Debate2:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


If you have questions about Evolution/Creationism, and want them answered honestly, see the articles on this website [1]


As a scientist, I can categorically state that the Theory of Macroevolution is not true. This is because there is no such theory. The Creationist division of evolutionary processes into micro and macro is false and disingenuous. What Creationists refer to as microevolution is merely the short-term expression of the exact process that results in speciation (which is the correct name for what Creationists term macroevolution).

The fact that evolution has occured, has been happening for several billion years, and is still going on as you read this is irrefutable, except by fraud, forgery and lies. The honest scientific literature is full of examples. The driving forces behind evolution have also been clearly identified (external environment, internal environment, competition for resources, sexual preferences etc). The majority of the mechanisms involved have been identified. All that remains under debate are the precise details. Not whether evolution happened, not how long it takes to happen, and not why it happens - just the exact details of how it happened.

I would just like to say that the "theory" of Evolution does not even qualify as a theory!! According to the scientific method, after you make a hypothesis, if ANY data comes up that contradicts you hypothesis than it must either be revised or discarded! How come even though there is much evidence that contradicts evolution it is still considered a theory? ChrisS

You need to actually cite some of this information, not just claim that there is some. The evidence is remarkably consistent with evolution, in fact, in a way known as evidential convergence. Plunge 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)


1. No credible transitional forms (fossils reflecting evolution between species) have ever been found.
Counter: Some transitional forms
All of these examples given in the above about the evolution of the whale are nonsense:
  • Pakicetus -- What makes this a "link"? It was nothing but a land mammal gone extinct.
  • Ambulocetus -- The reason given that this is a link is complete nonsense. It resembles a whale??? Most trees resemble eachother, they all have a trunk, branches, leaves, etc. Does this mean that all trees are somehow missing links between each other?
  • Dorudon -- I guess Wikipedia supposes this is a missing link because it uses sonar??? Same as example above.
  • Basilosaurus -- Another extinct species called a link because it "resembles" a whale.
  • Mammalodon colliveri -- The article just makes an unsupported statement. I would consider this article for deletion (no notability).
PhilipB 11:46, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Counter This may be an example of where going to specialized sources rather than relying on Wikipedia would be in order. However, some of these do in fact make clear why they are considered transitionals. For example, Pakicetus (as discussed in the Wikipedia article) had an inner ear structure that was very cetacean.(Not mentioned in the article but also relevant, Pakicetus had teeth that were very similar to some of the later transitionals in this list although not quite of the standard cetacean form) Proceeding, ambulectus had a bone structure consistent with something which spent time both walking and swimming and bears some similarities to Pakicetus. Basilosaurus looks almost like a modern whale except for the vestigial limbs. I'm not going to go into the others in detail but that should make it clear that there is good reason to see these as transitionals. JoshuaZ 15:49, 13 February 2007 (EST)
Additional Counter Why the are no transitional fossils.
2. There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal. Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!
Darwin was just speculating, and said so, and it hardly matters whether he was right or not anyway. As it happens though, he wasn't all that far off regardless: whales and dolphins are indeed descendants of land mammals (their closest living genetic relative is the hippo). All dolphins and whales form embryonically, just like other mammals, in such a way that "leg buds" appear on the embryo. However, in their case, these legs are later reabsorbed again. However, this process is not always perfect: some whales have even been discovered with atavisms of hind legs, legs attached, amazingly, to the remnants of their vestigial pelvis. Plunge 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)
3. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the evidence of a massive flood.
And what evidence would that be?
4. All mutations are harmful.
Counter This is a false argument. Firstly, it is estimated 1/3 of point mutations (mutations affecting one link in the DNA and no others) are not harmful. Secondly, though the number is small, there are documented cases of mutations being beneficial - an example is sickle cell anemia. This mutation is a flaw in the hemoglobin gene of humans, causing these molecules to covalently bond into long, bristly fibers inside the red blood cell that distort them into a sickle cell shape. This mutation makes sickle cell individuals immune to malaria, and many of the people residing in countries where this disease is prevalent have this mutation. The people affected by this mutation have lived and multiplied, thereby disproving this myth. Also see Counter argument to #5. PhyllisS

Reply: Phyllis, I don't know where you got your information on sickle cell anemia but it was certainly a biased source. You have not given the full story; 25% of those with sickle cell anemia die prematurely! This is not a good mutation. As the closest thing to a good mutation that evolutionists can come up with this is not supportive of evolution at all. --BenjaminS 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Benjamin please use statistics meaningfully. For your 25% to have significance you would need to compare it to the premature death rate of people without this mutation. You would also have to carefully define premature and look at the populations that have the mutation (if they are a population succeptible to malaria then they probably have poor living conditions). Also can you site a source for the 25%? -- Chris F

Further Reply: Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations. Simple probability predicts this: a random mutation is far more likely to reach a less desirable form. The odds are overwhelming. It is the same reason that heat always flows to cooler places. If you think mutations can be beneficial, then do you also think heat can sometimes "by chance" flow to a hotter place? That if we added billions of years it must happen sometimes? Of course not. It never happens.--Aschlafly 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

I don't see how you can claim that it is overall harmful. It confers immunity to a highly destructive disease to the majority of the population that has the trait. The price of the acute disorder is not a bar to it being an overall benefit for a population, especially since even those sufferers often live long enough to reproduce. Beneficial and detrimental are generally contextual and environmental, not absolute. The recent mutation (we was tracked back to a single man in Italy) that causes immunity to LDH cholesterol (and thus to many forms of heart disease caused by fatty modern diets) is certainly beneficial in modern society. Tetrachromatism in women (four color vision) is likewise a very neat mutational development, but it's not clear that it confers any selective advantage. In a different environment it might be beneficial or even detrimental for some reason.07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Further Reply: Heat flowing to cooler places is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Please elaborate. --PhyllisS

Comment: You should try to bear with Mr. Schlafly's abstract analogies (I know that they rarely make sense) and respond to his points that are doing you any harm; e.g. "Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations."

--BenjaminS 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

  • This is not exactly a counter to Aschlafly. But... Darwin was writing in the days when breeders were starting to do amazing things with selective breeding, which was one of the things that impressed him. Selective breeding is still going on and it is still amazing. In 1910 the average domesticated chickens laid 80 eggs a year; by 1999 292 eggs a year. There are similar stories for milk production per cow, meat per chicken, etc. Some of the improvement is due to changes in feed, antibiotics, hormones, whatever, but most of it is from selective breeding. So the question I would ask is: if all mutations are harmful, then where do breeders find the slightly improved animals to select as the progenitors of the next generation? Dpbsmith 18:46, 22 January 2007 (EST)
The vast majority of mutations are neutral or have no observable phenotypic change. Furthermore, of those mutations which are not in those categories, for most mutations whether or not the mutation is beneficial is highly connected to the environment which the relevant organism is found (sickle-cell anemia provides a vivid demonstration of this). However, other examples which are more directly beneficial. For example, many bacteria have gained mutations for immunity to various antibiotics, while other bacteria have gained mutations that allow them to eat nylon (a purely synthetic material). A more prosaic example is lactose tolerance. JoshuaZ 22:43, 6 February 2007 (EST)

5. Species have being going extinct rather than being generated.
Counter This is not true. For example, through a specific type of sympatric speciation, new species of plants are able to form and have formed in abundance. It occurs from meiosis not occurring properly in the production of gametes. These "mutant" offspring are a new species and cannot produce offspring with the species they came from, yet can produce fertile offspring with other plants that were mutated the same way. --PhyllisS

Reply: This is true; the statement above is only a general rule. What can be said for sure is that though mutations occur, there has never been a documented example of a organism gaining genetic information.--BenjaminS 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Nonsense. There is only one precise measure of information, and that is Shannon information. By that metric, virtually any change at all to an organism is an increase in genetic information. If that's not what you meant by information, however, then there are other ways to frame the question, and countless observed cases for every one. In fact, if say you accept microevolution then I'm sorry to say that you by definition accept that genetic information can increase. Anytime a gene pool is skewed via natural selection to alter the frequency of alleles in some adaptive way, the gene pool is clearly _gaining_ information about the particular environment it is in!

Further reply: Right. The mutant offspring devolved, not evolved.--Aschlafly 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Further reply: The organism did not devolve. Please explain this reply further. --PhyllisS
Comment: I think that by "devolve" he is trying to point out that organisms only lose genetic information through mutation; evolution relies upon the gain genetic information.--BenjaminS 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

6. All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time.
Counter Which is an argument against the existence of technology, cities, cars and everything advanced. This is a (rather embarrassing) misconception about the second law of thermodynamics. It states that entropy increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as processes here are powered by the energy originating from the sun. Order can increase in a system as long as more energy is inserted. A closed system is a system that doesn't receive such outside energy.
Comment on "closed system": So what you are saying that the order and energy of the Earth is dependent and derived from the Sun. Where does the Sun get its energy? What happens when it runs out of fuel, whether that be millions or even billions of years away? Molecules are still breaking down within the Sun. No matter how you look at it, the entire universe, "closed system" or not, is a slave of the second law of thermodynamics. David R
Further comment: That's right, David. By the way, the injection of energy into a system increases entropy. The only way to decrease entropy is intelligent ordering or intervention. Without that, entropy and disorder always increase. Whatever species existed 5000 years ago, in the absence of divine intervention there must be less ordered, less advanced, fewer species today. We see many examples of this: species go extinct each year, breeds of dogs degrade (e.g., Golden Retriever), even humans have increased incidence of asthma and other health problems from generation to generation. Take a look at how smart humans were just 100 or 200 years ago by looking at their writings, and compare that to the average human writings today. Entropy predicts degradation of everything over time in the absence of intelligent intervention.--Aschlafly 22:26, 14 January 2007 (EST)
The injection of energy into a system increases enthalpy, not entropy, Aschlafly. DNA, proteins, and other highly-ordered macromolecules stay together not because of intelligent intervention, but because of enthalpic contributions that offset the entropic cost. Also, you state that "Entropy predicts degradation... in the absence of intelligent intervention", just after you comment that everything is degrading. Wouldn't that imply, then, the absence of intelligent intervention?
Counter:"All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time." This is just false. We know living things become more complex and organized over time, because we can see it happening, e.g. a seed growing into a tree.
Counter:As water loses energy, it becomes ever-more ordered, and scattering is reduced. It's called ice.
7. There is vast beauty in the world which would not exist in a purely evolutionary world. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1)
Counter This is an irrelevant argument. What evidence exists to say that evolution cannot produce beauty? Besides that, what is the definition of beauty? Beauty can be a life form adapted to its environment, beauty can be a beneficial mutation, beauty can be monomers spontaneously forming polymers when dripped on hot clay...all examples of evolution. PhyllisS
This argument "against" evolution is terrible! Though evolution is false this isn't why. Unfortunately for evolutionists everywhere your counter argument does no better supporting evolution than the first one did disproving it.--BenjaminS 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)
Brilliant autumn foliage is beautiful. You won't find anyone who sincerely denies it, exact perhaps the most hardened evolutionist. But it is impossible for the beauty in brilliant autumn foliage to have evolved before humans even existed.
  • Please explain why "beauty" cannot exist without humans? Does a tree cease to be beautiful if it is not seen by human eyes? What a ridiculous concept!
Evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature. Over 99% of Americans think there is beauty in nature. Take your pick. Count me as part of the over 99% majority.--Aschlafly 22:47, 14 January 2007 (EST)
I don't think "evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature." Where did you get that? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm curious to know. Do creationists go around saying such a thing?) Stephen Jay Gould wrote "Shall we appreciate any less the beauty of nature because its harmony is unplanned?" Darwin wrote
"The view seen when crossing the hills behind Praia Grande was most beautiful; the colours were intense, and the prevailing tint a dark blue; the sky and the calm waters of the bay vied with each other in splendour;" "The number of beautiful fishing birds, such as egrets and cranes, and the succulent plants assuming most fantastical forms, gave to the scene an interest which it would not otherwise have possessed." "The beautiful view of the distant wooded hills, reflected in the perfectly calm water of an extensive lagoon, quite refreshed us." etc. etc. etc.
Maybe you think that evolutionists must seal their minds into logic-tight compartments in order to appreciate the beauty of nature while at the same time trying to explain it from natural causes, but they do it nonetheless. Dpbsmith 15:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Reply: I personally believe that God purposefully created nature for humans to enjoy and care for and that he purposefully made it beautiful as a blessing for us. nevertheless, from an evolutionary standpoint, beauty can still be explained; if we all came from a common ancestor, especially given our reliance on nature for suvival, I don't see why the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the fact that 99% of Americans find beauty in autumn foliage.--BenjaminS 23:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)

8. Abiogenesis is impossible. Even the simplest life form possible would be way too complicated to spring from nothing.
Counter Regardless if it's possible or not, it's not an argument against macroevolution.
Counter You don't know that it's impossible. No one knows what the simplest life form is, but pretending that abiogenesis concerns the simplest MODERN life (i.e. a modern cell) is nonsense: that's not what's being suggested at all. Besides, talking about stacking chemical reactions that observably naturally occur is not "springing from nothing."Plunge 23:49, 20 February 2007 (EST)
No: In short... no. In long... there is much evidence against the theory that proves it is false. First of all there is the classic argument that the "missing links" are still missing. Here is what Darwin had to say on the subject.
"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide then they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views." (The Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)
So wait, you are citing as your most recent survey of the fossil evidence something written in the 1800s??? It's also more than a little dishonest to quote someone introducing a problem and then pretend that they didn't, as Darwin did, go on to answer the objection at great length. Finally, there are also no such things as "missing links" in a biological sense: this is a misconception. We will never have a fossil of every single species, let alone individual, that ever lived. And we don't need to. The fossils we do have are already more than enough to map out the overall picture and general relations of species, and all these fossils are consistent with the very specific pattern of geologic and geographic distribution that common descent demands of them. Plunge 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Since when you are looking for data from the earth's history the first place you would look is the fossil record. What does the fossil record say? It says macroevolution never happened. There are even less documented "missing links" today then there were in Darwin's day. Obviously, macro-evolutionists want these "missing" links to be found desperately based on the elaborate measures they have gone through to try and fake the public out into believing one has been found. Take, for example, the famous Nebraska Man. He was supposed "evidence" for macro-evolution but in reality he was based entirely on a tooth from an extinct species of pig found among some ancient tools![2] This is only the beginning of the evidence against macro-evolution and I will be adding more to this edit as I get the time! PhilipB 11:06, 17 December 2006 (EST)

'Counter The above claims are simply false. We have hundreds of major transitional fossils(which is what I presume you mean by "missing link") between a variety of different groups. Examples include Australopithecus as transitional between humans ape like ancestors and humans, hasiophis terrasanctus (sp?) a transitional snake with hind limbs and many others. Name almost any major grouping and we will have transitional fossils between the various groups. For some groups we have very detailed transitional sequences. For example, between fish and tetrapods is a particularly good example, and the transitions between land mammals and whales have become well developed over the last 20 years. JoshuaZ 14:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)

9. The "Anthro-Simianic Paradox" -- If great apes evolved into humans, why are there still great apes? The inherent inconsistency in the pro-Darwinistical position can be verified scientifically, using the foam dinosaurs that grow larger in water. Place a package of tiny foam dinosaurs (representing apes) into a sink (representing evolution). All the dinosaurs will grow to giant proportions (representing humans) and no tiny foam dinosaurs will be left. Clearly, scientists must examine alternate hypotheses for the evolution of giant foam dinosaurs (human beings).
I'm presuming this is a parody. JoshuaZ 21:39, 21 February 2007 (EST)


Here is the logic of my assertion:

  1. It is within God's power to make anything happen that is logically possible....
  2. It is not logically impossible for a system to exist in which the laws of physics permit macroevolution to occur....
  3. It is within God's power to create a system in which the laws of physics permit macroevolution to occur....
  4. Microevolution does occur....
  5. It is not logically impossible for microevolution, carried out over a long enough time, to effect the changes that approximate macroevolution....
  6. It is within God's power to create a system in which microevolution, carried out over a long enough time will effect the changes that approximate macroevolution....
  7. If God exists, then macroevolution must be possible because it is within the power of God to make it so....
  8. If God does not exist, then macroevolution must be possible because it is definitely needed to explain out existence in the absence of God....
  9. Therefore, if God either exists or does not exist, the theory of macroevolution must be true....

Bless Yourself, for Thou Art God!! Pandeism 22:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Rebuttal - Just because it is within God's power to create anything that we can postulate, does not mean that He must have done so. Learn together 21:18, 3 June 2008 (EDT)