The Case Against Evolution

[Copperknickers II]

I read a book recently. A Muslim (there's a change ) writing under the name 'Harun Yahya' is a campaigner against Darwinism and Evolution. He recently sent one of his books to various genetics research institutes, and i have been reading it.

His arguments are:

1. Scientists have proven that the chances of so much as a strand of DNA forming by itself, let alone a tiger or ape, is so astronomically small that God must have created animals himself.
2. There is no proof that a species evolved into another from the fossil record (he cites episodes such as piltdown man and pig tooth man to say that the human missing links are all faked)
3. Mutations cannot possibly change one species into another, a fact that has been proven, as if such a thing could happen, there would be all sorts of humans with four brains and eight arms running arounf the place.
4. There are countless instances of species that have remained completely unchanged, therefore proving they were created by God.
5. Darwin started the idea of Eugenics and never studied biology, therefore is an evil idiot unqualified to come up with scientific theories.

Thoughts?

[Justinian]

Scientists have proven that the chances of so much as a strand of DNA forming by itself, let alone a tiger or ape, is so astronomically small that God must have created animals himself.

The chances of an omnipotent being existing outside of the realm of space, time and logic, which is capable of creating the Universe seems to be even smaller. If you have tens of billions of years, I think even the smallest chance (say .00000000001%) has a distinct possibility of happening. It is better to believe in something possible but unlikely than impossible and even more unlikely, is it not?

There is no proof that a species evolved into another from the fossil record (he cites episodes such as piltdown man and pig tooth man to say that the human missing links are all faked)

To say that something is fake is the intellectual equivalent of, well, going on a YouTube video and posting FAKE!!!.

Mutations cannot possibly change one species into another, a fact that has been proven, as if such a thing could happen, there would be all sorts of humans with four brains and eight arms running arounf the place.

I don't see how this can be proven. Because breeding and mutation can cause small changes that become noticeable in a small span (<20 years), say in dog breeding, to create members of the same species with entirely different fur, body types, strengths and weaknesses, then I don't see how greater changes are not possible over a much, much longer span of time (4.6 billion years).

There are countless instances of species that have remained completely unchanged, therefore proving they were created by God.

All species are subject to microevolution. This doesn't prove they were created; it may prove that they have not completely changed in the 3000 years we've been studying and writing about them, but 3000 years is an infinitely small amount of time when compared to the actual age of the Earth, much less the universe. Besides, they still encounter changes.

[Ummon]

The chances of an omnipotent being existing outside of the realm of space, time and logic, which is capable of creating the Universe seems to be even smaller. If you have tens of billions of years, I think even the smallest chance (say .00000000001%) has a distinct possibility of happening. It is better to believe in something possible but unlikely than impossible and even more unlikely, is it not?

This is unfortunately incorrect. The probabilities of the existence or nonexistence of God are undetermined, as such comparisons are entirely arbitrary.

Such probabilities may even be of the 100% in favour of the existence of God, and we wouldn't know.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

In response to the orginial post: All I have to do is look at this guys website, particularly the "about the author" link to see he is nothimg more than a self-ritcheous egomaniac. I mean honestly, how many bloody self-portraits does one need???

Photo op anyone?

[Event Horizon]

The probabilities of the existence or nonexistence of God are undetermined

On what basis?

[Denny Crane!]

So if you can just make things up, write a book and then get it published then what is to stop me?

I can disprove gravity by saying fake in various different ways, euphanisms, analogies and writing it in extremely large text. It won't change the scientific method or the reasons people continue to believe in things based on it.

But I'll probably make a fair bit of money on it.

[Bernem]

Ah I remembered instantly that I read about that guy this week. The one who has not studied biology is rather he himself. A quick wiki search exposes a very ineteresting CV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar

especially:

Prosecution

In September 1999 Adnan Oktar was arrested following multiple sex scandals and further allegations that were fully covered by the Turkish media. In that court case, Oktar was charged with using threats for personal benefit and creating an organization with the intent to commit a crime.[41] One complainant, a fashion model named Ebru Simsek claimed she was blackmailed, and then slandered as a "prostitute" in fax messages sent to hundreds of different newspapers, TV channels, major business companies, foreign consulates and government offices for refusing to have sex with Adnan Oktar. The judicial process lasted over two years, during which most of the complainants' retracted their claims because of threats or bribes from SRF members. As a result most of the cases against Oktar and SRF members were dismissed, with only two members receiving jail sentences for 1 year each.[42]
Amidst ambiguous circumstances all charges were dropped by that court only to be picked by another court 8 years later. On May 2008 Oktar and 17 other members of his organisation were sentenced to 3 years in prison. Oktar intends to appeal these charges.[41]
According to the indictment of the prosecutor’s office, cited by the daily Cumhuriyet, Adnan Oktar and associates raped young women many of whom were under the age of 18 on camera and blackmailed them by threatening to release the sex tapes to their friends and family members. Many of these young women were then forced to entice select young men from wealthy families with the promise of sex in exchange for attending events organised by the BAV. The court heard how in turn these girls were formed into a group called of what they referred to as Odalisques and were ordered to videotape their sex sessions with these young men and deliver the tapes to Oktar.[43]
In 2008 Oktar was convicted a variety of crimes including engaging in criminal threats.[41][40]

[Juvenal]

1. Scientists have proven that the chances of so much as a strand of DNA forming by itself, let alone a tiger or ape, is so astronomically small that God must have created animals himself.
2. There is no proof that a species evolved into another from the fossil record (he cites episodes such as piltdown man and pig tooth man to say that the human missing links are all faked)
3. Mutations cannot possibly change one species into another, a fact that has been proven, as if such a thing could happen, there would be all sorts of humans with four brains and eight arms running arounf the place.
4. There are countless instances of species that have remained completely unchanged, therefore proving they were created by God.
5. Darwin started the idea of Eugenics and never studied biology, therefore is an evil idiot unqualified to come up with scientific theories.

Thoughts?

Oh dear, more of the usual half-baked recycled tired old tosh.

1. Evolution has nothing to say about DNA forming by itself, that is the domain of Abiogenesis.

2. One species does not evolve into another, instead mutations create potential new species (although most either don't breed true or just die out). Look at Darwin's finches for an example. There are no missing links because they are "missing" . This isn't surprising given the ratio of fossils to dead animals.

3. Humans are a single species. There have been other species of humans in the past but they have all died out. There actually are humans with two brains and others with 4 legs. But they aren't running around. Evolution of new species is easy to observe, bacteria do it all the time, hence MRSA.

4. A species remains completely unchanged if it is the best fit for its environmental niche (example crocodiles). How does this prove they were created by God?

5. I thought Eugenics was created by others and Darwin's work used as supporting evidence? Darwin studied biology all his life, he was particularly into barnacles. Many people have come up with scientific theories without studying Biology - Stephen Hawking for example.

[Copperknickers II]

Oh dear, more of the usual half-baked recycled tired old tosh.

1. Evolution has nothing to say about DNA forming by itself, that is the domain of Abiogenesis.

2. One species does not evolve into another, instead mutations create potential new species (although most either don't breed true or just die out). Look at Darwin's finches for an example. There are no missing links because they are "missing" . This isn't surprising given the ratio of fossils to dead animals.

3. Humans are a single species. There have been other species of humans in the past but they have all died out. There actually are humans with two brains and others with 4 legs. But they aren't running around. Evolution of new species is easy to observe, bacteria do it all the time, hence MRSA.

4. A species remains completely unchanged if it is the best fit for its environmental niche (example crocodiles). How does this prove they were created by God?

5. I thought Eugenics was created by others and Darwin's work used as supporting evidence? Darwin studied biology all his life, he was particularly into barnacles. Many people have come up with scientific theories without studying Biology - Stephen Hawking for example.

BTW, my dad is a geneticist so i am merely reporting what the guy has to say, id ont believe it myself.

This is really an experiment to see how much you guys know about genetics. You are a biologist i am guessing, Juvanal?

[Denny Crane!]

Any fan of Richard Dawkins could have trotted out a few lines like that (no disrespect Juvenal)

It takes a passing interest in Evolution to quickly learn the arguements to dispell the most lucid of creationist arguements.

[Copperknickers II]

Any fan of Richard Dawkins could have trotted out a few lines like that (no disrespect Juvenal)

It takes a passing interest in Evolution to quickly learn the arguements to dispell the most lucid of creationist arguements.

But it takes a lot more than that to provide any meaningful explanation as to what the alternative is.

[Denny Crane!]

But it takes a lot more than that to provide any meaningful explanation as to what the alternative is.

No it doesn't. There isn't an alternative to evolution unless you know some science I don't.

There is 'god did it' and there is 'something like god did it'

Which usually requires a profound misunderstanding of evolution to point out its flaws which are vapid and regurgitated hence the reason you only need a passive mild interest to argue against it.

[Juvenal]

Any fan of Richard Dawkins could have trotted out a few lines like that (no disrespect Juvenal)

It takes a passing interest in Evolution to quickly learn the arguements to dispell the most lucid of creationist arguements.

Firstly, I am not claiming to be an authority (all my links were to Wikipedia ).

Secondly, I am not a fan of Richard Dawkins. He is an evangelist of Atheism and he goes far beyond what can be proved or even reasonably surmised from the evidence that we have. Dawkins has a belief in the non-existence of God. Like all faith it can't be proved, so he over-compensates with his evolution arguments.

I am unhappy with people who claim certainty where there is only hypothesis. This is particularly the case with Abiogenesis, no one knows how life began, yet Dawkins seems to treat it as already proven.

Creationists are just as bad with their ignorant dismissal of things they don't like as "impossible". How many things can we be truly sure are impossible? Everything we know about the world is provisional. No matter how accurate our understanding, there is always room for a deeper theory. True impossibility only exists in the realm of mathematics.

[Copperknickers II]

No it doesn't. There isn't an alternative to evolution unless you know some science I don't.

There is 'god did it' and there is 'something like god did it'

Which usually requires a profound misunderstanding of evolution to point out its flaws which are vapid and regurgitated hence the reason you only need a passive mild interest to argue against it.

Ok, but i wouldn't go believing everything Richard Dawkins says either .

I'll give my own replies to these:

Scientists have proven that the chances of so much as a strand of DNA forming by itself, let alone a tiger or ape, is so astronomically small that God must have created animals himself.

There is no proof that a species evolved into another from the fossil record (he cites episodes such as piltdown man and pig tooth man to say that the human missing links are all faked).

There is plenty of proof, though those two were fames or misunderstandings.

Mutations cannot possibly change one species into another, a fact that has been proven, as if such a thing could happen, there would be all sorts of humans with four brains and eight arms running around the place.

No there wouldn't. Richard Dawkins explains this pretty well, but it is basically of no benefit to us t have these things, and we definitely wouldnt have them this quickly

There are countless instances of species that have remained completely unchanged, therefore proving they were created by God.

That is because they fill an ecological niche, and although they are unchaged outside, inside is a different story.

Darwin started the idea of Eugenics and never studied biology, therefore is an evil idiot unqualified to come up with scientific theories.

He did not start it off, although his cousin was one of the main proprietors of it. And he dropped out of a uni course on biology, so although he was an amateur, if wasn't, maybe he couldn't have thinked outside of the box and found out about evolution anyway.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Secondly, I am not a fan of Richard Dawkins. He is an evangelist of Atheism ...

I disagree with Dawkins on several major points and am not a fan of evangelical atheism. That said, the fact he's ruffled some feathers means that he's often accused of holding beliefs and expressing ideas that he has never held or expressed.

he goes far beyond what can be proved or even reasonably surmised from the evidence that we have.

Such as?

Dawkins has a belief in the non-existence of God.

Dawkins does NOT have a belief in the non-existence of God and he makes that perfectly clear. He has no belief in God, but does NOT say God doesn't exist. Have you even read The God Delusion? He covers this in some detail.

Like all faith it can't be proved, so he over-compensates with his evolution arguments.

The fact that you can't prove a negative is the reason Dawkins doesn't have the belief you erroneously attribute to him. Disagree with what Dawkins says by all means, but please don't disagree with things he doesn't say and has never said.

[Kiljan Arslan]

This guys a hoot heres where he explains that accusations of him using cocaine were false.

The Cocaine Conspiracy

Again in mid-1991, certain circles made uneasy by his cultural activities made him the target of a conspiracy. At the time, he was preparing a most important manuscript on the history of Freemasonry and world-wide Masonic organizations. Police, searching the home he shared with his mother in Istanbul's Ortakoy district, discovered a packet of cocaine in the very first book they opened-in a library of some 2,000 books!

Adnan Oktar was immediately detained in Izmir where he was together with a few friends, then transferred to the Istanbul Security Directorate, and after 62 hours, was sent to the Forensic Medicine Institution for drug testing. It was announced that Adnan Oktar's blood showed a high level of a cocaine by-product.

However, all the evidence submitted later showed that this was nothing more than slander; and that the cocaine allegedly found in Adnan Oktar's library was part of this conspiracy. Shortly before the arrest, he had felt that secret moves against him were afoot. Leaving his home in Ortakoy he called his mother Mediha Oktar to warn her of a likely plot against him and asked her to clean and search his house with a few other people as witnesses. His mother called her neighbor and janitor, and together they cleaned her son's home from top to bottom, dusting all the books in his library. Although Adnan Oktar did not return after that cleaning, 16 police officers carrying out the search operation "found" a packet of cocaine among his books as soon as they entered the house. The neighbor and janitor later made a sworn statement, saying jointly that "We cleaned Adnan Oktar's library together, and there was no such packet there."

The second phase of the conspiracy-the cocaine by-product in Adnan Oktar's blood-was refuted by scientific and forensic evidence. Adnan Oktar was kept in the Security Headquarters for 62 hours before the analyses was performed. Scientifically, however, it can be calculated how much cocaine a man has taken and how many hours before by measuring the cocaine by-product in his blood. In Adnan Oktar's blood, that level was so high that had he taken that much cocaine 62 hours before, it would have killed him. This showed that the cocaine had entered his body much sooner, by being mixed with his food while he was in detention.

This was confirmed by some 30 international forensic medicine institutions, including Scotland Yard. To the file sent to them for examination, all gave a common response: The cocaine had been administered while Adnan Oktar was in detention by being mixed with his food.

Subsequently, the Turkish Forensic Medicine Institution confirmed that the incident was a conspiracy, that the cocaine had been administered during the detention period, and Adnan Oktar was cleared by the court and released.

However, this incident revealed that forces hostile to Adnan Oktar intended to employ all kinds of dirty tricks. These forces, who previously sought to intimidate Adnan Oktar with prison and oppression, were now conspiring against him.

[Juvenal]

Dawkins does NOT have a belief in the non-existence of God and he makes that perfectly clear. He has no belief in God, but does NOT say God doesn't exist. Have you even read The God Delusion? He covers this in some detail.

The fact that you can't prove a negative is the reason Dawkins doesn't have the belief you erroneously attribute to him. Disagree with what Dawkins says by all means, but please don't disagree with things he doesn't say and has never said.

Yes you are of course quite correct and I have let my pique with Dawkins cloud my judgement. Please accept my apologies.

I was actually aware that Dawkins doesn't quite go as far as denying the existence of God in the God Delusion (which I haven't read), however the selection of the title is provocative in the extreme since it clearly implies that anyone with faith is insane!

he goes far beyond what can be proved or even reasonably surmised from the evidence that we have.

Such as?

I suppose I am referring to The Blind Watchmaker which I read a few years ago. I recall that Dawkins spent a long time reinforcing his certainty in the correctness of his interpretation of Evolution (and the fallacy of Stephen J. Gould's views about Punctuated Equilibrium). What really irritated me was his proposed explanation for abiogenesis by way of clay compounds. The description was interesting but fell well short of what is needed to confirm abiogenesis. Even Dawkins couldn't bring himself to assert its absolute truth, but I think he did say that he was certain that something very similar must have happened.

I have since seen Dawkins on TV a few times, and he is every bit as irritating in the flesh as in his books with his hectoring manner and closed style of argument.

The sad thing is that I largely agree with his case, but he comes across as more an evangelist who already knows the truth rather than a scholar who is seeking truth with humility and an open mind.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Yes you are of course quite correct and I have let my pique with Dawkins cloud my judgement. Please accept my apologies.

No need to apologise, but it is strange that people project all kinds of things onto Dawkins that he simply doesn't deserve.

I was actually aware that Dawkins doesn't quite go as far as denying the existence of God in the God Delusion (which I haven't read),

In it he proposes a scale of 7 possible positions on the existence of God ranging from 1 ('I do not believe, I know God exists.') to 7 ('I know there is no God.') He rates himself as a 6 ('I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable.') I rate myself as a 6 also, as does every other atheist I know. 6 is a highly reasonable position; far more so than 1 or 7.

... however the selection of the title is provocative in the extreme since it clearly implies that anyone with faith is insane!

It helps to read a book before commenting on it. You've only read the title and jumped to a conclusion about it - but if you'd read the book you would have found that Dawkins explains his title in some detail (p 5). He notes that the technical term for the kind of religious belief he's referring to is "relusion", but notes that virtually no-one outside of psychiatry knows what this means and how it differs, technically, from "delusion". So he stuck with the word "delusion" in its non-technical meaning of "a false belief or impression". He makes it quite clear that he is not implying lunacy, just error.

I suppose I am referring to The Blind Watchmaker which I read a few years ago. I recall that Dawkins spent a long time reinforcing his certainty in the correctness of his interpretation of Evolution (and the fallacy of Stephen J. Gould's views about Punctuated Equilibrium). What really irritated me was his proposed explanation for abiogenesis by way of clay compounds. The description was interesting but fell well short of what is needed to confirm abiogenesis. Even Dawkins couldn't bring himself to assert its absolute truth, but I think he did say that he was certain that something very similar must have happened.

Yes. So? Where's the problem here? He presents Cairns-Smith's clay sediment hypothesis as an interesting idea about how abiogenesis may have happened. And, as you say, he doesn't say this is how it happened. But he does say that it did happen somehow because ... well, life is here and it began somehow. I fail to see how you can have any problem with any of that. It's all eminently reasonable.

I have since seen Dawkins on TV a few times, and he is every bit as irritating in the flesh as in his books with his hectoring manner and closed style of argument.

Really? I find him highly amusing and quite charming. He doesn't suffer fools gladly, but why should he? One of the points he's making is that religion has wrapped itself in the cotton wool of "respect" for too long and it's about time we called a spade a spade. If an idea is absurd, we should say its absurd. The fact that this absurd idea is propounded by an elderly bishop and is sincerely believed in by a host of simple people doesn't take away the fact that it's still absurd.

The sad thing is that I largely agree with his case, but he comes across as more an evangelist who already knows the truth rather than a scholar who is seeking truth with humility and an open mind.

I can see what you mean, but sometimes being humble and "open-minded" needs to give way to being rather more assertive. I don't agree that religion needs to be actively combated because I don't believe that a world without religion would be any better or worse than what we have right now, but if I did agree with him on that I'd probably agree that getting on the front foot and avoiding playing softball with religious bigots and clowns who believe absurdities is what is required.

[Ultra_Magnus]

This is an argument that the educated people will never win. As a microbiologist I have witnessed evolution in action (development of resistance to antibiotics). I have also argued the case of evolution with a muslim and i have found that no matter what you say the religous minority will ALWAYS find away to argue round the arguements you are trying to put forward.

[gambit]

1. Scientists have proven that the chances of so much as a strand of DNA forming by itself, let alone a tiger or ape, is so astronomically small that God must have created animals himself.

No. It only proves that the chance of a strand of DNA forming by itself is astronomically small. Saying "Well thats really unlikely" doesn't mean it wont happen and it doesn't mean God created animals either.

2. There is no proof that a species evolved into another from the fossil record (he cites episodes such as piltdown man and pig tooth man to say that the human missing links are all faked)

Theres no proof that God created us either.

3. Mutations cannot possibly change one species into another, a fact that has been proven, as if such a thing could happen, there would be all sorts of humans with four brains and eight arms running arounf the place.

Well there have been humans with extra limbs. Like the baby that was born recently with two heads.

and no it doesn't necessarily mean that. Evolution isn't just random limbs, organs and other body traits randomly sprouting up in the DNA strain. It's adaptation to a particular environment. Using silly arguments like humans with four brains and eight arms just to make the evolutionists argument seem cartooney is, frankly, stupid.

Plus, maybe we will have humans with four brains and eight arms. If evolution exists (I believe it does but for the sake of everyone argument, I say if) whos to say we arent still evolving?

4. There are countless instances of species that have remained completely unchanged, therefore proving they were created by God.

Thats because they live in environments where they dont need to adapt anymore. A shark never has to go on land, a snake never has to fly through the air. They stick to their environments because that is how their DNA has developed and they have no reason to leave them.

5. Darwin started the idea of Eugenics and never studied biology, therefore is an evil idiot unqualified to come up with scientific theories.
Thoughts?

I have no idea about that, so maybe. Even so, that doesn't make the creationists right either.