Top 10 Myths About Evolution, AIG Style

I recently found this list on AiG, and felt instantly compelled to shoot down some more of their stupidity. The irony in all of this is that AiG is itself one of the worst propagaters of myths about evolution on the internet.

Myth #10 : Computer Simulations Prove Evolution

And we’re already off to a bad start! According to the person who wrote this (hang our head in shame, whoever you are), various computer simulations are used to ‘prove’ that the theory of evolution is correct. This is, as usual, a perversion of the truth. Computer models are used to recreate how processes like natural selection might work over long periods of time, not to prove that evolution has happened in the first place.

Myth #9: Homologous (Similar) Structures Show Past Evolution

Of course, this one was going to rear its head eventually. According to AiG, the similarity of certain structures in living organisms actually points to a creator god, not to evolution. Well sure, it could…except that saying ‘God did it’ isn’t scientific in the slightest, nor is it an explanation for which any scientific evidence exists. Evolution, on the other hand, is supported by many diverse strands of evidence, of which homoologous structures are just one.

Myth #8: There Are Clear Transitional Fossils

According to AiG, there are very few transitional fossils and those that we do have are ‘contentious’. This is a blatant lie.

What? You want more? Okay, okay…

Apparently, it’s only an evil evolutionary bias that makes scientists think that the likes of Tiktaalik is a ‘missing link’ (a note to Creationists: stop using that term if you want to be taken seriously). ‘Creationi scientists’, however, are paragons of objectivity. They also attempt to criticise the scientific method:

We must remember, however, that fossils do not come with tags telling us when and how the animal was buried, its lifestyle, and if or how it was related to another species. Scientists must make reasonable assumptions based on what they believe about the past and extrapolations from the data.

Well, yes. I love it when Creationists say things like this as if they’re uncovering some shocking secret.

Myth #7: Ape-Human DNA Similarities

Let’s ignore the continued refusal by AiG to accept that humans should be classified as a kind of ape and move straight to the juicy propaganda: supposedly, our genetic similarities with other apes, including the chromosomal fusing, is not substantial evidence for evolution. There isn’t really any evidence given for this claim, except to say that our DNA isn’t exactly the same as that of other apes and a vague reference to ‘epigenetic differences’.

Myth #6: Apemen and Artistic License

This one is so bizarre that I’ll just let you experience it for yourself (follow the link at the top of the page). Get back to me if you can work out what the author is actually trying to say here.

Myth #5: Bad Design

Scientists: There are lots of examples in nature of what would suggest shoddy workmanship if we really were designed by a God. The same examples make perfect sense if we were ‘designed’ by evolution, though.

AiG: No, The Fall explains this, because sin-

Scientists: You know what? Never mind.

Myth #4: Vestigial Organs

Jesus, there’s another appeal to the Bible. AiG’s writers aren’t leaving much for me to do.

The main mistake in this one is defining ‘vestigial’ as ‘an organ that has lost its function’. The truth is a lot more complicated than that – for an in-depth examination of vestigiality, see here.

Myth #3: Antiobiotic Resistance

According to AiG, antiobiotic-resistant bacteria do not support evolution. Their explanation for this odd claim is that the bacteria gain antiobiotic resistance at a cost and that the mutations involved do not ‘add information to the genome’ (groan). Evolution is not ‘a species gets better and better’ – the bacteria evolved antibiotic resistance, and the fact that they ‘sacrificed’ other advantages for it is beside the point. They still survived where their non antibiotic-resistant cousins did not.

Incidentally, there’s a link on the bottom of that page to this, which carries one of the most astonishingly idiotic statements I’ve seen made on AiG:

Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man—functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.

Keep in mind that the above was supposedly written by someone with a PhD biology. Yikes.

Myth #2: Natural Selection Is Evolution In Action

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?

No. Obviously.

This one is a rehash of the information ‘problem’, along with some more vagueness about ‘created kinds’. It also has a little diagram of post-Ark ‘change’ in species that looks awfully similar to evolution but, we are assured, is not. AiG is surprisingly upfront here, in that the author admits that natural selection can differentiate these mysterious ‘kinds’ enough that they can no longer interbreed with each other.

Myth #1: All Scientists Agree

I’d have phrased this as ‘all scientists who don’t write crappy articles for this website agree’, but I guess they were working with limited space or something.

While it is of course true that science is not determined via a majority vote, it is equally true that the theory of evolution has managed to become almost universally accepted in a way that few other ideas in science have. Creationists have so far shown themselves to be woefully bad at changing that.

11 Responses to Top 10 Myths About Evolution, AIG Style

  1. Sirius says:

    Coherence and comprehension… They’re just not your scene, that it?

    Are you actually qualifying this as a reasoned response? Or have you been taking lessons in “banal mockery as response” from Mr. Oops?

    Here’s the objection that got me rolling. You actually seem offended somehow that we would refer to the Bible. It actually seems to baffle you. You expect Christianity to dump the immutable Word of God for the ever-changing scientific opinions of fallible, finite men? On what basis?

    Do you even comprehend what it is you are rejecting?

    –Sirius Knott

  2. forknowledge says:

    Ah, yes. I can understand why someone as religion-addled as yourself might not ‘get’ it when others decide not to entertain the fantasies of some supposedly holy book or, for that matter, it’s louder proponents. I recommend closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and sinking into the bliss of fundamentalism. It’s great – you don’t need to think or anything!

  3. Sirius says:

    I take it your suggestion is taken from your experience as a willfully ignorant Darwinian fundamentalist.

    That demonstrable fact aside, it is required by virtue of reason that you demonstrate why the Bible is not factual. Many assertions have been made that it contains error, but no one has yet proven it. In fact, those who’ve criticized the immutable Word have been the ones, inevitably and without fail, eating crow while wearing copious amounts of egg on their face. Quite fashionable! It has been rediculously over-validated and verified bibliographically, historically and geographically. Besides which it’s supernatural prophecies [which unlike the ‘prpohecies’ and horoscopes of imitators are specific and unambigous in their statements] have been fulfilled. The evidence soundly negates your shrilly whining cries against it.

    btw, your poorly chosen wording suggests not that you doubt the factuality of the Bible, but that you doubt whether it is holy. Please try to be more cogent in the future.

    -Sirius Knott

  4. forknowledge says:

    Sirius:

    If the Bible is really as irrefutable as you claim, why have all of your attempts at bending scientific evidence to fit it been so pathetic?

  5. shamelesslyatheist says:

    “That demonstrable fact aside, it is required by virtue of reason that you demonstrate why the Bible is not factual. Many assertions have been made that it contains error, but no one has yet proven it.”

    Ah, the burden of proof fallacy. I’m afraid that the one making the positive claim (i.e., that the bible is totally factual) has the burden of proof, not the one accepting the null hypothesis. However, there is actually a great deal of evidence which suggests that the bible is less than factual. For instance, there is no evidence that a group of 500,000 ex-slaves of Egypt (again for which there are no records when we should expect quite a bit) wandered the Sinai for 40 years when there should be massive traces. There is no record of either the Massacre of the Innocents or the tax census (of a Roman Empire obsessed with record keeping) which caused Mary and Joseph to travel during which Jesus was supposedly born. I could go on. These facts are quite inconsistent with a historically-accurate bible.

    And forknowledge, what on Earth were you doing on a website clinically proven to cause brain cell loss? lol!

  6. forknowledge says:

    What am I doing on AiG? Trying to work out what so many Creationists see in it!😉

  7. Sirius says:

    shamelesslyatheist,

    The burden of proof fallacy. So in your book we’re guilty until proven otherwise?

    You’re [purposely] ignoring the fact that every attempt to DISprove it has failed miserably. Are actually making the fallacious assertion that one has to prove the entirety of the Bible beyond a shadow of any doubt [impossible proof for any position!]? There is overwhelming evidence for the Bible even without specific evidence for some of its claims. A lack of present evidence does not falsify a theory when other [huge amounts in fact!] of evidence exists besides!

    forknowledge,

    No amount of scientific evidence or reasonable argument works on those who are willfully ignorant, if that answers your question.

    You BOTH show obvious bias to disbelieve. Paint it black. See what you wanna see.

    –Sirius Knott

  8. forknowledge says:

    Sirius, come back when you’re no longer pathetic. However long that takes…

  9. penguinfactory says:

    You’re [purposely] ignoring the fact that every attempt to DISprove it has failed miserably. Are actually making the fallacious assertion that one has to prove the entirety of the Bible beyond a shadow of any doubt [impossible proof for any position!]? There is overwhelming evidence for the Bible even without specific evidence for some of its claims. A lack of present evidence does not falsify a theory when other [huge amounts in fact!] of evidence exists besides!

    I note that this isn’t the view you take when it comes to evolution.

  10. Shock says:

    We are doing a live radio show on the errors of evolution at you may use any of our info for free its a free mp3 download and is not copyrighted. God bless

  11. Shock says:

    We are doing a live radio show on the errors of evolution at you may use any of our info for free its a free mp3 download and is not copyrighted. God bless

    Go to w w w .shockawenow. n e t

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: