Brendan, a biologist, goes by "Prototype Atheist" on social media challenges creationists to think critically about creation and evolution. I asked him some basic questions about evolution and presented a few of the more common creationist objections to it.
@GodsNotReal_ : What is your education and working experience? (Just to establish credibility)
@ProtoAtheist: I have a Master's Degree in molecular biology and have worked for a diagnostics company as an R&D scientist for 8 years.
@GodsNotReal_ : Can you operationally define what evolution is?
@ProtoAtheist: Biological evolution, simply put, is the change in allele frequencies over time in a population of organisms. Alleles are just different forms of a gene. Allele frequencies might change in a population via natural selection or genetic drift. Natural selection is when external pressures affect a population of organisms such that a specific allele or alleles become beneficial or detrimental relative to that pressure. An easy example of this is mircobial resistance. Antibiotics will kill all susceptible microbes, but if there are any in the population which have a different genetic makeup which allows them to survive the antibiotic, then this makeup will become much more prevalent in the surviving population, if not present in every individual. Genetic drift is just the result of random sampling. When sexually reproducing organisms have offspring, the offspring are a random combination of their parents genes. Just by random chance, some alleles may become more or less abundant.
@GodsNotReal_ : Some creationists have argued that the theory of evolution says "man came from monkeys" or that eugenics could or should be used to enhance human survival, but the theory says none of that. What other things does the theory NOT say that people misunderstand?
@ProAtheist: The claim that humans evolved from monkeys is a misconception, usually based on those illustrations that frequently are used to depict evolution, which start with a chimp-like figure and have a few progressions up to modern homo sapiens. What's missing in that depiction is that the ancestor of both humans and modern monkeys or chimpanzees was not identical to any extant species. It's also missing all of the various points at which species branched out, and where most of the "intermediate" species went extinct, just like 99% of all species to ever exist have.
Eugenics is actually a poor understanding of genetics, and has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. The idea that certain "races" of people had superior traits is not found in evolutionary theory. Traits cannot even be labeled as beneficial or detrimental unless there's context to go along with it. For example, most people would consider sickle-cell anemia to be a "bad" trait, because it hinders the ability of a person's red blood cells to carry oxygen. However, this condition provides resistance to malaria; so, in a malaria-rich environment, sickle-cell anemia would be beneficial, and would increase an individual's chance of survival. The eugenics movements of the early 20th Century believed that we could "weed out" certain "undesirable" traits if we stopped individuals with those traits from reproducing, either by sterilization or through genocide. However, anyone with a basic understanding of genetics knows that recessive traits and epigenetic factors, among others, cannot be eradicated in this manner.
Another charge that is frequently leveled by opponents of evolution is that people cannot have valid morals if they accept evolution. The claim largely is advanced by theists, who believe that objective morality cannot exist without an ultimate authority, and it is also based on a misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest". In biology, "fitness" doesn't necessarily refer to an organism's physical conditioning. Rather, it is a measure of an organism's success at reproducing and propagating its genes. An organism which does not reproduce before death has a fitness of zero. Survival and propagating one's genes need not necessarily entail "immoral" behavior; in fact, it can be quite the opposite. For example, humans are just one species which have evolved to be very altruistic; that is, they work together for the benefit of the entire population. There are many species which exhibit such behavior; ants are an easy example. If working together increases your chances of survival and reproduction, then it will be passed on. The concept of "social Darwinism" - that the most ruthless and privileged individuals deserve to have power and propagate themselves - simply has no basis in the theory of evolution.
@GodsNotReal_ : A "theory" is the pinnacle of scientific achievement. Can you explain why that is true and why theories don't get promoted to laws?
@ProtoAtheist: In science, when someone has an idea they want to test, it's called a hypothesis. The goal of science is to nullify, or disprove, the hypothesis. The reason for this is because nothing can ever be demonstrated to be 100% true; we always leave open the possibility that new evidence could be discovered which disproves the hypothesis. A hypothesis becomes a theory once some valid testing has been done which provides evidence that the hypothesis could be true, and this testing is reviewed by other experts in the field, and the results can be repeated and confirmed. A theory becomes stronger over time as more and more studies fail to disprove the theory, and as more evidence mounts in support of it. Evolutionary theory is one of the most highly supported theories in all of science.
Theories do not get promoted to laws because laws are embedded within theories. They are based on observations, and always apply under the same conditions. For example, we have the laws of thermodynamics. Many creationists attempt to claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because evolution decreases entropy.However, they fail to realize that the Earth is not a closed system, and it receives energy for the sun, which drives the short-term decrease in entropy. Overall, the entropy in the universe continues to increase, and the temporary increase seen in the existence and evolution of organic life will dissipate.
@GodsNotReal_ : Can you explain the difference between "Evolution" and "The theory of evolution?"
@ProtoAtheist: Evolution, as I explained previously, is the change in allele frequencies over time in a population. That's an observed fact. It occurs now, it occurred in the past, and it will occur in the future as long as organic life exists. This is not up for debate.
The theory of evolution is the model which explains HOW and WHY this observed phenomenon occurs, and is subject to change as the evidence dictates, just like any other theory.
An analogy I like to use with creationists is the relationship between the sun and the Earth. For most of human history, it was believed that the sun traveled around a stationary Earth. This was based on our observations of the sun appearing on the horizon, tracking across the sky, and disappearing again beyond the horizon, while the Earth appeared static from our vantage point. However, we eventually determined that it was the Earth that orbits the sun, and that neither are truly stationary. Regardless of what the theory was, the observations of the sun remained unchanged; it was simply our understanding which was altered. So, in other words, even if the theory of evolution were to be disproved (the method by which evolution occurs), the fact that allele frequencies change over time is unaffected.
@GodsNotReal_ : Can you explain the peer review process and why that is so important?
@ProtoAtheist: The peer review process is a fundamental necessity of sound science. Anyone can form a hypothesis, design an experiment, perform some tests, and then arrive at a conclusion. The difficult part is coming up with a robust testing design and knowing how to draw valid conclusions from your results. The peer review process is what determines if a study passes muster. If other experts in the field find flaws in our experimental design, or in the analysis of the data, then the conclusions of the study are called into question. If other scientists are unable to replicate the results using the same methods, then the credibility of the study is suspect. If an experiment has a sound design and the results can be reproduced, then it's more than likely valid.
This is important for two reasons - First, it ensures that scientific claims have been substantiated; second, it is a prevention measure against fraud. Yes, science can have its share of unethical individuals, who may intentionally publish inaccurate studies and conclusions for various reasons. However, such occurrences are relatively rare, and are not a valid justification for casting doubt on the entire scientific process, like many do (creationists, climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, the anti-GMO crowd, etc.). In addition, whenever such instances occur, the scientists involved can become outcasts, and even stripped of their ability to receive funding or perform future experiments (like what happened with Andrew Wakefield for publishing his false studies claiming a link between vaccination and autism, which is still causing widespread issues today).
@GodsNotReal_ : So when a creationist's paper is rejected by the peer review process, and the Christians cry foul, what are some typical reasons for that paper being rejected?
@ProtoAtheist: A creationist or intelligent design proponent's paper would be rejected because it isn't scientific. Science is the study of the natural world. As such, any hypothesis which invokes a supernatural phenomenon is, by definition, unscientific. There cannot be any empirical evidence for a supernatural claim; if there were, it wouldn't be supernatural.
Charlatans like Ken Ham like to do things like separate science into "observational" and "historical" science. He claims that "observational science" can gather information on phenomena which are observable, and which can be repeated, and that "historical science" are things which have occurred in the past, which were not observed by anyone, and therefore are not bound by the rules of "observational science". His favorite pet phrase is "Were you there?" when speaking about the beginning of the universe or the formation of the Earth or human evolution. Of course, neither Ken, nor anyone else, was there, either, but he claims to know the answers, because Jesus. Darkmatter2525 did a great video on YouTube which further demonstrates the absurdity of his claims.
When it comes to Intelligent Design, it's still unscientific. Even the conservative Christian judge in the Kitzmiller v Dover case ruled as such, in prohibiting public schools from mentioning ID as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. I myself have a video on YouTube called "5 Failures of Intelligent Design", where I discuss this in more detail.
@GodsNotReal_ : Some creationists exclaim that the existence of DNA disproves evolution. Please explain why that is incorrect.
@ProtoAtheist: If creationists assert that the existence of DNA disproves evolution, this is typically an argument which invokes the concept of "information". Essentially, the premise is that DNA is information, because it is a code which contains the instructions for building an organism. The argument usually then asserts that information requires a creator. This, of course, is begging the questions, and that's if we even accept the premise that DNA falls under their definition of "information". While we use letters to represent DNA, (A,G,C,T), these are just shorthand for complex nucleic acids that each have a complement which they bind to. Nucleic acids are just molecules arranged in a pattern which happen to be biologically active. When they align in certain sequences, they are "transcribed" and proteins are assembled. This all might seem fantastical, but the behavior of molecules are just a result of the natural laws. There's no need to invoke a supernatural force behind this based on one's personal incredulity. And again, evolution is an observed fact, so nothing is going to disprove it. If, somehow, the existence or complexity of DNA did "disprove" the theory of evolution, that would just mean we'd have to come up with a new model.
@GodsNotReal_ : Many creationists claim that the many branches of science contradict each other when it comes to evolution. For example, geologists, chemical biologists, microbiologists, and paleontologists all have different answers about the process of evolution. Is that true?
@ProtoAtheist: Biological evolution is one of the most highly supported theories in all of science, and the reason for this is because it incorporates evidence from a wide range of fields - from genetics to molecular and cell biology to comparative anatomy to paleontology and archaeology to genetics and beyond. All of this evidence tells us the same story; that organic life on Earth began with very simple, single-celled creatures, and eventually increased in size and complexity over time. While it may be possible that more than one life-generating event occurred and led to different forms of life (i.e. one line leading to plant life, another to animal life), it's most likely that all life on Earth is, in fact, related.
So, if a creationist attempts to argue that there is not a solid scientific consensus across fields with respect to evolutionary theory, they're simply mistaken. Another possibility is that they're being disingenuous, using the term "evolution" loosely, since there are other scientific theories which use this term - such as cosmological evolution or chemical evolution.
@GodsNotReal_ : Assuming that WERE true, please explain why that is actually not an argument against the theory of evolution. In other words, If it were true that various branches of science disagree about the process of evolution, does that mean that evolution is false? Does the fact that theory of evolution is constantly in flux give any reason to suggest that the entire theory is bunk?
@ProtoAtheist: If we assumed that the premise were true, that there was dischord amongst scientists from various fields on evolutionary theory, that would not by any means disprove evolution, or even the theory itself. A theory can be easily disproved - by presenting evidence which contradicts the claims of the theory. If there were some disagreement on specific facets of evolutionary theory, that would just mean that some of the specifics are in question, but that the overall theory as a whole would still be viable. This wouldn't be a bad thing, because it means that scientists are trying to get things exactly right. Theories are tweaked, and they should be when new evidence demands it. Theories should also be discarded or supplanted as the evidence requires. But again, the process of evolution is an observed fact, and disproving the theory has no bearing on this whatsoever. Many creationists have no problem accepting that what they term "microevolution" occurs - small changes over time. Their beef is with "macroevolution" - much larger-scale changes, often marked phenotypic changes and speciation events. So, they might attempt to find scientists who accept "microevolution", but question "macroevolution" in order to present the appearance of uncertainty when there's actually quite a strong consensus. Of course, most often, these' cherry-picked doubters are creationists themselves, like Dr. Georgia Purdom.
@GodsNotReal_ : It's a stupid question, but it has to be asked because it is widely talked about in creationist circles. "If humans evolved from monkeys and apes, then why are there still monkeys and apes?" And, "If there are millions of fossils of humans, and millions of fossils of chimpanzees, where are the millions of fossils of the intermediate species?"
@PrototypeAtheist: Yes, this is a stupid question, one that is frequently mocked, but still sometimes presented sincerely, as @TakeThatDarwin can attest to. This goes back the the misconception (or intentional straw man argument) that monkeys evolved into humans in the past. For those who ask it sincerely, the funny part is that they seem to think that scientists have completely overlooked the fact that monkeys continue to exist, but aren't morphing into humans.
As for the fossil record...well, it does exist. Whenever they claim it doesn't, one place I like to send them is to the Smithsonian Institute's human evolution website at http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence . Of course I can't present people with actual fossils when having a conversation on social media, or even in person unless we're at a natural history museum or some other archive. But creationists are known to be stubborn, and even intentionally obtuse, as this classic exchange between Richard Dawkins and Wendy Wright demonstrates.
...I don't think it is a waste of time to attempt to educate people about evolution, even if they're deeply indoctrinated with religious creation myths. People can change their minds, no matter how stubborn they seem. One example of this is @playdoughpoem, who not only took a sincere interest in listening and learning, but who now is quite the skeptic. I'd just advise people to leave the discussions up to those who are well-versed not only in evolutionary theory, but also on creationist tactics. They'll try to catch you stumbling over something or befuddled by one of their unfounded claims, and use this to attack the credibility of yourself and evolutionary theory. Many people weren't too pleased when Bill Nye agreed to "debate" Ken Ham last year, especially since Bill wasn't a seasoned debater and because biology and evolution aren't his strong suit. However, he prepared very well and scored a convincing victory to all but the loyal Ken Ham acolytes. The signature moment in the debate came when they were each asked what would change their minds:
Bill Nye: evidence
Ken Ham: nothing
But that's not going to stop me from trying.
@GodsNotReal_ : Some creationists admit microevolution is real but say macroevolution is impossible. Do biologists differentiate between them or is the differentiation just another dishonest, creationist tactic? If microevolution is just a small change, then I think of macroevolution as many microevolutions occurring over a very long period of time. Is that both simple and accurate?
@ProtoAtheist: When biologists differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, it's just a matter of scope and scale. Microevolution includes changes which occur fairly quickly, perhaps within a few generations. Macroevolution is, in fact, just the result of microevolution over a longer span of time. It's important to remember that evolution affects populations, not individual organisms. Individual organisms do not evolve. As various allele frequencies shift over time in a population, these can accumulate and result in a population which is unrecognizable to the original population. When evolution functions at or above the species level, such as speciation events or the emergence of novel structures, this is macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers in some theropod dinosaurs. Feathers are a unique feature, and led to the emergence of the class of animals we refer to as birds.
The reason that creationists using these distinctions is dishonest is because they claim that there's no evidence of speciation (or one "kind" turning into another "kind", in their parlance). They admit that "kinds" can develop variations, but that these do not lead to new "kinds". The quickest way to shut down these claims is to ask a creationist what the mechanism is which prevents evolution from reaching the species level. If a species could never change enough to become a new species, then there has to be some sort of natural barrier to this, yet none has ever been presented. I also challenge creationists to define the term "species" or "kind" in any universal, meaningful biological manner. I never receive a satisfactory response to this, if I receive one at all. Biologists typically refer to species as any set of sexually-reproducing organisms which can mate and produce fertile offspring. This, of course, is quite insufficient for describing all scenarios, especially once we venture outside of the animal kingdom. The fact is that "species" is just a fairly arbitrary concept that scientists use to classify and better study relationships between organisms. The reality is that all life is related, and that nature doesn't fit into neat little boxes.
@GodsNotReal_ : How do you explain renowned scientists who don't accept the theory of evolution?
@ProtoAtheist: Scientists are human, just like the rest of us, and are susceptible to the same sorts of biases and compartmentalization as anyone. The scientific method is designed to help scientists remove as much bias as possible to take an objective look at things. So, while a renowned scientist may apply good technique and critical thought to their field, be it chemistry or physics or some other field outside of biology, they may reject biological evolution for various reasons. Most frequently, this will be due to their personal religious beliefs, which do not necessarily conflict with theories in other fields of science, but which are irreconcilable with evolutionary theory. As I've mentioned previously, there are even biologists who reject evolutionary theory, but again, this is due to their own personal beliefs, and they suspect their good judgment in order to attempt to make the evidence fit their preferred version of reality. This is why we have a peer-review process. Whenever creationists attempt to invoke the name of some famous scientists who denies evolution as proof that they have intelligent, educated people on their side, it's an appeal to authority fallacy. Just because a person is intelligent and capable of applying scientific principles, that doesn't mean that their every opinion is automatically correct.
@GodsNotReal_ : Why is "Christian scientist" an oxymoron?
@ProtoAtheist: "Christian scientist" is an oxymoron when used in its typical context; that is, Christians who are attempting to find ways to make scientific evidence fit their chosen mythology. There is nothing actually scientific about it. If science were to discover evidence to suggest that anything about Christianity were true, it wouldn't be called "Christian science", it would just be science.
Now, there are certainly plenty of scientists who are Christians, and who do science quite well. In fact, many creationists will be quick to tell you that many, if not most of the important scientific breakthroughs throughout history were made by Christians. This, of course, has no relevance to the veracity of their beliefs. Correlation is not causation, and we also know that the church was openly hostile to scientific discoveries for most of its existence. This isn't surprising when we consider that church dogma was at odds with what we came to discover empirically, so the credibility of the church and the religion itself were in question, as it increasingly continues to be. And yet, we still have billions of people more than willing to belief in an ever-changing belief system which incorporates scientific facts, even when they are irreconcilable. Apologetics is hardly new, though.
This confluence of science and religion often leads to misunderstandings. When I criticize the Abrahamic religions, I often state that they are irreconcilable with the scientific evidence. Of course, I'm referring to very specific evidence, things like evolution, an old Earth, humans existing for a couple hundred thousand years, cosmology, etc. I don't mean that all science conflicts with Christianity, but Christians most assuredly do deny science - when it is inconvenient. Of course a person can accept that gravity exists or that light refracts or that the speed of light is a constant without these causing any concern for their beliefs. However, if you accept scientific truths like the ones I mentioned previously, then you either don't fully understand the implications of these ideas, you don't fully understand what your religion claims to be true, or you just haven't reached the point of cognitive dissonance - where you realize that you hold conflicting beliefs simultaneously and have left them unresolved. I also have a video on YouTube discussing this aspect, titled "Science, Religion, and Cognitive Dissonance". So, while most of this discussion has centered around creationists, who likely wouldn't be swayed by this sort of discussion (given their rejection of the science they surely understand renders their beliefs invalid), this is a topic which addresses those Christians who do accept science.
@GodsNotReal_ : You keep saying that evolution is an observed fact. But nobody has ever observed macroevolution, so how do we know its real?
@ProtoAtheist: As I've mentioned, allele shifts in populations has been observed, innumerable times. Macroevolution isn't something that humans can directly observe in realtime, simply because the process requires more time than a human life. In addition, we've only had Darwin's theory of evolution for 150 years. I often demonstrate the absurdity of a creationist demanding that we observe macroevolution directly to prove it is true by asking them if they can hard-boil an egg in water in a nanosecond. Of course this is not possible, because the process of boiling an egg requires a minimum amount of time to occur. Stating that it's impossible to hard-boil an egg because you couldn't do it in an insufficient amount of time is just as foolish as claiming that macroevolution hasn't occurred because we haven't directly observed the process. Of course, I'm referring to the sort of macroevolution which would satisfy a creationist's demands. We have bountiful examples of speciation events and shifts in morphology, but creationists dismiss these as mere "adaptations" caused by microevolution.
There is evidence of macroevolution from various fields of science. Genetics demonstrates that all life is related, and how closely organisms are related. Comparative anatomy is also useful. The fossil record is compelling evidence for macroevolution. This whole debate essentially boils back down to the faux "observational" vs. "historical" science schtick. It belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Creationists claim that since science is based on observation, we can't truly know anything about the past because we didn't directly observe it as it happened. This, of course, is nonsense, because what we can observe is the evidence from the past - be it the fossil record, the age of rocks using radiometric dating, the ability to measure the background radiation from the Big Bang, etc.
Consider the absurdity of what creationists are claiming: that their god created lineage of organism to ever exist during the same epoch, and that slowly, these organisms have died off and gone extinct. According to creationism, life on Earth is slowly approaching non-existence, with no new species emerging. Of course, this would mean that their god created other populations of primates that were very close to humans, some even having the capacity for higher intelligence than us. It also is the claim that humanity is the pinnacle of creation, and that's why they cling to this belief so fervently. They don't want to admit that we're just animals who have evolved to have higher brain capacity which allows for advanced intelligence, which we've used to overcome our other physical limitations in order to survive. When you compare our physical traits to other animals, we are sorely lacking in most areas outside of intelligence. Our sight, smell, taste, and hearing are inferior to many other animals. Bipedal locomotion is inefficient and we are slow. Most of us have lost any significant body hair. Many of us have greatly reduced levels of melanin in our skin, which reduces protection from UV rays. Our belated development as babies and toddlers is in stark contrast to the precocious nature of other animals; this is because most of the glucose our body produces in our early development goes towards brain growth. All of this has perfectly natural explanations via evolutionary theory, but creationists essentially appeal to an argument from adverse consequences in order to reject the idea that we're not the special creation of an anthropocentric deity.
@GodsNotReal_ : What is your education and working experience? (Just to establish credibility)
@ProtoAtheist: I have a Master's Degree in molecular biology and have worked for a diagnostics company as an R&D scientist for 8 years.
@GodsNotReal_ : Can you operationally define what evolution is?
@ProtoAtheist: Biological evolution, simply put, is the change in allele frequencies over time in a population of organisms. Alleles are just different forms of a gene. Allele frequencies might change in a population via natural selection or genetic drift. Natural selection is when external pressures affect a population of organisms such that a specific allele or alleles become beneficial or detrimental relative to that pressure. An easy example of this is mircobial resistance. Antibiotics will kill all susceptible microbes, but if there are any in the population which have a different genetic makeup which allows them to survive the antibiotic, then this makeup will become much more prevalent in the surviving population, if not present in every individual. Genetic drift is just the result of random sampling. When sexually reproducing organisms have offspring, the offspring are a random combination of their parents genes. Just by random chance, some alleles may become more or less abundant.
@GodsNotReal_ : Some creationists have argued that the theory of evolution says "man came from monkeys" or that eugenics could or should be used to enhance human survival, but the theory says none of that. What other things does the theory NOT say that people misunderstand?
@ProAtheist: The claim that humans evolved from monkeys is a misconception, usually based on those illustrations that frequently are used to depict evolution, which start with a chimp-like figure and have a few progressions up to modern homo sapiens. What's missing in that depiction is that the ancestor of both humans and modern monkeys or chimpanzees was not identical to any extant species. It's also missing all of the various points at which species branched out, and where most of the "intermediate" species went extinct, just like 99% of all species to ever exist have.
Eugenics is actually a poor understanding of genetics, and has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. The idea that certain "races" of people had superior traits is not found in evolutionary theory. Traits cannot even be labeled as beneficial or detrimental unless there's context to go along with it. For example, most people would consider sickle-cell anemia to be a "bad" trait, because it hinders the ability of a person's red blood cells to carry oxygen. However, this condition provides resistance to malaria; so, in a malaria-rich environment, sickle-cell anemia would be beneficial, and would increase an individual's chance of survival. The eugenics movements of the early 20th Century believed that we could "weed out" certain "undesirable" traits if we stopped individuals with those traits from reproducing, either by sterilization or through genocide. However, anyone with a basic understanding of genetics knows that recessive traits and epigenetic factors, among others, cannot be eradicated in this manner.
Another charge that is frequently leveled by opponents of evolution is that people cannot have valid morals if they accept evolution. The claim largely is advanced by theists, who believe that objective morality cannot exist without an ultimate authority, and it is also based on a misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest". In biology, "fitness" doesn't necessarily refer to an organism's physical conditioning. Rather, it is a measure of an organism's success at reproducing and propagating its genes. An organism which does not reproduce before death has a fitness of zero. Survival and propagating one's genes need not necessarily entail "immoral" behavior; in fact, it can be quite the opposite. For example, humans are just one species which have evolved to be very altruistic; that is, they work together for the benefit of the entire population. There are many species which exhibit such behavior; ants are an easy example. If working together increases your chances of survival and reproduction, then it will be passed on. The concept of "social Darwinism" - that the most ruthless and privileged individuals deserve to have power and propagate themselves - simply has no basis in the theory of evolution.
@GodsNotReal_ : A "theory" is the pinnacle of scientific achievement. Can you explain why that is true and why theories don't get promoted to laws?
@ProtoAtheist: In science, when someone has an idea they want to test, it's called a hypothesis. The goal of science is to nullify, or disprove, the hypothesis. The reason for this is because nothing can ever be demonstrated to be 100% true; we always leave open the possibility that new evidence could be discovered which disproves the hypothesis. A hypothesis becomes a theory once some valid testing has been done which provides evidence that the hypothesis could be true, and this testing is reviewed by other experts in the field, and the results can be repeated and confirmed. A theory becomes stronger over time as more and more studies fail to disprove the theory, and as more evidence mounts in support of it. Evolutionary theory is one of the most highly supported theories in all of science.
Theories do not get promoted to laws because laws are embedded within theories. They are based on observations, and always apply under the same conditions. For example, we have the laws of thermodynamics. Many creationists attempt to claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because evolution decreases entropy.However, they fail to realize that the Earth is not a closed system, and it receives energy for the sun, which drives the short-term decrease in entropy. Overall, the entropy in the universe continues to increase, and the temporary increase seen in the existence and evolution of organic life will dissipate.
@GodsNotReal_ : Can you explain the difference between "Evolution" and "The theory of evolution?"
@ProtoAtheist: Evolution, as I explained previously, is the change in allele frequencies over time in a population. That's an observed fact. It occurs now, it occurred in the past, and it will occur in the future as long as organic life exists. This is not up for debate.
The theory of evolution is the model which explains HOW and WHY this observed phenomenon occurs, and is subject to change as the evidence dictates, just like any other theory.
An analogy I like to use with creationists is the relationship between the sun and the Earth. For most of human history, it was believed that the sun traveled around a stationary Earth. This was based on our observations of the sun appearing on the horizon, tracking across the sky, and disappearing again beyond the horizon, while the Earth appeared static from our vantage point. However, we eventually determined that it was the Earth that orbits the sun, and that neither are truly stationary. Regardless of what the theory was, the observations of the sun remained unchanged; it was simply our understanding which was altered. So, in other words, even if the theory of evolution were to be disproved (the method by which evolution occurs), the fact that allele frequencies change over time is unaffected.
@GodsNotReal_ : Can you explain the peer review process and why that is so important?
@ProtoAtheist: The peer review process is a fundamental necessity of sound science. Anyone can form a hypothesis, design an experiment, perform some tests, and then arrive at a conclusion. The difficult part is coming up with a robust testing design and knowing how to draw valid conclusions from your results. The peer review process is what determines if a study passes muster. If other experts in the field find flaws in our experimental design, or in the analysis of the data, then the conclusions of the study are called into question. If other scientists are unable to replicate the results using the same methods, then the credibility of the study is suspect. If an experiment has a sound design and the results can be reproduced, then it's more than likely valid.
This is important for two reasons - First, it ensures that scientific claims have been substantiated; second, it is a prevention measure against fraud. Yes, science can have its share of unethical individuals, who may intentionally publish inaccurate studies and conclusions for various reasons. However, such occurrences are relatively rare, and are not a valid justification for casting doubt on the entire scientific process, like many do (creationists, climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, the anti-GMO crowd, etc.). In addition, whenever such instances occur, the scientists involved can become outcasts, and even stripped of their ability to receive funding or perform future experiments (like what happened with Andrew Wakefield for publishing his false studies claiming a link between vaccination and autism, which is still causing widespread issues today).
@GodsNotReal_ : So when a creationist's paper is rejected by the peer review process, and the Christians cry foul, what are some typical reasons for that paper being rejected?
@ProtoAtheist: A creationist or intelligent design proponent's paper would be rejected because it isn't scientific. Science is the study of the natural world. As such, any hypothesis which invokes a supernatural phenomenon is, by definition, unscientific. There cannot be any empirical evidence for a supernatural claim; if there were, it wouldn't be supernatural.
Charlatans like Ken Ham like to do things like separate science into "observational" and "historical" science. He claims that "observational science" can gather information on phenomena which are observable, and which can be repeated, and that "historical science" are things which have occurred in the past, which were not observed by anyone, and therefore are not bound by the rules of "observational science". His favorite pet phrase is "Were you there?" when speaking about the beginning of the universe or the formation of the Earth or human evolution. Of course, neither Ken, nor anyone else, was there, either, but he claims to know the answers, because Jesus. Darkmatter2525 did a great video on YouTube which further demonstrates the absurdity of his claims.
When it comes to Intelligent Design, it's still unscientific. Even the conservative Christian judge in the Kitzmiller v Dover case ruled as such, in prohibiting public schools from mentioning ID as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. I myself have a video on YouTube called "5 Failures of Intelligent Design", where I discuss this in more detail.
@GodsNotReal_ : Some creationists exclaim that the existence of DNA disproves evolution. Please explain why that is incorrect.
@ProtoAtheist: If creationists assert that the existence of DNA disproves evolution, this is typically an argument which invokes the concept of "information". Essentially, the premise is that DNA is information, because it is a code which contains the instructions for building an organism. The argument usually then asserts that information requires a creator. This, of course, is begging the questions, and that's if we even accept the premise that DNA falls under their definition of "information". While we use letters to represent DNA, (A,G,C,T), these are just shorthand for complex nucleic acids that each have a complement which they bind to. Nucleic acids are just molecules arranged in a pattern which happen to be biologically active. When they align in certain sequences, they are "transcribed" and proteins are assembled. This all might seem fantastical, but the behavior of molecules are just a result of the natural laws. There's no need to invoke a supernatural force behind this based on one's personal incredulity. And again, evolution is an observed fact, so nothing is going to disprove it. If, somehow, the existence or complexity of DNA did "disprove" the theory of evolution, that would just mean we'd have to come up with a new model.
@GodsNotReal_ : Many creationists claim that the many branches of science contradict each other when it comes to evolution. For example, geologists, chemical biologists, microbiologists, and paleontologists all have different answers about the process of evolution. Is that true?
@ProtoAtheist: Biological evolution is one of the most highly supported theories in all of science, and the reason for this is because it incorporates evidence from a wide range of fields - from genetics to molecular and cell biology to comparative anatomy to paleontology and archaeology to genetics and beyond. All of this evidence tells us the same story; that organic life on Earth began with very simple, single-celled creatures, and eventually increased in size and complexity over time. While it may be possible that more than one life-generating event occurred and led to different forms of life (i.e. one line leading to plant life, another to animal life), it's most likely that all life on Earth is, in fact, related.
So, if a creationist attempts to argue that there is not a solid scientific consensus across fields with respect to evolutionary theory, they're simply mistaken. Another possibility is that they're being disingenuous, using the term "evolution" loosely, since there are other scientific theories which use this term - such as cosmological evolution or chemical evolution.
@GodsNotReal_ : Assuming that WERE true, please explain why that is actually not an argument against the theory of evolution. In other words, If it were true that various branches of science disagree about the process of evolution, does that mean that evolution is false? Does the fact that theory of evolution is constantly in flux give any reason to suggest that the entire theory is bunk?
@ProtoAtheist: If we assumed that the premise were true, that there was dischord amongst scientists from various fields on evolutionary theory, that would not by any means disprove evolution, or even the theory itself. A theory can be easily disproved - by presenting evidence which contradicts the claims of the theory. If there were some disagreement on specific facets of evolutionary theory, that would just mean that some of the specifics are in question, but that the overall theory as a whole would still be viable. This wouldn't be a bad thing, because it means that scientists are trying to get things exactly right. Theories are tweaked, and they should be when new evidence demands it. Theories should also be discarded or supplanted as the evidence requires. But again, the process of evolution is an observed fact, and disproving the theory has no bearing on this whatsoever. Many creationists have no problem accepting that what they term "microevolution" occurs - small changes over time. Their beef is with "macroevolution" - much larger-scale changes, often marked phenotypic changes and speciation events. So, they might attempt to find scientists who accept "microevolution", but question "macroevolution" in order to present the appearance of uncertainty when there's actually quite a strong consensus. Of course, most often, these' cherry-picked doubters are creationists themselves, like Dr. Georgia Purdom.
@GodsNotReal_ : It's a stupid question, but it has to be asked because it is widely talked about in creationist circles. "If humans evolved from monkeys and apes, then why are there still monkeys and apes?" And, "If there are millions of fossils of humans, and millions of fossils of chimpanzees, where are the millions of fossils of the intermediate species?"
@PrototypeAtheist: Yes, this is a stupid question, one that is frequently mocked, but still sometimes presented sincerely, as @TakeThatDarwin can attest to. This goes back the the misconception (or intentional straw man argument) that monkeys evolved into humans in the past. For those who ask it sincerely, the funny part is that they seem to think that scientists have completely overlooked the fact that monkeys continue to exist, but aren't morphing into humans.As for the fossil record...well, it does exist. Whenever they claim it doesn't, one place I like to send them is to the Smithsonian Institute's human evolution website at http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence . Of course I can't present people with actual fossils when having a conversation on social media, or even in person unless we're at a natural history museum or some other archive. But creationists are known to be stubborn, and even intentionally obtuse, as this classic exchange between Richard Dawkins and Wendy Wright demonstrates.
...I don't think it is a waste of time to attempt to educate people about evolution, even if they're deeply indoctrinated with religious creation myths. People can change their minds, no matter how stubborn they seem. One example of this is @playdoughpoem, who not only took a sincere interest in listening and learning, but who now is quite the skeptic. I'd just advise people to leave the discussions up to those who are well-versed not only in evolutionary theory, but also on creationist tactics. They'll try to catch you stumbling over something or befuddled by one of their unfounded claims, and use this to attack the credibility of yourself and evolutionary theory. Many people weren't too pleased when Bill Nye agreed to "debate" Ken Ham last year, especially since Bill wasn't a seasoned debater and because biology and evolution aren't his strong suit. However, he prepared very well and scored a convincing victory to all but the loyal Ken Ham acolytes. The signature moment in the debate came when they were each asked what would change their minds:
Bill Nye: evidence
Ken Ham: nothing
But that's not going to stop me from trying.
@GodsNotReal_ : Some creationists admit microevolution is real but say macroevolution is impossible. Do biologists differentiate between them or is the differentiation just another dishonest, creationist tactic? If microevolution is just a small change, then I think of macroevolution as many microevolutions occurring over a very long period of time. Is that both simple and accurate?
@ProtoAtheist: When biologists differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, it's just a matter of scope and scale. Microevolution includes changes which occur fairly quickly, perhaps within a few generations. Macroevolution is, in fact, just the result of microevolution over a longer span of time. It's important to remember that evolution affects populations, not individual organisms. Individual organisms do not evolve. As various allele frequencies shift over time in a population, these can accumulate and result in a population which is unrecognizable to the original population. When evolution functions at or above the species level, such as speciation events or the emergence of novel structures, this is macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers in some theropod dinosaurs. Feathers are a unique feature, and led to the emergence of the class of animals we refer to as birds.
The reason that creationists using these distinctions is dishonest is because they claim that there's no evidence of speciation (or one "kind" turning into another "kind", in their parlance). They admit that "kinds" can develop variations, but that these do not lead to new "kinds". The quickest way to shut down these claims is to ask a creationist what the mechanism is which prevents evolution from reaching the species level. If a species could never change enough to become a new species, then there has to be some sort of natural barrier to this, yet none has ever been presented. I also challenge creationists to define the term "species" or "kind" in any universal, meaningful biological manner. I never receive a satisfactory response to this, if I receive one at all. Biologists typically refer to species as any set of sexually-reproducing organisms which can mate and produce fertile offspring. This, of course, is quite insufficient for describing all scenarios, especially once we venture outside of the animal kingdom. The fact is that "species" is just a fairly arbitrary concept that scientists use to classify and better study relationships between organisms. The reality is that all life is related, and that nature doesn't fit into neat little boxes.
@GodsNotReal_ : How do you explain renowned scientists who don't accept the theory of evolution?
@ProtoAtheist: Scientists are human, just like the rest of us, and are susceptible to the same sorts of biases and compartmentalization as anyone. The scientific method is designed to help scientists remove as much bias as possible to take an objective look at things. So, while a renowned scientist may apply good technique and critical thought to their field, be it chemistry or physics or some other field outside of biology, they may reject biological evolution for various reasons. Most frequently, this will be due to their personal religious beliefs, which do not necessarily conflict with theories in other fields of science, but which are irreconcilable with evolutionary theory. As I've mentioned previously, there are even biologists who reject evolutionary theory, but again, this is due to their own personal beliefs, and they suspect their good judgment in order to attempt to make the evidence fit their preferred version of reality. This is why we have a peer-review process. Whenever creationists attempt to invoke the name of some famous scientists who denies evolution as proof that they have intelligent, educated people on their side, it's an appeal to authority fallacy. Just because a person is intelligent and capable of applying scientific principles, that doesn't mean that their every opinion is automatically correct.
@GodsNotReal_ : Why is "Christian scientist" an oxymoron?
@ProtoAtheist: "Christian scientist" is an oxymoron when used in its typical context; that is, Christians who are attempting to find ways to make scientific evidence fit their chosen mythology. There is nothing actually scientific about it. If science were to discover evidence to suggest that anything about Christianity were true, it wouldn't be called "Christian science", it would just be science.
Now, there are certainly plenty of scientists who are Christians, and who do science quite well. In fact, many creationists will be quick to tell you that many, if not most of the important scientific breakthroughs throughout history were made by Christians. This, of course, has no relevance to the veracity of their beliefs. Correlation is not causation, and we also know that the church was openly hostile to scientific discoveries for most of its existence. This isn't surprising when we consider that church dogma was at odds with what we came to discover empirically, so the credibility of the church and the religion itself were in question, as it increasingly continues to be. And yet, we still have billions of people more than willing to belief in an ever-changing belief system which incorporates scientific facts, even when they are irreconcilable. Apologetics is hardly new, though.
This confluence of science and religion often leads to misunderstandings. When I criticize the Abrahamic religions, I often state that they are irreconcilable with the scientific evidence. Of course, I'm referring to very specific evidence, things like evolution, an old Earth, humans existing for a couple hundred thousand years, cosmology, etc. I don't mean that all science conflicts with Christianity, but Christians most assuredly do deny science - when it is inconvenient. Of course a person can accept that gravity exists or that light refracts or that the speed of light is a constant without these causing any concern for their beliefs. However, if you accept scientific truths like the ones I mentioned previously, then you either don't fully understand the implications of these ideas, you don't fully understand what your religion claims to be true, or you just haven't reached the point of cognitive dissonance - where you realize that you hold conflicting beliefs simultaneously and have left them unresolved. I also have a video on YouTube discussing this aspect, titled "Science, Religion, and Cognitive Dissonance". So, while most of this discussion has centered around creationists, who likely wouldn't be swayed by this sort of discussion (given their rejection of the science they surely understand renders their beliefs invalid), this is a topic which addresses those Christians who do accept science.
@GodsNotReal_ : You keep saying that evolution is an observed fact. But nobody has ever observed macroevolution, so how do we know its real?
@ProtoAtheist: As I've mentioned, allele shifts in populations has been observed, innumerable times. Macroevolution isn't something that humans can directly observe in realtime, simply because the process requires more time than a human life. In addition, we've only had Darwin's theory of evolution for 150 years. I often demonstrate the absurdity of a creationist demanding that we observe macroevolution directly to prove it is true by asking them if they can hard-boil an egg in water in a nanosecond. Of course this is not possible, because the process of boiling an egg requires a minimum amount of time to occur. Stating that it's impossible to hard-boil an egg because you couldn't do it in an insufficient amount of time is just as foolish as claiming that macroevolution hasn't occurred because we haven't directly observed the process. Of course, I'm referring to the sort of macroevolution which would satisfy a creationist's demands. We have bountiful examples of speciation events and shifts in morphology, but creationists dismiss these as mere "adaptations" caused by microevolution.
There is evidence of macroevolution from various fields of science. Genetics demonstrates that all life is related, and how closely organisms are related. Comparative anatomy is also useful. The fossil record is compelling evidence for macroevolution. This whole debate essentially boils back down to the faux "observational" vs. "historical" science schtick. It belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Creationists claim that since science is based on observation, we can't truly know anything about the past because we didn't directly observe it as it happened. This, of course, is nonsense, because what we can observe is the evidence from the past - be it the fossil record, the age of rocks using radiometric dating, the ability to measure the background radiation from the Big Bang, etc.
Consider the absurdity of what creationists are claiming: that their god created lineage of organism to ever exist during the same epoch, and that slowly, these organisms have died off and gone extinct. According to creationism, life on Earth is slowly approaching non-existence, with no new species emerging. Of course, this would mean that their god created other populations of primates that were very close to humans, some even having the capacity for higher intelligence than us. It also is the claim that humanity is the pinnacle of creation, and that's why they cling to this belief so fervently. They don't want to admit that we're just animals who have evolved to have higher brain capacity which allows for advanced intelligence, which we've used to overcome our other physical limitations in order to survive. When you compare our physical traits to other animals, we are sorely lacking in most areas outside of intelligence. Our sight, smell, taste, and hearing are inferior to many other animals. Bipedal locomotion is inefficient and we are slow. Most of us have lost any significant body hair. Many of us have greatly reduced levels of melanin in our skin, which reduces protection from UV rays. Our belated development as babies and toddlers is in stark contrast to the precocious nature of other animals; this is because most of the glucose our body produces in our early development goes towards brain growth. All of this has perfectly natural explanations via evolutionary theory, but creationists essentially appeal to an argument from adverse consequences in order to reject the idea that we're not the special creation of an anthropocentric deity.
Comments
Post a Comment