100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid!

[sanitykey]

Personally i don't think evolution is stupid. I was watching a documentary with this title out of interest.

You can watch the full documentary here:

h**p://tv-links.co.uk/video/9/5566/8296/53218/76984#

(If you copy and paste the link and replace the *s with ts it should work, if not it's under the documentaries section of that site)

One arguement he makes against evolution is that no new information can be added to the genepool only existing information can be scrambled causing variation so how can we evolve new features.

Another uses entropy i think saying how can life become more complex when entropy causes more disorder and causes systems to naturally break down.

Another questions why have we evolved to reproduce when that creates competition for resources instead why didn't we evolve to live forever.


I'm not looking for answers to these questions in particular although i would be interested for some views, i'd just like some responses to the documentary because some of the points he makes seem pretty convincing. Not the points about creationism i've heard all the flaws with that just the points he makes about the flaws with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Thanks
Richy

[Reality_Patrol]

Some quick, off-the-cuff, replies without watching the silly video:


One arguement he makes against evolution is that no new information can be added to the genepool only existing information can be scrambled causing variation so how can we evolve new features like new limbs for example.


Rather than pointing to "random mutations", I'll point out some genetic disorders - in humans - involve abnormal number of chromosomes. This of course could also be looked at as a large scale "random mutation" that leads to additional (or less) genetic information available for physiological changes. Simply put, he's wrong.


Another uses entropy i think saying how can life become more complex when entropy causes more disorder and causes systems to naturally break down.


It's a well established principle of thermodynamaics that the "force" of entropy eventually leads to chaos out of which order (of a different kind) emerges, once again, from the same force of entropy.


Another questions why have we evolved to reproduce when that creates competition for resources instead why didn't we evolve to live longer.


This question was recently debated on this forum, unfortunately that thread was deleted. In short: species that "live longer" would have impaired reproductive capability. This would lead to a condition where their mortality rates would exceed birth rates in times of large environmental stresses. So, such a species would go extinct under these conditions (which are known to have actually occurred). A species evolved to "favor reproduction over repair (long life)" would have sufficient birth rates to survive the stressful period. In other words: natural selection ensures "reproduction over repair".

[kanzure]

Another uses entropy i think saying how can life become more complex when entropy causes more disorder and causes systems to naturally break down.
Entropy is not disorder (http://www.entropysite.com/entropy_isnot_disorder.html).

- Bryan

[sanitykey]

Thanks for the responses so far...

Sorry for my mistake about entropy here's the list of definitions from google's dictionary:

Symbol S) For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

[arivero]

There are some, hmm, inteligence, or cinism, in the man who decided the title of the film. Because of course, the main argument *for* evolution is that it is stupid.

[Moridin]

One arguement he makes against evolution is that no new information can be added to the genepool only existing information can be scrambled causing variation so how can we evolve new features.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC3aTypes.shtml

Another uses entropy i think saying how can life become more complex when entropy causes more disorder and causes systems to naturally break down.

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/thermodynamics.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

Another questions why have we evolved to reproduce when that creates competition for resources instead why didn't we evolve to live forever.

No selection 'pressure' for eternal life, selection 'pressure' for reproduction.

[chroot]

Mutations permit new genetic information to enter the gene pool. We see plenty of evidence of this in, e.g. hemoglobin.

Evolution does not favor complex organisms; it favors simple ones. The majority of life on earth is bacterial.

Gee, that was easy.

- Warren

[sanitykey]

He says a lot more in the documentary so if you have time to watch it don't just take what i picked but thanks for the new responses a lot of information so far :)

[BoomBoom]

One arguement he makes against evolution is that no new information can be added to the genepool only existing information can be scrambled causing variation so how can we evolve new features.

This assumption is just plain false. Gene duplication, retroviruses, and transpositional elements all add genetic information...and for the most extreme case, how about Whole Genome Duplication?

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030314

The hypothesis that the relatively large and complex vertebrate genome was created by two ancient, whole genome duplications has been hotly debated, but remains unresolved. We reconstructed the evolutionary relationships of all gene families from the complete gene sets of a tunicate, fish, mouse, and human, and then determined when each gene duplicated relative to the evolutionary tree of the organisms. We confirmed the results of earlier studies that there remains little signal of these events in numbers of duplicated genes, gene tree topology, or the number of genes per multigene family. However, when we plotted the genomic map positions of only the subset of paralogous genes that were duplicated prior to the fish–tetrapod split, their global physical organization provides unmistakable evidence of two distinct genome duplication events early in vertebrate evolution indicated by clear patterns of four-way paralogous regions covering a large part of the human genome. Our results highlight the potential for these large-scale genomic events to have driven the evolutionary success of the vertebrate lineage.

[SugarMagnolia]

Thanks for the responses so far...

Sorry for my mistake about entropy here's the list of definitions from google's dictionary:

Symbol S) For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.


I wanted to add to this, since no one else did, that its' a measure of disorder or randomness in a closed system. If you want to use that argument against evolution, use it with a growing person. When you grow, you are "creating" more "order" if you look at it that way. Think of what you start out as and what you are now, but we know it's happening. We SEE it happening every day. So then, that defination can't apply to things like that... but why? Because entropy is involved in a CLOSED system. If you look at the whole system, the entropy does increase. You break down the food you eat from an ordered state into a less ordered state, and the human body is not 100% efficient. Things like that. If you look at the whole system, even with evolution, entropy is increasing. Entropy cannot be used as an argument in a case like this.

[BoomBoom]

Again, to add further evidence (in addition to my earlier reference to WGD) contrary to the preposterous claim that no new genetic information can be added:

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109957

In addition to finding virtually the entire Wolbachia's genome integrated into the fly genome, the research team also found stretches of Wolbachia DNA of various sizes integrated into the genomes of four other insect species and four nematode species. The research team corroborated their laboratory analyses by computational analyses that identified stretches of Wolbachia DNA in nine of 27 published insect genomes, suggesting that as many as one-third of invertebrate species have Wolbachia DNA in their genomes.

[ahitch9]

So I'm watching this video now and am just amazed at how much this guy doesn't really know. I'll begin as I watch it. 1) Scientists have seen stars form. Specifically (as I know of) in the Orion Nebula.

[ahitch9]

2) He states that at some point in time, a living organism had to have come from non-living material, and states that we have no evidence of this. Yet, if he claims to believe in creation, God made man out of the soil. So he just contradicted himself.

[ahitch9]

3) Knows jack squat about the Big Bang Theory or String Theory. And now I'm going to stop because obviously this guy has no clue.

[Taran]

Keep going. Give some more reasons why he is wrong.

[jim mcnamara]

chroot said:
The majority of life on earth is bacterial.


That's actually an understatement. If you define "Life on Earth" as the mass of everything from singlecelled bacteria on up to elpehants and palm trees, then
the estimates of the mass of living one-celled things changed radiacally a few years ago:
http://www.resa.net/nasa/onearth_extreme.htm

Friedemann Freund, J. Thomas Dickinson, Michelle Cash, 2002. Hydrogen in Rocks: An Energy Source for Deep Microbial Communities Astrobiology 2, 83-92.

[mgb_phys]

One arguement he makes against evolution is that no new information can be added to the genepool only existing information can be scrambled causing variation so how can we evolve new features.

We haven't added any new letters to english (in fact we have lost a couple) we can only rearrange them - so how can we create new books.

That's actually an understatement.
If the theories about extremeophiles living deep in the crust are right it could be a massive understatement!

[Taran]

But in writing a new book does the writer make new letters or use letters that already exist?

[mgb_phys]

But in writing a new book does the writer make new letters or use letters that already exist?

The writer just rearanges letters - the same way life re-arranges genes.

[russ_watters]

They do also sometimes create new words...

[Taran]

But they make words with the same letters that already existed. The same goes for genes; just rearranging genes that were already there and not adding new one.

[chroot]

Taran,

That's exactly the point mgb_phys was making.

- Warren

[BoomBoom]

This analogy is all good, but books vary in size as well. You can have a 20 page book or a 1,000 page book. These are not just re-arrangements of letters, but NEW letters were added.

This is ALSO the case with life and evolution (I posted a number of examples of these in my previous posts).

Why everyone is so caught up in this idea that no new genetic information is added is beyond me....

[Moridin]

This analogy is all good, but books vary in size as well. You can have a 20 page book or a 1,000 page book. These are not just re-arrangements of letters, but NEW letters were added.

This is ALSO the case with life and evolution (I posted a number of examples of these in my previous posts).

Why everyone is so caught up in this idea that no new genetic information is added is beyond me....

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

No new letters, just more of the same letters that already exists.

[DaveC426913]

2) He states that at some point in time, a living organism had to have come from non-living material, and states that we have no evidence of this. Yet, if he claims to believe in creation, God made man out of the soil. So he just contradicted himself.
Not that I want to lend credence to this guy but:

He states that we have no evidence of this happening spontaneously (implied). The story of Creation explains it, but evolution does not. He's not contradicting himself.

I'm not saying I agree, I'm simply dispassionately interpeting what the guy means.

[LightbulbSun]

The sad thought process and misconception of science that we experience everyday is that science 'claims to have omniscience.' This is completely false yet people tend to give heed to the creationists because science doesn't have the answer for a complex question. This makes me think that people don't understand the general scientific process. Just because we don't have the answers for everything does not make science baseless. I think that more than anything pisses me off the most.

[BoomBoom]

No new letters, just more of the same letters that already exists.

OMG....ok, so they feel that evolution can only happen if new nucleotide bases are introduced besides the 4 we have???

These people are more lost in space than I gave them credit for!! LMAO :P

[jim mcnamara]

BB - I don't think Moridin means more, new codons. I'm not sure what is going on here completely.

You do realize that some organisms have codons not found anywhere else in living things?
Right?

[BoomBoom]

BB - I don't think Moridin means more, new codons. I'm not sure what is going on here completely.

You do realize that some organisms have codons not found anywhere else in living things?
Right?

A codon is a nucleotide triplet that is translated into an amino acid. As far as I know, we still only know of 20 amino acids.

I guess technically, these 20 amino acids are actually the "letters of the alphabet" life gets to work with.

I feel this is getting more into semantics than anything else, but the bottom line is in regards to evolution, new genetic information IS added (as well as erased, shuffled, scrambled, extended, duplicated, etc.). If that were not the case, then every living thing would have the exact same size genome.

[Raedal520]

Damn this guy is ignorant. First off:

-Entropy isn't a viable argument. The simple process of becoming more ordered usually creates entropy in terms of heat (The transistors in your computer are being arranged in an order to use a complex program, but the computer gives off entropy in terms of heat. Heat=disorder when it comes to energy). Heck, your body heat is entropy, which counteracts the "ordered" processes that go on within.

-Genomes Do what they need to; rearrange, scramble. No question.

-Life's kill-switch. There's actually a good reason why cells have kill-switches; it's so they don't become cancerous. The longer a cell reproduces, the more likely it is to make a mistake, as it is degrading (DNA degrades from many different sources, most commonly simple cosmic radiation. In fact, a year's worth of cosmic radiation is equal to the meltdown radiation at Chernobyl.). I read an article about a year ago where they attempted to turn off the aging gene, but the cells got cancer within a few months, which is why cells off themselves around 3 months. Aging is simple degradation, which speeds up with faster metabolisms.

There's a reason a non-scientist shouldn't be trying to make scientific points. Completely, utterly wrong!

[DaveC426913]

Way to necro-post! :wink:
Damn this guy is ignorant. First off:

-Entropy isn't a viable argument. The simple process of becoming more ordered usually creates entropy in terms of heat (The transistors in your computer are being arranged in an order to use a complex program, but the computer gives off entropy in terms of heat. If we're going to refute this guy's invalid arguments, we're going to have to do better than this. The example you've used to show order on a small scale (program) but entropy on a large scale (waste heat) involves a device that was intelligently designed (the computer). Unfortunately, this example plays perfectly into his argument rather than refuting it.