Wednesday, February 4, 2009

The Same Old Creationist Myths and Misunderstandings

Watch this video (that is, if you can take your brain rotting a a bit).........



Are you O.K.? I hope your head didn't explode. The video had nice graphics and was put together well. It's just that this guy is the stereotypical person of faith that does not understand evolutionary theory (Though, most believers who don't understand evolutionary theory typically don't go around displaying their ignorance for the world to see......though, I do know some pretty nice intelligent Christians. The could be the exception that proves the rule.). There's nothing wrong with being a person of faith, or even misunderstanding something so long as you take step to correctly understand it. So, I'm going to take some time here to point out and answer (as it has been done ad infinitum with other creationists) the myths and misunderstandings that our friend "Frankgone 2010" (the author of the video) posits.

First off, monkeys and apes are different species, we are more closely related to the ape and chimp species. Frank seems to correct himself later in his video, so there is no need to hang on this point. However, creationists like to say, "I didn't come from a monkey.", you know what, you are right, you just share a common ancestor!

Let's get into this skull business. Why does Frank think that an ape (which encompasses animals like chimps, orangutans, and gorillas) skull and a human skull would look exactly the same? This is an absurd notion, considering that they are two different species. But, let's take a look at an ape skull and a human skull to see if there are any similarities.


Chimpanzee skull.

Human Skull 1
Human skull

Note that both are very similar and this makes sense because chimps and humans share 98% of the same genes. Over time evolution shrunk the upper lip area of the mouth (what's that called......I should know!!) and a bone for the upper part of the nose started to come out. Look at all the similarities:

1) Brain casing is essentially the same, though in the human skull it is not as long.

2) Eyebrow ridge, though this is also not as prominent as it is in the chimp but millions of years has changed that.

3) The jaw is the same except for that the chimp jaw is protruding out more. Even the hinge for the jaw is the same "design".

4) Both have very similar ocular cavities.

5) The cheek bones are also very similar as is the cavity from the cheek bones to the brain cavity.

But what about this survey that Frank did with kids? Actually, his survey ends up shooting Frank in the foot. He showed children an ape skull and a human skull and then proceeded to ask which one is the human skull. Not surprisingly, the kids were able to show which one was the human skull. What does this tell us?

1) Human skulls look different(different doesn't mean unsimilar!!) from ape skulls.

2) Kids know what a human skull looks like compared to an ape skull.

None of this tells us anything about whether evolution occurs or if we are related to chimps. It only tells us that kids know that a human skull is different looking than that of an ape. Why not ask those kids, "What similar structures can you find between a human skull and an ape skull?", though the answers to this question wouldn't support Frank's position.

What is next on the hit parade? Frank talks about the beginning of life.............wait a minute. That isn't in the theory of evolution. Evolution only explains how life has changed, not how it started, there is a big difference. Frank seems to be referring to abiogenesis, which is:

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth began from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things have changed over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", occur naturally, due to chemical reactions unrelated to life. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of the origin of life is a question of how the first nucleic acids came into existence.
(Source: Wikipedia)

Life is very improbable but Frank is looking at the odds the wrong way. Try looking at it this way (taken from Ken Miller of Brown University, I am just paraphrasing here)

Let's get together a couple of friends and play a game of Texas Hold'em. After we have all of the essentials (beer, cards, chips, wife out of the house........haha), we can play. But while we are playing, we are going to keep track of every card dealt and we are going to keep track of all the community cards that are flipped over. After a few hours, we take a look at the cards we were keeping track of. It would be very very unlikely that we would ever deal out those cards in that same order ever again, but is that the only to play Texas Hold'em? We don' know enough about the rest of the universe to determine how life forms or whether carbon based is the only type of life in the universe. Also, we are here, so we are able to calculate the odds. The right cards were dealt.

Even after all of that, it still doesn't have to do with evolutionary theory. Evolution is what happens after there is life, it isn't the start of life (I can't stress this enough)!! Do I have to get into whale evolution? No I don't, but the links below explain it quite well. I can tell you this, no animal just thinks, "Gee, I think I want to go for a swim and maybe become a different species.". That alone shows Frank's ignorance of evolutionary theory (if the rest hasn't).

I don't know Frank, for all I know, he is a nice well intentioned guy. I have no beef with him being a believer in god. I do have a problem with Frank and those like him (Ray Comfort comes to mind!!) that spread ignorance. Ignorance can be changed, just like scientific theories. Frank, ask questions, but don't posit certitude when you yourself are ignorant.

D

Links for whale evolution:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html?fs=animals.nationalgeographic.com

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whalekiosk.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Further Reading:

Finding Darwin's God - Ken Miller

Evolution: What the fossils say - Donald R. Prothero

At The Waters Edge - Carl Zimmer

Scientists Confront Creationism

2 comments:

  1. Probabilities and the like may support the creationist arguement BUT ... Why is the concept of natural selection/adaptation etc ignored? I just can't imagine a hugh lighting bolt coming down one day and all the creatures are here on earth. If so why are they not all here? There are deer running around by I'm still looking for the T-Rex. SPLAIN EXTINCT LUCY!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, right. Why is extinction ignored? Why have 99% of all the known species to exist, don't anymore? Why do we have all of these "transitional" fossils if evolution isn't true? Creationists want to play in the realm of logic and science but they never want to when it comes to their ideas about life. There are plenty of things that could falsify evolution. For instance, finding a modern human in the same rock strata as a T-Rex (providing that it was a real find, not faked!). What can falsify the creationist theory? At this point they usually hide behind the "god is outside space-time" or "god works in mysterious ways"..........blah, blah, blah.

    ReplyDelete