by Nalin Ratnayake
In Donald Eiken’s letter of Nov. 23rd to the East Valley Tribune, he reels off four so-called “facts” about evolution that he claims go unchallenged by the scientific community. I would like to rebut:
1. There are intermediary gaps in the fossil record. Well ok Mr Eiken, let’s say I have two fossils, Fossil A and Fossil C. There is a measurable difference between the two, a “gap” as you call it. Now say I find Fossil B which provides a link between the two, so that we see a progression from A to B to C. Your point seems to be that there are now TWO gaps, one between A and B, and one between B and C! A fine system you have set up for yourself there, wherein the more evidence there is, the more gaps you find! Physical reality is not continuous Mr Eiken, it is discrete, and there is plenty of discrete evidence for evolution. Your argument here is nothing more than a logical fallacy.
2. Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. A statement often smugly stated by anti-evolutionists, it is just plain wrong. Mr. Eiken, if you knew anything about thermodynamics, you would know that the 2nd Law applies only to a closed system – that is, a system completely cut off from its surrounding environment. Net entropy (relative disorder) can decrease all it wants in a particular system, provided that the overall entropy of the surroundings (e.g. the entire universe) increases. I assume that you eat, drink, breathe, and absorb sunlight Mr. Eiken, and therefore you are most certainly not isolated from your environment, and your evolved complexity does not in any way violate thermodynamics. Complex systems naturally arise when mass and energy are allowed to flow through them, and they decay only when these are cut off.
3. The origin of life cannot be explained. Maybe not – but that doesn’t mean it cannot be known, nor does it mean that you need to make up a deity to tie together the things that you do not know. As for your comment that life cannot be created in a lab, it has definitely been proven that amino acids, the building blocks of life, do indeed self-form under conditions similar to that of early earth when given a jolt of energy (in real life, say a lightning bolt?). Modeling the subsequent 4.5 billion years in a laboratory is beyond our technology at the moment, granted; but that in no way shows that the theory is wrong or even flawed. It just means we don’t know for sure – YET.
4. The complex design of certain animals cannot have arisen by mere chance. Consider the sheer astounding variety of different environments on earth – the crushing, sunless depths of the ocean; extreme conditions of temperature; nearly complete lack of oxygen… we continue to discover new types of ecosystems even today. Life is naturally inventive and incredibly adaptive specifically due to its evolutionary nature. People tend to think that because evolution results from random variations, the result must be random as well; this is a false perception. Random variations that do not conform to their changing environments will die out or be eliminated by more competitive forms of life; thus random variation in a game where the fittest survive is a game that will progress steadily towards creatures that are specifically tuned to their mode of existence in a highly specialized way. And with a few billion years to explore the possibilities, the variation in life can be astounding, as is evident around us today.
Any comments? Did I just invite a comment-riot over my head?
3 Comments
Good points. I will only point out that your “amino acid” citation simply validates the witnessed self-formation of such things under laboratory conditions, and the watchful eye of rational, intelligent beings. Perhaps a different example would have been more suitable.
The experiment involved a soup of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus (similar to early earth conditions) being sloshed in a large chamber of sulphur-rich seawater. A powerful electric bolt shot through the middle yeilded amino acids.
Of course, we can only simulate such things in laboratory conditions, so the excercise is intrinsically limited, but I’m not sure what you mean by “under the watchful eye of rational, intelligent beings.” Why should that matter?
It’s a fundamental fact that you need to alter something in some way in order to observe anything about it. This can be accounted for through observations from different angles or methods. But if observation by rational minds invalidates truth, then really, what’s the point in wondering about anything?
I guess I’m missing the point of what you were trying to say…?
I was merely suggesting that the lab example could be seen as an argument FOR creationism, in a lawyer sort of way. I agree, however that there is no way to collect evidence that life is always “self-forming” around us, without first affecting its environment. But that dilemma is not covered by my post, and is therefore someone else’s problem to puzzle out.
Post a Comment