User:Armondikov/dawinism


 * See the completed article Ask Darwinists

I got this from someone on Facebook, bizarrely called "Scientist Street" who has no 4 friends. I was thinking of refuting them fully (please chip in if you like), but mostly it's as an example of the sheer inanity of the anti-evolution bullshit. They're probably copy/pasted from somewhere but I'm not sure.

HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO ARE DESPERATELY TRYING TO HOLD ON THE DELUSION OF DARWINISIM :

QUESTION 1: Is there a single intermediate form fossil among all the 100 million or so that have been unearthed to date? Name one...
 * Yes, there are several. Though you would need to define "intermediate form" first. By the logical definition, every living creature is an intermediate form between it's parents and its offspring. Creationists are fond of move goal posts of what a "transitional" form or fossil is so that they can easily ignore any evidence presented to them.
 * The obvious answer would be to cite Archaeopteryx, the part bird, part reptile animal discovered very shortly after The Origin of Species was published. This is considered to be one of the best known examples. A more recent example is the discovery of Odontochelys semitestacea, a species showing part of the transition that developed turtle shells.

QUESTION 2: Can a single protein molecule emerge by chance?
 * Not likely, but protein molecules do not emerge by chance. Firstly, protein molecules that occur in nature as enzymes are assembled by other enzymes and encoded by DNA. Shorter protein sequences, usually referred to as polypeptides can form out of reaction mixtures of amino acids, which in turn form from chemical reactions.
 * If the question is referring specifically to protein folding, then this too isn't governed by chance. The interaction of water molecules with an unfolded protein (the solvent sphere) means that when a protein folds, it releases many water molecules from their rigid positions in the solvent sphere and into the bulk fluid. This increases the entropy of the system and provides a thermodynamic driving force for the protein to fold.

QUESTION 3: Is it true that there have been shown to be millions of living fossils?
 * "Living fossil" is an informal term, so it's unlikely that this question makes any sense. See: wp:Living fossil.

QUESTION 4: Is it true that Piltdown Man, exhibited for 40 years, was a hoax?
 * Piltdown Man was shown to be a hoax. However, this fact has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theories, it only says that it was a hoax. However, the fact that it was exposed, albeit after several decades, proves that science is not afraid or reinterpreting facts and questioning theories in the pursuit of truth. Compare this with the Shroud of Turin, which has been exposes as a medieval forgery, yet people still believe in it.

QUESTION 5: Is it true that Nebraska Man was a fraud based on a single peccary tooth?
 * See above. Though more info specifically on Nebraska Man can be found on TalkOrigins].

QUESTION 6: Is it true that Archæoraptor liaoningensis, proposed as a "dino-bird," was a fraud?
 * Again see above. Though compared to Piltdown Man, this was uncovered and readily retracted very quickly. It should also be noted that this case was first published in National Geographic, which is essentially a pop-science magazine which covers a massive range of topics regarding the natural world. It is not subject to peer review.

QUESTION 7: Is it true that the Coelacanth, for years depicted as an intermediate form fossil, is a species of fish still living today?
 * The Coelacanth is an example of a Lazarus Taxon, or a species that was believed to be extinct but has then been rediscovered (in fact, Coelacanth is an order, not a species). This doesn't imply that it disappeared and reappeared, only that it wasn't observed (in either live or fossil form) before "discovery". No doubt the question is confusing the informal use of "living fossil" and how speciation can occur. Indeed, it bears some similarity to the old argument that "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".

QUESTION 8: Is it true that Archaeopteryx, also put forward as a missing link, was actually a fully flying bird?
 * This is true only if you believe Answers in Genesis and since they believe the world is only 6000 years old, they are hardly qualified to discuss creatures that lived millions of years ago. It is unclear whether Archaeopteryx was capable of full flight or just gliding, however, outside the feathers and wings, Archaeopteryx has far more similarities with dinosaurs than modern birds.

QUESTION 9: Is the invalidity of the fictitious horse series accepted today?
 * As the only Google search for "fictitious horse series" brought up this set of questions, answered by a anti-evolution site, it is impossible to answer this question due to it being either totally nonsensical or using made up terms.

QUESTION 10: Did Ernst Haeckel admit that the embryo illustrations submitted as evidence of evolution were hoaxes?
 * Although some were said to be fabricated, they were fabricated only in the sense that they were reconstructed from partial data, |see the Wikipedia entry. But otherwise, see above that forgeries and hoaxes have no baring on the validity of a species.

QUESTION 11: Is it true that the fossil known as Lucy belonged to an extinct type of ape and has been removed from the fictitious tree of human evolution?
 * Lucy is classed as Australopithecus afarensis, a common ancestor of ‘’both’’ Australopithecus and Homo geneses. Again, the question appears to be clawing at the fact that science changes it's mind, it does, it changes to be closer to reality.

QUESTION 12: Have mutations ever been observed to produce beneficial organs?
 * If by mutation, the question refers to a single exchange of a DNA sequence to produce a whole, functioning organ, then no. That's impossible. Something as complex as an organ will take several million years to evolve, although computer simulations have tested how the eye could form, for example (an another amusing YouTube video shows the evolution of a clock via a computer simulation) these cannot be observed directly in the lab. Regardless, there is far more passive evidence to track how organs may have evolved.

QUESTION 13: Can natural selection bring about changes in an organism's genetic data or produce a new organ?
 * Yes. If the organ provides some kind of benefit as far as the selection criteria is concerned, it will.

QUESTION 14: Is it true that the "peppered moths" (in the industrial melanism story), for so long proposed as evidence of natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism, were actually pictured by being glued onto trees?
 * Probably not. The "peppered moth" story is brought up time and again in support of this bizarre creationist only concept (well, evolutionary biologists have the term, but it means something totally different) of micro evolution. There is no barrier between micro and macro evolution as that would require two types of DNA; one effected by mutations and one that isn't.

QUESTION 15: Can the information sufficient to fill 1 million encyclopaedia pages that is contained in DNA be coded in the correct sequence by chance?
 * No. But evolution isn't chance, it is governed by rules.

QUESTION 16: Is it true that Darwin thought the cell was just a dark blotch and that he was unaware of such organelles as DNA, the nucleus, ribosome and mitochondrion?
 * That would be Cell Theory. The cell can be a blob or it can be several hundred smurfs walking around inside it. The form of the cell has no influence on the mechanism of natural selection or the validity of evolutionary theories. Natural selection as a mechanism has been shown to work in computer simulations (“clocks” for example), possibly even in chemical systems and in those examples the selection criteria are not affected by the complexity or simplicity of the basic cell.

QUESTION 17: Is it true that inanimate atoms cannot join together and spontaneously give rise to life?
 * No. For a start, there is a blurred distinction of what "life" is. Are viruses alive? Are reproducing molecules alive? Are prions alive? Are insects that certainly aren't sentient and bacteria that aren't intelligent or possessing nervous systems alive? Why do vegetarians shrink away from killing sheep for food but fine with killing carrots for food? While atoms most certainly won't randomly form together to create a human in an instant, no scientist claims that this will occur. As there is no hard and fast line as to what constitutes life, the question remains meaningless.

QUESTION 18: Is it true that thousands of complex life forms appeared simultaneously and with no forerunners during the Cambrian Period?
 * No. This refers to the "Cambrian explosion", where the rate of diversification increased so rapidly that science is lucky to have any fossils from that period.

QUESTION 19: Does the fact that two life forms possess genetic similarities mean they have a physical resemblance?
 * Not really. The genetic material refers to the genotype while the physical appearance is the phenotype. In modern mammals, much of the development of an embryo is controlled by the mother, meaning that similar genotypes can produce slightly different physical features. However, on the whole, some genetic similarities can be linked to physical appearance or characteristics. If this wasn't true, we wouldn't be able to genetically test for certain diseases.

QUESTION 20: Can the idea that dinosaurs grew wings and began to fly as they chased after flies account for the origin of flight?
 * Most scientists will say that it is unlikely to be that simple. However, the question does appear to be clutching at Lamarkian evolution

QUESTION 21: Are the illustrations we see of half-human, half-animal creatures in their social environment entirely imaginary?
 * You mean the centaurs, fawns, perhaps Egyptian gods etc. Yes, yes they are.

QUESTION 22: Is it true that past civilizations depicted as primitive actually used highly advanced technology and possessed an unsurpassed conception of art?
 * If the question implies that the Aztecs had flying machines, then no. If it implies that the Greeks had a good grasp of maths for use in architecture, then yes. The relevance of this question to evolution is unknown, but it may be hinting perceived directionality of evolution; from worst to better, from smaller to larger, from fast to faster and so on. In this case, if there was "advanced technology" in the past, why did it disappear? Similar to how "advanced" species may disappear, a quick change in conditions that something cannot adapt to can wipe out even amazingly advanced technology or well evolved species. As they're only advanced and well adapted in their own conditions, changing conditions means that they're no longer well adapted, so will die off and disappear.

QUESTION 23: Is it possible for it to be the unconscious atoms constituting the brain that ask these questions, think, judge, rejoice, feel excitement, enjoy eating chocolate or listening to music?
 * What. The. F**k. Does. This. Have. To. Do. With. Anything?
 * Though, really, you'd have to ask the atoms themselves. It is certainly possible that atoms do think, in a way. Though this is conjecture, it is amusing conjecture, like life and civilisations forming and dying in the blink of an eye in super fast quark reactions at the centre of neutron stars. As life, consciousness, enjoyment and a love of music are all subjective ideas, the question is mostly meaningless and irrelevant.

QUESTION 24: Is it true that 40 fundamental components need to be present at the same time and working in harmony together in order for the human eye to see?
 * 40? If you define component as a molecule you reach millions. If you define it as the basics, then it's two; a lens and retina. The question seems to be clutching at irreducible complexity, a failed concept popularised by Michael Behe that basically says "because I don't have the imagination to figure out how something works, it can't work".

QUESTION 25: Is it true that the human eye provides a much more advanced and clearer image than any camera produced by even the most advanced present-day technology?
 * Tell this to a blind person and then tell it to a CIA analyst who is reading the time on your watch from orbit. The eye and a modern digital camera work in very different ways, to compare the two in terms of performance is difficult.

Conclusion This concludes an attempt at answering 25 so-called "difficult" questions. These questions are not difficult, experts in the respective fields that have been "scrutinised" may be able to flesh out individual answers more thoroughly, be able to provide complex examples without referring to Google and Wikipedia. But in all, the difficulty is not in the answers, but understanding the questions and importantly, the nature and context of the questioner. Whoever composed this list (a quick search indicates that it may be Harun Yahya) is not expecting answers. They will not accept the answers regardless of how well formulated or complete or honest they are. As summed up by the attitude of one reply to a well reasoned, researched and sourced answer, here presented in it's completeness:

Insufficient. FAIL.

Whether the questioner takes time to even read, yet alone consider, the answers given is debatable. When you know the truth, there is no room for any debate, only rhetoric. And here, we see it at it's best. 25 Questions, each more mundane and inane than the last. 25 Answers, each open, honest and true, but destined to be ignored.