Top Creationist Arguments Debunked Part 1 of 4 (How Evolution Actually Works)

1. Mutations only alter existing information, it doesn't create new informations

A common argument put fourt by creationists is that mutations can't create new information, they only modify existing information. A common example put fourth showing that evolution happens is that bacteria evolved the capacity to digest nylon using an enzyme known as nylonase that arose from a mutation. Creationists will say that it doesn't count because it's merely a modification of an existing enzyme knows as an estherase. But the problem with this argument is that any modification to existing information is NEW information and the nylonase enzyme, even though it arose from an existing enzyme is still a new enzyme with a new function. It's the sum of these small and incremental changes that have produced every major change that creationists say that evolution could not have produced is the sum of small and incremental changes, a topic that we'll explore later in this take.

Top Creationist Arguments Debunked Part 1 of 4 (How Evolution Actually Works)

2. The law of entropy prohibits evolution

A common argument put fourth by creationsists is that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution because in evolution, everything is going from disorder to order while the second law states that everything goes from order to disorder. However, this shows a complete lack of understanding of how entropy actually works. To illustrate why everything seems to go from order to disorder, I have two 10x10 grids pictures above. One was randomly filled in with various colors and the other I put a specific pattern on. So, looking at probability alone, which one of these specific patterns is more likley to occur if someone else randomly filled in the colors. It's a trick question; they're both equally improbable. Given that I had 20 possible colors to chose from the chance of any one configuration is 1/(20^100). So in any given system that odds of any one configuration are almost infinatley improbable, but ultimatley the system must exist as a state. The only reason for the apparent trend from order to disorder is that the total number of states we'd recongize as disordered outnumber the states recognized as ordered. So there is no magic force making everything going from order to disorder. It is true that in the universe there is a net trend from order to disorder but that doesn't mean that every system has to go from order to disorder. It all comes down to what is most thermodynamically favorable.

3. Microevolution is possible but not macroevolution

In spite of the many documented examples of evolution by natural selection that have occured, creationsts will say that it doesn't count because it's just microevolution. Well what is the difference between micro and macroevlution. Well the best definition available is that microevolution is evolution below the species level and macroevolution is evolution above the species level. Now what exactly is a species? Well simply put to be part of the same species two organisms would have to breed and produce fertil offspring. If they can reproduce but produce sterile offspring, they will usually be considered to be part of the same genus but of different species. And, guess what, there are at least 30 observed instances of populations becoming reproductivley isolated from one another which is the definition of macroevolution. In order for this to be true there would have to be two distinct kinds of DNA, one that is responsible for variation below the species level that is susceptible to mutations and one that is common to every member of a species that is not susceptible to mutations. However, there are no two such kinds of DNA. Many creationstis will say that even though speciation has been observed, evolution can still only produce change within certain boundaries and that no lineage of organism can be traced beyond its alleged original archetype. However, they are consistantly unwilling to say what these archetypes are or how they could be recognized or describe where these boundaries are.

4. Organisms only give birth after their own kind

A common argument put fourth by creationsists is that organisms only give rise to their own "kind" and even when presented with clear cases of speciation (macroevolution) they still say that it doesn't count because if say a new species of fly was observed to evolve, they would say that it doesn't count because it's still a fly and not a beetle or something like that. Well this shows a basic misunderstanding of one of the basic principals of evolution called the law of monophyly. This law states that organisms never outgrow their ancestry and every species that ever existed is simply a modified version of what came before it. You start off with organsims A which evolves branches off into two species B and C. Both species B and C will be part of the same clade which we'll call A' due to their descent from organism A. But then B evolves into species D and E and C evolves into F and G. D and E will form a new clade which we'll call B'' and F and G will comprise the clade C'' because of their cammon ancestor with C. However no decendants of F or G will ever become members of clade B' because B' reperesents an independantly derrived lineage and D,E,F and G and all of their descendants will still be part of clade A' because of their descent from organism A and Clade A' would include clades B'' and C''. For example, creationists will say that there are many species of dogs, but they're all still dogs, they don't become cats; well of course they won't!!! Cats (felidae) are an independantly derrived lineage of animals so a dog becoming a cat would violate this principal. Any organism that evolved from a living species of dog will still be a dog and any species that evolved from a species of cat will still be a cat. But lets look deeper into this. Dogs and cats both belong to the order carnivora which includes most of the major mammalian land predators such as (obviously cats and dogs) weasels, raccoons, bears, hyenas, mongooses and even marine predators like the seals. Each of these independantly derrived lineages arose from the common ancestor of the order carnivora and the carnivora as a whole is much more morphologically diverse then any of the families that it includes because the common ancestor of carnivora lived a much longer time ago than any of the common ancestors of the afforementioned families. And any future species derrived from any of the afforementioned families (i.e. a new species of dog) will always be a member of both the canid and carnivoran clades. It won't evolve into another independantly derrived clade within the carnivoran collective (such as a cat) nor will it evolve into another clade that is not derrived from the carnivoran clade (such as an elephant). Looking the other way, the more and more you look back in time the more and more the different lineages of the order Carnivora will resemble each other and the common ancestor of all carnivorans. If you don't beleive me, lets again take the classic example of dogs and cats. There are two main branches in the order carnivora: the dog branch (caniformes) which includes dogs, bears, seals, weasels, raccoons and skunks while the other branch (feliformes) includes cats, hyenas, mongooses, meerkats, civets and genets. To illustrate the law of monphyly, Below is a side-by side image of a leopard and a wolf. At first glance it may hard to beleive that they share a common ancestor.

But below is a side by side image of a grey fox and a domestic cat. Clearly the grey fox has many similarities with the wolf and the cat has many similarites with the leopard, but the cat and the fox share some resemblance with each other albeit not as much as they share with the wolf and the leopard. This is because both closely resembles the common ancestor of all canids and felids which itself would have more closley resembled the common ancestor of the order carnivora hence the apparent similarities.

We can take this a step further and look at the most basal caniforms and feliforms in existance. The most basal caniform is the ring tailed cat (which isn't a cat, it's a member of the raccoon family) and the the most basal feliforms are the civets and genets. The ring-tailed cat bears some resemblance to the fox and the genet bears some resembelance to the cat but, despite the ring-tailed cat being more closely related to a fox and the genet being more closely related to the cat, they more closely resemble each other than they do to either the cat or the fox. This is because neither has changed much since having evolved from the common ancestor of both caniforms and feliforms which itself had just evolved from the common ancestor of all carnivorans. Thus, these two species, even though they're as distantly related to each other as wolves are to leopards bear a close resemblance to one another.

If you were to look at all the speices of carnivorans that lived 45mya they would have had as much morphological diversity as foxes do today. In this group of animals you would have the species that would give rise to the various species of carnivorans that we see today and even though each one would have looked more like a ring-tailed cat or a genet than any of their descendants, you would began to see the definitive traits charecteristic of the family that they would give rise to from this original template. But just as creationists today would argue that today that if a new species of dog was documented it wouldn't count becaus it was still a dog they would argue that the common ancestor or the carnivorans evolving into the various different species that would give rise to the different groups of carnivorans such as hyenas, weasels, skunks etc. doesn't count because they're still carnivorans and the change the single incrament isn't enough to prove evolution, and going down the lineage they would say this about each individual incrament down the lineages until you got down to either a cat or a dog. Yet it's the sum of these small incramental changest that creationists claim are "too small" to count as macroevolution that comprise even the most profound changes in evolution (such as a fish like animal to a bird or mammal).

5. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes

Another cammon and equally fallacious argument put fourth by creationsists is that if we evolved from apes, then why do we still have apes around today. A common rebuttal it's not that we "evolved" from apes but that we share a common ancestor with apes and one lineage that came out of that ancestor became humans and the other became apes. But there's more to it than that; if you remember what I said about monophyly, it's not just that we evolved from apes, but we still are apes. A more accurate rebuttal would be that humans and chimpanzees (another species of ape) shared a common ancestor. So in short, asking why if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes is like asking if doxins evolved from dogs, why are there still dogs.

6. The earth is fine tuned for life to live on it.

This statement is blatantly ridiculous because life can only inhabit the thin skin of the Earth. Most life is confined to within 10km of the surface (either way). The rest of the Earth is unihabitable. They may argue that the Earth resides in the habitable zone of the suns orbit but out of the billions of stars in our galaxy odds are some planets would end up in the habitable zone of the star.


Most Helpful Girl

Most Helpful Guy

  • Most of these "arguments" you debunk are too mundane and elementary level. and some are just constructed or pushed stereotyopes by atheists to ridcule theists. there are other more serious arguments. and there are christians with more expertise on the subject to debate with /watch? v=fOBxQfwwinM

    and now a couple of points for thought:
    the information you say, new can be created. that means nothing. who gave the INITIAL information? just because one day computers will write code themselves does that prove code comes from thin air? who programmed the first computer?

    about speciation. you said they follow their archetype. cool. still you can't say all organisms have a common ancestor. not until you find what connections spiders have with sharks and eagles and jellyfish. you still talk about stuff which are close to one another. and still yet the question remains, WHO implanted in them this dynamic and shifting force that helps them adapt and transform? who put the foundations and basic principles and mechanisms? WHO created the initial species out of which the other came and HOW did they manifest?

    • also there is a circularity most people dont observe. you make assumptions and confirmations and rejections about "reality" BASED ON THE MINDSET AND TOOLS OF YOUR PARADIGM. and who said these tools, and mindset and the very paradigm are correct in the first place? you'll say "if there was something better it would substitute it".. says who? billion things can be done better but are not because of economic and ideological interests. just because you are unaware of it and where heavily brainwashed and indoctrinated with one, it doesn't mean there is no alternative... .

    • and the problem is many christians fall in the same vicious cycle and try to combat the system's propaganda with its own tools. christianity always preached with self example and grace, thats a newfound degeneration. but i dont deny there are cases where its correct to use science when society goes astray and there can be a lesson tought through that way... .

    • "Most of these "arguments" you debunk are too mundane and elementary level."
      LOL if you haven't noticed this is just part 1 of 4
      Part 2 is the evolution of biological systems, part 3 is the fossil record and part 4 is the social implications, but no the genetic code didn't need a programmer


Join the discussion

What Girls Said 3

What Guys Said 16

  • Some people, you could shove a grey donkey into their face and if their religion told them no donkeys could be gray, they'd bring you hundreds of reasons why this donkey can't be grey.

    It's a losing battle. I fight it all the time, with some of the same people who have posted and probably will post.

    If someone cannot look within themselves and cannot question their own viewpoint, they aren't worth debating.

    However, don't let that stop you from speaking with them.
    If you can truly question your own viewpoint, if you can challenge your own ideas and see from another person's perspective, and you still hold the same convictions by the end, then you come from a solid spot.
    Debating is about building up a solid place to stand. It's not about being right.

    I will say, I enjoy Buddhism because it complies with science and reasoning and logic far more than Abrahamic religions. But in terms of theology, I'm more agnostic.

  • So what was the point of this? I am not trying to ridicule, I agree with it but why attack creationist when they are such a small minority? Its a pet peeve of mine, you see so many people ripping into creationists yet they are such a small fraction of people (I know the percents are higher but honestly from what I can tell that is because they are misleading ie conflating believing god created the earth with god created the earth 10,000 years ago, an idea that has actually only been around for about twohundred years or so). Besides which one can easily arguing against the big bang theory (technicly a hypothisis, at best) yet no one ever seems to do so. So just curios (and I admit I like a debate).

  • First off, I never understand why people try to argue on this topic. If you believe that god put us on this earth then whats the point in arguing it? in other words, HE'S GOD! It doesn't need to make sense. He invented sense. Why are you trying to argue something that doesn't require logic, with logic?

    Also, all your points on why evolution are stupid too because at the end of the day 65 million years ago, dinosaurs went extinct, the first trace of humans was about 2.5 million years ago. Fine when you put it like that it makes sense. But why is it that for the past 2.5 million years, humans have appeared almost exactly the same?

    Why aren't there any sub species of humans? according to evolution we went through several species as we slowly turned into humans so wouldn't it stand to reason that there should be other animals that look and act a little more like us than monkeys?

  • I understand you went for the common arguments, but you could have at least went for arguments professed by the leading creationists rather than what you see people on the internet saying.
    You can see huge gaps between elder ancestors and their descendants, obviously, look at one of my dogs and a wolf. However, despite a dachshund or chihuahua being vastly different from even earlier breeds of dogs, it (and no other breed) shows no inclination to evolve towards a feline. (Example, obviously it wouldn't as that wouldn't be beneficial, but it is showing no sign of evolving traits that were not present beforehand)
    You also fail to address the issues inherent in abiogenesis, and even if you could, that organism having the ability to reproduce is even less likely.
    Even then, the jump to a multi called organism requires a collection of vast amounts of data.
    You have approximately 100 billion cells in your body.
    The odds of ONE (or even simple amino acids) appearing out of the mix of chemicals on the earth are crazy.
    I know no one has all the answers, I sure don't, but if you can address the issues of abiogenesis, the original cell's ability to reproduce, and the step from single cells organisms to multicelled organisms (yes I've heard of ratchet mechanisms but those are dicey as well) I'd be a heck of a lot more impressed than you rebutting "why are there still apes."
    Also, if you're gonna take on every religion on earth, spell check your take dude, no reason to open yourself up to that.

    • Abiogenesis and the origins of multi-cellular life will be covered in part 2

    • Show All
    • In this comment ^^ the "huge gaps" (between dogs and wolves) were deliberately created, and don't tell us anything about evolution, really. Nothing to do with the original mytake.

  • One thing I'd like to point out is that when you inevitably mention the fallacious belief that Dinosaurs and humans lived together 6,000s ago. (the earth is like billions of years old.)
    Most people do not realize that the last wooly mammoths actually died out around 1700 B. C. E, it was a dwarf subspecies and was thriving on a remote Island off of Siberias northern coast Called Wrangel island
    Yes, King Hammurabi lived around the time of the last wooly mammoths

  • Although you get sloppy with some of your writing, I still enjoyed this and found it very interesting. I've never understood why some people are so insecure in their religious faith that they feel threatened by the fact of evolution.

  • Preachin' to the choir, buddy.

    I'm a Christian and I don't know anybody who doesn't "believe" in evolution.

    • You can see some people commenting.

    • Show All
    • don't pretend this is just coming out of the bible belt

    • Might I introduce you to some fundamentalist evangelical Christians who still believe the earth is 6,000 years old and people rode dinosaurs? Yes, I personally know (and have to interact with) people who truly believe that. And then they have the nerve to tell me I don't have the right to live in the US because I'm an atheist and the US is a "Christian country." I've been told that I should go live in Iran, with them not realizing the irony of telling me to go live in an Islamic theocracy just because I object to their wishes to make the US a Christian theocracy. It makes me want to bang my head against a wall some days.

  • Your mistake when writing this take is assuming creationists argue from a point of reason and information. As you can see from the other comments...

  • This verse from the bible, sums you up perfectly!
    Romans 1:22
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    You obviously do not understand science!

    • Show All
    • No, that quote sums up you

    • Yeah, you guys don't know anything!

  • Great Take, I agree :)

  • Creationists are not worth giving the time of day to have a serious conversation with. Logic will eventually win, or we will all be killed by religion.

  • lol your stupid I love dumbasses

    • wow, an ad hominen attack right off the back

    • Show All
    • He is by far more intelligent than you

    • Also I think you have to be pretty damn brainwashed to think that there is a magical sparkly being in the sky that made everything poof in a few days. But you know, whatever ;)

  • All this nonsense has been debunked many times. Macro evolution is a hoax and there is no evidence, despite the lies that scientists and atheists keep repeating.

    • Again an assertion with no justification
      Speciation (Marcoevolution) is well documented to occur, despite the lies that creationists keep repeating.

    • Show All
    • I've already told you. This debate is over. It's too ridiculous to continue.

      All the best

    • Did you even read what the take said about how every animal will always belong to what clade it's ancestor belonged to (it will always be the same kind of animal) and if it then diversifies it will form a new clade within the parent clade? Your definition of what counts as macro evolution is simply irrelevant.

  • I don't think this is the site for any serious scientific inquiries...

  • You're wrong. God created the universe and is well-documented in the Bible. Now get out of my lawn.

  • I'm Muslim and I accept evolution, depending on which understanding of evolution.