The Ten Myths of Evolution Refuted, Part 10

As I sit down in my chair to write the final destruction of AiG's idiocy, the first thing that comes to my mind is how something like AiG could have arisen. In such an enlightened age, why is it that science, which has already shown such tangible benefits to humanity, become an enemy? To be like AiG, and take the bible literally, you have to reject nearly every branch of science SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Scientists do not make this stuff up. It's observable, testable, verifiable, makes predictions, and most importantly, is falsifiable. It is an accurate documentation of reality and how it functions. It is not a conspiracy against any religion, and it is not an attempt to subjugate the parents; it is an attempt to understand the nature of our universe. To have any group of people simply deny the observable facts of nature is absolutely outrageous, and potentially dangerous.

The number of people in America that share this mindset is growing at an unnerving rate. It wouldn't be such a big deal if they weren't trying to get into politics and mix their religion with government. Think about it for a second: we are electing people to offices, including the god damn presidency, who believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old! They make laws for us, they decide some of our curriculum, and they ban stem cell research and want to make abortions illegal. Why do we let it happen!

This is why I feel it is my personal duty to point out the bullshit. The term "Atheist" is such a broad grouping, because it isn't a doctrine; it only makes one claim, that god, in any form, does note exist. We hold so many different religious and political beliefs, ranging from Buddhism to communism, that we have a very hard time uniting. This is why you don't see very many big atheist or agnostic lobbies, because you can't get us to agree on anything but God. I feel that if I don't point this shit out, even to the one person who reads this, then it is allowed to self-replicate and gain even more power.

So, we have come to the final myth of Evolution. The myth: that all scientists agree on evolution. This, according to us "evolutionists", proves our "worldview" correct.

This definitely deserves the top spot, because it is CLEARLY the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard.

First thing's first, it needs to be said that the belief of the majority does not PROVE anything. Having a lot of scientists who accept evolution does not prove evolution, and I don't believe anyone has ever made that claim (except maybe creationists).

It must also be said that the Theory of Evolution is not a matter of belief, just like any other science. It is a matter of acceptance, that is, you see the evidence that is proposed and accept the theory as an explanation for that phenomena. We do not BELIEVE that evolution is fact. We ACCEPT evolution as fact.

And where did this idea that only scientists who accept evolution are "real scientists" start? Probably with creationists, but that's besides the point.

No one that I am aware of regards only those who accept evolution as "real" scientists. This is ridiculous, because there are scientists at universities and in labs who don't accept evolution. There might even be some who aren't religious, but who knows. What needs to be understood is that most of the evidence for any theory comes from people who try to prove it wrong, and this is precisely what happend to evolution in the early stages of its development. There are some who still think it is wrong, that's okay. More power to them actually, because it takes some gall to reject a claim that is so heavily supported with evidence.

I would also, once again, like to revisit the idea that there is no such thing as an evolutionist. So, when AiG claims that, "The argument, then, essentially boils down to this: evolutionists agree that evolution happened. This, of course, is an absurd argument, and we could just as easily say that creationists agree that creation happened", you need to know that it is null and void from the start, because there is no such thing as an evolutionist. But if you want to play that game, then that quote is EXACTLY RIGHT. "Evolutionists" do agree that evolution happens, just as much as creationists agree that creation happened. Neither of those statements don't prove anything, but . . . oh what the hell, you get it.

For the rest of the article, AiG points out the same shit that I just pointed out: that a majority opinion does not act as proof of something. They also write that the history of science is filled with minority views being incorrect. I don't know what that second one meant because evolution is accepted by the majority, but whatever. This is better, at least they're thinking semi-rationally for once.

"Secondly, many scientists accept evolution because the only alternative is design, which is against their naturalistic beliefs."

Fuck.

Okay, really? The ONLY alternative is design? Are you god damn kidding me? No it isn't, this isn't some battle between naturalism and design. It's a battle between the natural and the supernatural (or rather, fucking reality versus something someone made up 3000 years ago). Scientists do not accept evolution because they don't want to believe in design, it's because evolution is WHAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO! There is no "prior committment to keeping any miraculous interaction out of their worldviews". God, I was getting my hopes up for no reason.

Apparently, according to AiG logic, there is also a growing number of scientists who reject evolution. Wow, if your bullshit meter didn't just go off, you need to see a specialist. In fact, the trend is exactly the OPPOSITE: more and more scientists and people are accepting evolution, because the evidence is so plentiful.

The proof of evolution comes not from majority opinion. It comes from the 150 years of solid evidence that supports it. In that 150 years, there has not been a single piece of reliable evidence (meaning, non-creationist) that has contradicted the theory of evolution. As Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of Evolution".

We do not wish creationists to go away. Well, for the most part. We just want you to learn a bit about reality and get the fuck out of politics.

The Ten Myths of Evolution Refuted, Part 9

"Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. This mantra has been repeated so often that people often conflate the two ideas. But are evolution and natural selection the same thing?"

The answer is no, and it brings us to the 9th of Answers in Genesis' list of the ten myths of evolution: that natural selection is not evolution in action.

To put it simply, natural selection is only ONE of the driving forces behind evolution. There are also allele frequencies, genetic mutations, genetic drift, genetic variation, migration, descent, and coevolution, just to name a few.

Natural selection and evolution, though related, are not the same thing. Natural selection, as discussed before, is a mechanism of evolution. Evolution, on the other hand, is defined as the change in the allele frequency of a population over time (about 800 generations for most species). Natural selection is one of the mechanisms that governs the change in allele frequency. Heritable traits that help ensure the survival and reproduction of a population will be passed on, while those traits that don't help are killed with the organism. If people conflate the two ideas, and combine them into one, then they are simply being ignorant.

AiG doesn't like to associate anything with evolution (but, what did I expect), or Darwin for that matter. For example, they say that natural selection is an observable process that wasn't discovered by Darwin, and this somehow validates their argument.

Correct. Natural selection was not discovered by Charles Darwin, but rather proposed by him as a scientific theory in his book. Before Darwin, the idea that nature selects organisms for survival was simply philosophy, and had existed since antiquity. Darwin just connected descent with it.

AiG makes the point, later in the article, that "natural selection is nondirectional and does not lead anywhere. That is, if the environment changes, members of a species that were previously better adapted may no longer be. "

Once again, this is a correct statement. Nature is not sentient; it does not consciously determine who it wants to live or die. We often discuss nature as if it were actually doing so, but in reality it can't. The fact that natural selection is blind (much like Adam Smith's "invisible hand", referring to market economics) is one of the reasons why nature produces so many variations of species. It doesn't choose a specific species and allow only it to survive, it allows any organism that "meets the requirements" of survival in that environment to be favored. If an environment changes (an extremely long and drawn out process. At least, it was before humans), then the animals that have the traits which allow it to survive in that new environment will do so. This is not a conscious decision that is made by nature, it simply happens. Creationists don't like the idea of things just happening.

This is where the draw a distinction between natural selection and evolution: "Evolution, on the other hand, is an unobservable process that requires direction (dinosaurs to birds, e.g.)."

No, evolution (as defined above) is the result of random chance (mutations, etc) and non-random selection. It does not have a guide, only mechanisms that drive it forward. These mechanisms that drive evolution don't do so in any particular direction, therefore evolution as a whole does not have a direction. This is why it is such a slow process (it can take thousands of years for a speciation event to occur): because there is no goal, or no objective. Evolution did not start with the predisposition that dinosaurs changed to birds, that is just what was determined through study.

So, natural selection can only work on information that is already there, right? And when characteristics are selected for, doesn't that result in a loss of genetic information?

Yes and no. Once again, AiG is correct by saying that natural selection can only act on information that is already there. This is an obvious statement, because if there was nothing to select, then there would be no selection. But, to say that when characteristics are selected, the overall genetic information decreases, is just plain ignorant.

Let's take a population of, let's say, bears. For the sake of this argument, the bears have only 4 pieces of genetic information. Their DNA looks something like this, perhaps:

|

|

|

|

These bears are living in an arctic environment, so they are completely covered in hair. Over time, the arctic environment begins to change to a more temparate environment, so the hair isn't needed. One of the 4 pieces of genetic information governs body hair:

|

| (this one)

|

|

What would happen if a mutation occured, and that gene that governed body hair became modified, causing some bears to lose most of their hair.

Mutated bears (~1/8 of the population has this mutation):

|

\ (mutates to a slash, causes hair loss)

|

|

Regular bears the (rest of the population remains unchanged):

|

| (did not change)

|

|

In this case, the increase in temperature might cause the majority of the bear population to die out, leaving only the ones that mutated and lost hair (~1/8). That is what natural selection does, but notice: there was no loss of information, the information simply CHANGED. That is the biggest thing to remember about this. Unless the mutation specifically causes a deletion or duplication, there is no loss of genetic information. Now the bears who survived will reproduce, and eventually that population of bears will be completely different from the original ones. That is what we call evolution.

As a corollary to their previous point, AiG also claims that mutations have not been shown to reverse genetic information loss. In reality (which is the dimension that normal, intelligent people live in), some mutations can cause genetic information to increase via duplications. I won't go into the details as to how it happens, but you have to understand that genes can be duplicated during both mitosis and meiosis.

The final claim made by AiG regarding natural selection is that we, the "evolutionists", like to give powers to natural selection that it doesn't have.

To this I say: when did we ever do that?

Bible Science: Astronomy

Okay, by now we should all know that the Bible is full of crap. Despite what it is purported to be, it's full of inaccuracies, contradictions, and sometimes flat out bullshit. So, to continue deciphering what the Bible calls science, I would like to bring our attention to the field of Astronomy: the study of celestial objects (stars, planets, comets, etc.).

Genesis, Chapter 1, Verses 3-5:

"Then God said, 'Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night."

Okay, so what's the point of bringing this passage up? This is what God did on the first day of Creation: he created light. Not only did he create light, but he separated it into night and day. That's an important first step.

So, let's go on a few more verses. This next passage comes from Genesis, Chapter 1, Verses 14-18.

"Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good."

That's a long one, but it essentially describes the creation of the Sun, the Moon, and the stars.

As a quick side note, I want to point out that God specifies that the "lights" in the sky are to be used for signs. Yes, there is astrology in the Bible. Of course, we know now that astrology is complete bullshit, but that's for another time.

You see, the problem with the Genesis account is simple: God created light before he created the Sun and the rest of the stars. He also calls the Moon a light, which of course it isn't.

Now, modern science (and in retrospect, which is always 20/20, common sense) has told us that the "light" and the stars are not separate: one is a byproduct of the other. Modern science/common sense also tells us that the Moon is not a light by itself, but rather it reflects the Sun's light, giving it that appearance. What kind of world is it where light exists independent of a chemical process to create it in the first place.

I know what kind of world it is: it's a mythological one, just like the one that is described in the Bible.

Science 3, Bible 0.

Bible Science: Paleontology

The opening verses of Genesis detail the creation of the universe, the earth, life, and man. Most importantly, the bible gives us some specifics as to the creatures that God created.

Hmmm, let's see. We have some lions, sheep, wolves, bears, cattle, dogs, insects, rodents, and even a few reptiles. Something seems missing . . .

How about the god damn dinosaurs! If they were all created at the same time, then why is there no mention of them at all in the Bible? Oh wait, here's why: there's no way that the Hebrews who wrote the book in the first place could have known about the dinosaurs, seeing as they lived millions of years before the first ape-like creatures had even contemplated existence.

But, surely the apologists have answers for me. Surely there must be some word that "could" have been interpreted as meaning "dinosaur". Well, it just so happens that they gave me a couple.

First off is the behemoth. The behemoth is first described in the Book of Job as being a huge, lumbering creature that "moves his tail like a cedar". It is also described as "first among the works of God" and impossible to capture, a possible reference to its size.

Most creationists believe that the behemoth was a sauropod, something like the Brachiosaurus. The fact that the tail moves like a cedar tree is believed to be a reference to a large tail, which negates the possibility that it was something like a hippopotamus, rhinoceros, or elephant.

In reality, the phrase "moves his tail like a cedar" most likely means one of two things:

1) A guy named Michael Bright, who is a senior producer with the BBC's natural history Unit and author of the book Beasts of the Field: The Revealing Natural History of Animals in the Bible, postulated that the writers of the Bible are not referring to the tail itself, but rather the hair on the tails of creatures like the hippo, rhino, or elephant. Like the leaves on a cedar tree, the hair on these animals is coarse and prickly.

2) The cedar tree simile may have actually been a euphemism for the animals penis. The phrase, with the euphemism substituted, may have read something like "his penis stiffens like a cedar". The cedar tree simile may have just been used to refer to the virility of something like a bull.

The behemoth is also described in Job 40 as having a naval. That would have made it a mammal, not a reptile.

The other is the leviathan, which is described as a water dwelling creature with characteristics similar to that of the "sea serpent" or the "dragon". The Hebrew word tanniyn is also used many times instead of leviathan, and they are assumed to be close to the same creature. Many creationists say that word tanniyn refers to the dinosaurs, as when it is translated into English it becomes "dragon", "serpent", or "sea monster". The Old Testament mentions the tanniyn about thirty times, and it says they lived on both land and sea.

Here's the problem with this one. The leviathan appears in the Ugaritic texts, which are very important for Old Testament scholars and their studies. The Ugaritic texts describe the leviathan as a twisting serpent with . . . seven heads. It's clearly not a dinosaur. It is meant to personify the waters of primeval chaos. Waters, if you've read Genesis, are very important symbols in the story of the creation. The earth was made by the separation of the waters; one went above the heavens, while the other stayed on the ground and became the oceans. You see, it's a metaphor. The rousing of the leviathan in Job 3:8 (remember the leviathan personifies the waters of primeval chaos) is meant to imply an undoing of the creation day.

Fantastic creatures like these, especially the leviathan and the behemoth, exist in the MYTHOLOGIES of most cultures not only in the mediterranean, but in the entire world. Unicorns, satyrs, dragons, cyclopes, harpies, centaurs, and a million other kinds of mythological animals exist in the stories of every other ancient culture. Why wouldn't the Hebrews have done the same?

The simple answer is that they would have. Of course the Hebrews meant it to be myth, seeing as there isn't any extra-biblical evidence for the existence of these creatures. What about the fact that dinosaurs specifically do not appear in any other mythology? It's such an odd thing to overlook, no matter how primitive you are.

We know now, thanks to advanced dating and fossil identification methods, that dinosaurs could not have lived during our short human existence. There is no way the Hebrews could have known about them.

Science 2, Bible 0.