Thanks Wumpini,
I can't speak to every sub-item in the list but I'm sure others will. Of course, as you have noted elsewhere, many of these may require too much detail to be discussed at length in this thread also.
This is also a much better list than Gabler's. It's still full of misunderstandings and error of fact and what appear to be deliberate distortions but it is closer to something that might be educational to discuss in a classroom.
Those putting this "weaknesses" idea forward should be aware that if adequate time was ever allocated to discuss they would be unhappy with the result. We can use any of these lists to demonstrate very clearly the deep ignorance/dishonesty of those putting the list forward.
Origin of Life Weaknesses:
First, biological evolution, which is what we are talking about, requires, by definition, actually
biology. If God magicked life into existence it makes no difference to the evolutionary model. So the entire topic is a side issue in a biology class. It is, of course, an interesting and difficult area of research. It is also a GOTG (god of the gaps) argument.
* The extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems.
This is a common disingenuous argument. We know that there can be variations in the proteins of life systems so a very specific sequence is not needed. What is unknown is just how many variations would still work. Therefore this probability is not calculable.
In addition, all probability arguments must supply actual numbers and this has never been done correctly, in the cases I've seen, by the "weaknesses" crowd.
* The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place.
I don't know enough biochemistry to be very sure of this but I think it makes unwarranted assumptions about the conditions.
* No known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems.
Again, not something I know much about. I think that we even have some threads here that claim that this is not true. We do in fact have a number of ways.
* All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules.
Perhaps untrue. Let's wait for an expert.
* Photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed!
There is, in fact, good evidence that the early atmosphere was pretty much oxygen free. This is contrary to fact.
* There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.
A word of advice:
anytime that the word "information" is used by these folks make sure that a good operational definition is supplied. The statement is obviously false.
Fossil Record Weaknesses:
* The Cambrian explosion quickly produced all of the basically different body structures, and some of these have since become extinct. This is very different from the evolutionary tree of life, which suggests a slow and gradual increase in body structures.
"Quickly" is not defined in this quote. Some decades ago the Cambrian was named an "explosion" when the time period appeared to be aout 10 million years (quickly by geologic standards but not "quickly" by most others). We now have fossil evidence stretching back about 40 million years. Plenty of time.
In fact, this also hides the fact of just what "exploded" over this time frame. We did not get from nothing to birds, crabs, monkeys and octopuses in this time; we got from wormy things to buggy things and wormy things with legs.
* Many life forms persist through large expanses of geologic time with essentially no change. Evolution theory suggests that mutations occur randomly over time and are selected to produce continuing change as the environment continually changes.
This is not what evolution theory suggests at all. Another strawman.
* Most major proposed transitional forms are problematic and controversial. Rarely does the whole organism fit into the proposed developmental path. For example, birds are often said to have transitioned from reptile- hipped dinosaurs like Velociraptor. But these have a different kind of hip structure than birds. Birds have the same kind of hip structure as the dinosaurs like stegosaurus and the horned dinosaurs.
Back to this when I have some time to research it. I think it is yet another PRATT but we'll see.
Presently Observed Nature Weaknesses:
* Selective breeding has produced only very limited change with no new structures occurring over thousands of years and multitudes of generations of selection. This clearly demonstrates that there are natural limits to biological change. Examples: dogs, cattle, pigeons
This does not clearly demonstrate any such thing. What has been shown is that in
only 1,000's of years some rather significant changes can be developed. Examples: dogs and cattle. A 1,000 years is about 2 millionths of the existence of multicellular life on earth.
* Induced mutations followed by selection in laboratory experiments have not produced any beneficial structural changes.
Define "structural" and define "beneficial". We have examples of beneficial mutations in our human population.
* Most all mutations are detrimental, a few are neutral, and extremely few if any are clearly beneficial.
This is handled in a post above. This demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what the evolutionary process is about. I think the facts are wrong as well; most mutations are, I think, neutral in the context that they arise.
* Small changes resulting from natural selection are observed, but are not observed to accumulate to produce structural changes.
This misunderstands what "observation" means. We "observe" things that we don't see directly, in real time all the time. We do have examples of small changes accumulating to big changes. E.g., the reptile to mammal transition and the dinosaur to bird transitions.
* It is extremely difficult for scientists to propose in detail how the structural or biochemical systems of life could change from a more simple form that was functional.
This is contrary to fact. (Well, I guess it is "difficult" since it has taken a lot of research to begin to unscramble the pathways.) However, there are lots of cases that show this. The infamous blood clotting cascade of the ID folks is a good example.
General practice to avoid misunderstanding:
* When fossils are illustrated, the illustration should indicate which parts of the skeleton are actually present in the fossil material and which parts are inferred. This may be done for example by color, shading, or outline weight.
This isn't done 100 % of the time but I am used to seeing this most of the time. I agree it should be done.
* Fossil abundance versus geologic period diagrams should be shown for all life forms discussed in the text or presented in tree of life or cladogram interpretations. One large diagram might be presented at an early point in the discussion of fossils. Where little intact fossil material is known, fine lines or dotted lines should be used to indicate inferred or hypothesized connections or relationships.
I certainly see this often. I'm used to seeing the hominid diagrams shown in this way. I don't know if it is appropriate all the time but it certainly should be done a lot of the time and I see it done often.
* If evolution is compared to the change over time of the product of any human endeavor, then the role of intelligence and purpose in that human endeavor must also be clearly recognized and discussed.
I'm not sure what this means. I'll come back if the website supplies more details.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
