Creationism, for me, has always been the prototypical pseudoscience. It is a textbook of logical fallacies, misinformation, distortion of fact, half-truths, and outright deception. Creationists, however, are not very imaginative and tend to recycle the same old arguments over and over. It is rare that I come across a new ridiculous argument from a creationist.
Recently I was asked about this website: DarwinConspiracy.com. On it they make three main arguments that they claim prove Darwinian evolution false. They are (sort of) new arguments so I thought I would have some fun tearing them down.
Fatal Flaw #1: Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula
Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.
This is a clearly false premise, based upon a gross misunderstanding of science. Not all scientific theories have formula. How about the germ theory of disease, the plate tectonic theory of continental drift, that DNA is the molecule of inheritence, or that the Earth’s moon resulted from an early large impact of the earth. There are endless theories that do not lend themselves to a mathematical formula.
There are mathematical descriptions of aspects of these theories – you can calculate the speed with which continents drift or the spread of germs through a populations, but these equations are not the theories themselves.
Similarly, there are mathematical formula that describe aspects of evolution. Population genetics, for example, is very driven by formula. For example, p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1 describes the frequency of combinations of gene alleles from one generation to the next.
They further repeat the old argument that theories in science are just guesses, and when they are proven they graduate to a fact or law that can be described by a formula. This is simply wrong. While laws are typically described by formula, a theory does not require one to be considered a confirmed scientific fact, as the examples I gave above indicate.
There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution
Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.
OK, this is not a new one. This is another pathetic old one, debunked a million times, but here is a million and one. The mechanism for increasing the number of genes over evolutionary time is the duplication of genes, groups of genes, or even entire chromosomes. These can occur as mistakes in the process of DNA replication prior to mitosis, or the division of one cell into two.
The second copy of a duplicated gene is now redundant. Sometimes this causes disease, but not always. The redundant gene is now free to drift genetically as it is not critical for the function of the organism. This creates the possibility that the gene will produce a protein that, by chance, may serve a new function. Selective pressures can then optimize it for the new function.
Or, one gene may serve more than one purpose in different cells. Gene duplication of such a gene allows for the uncoupling of these functions, so that they can be optimized for each.
This is not just a theory, there is copious evidence that gene duplication has actually occurred in evolution. There are thousands of published papers relating to gene duplication.
Further, information theory shows how gene duplication and other forms of mutation combined with selectio increase genetic information over time (hey, there’s another formula).
Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong
The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is “Survival of the fittest.” But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies – instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.
This one is just brain-dead, even for a creationist. Helpless babies have parents to take care of them – that is part of the environment to which they are adapted. Obviously many helpless babies survive to adulthood and then have children themselves – they survive, so how does this violate the notion of survival of the fittest?
In fact animals follow a strategy for survival of their offspring that lies somewhere along a spectrum from what is called r-selected to k-selected. R-selected species often given rise to numerous offspring which are independent very quickly, and grow fast. The survival strategy here is to have numerous offspring so that a few are likely to survive. Remember all those nature documentaries about the sea turtles? They lay hundreds of eggs, then the little turtles (who can walk at birth) have to brave numerous threats, and only a few of the hundreds will make it to the sea and survive.
K-selected species take the opposite strategy – they have very few offspring but then invest a great deal of time and energy into those few to ensure their survival. Their children can be helpless at birth because they are there to take care of them – feed and protect them. This means that they are largely freed from selective pressures to become independent quickly. Such species can take their time and develop more slowly, and do nifty things like grow a large brain.
The terms “r” and “K” derive from Verhulst equation of population dynamics (egads! another equation)
dP/d}=rP ( 1 – P/K)
where the constant r defines the growth rate and K is the carrying capacity.
Creationists are really really dumb.