18 creationist arguments debunked


This is brought to you by www.talkingorigins.org     So forgive the copy and paste here. They simply put this more clearly and scientifically then i possibly could. So enjoy. This is part of what convinced me that evolution was indeed sound science

1. “Where is the missing link/ transitional fossils?”

First of all, it should be noted that fossils are not easily found. They are rare, as general conditions do not always favor the formation of fossils. This being said, we actually have a HUGE number of transitional fossils and links between species. While it’s true that we won’t be able to find every single fossil for every single species that has ever existed, we have more than enough to accept the fossil record as extremely important evidence. An analogy would be this: ABCD_FGHIJK_MNO_QRST_VW_YZ. We have some blanks, but we can pretty much figure out which letters (or in evolution’s case, species containing certain traits) fit into these holes. Keep in mind that not having a perfectly complete fossil record is NOT evidence against evolution. It simply implies that there’s still room for improvement, and we still continue to fill in the blanks with new fossil finds. Here is a great reference with an enormous listing of different fossils and links: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

and here’s another: http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

and ::gasp:: here’s ANOTHER: http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

2. “My grandfather is not a monkey!"

It’s a common misconception to think that we directly came from monkeys. In reality, we actually share a common ancestor with apes (kind of like a family tree that branches off). To defend the claim that we share a common ancestor with apes, we have many evidences (such as the fossil record), but we have recently discovered two newer, amazing pieces of evidence. The first is that our chromosome pair #2 is consistent with the fusion of two ape chromosomes, and the second is a series of perfect matches between our endogenous retroviruses. The latter essentially proves ape common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt. You may not understand these two genetic terms, but these two videos do a very good job of explaining just how important these are for evolutionary theory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYzZOZxMw&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

3. “Evolution is *just* a theory!”

Evolution is a scientific theory. It is labeled as such for two reasons. The first reason is that it has accumulated so much scientific evidence defending the claim, that it has gone from being an unjustified hypothesis to a justifiable theory. A “scientific theory” is not the same as a “guess” or “hypothesis” (or a regular “theory” in layman’s terms). It is the official scientific explanation for a huge set of facts and evidence. Secondly, it is called a scientific theory because, by definition, it is possible for it to be falsified. If a piece of evidence were to contradict evolutionary theory, the current theory would be dismissed and discarded. This has never, ever happened. Ever. This should show just how powerful this scientific theory really is. It should be noted that other scientific theories that are just as widely accepted in the scientific community include gravity, cell theory, plate tectonics, the big bang theory, and the atomic theory. These are all scientific theories. Yes, gravity is on par with evolution. Too many people think that a scientific theory could potentially be raised to a higher level (*if only there were enough evidence *). There is NO higher level. For instance, a scientific theory does not have the potential to become a scientific law, because they are completely separate things. A scientific law is not above a scientific theory. A law is a principle or guideline to keep in mind (such as the laws of thermodynamics), whereas a theory is the best current explanation for a set of facts. A scientific theory is the highest possible achievement of science. Evolution is not *JUST* a theory… it is TRIUMPHANTLY a theory (http://notjustatheory.com/)

This site also gives very good explanations: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

4. “Evolution can’t be proven!”

I redirect you to my third misconception; theories, by definition, can’t be proven due to the fact that they are hypothetically falsifiable. For instance, if I held an apple in mid-air, and let go of it… and it didn’t fall, but just floated there… then I would have just falsified the theory of gravity. Similarly, if a scientist found that, on a genetic level, humans have more in common with oak trees than monkeys, it would falsify our nested hierarchies and evolutionary chain. These things have never happened.

5. “Evolution is wrong because the fossils indicate a young earth.”

The young earth argument basically says that if the earth is 10,000 years old (or less), then evolution simply would not have had enough time to run its course (which is true). However, an old earth (billions of years old) is accepted due to radiometric dating (not just carbon dating) and is mathematically and scientifically sound. Many people who say, “well this organism was dated to be two million years old when in reality it was only fifty years old” don’t realize that certain isotopes can only accurately date certain eras (based on their half-lives). For instance, carbon dating is very accurate for things that have been around for the past 10,000 years, but not to date things millions of years old (and so scientists use other isotopes for the older stuff). Here’s a site about which isotopes are used to date back to which eras (and more general information about radiometric dating): http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2019

We can also check these dates against other dating methods, which include varve counting, pollen analysis, ice core dating, tree ring dating (dendrochronology), coral dating, fluorine testing, thermoremanent magnetism, thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, cosmic-ray exposure tests, and more. We have more than enough ways to date fossils AND eliminate any large inaccuracies. Whether a fossil is 37 million years old or 39 million years old is hardly something to lose sleep over. Most dating methods give ranges, anyway.

6. “Evolution is wrong because fossils are consistent with a global flood.”

This argument from ignorance actually amazes me. All fossils found in the same era are found in the same layer of earth. Older fossils are found in lower strata, while newer fossils are found closer to the surface. It’s as simple (and logical) as that. The only initially-puzzling special case is when we find older fossils on mountain tops… however, this is because of how those specific mountains were formed (two earth plates pushing against one another for millions of years caused the mountains to form; the earth used to be flatter way back in the day). For a global flood to be correct, ALL fossils from ALL species of living things would need to be found in the same layer of earth (whenever the global flood occurred); that means that you should be able to find a human’s skeleton next to a dinosaur’s. This has never been the case. Ever. Furthermore, here is a video that explains a logical alternative to the “global flood” myth, which is often created due to the Biblical flood story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq0dBFqJZc0

7. “What about Noah’s Ark?”

This is similar to number six. This is also where it gets ugly, when people try to mix religion with science. You simply can’t do that. Religion is faith-based, whereas science is evidence-based. There is no proof that the Ark was real, or that there ever was a global flood. Since this is such a weak argument against evolution (there are actually many ways to disprove the global flood myth from a scientific standpoint, including the facts that the food/waste for/from every animal could not also fit onto the ark, plus carnivorous animals would eat the other animals, plus all of the plants on earth would die of drowning, plus all of the saltwater fish would have died due to the freshwater rain changing the ocean’s salinity, plus the fact that the animals would have had to carry all of the viruses and bacteria, plus apparently rabbits decided not to “screw like rabbits” for a whole year, plus the fossil record disproves it… but I digress), I’m just going to cut to the chase and post a video that shows one example of irrefutable scientific evidence (the bottlenecking of the cheetah) against the Noah’s Ark/global flood claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50

8. “I believe in Intelligent Design.”

Quite frankly, you shouldn’t believe in Intelligent Design (the umbrella hypothesis that includes Creationism). That’s the problem right there. It is unfortunate for those who like the idea of ID, because not a single shred of evidence has been presented to defend this hypothesis. The foundation of ID is Irreducible Complexity, and every supposed “example” of this has been found out to not apply. Exactly what things ID and IC claim are explained in the following video. Here is an example of the main argument for IC (and it’s debunking), the Bacterial Flagellum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

ID doesn’t impress the scientific community (the people who matter when it comes to facts and evidence) because there is no logical reason to believe in it.

9. “Evolution contradicts God’s existence… and… therefore, science is wrong."

Besides being a clearly illogical argument, I’d like to say: Nope. It does not. Evolution (and science, in general) says NOTHING about the existence of God. Evolution and the rest of science are SECULARIST, not ATHEISTIC. It may disagree with the Creation story in the Bible’s Genesis chapter, but it does not, in any way, falsify or contradict the concept of a general deity. It is possible for God to exist with the intent of creating the universe in such a way that this scientific process of evolution could have run its course (I recommend looking up the very smart and *safe* religion of Deism). Therefore, God and evolution can both exist. Of course, it should be noted that possibility is very different than probability. Quite frankly, Christians should be relieved that science is incapable of disproving God, or else evolution would be proof that their deity can’t exist (based on Biblical claims)

10. “There’s evidence for micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.”

This is actually just plain false, but allow me to first explain the terms. Many people choose only to note the tiny steps (a mutation here, a new function there) and thus believe that only micro-evolution occurs and not macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are terms used by IDers to try to weasel their way around the truth of evolution. Micro-evolution is supposed to be changes within a species, while macro-evolution means changes that connect one species to another. In reality, scientists decide when enough small changes have been generated (usually through multiple generations) to label a new organism as a new species. Evolution is evolution, period. Skeptics need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We all know that micro-evolution is observable and testable. A very simple and common example of this is the fact that every few years we need brand new flu vaccines; viruses and bacteria often evolve rapidly and overcome our current treatments. You USUALLY won’t witness a macro-evolutionary step in your lifetime, because a macro-evolutionary step could take tens of thousands of years to occur. However, one macro-evolutionary step could be the same as a hundred micro-evolutionary steps, and a few of those we CAN see in our lifetime. Looking back on our fossil records, we see all of the tiny steps (through our transitional fossils) and then choose to label a certain group of them as a single macro-evolutionary step. Here’s an analogy:

AARDVARK (original word)

AASDVARK (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

AASDVARL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

AASDBARL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

AASEBARL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

AASEBALL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

BASEBALL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter; new word )

To go from AARDVARK to BASEBALL, six micro-steps took place in between the two real words. However, the first six “words” could be labeled as A-species, while the last word could be labeled as a new B-species (based off of the first letter of each “word”). Therefore, A-species to B-species could be considered a macro-evolutionary step, while the little “in-between” steps are micro-evolutionary.

Another very simple word analogy is this: Accepting micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is like accepting that seconds exist but not whole minutes.

***It should be noted that macro-evolution HAS been observed. Unique polyploidy generations result in speciation (which is the same as macro-evolution) due to there being more than the expected two homologous sets of chromosomes. This occurs more frequently in plants than animals. Here’s a reference regarding examples of unique polyploidy types and hybridization (as well as other examples): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

The REASON this is an example of macro-evolution is because there are certain unique and beneficial capabilities that polyploidy organisms have over organisms with only two homologous sets of chromosomes. This is why they are classified differently. However, we have found that sometimes the latter organisms can produce offspring that (through mutations) have the polyploidy characteristic. Therefore, we have witnessed macro-evolution.

Allow me to give some examples and references to back up my claim (as it is ALWAYS important when discussing science):

"Ultrafrequent establishment of poly- ploidy in the homosporous Pteridophy- ta appears to be necessary to create and maintain genetic variation in the face of the homozygotizing effects of habitual self-fertilization in the monoe- cious gametophytes of these plants."


"Somatic polyploidy, defined as genome multiplication, was found in all differentiated mammalian tissues. The highest level of such a polyploidy was found in the myocardium. This phenomenon was shown to be associated with changes in the pattern of gene expression. Hence, polyploidization may create cells with new physiology. ... Thus, we suppose that additional genomes may serve for cardiomyocyte protection from oxidative damage in the hearts."


Check out this abstract as well (I can’t copy/paste this one, sorry guys): http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.07.110176.001233?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ecolsys.1

If anyone ever says that macro-evolution has never been observed, you can safely correct them.***

11. “Evolution doesn’t explain how the very first living thing came about.”

It’s not supposed to. Evolution is the study of how living organisms have changed throughout history. Evolutionary theory does NOT deal with how the first living organism came from non-life. This is a separate scientific field of study, know as Abiogenesis. Evolution and Abiogenesis do not rely on one another. Whether the first living organism came from self-replicating RNA or proteins or amino acids or Zeus or Thor or the Christian God does NOT affect the fact that we have substantial evidence for evolution. Abiogenesis contains hypotheses, but is currently not up to “scientific theory” status. However, it should be noted that we HAVE created life from non-life. We know that Abiogenesis is an absolute possibility (though we’re not 100% positive if this first experiment is the correct one, which is why it is not yet a scientific theory): http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/harvard-team-cr.html

12. “You can’t prove that God simply didn’t set up everything to fool us!”

This is true. God could have planted every single fossil correctly, decided (unimaginatively) that all living things should be connected genetically, and every other fact we have for evidence could have been a front for a designer. Most people believe in some sort of God; however, most of them do NOT believe in a deceitful one. Based on facts, evidence, observations, experiments, logic, and common sense, there is no reason to believe that evolution is incorrect, or a trick devised by a deceptive deity. Genetics can tell us who our mum is just like genetics can tell us who our grandparents are and (if we go back far enough, which doesn’t make it any less accurate) we can also find out other ancestors (species-wise). In the Creationist line of thinking (doubt EVERYTHING in light of obvious evidence), one couldn't even prove that you're related to your mum! Even when she was pregnant with you, the fact that you look like your mum and have her DNA and genetic make-up CLEARLY only says that God implanted an intelligently designed fetus inside of her to make you APPEAR to be related Come on now. This isn’t logical or scientific, and it shows that some people are simply grasping at straws.

13. “All of the alternatives should be taught in the classroom anyway. Everyone has a right to speak their minds. Let the children decide for themselves. It’s only FAIR.”

This obviously is not even an argument against evolution, but an argument to try and convince an audience that science is subjective. This argument, however, presents the dangerous fact that some people want unscientific hypotheses (or possibly even religion) taught in science class. This is terrible, and must be stopped at all costs. There is no scientific alternative to evolution. There is no controversy. Intelligent Design/Creationism does not impress the scientific community, because it is a religious belief system and it has no evidence behind it. Teaching science in schools is not about freedom of speech or ideas. It’s about teaching what we know is correct. In fact, there are many instances where education is simply NOT open for interpretation. Should a math teacher say, “If you WANT, you can believe that a triangle has four sides?” NO. Should an English teacher say, “If you WANT, you can say ‘I brang my lunch to school,’ instead of ‘brought’?” NO. Should parents say to small children, I want you to go to bed at nine o'clock and always do your homework... but it's up to YOU to make the final decision on those things ? NO. Using this faulty argument, we should also teach that since gravity is also *just a theory*, we should encourage children to jump off cliffs so that they can make their OWN decisions on whether or not to accept it as truth. Remember, evolution is on par with gravity (they’re both at the status of “scientific theory”… neither have ever been disproven, and both properly explain all of the facts). It's NOT up to the children to decide. It's up to the experts. It's up to the scientists and the teachers. Parents and other adults need to set a good example for children. Teaching ignorant alternatives is not healthy, and it will, quite frankly, screw up the next generation. The concept of fairness may seem appealing, but this extremely short video will explain how teaching ID (or other unscientific alternatives) in classrooms is anything BUT fair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc

14. “A butterfly is a butterfly is a butterfly.”

This is the argument that a butterfly will only give birth to a butterfly (or that a dog will never give birth to a “non-dog”). Popularized by Kent Hovind, this argument against evolution actually defies the very definitions of evolution, speciation, and macro-evolution. I will use the butterfly scenario. An animal is considered a butterfly if it falls into Kingdom Animalia + Phylum Arthropoda + Class Insecta + Order Lepidoptera + any number of Families ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly ).

This being said, there are still smaller classifications (Genus and Species), ALL of which are still considered butterflies . This means that a butterfly parent could hypothetically even have an offspring in a different GENUS (not just Species) and it STILL wouldn't fall under the ridiculous ID goalpost-moving fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost ).

You might as well move the goalposts all the way back from the get-go and say evolution hasn't occurred because animals only give birth to animals .

15. "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics."

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body. [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the second law is phrased in another equivalent way, The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always ) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the second law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the second law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the second law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"


16. “Darwin recanted his belief in his own evolutionary theory when he was on his deathbed.”

This is a misconception taken grossly out of context. The backstory here is that a woman named Elizabeth Cotton (also known as Lady Hope) visited Darwin when he was nearing the end of his life. The following is taken from a website that is famous for its ANTI-evolutionary and pro-Biblical literalist opinions:

“Further, it is fascinating what Lady Hope’s story does not say. It does not say that Darwin renounced evolution. It merely says that Darwin speculated over the outcome of his ideas. He never backed away from evolution. Nor does the Lady Hope story say that Darwin actually became a Christian.”


And, of course, pro-evolution websites explain the same thing (such as http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html). Lady Hope actually visited Darwin months before he died, and she wasn’t even with him when he was on his deathbed. Most importantly, even if this whole fairy tale were true, it would not make evolutionary theory any less valid If Newton had renounced his scientific views on his deathbed, he wouldn’t have flown into the ceiling.

17. “Mutations never provide *new* genetic information.”

This is a very common misconception, and probably one of the funniest arguments ever; EVERY mutation technically provides new information.

If a base pair is inserted, then that's the addition of new information.

If a base pair is removed, then the resulting shift from the rest of the bases in the sequence causes new information.

If base pairs are switched, then that's new information also.

In every single mutation, new triples emerge. Therefore, there is always new information.

Let's say we start with: ...-ATA-CGC-ATA-CGC-...

Insertion of C between first T and second A: ...-ATC-ACG-CAT-ACG-C...

Deletion of first G: ...-ATA-CCA-TAC-GC...

Switching second A with first C: ...-ATC-AGC-ATA-CGC-...

As you can see, regardless of what mutation occurs, new triples form. This means that new information is being processed. To say that no new information ever occurs due to mutations could not be more wrong; new information ALWAYS forms due to mutations.

Finally, here is a huge reference defending the entire scientific theory of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Only 2% of scientists even consider Intelligent Design as a HYPOTHESIS (not even close to a scientific theory), which is about the same percentage of geologists who consider the possibility of a flat earth (check out the Flat Earth Society if you want a few good laughs). There will ALWAYS be a small group of people who refuse to accept facts that may go against personal belief. It's called denial. The other 98% of the scientific community recognize evolutionary theory (and, in the analogy, a round earth) as truth. If the experts accept evolution as the prominent, unifying biological theory, why should the less-educated disagree? It’s always good to be initially skeptical and ask questions (this is how science progesses), but it should be painfully obvious that scientific theories have already gone through rigorous processes (make sure you watched the short video at the end of misconception thirteen). There is an abundance of evidence for evolution; there is none against it (or for any alternative). There is no controversy. It’s vital that we silence the myths and correct the misconceptions. Personally, I’d like to stick twenty Creationists in a room with twenty tigers and show them that survival of the fittest really DOES work… but as for right now, I’ll stick to the Facebook debates.

18. “Evolution is wrong because of the Piltdown Man, Haeckel’s Embryos, or any other famous scientific hoax!”

Like other areas of science, evolutionary theory has had its fair share of greedy scientists who fabricate finds and make up data in poor attempts to gain a quick path to fame and fortune. However, it has always been the case that, through peer review, OTHER scientists have discovered the occasional forgery and refuted it. Science is, after all, self-checking. The rare fake does NOT discredit the hundreds of thousands of other genetic, geological, and biological facts that all agree with one another and validate evolutionary theory. Besides, there have been plenty of fake religious propaganda and forgeries as well (Paluxy tracks, Peter Popoff, Shroud of Turin, Kinderhook plates, etc.); you wouldn’t want us saying that your entire religion is false just because some religious fundamentalists fabricated “evidence” to further THEIR own agendas, now would you?


Some one on facebook posted an interesting point i would like to share with every one here.

In regards to point one Ian, I would like to add the tid-bit that individual species also change over time. For example, T-rex’s skull changed over its time on the earth to allow for better binocular vision, older skulls have been shown to have worse binocular vision than ‘newer’ ones.

The term "transitional fossil" in itself is a bit confusing because it implies to the layman that there is going to be a creature out there that is a "perfect half" that we can dig up. This isn't always the case.

Point #10 has a simple analogy.  I would like to comment.
Ian wrote

AARDVARK (original word)
AASDVARK (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)
AASDVARL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)
AASDBARL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)
AASEBARL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)
AASEBALL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)
BASEBALL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter; new word)”


Let’s look at this analogy a little deeper.









There are 25 possible mutations in the 1st position.  Furthermore








There are 25 possible mutations in the 2nd position.  In fact all eight positions have 25 possible mutations.

25 x 8 means that there are 400 possible point mutations.  Only one of these is a recognizable word in English (The cell ‘speaks’ English in this analogy-if you disagree this is fair, than let us add the Japanese, Chinese, cuneiform, etc., symbols also). So the 399 are harmful mutations that have caused the organism to have a defective protein.


To get to BASEBALL would have the same odds at each step.  400 x 6 steps would mean three things.  The odds are 1:2400 against. Furthermore, five generations would have to survive with a defective protein in order for the AARDVARK protein to evolve into the BASEBALL protein.  Worst the word AARDVARK has a different purpose than the word BASEBALL.  I will argue also that it is likely the 6th generation also has a defective protein.  The BASEBALL protein might work in some places in the body, but the biological cycle that receives this protein from biological signaling processes is expecting and needing AARDVARK proteins.



Ian wrote

17. “Mutations never provide *new* genetic information.”
This is a very common misconception, and probably one of the funniest arguments ever; EVERY mutation technically provides new information.

If a base pair is inserted, then that's the addition of new information.
If a base pair is removed, then the resulting shift from the rest of the bases in the sequence causes new information.
If base pairs are switched, then that's new information also.
In every single mutation, new triples emerge. Therefore, there is always new information.
(a) Let's say we start with: ...-ATA-CGC-ATA-CGC-...
(b) Insertion of C between first T and second A: ...-ATC-ACG-CAT-ACG-C...
(c) Deletion of first G: ...-ATA-CCA-TAC-GC...
(d) Switching second A with first C: ...-ATC-AGC-ATA-CGC-...

As you can see, regardless of what mutation occurs, new triples form. This means that new information is being processed. To say that no new information ever occurs due to mutations could not be more wrong; new information ALWAYS forms due to mutations.”


Let’s look a little more carefully what is being said. 


(a) DNA code ‘…ATA-CGC-ATA-CGC…’ translates to the RNA code of ‘…UAU-GCG-UAU-GCG…’ which will create part of a protein reading ‘…Try-Ala-Try-Ala…’ which is ‘…tyrosine-alanine-tyrosine-alanine…’.


(b) ‘…ATC-ACG-CAT-ACG-C…’ will be ‘UAU-UGC-GUA-UGC-C’ = ‘…tyrosine-cysteine-valine-cysteine-?-+more effects...’ (? = either leucine, proline, histidine, glutamine, or arginine) (additionally because the number of residues changed by +1, then every triplet after this subset will be changed including start and stop commands.  This will probably drastically change the shapes and functions of numerous proteins for the worse.  With luck this will only kill this cell; however, some proteins are excreted outside the cell.) 


(c) ‘…ATA-CCA-TAC-GC…’ will be ‘UAU-GGU-AUG-CG’ =   ‘…tyrosine-glycine-methionine-arginine+ more effects…’ (Like (b) above, the number of residues has changed by +2, which will change every triplet after this subset including start and stop commands.)


(d) ‘…ATC-AGC-ATA-CGC-…’ will be ‘UAG-UCG-UAU-GCG’ = ‘…STOP COMMAND-serine-tyrosine-alanine…’


Are these trivial changes?


Here are the primary structures of these amino acids in order of appearance of the example given:

1.     Tyrosine is a hydrophilic group with a toluene (-CH2-benzyl-hydroxide) attached.  (C7OH7)

2.     Alanine is a hydrophobic group with a methyl (-CH3) attached to the central carbon in amino acid group (amino-C-carboxyl) (NH3-C-CO2).

3.     Cysteine is a hydrophilic group with a methyl-sulfyl attached (-CH-SH).  This group usually forms sulfide bonds in the protein’s secondary structure (local folding); tertiary structure (whole protein shape); or quaternary structure (co-protein associations).

4.     Valine is a hydrophobic group with an isopropyl (-CH(CH3)2) attached.

5.     Glycine is a hydrophilic group with hydrogen attached.

6.     Methionine is a hydrophobic group with a –methyl-methyl-sulfide-methyl (-CH2-CH2-S-CH3).  This group forms sulfide bonds (see cysteine above).  

7.     Arginine is a basic group (also hydrophilic) with a –methyl-methyl-methyl-amine-carbon-diamine (-(CH2)3-NH-C-(NH2)2H with a + charge).

8.     The STOP command tells the protein reading to stop copying.  It is a signal that the protein is complete.

9.     Serine is a hydrophilic group with a –methyl-hydroxide (-CH2OH).

Hydrophobic groups with tend to bury themselves into the protein and away from the aqueous (watery) cell plasma.  Hydrophilic groups will be less stable inside the protein and will tend to pull away from the inside of the protein and toward the cell plasma.  Basic and acidic groups are hydrophilic, only more so, and need water molecules to stabilize them.  These trends along with special folding proteins will make the protein fold into its proper secondary and tertiary shapes.  The special folding proteins can be as specific as the newly built protein and may have to be manufactured just prior.

From (a) to (b):  tyrosine-alanine-tyrosine-alanine to tyrosine-cysteine-valine-cysteine-?-+more effects...

I.              Alanine to cysteine:  We have mutated a small hydrophobic group to a larger hydrophilic group (SH is a much larger atom pair than the H replaced).  Additional problem are created by switching the water attraction.  This new protein with tend to pull the chain at that location away from the center where the original protein should be and it will try to alter the secondary and tertiary structures of the protein.  The S will also seek S-S bonds with other cysteine/methionine groups on the same chain or another which will also alter the secondary, tertiary, and/or quaternary structures.

II.             Tyrosine to valine: We have mutated a small hydrophobic group to a much larger hydrophilic group (Cx3 to Cx7 + Ox1.  Oxygen is larger. Hydrogens are small and will be ignored).  In addition to the water attraction problems discussed above, the tyrosine group tends to occupy a much planer space.  It will take less space side-to-side but be longer away from the backbone of the chain due to the aromatic character of the benzyl double bonds.

III.            Alanine to cysteine:  Read first point (I) and double the issue.

IV.            +more effects:  The effects of altering every amino acid after due to adding a base pair in the DNA is already briefly mentioned in (b) above.

From (a) to (c): tyrosine-alanine-tyrosine-alanine to tyrosine-glycine-methionine-arginine+ more effects

I.              Alanine to glycine:  Again we changed from hydrophobic to hydrophilic with the same problems mentioned above.  In this case we moved to a smaller group which, with the water attraction effects, could cause the protein to be less filled on the inside then it should be for optimum effects.  This size difference is probably the smallest size difference possible when changes amino acid groups and might be the most possible if it weren’t for the water attraction issue already explained. 

II.             Tyrosine to methionine:  This time we have gone from a hydrophilic group to a hydrophobic group. The hydrophobic group with pull the once optimum chain into itself trying to pull away from the watery cell plasma.  Additionally the S will seek other S atoms inside the protein.  If it finds once the protein chain will be locked with more energy, folded on itself, and less mandible.  The larger, rigid, planar, and hydrophilic group is exchanged for a flexible hydrophobic group.  The rigid group was needed in higher (secondary+) structure which is now lost.

III.             Alanine to arginine:  This change is a small, hydrophobic group to a large, flexible, and very hydrophilic group.  The terminal diamine will be exchanging hydrogens so rapidly in the cell plasma that it will be hard to keep them inside the protein where the alanine should have the chain pulled.

IV.            +more effects:  same as above.

From (a) to (d):  tyrosine-alanine-tyrosine-alanine to STOP COMMAND-serine-tyrosine-alanine

I.              Tyrosine to STOP:  Protein is terminated.  I hope it can function without the rest.

II.             Alanine to serine:  A smaller, hydrophobic group to a larger hydrophilic group.  I hope it can function correctly as a protein, gene switch, or whatever it’s function.  It was cut off.

Which mutation do you hope your children get?  This is just looking at structure.  I alluded to function in my comments about #10.  This protein will be tagged with a smaller protein.  This smaller protein is a label that tells transport proteins where in the cell to send it.  If you change the function of a protein and it still goes where the old protein did, then what use it is.  Thankfully, the body has repair proteins and cycles to reduce the number of mutations so that these above examples are very rare indeed.  Still, we are copies of copies of copies….of a nearly perfect DNA.  The errors are building, animals are going extinct, and genetic diseases keep cropping up.  We are observing degeneration not neo-generation in the DNA.  Let me ask a foolish rhetoric question:  why not add mutagenic chemicals to drinking water to help us evolve?  Mutations are not creative.  They are destructive. 


Information is not a raw measure of symbols.  Adding static to a radio transmission is not adding information.  Sure there are new noises, but no new information.  Adding random command words to my Windows 2003 program code will not eventually make Windows 2007 applications.  Another analogy:

1.     The brown fox at the tree jumped over the fence.

2.     I witnessed a fox. It was brown. It was beside a tree and jumped over a fence, presumably nearby or at least in sight. 

Number one and two have roughly the same information, yet #2 has 15 more words and 74 more characters.  I did not improve the information.  In fact #1 is a much more efficient way to provide that information.  Information content is not measured in the amount of raw, space-filling symbols.  It is measured in a more abstract and subjective way.  The efficiency of the language is one way to measure the intelligence of the source of information.  DNA coding of protein and gene switches is a very, very efficient way of reading and using information.  Adding static to it does not improve the efficiency.

3.     Thee browne foxe ate thee treee jumpede overe thee fencee.

I added 10 symbols to #1, but I decreased the information.  ‘Thee’ changed function to a different meaning (definite article to an older English pronoun).  ‘Browne’ is an older spelling maybe.  ‘Foxe’ may or may not be recognizable.  ‘Ate’ changed from a proposition to a verb.  Etc.,.  This last sentence is not sensible even though I added lost of symbols.  Did the fox eat a person-‘browne foxe ate thee’?  And is there is missing punctuation with another sentence about something?  Just like this will not work in an English class, you cannot just change DNA any way you want to and expect the cell to be able to make use of it.  

I have friends that play the lottery.  How much do have won?  This always gets an answer similar to ‘One time I won…’.  I never ask the follow-up because I do not wish to hurt their feelings:  ‘How much did you spend before you won?’  Since they are never richer and I know they play every week I know the answer might embarrass them.  You can believe that multitudes of damaging mutations with the occasional helpful (maybe) mutation will eventually improve the genome if you want.  I won’t ask any more embarrassing questions about your beliefs.  I am not buying it.


Why not? Are you saying that no matter how many helpful mutations there are, it will somehow fail anyway? We all know that deer occasionally have bigger horns than normal, or are faster than normal, or stronger than normal. We also know that these traits can be passed on to their descendants. Thus, evolution happens.

And yet, the mutations shown here do not count as mutations for some reason.

Here's an interested reply to a creationist who flat out argues the same stupid comments. "This response was so good i had to post it here.

"You can never have improvements from destorted information. Thus Mutants can not account for evolution."

^ Idiot liar

"Nowhere in the Universe do things get better or improve. Everything is winding down, our earth at alarming rates thus the fragile ecosystem."

^ You're right. Our population is dropping as life expectancies decrease, technology is becoming more primitive, the earth is shrinking, plants now die when you water them, and a huge black hole just appeared in the sky.

1.) Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.

A single clone of E. coli was cultured at 37 C (that is 37 degrees Celsius) for 2000 generations. A single clone was then extracted from this population and divided into replicates that were then cultured at either 32 C , 37 C, or 42 C for a total of another 2000 generations. Adaptation of the new lines was periodically measured by competing these selection lines against the ancestor population. By the end of the experiment, the lines cultured at 32 C were shown to be 10% fitter that the ancestor population (at 32 C), and the line cultured at 42 C was shown to be 20% more fit than the ancestor population. The replicate line that was cultured at 37 C showed little improvement over the ancestral line.
Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30.

2.) Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas.

Chlamydomonas is a unicellular green algae capable of photosynthesis in light, but also somewhat capable of growth in the dark by using acetate as a carbon source. Graham Bell cultured several clonal lines of Chlamydomonas in the dark for several hundred generations. Some of the lines grew well in the dark, but other lines were almost unable to grow at all. The poor growth lines improved throughout the course of the experiment until by 600 generations they were well adapted to growth in the dark. This experiment showed that new, beneficial mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the complete absence of light.

3.) Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas

Bell also selected clonal lines of Chlamydomonas for size by passing cultures through a fine filter and discarding the cells that were not retained on the filter. He reports that although this method was not very effective at retaining the largest cells (due to inconsistencies in the filter pore size), after forty generations of this selection technique, the cell diameter had increased by an average of about 1 phenotypic standard deviation.
4.) Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast

P.E. Hansche and J.C. Francis set up chemosats to allow evolution of a single clonal line of beer yeast in a phosphate limited (due to high pH) environment. (A chemostat is a device that allows the propagation of microorganisms in an extremely constant environment.) The yeast clones grew slowly for about the first 180 generations when there was an abrupt increase in population density. This was later shown to be due to better assimilation of the phosphate, presumably due to an improvement in the permease molecule. (Permease is an enzyme that controls what is allowed to come into the cell through the yeast's cell membrane.) After about 400 generations, a second improvement in cell growth rates occurred because of a mutation to the yeast's phosphatase (an enzyme that improves the cells ability to use phosphate). The phosphatase became more active overall, and its optimal pH (the pH where it is most active) was raised. Finally, a third mutant appeared after 800 generations that caused the yeast cells to clump. This raised the population density in the chemostat because individual cells were no longer being washed out of chemostat (which is one of the methods that the chemostat uses to maintain very uniform conditions) as quickly as they had prior to the mutation. (This is just speculation on my part, but I wonder if it wasn't under some similar conditions that multi-cellularity became favored over unicellularity - perhaps on a sea bed or river bottom.)
This experiment was repeated, and the same mutations occurred, but in different orders. Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase. This is experimental evidence of an extremely important mechanism in evolutionary history! It is also a particularly elegant experiment because not only was all of this adaptation shown to occur in clonal lines (descended from a single individual), but the authors also determined the exact mutations that caused the improved adaptations by sequencing the genes and proteins involved.

Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1972) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 70: 59-73.

Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1973) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. II. A repeatable adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 74:259-265.

Hansche, P.E. (1975) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 79: 661-674.

These examples are not from Bell's book:

5.) Evidence of genetic divergence and beneficial mutations in bacteria after 10,000 generations

Papadopoulos, D., Schneider, D., Meier-Eiss, J., Arber, W., Lenski, R. E., Blot, M. (1999). Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation
experiment with bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96: 3807-3812
Edited by John R. Roth, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, and approved February 3, 1999 (received for review July 21, 1998)

Molecular methods are used widely to measure genetic diversity within populations and determine relationships among species. However, it is difficult to observe genomic evolution in action because these dynamics are too slow in most organisms. To overcome this limitation, we sampled genomes from populations of Escherichia coli evolving in the laboratory for 10,000 generations. We analyzed the genomes for restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) using seven insertion sequences (IS) as probes; most polymorphisms detected by this approach reflect rearrangements (including transpositions) rather than point mutations. The evolving genomes became increasingly different from their ancestor over time. Moreover, tremendous diversity accumulated within each population, such that almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint after 10,000 generations. As has been often suggested, but not previously shown by experiment, the rates of phenotypic and genomic change were discordant, both across replicate populations and over time within a population. Certain pivotal mutations were shared by all descendants in a population, and these are candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find. More generally, these data show that the genome is highly dynamic even over a time scale that is, from an evolutionary perspective, very brief.

6.) Adaptation of yeast to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection

When microbes evolve in a continuous, nutrient-limited environment, natural selection can be predicted to favor genetic changes that give cells greater access to limiting substrate. We analyzed a population of baker's yeast that underwent 450 generations of glucose-limited growth. Relative to the strain used as the inoculum, the predominant cell type at the end of this experiment sustains growth at significantly lower steady-state glucose concentrations and demonstrates markedly enhanced cell yield per mole glucose, significantly enhanced high-affinity glucose transport, and greater relative fitness in pairwise competition. These changes are correlated with increased levels of mRNA hybridizing to probe generated from the hexose transport locus HXT6. Further analysis of the evolved strain reveals the existence of multiple tandem duplications involving two highly similar, high-affinity hexose transport loci, HXT6 and HXT7. Selection appears to have favored changes that result in the formation of more than three chimeric genes derived from the upstream promoter of the HXT7 gene and the coding sequence of HXT6. We propose a genetic mechanism to account for these changes and speculate as to their adaptive significance in the context of gene duplication as a common response of microorganisms to nutrient limitation.
Brown CJ, Todd KM, Rosenzweig RF (1998) Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998 Aug;15(8):931-42 Nature 387, 708 - 713 (1997)

7.) Molecular evidence for an ancient duplication of the entire yeast genome


Gene duplication is an important source of evolutionary novelty. Most duplications are of just a single gene, but Ohno proposed that whole-genome duplication (polyploidy) is an important evolutionary mechanism. Many duplicate genes have been found in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and these often seem to be phenotypically redundant. Here we show that the arrangement of duplicated genes in the S. cerevisiae genome is consistent with Ohno's hypothesis. We propose a model in which this species is a degenerate tetraploid resulting from a whole-genome duplication that occurred after the divergence of Saccharomyces from Kluyveromyces. Only a small fraction of the genes were subsequently retained in duplicate (most were deleted), and gene order was rearranged by many reciprocal translocations between chromosomes. Protein pairs derived from this duplication event make up 13% of all yeast proteins, and include pairs of transcription factors, protein kinases, myosins, cyclins and pheromones. Tetraploidy may have facilitated the evolution of anaerobic fermentation in Saccharomyces.

8.) Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene.
Hall BG, Zuzel T
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1980 Jun 77:6 3529-33

Mutations that alter the ebgA gene so that the evolved beta-galactosidase (ebg) enzyme of Escherichia coli can hydrolyze lactose fall into two classes: class I mutants use only lactose, whereas class II mutants use lactulose as well as lactose. Neither class uses galactosylarabinose effectively. In this paper we show that when both a class I and a class II mutation are present in the same ebgA gene, ebg enzyme acquires a specificity for galactosylarabinose. Although galactosylarbinose utilization can evolve as the consequence of sequential spontaneous mutations, it can also evolve via intragenic recombination in crosses between class I and class II ebgA+ mutant strains. We show that the sites for class I and class II mutations lie about 1 kilobase, or about a third of the gene, apart in ebgA. Implications of these findings with respect to the evolution of new metabolic functions discussed.


9.) Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
Hall BG
Biochemistry 1981 Jul 7 20:14 4042-9

Wild-type ebg enzyme, the second beta-galactosidase of Escherichia coli K12, does not permit growth on lactose. As part of a study of the evolution of new enzymatic functions, I have selected, from a lacZ deletion strain, a variety of spontaneous mutants that grow on lactose and other beta-galactoside sugars. Single point mutations in the structural gene ebgA alter the enzyme so that it hydrolyzes lactose or lactulose effectively; two mutations in ebgA permit galactosylarabinose hydrolysis, while three mutations are required for lactobionic acid hydrolysis. Wild-type ebg enzyme and 16 functional mutant ebg enzymes were purified and analyzed kinetically to determine how the substrate specificities had changed during the directed evolution of these new functions. The specificities for the biologically selected substrates generally increased by at least an order of magnitude via increased Vmax and decreased Km for the substrate. These changes were very specific for the selected substrate, often being accompanied by decreased specificities for other related substrates. The single, double, or triple substitutions in the enzymes did not detectably alter the thermal stability of ebg enzyme.
10.) 12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment.
Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski
Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)

Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.

Gene Mutation: Almond Trees

Almond seeds from wild species contain amygdalin, a bitter chemical that converts into cyanide inside the human body. According to researchers, consuming wild almonds is fatal. A single gene mutation in wild almond trees resulted in a variety that no longer synthesizes amygdalin. When humans discovered this non-bitter almond species, they cultivated them, which is continued till today.

Murray Grey: A Breed of Beef Cattle

Murray Grey is a cattle breed, obtained accidentally from a traditional cow species. The calves produced by the specific cow were more productive than those produced by others. Farmers soon noticed the difference and started breeding from the offspring. This way, the Murray breed with some of the most positive characteristics have become popular all over Australia, which then spread to other countries.

CCR5-delta 32: HIV Immunity in Humans

Cysteine-cysteine chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) is a receptor molecule, located in the membranes of white blood cells (WBCs) and nerve cells. In a cell, CCR5 permits the entry of chemokines that signals the inflammatory response to any foreign particles. The gene responsible for coding CCR5 is present in the human chromosome 3. A mutation in this gene called CCR5-delta 32 (involving deletion of 32 base pairs) affects the normal functioning of the CCR5.

In the initial stages of HIV infection, the virus normally enters through CCR5. However, a mutated CCR5 blocks the entry of HIV virus. People carrying homozygous mutated CCR5-delta 32 are resistant to HIV, while heterozygous ones are beneficial, as it slows down the disease progression. Thus, CCR5-delta 32 provides partial or complete immunity to HIV. Similarly, it is a beneficial mutation against other chronic diseases.

Whoever wrote this rebutle is grossly uneducated when it comes to genetics. My major is Molecular Bioscience and Biotechnology so I have had to study a lot of genetics.

Most of the "arguments" here are strawman arguments. Instead of addressing the actual arguments of scientists who are Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates (like Dr. John Sanford, or Dr. Michael Behe) this person simply lumps uneducated people in with proffessional scientists who do not agree with Neo-Darwinism.

Anyway the claim that all mutations provide new genetic information is completely rediculous. For example, there are plenty of mutations out there that delete entire genes. To say that this is an increase in information shows that the person has no idea what they are talking about. (And I would really like to see it if TalkOrigins made this claim, because that would be gold.)

Neo-Darwinists claim that mutation and natural selection can produce fundametnally new biochemical pathways - this is something that has never been observed. We see loss of information, changes in existing information, and even copying of information, but we never see mutations that result in fundamentally new biochemical pathways, for example.

(Keep in mind that 1 million years for humans is the equivalent of less than two years for E.coli, the most widely studied species of bacteria. If a few million years could transform an ape-like ancestor into a human being, then we should have databases filled with examples of fundamentally new genetic information arising in bacteria, but we don't.) 

This should help explain why we do not see new genetic information forming to anyone who is interested:

I highly recommend this Creation Search Engine to learn the arguments that Creation Scentists actually make - rather than listening to these rediculous straw-man arguments that some person who does not know what they are talking about posted online.

Also, one other thing. Evolutionists routinely imply that Creationists are stupid for saying that (according to Evolution) we came from apes and/or monkeys. They then "correct" the "Creationists" by saying that (according to Evolution) we share a common ancestor with apes and/or monkeys.

The problem? According to Evolutionary Biologists, that ape-like ancestor would itself have been an ape. Also, according to Darwin himself, at one point our ancestors would have been members of the old-world monkeys.

So when Evolutionists that I meet on the street or on the internet make this "correction" it shows me that they do not understand the claims of Evolutionary Biology.

Also, before I get ten thousand replies accusing me of being ignorant of science, I am finishing up my second biotechnology degree, and I just finished a class in Evolutionary Biology - and the professors all said that I knew the material well. (We had three in that particular class.)

Also, before anyone accuses me of bein anti-science, please read this article. 


I agree with Greenslugg.. Most of the points here are strawman arguments. In addition to what Greenslugg mentioned, he also mentioned:

"15. "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics."

That is not necessarily what creationists say.. What is said is that RANDOM DESIGN violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics because the universe (not earth) by the simplistic materialistic definition IS a closed system, yet it is not tending towards more disorder.  In addition, what is also clear is that if energy is applied to an open system in a random manner, then entropy will increase NOT decrease. Energy has to be applied intelligently to an intelligently designed system so that entropy may decrease.  For instance, if I have a refrigeration cycle, I have to have an intelligently designed and properly assembled refrigeration system and then I must intelligently apply energy to the compressor so that entropy may decrease.. If I just randomly apply energy to it, say heat, the system will just get destroyed (go to a higher entropy).  Same can be said with life.. His example of the tomatos is clear.. The machinery that allows a tomato Plant to decrease entropy, i.e., the chlorophil containing chloroplasts, must be intelligently designed so that the tomato may take properly the energy (sunlight) and use it to decrease entropy (i.e., uptake CO2 and convert it to plant matter).  The energy has to be also intelligently applied, thus the plants only take the sunlight that is not in the green spectrum (this is why plants are green because they reflect green light).  If energy is just randomly applied instead of intelligently applied to an intelligently designed system, what energy does is DESTROY the system, i.e., increase its entropy.  

This is also what REASON and LOGIC tells us.. if I tell you that I have all the components that form a computer and I tell you that I am going to take those components and put them randomly outside and I am going to let millions of year pass and then the computer will assemble by itself, would you believe me??? that sounds insane, doesn't it.  SO IT IS RANDOM design what defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics and also logic, NOT evolution.. because if I say that EVOLUTION occurred through intelligent design, most creationists would have NO PROBLEM with it!  Even the bible talks about evolution.. doesn't the bible say that God took clay and breathed on it and the clay EVOLVED into the first man?? 

In any case, here are two other alleged arguments that I will debunk:

First is the argument that micro- and macro-evolution cannot be separated.. Ian_Sinclair argues that:

This is actually just plain false, but allow me to first explain the terms. Many people choose only to note the tiny steps (a mutation here, a new function there) and thus believe that only micro-evolution occurs and not macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are terms used by IDers to try to weasel their way around the truth of evolution. Micro-evolution is supposed to be changes within a species, while macro-evolution means changes that connect one species to another. In reality, scientists decide when enough small changes have been generated (usually through multiple generations) to label a new organism as a new species."

THIS IS totally FALSE.

 Firstly macro-evolution and micro-evolution not only differentiate themselves by the fact that micro-evolution is INTRA-species changes while macro-evolution is INTER-species changes, but also by their TIMELINES.. Micro-evolution IS OBSERVABLE because it occurs over a few generation.. but MACRO-EVOLUTION is NOT observable because it allegedly occurs over MILLIONS of years..  

Secondly, scientists do not choose at whim when a new species is "born".  That is false.. I mean, there might be some radical scientists that arbitrarily do that, but that is just non-sense..  they are "mad" scientists if they do that.. How do you know whether two organisms are of different species.. VERY SIMPLE.. according to the well accepted definition, you cross and mate the two organisms.  If an off-pring is produced and the off-spring is NOT sterile, they they are of the same species (e.g., cross a german shephard dog with a pitbull).  IF an off-spring is produced and the off-spring is typically sterile, they are not of the same species but of the same family (e.g., cross a donkey and horse to get a mule that is sterile).  If an off-spring is NOT produced then they are neither of the same family nor, obviously, the same species (e.g., try to cross a rat and rabbit).. SO IT IS very clear what constitute a new species and what not.. the evolution of a species into another species as defined above HAS never been observed other than through conjecturing through fossil records. The adaptation or changes within a species has BEEN observed.

SO WITH THIS you can see that there is a difference between the OBSERVABLE intra-species evolution known as micro-evolution and the theorized but never observed inter-species evolution known as macro-evolution.

WITH the difference between Macro- and micro-evolution now clear, this takes us to the next alleged argument. HE SAYS:

"Evolution is just a theory"

Evolution is a scientific theory. It is labeled as such for two reasons. The first reason is that it has accumulated so much scientific evidence defending the claim, that it has gone from being an unjustified hypothesis to a justifiable theory. A “scientific theory” is not the same as a “guess” or “hypothesis” (or a regular “theory” in layman’s terms). It is the official scientific explanation for a huge set of facts and evidence. Secondly, it is called a scientific theory because, by definition, it is possible for it to be falsified."

First, now that we know the difference, we assume that he is referring here to "macro-evolution", NOT "micro-evolution"..

Firstly, I have to say THiS IS a very OBTUSE and IMPRECISE definition of a "scientific theory". THE OFFICIAL definition of what a "scientific theory"
is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory).  IN OTHER WORDS, there are two requisites for a theory to be considered "scientific" 1) It has to be observable, so that you can collect empirical data and/or 2) It has to have been tested repeatedly through experimentation.  GRANTED micro-evolution (INTRA-Species changes over a few generations) is an observable phenomenon but macro-evolution (INTER-species changes over millions of years) is not an observable phenomenon much less  it has ever been repeatedly tested through experimentation.. SO IT IS CLEAR that macro-evolution is in no doubt a THEORY, but it is NOT a scientific theory because it does not meet neither oft the two requisites.. of being observable and that it has been repeated tested through experimentation..   Now, macro-evolution as a theory is based on conjectures that come from fossil records and it is indeed a PLAUSIBLE theory, but again it is not a scientific theory, as the fossil records does not allow the phenomenon to be observed nor to be tested through experimentation..  We have never observed one species become another.. never.. (unless you have a different definition for what a species is and not the definition I mentioned above). 


Remarks on the 18 debunks:

1. "...[G]eneral conditions do not always favor the formation of fossils..." This presumes unproven uniformitarianism (vs. catastrophism).

2. Matches between retroviruses "proves common ape ancestry"--or suggests a common Creator.

3. Evidence to contradict evolutionary theory "has never, ever happened. Ever."  But the theory persists in the face of responsible contradiction.

4. Theories are more than "hypothetically" falsifiable.

5. Radiometric dating assumes knowledge of initial rock conditions, no altering process but radioactive decay, and unvarying decay rate.

6. We have more than "a human skeleton next to a dinosaur"; we have eyewitness description of dinosaurs (Job 40-41).

7. Faith in faith itself (fideism) is false religion.  There is ample, eminently reasonable, and satisfying evidence for biblical faith.

8. To contend that there is "not a single shred of evidence" for ID is breathtakingly arrogant, if not silly.

9. Evolution is certainly consistent with a "general deity," but not with the willful, articulate, and self-revealing biblical Creator.

10. The "AARDVARK-to-BASEBALL" analogy is an exercise in intelligent design, the intervening non-words, representing non-viable species.

11. (This is amazing!)  "We HAVE created [sic] life from non-life," which serves only to illustrate the critical role of a creator in Abiogenesis!

12. It is not "deceptive" for, say, Thomas Edison to leave his fingerprints on every part of his inventions. (See Paul's statement in Romans 1:20.)

13. "There is no controversy.... Teaching science...[is] about teaching what we know is correct."  If that is not catechism, what is?

14. "A butterfly is a butterfly."  (This is a strawman filler.)

15. "Snowflakes [exemplify] order coming from disorder in nature." And melting snowflakes exhibit their natural vulnerability to disorder.

16. "Darwin recanted...." (Another strawman filler.)

17. "EVERY mutation technically provides new information"--and, by the same token, so does every explosion.

18. "Evolution is wrong because of...scientific hoax."  (Self-cancelling strawman.)