Author: rknott

“Evidence for Evolution is MIA”

rknott

This post is written against this page under the Probability tab on evolutionthelie.com

The post begins by claiming that the evidence the author has found supporting natural selection has been limited, aside from a few exceptions, to minor changes within existing species. The post also claims that genetic mutations are almost always harmful. Because nobody has ever seen “descent with modification produce a new species,” the author claims that “descent with modification from a common ancestor is not a fact.”

The final conclusion of this post is, technically, correct. Nobody knows for certain that all life stems from one common ancestor. I have found that all posts on this website are not refining a particular tool with which evolution cannot be dismantled, rather, it is attempting to throw any argument at evolution and hoping that it sticks. It is not a fact that humans descended from a common ape ancestor, but all the evidence we have acquired up until now has lead scientists to speculate that this is the most likely reality for the evolution of humanity. If evidence were to arise that starkly contradicted this belief, I think it would come with a high amount of scrutiny but I would hope that truth would ultimately win out. No alternate cause with a significant amount of supporting evidence has yet manifested. All this particular post is doing is promoting skepticism and encouraging a lack of belief.

On some of the facts within the post, beginning with the claim that “genetic mutations are almost always harmful,” the errors even within this post must be evaluated. Some mutations are harmful–but there is certainly the potential for beneficial outcomes or, more commonly, no effect whatsoever. Take the example of Sickle Cell Anemia in African populations. This disease, while it has tremendous downsides, essentially rends these individuals completely immune to the negative effects of malaria. While this originally was a mutation–nobody genetically engineered a person to be resistant to malaria–individuals with the mutation continued to reproduce. In other parts of the world, like the Nordic countries, the statistic of people with sickle cell is almost negligible. While we may not fully understand the mechanism at play, there must be a way to understand this trend. Natural selection could be wrong–but it is currently the best and most supported theory we have access to.

Additionally, it is clear that nobody has ever witnessed a clear speciation event. Likely, though, this is because of how long these events take to occur and our incredibly short lifetimes and, in the bigger picture, humanities incredibly brief stint on Earth so far. It is unlikely that an event will be possible to bear witness to during any persons lifetime and it is nearly impossible to glean anything meaningful about specific species that existed on earth thousands of years ago. No one person has ever seen a new species be produced, but perhaps humanity has and is just unable to communicate within itself effectively.

“Doubts About Darwin Persist”

rknott

This post is written against this page under the Probability tab on evolutionthelie.com

This post has perplexed me repeatedly–I have read it several times and I still do not necessarily understand its purpose. The post seems to exist to defend the credibility of one Phil Johnson, attempting to do so by stating how David Raup, a supposedly well-known evolutionary paleontologist, rose to Johnson’s defense and seemed to believe what he was saying.

Phillip Johnson was a professor of law at Berkeley and published several books, most notably critiquing Darwin and his claims on evolution–opting for a belief in intelligent design. This article claims him to be the father of the modern intelligent design movement.

David Raup was a paleontologists at the University of Chicago whose area of expertise was in mass extinction events that have occurred throughout time. A detailed biography by the National Academy of Sciences can be found here, as Dr. Raup passed away in 2015. He is remembered as one of the most influential paleontologists of the second half of the 20th century, credited with discoveries related to patterns in the geologic history of biodiversity and mathematical modeling of evolution.

Based on these short biography sections, the purpose of the post becomes clearer. The author of this post is attempting to support ID and further discredit a Darwinian school of thought. Citing Dr. Raup in this section is an attempt to establish credibility for Phil Johnson, as Dr. Raup is most certainly an expert in this field. The post specifically said that “Raup and his graduate students had found no factual errors” after reviewing the paper in its entirety. The overall purpose of this post seems to be to encourage readers to allow for some potential belief in ID and some skepticism at the taught theories that have been spread over time. The post ends by saying that paleontologists are afraid of accepting ID because it would essentially remove mystery from their field–that scientists would lose the “illusion of total mastery of nature.”

I think that there is certainly room for ID in the current evolutionary theory, and the post does acknowledge that. But, again we are confronted with the authors seeming insinuation that people are brainwashed and afraid to believe something that is not “normal.” The reality is, evolution and ID can co-exist. Pope Francis has been quoted in the past for explaining how Catholics can reconcile evolution and creation, you can find an article about this here. The reality is, evolution is merely an explanation of how organisms have changed and how species have arisen over time. Eventually we will continue to climb the vine and arrive at a primordial cause for all life on this planet. That is extremely unlikely to ever be reached by humanity as we are such ephemeral beings. Some conjecture is certainly more reasonable than others, but it is nearly impossible to objectively evaluate the separate theories.

 

“Return to list… Buried Forests Formed in Decades not Millennia”

rknott

This post is written against this page under the Earth Science tab on evolutionthelie.com.

Yet another article, yet another link that leads to an article that has since been taken down for this or that reason. I cannot help but hypothesize that the article was criticized for the quality of science therein, but that’s neither here nor there.

This post concerns the potential misinterpreting of the geological record by geologists and Earth Scientists over time, providing misleading conclusions as to the age of different findings. The post author claims that comparisons that have been made between the “buried forests” of Mt. St. Helens, created in the late 20th century, and the “buried forests” of Yellowstone National Park, suspected to be hundreds of thousands of years old, indicates that the “buried forests” of Yellowstone may in fact be far more recently formed than originally thought.

For all intents and purposes, I am going to assume that by “buried forests” the author means the uncovering of petrified wood that has been preserved for decades, even millennia. As I said above, the article this post references has since been removed from its place on the internet and is thus difficult to interpret. My criticism, though, comes from this link, explaining the petrified wood that has been found on Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone. According to this source, fossilized plants have been uncovered that, by radiometric dating, have been found to be approximately 48 million years old. It is difficult to rationalize how a 48 million year old plant could be in an environment that is only decades old, as the post claims. I think that, quoting a previous post on evolutionthelie.com, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck…

“Archaeopteryx: The missing link that wasn’t”

rknott

This post is written against this page under the Earth Science tab on evolutionthelie.com.

This post claims that the fossilized creature Archaeopteryx is nothing more than a fossilized bird–not the transition species between dinosaurs and birds that it claims to be. I think that comparing the fossil to the skeleton of modern birds is perhaps the best way of sifting through the evidence to better understand this argument.

Examining this fossil, one can clearly see the wings of the creature, the fossilized markings that denote where feathers used to be, and the unique appearance of the fossil that doesn’t quite look like anything that exists in the world today. Now alternatively, lets examine the skeleton of a modern pigeon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The similarities between the two images are undeniable–the small rib cage, the wing and leg structures, the presence of feathers. There are also, though, significant differences. The shape of the head, for starters, is perhaps the most obvious difference. The Archaeopteryx fossil doesn’t have a beak, it appears to have a mouth that is far more similar to our conceived notion of what dinosaur heads looked like. While the talons on the legs appear similar to those on the bird, there is certainly a difference in the distal ends of the wing bones–they seem to be much more defined on the archaeopteryx. The fossil seems to be different enough from the pigeon that it feels wrong to call it a bird. It is clearly not, though, a dinosaur. This is how the case has been assembled that dubs archaeopteryx a transition species that existed somewhere along the evolutionary path that lead to modern birds. Though an extremely bird-like creature, the existence of this fossil means that we must strongly consider the origin of this creature and the implications it has for evolution as a whole.

“An Evolutionist’s Startling Admission”

rknott

This post is written against this page under the Biology tab on evolutionthelie.com.

This short post details one doctor’s struggle with the realization that he had spent twenty years of his life dedicated to researching evolution and that he, after all that time, still felt like he knew almost nothing about evolution as a whole.

First off, it sounds to me that this individual was having a crisis of sorts regarding them self and their chosen field of study. I find it hard to imagine that after twenty years of study and vocation that this person could not name one thing about evolution. Even further, they go on to claim that not a single one of their colleagues could name something they knew about evolution. I cannot help but doubt this claim. There are an exceptional amount of details that we don’t know, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that details the history of our planet and the history of hominins upon it. All of this evidence has its place in the story of humanity and the story of evolution–but it can be difficult to see how it is all put together. I do not think the posts conclusion–that because these people could not name one thing about it, it should not be taught in high schools–was a valid one. We know more about genetics and biology than likely ever seemed possible for scientists living during the era of Darwin. I have extreme doubts about the accuracy of the given account in this post and especially disagree with the claimed conclusion that follows. I think that this post exists purely to attempt to plant a seed of doubt in the reader without any credible evidence that supports a “non-evolutionary” framework.

“Natural selection from a critical (evolutionist) perspective”

rknott

This post is written against this page under the Biology tab on evolutionthelie.com.

This post concerns the “growing body of evidence within the scientific community” that opposes natural selection as the driving force for evolution. The main criticism of natural selection ties back to this website creator’s belief that the general public is brainwashed by the “evolutionist” way of thinking and worships Darwinist theories. The post does not deny that random mutations occur and that they affect evolution, but questions whether natural selection is explicitly the “driving force” of evolution. This evolutionist belief in natural selection, because it is taught in textbooks and because Darwin said so, is claimed to be built on false conclusions and belief in a man that did not have adequate evidence to support his theory.

There is a lot to criticize about this post, but first I should say that the theme of the post is perhaps one that should not be condemned. I think that there is value in critically examining conclusions so as to better understand the evidence that supports them and to ensure that they are worth believing. In this particular instance, though, I believe that the skepticism is not well-founded or supported by opposing evidence.  I am curious though–if natural selection is not the driving force of evolutionary change then what does this website claim is? There is no answer to that question within the post, though. The post refers to natural selection as if it is a conscious entity, a force that is constantly working and at play throughout history. I think that there is again a fundamental misunderstanding of what natural selection is–and the fact that it occurs naturally as the name implies.

Natural selection is the process of individuals with specific traits being better suited for their natural habitat and thus reproducing more effectively. An example of this would be a species of moths that have varying color schemes patterned on their wings. Moths with wing colors that provide better camouflage are more likely to survive and reproduce. This does not mean that well-camouflaged cannot be eaten, or vice-versa, merely that the population going forward is more likely to contain more moths with this trait who can reproduce and change the distribution within the gene pool. Criticism of Darwin should certainly exist throughout the scientific community, for Darwin did not even understand genetics during his lifetime. It is only reasonable to believe that there will be a multitude of flaws in his theories–though it is remarkable that a majority of the theory still holds up years later and upon further scientific discoveries.

“A Challenge to the Evolution of the Universe”

rknott

This post is written against this page under the Astronomy tab on evolutionthelie.com.

I am beginning to think that this website is against anything and everything tied to the word “Evolution.” I chose to write against this post for no reason other than that as I don’t think discussing dark energy and cosmology is abundantly relevant to the purpose of this assignment, nor do I really know anything whatsoever about dark energy and cosmology. I do, however, think its funny that the author of this website can criticize Albert Einsteins “cosmological constant” while also criticizing claimed “pseudosciences” like evolutionary theory. Appreciate the math or don’t complain, is what I’m tempted to say in response.

Against “Do the Laws of Science Support Biological Evolution?”

rknott

This post is written against this page under the Physics tab on evolutionthelie.com.

This post speaks to the Theory of Evolution as a scientific discovery and to its concrete roots in mathematics and the scientific process. The greatest criticism that this post offers for the Theory of Evolution is the fact that is not reliable or replicable science at its core. The evidence provided against this is a long list of equations that can be found in Physics and Chemistry that demonstrate principles that unite all sorts of trends we have scientifically deduced throughout the course of human history.

My first comment on this post is that we can somewhat standardize our understanding of evolution so as to make it more mathematic (see this article for more information). This type of science has been used to determine when modern humans and chimps differentiated based on the evolution and mutation within the genomes of hair and body lice. This mutation, though it is random, can be interpreted and utilized to create accurate timelines.

My second concerns the last paragraph of the post, explaining that the Theory of Evolution cannot produce new information and therefore cannot account for the major changes predicted by evolutionary theory. Ironically, this is correct. Evolutionary theory is not a tool for understanding where humans, or any species, are going–it is merely something that occurs over time and is observable based on changes in populations. We can utilize evolutionary theory to better understand why humans are the way we are–the trait differences that have distinguished different members of a population from another and made some more fit than others. The reality is that this selection is still occurring, though evolutionary theory is still not a predictive tool.

Against “Big Bust: ‘Evidence’ for Big Bang recanted”

rknott

This post is written against this page under the Physics tab on evolutionthelie.com.

The timeline constructed by this post reads that in 2014 there was evidence uncovered that revealed gravitational waves present in the universe that were, essentially, aftershocks and remnants of the big bang. In 2015, the post claims, the European Space Agency went against this evidence and claimed that the supposed gravitational waves were merely space dust and were not the gravitational waves they were originally thought to be. The post then concludes that this information has been covered up because it does not agree with the “microbes to man” evolutionary philosophy and that our entire conception of the universe as we know it is a lie.

I have several problems with this post. First and foremost, after searching the ESA’s website, I have found an abundance of informative videos and articles to help everyone better understand the Big Bang. If his evidence were true, one can only imagine that the ESA would not be such a strong educational proponent of Big Bang thinking. It is impossible to critically evaluate the source this post was using as it merely links to the ESA homepage. This is a clear example of how potentially bad science that is accessible to the public can be misinterpreted or misrepresented through all of the channels we have available to us for information.

My second problem, and one that is problematic about each and every post on this website, is the way in which it tunnel visions on sources that benefit the claim it is trying to make. A simple google search can lead to dozens of sources, just as credible as the ones this post claims to cite, that claim the exact opposite of what the post claims. Just look at this one, or this one, or even this one. While this post is not an explicit lie, it is a clear misrepresentation of the information that is available–a common problem with many bogus websites such as this one. The citation of scientific articles and credible agencies (like the ESA) makes the website slightly more believable and thus is able to convince people to come on board with its conclusion. Doing your own research though, taking into account the wealth of information out there, as well as using some common sense, leaves this website without a leg to stand on.

“DNA Evolution is Impossible”

rknott

This post is written on this page under the Chemistry tab on evolutionthelie.com

First off, the title of the page in question is immensely misleading. What the post is arguing against, rather than the change in the genome over time, is the origin of DNA by random chance. The post appears to cite theological or extra-terrestrial origins as the beginning of DNA and thus the beginning of life on Earth.

Upon realizing the true nature of this post, and realizing it was not at all what I was expecting, I do have less of a problem with it than I did previously. I think that it is immensely unlikely that humans could have developed to be the way we are, that each of us individuals could exist in this massive universe, purely by random chance. It is undeniable, though, that we are here and that we are each unique organisms that are the product of millions of years of evolution and selection. What the initial cause of life on Earth is, whether it is random chance or some greater organized movement, seems to be beyond our potential understanding and is likely something each person should be able to personally speculate upon.

I do think, though, that it is incorrect to call the origination of the DNA molecule “DNA Evolution,” clearly demonstrating that the creator of this website has a fundamentally flawed picture in their mind of what evolution is and how it impacts individuals and populations.