil record, not the other way around.

An important distinction to make is that the fossil record is not so much a by-product of evolution as it is geology; organisms become fossilized because of geological processes, not biological ones. The gaps in the fossil record are unfortunate, but they in no way invalidate what we see happening with extant organisms. Because of the biases inherent in the nature of fossilization, and the rates of evolutionary change, there is a lot we may never see in the record, even if we were able to dig up every fossil in existence. However, as they say, “absence of proof is not proof of absence.”