I recently found a video on YouTube that attempts to refute evolution and I must admit that they bring up some points which cannot be ignored. I have tried to find refutations to their points but have been unsuccessful. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places. In the name of being openminded, I can't just say "I know that evolution is true" without listening to the arguments against it. When I first sat down to watch the video, I was sure that it would be full of nonsense but they really did bring up some valid arguments that I had never heard before.

I know we're not supposed to link to our own blogs, but I have posted the video on my blog to make it easy for everyone who cares to link over and watch it. http://mormon411.blogspot.com/2010/07/collapse-of-evolution.html I promise... I'm not just trying to drive traffic to my blog.

To anyone who has the time (it's about an hour long) I would greatly appreciate any thoughts about this video and if anyone has answers (or links) about the arguments they bring up. Part three is where it starts bringing up the tough questions, so you can start there if you don't want to watch the whole thing.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can shed some light on the subject for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2010 10:32PM by mormon411.

They are mis representing evolution in order to refute it. It's like mis-representing gravity in order to claim that all of physics is pure crap. Give me a minute and I'll give you certain points on each video.

It's a favorite amongst those who argue rather than think. ;)

Oh no! I've become a Creationist! :-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2010 11:29PM by robertb.

As a disclaimer, I've watched these videos a long time ago, and they were vary painful for me to sit through because of how terrible they were. So if I mis-represent a detail that's very big, let me know, and we'll go from there. Also, my background is more in physics, so if any other biologists want to jump in for better details, feel free.

This video deals with the mysteries of the origin of life.

Yes, the origin of life on earth isn't clearly understood. However, it is now its own field. It's called "abiogenesis" and deals specifically with the problem of how in organic molecules created organic molecules. You can get some decent hits on youtube for searching for abiogenesis for a better understanding.

However, the crux of the video is still. Scientists don't quite understand the origin of life completely...so god must have done it.

This is known as "god of the gaps" and is very nice to use when scientists don't quite get a specific detail. However, every gap that has ever been identified eventually has been understood by science. This argument is a moving target and is complete crap. The funny part to me is that this argument also fills me with the question, "so should the scientists just give up and say, 'oh, it must have been god!' because this problem is really really hard?" Once science can re-create something, expect the target to move. If tomorrow scientists can recreate the origin of life, the creationists will find another target to say, "see? science can't explain that. It MUST be god."

It's crap.

"It's like mis-representing gravity in order to claim that all of physics is pure crap" I agree that this kind of claim is a grave error. It draws conclusions from what is *not* known rather from what *is* known. When I was a Mormon that line of thinking kept me in the church is spite of having a lot of knowledge to the contrary. Essentially, I bet that what I didn't know would eventually become known and would be favorable to my staying in the church. Dumb, dumb, dumb. I've made some serious mistakes thinking like that. If you act on what is know rather than on what is unknown, chances of making good decisions--ones that coincide with reality--are much better.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2010 11:30PM by robertb.

So I first thought you were taking a dump on me for that. But I don't think you were. I don't have a ton of time to expand on that idea, but I really would like to.

However, I still have 5 more videos to shit on, and I'm on a roll.

to hopefully make that clear. Great comments on these videos.

Since there are 8 videos, all of which are painful to watch, could you do us a favor and tell us what specific claims they make in there that you think are problematic for evolution? Once I know what claims you find convincing, I will gladly help you work them out.

I think the idea of something being created "by chance" scares the hell out of people. I'm a layperson when it comes to this issue, but it is has been helpful to me to think of thinks being created as a result of *adaption* rather than *chance*. The nature of something is determined by its environment and its adaptation. It is not only random.

Meant to post this under "Video 1".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2010 11:25PM by robertb.

This is a two part answer. First, it's a moving target. The first thing Irreducible Complexity arguers said, "the eye is too complex, it could not have been created by chance."

Well, science has understood the eye very well, and has shown animals that have "half-eyes" and "almost no eyes" that do quite well in the environments that are suited. Mathematical models have shown that "evolving" an eye can take a relatively short period of time and that eyes have independently evolved about 6 times because we have six very different types of eyes in the "natural world."

Now that we get the eye, the target has moved to the cell. "oh, the cell is sooooooo complex that it can't have been created by 'chance.'"

This is another time where creationism uses a complete mis understanding of evolution in order to refute it. The first "cell" would have been incredibly simple, and each "part" of the cell would have "evolved" as a building block on something that was already working "fairly well."

Richard Dawkins is mis represented in this video if I remember correctly, and the theory of the first cell is fairly well documented. A recent study showed that a cell wall can be re-created in the lab. But creationists will hide any evidence that doesn't support them.

fail to explain who then created God since he must be even more complex than the things he created. Why is it ok for God to not have been created, but not ok for life on this planet? Because people like to believe there is something bigger than themselves controlling their lives.

Nope, magic is the last turtle. If god is made magically, then he is exempt from needing a creator.

That's ridiculous. The human eye is not as spectactular as people think. It evolved in a rather poor way in some categories. The octupus has a better eye.

My guess is our eye evolved to has good as it has to be given our other characteristics. For example, an eagle needs very keen eyesight for the type of hunting it does. But because humans don't live in the eagle's environment and don't hunt like eagles, an equally good eye would not bestow any greater advantage on us and so didn't evolve. Of course now that humans fly jets, being as sharp-eyed as an eagle would be advantagous--so we invented radar to give ourselves some of that capacity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2010 12:51AM by robertb.

That is very interesting. Can you provide sources?

Hey everyone, I really appreciate your input and willingness to suffer through the videos. Tomorrow I will put together a specific list of the questions that bothered me. I do apologize. I should have done this ahead of time.

National Geographic did a great job making some videos about the "eye issue" they may even be on Youtube right now.

I recently watched some great stuff streaming some documentaries on Netflix. And any of the other books that I have discussed have this issue in them because it is very well documented. And the current theory as to why we have the eye that we have is because we as decedents from the "ape like ancestor" needed to see in a lot of different colors--specifically red. So our eye is a standard mammalian eye but we have access to a broader color spectrum.

Just a fun f.y.i.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2010 12:29AM by raptorjesus.

Again, the mis-representation of natural selection in order to refute it. This was a very difficult video for me to watch because human beings have been playing with "natural selection" for thousands of years by using "artificial selection."

As species have very small mutations throughout their generations, certain mutations will help them survive better in their environments. As a quick example, an antelope that has a mutation that allows them to run faster will have a better chance of outrunning a cheetah, and therefore a better chance of passing on its genes with the mutation that is beneficial. Many mutations are not inherently beneficial and might make the antelope slower and therefore more likely to get eaten by the cheetah and will not pass on its genes with the "bad" mutation.

Humans have been playing with this concept with dogs, cattle, wheat, corn, cabbage, broccoli, etc. We breed certain animals and plants for the traits that we like (these traits are what gives them the better chance to pass on their genes like an "artificial environment" and then we continue to breed and breed). If you weren't aware, corn is a grass that was "genetically modified" by people thousands of years ago. The domestic cow would not survive "in the wild" because we have bread them to be stupid, lazy, meat bags. Any other predator could capture them and eat them easily.

But those are just some examples. Richard Dawkin's book "The Ancestor's Tale" is a great reference. So is his book "The Greatest Show on Earth."

This one has a couple of things really wrong with it.

One, significant mutations are usually "harmful" to species, and that's where natural selection comes in. If a rabbit has a mutation that shortens its legs so that it can't hop very fast, a predator will most likely eat it quickly. But creationists can't have argued with natural selection because they already don't understand that either. We see mutations in human beings that are harmful all the time. But we have seen some mutations in humans that seem to be slightly beneficial.

Most mammals are lactose intolerant after a certain age. However, humans have begun the process to be much better at "being" lactose tolerant far after weening of breast milk should take place. Granted many people are not lactose tolerant, but this is actually evidence OF evolution and not against. Evolution is a slow process and lactose tolerance is really only beneficial to a species that herds animals and milks them. Without any predators to "weed out" the lactose intolerant from the lactose tolerant, we should still see this issue mixed in with our genes.

Adding information to the genes can happen in humans. Down syndrome is an addition in information to chromosomes. If the environment "preferred" this mutation, that's where our species would be headed in terms of evolution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2010 12:13AM by raptorjesus.

Yes, that is true, but Downs is not beneficial to the species. If I am not mistaken, people with Downs are infertile, making it impossible to pass along this genetic defect. Can you give an example of something that is beneficial?

Only you judge it to be that. In order to really understand evolution, you need to question that statement. Given the right environmental circumstance, it might be beneficial to the species.

Fucking retard and full of Fucking lies.

The entire fossil record is FUUUUUUULLLL of INTER SPECIES!!!

In fact, it is so full of inter species that you'll often see scientists argue viciously with each other over whether a certain species is either a "mammal like reptile" or a "reptile like mammal."

My god, this one is so shitty. Do you know that we have at least five really good skeletons of interspecies from the mammal that used to be the whale to the whale.

This one is soooooooooo full of lies, that I get very angry at it. Plus it begs the question. What was god doing if he couldn't get it right?

"Oh, this batch was all dog shit, I'll just wipe them out and then start over."

"Well, the dinosaurs were fun, but now I'm bored! Next!"

See mostly video five. But it is funny that they of course have to try to refute the interspecies that can't possibly be.

What they won't tell is that there are soooooooooo many more interspecies, and again, they have "no proof" that these were "not interspecies," they just say that they are not.

I guess, take their word for it?

It is tired nonsense that was long ago addressed and information addressing all of it is very available on the INTERNET. Here is just one page that explains the fallacies of most of those videos.

http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/

Man did not evolve from apes because we are cousins of the apes. We and apes evolved from an "ape-like" ancestor. Again, it is mis-representing evolution in order to refute it. And the lies come out again.

NO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST SAID THAT WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS. The creationists said that. Evolutionary biologists (and Darwin himself) said that man would have evolved from an ancestor of the ape.

We have fossils to show this and genetics show a lot of evidence that chimpanzee's are our closest relatives.

In fact, if you want to see something very powerful/creepy. Look up videos of baby chimps walking. They look so similar to us.

Again, our evolution has a lot of fossils to show our story (we may not know all of the details), but the fossils show our story, and genetics has reinforced the ideas. I'll refer you to Dawkin's "Ancestor's Tale." A lot of other books have been written about our evolution, but I feel that Dawkins sums up a lot of issues and offers the evidence in a very readable way. Let me just say that we know enough of our evolution to have a book "for dummies" about it. Wish these guys had read that before posting this propaganda.

I can't bear to sit through them anymore. I watched one a few years ago that answered the fact that human and chimpanzee DNA are something like 97-99% identical. I can't remember the exact figure. Their answer was that humans and chimpanzees are mostly made up of water, and all water is the same so it doesn't really matter what percentage is similar. It's the differences that matter.

My mind just goes blank thinking about that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2010 11:59PM by Makurosu.

zzzztttt!!!

Gee, thanks Mak!

:D

To be honest, I really don't remember a lot of this video. You summed it up as "evolutionary fraud." I suspect that it blows a few things out of proportion about some over eager evolutionary scientist that was most likely peer reviewed into the ground anyway.

Odd that they would use an ad hominid attack to refute evolution. Oh wait, it's not odd, it's expected. Take cheap shots at the messengers when you hate the message. If you've read Mormon apologetics, this video should have given you flash backs.

But if we are to talk fraud, then these are the last people to throw stones. If you want to see fraud, you should google "tyrannosaurus blood found" and see the creationists perpetuate a complete fraud against the woman who did not find tyrannosaurus blood and never stated that.

Yet these people claim that as "proof" for creationism.

They are naughty. Very naughty and Raptorjesus will be telling Tyrannosanta to bring them coal this Sexmas.

I apologize. I should have made a specific list of questions. One that comes to mind right off hand:

Video four argues that no genetic mutation or evolutionary process can increase the information in the genome. If that is true, how can species become more complex over time? If it is not true, does anyone know of an example that demonstrates that the genome can, in fact, get bigger?

"the creation of new genes can also involve small parts of several genes being duplicated, with these fragments then recombining to form new combinations with new functions.[61][62] When new genes are assembled from shuffling pre-existing parts, domains act as modules with simple independent functions, which can be mixed together creating new combinations with new and complex functions.[63] For example, polyketide synthases are large enzymes that make antibiotics; they contain up to one hundred independent domains that each catalyze one step in the overall process, like a step in an assembly line.[64]

Changes in chromosome number may involve even larger mutations, where segments of the DNA within chromosomes break and then rearrange. For example, two chromosomes in the Homo genus fused to produce human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the lineage of the other apes, and they retain these separate chromosomes.[65] In evolution, the most important role of such chromosomal rearrangements may be to accelerate the divergence of a population into new species by making populations less likely to interbreed, and thereby preserving genetic differences between these populations."

Here are two references that may help you:

The concept of self-organization in cellular architecture. J Cell Biol 155:181–185.
http://jcb.rupress.org/content/155/2/181.abstract?ijkey=93e2c4e70ed271a095f6ac66afd276c596eb26fd&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Form follows function: The genomic organization of cellular differentiation. Genes Dev 18:1371–1384.
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/18/12/1371.abstract?ijkey=7c5f3047c1352014c4b94feb82c694c9fcf40600&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha


The question ultimately leads back to the question above concerning abiogenesis. I would recommend "Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origin" by Robert Hazen as a primer.

The evidence is building in the work to explain the several plausible pathways from inorganic to simple organic, to simple organic in a encapsulating phospholipid bilayer cell (which form spontaneously in water by the way), to replication within such a system, toward increasing complexity. It is a broad field with many contributors. A google search on the surnames Bangham, Deamer, and Pashley will provide one starting point in terms of the self-organization of the phospholipid bilayer.

A recent article in Nature reports another possibility in the steps toward the formation of RNA. In short science is slowly closing in on the pathways that could have led to the first replicating polymers and then to the first cells. All of the answers are not available and we will probably never know exactly how the first life formed but some of the plausible pathways are being discovered.


Nature 459, 239-242 (14 May 2009)
Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions

Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland

Abstract

At some stage in the origin of life, an informational polymer must have arisen by purely chemical means. According to one version of the 'RNA world' hypothesis this polymer was RNA, but attempts to provide experimental support for this have failed. In particular, although there has been some success demonstrating that 'activated' ribonucleotides can polymerize to form RNA, it is far from obvious how such ribonucleotides could have formed from their constituent parts (ribose and nucleobases). Ribose is difficult to form selectively, and the addition of nucleobases to ribose is inefficient in the case of purines and does not occur at all in the case of the canonical pyrimidines. Here we show that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates. The starting materials for the synthesis—cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate—are plausible prebiotic feedstock molecules, and the conditions of the synthesis are consistent with potential early-Earth geochemical models. Although inorganic phosphate is only incorporated into the nucleotides at a late stage of the sequence, its presence from the start is essential as it controls three reactions in the earlier stages by acting as a general acid/base catalyst, a nucleophilic catalyst, a pH buffer and a chemical buffer. For prebiotic reaction sequences, our results highlight the importance of working with mixed chemical systems in which reactants for a particular reaction step can also control other steps.

There is a pervasive belief among some creationists that the second law of thermodynamics negates the evolutionist claim that more ordered systems can form through self-organization. Or in more simple terms, evolution violates the law of entropy. This is based on a flawed understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system chemical, pressure, and temperature potentials tend toward states of equilibrium. Stated more succinctly, entropy increases in a closed or isolated system. Thus, some argue it is not possible for life to evolve from inorganic to organic chemical processes and onward to increasingly more complex life forms. This argument overlooks a key component in the second law of thermodynamics. Fundamental to the law is the statement that entropy increases in a closed or isolated system. The earth is not an isolated system. There is a constant stream of energy from outside the system in the form of solar radiation. The mass of the earth itself also contains a significant amount of energy in the form of heat that provides significant amounts of geothermal energy.

The average amount of solar energy reaching the earth is in excess of 300 watts per square meter per second. The peak solar energy in direct sunlight is slightly more than 1.3 kilowatts per square meter per second. This translates into 3.2-3.8 million exajoules reaching the earth's surface every year. This is not a trivial amount of energy. Such a steady input over the course of 4.6 billion years results in a significant amount of energy that could fuel evolutionary processes.

The solar energy reaching the earth is complemented by the geothermal energy provided by radioactive decay from within the earth. It is estimated that the earth contains 12.6 x 10^24 MJ of energy in the form of heat. In the process of continually releasing a portion of the original amount of energy found 4.6 billion years ago another substantial influx of energy has been provided.

We observe the second law of thermodynamics in action with the earth and sun releasing vast amounts of energy. That energy will continue to be partially and steadily introduced into the earth's biosphere. In trillions of years all that we see in the visible universe may have dissipated into a cold, dark abyss. However, in the intervening billions of years, evolutionary processes will be well fueled. These processes on the earth will be cut short in several billion years by our sun swelling into a red giant. However, the sun's continually burning of hydrogen will have assisted, through the process of entropy, billions of years of fuel for evolution.

You are completely right about the misunderstanding of entropy used to refute evolution as well.

And thanks for throwing in the studies too. The I.D. guys complain about not being able to publish anything in peer review, yet if they even tried, they would have nothing to publish because they have no evidence for their claims, or because their "studies" would be ripped to shreds in a peer review environment.

A genome is a living thing's genetic material. This genetic material is kind of like lego blocks (DNA). One tiny mutation can alter the entire lego structure. If you understand how proteins can form in diverse ways from genomes you can understand how we get all kinds of tissues. Errors in replication can increase or decrease the amount of DNA (or information).

Here is a link so you can read a bit more about them. Check out the section on variation.

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp4_1.shtml

These videos that have you questioning are for people who don't have the background to see the problems with them. They are like someone who doesn't understand how an airplane works explaining to everyone about how things fall if you throw them in the air- so airplanes can't fly.

Evolution is complicated and it takes a considerable amount of study to understand why it is the basis of all modern biology.

All the answers are out there. Continuing with my example, it isn't easy to explain acceleration and the Bernoulli Principle to someone who has no concept of elementary physics just to get them to understand how an airplane can fly.

I've given up trying to explain specific questions about evolution to people because you have to bring them on a long journey to study it scientifically before they can understand enough to have their questions answered. Most people want 2 minute answers so they will never be convinced.

Please read Dawkins' Greatests Show on Earth, mormon411. The first chapter explains the frustration of having to address things like these videos. The rest of the book is evidence that hopefully will satisfy skeptics.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2010 12:51AM by dagny.

The amount of information in the genome."

Among plants, the issue of "polyploidy" operates; chromosomes--which are simply long strands of DNA--exist in pairs, and if there's an error in cell division. the number of the same paired chromosome will increase from one pair to two...

http://www.answers.com/topic/polyploid

This will serve to increase the number of genes in a cell, and one way this is manifest is via "gene expression," which is a cornerstone of contemporary understandings of evolution.

One way genetic differences are manifest is the "length of time" that a gene is activated... An organism may have genes that will allow it to grow several feet in legnth, but if those genes only operate for a short time, then the organism will not grow to its genetic potential.

However, when the same chromosomes are present in double--or even triple--the number present in the ancestral species, then when the gene is "expresed," significant changes can occur.

A plant with tetraploidal chromosomes, for example, might have larger and more impressive flowers than its diploidal relatives, or larger leaves which might convey a survival advantage in a favorable environment (or a disadvantage in say, a desert where smaller leaves would mean less evaporation).

Among animals, genetic variety is enhanced by "gene swapping," where lengths of chromosomes "migrate" to their opposite site on the paired chromosomes. Then, when meiosis occurs that reduces the paired chromosomes to their haploid numbers, new pairings occur when the sperm/ovum union takes place in sexual reproduction.

Seriously, the stuff in these videos is so bad it's difficult to remain polite in discussing them. As my great-grandmother used to say, "You have no defense against a liar."

These lies might find acceptance among the home-schooled crowd, but they leave serious scholars just shaking their heads at the incredible volume of demonstrable ignorance.

And I don't know how to spare you feelings, but you demonstrate a large measure of that same ignorance by passing this crapola off as legitimate.

book Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives. He not only explains and illustrates evolution, but suggests how we might apply it to our lives. I found it entertaining and enlightening--and a good antidote to Creationist nonsense.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/product-reviews/0385340214/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2010 12:10AM by robertb.

There you can see why scientists still consider evolution to be the best explanation, right up until new (actual) evidence surfaces, at which point it will be modified to fit the evidence, which is what scientific theories do.

I watched the video and it is again a complete and total line of bullshit, they do not bring up any legitimate questions regarding evolution. Only the unsophisticated imbecile would buy their line of bullshit. Nothing new here.All that I see here is the FEAR that God had nothing to do with anything. The DATA supports Darwin, not the ecclesiastical pricks/charlatans that want your money, time, and devotion. Fuck them! You are a singular being and have received the greatest gift from the cosmos, self actualization! Enjoy what time you have and the privilege of having some clue as to the nature of the universe and yourself.

The first is a video of theistic (Catholic) evolutionist Ken Miller. He shows how DNA evidence proves that we share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees and Bonobos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

The second is a little mean, and also a little bit of a joke. It is by Australian comedian John Safran. It applies to you, since you say you are an Atheist but are confused about the fact of evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghIU_tlX0k

Face it, you're too stupid to be an atheist.