Five major evolutionist misconceptions about evolution

From EvoWiki

Wallace, Timothy, 2000. Five major evolutionist misconceptions about evolution. http://www.trueorigins.org/isakrbtl.asp

Contains the following arguments:

Contents 1 First 'misconception' 2 Second 'misconception' 3 Third 'misconception' 4 Fourth 'misconception' 5 Fifth 'misconception' 6 Conclusion

First 'misconception'

• Microevolution selects only existing variation

  "Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits."

• Macroevolution has never been observed

  "...even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened..."

Second 'misconception'

• Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder

  "It should be clear that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does indeed require that a natural process or system, left to itself, increases in entropy, or randomness, and therefore decreases in order..."

• Instructions are necessary to produce order

  "So we can see that living things do not in fact “violate” the 2nd law, nor are they excepted from or “irrelevant to” the 2nd law, but they actually have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures in spite of the 2nd law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies)."

• Evolution needs an energy conversion mechanism to utilize energy

  Not stated outright, but implied by the above claim that an energy conversion mechanism is required for an increase in order and the premise that evolution violates the 2nd law.

• The 2nd law is about organized complexity, not entropy

  "To so erroneously equate mere passive “order” of molecules as they enter a state of energy equilibrium (e.g., the formation of crystals) with a spontaneous, self-induced increase in “organized complexity” (as demanded by evolutionary theory for both the beginning and development of life—and as prohibited by the 2nd law), is to truly misunderstand the 2nd law AND evolution."

• Most mutations are harmful

  "Secondly, such changes as Isaak’s example of “four or six fingers instead of five” are due to genetic errors (mutations), and contrary to Isaak’s claim, differential reproductive success serves better to weed-out these errors, rather than perpetuate them, which is good, because they are almost invariably harmful, or at the very least neutral, in effect."

Third 'misconception'

• There are gaps between invertebrate-vertebrate

  "The above-mentioned FAQ, written by Kathleen Hunt, is in fact titled “Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ” (and does not even attempt to address the less conveniently “explained” absence of transitional specimens among invertebrates, or between invertebrates and vertebrates".

• There are gaps between land mammals and whales

  "The so-called record of “transitional fossils” (as portrayed by Kathleen Hunt and elsewhere) is replete with just such unsubstantiated, equivocal “evidence” as exemplified in Hunt’s treatment of whale phylogeny. It is by no means a convincing body of “scientific data” in which an objective student could hope to find solid evidence of transitional evolution."

• Protoavis disproves avian phylogenetics + Archaeopteryx was probably not an ancestor of modern birds

  "It should also be mentioned here (especially since it was “overlooked” by both Isaak and Hunt) that full-fledged crow-sized bird fossils have been found in strata believed by evolutionists to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (and as old as the oldest fossil dinosaur), making the “transitional” nature of Archaeopteryx (between dinosaurs and birds) less defensible than ever before."

Fourth 'misconception'

• Mutations don't add information

  "...there are no records of genuine, information-gaining mutations even remotely suggestive of evolutionary progress."

• Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis)

  "In a few short paragraphs, Mark Isaak apparently believes himself to have swept away any objection to the age-old notion of spontaneous generation."

• The odds of life forming are incredibly small

  "The highly complex and orderly structures and processes that comprise life and its functions can not even begin to be explained as having arisen from non-living matter, no matter how much promordial soup and time is involved."

Fifth 'misconception'

• Mutations are harmful

  "...mutational changes of a beneficial (or at least not harmful) and enduring nature are not known..."

• Evolution is not useful

  "Evolutionism has failed to prove useful, having produced no new advancements in scientific knowledge or technology [and] no advancements in medicine..."

• Vestigial organs may have functions

  "Evolutionism has failed to prove useful, having ... hindered past research because of false claims (now discarded) concerning “vestigial” organs"

• Evolution hasn't been proved

  " Lacking not only “proof,” but also any truly supportive, unequivocal “evidence,” we most certainly do not arrive at a “fact” of evolution—and there scarcely remains even a defensible scientific “theory” of evolution at all!"

Conclusion

• Many current scientists reject evolution + Many scientists find problems with evolution + Evolution will soon be widely rejected

  "A growing number of educated and informed people (including, no doubt, the vast majority of productive scientists) are not included among those described by Isaak as holding “unanimous agreement” with and/or “working on” the theory of evolution."