Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[JediGirl]

Common Creationist Arguments

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a scientific-sounding argument which in fact has no scientific validity whatsoever. This type of argument is based on the fact that the average layperson knows so little about science that he or she is liable to judge a scientific argument solely on its style and presentation (eg- "does it sound scientific?", or "does it incorporate scientific-sounding terms?") for lack of any other method of judging its validity.

Suggested Tactics

This type of creationist argument is difficult for most people to defend against, unless they are fairly knowledgeable about science (that's why it's so popular with creationists- they may not know anything about science, but they're gambling that you don't either). In my case, I simply call upon my knowledge of certain basic scientific principles that I learned in university, but I can't instruct everyone to do this, since not everyone has a technical background.

Therefore, it's difficult for me to recommand tactics for laypeople to counteract this sort of argument, but we should keep in mind that creationist pseudoscience arguments are almost never generated out of the mind of the creationist himself. They all tend to come from the same widely distributed pool of creationist literature, which is one of the reasons that creationists all over the world tend to spout the same pseudoscience arguments. I can offer the following suggestions:

Remember that if your opponent has no direct knowledge of the science involved, and is merely claiming truth because "I read it somewhere", this constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. Point this out to him. One should always be able to explain the logic and science behind one's argument rather than simply making vague reference to an anonymous source.

Since these arguments are actually second hand arguments, demand to see the original source for his claim. When you see the source, check the credentials of the author. If they aren't fraudulent, check up on the university where the author got his degree. Odds are that the degree is either honorary, or it comes from a cheap diploma mill (or worse yet, one of the many church-run schools set up expressly for the purpose of handing out degrees to creationists). If you don't have the resources to check up on universities, try looking up the Talk.Origins website at www.talkorigins.org, which maintains a list of discredited creationist "experts" and their bogus credentials.

Examples follow:

"Occam's Razor is a scientific principle which says that when faced with two theories, we should always choose the simplest theory. Evolution theory requires billions of years of chemical reactions, environmental effects, and genetic mutations. Creation theory simply says "God did it". Creation theory is obviously simpler, therefore Occam's Razor demands that we must select Creation theory on scientific grounds."

This is perhaps the single most moronic creationist idea I've ever heard (it's also been used to "prove" the existence of God, by arguing that the concept of God is much simpler than the study of science). It's a classic example of creationist pseudoscience. They learn the term "Occam's Razor" and they learn just enough about its definition to abuse it, but they make no effort whatsoever to learn its true meaning.

"Choose the simplest theory" is an oversimplification of the concept of Occam's Razor. The term is named after the 14th century philosopher and theologian William of Occam. It might strike some as strange that a scientific principle might have come from a theologian, but good scientists do not practice appeals to authority or ad hominem attacks. If an idea makes sense, it doesn't matter who it came from, and the universal acceptance of Occam's Razor is a perfect example of that philosophy.

In any case, he argued that we should never "multiply entities unnecessarily". In other words, cut out extraneous terms from an equation. He used that principle (which is really just an argument against redundancy) to show that it was impossible to deduce God's existence through reason alone, so one would have to take it purely on faith. The irony is that a theologian realized that there was no logical basis for God's existence more than 600 years ago but modern fundamentalists still can't figure it out, and actually use his name to "prove" the exact opposite of what he himself argued!

For those who cannot appreciate the simplicity of Occam's Razor in its original form, Isaac Newton restated it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." In plain English, when faced with two scientific theories which make the same predictions, choose the simpler theory. Or, as Stephen Hawking put it: "Cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed." (taken from A Brief History of Time).

Like all scientific principles, Occam's Razor is accepted not because William of Occam said it, but because it makes sense. You don't need to appeal to authority or take its validity on faith. If you are faced with two competing theories between which you have no other method of deciding, is it not obvious that the theory containing extra or unverifiable terms must therefore contain redundancies? The fact that the simpler theory can accomplish the same descriptive and predictive feats while utilizing fewer terms and not relying on unverifiable or unobservable phenomena is evidence of superiority.

Consider the analogy of two mechanical devices for making widgets. Both perform exactly the same function. In repeated, exhaustive tests, both are shown to produce exactly the same quality of widget, at the same rate, with the same raw materials. Both produce the same amount of waste. Both consume the same amount of electrical power. They cost the same. In other words, their performance is identical in every measurable way. The only noticeable difference is that device #1 is much simpler than device #2. It contains fewer components and mechanisms, and its operating principle is therefore simpler. Which one would you choose?

Suppose the salesman for device #2 is quite upset that you are leaning toward device #1, and he promises to do better. The next day, he returns with a new device (we'll call it device #3) which is completely sealed in black plastic (the classic "black box"). He says it's the latest, most advanced widget-making machine in the world. You feed it electricity and raw materials, and it spits out widgets. Its performance is no different from device #1 and device #2, but it is not user servicable. You can't see inside to figure out how it works, and the salesman refuses to let you see diagrams or schematics, ostensibly because the operation of the machine is beyond both your intellectual capacity and his. The salesman argues that device #3 is actually simpler than both device #1 and #2 because it has just one component: the black box. Does this make sense to you? Again, which device would you choose?

Occam's Razor is merely a name given to a logical and intuitively obvious thought process of eliminating redundancies. It cannot be used to choose between competing theories whose predictions are vastly different, any more than the simplicity of a drill press can be used to prove that it's superior to a fighter plane. Now that we are equipped with an understanding of the reasoning behind Occam's Razor, we can list some of the reasons that it cannot be used to support either creationism or the existence of God:

1. Occam's Razor is a method of choosing between competing scientific theories. It is irrelevant when comparing a scientific theory to the concept of God or creationism because God and creationism are not scientific theories. There are no objective terms in the concept of God. No equations. No mechanisms. No limits. No methods through which it can be used to predict the outcome of natural processes. No methods through which it can be tested, or disproven. The concept of God is actually the antithesis of a scientific theory, in that one resorts to the divine only when one's reason has either failed or been voluntarily suppressed. In the analogy above, Occam's Razor was used to evaluate a pair of machines. It couldn't be used to evaluate a machine versus, say, a piece of music.

2. "God" is actually not a "simpler theory" than science. "God" is merely a three-letter name which is affixed to a deity whose machinations are supposedly so complex that they are beyond mortal comprehension! If God's methods are inscrutable and incomprehensible to humans (as claimed in the Bible and by all Christians), then what business does anyone have claiming that they are "simpler" than a theory which humans can understand? In the analogy above, the concept of God is very much like the "black box". The salesman may argue that it's simpler because it's a nice smooth black box instead of a set of gears and motors, but that's a childish superficiality at best, and a bald-faced lie at worst.

3. Occam's Razor is not invoked unless the competing theories make identical predictions. It is a method of eliminating redundancies, as William of Occam first reasoned, and it only applies when the performance of the competing theories is identical. When two theories make vastly different predictions (as is the case with science and Biblical literalism), then Occam's Razor is completely irrelevant. In the analogy above, Occam's Razor was used to evaluate a pair of machines whose performance was identical. If the two machines made widgets of vastly different characteristics, Occam's Razor would be irrelevant.

The use of Occam's Razor to "prove" the existence of God or the validity of Biblical literalism is a classic example of creationist pseudoscience, because it is so emblematic of their method: take a real principle and grossly misinterpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it truly means.

"The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. It states that complexity cannot be spontaneously created, so it is impossible for natural processes to create a complex organism from a simple organism!"

This is one of the oldest, and most popular creationist pseudoscience arguments. It's been kicking around for more than a century, thanks to general public ignorance of thermodynamics. In fact, it's wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start! Perhaps we should start at the beginning, with the definition of the second law of thermodynamics. According to my engineering thermodynamics textbook, the second law of thermodynamics has two basic postulates:

1. All physical processes create entropy (microscopic disorder).

2. The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, ie- entropy can be created but not destroyed.

That's a lot different from "complexity cannot be spontaneously created", isn't it? Big surprise- creationists don't know anything about thermodynamics. Now that we've established their bizarre misconception about the second law of thermodynamics, we should try to understand what strange mental contortions were necessary to go from "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" to "complexity cannot be spontaneously created."

Upon further questioning, creationists invariably reveal the following beliefs about the second law:

1. "The entropy of a living organism can't decrease."

2. "The creation of complexity requires the destruction of entropy."

3. "The second law of thermodynamics applies to spontaneous events, but not to the deliberate acts of man (or deity). That's why humans can build a complex structure but natural processes can't."

These three beliefs are all completely wrong, and they all indicate a frightening ignorance of scientific principles. Let us examine each belief separately:

1. Actually, the entropy of a living organism can decrease, because a living organism is not a closed system. Since it is an open system, entropy can leave and enter. Entropy doesn't have to be destroyed- just moved. The concept of the closed system vs the open system is one of the most basic concepts that we teach kids in high school, and if someone thinks a living organism is a closed system, he must be staggeringly ignorant. Food, water, and energy enter and leave your body all the time, thus making it an open system. Furthermore, an entire species is even less of a closed system than an individual life form, and evolution occurs from one generation to the next, not in a single organism as it ages.

2. Complexity is not the destruction of disorder or the creation of order. In fact, there is more disorder in complex systems, as any student of chaos theory (or government bureacracies) can tell you. There is far more entropy in a nuclear power plant than there is in an ice cube, and a pretty snowflake has much more complexity than the drop of water from whence it came.

3. Physical laws apply all the time, to everybody, regardless of intent or intelligence. If the second law of thermodynamics truly prohibited the creation of complexity, then it wouldn't matter whether the complexity is created by "deliberate" acts or by random happenstance- it would be impossible in both cases. It is utterly unbelievable to me that creationist ignoramuses would interpret any physical law to only apply in the absence of deliberate intervention. No other physical laws of physics are interpreted to apply only in the absence of intelligent intervention- does gravity shut off when humans intervene?

This argument has been so thoroughly disproven, so many times in so many ways, that it's almost comical when people keep bringing it up. They might as well just tattoo their foreheads with the words "scientific ignoramus."

"By taking a random mixture of elements and analysing the probability of elements randomly forming into the correct combinations and orientations to make a simple amino acid, I can show that it is probabilistically impossible for the simplest amino acid to form, never mind the first living cell. Therefore, a Creator must have formed the first organisms, if not all of them."

This argument is invalid for the following reasons:

1. Spontaneous formation of amino and fatty acids has been observed in the laboratory, by subjecting an atmosphere of hydrogen, water vapour, ammonia and methane to electrical discharges and ultraviolet radiation. This simulates primeval Earth environmental conditions, therefore it is an observed fact, and not subject to debate.

2. Chemical reactions are not random! Elements only bond in certain combinations. Light a match in a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen, and countless trillions upon trillions of hydrogen and oxygen atoms will react to form H2O. Not H8O, and not H5O, but H2O. Purely random combinatorics are a completely invalid way of modelling chemical reactions.

3. The first living cell did not have to form from raw materials. It would have formed from more primitive components such as RNA, which was proposed many years ago as the first self-replicating molecule. It was even experimentally found to have catalytic capabilities for adding new nucleotides to the end of the chain or removing them, leading to the term "RNA World" to describe the origins of life. But even if RNA is not the candidate we're looking for, there is certainly no need to assume that the first organic self-replicators would have been full-blown single-celled organisms. The early self-replicators (such as RNA, if it was indeed the first self-replicator) would not have left fossils.

4. This entire attack is a red herring, because evolution theory and abiogenesis (the formation of organic self-replicators from simpler organic materials) are two completely different theories. Lumping them together is just as fallacious as lumping evolution theory with Big Bang theory. The process of evolution is heritable change in populations over multiple generations. Because the process of evolution requires multiple generations to occur, it cannot possibly happen before the first living organism! It doesn't kick in until after the first living organism already exists! Even if abiogenesis could be disproved, evolution theory would still be valid.

I should also note that this argument is generally coupled with the fallacious reasoning that "anything we don't understand is proof of divine intervention." Poorly understood phenomena are not invalidations of science- they are opportunities for scientific investigation. If we treat every gap in our understanding as proof of divine intervention, we would be no better than the tribal primitives who attributed divine intervention to everything from solar eclipses to rain. Visit the Probability page if you want to know more.

"Some older species fossils can be found on top of newer fossils. This inconsistency in your so-called 'progressionism' proves that creation theory is correct, since it means that all species were created at the same time."

More bad science, since this only occurs with animal remains that are on the surface. What happens is that severe erosion or a geological upheaval can occasionally expose strata bearing fossils, and of course, when Skippy the Dog runs away and dies near these old fossils, the "Young Earth Creationist" crowd immediately interprets this as disproof of the entire fossil record, the entire field of geology, the age of the Earth, etc.

As usual, their argument is based on ignorance of proper scientific method. This evidence would be disproof of the fossil record if it was impossible to rationalize its existence with that record. However, that is simply not the case. Geologists can examine patterns in the rock to determine whether a region is old or new, cross-cut, the result of upheaval, etc. It is the creationists who will look at a region, assume its age without using proper methodology, and then use fossil findings in that region to "disprove" geology and evolution theory.

"Evolution can explain changes in a species, but where does a whole new species come from? Speciation is the downfall of Evolution Theory!"

This is another case of creationists projecting their own pseudoscientific attitudes onto evolution theory. In this case, they are predisposed to believe that the creation of a species is a sudden, dramatic event at some fixed moment in time. One moment there's species A, and then the next moment there's species B. Much as God created Man from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib, they imagine that "evolutionists" describe evolution creating a man directly from an ape. But evolution theory does not work that way.

Speciation is not a sudden, miraculous transformation from one species to another. The way creationists envision evolution theory, a pregnant female ape went into labour one day and a human being popped out! It is a gross understatement to say that this is a misrepresentation of the truth. In reality, evolution theory merely proposes that a great many small changes eventually caused an animal population to become intersterile with its ancestors.

Of course, this would mean that there should be fossil evidence of various intermediate stages between successful species, and there is. Naturally, creationists explain all of the evidence away by pointing the finger at their favourite whipping boy: the global conspiracy of evil scientists, who work tirelessly to cover up the truth and fabricate false evidence. These people watch "X-Files" too damned much.

"I know we've observed micro-evolution, but what about macro-evolution? There is no evidence for macro-evolution!"

The creationist invention of the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is a good example of how they try to mutilate the terms of science to their own advantage. Biologists do not differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, any more than mathematicians differentiate between micro-addition and macro-addition.

Their argument that there is no evidence for "macroevolution" is ridiculous because "macroevolution" is simply the result of adding a lot of "microevolution" together, and "microevolution" is, by their own admission, completely supported by various forms of evidence.

The other problem for this argument is that there actually is evidence to directly support what they describe as "macroevolution", and it's called "the fossil record". It's evidence because it is consistent with prediction. Of course, that's not enough for the creationists- they demand direct observation of massive evolutionary change in living animals, even though they know that we would have to observe living animals for millions of years in order to obtain the evidence they seek. Can you see the problem with this demand? It's pretty obvious- they are deliberately asking for a form of evidence which is impossible to obtain (millions of years of direct observation), and ignoring a form of evidence (the fossil record) which is relatively easy to obtain.

The universe operates on tiny processes, affecting tiny particles, which add up in tremendous numbers to cause large changes. If someone is going to claim that a slow, steady process cannot create large-scale changes given sufficient time, he had better provide some evidence and reasoning, rather than simply stating it as a fact and demanding impossible forms of evidence to disprove it. Are we to assume that all gradual processes eventually hit "brick walls" and stop, for mysterious and unknown reasons?

Do we question tectonic plate theory on the basis that we've observed small-scale tectonic plate movement but not large-scale tectonic plate movement? Do we insist that no one should believe in tectonic plate theory until we've been able to observe it for millions of years, so we can see long-distance movements firsthand? Do we deny the possibility of large-scale rock erosion because we've only seen small scale rock erosion? Why would a gradual process like tectonic plate movement, rock erosion, or evolution suddenly stop after an arbitrary length of time? What would make it stop? Why make this ridiculous distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution?" Where is the line drawn between the two? What causes the barrier? These are questions that the creationists don't attempt to ask or answer, because like O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers, they're not serious about uncovering the truth. They just want to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a gullible audience.

The "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument is an example of creationists projecting their own mentality onto evolution, and then attacking the resulting strawman, ironically, for the very aspects that come from creationism. Creationism describes separate and distinct species: "each according to its kind". Creationists therefore make the same assumption: species are separate, indivisible, and disconnected. When they project this mentality onto evolution, they run into an obvious problem: there is no way for the process of evolution to "jump" over the invisible "barrier" between species. The problem is that they are assuming that this barrier exists! The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are not found in biology; they are creationist inventions. Gradual changes eventually add up, and can turn one species into two, or they can cause a species to change so much that it becomes a distinct species from its predecessors.

As a thought experiment, consider human beings. It is generally assumed that any male/female pair of healthy human beings can produce children. But biological reproduction is a complex process, and it requires great genetic commonality. We know that two modern human beings can produce children, but what about a modern woman and a man from ten thousand years ago? What about a modern woman and a man from fifty thousand years ago? Is there still enough genetic commonality? Species are not delineated by distinct, clear boundaries. Rather, they are defined by intersterility and overt physical characteristics, and there is no "barrier" between species for the process of evolution to hurdle.

[Aquinasfan]

Isolation is not a necessary condition. It only increases the chances that a beneficial mutation spreads to the whole population by reducing the size of the 'reproductively available' population.

How?

The problem remains: How does a member of the "daughter" species become "reproductively isolated" from the "parent species" without becoming "reproductively isolated" from the rest of the members of the "daughter species"?

There can only be two possibilities under evolutionary theory: either variation by micromutation or variation by simultaneous, favorable, comparable macromutations in two opposite-sex members of the daughter species.

[Junior]

Indeed you are. Now can you tell me how a part of the group (species) becomes geographically isolated from the rest of the group, substantially changes, becoming different in kind (i.e. "reproductively isolated") from the greater number of the same group (species) that didn't evolve? After all, by definition, one group must have mutated faster than the other group.

Okay. First things first. Geographical isolation happens all the time. Mountains may rise in the middle of a species' range; a river might split a population in twain; the isthmus of Panama even did a number on quite a few species.

Once the two or more populations no longer have contact with each other, any mutations which arise in one population stay in that particular population -- they do not get shared with the other populations and the populations become increasingly genetically divergent.

None of the groups is "mutating faster than the others" -- they are simply mutating differently. If, for instance, the environment inhabited by the lion's share of the population hasn't significantly changed for a long time, the population isn't likely to be too different from its ancestral population -- but the small group that got stuck in a rather different environment would have to change rapidly or face extinction. In this case, you'd have the mother and daughter species coexisting. Of course, when the population was split, the different subpopulations might find themselves in rather untenable environments and all the populations would be forced to adapt to local conditions or die off. In this case, the mother species disappears and is replaced by one or more daughter species.

The reason speciation occurs more rapidly if the isolated part of the species is small is that the genetic mutations move more rapidly through a small population than a large one, because the individual with the mutation represents a larger chunk of the breeding population.

Now note, none of this is going on in the blink of an eye -- It still takes generations for the genetic differences to render the resulting populations unable to interbreed. Only when looking back through the telescope of time do we get the impression it happened rapidly. The reality is it still took longer than most civilizations have existed to affect the changes that lead to speciation.

[Junior]

How could the "daughter" species produce creatures "reproductively isolated" from the "parent" species without being "reproductively isolated" from the other members of the "daughter" species, unless some members of the "daughter" species mutated favorably in the same way in the same generation?

Okay, I don't think we're making it as clear as we can. When a population splits initially, the two groups could still interbreed if they could just get together. If a mutation pops up in any of the subpopulations initially, it is not going to prevent the owner of the mutation from breeding with others lacking that mutation -- if it did, the mutation would disappear in that one generation. Therefore you do not need two organisms with the same mutation to produce viable offspring. Over succeeding generations the mutation will spread through the population as those without it die off and are replaced by those who have it. It is the accumulation of many mutations that eventually render one population incapable of interbreeding with another population -- it is not something that happens overnight. Remember, we are talking about MILLIONS of years; human civilization is only about 10,000 years old. A million years is 100 times this (humans could have gone from living in caves to walking on the Moon 100 times in this span of time). And we are talking about many millions of years. That is an incredibly long time during which, at any given moment changes are but teeny-tiny increments.

[VadeRetro]

Now can you tell me how a part of the group (species) becomes geographically isolated from the rest of the group, substantially changes, becoming different in kind (i.e. "reproductively isolated") from the greater number of the same group (species) that didn't evolve? After all, by definition, one group must have mutated faster than the other group.

One group is perhaps under more pressure. Let's take a hypothetical group of apelike creatures in East Africa. Their habitat is pretty much all jungle. Let's suppose some sort of barrier cuts part of it off from the rest.

Let's say a fault line shearing creates an increasingly high line of cliffs that leaves one population (to the west) sort of high and wet, in rain-forest rather like the original conditions.

East of the cliffs, the climate changes. The rain forest breaks up into pockets, with open grassland in between. For the forest apes that live in this section, it's a crisis of shrinking habitat. Every few generations, more trees die and more food supply disappears. Famine culls the eastern apes again and again.

West of the line, not much is happening. At any rate, not much fossilizes in highland jungle so we'd hardly know if it did.

In the east, the desperate apes experiment with wandering into the grass to scavenge, chasing the vultures from rotting meat. It's not much like the fruity diet they prefer, but it beats starving.

They quickly learn that large groups can chase the vultures or even a leopard off far more easily than just one. It also helps to carry sticks. Dragging the meat home can be a pain, but it helps if you can walk with just two legs.

Oddly enough, the smaller your group, the easier it is for you to adapt. Say, there are only a few in your little inbred pocket of forest cover. One gets a mutation that works. It's a scant few generations before everyone else has it.

Not all such little pocket populations on the edge of extinction can be expected to fight back, of course. Most probably go over the edge, but the ones that don't simply take over. When a population finds a really successful new adaptation, re-radiation takes place.

Meanwhile, west of the cliffs, the old population is still there and little changed. But now they look pretty different from the gracile, taller, upright-walking new population.

I suppose it couldn't really happen, of course, but it's a good hypothetical example of the kind of thing punk-eek is talking about.

[Junior]

punk eek was brought forward to explain: the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

Actually, it was hypothesized to explain the RELATIVE SCARCITY, not LACK of transitional fossils. There is a world of difference between the two concepts.

[Aquinasfan]

Things like wings don't just crop up over night. They are modifications of existing structures. They start out as something else and gradually change to accommodate new uses. For instance, the wing started out as a therapod foreleg.

I've heard the stories/theories. The only problem is the lack of these half-formed structures in the fossil record. That's what "fully-functional, integrated organisms" is all about. Every fossil that I've ever seen shows a creature that is a functioning whole. That is, all of its bodily systems (nervous, musculoskeletal, circulatory) correspond to its morphology and its purpose in its biological niche.

Similarly with the "just so" stories of eye development. The vision system of a planaria is suited for a planaria. The vision system for a squid is suited for a squid. And the vision system for a human being is suitable for a human being. None of these vision systems seems to be of "lesser or greater" development than the rest of the organism.

If every creature descended from some other creature, then the fossil record should be full of creatures with features that are "lesser or greater" than its other bodily systems/features/functions.

[VadeRetro]

The only problem is the lack of these half-formed structures [wings] >in the fossil record.

Gads! There is no making you see, is there? None.

I gave you the half-and-half claw-wing thing already.

Want to see an 80-percent-claw, 20-percent-wing thing?

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[Lev]

That is, all of its bodily systems (nervous, musculoskeletal, circulatory) correspond to its morphology and its purpose in its biological niche.

Could you define "correspond"? Do you mean any change in the size of the wing, for example, would make its owner unfit for its biological niche?

[VadeRetro]

[Dembski's longwinded fafflegab]

A totally inadequate response to my post to you. You would have done much better to simply post some examples of the things ID/creationism says should not be found.

Just two examples would be fine.

[VadeRetro]

Every fossil that I've ever seen shows a creature that is a functioning whole.

No it isn't. It's a fossil.

You've just about sunk into gore3000 territory already from a not-very-promising start. Read over what's been posted to you already.

Several posters have pointed out already that evolution does not predict a fossil record full of lop-sided, ill-adapted monsters. If you can't defend this strawman characterization, it's ridiculous to stop rejecting evidence while hiding behind it.

That's not what's going on here, so why pretend that it is?

[PatrickHenry]

The only problem is the lack of these half-formed structures in the fossil record.

There are living examples all over the place: penguins, bevers, manatees, wulruses, "walking" catfish, "flying" fish, sloths, etc. One could run all though the animal kingdom and point out all kinds of beasts with various oddities. What do you think a penguin's wing is all about? A bever's tail? The camel's hump? The pelican's pouch? Etc. All of these features are specialized adaptations from some earlier stock. Everything now alive is potentially in transition. That's how life is.

[VadeRetro]

penguins, bevers, manatees, wulruses, "walking" catfish, "flying" fish . . .

No! No! In Aquinas-speak, "transitional" = "non-viable mutant." If it's viable, it's not a transitional. That way, if it is a transitional, evolution still cannot have happened.

No wonder the guy likes Phil Johnson.

[Junior]

VadeRetro has a wonderful picture of the wing/arm of a therapod dinosaur. It's a real eye-opener. One need not really consider anything "half-formed" -- it does what it needs to do (be it simply assisting in climbing a tree) at the time it exists; simply because its descendents find a better use for the appendage later does not detract from its utility then.

Do you consider your back to be "half formed?" Honestly? Do you ever wonder why human beings suffer from back problems? Our backs are not fully developed for an upright stance. Our legs are pretty much nearly fully adapted (we do have problems with our knees which are related to this), and of course our arms are "fully adapted and integrated." Our backs, however, are no longer capable of supporting us horizontally, but are not quite up to supporting us vertically without problems. Who knows, with the passing of time maybe we'll outgrow this problem...

[Junior]

Similarly with the "just so" stories of eye development. The vision system of a planaria is suited for a planaria. The vision system for a squid is suited for a squid. And the vision system for a human being is suitable for a human being. None of these vision systems seems to be of "lesser or greater" development than the rest of the organism.

What if, for instance, squid were forced to operate during daylight hours (change of environment). After a bit, the squids eye would come to adapt to daylight existence. The reason these critters' eyes are perfect for their particular existences is that millions of years of environmental pressure and experimentation have hit upon the current setup. What these critters have now, however, may not be what their particular descendents need; there will be environmental pressures to change the way they look at the world (pun intended).

BTW, human eyes are not as suitable as you claim. Our ancestors did a lot of hunting and were constantly on the lookout for predators; their distance vision (and ours) was much more acute than their near vision. However, civilized man does more work up close to his eyes, and has little need for distance vision. Think about this as an environmental pressure.

[PatrickHenry]

Our legs are pretty much nearly fully adapted ...

There's a great deal about humans that is poorly developed -- so far, and which could therefore be considered transitional. Our eyes are very nice, as far as they go, but we are virtually blind to the full range of the electromagnetic spectrum. If we could see radar, radio, cosmic rays, etc. we could have learned much more about the world much faster. And it would have been very useful if we could see bacteria. Think of all the lives that might have saved. Our defective eyes really held us back.

Then there's the digestive system. Humans are terribly subject to (gasp!) constipation, a disorder which rarely affects our dogs, for example. This is because our internal intestinal configuration hasn't really adjusted yet to our upright posture. Our toes are a joke, when you take the time to think about them. Of what use is the little toe? Is it there only so your mother could play "this little piggy went to market ..."? A physician could go on and on with a list of our physiological imperfections. But this little sample should indicate that we are hardly a perfectly-formed species. Not yet. Maybe not ever.

[longshadow]

****Our legs are pretty much nearly fully adapted ... ****

A follow-up to that is one of "Physicist's" favorite points to folks hung up on the "just so" arguments: our legs are so perfectly adapted they are EXACTLY the right length to reach the ground. What are the odds of that?

[gore3000]

First off, there is no such thing as "devolution" (except a certain '80s pop band). Evolution simply means "change." The opposite of change is "stasis."

Playing with the meaning of words when shown that your example was wrong. Evolution is the addition of traits enabling a creature or a species to grow more complex. This is clearly necessary for evolutionary theory to be true since the only way the higher species could have evolved from single celled bacteria and lower species as Darwin and evolutionists say, is by adding new characteristics and more complexity.

Now taking away information, taking away capabilities, taking away complexity as in the example with vitamin c clearly could not be the path taken for more complex species. Therefore it is de-volution. And while it may not have been necessary all the time, it certainly would have made man and ape more fit for many environments in which vitamin c was not readily available. So here what we have is not only an example of de-volution but also an example of survival of the less fit.

[gore3000]

NO CLICK?

If you are too lazy to post it, I am sure it's not worth the bother. If you had a clear proof of macro-evolution you would post it without being asked a dozen times. In fact you would post it without being asked period.

Amazing how many excuses evoutionists make for not backing up their claims!

[gore3000]

Roman Catholic.

Interesting. I thought you were a deist because you seem to believe that God created the world and then went to sleep. So tell us, how do you reconcile your view that God does not interfere in His creation with the Bible? Certainly the Bible is the record of God's concern and interest in His creation.