Comments on: Problems with Darwin

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 07:07:51 +0000

Well, damn, wasn’t finished:
-There was life before the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian Explosion is just a large number of fossilized animals in 80 million year period, around 600 million years ago. There’s nothing sudden about it, nor were all of the animals we have today present. Pretty much the only types of animals were aquatic (from the same broad families as starfish, sponges, crabs, snails, and clams. For the last, see Trilobite).
-Insects aren’t mindless, and evolution isn’t based on decisions.
-Males and females don’t need to evolve separately: They differ from each other based on one chromosome that must be present between the two of them, and they interbreed. By definition. Also, the default gender is usually female, not male, and many species are capable of reproducing asexually. Some plants reproduce sexually but have both parts and are capable of reproducing with themselves.
-Mutations are not always harmful.
-The new information comes from ERVs, duplication of gene sequences, and mutation.
-Evolution occurs over a long time scale and many generations, so it is not predicted to be seen directly. That’s why we have indirect evidence, like fossils, genetic comparisons, and tests of natural selection.
-I wouldn’t say it with confidence, but the percent similarity in DNA between humans and bananas is about 60%.
-The question about “How did Jesus walk on water?” is so hilariously “not even wrong” that I won’t bother. Ditto to the “consciousness exists separate from the body” crap.
-Speaking of hilarious, apparently he doesn’t realize the importance of natural selection in evolution. He thinks that a species could exist through evolution that needed to eat food not available on our planet. That’s a new one.
-Actually saying that we should apply “survival of the fittest” is not at all implied by evolutionary theory.
-The idea that the winner of the battle was superior (might makes right) was a religious idea existing far before Darwin, and worked under the assumption that God chose to predestine the winner to achieve victory because He favored them, for whatever reason.
-Atheists use court cases to shut down Christians violating separation of church and state.
-There is no such thing as “less evolved humans” in evolution because evolution doesn’t have an end goal.
-Mass murder/genocide had existed long before Darwin.
-Allowing women to decide to get their own abortions isn’t at all a means of eugenics.
-The kinds of Muslims who are involved in terrorism are probably not much into evolutionary theory. Ditto for Christian terrorists.
-Hitler was Christian (though not a good or consistent one) and didn’t much care for Darwinian evolution.
-Saying “Grow up or die” is a tad hypocritical given the fact that evolution is supposed to be refuted in the author’s mind due to the immoral implications of the theory (and because Darwin was a bad man).

So, that’s about 33 errors. And that’s being generous.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:28:09 +0000

Well, here are the glaring errors, in order:
-The claim that there is no evidence for evolution is obviously false.
-The claim that Darwin was uneducated (he scored 10th of over 150 in getting his divinity degree, and though he didn’t get a science degree, he did a degree in medicine and was a member of scientific societies).
-Erasmus Darwin was Charles’s grandfather, and he only speculated about the idea. Charles’s key contribution was providing evidence for that idea (and for putting Lamarckian evolution to bed).
-The “whale-bear story” was about how it would be possible to get a whale-like creature from a terrestial animal, and was not claiming that whales evolved from bears.
-The “eye couldn’t possibly have evolved” is a fucking legendary quotemine.
-There was no recantation.
-The idea that a death-bed conversion won’t save someone from hell is contrary to vast majority of Christianities I’ve encountered.
-There is nothing impossible about a million years, there are other kinds of dating that are consistent with carbon dating and the fact that these methods corroborate one another isn’t “circular reasoning”.
-Straight up denialism regarding transitional fossils. In addition, doesn’t seem to realize that something can be an independent, stable species and still be “transitional”.
-Regarding, recapitulation theory: it’s wrong, but only technically. The fact is that embryos of different species look very similar in early development, which was Darwin’s actual prediction on the matter. Entertaining to see someone ad hom evolution using the ideas of someone who didn’t come up with evolution, though.
-Misunderstands that science adjusts itself to new evidence, and doesn’t seem to understand that “descended from dinosaurs” doesn’t mean “dinosaur”.
-Believes Big Bang is part of evolutionary theory (why the FUCK is this such a common opinion?). Also, conveniently admits that the Big Bang has evidence for it. Hence, why people believe it
-Oceans, mountains, etc. was not a direct result of the Big Bang. Explosions don’t destroy things: They scatter them. That’s supernovae and the Big Bang did, and the other forces in the universe shaped the debris.
-Scientific theories are supported by evidence as well as laws. Laws are only different because what they describe is simpler and easier to convert into mathematical terms.
-Entropy never decreasing throughout the universe doesn’t mean that entropy can’t decrease in a smaller section of that universe.

By: Kayle

Kayle — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 02:00:43 +0000

I think it’s a hoax purely because he asked “[W]hat are the odds that humans would just happen to have evolved to be able to breathe the exact kind of air and need the exact kind of food found on Earth?”

And then the very next line, he brings up survival of the fittest. They are just placed too well to be real.

By: Simon

Simon — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 07:09:38 +0000

This is how some Christians think of us. why won’t they love us? I don’t love Hitler. I love puppies and babies.

By: Joakim Rosqvist

Joakim Rosqvist — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:24:46 +0000

Found some true statements!

“Dynamight doesn’t put up bridges”

“[scientists] claim that dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago”

“we kill and eat animals all the time”

“There’s much more where this came from if you care to look”

By: Nathan

Nathan — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:39:20 +0000

Wow…

That was good for a giggle, thanks for posting it

By: Kiera

Kiera — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:01:12 +0000

At first glance, the number totals 33,472 errors. Then again, that’s an estimate, so it might be well under what is actually there.

Simple way to answer this though: If you don’t understand something it’s impossible to argue about it. Every point you raise can be flicked away by someone who understands more about the topic and doesn’t see the problems you do.