Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.