Creatures that Defy Evolution

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Argument Against Evolution of the Giraffe)
(Argument against Evolution of Bombardier Beetle)
Line 23: Line 23:
  
  
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= This is a [[Straw man]] argument, it misrepresents the way bombardier beetles actually are (just one example is the explosion happens inside the beetle and does not harm it), see [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design] for a long and serious explanation about the real biology of Bombardier beetles and how their evolution is not a problem for real scientists.  }}
+
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= 1st comment:-
 +
This is a [[Straw man]] argument, it misrepresents the way bombardier beetles actually are (just one example is the explosion happens inside the beetle and does not harm it), see [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design] for a long and serious explanation about the real biology of Bombardier beetles and how their evolution is not a problem for real scientists.  }}
 +
 
 +
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= 2nd comment:-
 +
EvoWiki has dealt with this problem, see[http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle  Bombardier beetle] a section is copied below:- 
 +
However, researchers have shown that creationist claims were based on a misreading of research and that the chemical weapon involves minor alterations from systems in other, less noxious beetles. This lends weight to the idea that this beetle has diverged from other species as a product of [[evolution]] by [[natural selection]].
 +
 
 +
In one demonstration, documented in the book ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]'', biologist [[Richard Dawkins]] mixed together hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide in an artificial environment. No reaction occurred—a catalyst was required. Dawkins' point was that as the beetle's defensive mechanism evolved, the intermediate stages would not explode - the chemicals would not react without a catalyst.
 +
}}
 +
 
  
 
Crossfade back to Hames back at the zoo.
 
Crossfade back to Hames back at the zoo.

Revision as of 02:57, 19 September 2011

Creatures that Defy Evolution is a three volume apologist documentary where Dr. Martin (A dentist) attempts to provide examples of animal species whose existence cannot be explained by the Theory of Evolution. The host of the series, David Hames, was killed in the 2010 Haiti Earthquake.


Volume 1 Walkthrough

The scene opens with Hames walking through a rose garden, and he asks "Have you ever looked at the beauty and intricacies of an animal, bird or fish, and asked yourself, "Could this really have been created through a process of evolution? Could time plus chance come together all the beauty we see in the world?" Hi, I'm David Hames, and in the next few minutes we're going to take a close look at some animals that are going to shatter that very idea.

Comment: Hames fails to make mention of various unpleasant species including the African eyeworm. He also displays' the apologists' common misuse of 'chance', and seems to use the Evolution is only a theory argument.

Fade out to title sequence showing various species of animals, and an All-Seeing Eye.

  • Hames (now in a zoo) "I want to introduce you to Dr. Jobe Martin. Dr. Martin has had a very interesting background. He's been a college professor, and a dentist. He even served on the dental crew for President Johnson's' Air Force One and the presidential fleet. Well, for the past 20 years, Dr. Martin has been lecturing students on incredible creatures that defy evolution. But it wasn't always this way. Dr. Martin, out of a scientific and medical background, once believed in the Theory of Evolution."

Comment: Obvious appeal to authority and variation of I used to be an atheist

  • Martin "Evolution, as I was taught, It all started with a thing called the Big Bang. They say this Big Bang went 'Kaboom!' And shot out Hydrogen gas, mostly, and the gas somehow turned to dust, and the dust condensed down to Planet Earth. Evolutionists say it started dry, then over millions of years, volcanic activity produced the water, and then in some little pond of this water somewhere on Planet Earth, this inorganic chemicals got together, and they were zapped by some kind of x-ray or something else, and all of a sudden you have this little spec of life. and they say that was about three and a half billion years ago. And the that little spec of life somehow over about 3 billion years, became the first cell, which was somewhere around 600 million years ago. And then that progressively became beautiful you."

fade out

  • Hames "Dr. Martin's traditional scientific background would go through an evolution, rather a revolution, as he joined the staff as a professor at Baylor Dental College. This was the beginning of the evolution of a creationist.

Argument against Evolution of Bombardier Beetle

  • Martin "And so in the fall of 1971, I went to Baylor in Dallas, and gave my first lecture. It was on the evolution of the tooth. And I talked about these fish scales gradually migrated into the mouth and became teeth, and a couple of my students came to me after class that day and said "Dr. Martin have you ever investigated the claims of Creation Science?" Well that was 1971, and I'd never even head of it. At that point, I'd been a Christian for about 5 years, and so I'm thinking to myself "Where are these guys coming from? I've never heard of this." and so I said "Sure, I'll look into this with you." and I'm thinking, kind of as a cocky young professor, "I'll blow these guys away!" Well, they asked me to start studying the assumptions that the evolutionists make. And in all my years-eight years of scientific education- I'd never had a single professor tell me about an assumption. And, so we started looking at the assumptions, and I began to realize something: They're making some claims here, that really, the assumptions aren't valid. When they tell us "Rocks are very old," and all these kinds of things, and then they asked me to start studying some animals, and see if I thought that animal could evolve. Well, the first thing that we really studied together was this little bug called a Bombardier Beetle. And this little insect is about a half inch long and it mixes chemicals that explode! So I began to think "Okay, now how would that evolve?" Let's say if evolution is true, and you're evolving along here, and you don't have a defense mechanism. Because that is the defense mechanism of the bug. So if evolution is true, it had to somehow evolve that, so let's say it coming along here...well the first time it evolves the explosion, What does it do to the bug? Boom! Just splattered your bug. Okay, so splattered bug pieces don't evolve! So how could this have happened? Well it doesn't blow itself up, it has another little factory inside itself that manufactures chemicals-a chemical-that acts as a catalyst so that when you squirt that chemical in with these other chemicals that are like a neutral and you get your explosion. Well the first time it manufactured that little chemical, here it goes again, blew itself up again! But it doesn't. Why? Well, because it has like an asbestos-lined firing chamber. And even then it would blow itself up, if it didn't have somewhere for the explosion to go, so it has twin tail tubes. And it can aim these tail tubes all the way up, out the side, out the front...Let's say a spider is coming up toward its side and it doesn't have time to turn around and shoot, it can just take it's little gun turret aim it out there and shoot. Thus the explosion on this little bug all you hear--if you're listening as a human-- you hear this pop! But scientists have now put that explosion in slow motion. And it's like "rl-rl-rl!" It like a thousand sequential little explosions, but they're so fast, all we hear is one pop. And so you think "Well, why would that be?" Well, that was a curious thing for the scientists that studied this little bug--alot of them at Cornell University, some other places-- and what they discovered was that if it was just one big pop, the little bug, if he's shooting, like, a spider, let's say over here, and he goes "whomp! Bang!" and shoots it, he's gonna pop himself right outta' there! It's like lighting a burner on a jet engine! So he's outta' there! But as long as it is a sequential explosion, with his little legs he can hang on. How would evolution explain a sequential explosion? This little bug messes with all the theories of evolution. There is no way a slow, gradual process is going to produce this bug. There is no way even the newest theories of evolution like punctuated equilibrium, which means evolution happens very fast, well, there's now way that would explain this little bug. I began to realize "How could this particular little animal, for instance, evolve? It needed all of it's parts, it needed everything there all at once, or you just don't have the animal." And my stomach started to churn--If I really want to be honest. And my wife will tell you my stomach churned for five years: It took a five year struggle for me to begin to flip the way I think. From thinking in an evolutionary way to thinking in more, "This animal, or little creature, little bug, whatever, was created, uh, fully formed, just like it is." Because that went against everything I'd ever learned."


Comment: 1st comment:- This is a Straw man argument, it misrepresents the way bombardier beetles actually are (just one example is the explosion happens inside the beetle and does not harm it), see Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design for a long and serious explanation about the real biology of Bombardier beetles and how their evolution is not a problem for real scientists.

Comment: 2nd comment:- EvoWiki has dealt with this problem, seeBombardier beetle a section is copied below:- However, researchers have shown that creationist claims were based on a misreading of research and that the chemical weapon involves minor alterations from systems in other, less noxious beetles. This lends weight to the idea that this beetle has diverged from other species as a product of evolution by natural selection.

In one demonstration, documented in the book The Blind Watchmaker, biologist Richard Dawkins mixed together hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide in an artificial environment. No reaction occurred—a catalyst was required. Dawkins' point was that as the beetle's defensive mechanism evolved, the intermediate stages would not explode - the chemicals would not react without a catalyst.


Crossfade back to Hames back at the zoo.

  • Hames "Did you know the world's strongest animal is actually the beetle? In fact, in one test the Rhinoceros Beetle carried over eight-hundred and fifty times its own weight on its back. That would be like me trying to carry a hundred and thirty thousand pounds! I don't think so! Now let's take a look at the world's tallest animal.

Argument Against Evolution of the Giraffe

  • Martin "The bull giraffe is about eighteen feet tall. In order to get blood up that long, skinny neck, against gravity, the bull giraffe has to have a powerful pump, and that's his heart, and the heart of a bull giraffe can be as much as two and a half feet long. Big, powerful pump. Now, as he's going along here living his life, everything's just fine, but all of a sudden this eighteen foot tall creature decides "I need a drink of water." So he bends his head down to get a drink of water. Now we have a problem. Because now this powerful pump, instead of pumping against gravity, is pumping with gravity. And so the heart gives a mighty squeeze, and the blood shoots down his neck, hits his brain, and bursts his brain. And so now he just blew his brains out. Okay, so he's dying and he must be thinking to himself, "I need to evolve something here to take care of my problem. When I get a drink of water, I blow my brains out." Of course, we know dead creatures don't evolve, but he doesn't blow his brains out. Because as he bends his head down, there are, like, little spigots, in his artery that goes up the neck--little valves, and they close. But the last pump is beyond the last valve and it's enough to burst the little arterioles in his brain, but it doesn't go into his brain. The last pump kinda goes "Vromp!" underneath the brain into like a sponge. And this sponge just gently expands and he hasn't blown his brains out, he gets his drink of water, and now he sees a zebra kinda running up from this side, and he just ignores it. But he sees a lion coming up from this side "Whoa the lion wants to eat me, I gotta get outta here!" Now how does he know the difference by the way? Evolutionist can't explain that to us. But the fact is here comes this lion. he's going to eat the giraffe, and so the giraffe, uh, jumps up he runs about five steps, passes out.

Comment: EvoWiki has dealt with this problem, see The giraffe neck couldn't evolve without a special circulatory system, a section is copied here.

  1. These 'special' organs are not particularly unique to giraffes:
    • All vertebrates feature a heart, and it is fairly easy to imagine one evolving in size as the demands upon it were increased in each generation (see Response 2).
    • The net of capillaries is termed the 'intracranial carotid rete mirabile', and not unique to the giraffe. All members of Artiodactyla (such as sheep, cattle, camels, pigs etc) have such a feature, and it is thought to function in cooling the blood.
    • Valves of the jugular vein are found in all mammals to prevent backflow of blood, as without them none could circulate blood to and from the head effectively. In fact, all veins, except for cranial veins, feature venous valves.
  2. Large changes that develop features in an organism, such as that of a long neck, do not happen all at once. The neck could have grown progressively longer through a series of small changes over many generations. This would, instead of making a large heart imperative immediately, gradually increase the usefulness and thus the need for a large heart, leaving a large amount of time for a larger heart and a better circulatory system to evolve along with that of a progressively longer and longer neck.
  3. "They could not have evolved gradually." - They could have evolved just as gradually as the length of the neck did, from structures that have almost none of these special properties, through structures that have less-efficient grades of these properties, to become structures that have all of these special properties.
  4. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox