Evolution has been a frequent topic on these boards, and I have noticed a rather vocal minority of individuals attempting to argue against evolution.

These individuals who argue against evolution have made claims that do not stand up to scrutiny. What I have been doing for a short while now is taking some of these claims (all of them directly quoted or closely paraphrased from creationists on these boards), tracing out the logic of each claim, and demonstrating why the argument is false.

What this investigation has revealed is that in nearly every case, arguments against evolution contain a single false assumption or a single logical mistake that contaminates the rest of the argument and renders it false. Except for that one flaw, the rest of the argument tends, in most cases, to be somewhat logical (and quite logical, in some cases). It is easy to see how someone could make the mistake of overlooking a single step in their argument, particularly when that person has a deep emotional investment in proving evolution wrong.

There is a vast amount of empirical evidence that points to the truth of evolution, and the arguments presented below neither disprove evolution nor make us question whether it occurs.

What I would like is some feedback, particularly from creationists, as theirs is the position I am attempting to represent and critique.

Please note that this is a work in progress. More arguments will be added to this post over the weeks to come, and changes will be made whenever my own mistakes are pointed out to me. Happy reading.

---

Next, mutations are not a good which is why we strive to avoid them, but evolutionists want us to believe they are the driving force for molecule to man evolution???

---

The argument:
1. People try not to expose themselves to radiation because radiation causes mutations. (assertion)
2. Mutations are not good (follows from 1)
3. Therefore, the effects of mutations are bad (follows from 2)
4. Evolutionists believe that mutations make things more complex. (assertion)
5. Being more complex is good. (assertion)
6. Mutations cannot make something more complex (follows from 2,3,4,5)
7. Therefore, mutations cannot cause "molecule to man evolution"
QED

This argument is completely wrong because of its equivocation on the meaning of "mutations."

The "mutations" discussed by evolution are natural genetic mutations, not mutations caused by radiation. Every time DNA is copied, there are mutations due to copying error. We all have some mutations in our DNA. [EDIT: The source of mutations is significantly more complicated than this; please see RedRuth's post below for a fuller account]

Line 2 does not follow from line 1 because it assumes that all mutations are as bad as radiation-caused mutations.

Everything that follows from 2 is likewise wrong.


On Pre-cambrian fossils:

The Reasoning Process:
1. Evolution claims that species descended from common ancestors. (assertion)
2. Scientists once believed that evolution is always a gradual process. (assertion)
3. Evolution predicts we will see a complete fossil record of gradual changes. (assertion)
4. Proving that evolution is not gradual disproves evolution. (follows from 3)
5. Some of these so-called common ancestors are preserved as fossils. (assertion)
6. A large number of phyla appear for the first time in the fossils of the Precambrian strata. (assertion)
7. The fossil record is incomplete and does not document a gradual transition for most species. (follows from 5 and 6)
8. Evolution didn't happen like evolutionists once believed. (follows from 2,3,4,5,6,7)
9. Therefore evolution is falsified. (follows from 4 and 7)
10. Therefore evolution didn't happen. QED

This argument is completely wrong because it starts from false assertions.

Assertions 3 and 4 are just plain wrong. Nowhere does evolution predict that we will see a complete fossil record, and nowhere is the timeframe of evolution essential to the theory of common ancestry. Proving that evolution is not gradual proves that evolution is not gradual. It does nothing to disrupt the empirical evidence we have that common ancestry is true.

If you think assertions 3 and 4 are true statements, you do not understand evolution.

Everything that follows from 3 and 4 is likewise false.

---

Why would evolutionists continue to use knowingly fraudulent 'evidence' (Haeckel's FAKE drawings) in textbooks, IF they have as much evidence for their theory as they claim?

---

The logic:
1. A theory with a lot of evidence will have no supporters who use bad evidence. (assertion)
2. Evolution has a handful of supporters (textbook editors) who have used bad evidence (included Haeckel's drawings in textbooks). (assertion)
3. Evolution does not have a lot of evidence (follows from 1,2)

This argument is false because its first assertion is false. Any idea is going to have a number of supporters who make bad arguments for it -- we can tell nothing about the amount of evidence a theory has by the fact that a handful of supporters use bad evidence -- for whatever reason.

In the case of evolution, the perpetuation of one piece of bad evidence in textbooks may have several causes: human error, ignorance, the recycling nature of the textbook industry, stupidity, or maybe even evil design, as some creationists assert. We can't really know -- though it's noteworthy that leading scientists have opposed textbooks featuring these drawings once they became aware of them.

What we do know is that the only way to know how much evidence evolution has is by looking at evidence presented by scientists and challenging it -- which the other creationist arguments on this thread do. No scientist presents Haeckel's drawings as evidence for evolution.

Everything that follows from 1 is false.

[Note: this argument also tends to lump "evolutionists" into a monolithic category and make the actions of textbook editors the basis for distrusting scientists, the vast majority of whom are not responsible for intro-level textbooks]

---

There is absolutely NO empirical evidence for the theory of evolution. It's based on speculation and assumption. It's "BELIEVED" that small changes within a species could eventually lead to big changes...but there is no evidence of this at all.

---

The reasoning process:
1. To be "scientific," a phenomenon must be directly observed. (assertion)
2. Macroevolution has never been directly observed. (assertion)
3. Evolution is not scientific. (follows from 1 and 2)

This argument is wrong because assertion 1 is false. All of the historical sciences (of which evolution is a part) describe phenomena that we have not directly observed but rather phenomena that took place in the past that have had effects we can measure in the present.

[EDIT: As OmnipotentMonk points out below, there are many other phenomena that we cannot directly observe that are considered scientific: subatomic particles, black holes, etc. If science is to be limited to "direct observation," we might as well limit the horizons of our knowledge]

Everything that follows from 1 is false.

---

Evolutionists can't even agree on HOW certain species evolved, but they 'know' they did

---

The logic:
1. In order for a theory to be valid, all scientists must agree on each particular of the theory. (assertion)
2. Though the broad paths of descent from common ancestry are agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists, there is diagreement over the evolution paths of some species. (assertion)
3. Further, there are debates over the timeline of evolution and the exact mechanism of evolution. (assertion)
4. Further, there is a small number of scientists who do not believe in evolution. (assertion)
5. Clearly, all scientists do not agree on the particulars of the theory. (follows from 2,3,4)
6. Evolution is not a valid theory. (follows from 1,5)

This argument is false because its first assertion is false.

There is no scientific theory about which all scientists agree on every detail. The fact that there is disagreement and debate is part of what makes something a theory, a dynamic model that must incorporate new evidence as it becomes available or be discarded once enough evidence comes along to invalidate it.

Everything that follows from 1 is likewise false.

Notice also the sly assertion in 4, that there are scientists who do not believe in evolution. The handful of scientists who do not believe in evolution are not experts in biology. Of biologists, approximately 99% of them acknowledge evolution.

---

Irreducibly complex systems like the eye and blood coagulation could never evolve slowly over time. You would need all the proteins to appear at once or they would not be selected for.

---

The Reasoning Process:
1. Certain systems are "Irreducibly Complex" (that is, if a single part were removed, the system would not function). (assertion)
2. Evolution occurs by gradually adding parts. (assertion)
3. To construct these systems, evolution would have had to add parts that do not confer a survival advantage. (follows from 1,2)
3. Evolution could not have gradually contructed a system that needs all its parts to work. (follows from 1,2)
4. Evolution did not occur. QED

This argument is false because line 3 is a false conclusion. "Irreducible Complexity" describes systems as they currently are, not their history. A system can indeed evolve into a system that requires all of its parts to work -- each part along the way can increase the functioning of the system at the time it is added. Later changes make these elements essential to the new system.

Everything that follows from 3 is likewise false.

[As an aside, the eye is actually a bad example for creationists because it does not stop working, but merely grows less effective the more parts you remove. The old saying is, "half an eye is better than no eye" -- and indeed, "eyes" began as photosensitive cells that gradually became more sophisticated and protected from the elements.]


On Evolution and Racism:

The argument:
1. Charles Darwin was a racist. (assertion)
2. He collected the data and formulated the theory of evolution. (assertion)
3. Scientific theories reflect the beliefs of their creators. (assertion)
4. Evolution is a racist theory. (follows from 1,2,3)

This is false because assertion 3 is false. Scientific theories do not reflect the beliefs of their creators; they are completely neutral models that explain observed facts.

Everything that follows from 3 is likewise false.

This false conclusion is used as the first premise of a different argument:
1. Evolution is a racist theory. (assertion)
2. Racism is something we shouldn't believe in. (assertion)
3. We shouldn't believe in evolution. (follows from 1,2)

This argument is wrong because it is based on a false premise (line 1, as demonstrated in the previous example) and because its conclusion is a logical error (line 3).

Evolution is not racist -- it does not claim that any race is superior or inferior to any other. Additionally, the question of whether it is racist or not has no bearing on the theory's veracity.

---

We have no unquestionable transitional fossils (Even evolutionists are dismayed by the lack of them)

---

The argument:
1. A transitional fossil is a fossil that is half one creature and half another (eg. the "Crockoduck") (assertion)
2. Those fossils claimed to be transitional are not half one creature and half another. (assertion)
3. Therefore, there are no unquestionable transitional fossils. (follows from 1,2)

This argument is wrong because its first premise is wrong.

To be "transitional," a fossil does not have to be a chimerical cross between two creatures, such as having the upper torso of one creature and the body of another -- that is actually something we would not expect under evolution. Evolution does *not* predict that there are chimerical creatures like that.
Everything that follows from 1 is likewise false.

[And, incidentally, there are a huge number of transitional fossils that document intermediary forms. These are fossils that possess the traits of more than one creature and indicate a transition between one form and another. For some species, the fossil record documents change pretty clearly]

---

Human population is too small for our species to be 200,000 years old.

---

The argument:
1. Evolutionists claim that our species is 200,000 years old. (assertion)
2. The population should steadily rise with each generation. (assertion)
3. According to evolutionists, the human population has been steadily rising for 200,000 years. (follows from 1,2)
4. Such a steadily rising population would give us a figure much larger than the current population.

This argument is false because assertion 2 is false. Populations do not steadily rise -- they are subject to famines, plagues, diseases, the ice age, high mortality rates, short life-spans, etc.

Everything that follows from 2 is likewise false.

(Incidentally, I think the claim is that modern man has been around for 50,000 - 100,000 years. So for those keeping score at home, that's two false assertions and one false conclusion)

---

Agriculture is too recent

---

The "argument":
1. Evolution makes predictions about when humans should have begun agriculture. (assertion)
2. Humans began agriculture long after it should have happened. (assertion)
3. Therefore, evolution is wrong.

This argument is wrong because both of its assertions are wrong and its conclusion is not logical. Evolution makes no predictions about when agriculture "should" have begun, and I'm not aware of any science that does.
Absolutely everything is wrong here.

Please supply more information, creationists. I have literally no idea what your argument is for this.

---

The fact radiometric dating has been proven to give erroneous results and therefore cannot be trusted to give accurate dates.

---

The argument:
1. Radiometric dating has given erroneous results in some cases. (assertion)
2. Anything that gives erroneous results in a certain number of cases must be discarded. (assertion)
3. We must discard the results of all radiometric dating. (follows from 1,2)

This argument is wrong because assertion 2 is wrong.

It is unscientific to discard an entire body of results simply because a handful of them are not accurate. This is especially true given the fact that the vast majority of radiometric datings produce consistent results across independent measurements and have been confirmed by non-radiometric dating.

Everything that follows from 2 is likewise false.

---

Also, circular reasoning is used to find the 'appropriate' (aka pro-evolution) date of said rocks and fossils. They depend on each other, but neither has any empirical evidence independently. Rocks are dated by the fossils found in them, and fossils are dated by the rock they are found in. Any dates that coincide with the evolutionary timeline, are thrown out.

---

The argument:
1. Some rocks are dated by fossils found in them. (assertion)
2. Some fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in. (assertion)
3. There is no empirical evidence for the dates of either. (assertion)
4. Dating of rocks and fossils that rely on each other, without reference to empirical evidence, is circular and not valid. (assertion)
5. The dating of rocks and fossils is circular and not valid. (follows from 1,2,3,4)

This argument is false because assertion 3 is false.

The dates are confirmed empirically by means of dating (radiometric and otherwise), and independent measurements using different dating methods have been shown to be consistent in the vast majority of cases.

Everything that follows from 3 is likewise false.

(Incidentally, there are such things as "index fossils" -- fossils that have been demonstrated empirically to be found in rocks of a certain age. Again and again, they have been discovered in rocks of a certain age. As such, they can be reliably used to approximate the age of rocks they are found in.)