10 More Bad Arguments Against Evolution

1. There are no transitional fossils.
This is simply false. There is a large collection of transitional fossils. Here is a list of transitional fossils in the in the human family tree:

  • Paromomyids
  • Carpolestids
  • Plesiadapids
  • Darwinius
  • Apidium
  • Aegyptopithecus
  • Proconsul
  • Pierolapithecus
  • Ardipithecus
  • Australopithecus
  • Homo habilis
  • Homo erectus
  • ‘Archaic’ sapiens

2. Evolution says there was nothing and that nothing exploded.
The theory of evolution is a biological theory, it doesn’t explain anything in physics, astronomy, geology, the origin of the universe, the origin of the solar system or the origen of earth.
Only creationist s say “there was nothing and that nothing exploded”. The big bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion of space time and the big bang theory doesn’t explain what was before the big bang. Our understanding of physics breaks down at moment zero of the big bang to 10-43 seconds after the big bang and we have no information about what was before the big band if there was a before.

3. The Crocoduck.
When creationists ask for evidence for evolution, they don’t ask for evidence for the real theory of evolution, they ask for evidence for their strawman version of evolution. One of these “evidences” they ask for is chimeras; these are animals that hae traits from two species that could not have been inherited from a common ancestor nor evolved through convergent evolution.These creatures in reality would be evidence against evolution. Chimeras are one of the things that evolution predict we would not find.

4. Evolution says we are getting bigger, smarter and stronger.
Evolutionarily bigger, stronger and smarter is not always or often better. There are far more mice than there are elephants and mice reproduce far faster than elephants. Despite elephants being bigger, smarter and stronger than mice, mice are evolutionarily more fit. A small stupid and weak animal that survives though camouflage can (and many are) evolutionarily more fit than bigger stronger and smarter animals.

See also  Existence of God - 4 Reasons that Support the Existence of God

5. But its still an [insert animal here].
Evolution doesn’t involve one animal metamorphosing into another species or giving birth to another species. In evolution small changes that build up over multiple generations.

6. The second law of thermodynamics says nature tends toward disorder making evolution impossible.
The second law of thermodynamics is: “In a closed system entropy (the amount of energy unavailable to do work) will increase or stay constant
In physics entropy is not disorder it is the amount of energy unavailable to do work but thats not the killer of the argument, the second law of thermodynamics deals with closed systems, the earth is an open system. We have energy in the form of light coming from the sun decreasing entropy on earth.
Nature does not tend toward disorder, it tends toward order. Just look at a snow flake.

7. The watchmaker argument: “In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there.
This argument is a false analogy; organisms can reproduce with variation, watches can not, we know how watches are made, no one has demonstrated how a creator made life.
Comparing life to a watch is like comparing a bottle of orange soda to an orange.

See also  Why Evolution is Fact Not Theory

8. Mutations can not add information.
What is information? The creationists use the word “information” vaguely. But being vague will not save the argument. A mutation is a change in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, that change by definition is an addition of new information. a creationist my rebut with “that’s is not new information, it is a change information” that change by definition is new information thus an addition but even if I give you that rebut; gene duplications (the duplication of a segment of DNA) and frameshift mutations (the insertion of an additional nucleotides into DNA (example: ATTCG changes to ATTAGCG)) do add information.

9. How could we evolve by chance?
This is another strawman argument. Yes mutations are random however natural selection is not. Natural selection is the process where certain traits that increase an organisms chances of survival and reproductions build up in a population. These traits are “selected” for by natural selection. Mutations can alter traits and those that do fall under natural selection.

10. Irreducible Complexity.
Life is complex, even single celled organisms are complex and according to creationists to complex have evolved. Creationists will point to multiples structures organisms have and say “those could not have evolved, if you remove one part they stop functioning” however they only show their ignorance.
A popular example is the eye, they say the eye is too complex to have evolved however we know how the eye evolved, there are many examples of eyes in nature, some more complex, some less. Looking at the various eyes in nature we can see how the eye evolved.
Creationists have yet to actually give an example of a structure that is actually irreducibly complex, every example they give we can find precursors to that in other organisms.

See also  Some Paradoxes of Physics

Links and sources
Talk Origins – Index to Creationist Claims
Top Ten Myths About Evolution
Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions
Misconceptions about Evolution and the Mechanisms of Evolution
Transitional Fossils
Something From Nothing Or Is It?
Crocoduck
Bigger, Better, Smarter, Stronger
But Its Still An “X”
Part 4: Thermodynamics
The Watchmaker Argument
Information
Accidental Universe
Not So Irreducible Complexity

Reference: