5 Stupid Arguments Against Evolution That Just Won't Die

As a ten year old child I had my first experience with the "controversy" surrounding the theory of evolution. I had decided to do my science fair project on evolutionary biology and devised an experiment that illustrated how evolution worked. After presenting my project a man sat down next to me and asked, "you don't really believe that do you?" This puzzled me because I had just spent weeks devising an experiment that if it came out the way I thought it should, then evolution would be validated. I had just presented physical evidence. "Why wouldn't I?" The man then gave me a very confused and to my ten year old brain, highly illogical argument of why evolution was false. To his credit, he was not aggressive or agitated nor did he mention the bible or make any religious argument. He did however, profoundly misunderstand the theory of evolution and the evidence for it. That was one of the first times I remember really understanding how clueless most adults are. As a child I assumed that most of adults had all the answers.

The United States is one of the worst countries when it comes to evolution belief, with nearly fifty percent of the population discounting it, despite the massive amount of evidence. Evolution deniers, whether they be creationists or other forms, show a conspiracy theorist mindset. They either misunderstand or find small anomalies in evolution and then throw out the entire theory for "lack of evidence" only to replace it with an alternative for which there is much less evidence. These are the five creationist claims that drive me up the wall the most.

If Human Beings Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are There Still Monkeys?

This was a very popular stupid argument in the 90s and it is in fact so stupid that most scientists never even address it. Those who would bring it up often did so with a smug kind of triumph, thinking they had destroyed decades of scientific work with one glib objection. The fact that most people would burst out laughing the moment they heard such idiocy never seemed to faze them.

The reason I think that this is worth bringing up is that I encounter two misconceptions about evolution that are very popular even among people who accept the scientific consensus. The first is that INDIVIDUALS can evolve. This one I call the comic book superhero version of evolution. The second is that SPECIES evolve. Both of these are completely false.

Imagine a single species of rabbit that has populations spread out all over the world. If a major disease or predator were to occur in one area and large numbers of rabbits were killed then the rabbits who survived in that area would have genes that allowed them to survive that specific disease or predator. They would pass these genes on to their offspring. Within a few generations this population of rabbits would already start to show differences from other populations of rabbits elsewhere. Now imagine this happening over and over again over millions of years. By the end of millions of years you would end up with a very different species in one population than you would in the other one, based on what genes were able to get into the population and which were eliminated. This is because POPULATIONS evolve.

I partially blame educators for this misconception though. When we see evolution portrayed it is usually shown as if it were a straight line, when in reality it is an intricately branching web. Though the chimpanzee shares 99% of its DNA with humans, we did not evolve from chimps. In reality, we share a common ancestor with them. At one point there was a species of hominid and one population went one way, eventually resulting in us, and the other went another way, resulting in the modern chimpanzee.

The World is Obviously Designed and Evolution Cannot Account For It.

The thing about intelligent design is that I really don't see what it refutes about evolution. Basically, it claims that everything we currently understand about evolution is irrefutable but the stuff we do not yet understand...well...God did that. Once you have gone this far into accepting the basic premise of evolution you have accepted all the science and the intelligent design is just a bit of theology, shoehorned in to make evolution work with whatever religion you happen to believe in. Theologians do this all the time and there is no harm in it. The harm comes when you try to claim that this argument about design is actual science.

Ray Comfort's famous "banana argument" is a classic example of this. What comfort didn't realize is that the banana has in fact been designed, by us. All of our food, whether they are crops of domesticated animals, have been bred for thousands of years in order to preserve traits that we like and find useful. In fact, the very practice of this is evidence of evolution.

The so called "design" in nature can also be explained by evolution. There is similarities in different species and norms because we are so closely related. If creationism was true, ask yourself why God would make so many similarities between the bone structure of a bat and the bone structure of a human? If God had just started from scratch he could have just have started each animal from a completely new perspective. This would have made animals that fly more aerodynamic and could have improved many animals in any number of ways. If animals and plants were actually designed from scratch, instead of evolving, there would probably be even more variety and incongruity of life, not less.


The Fossil Record Is Incomplete

The idea that there are not "transitional fossils" is a crazy claim made by creationists that a lot of people let them get away with. The definition of a transitional fossil is one that shows traits of two distinct taxonomy groups. We have literally hundreds of fossils that show this. One of the ways that creationists try to make it seem like this isn't true is to change the definition of transitional fossil.

By using deceptive, language they make it seem as if anything short of a "missing link" between known species will suffice. But if we find this link, then they simply say that we must now find the link between that species and known species. And so on and so on. So nothing short of something outlandish, like a bird turning into a monkey, would be proof to them and still they would deny it.

What is maddening about this is that DNA evidence renders it completely irrelevant. When we can see that certain species have so much similarity in their DNA that they had to have come from a common ancestor, the days of relying on fossils for evidence was long gone.

Evolution Has Never Been Observed

This one is a lot like the previous one. It is simply a false statement that relies on a misunderstanding of evolution to lend it some credibility. If you believe in the comic book super hero version of evolution (individuals evolving) or the idea that whole species collectively evolve, then you might be able to buy what creationists are selling.

In reality we observe evolution at work all the time. When we spray pesticides and future generations of insects become immune, that is evolution. When we use medications and future generations of bacteria become immune, that is evolution. Once again when we go back to how humans have domesticated animals and plants over thousands of years that is evidence of evolution as well. All observable and easy to draw conclusions from.

Evolution is Random and Nihilistic

Saying evolution is random is not to understand natural selection. This is the same as those who try to break evolution into a simplistic, survival of the fittest model. Those who are able to get their genes into the gene pool, have those genes survive. How that is accomplished is an intricate struggle between life forms and their environments. Evolution definitely doesn't imply that everything is meaningless and believing in evolution doesn't mean you are also a believer in any particular political ideology.

Conspiracy theorists love to make ad hominem attacks on Darwin. These include claiming that Darwin was a Freemason (he wasn't but his father was), was racist (he was an abolitionist and strongly opposed slavery) or attempts to connect Darwinism with Nazism.

If the Nazis were using Darwin then they sure didn't understand him, as they also didn't seem to understand a great many other of their supposed influences. In order to believe this you would have to adopt that paranoid worldview that evolution was some vast conspiracy since the beginning of human civilization.

Contrary to popular belief, evolution did not start with Darwin and it sure didn't end with him. The idea of evolution goes back to Aristotle in ancient Greece and though Darwin brought it into the realm of science, Alfred Wallace was doing research at the exact same time.

Even if Darwin never published his findings, that would not discount all of the facts and evidence we have learned since then. Attacks on Darwin are especially silly and irrelevant. They also reveal much of the character and desperation of those that make them.

More by this Author


Comments 46 comments

HSchneider 5 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Great Hub Robephiles. Unfortunately many people are so indoctrinated and safe in religion that they refuse to believe anything that might threaten it. Actually the two do not have to be incompatible. The Bible was a compilation of oral stories and parables which attempted to make sense of the world at that time. They were not meant for these stories to be taken literally. Many people of science believe in evolution and other knowledge and still have faith in God. I do not understand the current disdain of knowledge and science.


Robephiles profile image

Robephiles 5 years ago Author

I was raised Baptist and my parents never had a problem with it. Though both of my parents aren't what you would call super religious they both manage to believe in God and evolution. It is usually extremists on both sides who insist that the two contradict each other completely.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

The Fossil Record Is Incomplete exactly all you did was give artist illustrations but not actual fossils found. Theist could play the same game also. For example the atheist will proved god exist and draw and illustration and according to his logic he proved it. Stay irrational atheist/Theist.


Robephiles profile image

Robephiles 5 years ago Author

This is not an argument about whether God exists or not. That is a completely separate issue.

but once again DNA evidence also makes the fossil record irrelevant.

As for actual fossils, there are actual fossils all over the web. Even wikipedia has a list of transitional fossils. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_...

Good work proving how rational you are by missing the point, making an irrelevant argument and then making some incoherent statement about atheism.

I'm not sure if you just have such bad grammar that I can't tell what you were trying to say at the end or if you are just that unable to hold a thought together. Either way, I will pray for you.


melpor profile image

melpor 5 years ago from New Jersey, USA

Good hub. This is also my view about people who constantly attack evolution. They do not fully understand it or they are using misinformation to refute it when all of the evidence are clearly right in front of their eyes. I recently wrote a hub on this about why people need to stop wasting their time trying to discredit the science of evolution. The facts are there. Voted up.


alexsaez1983 5 years ago

It just boggles the mind how creationists will cling to their idiotic dogma. They say "give us evidence!" Well, sorry creatards, but the burden of proof is on you.


Robephiles profile image

Robephiles 5 years ago Author

Some conspiracy theorists do the same thing. They try to poke small holes in the "accepted version" and then propose a preposterous alternative for which there is no evidence. They fail to see that even if some details of evolution need more study or have differing opinions, the overall theory accounts for so many things that we know to be true that it can stand even the most intense scientific scrutiny.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

There not transitional fossils. There complete species that have gone extinct. For example transitional fossils would consists of a fish showing the slow process of developing it's legs. Or an ape developing his limbs first, then 1 finger and the rest for a total of five. No fossils have ever been found. All the fossils that have been found are always complete. I base all of my research on paleontology not ideology or worse illustration.


Robephiles profile image

Robephiles 5 years ago Author

Seriously, man, have you ever heard of a lungfish? And what the hell are you talking about with fingers? A "one fingered ape" would be proof of evolution? Four or five digits is the norm throughout mammals. That is like saying that a human being with one eye slowly developing two would be proof of evolution. It amazes me that people like you are able to function in society.

And I gave you a link that shows actual photos of transitional fossils. (there are some illustrations but just as many photographs.) You are proving my point by arguing this because it is my claim that creationists simply change the definition of "transitional fossils" in order to make their claim.

Also DNA, look into it.


PiaC profile image

PiaC 5 years ago from Oakland, CA

The first time I saw a "Darwin" fish decoration on a car, I laughed out loud. They are so wonderful! I find it odd that so many people continue to persist in not trusting evolution, despite the fact that we see proof of it, in some way or the other, in our day to day existence.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Like i said before there complete species found to be extinct. Yet you keep calling me names because you have no fossil evidence besides artist illustrations. And why do you label me as a creationist I made no such claim?

According to your logic if I don't like God, I must be Atheist. If i don't believe in Evolution,I must believe in genesis. Nice logic.

Let's get back to science, let me ask you what is the difference between Neo-Darwinism and Evolution.


Robephiles profile image

Robephiles 5 years ago Author

Um....any species that exists is a complete species. A species is a group of animals that can reproduce and produce fertile offspring. There are closely related animals that can produce offspring that are not able to reproduce. (more evidence of evolution.)

Think about what you are saying. Homo Habilas is a transitional form. Early Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal man co-existed at the same time. Your version of a transitional form is basically "an animal that is like another animal but also like another animal." That is the definition of what a transitional fossil is, a fossil that shows traits of two distinct taxonomy groups. You say that they don't exist but your definition pretty much describes all of the fossils that we already have.

As for my "logic" I make no such claim. I merely show that you are making a creationist style argument. You could believe in the ancient astronaut hypothesis for all I care. It wouldn't change the fact that your claims are absurd. It would be a "false dichotomy" logical fallacy to say that there are only two views, evolution and creationism, but it doesn't make any of these other views any less wrong.

Once again my link does not contain only illustrations. There are photos if you bothered to click on any of the links. There are illustrations yes but also PHOTOGRAPHS. Once more, I have seen, touched and examined transitional fossils personally. So could you if you bothered.

For the record, Neo-Darwinists still believe in evolution. You imply that they do not. There are a number of disagreements about specifics involving natural selection and gray areas. This has no relation to your nonsensical arguments.

I have also not ever called you any names but I will now. You are pretty obviously trolling here. I get one like that every time I write on a "controversial" subject and they are easy to spot since they are the people who join Hubpages but never write any hubs themselves.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

For example evolution religious claim that Archaeopteryx was the best example of evolution base on ideology and assumptions instead of facts. They let there ideology dictate science or in other words pseudoscience. Even Alan Feduccia a bird expert said

"Paleontologist have tried to turn Archaepteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it is not. Is is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."

Or another example is coelacanth in which evolution religion portrayed as a transitional form between fish and reptiles and that it has been extinct for nearly 400 Million years. But they found a living coelacanth in 1938. The fact is coelacanth never involved into anything it remain the same for over 400 millions years. I based my research on fossils not ideology.

Even Charles Darwin question his own findings. But when I do it I get called names. I thought we where out of the dark ages.


Robephiles profile image

Robephiles 5 years ago Author

If you read the history of science, every idea that questioned established science has taken years to be accepted, because of the rigorous process of peer review. Some of our greatest scientific discoveries were confirmed by people trying to disprove a hypothesis that they disagreed with not prove one that they believed.

Alan Feduccia has a dissenting view. He does not use this view to question the entire theory of evolution, the idea that there are transitional fossils or argue for an alternative to evolution based on nonsense. He makes a very specific criticism of the accepted science in the case of a very specific debate.

It is common for critics of the theory of evolution to use out of context quotes from scientists in order to make their words seem to reflect claims that the scientists themselves have never made. This is a dishonest practice within itself but the idea that criticisms of individual issues in evolution somehow invalidate the theory of evolution is a logical fallacy called the fallacy of construction.

When you refer to evolutionary science as "evolution religion", this shows a ideological bias so head-spinning that the fact that you would call anybody else ideological is deliciously ironic. (lost on you no doubt.)

Of course Darwin questioned his own findings. He was a scientist and that is what scientists do. Also he was wrong about a lot of things. But the overall theory has held up to such much rigorous scientific study that questioning it with pseudoscience, quote mining and numerous logical fallacies is insulting.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

You did not understand what I was saying. I provided the Archaeopteryx example because its finding contradict what evolution has stated. Even the example of the coelacanth discredits the theory of one species evolving into another- the evolution of a fish evolving into a reptile. These fossils debunk these evolution statements because they provide evidence that show otherwise to what the evolutionists claim to be scientific facts.

You stated that I used a quote out of context but this is not so. The quote about the Archaeopteryx clearly states that paleontologist want to say the Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur but it is not, it is simply a bird.

I have provided these examples not by falling to ideologies but by using only facts to state my case. Instead of you acknowledging what I have presented, you have swayed into other ideas ignoring the subject matter. We could have continued with a profound discussion about the topic but it is not possible if you do not participate and stoop down to bashing my statements instead of providing solid arguments based on facts.

God speed.


Robephiles profile image

Robephiles 5 years ago Author

You do not understand evolutionary theory. Your arguments are straw man arguments. I explain why "species evolving into other species" is a misconception about evolution in my hub.

Also, another person's opinion is not evidence. But your quote is out on context because you imply that it is Alan Feduccia arguing against the theory of evolution which he does not do. He believes in evolution. He is an evolutionary biologist as anybody who took two seconds to Google him would know. Stephen Jay Gould has also gone against the consensus on a number of points and I have seen quotes by him used to imply that he is arguing against evolution, which he isn't.

You have presented no evidence. Not even a tiny bit of evidence. I have presented you with evidence and you have simply claimed it isn't evidence.

You commit the fallacy of construction (or fallacy of composition as it is sometimes called) once again by claiming that disagreements over specific issues discredits evolution. This is a typical "throw the baby out with the bathwater" type argument that is common when somebody wants to make a broad generalization to justify an ideological stance.


MisterSelmo 4 years ago

I was going to comment but then I got bored with the entire idea of having a debate about evolution with you.


Robephiles profile image

Robephiles 4 years ago Author

Somehow, I am not surprised that you would not believe in evolution.


MikeSchultheiss profile image

MikeSchultheiss 3 years ago from Eugene, OR

My very sincere thanks and kudos, Robephiles, for the public service of this outstanding article, not to mention your tremendous patience and forbearance with the misinformed and ignorant! Excellent hub, and I look forward to reading many more.


Christopher k 3 years ago

Very nice article, Robephiles. Sadly we live in a world run by these people, for now...


cyp 3 years ago

How can one be so stupid as you?

Let's start the list of why evolution is wrong:

1.homology was proven false. more exactly if two animals look the same this does not mean they are genetically related. The example from every biology book with a hand looking like a wing has been proven wrong by the fact that the coding DNA is completely different. (so palenteology cannot actually prove shit by bones along)

2. there are no vestigial organs.as time progressed we have discovered the purpose of all those so called vestigial organs.

3. there are no transitional fossils

4. radiometric dating was proven ureliable

5. there is no known mechanism to add new DNA information

6. embryonic development does not recapitulate evolution

7. evolution cannot explain simple facts as why only men have beards

8.evolution cannot explain any supposed transformations: single celular to multi celular or invertebrate to vertebrate

9.trabsitional forms would not be superior to their ancestors so by the rule of natural selection they would die

10. evolution does not explain symbiotic relationships

There are a lot of facts that are against evolution and you bring only words and just so stories


Robephiles profile image

Robephiles 3 years ago Author

"How can one be so stupid as you?"

Some people might be dismissive of this simply because of the bizarre syntax, but since it is possible that this objection was written by Yoda, I feel compelled to respond.

1. When I first read this claim I expected to find some crackpot blogs or religious sites backing it up but I found....nothing. You can however look on the internet and find a lot of information about how non-coding DNA supports evolution and about homology. In edition, I made a logical argument for homology supporting evolution in response to some of the claims of creationists and you would have to refute this logical argument in order to destroy my claim. Or at least you would to make the case that a creationist view is more logical.

2. Human beings have an appendix, wisdom teeth and tailbones. Please, explain the purposes of these three things.

3. This claim is like me walking into a room with an elephant and saying "there is no elephant here." Even though all the other people in the room clearly see the elephant and try to convince me, I continue to claim the elephant is not there but that it is clearly a rhinoceros. I conclude from this that elephants do not exist. After a while everybody else in the room starts thinking I am clearly bonkers.

4. Once again, I looked this one up and you can find crackpot blogs and religious sites making this claim. However, the term radiometric dating can refer to a number of methods that are independent of each other. The way that we know radiometric dating has validity is that different methods of determining age have been applied and they have gotten the same results. This is a pretty basic epistemological standard. If you can determine the age of a tree by the number of rings, and you carbon date that tree and get the same result as the number of rings then these two methods start to lend support to each other. If you then use a third or a fourth method and get the same result then you can start to believe that these methods are accurate. However, this is about the age of the earth, and though that is related to evolution, it is not really related to this hub. This argument shows that the commenter is a creationist and is willing to make any argument to defend the biblical story of creation.

5. I have no idea what this person means. I guess they are saying that DNA can't change over generations or something like that. I THINK this is what they are saying but who knows. But there are mutations and that is how new traits enter the DNA code and even if you know nothing about DNA, a quick look at nature will help you to understand this.

6. There was a hypothesis put forth at one point that the development of an embryo would show all of its stages of evolutionary development. This was proven false and you can find more about it here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6...

I personally think this hypothesis was rather silly to begin with, because it is an overly simplistic view on evolution. However, just because this hypothesis is incorrect does not invalidate evolution. In fact, my link is from a site at Berkley explaining the basics of evolution and the page is meant to show you that this theory is based on a misconception about evolution.

7. First of all, not only do men have beards. There are women who have facial hair. Not only men go bald either. Both of these are more common in men. However, I, for instance, have very little hair on my chest, while some men have a lot of hair on their chests. Is this evidence against evolution? Really, you want to go there?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/09/08/...

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.ht...

How can one be so stupid as you?

8. Chordates to the first one. To the second one, ha ha ha, and may I add, ha.

9. The bad spelling is getting to me at this point but the argument is even dumber. Natural selection does not mean survival of the fittest the way Ayn Rand means it. It simply means the ability to survive and reproduce. A lot of mutations are useless and would die. (and do.) It is only those that are to an advantage that would be passed on. I already explained this in my hub in the part about how populations evolve.

10. Yawn

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/sy...

I might also add that all these things that evolution supposedly cannot explain, would not be explained by creationism or any other theory. even if evolution could not explain them, which in most cases it can, you would still need to offer an alternative explanation that was more viable in order to cast some doubt all on the things that evolution CAN and DOES explain.


Weswiki profile image

Weswiki 3 years ago from USA

Great Article, and voted up. It's a bit disheartening to see so many creationists respond to this , though I guess it's natural that they would. One thing you didn't explicitly cover in the article, but did mention in the comments was the intentional misquoting, or the manipulation of quoting, of scientists and academic researchers. Currently, you also see this in History with holocaust-deniers or ancient alien "theorists". It runs parallel with creationists, as neither party has any interest in the truth, but are both motivated by a political/ideological agenda. The lack of any peer-review is a major a red-flag, and it's alarming to see it arising in so many disciplines across the academic board. I know some of their objections to the standardized peer-review process is that these peer-researches have a vested interest in their work, and thus their views are "tainted"; in a sense they may be right, but researchers of all academic stripes are trained to evaluate evidence not defend a predetermined idea. I'd say that's analogous to refusing a second opinion from a doctor/lawyer/electrician/etc. (and many of these "supra-academics" really do have a vested interest in advancing their own crack-pot theories).


incidental surfer 3 years ago

People who still believe in evolutionism? Really? I don't buy it. The story of the frog who changed into a prince-- with time being substituted for the princess' kiss... And it's the intelligent designers who are said to be gullible for magic? As if we have no empirical data on the source of information and functionality. Hey, let's just ignore everything we observe each passing moment and make believe. Strange religion. Funny and sad.


Robephiles profile image

Robephiles 3 years ago Author

I can't tell if this comment is stupidity or satire.


Deoxyribonucleic acid 3 years ago

Three months ago, incidental surfer said:

"Hey, let's just ignore everything we observe each passing moment and make believe. Strange religion. Funny and sad."

Please, it is not religion, it's bloody fact.


alexsaez1983 3 years ago

"Hey, let's just ignore everything we observe each passing moment and make believe. Strange religion. Funny and sad."

Interesting, considering you ignore the overwhelming physical, scientific, historical and empirical evidence proving evolution. Even creationists admit that micro evolution (small changes within a species) is real and confirmed through observation. You're the one stuck in a land of make-believe. I used to be a Christian, trust me, I know how much denial you have to force down your throat before you finally wake up. I guess you just don't have the capacity.


Jessie Pinkman. 3 years ago

Catholics are pretty cool. Where christians were going to court with Thomas Scopes, they were all like "Evolution? Yeah, we can fly with that."


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 2 years ago

Very well done. I'll check to see whether you've done something similar on climate change. I suspect many creationists are also climate change deniers.


mrphysh profile image

mrphysh 2 years ago from North Carolina

The author directly approaches the issue of the incomplete fossil record. That is cool. One of his examples is Pakietus. The fossils are from 56 million years ago to 38 million years ago. (This is his reference) This is an intermediate species, but it lasted almost 20 million years! I think that the evolutionists are just as religious as the creationists.


Besarien profile image

Besarien 2 years ago

I can't believe folks still think that evolution is debatable. Evolution happens. Earth rotates around the Sun. Let's move along people. We've diseases to cure and alternative energies to perfect now.


mrphysh profile image

mrphysh 2 years ago from North Carolina

I agree. Let's just move forward. Let's talk about something else.


John Nicol 2 years ago

Now- this could be an argument against either the Big Bang or Evolution- but I don't exactly see how they're compatible. in the Origin of Species, Darwin writes (Or maybe it's just something that he said) "nature does not leap." well, what the sam hill do you call the Big Bang? A huge explosion that created the universe seems to be a great big leap.


John Nicol 2 years ago

And an argument against evolution would also be that- look at us humans! other animals, at birth, can run like heck away from other predators, but human babies can't even walk on their own hind legs for at least a year. how would we make it to the top of the heap? This seems to rule out natural selection.


John Nicol 2 years ago

although these questions were aimed at the author, anyone- feel free to answer.


Dannytaylor02 profile image

Dannytaylor02 23 months ago from United Kingdom, Liverpool

The World is Obviously Designed and Evolution Cannot Account For It.

This is true depending on what you mean by evolution.

Can you tell me what natural selection is please? It's clearly not a random force so if its not random then that means there is intelligence behind it...Funny how you have to deify mechanisms just to get rid of god.

Evolution is full of problems. Reductionism just cannot account for all of the leaps in biology as the late stephen jay gould tells us.

Richard dawkins is a philosopher for materialism before he is a scientist.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 22 months ago from Ohio, USA

"In reality we observe evolution at work all the time. When we spray pesticides and future generations of insects become immune, that is evolution. "

Well, it is change, but it's not a new organ, body plan, or system. It's still an insect that will hatch baby insects of the same insect. Nothing new was generated.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 22 months ago from Ohio, USA

" Attacks on Darwin are especially silly and irrelevant. They also reveal much of the character and desperation of those that make them."

True, but you are guilty of the same malfeasance. Neither side should attack the messenger.


Daniel 22 months ago

There are about 600,000 different "species" of spiders. That is what evolution does but nothing more, in all this time a spider is still ultimately a spider.

If evolution could create new species then surely we would see that in the more primitive species??


Dannytaylor02 profile image

Dannytaylor02 22 months ago from United Kingdom, Liverpool

actually it's the fact that the record is nearly complete which is what is worrying evolutionists. What they see is clear distinction between species and that is why Stephen jay Gould talks about evolution making huge leaps for it to be viable...


nicomp profile image

nicomp 22 months ago from Ohio, USA

Dannytaylor02 , there are transitional forms for all the species found in the Burgess Shale?


Dannytaylor02 profile image

Dannytaylor02 22 months ago from United Kingdom, Liverpool

The Burgess Shale shows just how suddenly species came into existence through a period called the Cambrian explosion so I'm not sure what you mean. Isn't that more evidence for what I'm saying?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 22 months ago from Ohio, USA

Dannytaylor02 , I thought you were saying the transitional fossils were mostly complete.

I was saying that obviously there are no transitionals for the species suddenly appearing in the Burgess Shale.


Dannytaylor02 profile image

Dannytaylor02 22 months ago from United Kingdom, Liverpool

I think we are on the same page incomplete then :)

The biggest myth in the fossil record is that it's incomplete whereas the opposite is true and the evidence is disappointing for reductionists


Hugh Mann 14 months ago

Thanks for this hub! Some of these arguments made me laugh. I have actually heard the first one before from someone who believed it. I'm sure he thinks he won the argument, because I didn't think it would be a good use of time to try to explain it to him.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 14 months ago from Ohio, USA

"The biggest myth in the fossil record is that it's incomplete whereas the opposite is true and the evidence is disappointing for reductionists"

As I wrote here 7 months ago, there are no transitionals for the species suddenly appearing in the Burgess Shale.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working