By Shirley Ransdell
Friday, August 3, 2018
(NEW FRONTIER NEWS)- This article claims that it can disprove evolution without the bible. It starts with Darwin’s theory and says that creatures progress through evolution through natural selection and variation. They claim that variation is only mutation, which is untrue.
The article doesn’t mention gene drift, which Scitable says is a process that changes genes in a subpopulation to become separate from a group they were previously in. This eventually causes speciation.
The article then talks about the differences between micro and macro evolution. The issue with this is that the distinction between micro and macro evolution does not exist in science. No scientist on evolution divides evolution up this way, because they just take evolution as a whole.
Seiglie, the articles author, then says that evolution teaches that life rose from non-life. This is called abiogenesis, which is not a theory tied to evolution. Evolution is merely the process by which creatures can become other creatures.
The article then also claims that evolution also makes creatures more complex. Evolution can make creatures more complex, but it can also remove traits, which would make it seem like these creatures are less complex. The way they worded it makes evolution out to have a goal beyond keeping the ones most fit to survive and reproduce, and that doesn’t necessarily lead to complexity.
In order to explain why evolution is false, the article uses an acronym FALSE.
F stands for fossils, and the claims that this article use against them. The article states that there are no fossils that are ancestors to trilobites. Let’s say for a moment that this is completely true. That there are not ancestors to trilobites. This would mean that these fossils are either not found because their bodies are too soft to fossilize or that they lived in an environment that did not allow for fossilization.
However, there are ancestors to trilobites. Virtual Fossil Museum talks about these ancestors, and shows pictures of these fossils. They also show creatures that are similar to the modern trilobites.
The next paragraph states that Stephen Gould talked about how evolution does not have multi-celled creatures below the Cambrian layer, and that Darwin did not have fossils either. This is quoted by Francis Hitching in the book, “The Neck of the Giraffe.”
Assuming this was true, we could say that these fossils had a harder time forming into fossils, but we do have evidence of pre Cambrian fossils. University of California Museum of Paleontology states that there are fossils from the time before the Cambrian, and that a lot of them are bacteria and algae. It also says there are cnidarians, or jellyfish like creatures.
Seiglie then says that there are no transitional forms, and describes transitional forms like this: “there are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings…” This is a flawed way to look at evolution.
The article is making a common mistake when it comes to evolution. Individuals don’t evolve, populations do. For an example, when people were speaking Latin, a group of people left the main geographical area where Latin is spoken, and these people eventually started speaking Spanish.
They argue that if you can’t find a half Latin half Spanish speakers then languages can’t form other languages. In other words, groups of animals separate from each other, and due to gene drift eventually form their own traits that help them survive in an environment, and that these groups end up differing from the previous group.
This article then goes onto A, which stands for assumption. It again argues that animals can’t evolve into other animals and that transitional fossils are not proof. The article then says that Darwin uses subjective clauses in regards to evolution. This is important in science, because there is always a chance you could be wrong, and this leads to that type of language.
In other words, gravity is not untrue based upon the language surrounding the theory. They also use subjective language on that theory, and it is used that way so that scientists are not stuck in a certain claim if apples starting floating in the air.
Evolution is also a theory. In the article they say that this means an assumption, when that is simply not the case. Like what was stated previously, gravity is a theory. A theory according to Live Science, is an accepted explanation for a certain phenomenon. Theory is actually the strongest form of idea in science.
The next section is titled L for life. In this section they claim that scientists cannot explain the origins of life through evolution. This is correct, because abiogenesis is not covered under evolution, and is its own separate theory.
S in this article stands for symbiosis. They claim that symbiotic animals cannot exist without each other, and therefore cannot exist. The article seems to miss the idea that each creature could have evolved to be on their own, and that then at some point in evolutionary history started relying on each other.
One example is actually the mitochondria in our cells. This energy processing part was not originally in our cells. In evolutionary history, mitochondria started processing energy, and was swallowed by another larger cell.
Instead of being digested, this cell became useful to the larger cell and began giving it more energy to live, and the larger cell would protect the smaller mitochondria. This is just one example of how two species evolved to help each other.
The last letter is E for engineering. This part claims that you cannot explain any organism without some kind of design. This argument has a name. It is called irreducible complexity, and it has been shown to be false in many situations. Let’s look at the one they use here.
The article claims that trees are designed because they give us shade, oxygen, fruit, and wood. Let’s focus on shade and oxygen for now. Say we have a prototype plant that gets energy from the sun. If I were the proto-plant, I would want as much energy as possible. The plants survive better when they are able to grow taller than other plants. You then have a tall tree to sit under.
Oxygen is more interesting. Imagine that a creature comes around a tree and is able to breathe oxygen, and that creature survives better around trees and plants. That would mean it’s more suited to live, and it passes along those genes. In other words, the animals around the tree were shaped by the tree, not the tree shaping itself.
Let’s get to fruit and wood. Fruit is a way for plants to get species to spread their seeds farther, which explains why fruit is used on some plants. Wood is the protective part of the plant. Also, if there wasn’t a tree producing wood, we would find another thing to build houses out of, instead of marveling at the tree we would be hoisting something else as designed for us.
I give this article a 2/10 for obvious and easily researchable misinformation.
Mario Seiglie. (Jan 2012). Prove Evolution is False- Even Without the Bible. Beyond Today. United States. https://www.ucg.org/vertical-thought/prove-evolution-is-false-even-without-the-bible
(2014). Evolution. Scitable. United States. https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78
Hou and Bergstrom. (1997). Trilobite Relatives and Ancestors. Virual Fossil Museum Home. United States. http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Galleries/trilobitesrelatives.htm
Ben Waggoner. (July 2011). The Ediacaran Period. University of California Museum of Paleontology. United States. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/ediacaran.php
Alina Bradford. (July 2017). What is a scientific Theory. Live Science. United States. https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html