Download Arguments against evolution powerpoint

Irreducible complexity of cells
Creationists argue that there is no catalyst or driving force to cause
evolution, that the law of entropy means things become more disordered on their
own. Biochemist Michael Behe popularized the concept of irreducible complexity,
making the point that cells must have multiple organelles (parts of the cell) present
at the same time in order to operate and survive. If any organelles are absent, the
cell wouldn’t function, suggesting it would be impossible for a cell to come into
existence by chance since many parts would need to begin simultaneously.
Consider his mousetrap analogy below.
bate
Evolution
of a
mousetrap
Irreducible complexity:
a concept maintaining
that the complexity of
living cells cannot be
reduced or simplified
without losing cell
function since several
organelles work
simultaneously
Evolutio
n of a cell
Flaws in Carbon (radiometric)
dating
Carbon dating has come under much criticism because of its perceived
unreliability and unprovable assumptions. Exposure to water, for
example, can drastically change the levels of carbon 14 in a specimen.
This has led to obvious mistakes such as carbon-dating freshly killed
animals at thousands of years old. Other assumptions in carbon-dating
that aren’t guaranteed include:
• a constant decay rate
• a closed system with no contamination (such as water)
• known amounts of elements (parent or daughter) at the origin
Lack of transitional species in the
fossil record
David M. Raup said, “we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than
we had in Darwin’s time.” If evolution is true, then fish evolved to amphibians, then
reptiles, birds and mammals. Specific examples might be rats evolving into bats or
manatees into elephants. If evolution were true, we would expect to see millions of
years worth of ‘in-between’ species in the fossil record (half rat-bats, half manateeelephants), but they don’t exist. Even Harvard’s leading evolutionist, the late Stephen J.
Gould admitted the enormous gaps in the fossil record, saying, “The fossil record, with
its abrupt transitions, offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know
that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms.
Characteristics between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
“The fossil record offers no support for gradual change.” –Stephen J. Gould
½ manatee
½ elephant
Why has no one found fossils of me
yet?
Lack of transitional species in the
fossil record
Pig tooth?
Partial skull?
human skeleton?
human skull?
Bone fragments?
‘Ardi’
Bone Fragments?
‘Lucy’
7
Partial skull
Drawing of
‘Nebraska Man’
Drawing of
Drawing of
‘Peking Man’ ‘Turkana Boy’
Ardipithecus
Drawing of the
‘Southern Ape’
Australopithecus
“I am totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to check the anatomical claims
upon which the status of Australopithecus is based, it has ended in failure.” –Lord Zuckerman 7
A specific transitional species that has been sought is the socalled missing link between apes and humans. Creationists say
these examples are more conjecture than science. Nebraska Man
comes from a pig tooth, Peking Man from a half-skull, Turkana Boy
from human bones, and Lucy from bone fragments. If monkeys
really evolved into humans over millions of years, there should be
millions of missing links in the ground all over the world, yet the
scientific community struggles to find even one good example.
Lack of transitional species in the fossil
record
Creationists agree that creatures adapt to environment, but argue that
species do not change into another species. For example, creationists ponder how
flight might have evolved. This problem is fourfold since birds, mammals, insects
and even some fish have the ability to fly. How could a non-flying insect, for
example, evolve wings? If the insect began to grow wings over generations, then at
some point along the way, they would have partially developed wings, slowing them
down, making them vulnerable to predators. Natural selection would guarantee
that these insects get eaten. Creationists maintain that the evolution of wings
would cause certain extinction for any species since they would be less fit to survive
millions of years of the evolutionary process with non-functioning wings.
“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen.” –Niles Eldredge
Fine-tuning of the Universe
Earth just happens to have the right conditions to support
life. Being larger (and further away from the sun) than Venus, we
should have an even thicker atmosphere with surface
temperatures over 1000°. But our atmosphere is 800 times less
dense than on Venus, just right to support life. Without a moon,
scientists believed that the Earth would rotate three times faster,
causing winds over 500 mph, but we have a large moon that slows
our rotation to 24 hour cycles. If Earth was closer or further from
the sun, extreme temperatures would not allow life on Earth.
“Equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to
prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe.” –
Paul Davies
 observable process that falls into the category of
operational science
 We have observed mosquitoes, birds, and
microorganisms undergo change in a relatively short
period of time and new species have been observed to
arise (speciation)
 However, speciation has never been observed to turn
one kind of animal into another.
 Example: Lions and tigers
 Both in the cat family
 Are considered different species primarily because of
geographic isolation
 It is possible to mate the two. Liger (male lion female
tiger) and tigons (male tiger and female lion) with
varying degrees of fertility
 These two species came from the original cat kind that
would have been present on the Ark
 Due to their isolation (island vs. mainland) the
Finches could have developed different species with
various beak styles and sizes that best suit the
environment they live in. Genes that would make a
bird less able to adapt to its environment would
decrease over time. Due to their isolation two new
species of bird could develop, but within their kind.
 Observational science supports this type of subtle
change within a kind, but not molecules-to –man
evolution.
 In order for a simple organism to evolve into a more
complex animal it must ADD genetic information.
 The amount of information required for a seemingly
simple transformation cannot be provided by a process
that generally deletes information from the genome.
 For evolution to occur a huge increase in information
content of organisms must occur.
 Virtually all observed mutations result in a loss of
genetic information not a gain.
 Natural selection causes a loss of information and can
only act on traits that are already present.