Entry 2247, on 2022-11-07 at 22:27:45 (Rating 3, Religion)
I can't believe that I have to make this blog post in the year 2022, but I do. I have recently come across several individuals or groups who still reject evolution. In most cases this is because of religious beliefs, but there are other reasons as well. I used to do a lot of religious posts, but have moved more into politics recently. However, here is a defence against the most common argument religious people use against evolution.
Here's what they say: "How can you believe that human life, with all its complexity, arose through random chance? It's like a hurricane went through a junk yard and a fully formed 747 was left behind. The chances of that happening are basically zero, yet life is so much more complex. Atheists are the ones who really rely on faith."
There are other variations on this theme, but basically it always come back to it being impossible for something incredibly complex to be created through random chance. Of course, there are also other arguments against evolution, but this is the most common one, and something which superficially seems to make sense. Except, of course, it doesn't. Allow me to explain why...
First, evolution is a fact by any reasonable definition of the word. We see evolution in the fossil record and in species as they change today. What most people think of as "evolution" is actually the theory of evolution by natural selection. This states that existing species change through environmental factors acting on mutations which are beneficial at a particular time and place.
So if I ask a creationist (or other anti-evolution type) if they believe the science behind genetics - that attributes of one generation are passed on to the next through genes - the usual answer is yes. If it isn't, I don't know what they might be thinking!
Next I ask if that process is perfect. Considering that no natural process is perfect, and that we can clearly see mutations as they happen, almost everyone again says yes.
Then I ask if mutations might be helpful, just by chance. This one gets a bit more resistance, which is fair enough. But I explain that a "good" or "bad" mutation is meaningless in absolute terms. What is a bad mutation in some situations might be a good one in others. The classic example is sickle cell anemia. This causes red blood cells to be deformed, which is usually a significant disadvantage to the individual because the cells don't carry oxygen as well. But if there is a lot of malaria around it can be advantageous overall because malaria cannot easily infect a sickle cell. So despite the disadvantage in most situations, it can be beneficial too.
At this point, if the person accepts all of this they already basically agree that evolution is true, but there is one significant problem we have to overcome. Many creationists say they accept "microevolution", which causes small changes, but not "macroevolution" which results in new species. But those words aren't really particularly meaningful in science, and macroevolution is just the result of a series of microevolutions (if you even accept the use of those words).
Then there is the issue of time. Young earth creationists claim the universe is much younger than science says it is. At the extreme are those who say the world (in fact the whole universe) is only 6000 years old; an interpretation which follows from one (quite reasonable) reading of the Bible. Others say 10,000 and various other numbers, which are all well short of the scientific age of 14 billion years, for the universe, and 4.5 billion for the Earth.
There are numerous ways to establish the age of the Universe and Earth, all of which depend on different branches of science, and they all agree remarkably well. These include radioactive decay (chemistry); the processes of star formation (astronomy); the formation of geological features (geology); the time it takes light to transit long distances (astronomy again); and the cosmic background and recession of galaxies (cosmology). And this is just a small sample. If there was a major problem with the estimated age it would show up with anomalous results in at least one of these fields, but it doesn't.
So evolution has had billions of years to take place, but is even that enough? Actually, no, it isn't. There is another factor to be considered: that is that the evolution of life is like a huge experiment, carried out in parallel trillions of times simultaneously, in event living cell on the planet.
And another point the opponents of evolution seem to forget is that evolution proceeds in small steps, and the successful changes are maintained as a basis for the next step. We see these steps in many places in the fossil record. Sure, there's not necessarily a step by step explanation for every complex structure we see today, but the fossil record is incomplete and we shouldn't expect to have all the answers. And even without fossils, we see more primitive structures in some living organisms today where evolution hasn't proceeded in the same direction as others, because they might live in an environment where evolution of that structure isn't advantageous.
Finally, evolution doesn't have an end goal, beyond survival of genes. It is purely by chance that the life we see today takes the form it does. There could have been a mutation in a certain environment in the distant past which favoured a body structure completely different than what we have today. Evolution producing humans (or any other species) exactly like they are today is unlikely, but producing advanced life in some form is completely plausible.
So let's put it all together and modify the "747 from junk" theory I mentioned at the start, and which the creationists seem to like.
Imagine a trillion junk yards, all being continuously hit by hurricanes for billions of years. Imagine if a couple of pieces of junk stuck together purely by chance and they had some advantage. Take that piece of junk and repeat the process, over and over. Now tell me how you could *not* get a 747, or an iPhone, or a human out of that. Think about it. Evolution is inevitable.
Comment 1 by Derek on 2022-11-08 at 09:13:35:
OJB said: Evolution is inevitable.
It is not.
OJB said: I have recently come across several individuals or groups who still reject evolution.
Evolution is rejected because (1) it is a theory with a lot of problems and (2) science has not provided any good alternative. Even if the alternatives chosen don’t make sense, it is still a rational stance to reject it. In other words, one can reject evolution all by itself without having to be sure of the validity of any alternative. Agnosticism is acceptable.
OJB said: There are other variations on this theme, but basically it always come back to it being impossible for something incredibly complex to be created through random chance.
There is lots of evidence for the evolution of life, but there is hardly anything for the origin of life. There are a number of statistical hurdles for the former, but there are significantly more for the latter. Applying evolutionary theory to the origin of life is an extrapolation. We take the evidence of evolution and create interpolations to build a tree of life, but we can only take that back so far. This is an argument in metaphysical inference: because all known life builds incrementally, presume that life began through an incremental process.
OJB said: So if I ask a creationist if they believe the science behind genetics
The problem with genetics is that DNA contains digitally encoded (symbolic) information. All information requires a designer, a mind to produce it.
OJB said: Next I ask if that process is perfect. [..] Then I ask if mutations might be helpful, just by chance. [..] The classic example is sickle cell anemia.
Sickle cell anemia is a bad example for you to use. Sickle cell anemia is a harmful mutation that has a positive side effect. It represents an adaptation through a loss of genetic information, not a gain.
Genetic entropy is high and there is no guarantee that beneficial mutations will outweigh degradation over time. Many scientists have recognized this problem: genomes are largely degrading and species are dying out faster than they are replaced. As Atheist Bob Seidensticker once said: "If God designed software, we’d expect it to look like elegant, minimalistic, people-designed software, not the Rube Goldberg mess that we see in DNA. Apologists might wonder how we know that this isn’t the way God would do it. Yes, God could have his own way of programming that looks foreign to us, but then the 'DNA looks like God’s software!' argument fails."
DNA is evidence of design (by way of its information bearing nature), but its current form is evidence of it having been corrupted. I’m not aware of any scientific theory or religion (other than Christianity) that adequately explains this.
OJB said: Then there is the issue of time.
While I think God could play dice with the universe (i.e. create a young universe with old elements) if he wanted to, I also more-or-less agree with you on the age of the universe. Yet none of that impacts my criticisms above. Time is only a problem for young-earth Creationists.
But young-earth creationists should not be mocked either. Every 12,000 years there is a magnetic pole shift and every 6,000 years a less significant magnetic field event. These cycles (and half-cycles) are associated with biological catastrophe and species loss, likely due to major solar outbursts. The reason history appears to begin approximately 11,000 years ago is because earth was devastated in the Gothenburg excursion. A lesser disaster probably occurred 6,000 years ago (“Noah”). Life didn’t actually begin 12,000 years ago, but the current era of humanity and civilization did.
Derek also said: Young-earth creationism is most popular in North America. Ground zero of the solar event during the Gothenburg excursion was North America, corresponding to large mammal extinction and an emptying out of the continent of human life. If you’ve ever talked to young-earth creationists (I have!) they often cite geological evidence that suggests rapid sedimentation in the south western United States. They suggest this is evidence of a young earth, because evolutionists are wrong in their dating, because they are wrong in their dating. But it isn’t proof of a young earth, only a recent catastrophe.
OJB said: And another point the opponents of evolution seem to forget is that evolution proceeds in small steps
The best evidence suggest that evolution is rapid and occurs in response to extreme events. Consider the black frogs of Chernoybl, the domestication of foxes, or the recent research into human black/white skin color changes. The real question is whether or not this is a result of existing genetic information or whether it was the result of mutation. I think it is time to abandon the notion that evolution is small steps over time.
OJB said: evolution doesn’t have an end goal, beyond survival of genes
If this is true, then it creates a handful of difficult physical and metaphysical questions, such as the existence of religion or homosexuality.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2022-11-08 at 09:14:12:
OJB said: Evolution is inevitable.
Derek said: It is not.
If you follow the steps I outlined (which I have found most people, even creationists, do) then evolution becomes the inevitable outcome.
OJB said: I have recently come across several individuals or groups who still reject evolution.
Derek said: Evolution is rejected because (1) it is a theory with a lot of problems and (2) science has not provided any good alternative. Even if the alternatives chosen don’t make sense, it is still a rational stance to reject it. In other words, one can reject evolution all by itself without having to be sure of the validity of any alternative. Agnosticism is acceptable.
There aren't really a lot of problems (please cite relevant papers, if you have them). The theory makes specific predictions, we see those reflected in observations and experiments, so we agree that adds credibility to the theory. There have been other theories in the past, but the evidence didn't support them, so they were rejected.
OJB said: There are other variations on this theme, but basically it always come back to it being impossible for something incredibly complex to be created through random chance.
Derek said: There is lots of evidence for the evolution of life, but there is hardly anything for the origin of life. There are a number of statistical hurdles for the former, but there are significantly more for the latter. Applying evolutionary theory to the origin of life is an extrapolation. We take the evidence of evolution and create interpolations to build a tree of life, but we can only take that back so far. This is an argument in metaphysical inference: because all known life builds incrementally, presume that life began through an incremental process.
Yes, I should have put a specific note on the original post that I am talking about evolution specifically, not abiogenesis. Maybe that is a subject for another post.
OJB said: So if I ask a creationist if they believe the science behind genetics
Derek said: The problem with genetics is that DNA contains digitally encoded (symbolic) information. All information requires a designer, a mind to produce it.
No, it doesn't. Information is a natural component in the real world. And information becoming more complex and "useful" is possible through natural selection. All natural processes, no intelligence needed.
OJB said: Next I ask if that process is perfect. [..] Then I ask if mutations might be helpful, just by chance. [..] The classic example is sickle cell anemia.
Derek said: Sickle cell anemia is a bad example for you to use. Sickle cell anemia is a harmful mutation that has a positive side effect. It represents an adaptation through a loss of genetic information, not a gain.
My point was to show how mutations can be good and bad, depending on the environment. Increase in information is easily explained and we have seen it happen.
Derek said: Genetic entropy is high and there is no guarantee that beneficial mutations will outweigh degradation over time. Many scientists have recognized this problem: genomes are largely degrading and species are dying out faster than they are replaced. As Atheist Bob Seidensticker once said: "If God designed software, we’d expect it to look like elegant, minimalistic, people-designed software, not the Rube Goldberg mess that we see in DNA. Apologists might wonder how we know that this isn’t the way God would do it. Yes, God could have his own way of programming that looks foreign to us, but then the 'DNA looks like God’s software!' argument fails."
So are you agreeing with him: that the "design" of life is so poor that it is obviously hacked together over billions of years rather than being designed intelligently at one point?
Derek said: DNA is evidence of design (by way of its information bearing nature), but its current form is evidence of it having been corrupted. I’m not aware of any scientific theory or religion (other than Christianity) that adequately explains this.
There is no evidence that I know of that the "design" of DNA was "better" in the past and has been corrupted over time. Do you know of any credible papers on this?
OJB said: Then there is the issue of time.
Derek said: While I think God could play dice with the universe (i.e. create a young universe with old elements) if he wanted to, I also more-or-less agree with you on the age of the universe. Yet none of that impacts my criticisms above. Time is only a problem for young-earth Creationists.
Yes, I understand there are more and less sophisticated arguments, and the young Earth crowd are probably less sophisticated. Not every point I made was designed to cover every argument.
Derek said: But young-earth creationists should not be mocked either. Every 12,000 years there is a magnetic pole shift and every 6,000 years a less significant magnetic field event. These cycles (and half-cycles) are associated with biological catastrophe and species loss, likely due to major solar outbursts. The reason history appears to begin approximately 11,000 years ago is because earth was devastated in the Gothenburg excursion. A lesser disaster probably occurred 6,000 years ago (“Noah”). Life didn’t actually begin 12,000 years ago, but the current era of humanity and civilization did.
Derek also said: Young-earth creationism is most popular in North America. Ground zero of the solar event during the Gothenburg excursion was North America, corresponding to large mammal extinction and an emptying out of the continent of human life. If you’ve ever talked to young-earth creationists (I have!) they often cite geological evidence that suggests rapid sedimentation in the south western United States. They suggest this is evidence of a young earth, because evolutionists are wrong in their dating, because they are wrong in their dating. But it isn’t proof of a young earth, only a recent catastrophe.
Matching stories in an old book against scientific facts is not a compelling argument. Everyone does that, including most religions, UFO theorists, etc. But we agree on the age of the Universe, so it's not really an issue.
OJB said: And another point the opponents of evolution seem to forget is that evolution proceeds in small steps
Derek said: The best evidence suggest that evolution is rapid and occurs in response to extreme events. Consider the black frogs of Chernoybl, the domestication of foxes, or the recent research into human black/white skin color changes. The real question is whether or not this is a result of existing genetic information or whether it was the result of mutation. I think it is time to abandon the notion that evolution is small steps over time.
OK, you are referring to punctuated equilibria here, I guess. Yes, I agree. Evolution is always happening, but is accelerated when environmental conditions change. This is exactly what we should expect, although I agree it was overlooked in the original version of the theory.
OJB said: evolution doesn’t have an end goal, beyond survival of genes
Derek said: If this is true, then it creates a handful of difficult physical and metaphysical questions, such as the existence of religion or homosexuality.
In a social species, like humans, having social harmony is an important survival feature. So we expect unusual behaviours which might seem counterproductive to the individual to exist to increase the chance of survival of the individuals relations (who share his genes). The maths has been done on this, and it works in principle. Other social species, like bees, exhibit similar behaviours.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE