Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid!

  1. Aug 24, 2007 #1
    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:


    (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.

    Last edited: Aug 24, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 24, 2007 #2
    Some quick, off-the-cuff, replies without watching the silly video:

    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.

    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.

    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".
  4. Aug 24, 2007 #3
    Entropy is not disorder.

    - Bryan
  5. Aug 24, 2007 #4
    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.
  6. Aug 24, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  7. Aug 24, 2007 #6
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC3aTypes.shtml [Broken]


    No selection 'pressure' for eternal life, selection 'pressure' for reproduction.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  8. Aug 24, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
  9. Aug 24, 2007 #8
    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 :)
  10. Aug 24, 2007 #9
    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?


  11. Aug 26, 2007 #10

    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.
  12. Sep 10, 2007 #11
    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:


  13. Oct 16, 2007 #12
    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.
  14. Oct 16, 2007 #13
    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.
  15. Oct 16, 2007 #14
    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.
  16. Oct 25, 2007 #15
    Keep going. Give some more reasons why he is wrong.
  17. Oct 25, 2007 #16

    jim mcnamara

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    chroot said:
    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 [Broken]

    Friedemann Freund, J. Thomas Dickinson, Michelle Cash, 2002. Hydrogen in Rocks: An Energy Source for Deep Microbial Communities Astrobiology 2, 83-92.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  18. Oct 25, 2007 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.

    If the theories about extremeophiles living deep in the crust are right it could be a massive understatement!
  19. Oct 25, 2007 #18
    But in writing a new book does the writer make new letters or use letters that already exist?
  20. Oct 25, 2007 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The writer just rearanges letters - the same way life re-arranges genes.
  21. Oct 25, 2007 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    They do also sometimes create new words...
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook