Two Great Posts from TurretinFan

Image via Wikipedia

When I read blogs, I have the tendency to skim my RSS readers rather quickly and read things based on titles. You’d think that that would mean I spend time and effort on each of my post titles, but the sad truth is that I don’t. That is really a topic for a different time. Two titles on TurretinFan’s excellent blog did catch my eye, and they were very much worth the time to read and consider, as they show some interesting holes in evolutionary theory.

I don’t believe I classify as either an evolutionist or a creationist, though I suspect that many would consider me a creationist. I think that evolution is certainly possible given that it is supported well as a scientific conclusion, but the necessity of God makes evolution a moot point. It is not necessary given God, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Neither does evolution, if true, falsify God.

Even though I must admit strong scientific evidence in favor of evolution, there are certain philosophical problems with it. TurretinFan calls attention to one such problem in this post. TF cites three scientific studies that create a problem for modern evolutionists. In the first, sea sponges are found to be 70% genetically similar to humans. This, combined with the other two studies that argue against familial ties (however distant) from chimpanzees, creates some reasonable doubt among the prevailing theory of evolution.

TF says that this information will be waved away by evolutionists. I think it is more likely that evolutionists will try to discredit either the research or the researchers, in that way they can safely ignore the conclusions altogether or at least minimize the impact of the study on their beloved theory.

In the follow up to the first post, TF recounts a comment from Peter Pike that creates serious philosophical problems with the theory of evolution. Genetics are used to trace the evolution of living species, but morphology is used for extinct species. The problem? Genetics is a poor way to predict morphology. What this means for evolutionists is that they are using one method on living species, and an incompatible method on extinct ones.

One method is going to be accurate, the other method is going to be inaccurate. As there is no way to reproduce evolution in the lab (there is a way to monitor it from this point forward), we don’t know which method is more accurate. Therefore, whole evolutionary trees are going to be dead wrong and we don’t know how.

Evolutionists, please don’t argue that my last point doesn’t matter one way or the other. With a little bit of Googling, I can find quotes from other evolutionists who argue that evolution is literally the pinnacle of modern science, and all other scientific advancements, theories, and discoveries rely on the truth of evolution. The point is that it does matter. If science literally depends on how accurately we are able to trace ancestry, then science itself is falsified on this philosophical point alone.

About Cory Tucholski

I'm a born-again Christian, amateur apologist and philosopher, father of 3. Want to know more? Check the "About" page!

Posted on August 18, 2010, in Science and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. Suffice to say, neither you nor the guys you linked to seem to understand how genetics work, or, frankly, science in general. I’m a bit surprised at this sponge deal, it’s no different than that oaks (a tree, no less!) share 60% of our genes. This all stems back to early genecist and wild speculation about the amount of information in the genome which proved to be wrong. If you run any of this by an actual biologist with some genetic or evolutionary attachment, they’ll confirm for you that “70% shared genetics” doesn’t mean what you think it means. When it really comes down to it, we all share 100% of the same amino acids which make genetics possible, and it still doesn’t create any gaps in the evolutionary theory.

    As to your second point, this is a bit laughable. Two methods aren’t the same method? Um, yes, that is in fact true. But where does “genetics aren’t a good way to predict morphology” come from? Not from evolutionists, I can assure you. In fact, Google your sources instead. (Or look up “Greatest show on earth” by Dawkins that has a full chapter on morphology and the comparison to genetics).

  2. I’m not an expert on the subject, but I recall that chimpanzees are 98% genetically identical to humans, and that bananas are 50%. They don’t mean that they respectively share 98% and 50% of human features…

  3. I’m not a biologist but I imagine a lot of those genes are responsible for really basic cellular operations (dividing, taking on energy, etc) that are common to any life form.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: