Atheist Armaments

Search this site
Empowering you with knowledge

Debating YEC’s: “No evidence for Evolution”

December 24th, 2007 | Category: Debate, Point & Counter-Point

Foreword: Sorry it took so long to get this up here. This post is a product of a week or so of writing, research, and editing. More to follow soon, but likely not until the New Year. Have a happy end-of-year season!

This is a claim I hear a lot.

“Evolution is an unproven theory!”

“There’s no evidence for the conjecture of Evolution.”

“Evolution is unsupported.”

This is, of course, generally spoken/written by people with their head buried deep in the sands of the book of Genesis.

First off, I’d like to open with some testimonial propaganda. This is a self-admitted Appeal to Authority. I want to present, for the record, the general opinion of the science community regarding the status of the theory that they developed (they would know, after all, right?).

The first link is Lehigh University’s Department of Science disclaimer of Michael Behe:

… The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

The following is from TalkOrigins:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in “creation-science” or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Granted, the data is from a study that is 10 years old, but recent polls and figures are similar if you source them from an independent/arbitrary source. Lastly, I have a quote that I think describes the origin of quotes for “dissidence among scientists” regarding this issue:

Don’t many famous scientists reject evolution?

No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However, examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred.

Ok. So first, let’s delve into some basic definitions:

What Evolution is:

Evolution “concerns changes in living things during the history of life on Earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, biological processes such as natural selection give rise to new species. Darwin called this process “descent with modification,” which remains a good definition of biological evolution today.” [Source]

Plain and simple, evolution is a well-supported explanation as to how the varieties of organisms came to be, and it can be used to predict changes we would expect to see in the future.

What Evolution is NOT:

Frequently, the term “Evolution” gets rolled in with the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Social Darwinism. This is a conflation of terms and you should immediately stop the discussion and clarify the definition. Typically, this conflation of terms is evident that you are talking to a YEC follower, not a YEC leader — the leaders don’t get these things confused. Be patient and politely explain the difference, then move on from there.

  • The Big Bang Cosmological Model attempts to explain how the universe went from a singularity to the state we see it in today.
  • Abiogenesis is an attempt to explain how life appeared from rudimentary organic elements (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.)
  • Social Darwinism, which isn’t even science, “is the idea that Charles Darwin’s theory can be extended and applied to the social domain, i.e. that just as competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change through the survival of the fittest, competition between individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.” [WP]

Ok, so once you’ve framed the definition of Evolution, you can move on to the real issue. Typically, YEC’s will generally parrot the notions that they support “Microevolution” (”small changes over time”) but disagree with “Macroevolution” (morphological changes). Their strategy has been to draw a hard line between the two things, to declare them as separate, so that they can wedge the Baraminological (the “kinds” thing) beliefs in there. Don’t bother trying to support Evolution with examples of Microevolution — they will simply agree with you and keep on badgering about there being no support for Macroevolution.

Two more things before we get into the evidences:

Don’t be lazy about this

You are going to have to do some reading. You don’t need to be a biology major, nor do you have to know this stuff well enough to perform your own experiments, but you do need to know it well enough to understand it. If you are simply copy-pasting arguments into a discussion, you will probably be met with the same, or get completely rolled when you are faced with an argument that doesn’t have a specific debunking.

Here are some good places to start (some of these are quite long, so this may take some time):

Dealing with the Ken Ham effect (the “Were you there?” argument)

You’ll often hear YEC’s use the phrase “Were you there?” This is an apologetic tactic that was, I believe, first used by Ken Ham somewhere. It’s frequently an opening attack; I liken it to a Scholar’s Mate in chess: It won’t stand up to someone who is well-read, but it’ll shut down people who aren’t by confounding them into trying to explain themselves while he moves in for the kill.

TalkOrigins (this site will be your best friend for many issues, AND it cites sources) has a brief article up that deals with this issue.

Basically, the question is implying that there’s no way to know that Evolution happened as we say it did because you weren’t there to eyewitness it. Obviously, this is a ridiculous question. If it were a valid argument, then what we know about electrons, about the speed of light, about the shape of the earth, would all be called into question.

Evolution, like other aspects of science, was developed inferentially from observed data. We’ll get to the data in a bit, but for now just take my word on it. We know the earth is round because of metrics we can measure using the horizon, from photos taken in space, and from things like trans-continental flight.

There are a number of ways to respond to this, but I think the best way would simply be to call a spade a spade, and tell the YEC that the question is a ridiculous one, and to stop pretending to be Ken Ham. Then explain about other inferential works. Don’t let them dominate with this question though; if they are being especially persistent, you may want to retort with some humor or light insults: “You say that your parents are your blood relatives, but were you there? How do you know?” “Are you married? How do you know your spouse isn’t cheating on you? Were you there?” Any example is fine, but the point to drive home is that it is possible to be confidently certain in an idea without having personal knowledge of it.

The Evidence

Alright, the meat and potatoes.

The Geologic Column: Imagine a 10 foot deep hole. Drop a colored ball into it. Throw some dirt on top. Now drop a different colored ball in it. Throw more dirt. Repeat, using different colored balls and more dirt in between each ball. Now have someone else dig up your hole and challenge them to determine the order in which the balls were buried. Get where this is going?

There are a number of sources of correlating evidence that supports the geologic column. YEC’s will often attack the individual sources, or come up with outlandish explanations for the facts we see around us that support the geologic column. Honestly, not believing that the geologic column chronicles the geologic history of the earth is tantamount to believing that the layers of wallpaper and paint in the rooms of an old house were all placed there simultaneously. Dendrochronology (tree rings), Radiometric dating (i.e. Carbon Dating, Uranium/Thorium dating, Argon, Neon, etc. dating), the Fossil record, Varves, etc. The geologic column is a very well-supported aspect of science; and yet there are many YEC’s that refuse to acknowledge it, and they dream up all sorts of explanations for why it’s not real. (Check out the TalkOrigins link below for some of their claims with refutations)

Links for more reading:

Fossil Record & Transitional Fossils: This is one area that the YEC’s love to talk about. “There’s no transitional fossils!” they say. They define transitional fossils as something along these lines:

If evolution were true, and reptiles evolved into birds, we would expect to see a fossil that’s 1% bird / 99% reptile, and then 2% bird / 98% reptile, etc. all the way up to fully evolved.

The problem with this example is that no matter how many transitional fossils are shown (and there are many), it will never be enough. Take out a piece of paper, and now draw a straight line using only dots. No matter how close together you make those dots, I can always find spaces in between them where they aren’t connected. This is the kind of “counter evidence” YEC’s like to use to “debunk” the transitional fossils.

Check out “Evolution made easy” (check here if the link was broken) to see what I mean. About midway through it explains (using George W. Bush’s photo) how transitional fossils are only a snapshot in time, and how they explain how you get from baby G.W.B. to adult G.W.B., even though there are plenty of gaps in between.

We have observed transitional forms for reptile-bird, reptile-mammal, human-ape, fossilized whales with legs (cetaceans), and legged sea-cows, among other things. The transitional fossils found are so blatantly obvious to anyone not brainwashed with YEC propaganda, it’s amazing that it isn’t even obvious to the YEC’s themselves! One question to ask a YEC who isn’t convinced by these transitional fossils (and don’t expect this to be a “power question”, but it could certainly further the discussion): “If these fossils are not transitional, then why do they appear to be transitional? And what kind of transitional fossils would you need to see to convince you?” The latter part of that prompt is especially potent, as it will generally show how outlandishly their desired proof is. After they respond, you may want to bring up the picture analogy found in that video. Your goal is to get them to agree on a reasonable definition of what transitional fossils are, and then demonstrate to them that they have been found. Even if you prove this, expect them to ultimately still deny it.The “Stephen J. Gould” quote-mine gambit, and its counter: YEC’s, particularly AiG, love to quote-mine evolutionists such as Gould. A “quote-mining” is when a quote is taken only portionally, with some important trailing sentence left off; Out of context, the quote means something entirely different. This is then presented as “proof.” Anytime you hear them refer to an “honest evolutionist,” expect a mined quote. This one quote in particular, the “trade-secret” quote, has been quoted ad nauseam. It is somewhat lengthy, but worth including in its entirety. Source link is in the “further reading” section below. The “mined portion” of this quote is in italics:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.

Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never “seen” in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

Taken out of context, the distorted meaning is obvious. It appears that Gould is admitting that there are no transitional forms! In context though, it is very clear that he is saying that the transitional forms are WELL SUPPORTED. Also note, and the author of the Quote Mine Project points this out, that while Gould does say that transitional forms are “rare” they are not “absent.” Consider the difference between “Unicorns are rare” and “Unicorns are non-existent.”

Links for further reading:

Mutation can (and do) provide new information: This is a mantra of the YEC team. “There are no mutations that provide new information. There are no mutations that provide new information. There are no mutations…” et cetera. In fact, there are. These mutations have not only been found, but proven, and even re-created in the laboratory. This is an experimentally verified support of Evolutionary theory.

Examples of increases in genetic information from mutation:

  • Flavobacteria independently developing nylonase to metabolize nylon. [1],[2]
  • “Anti-freeze glycoprotein” found in Antarctic fish [1]
  • Hydras, an aquatic organism, has generated Opsin genes independently [1]
  • Adaptation to high and low temperatures by E. Coli [1]
  • Adaptation to the dark by Chlamydomonas [1]
  • Adaptation to a low-phosphate Chemostat environment by Clonal Yeast [1]
  • Evidence of Genetic Divergence and Beneficial mutations after 10,000 bacterial generations [1]
  • Adaptations of Yeast to a glucose-limited environment [1]
  • Evolution of a Unicellular organism into a Multi-cellular species (via predation) [1]

The last 5 or 6 items are from the same page, which is a semi-canonical listing of experimentation done in this particular part of Biology.

Expect YEC’s to possibly counter by redirecting the argument to how these are all examples of Microevolution, not Macroevolution, and that no experiments have been done that show an increase in information resulting in morphological change. Be sure to (a) point them to that last experiment (by M. Boraas, the uni-cellular -> multi-cellular species via predation) and (b) point out that this is mean to specifically disprove their claim that mutations do not show increases in information. Do not let them redirect / deflect the argument. You drew them a nice hot bath of proof, make sure they sit in it.

Links for further reading:

The Universal Phylogeny Strongly Supports it: OK, first off, if you are not a Biology student, you may be wondering what a Phylogeny is and why it supports Evolution. A phylogeny is kind of like a “family tree” except that it deals with “families” in a much broader sense. Unique History - Showing Phylogeny

In this illustration, which was pulled from that last link, a phylogenetic tree of is shown. A, B, and C all represent different organisms. The point of this illustration is to show the idea of a “common ancestry”. There is another excellent explanation of phylogenetics at TalkOrigins.

The way phylogenetic trees are used is to establish a kind of “timeline” that shows when different genetic traits appeared. Biologists can look at the phylogenetic tree and determine when mammals appeared, or when animals developed four legs, or when placenta and hair appeared. It would be like looking back on your own genealogical tree and identifying when traits like “red hair” or “brown eyes” were introduced.

Phylogenetics are often misunderstood as well. If you hear someone say “If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?” then they are erring in the area of phylogeny. Humans and Chimpanzees, for example, share a common ancestor. It was likely a placental mammal, had hair, and four limbs. At some point, some mutations appeared that made it more chimp like, and others appeared that made it more human like. Humans and chimps have a relationship similar to “cousins”.

Other things, bits that people take for granted, should also be considered. For example, pretty much every living thing on this planet (of those observed anyways) possess DNA. All the DNA uses the same nucleic acid pairs, although they are re-arranged slightly differently on different species. Animals that are similar in form (Humans and chimps, for example) share similar organs and body structures. If you are a Doctor, you can perform surgery on a chimp and not be completely lost. Similarly, humans and other mammals, such as Giraffes or Bears, also share similar organs. We all have lungs / a heart /stomach(s), produce offspring in a placenta, and have mammary glands. Looking at fish, they use blood that is similar to ours, have a stomach, a tiny brain, and a mouth and eyes. While these examples may seem tautological (self-evident), I believe we take them for granted.

The big question should be asked “Why are there all of these similarities if all of the baramin (kinds) were created separately?”

Links for further reading:

Vestigial Limbs, Atavisms & elements of “Bad Design” suggest ad hoc development: A few definitions to begin with so we’re all on the same page:

  1. Vestigiality: Organs, limbs, and other anatomical components that are remnants of an ancestor. They have lost all or most of their functionality and are quite likely only a shadow of their past form, or severely atrophied / crippled.
  2. Atavisms: The emergence of ancestral traits (limbs, organs, features) that are not part of the standard makeup of the modern species.
  3. “Bad Design”: Components, organizations, and structures that, from an engineering, functionality, or design standpoint, are sub-optimal. The idea is that if things were designed, it defies logic to think that they would be designed in a sub-optimal manner; (See some examples of bad design in manufacturing)

Vestigial organs and atavisms are related, and are an interesting phenomenon in nature. Atavisms are the easiest to spot. We have seen occurences of:

  • Humans born with actual tails (bones and all, not just cartilage) [1][2, pdf]
  • Dolphins with hind-limbs [1][2]
  • Emergence (and absorption) of legs on snake embryos [1][2]
  • Ditto, but for whales [1][2]
  • Whales also develop hair embryonically, but discard it later before birth [1]
  • Humans develop three sets of kidneys in utero, the first two sets begin as kidneys but become other organs - this process shares similarity to other organisms. [1][2][3]

For Vestigial organs, we have these as some examples:

  • Ostrich & Emu wings (they are flightless birds) [1][2]
  • Blind Cave Salamanders with visible (non-functioning) eyes [1]
  • Dandelions reproduce without pollination, yet produce both pollen and flowers [1]
  • In humans: third molars (”wisdom teeth”), the appendix (*), the coccyx, ear lobes [1][2]

The I.D. and YEC communities have both challenged these things with two reactions: (1) “So what? It proves nothing.” and (2) They are functional organs, therefore not vestigial. For (2), I will leave it to TalkOrigins to answer this, which they do rather well, specifically answering Dr. Jonathan Safarti. For (1), the poo-poo’ing of this find is to be expected, I suppose. I admit it “proves” nothing inherently, but it certainly supports evolutionary theory. It is a rather significant weight to be added to the collective of proof supporting evolution. Atavisms such as the dolphin / baleen whale hind-limbs and the human Coccyx, for example.

This same line of reasoning also applies to the issue of Bad Design. It’s not that Bad Design single-handedly disproves Intelligent Design or Creationism, but it lends a hefty contribution towards the momentum of Evolution. Some quick examples, dealing specifically with humans:

  • The male urethra passes through the prostate gland
  • The sinuses drain away from the face, rather than down
  • Our feet are constructed in such a way that it is not optimal for standing upright (the center of gravity is almost directly over the heel. Although, an advantage conferred by this is when the foot is used as a third-class lever, as when running)
  • The inguinal canal (where the testes drop out of the body) which can herniate

Given the fact that this is merely correlative support and not direct support, this particular issue should only be used transitively — don’t form your whole argument on it, but feel free to use it in conjunction with other supportive aspects. If your opponent attempts to focus specifically on it to the exclusion of other stronger points (and they often do), be sure to accentuate your other stronger points.

Links for further reading:

Molecular Evidence : This category includes things such as Endogenous Retrovirii, Junk DNA, and pseudo-genes. What’s really remarkable about this is that it helps to prove common ancestry. First, some definitions:

  1. Endogenous Retrovirus: When a virus implants its genetic code onto cells that are used for reproduction, this code is transcribed to offspring, and can remain dormant for generations until it is “woken up” by an outside stimulus, if at all. They are inserted randomly on the genetic code.
  2. Pseudo-genes: Genetic information that is useless - like vestigial organs, but on a molecular level.
  3. Junk DNA: Redundant genetic data. Sometimes genetic data that is functional appears more than once in the genetic code.

I think TalkOrigins says it best with this logical argument:

(Premise 1) Ubiquitous genes: There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.

(P2) Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes: Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn’t matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.

(P3) Molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes are functionally redundant: Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).

(P4) Specific ubiquitous genes are unnecessary in any given species: Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.

(P5) Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity: There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.

(Conclusion) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

We see genetic similarities between our own DNA and the DNA of complex organisms such as Chimpanzees and simple organisms like Yeast. Specifically, the “cytochrome c protein” sequence is identical in both Humans and Chimpanzees. The chances of this happening randomly are statistically impossible. Even stranger is that this particular protein sequence, as found in Yeast, is only 51 amino acids different than how it’s found in humans.

Criticisms of these similarities basically say that this particular protein happens to be most functional in this way. The counter to that argument is to point out the degree of similarity between various organisms. Humans are closer to the sequencing found in Bats (another mammal) than they are to Hummingbirds (an avian). This gets back to phylogenetics — organisms that are more closely related on the phylogenetic tree should have more similar cytochrome sequences, and they do.

Without repeating myself too much here, we see similar occurences with genetic redundancy, endogenous retrovirii, etc. The genome consistently CONFIRMS the phylogenetic relationship established by Evolution. This particular argument is extremely strong, but somewhat difficult to comprehend. Please read the sources below to get a good handle on this information before using it in an argument. You may also want to read some criticisms of these issues (check AiG) so you’ll have an idea what the opponent will be throwing your way.

How to Deal with Counter-claims

Flawed Arguments: First of all, consider their argument carefully. Look for absolutes (one affirmative disproves an absolute negative) and for dubious statistics / quoting. Keep this in mind: Evolution has been around for 150 years, it would be an egregious mistake to think that the science community has overlooked a gross error. If your opponent is quoting a scientist that is otherwise an Evolutionary advocate, be sure to look for the full-context of the quote.

Straw Houses: A common AiG tactic is to establish a weak premise and then build a stronger premise on it later on. They take a straw man argument and then use that premise to support a greater conclusion. The key to blowing these houses over is to focus on the initial premise: with the straw removed, the house is gone.

Gainsaying: This is unfortunately quite rampant. Outright gainsaying seems to be a common apologist tactic. With these people, push for claim substantiation when they deny your position. Call them out on childish tactics; There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that your opponent is being ignorant or immature. If they are making an unsubstantiated claim (or weakly substantiated claim) then the claim is worthless.

The “Morality” card: A Ken Ham classic — when the going gets tough, turn to morality. This is a total red herring. Dismiss it and get back to the issue at hand — push those strong supporting issues for Evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with morality and to suggest otherwise is to throw the Red Herring. When Ken Ham equates belief in Evolution with a lack of morals (or other immoral phenomena) what they’re really saying is that “lack of Biblical authority leads to immoral behavior”, which of course implies that Evolution undermines biblical authority. The key point here is that Evolutionary Theory only undermines a literal interpretation of the Biblical text.

Complicating the Issue: The moment they mention anything that is outside of the scope of Evolution, be sure to immediately stop them and correct their mistake. YEC’s will frequently try to tie Evolution to the Big Bang and Abiogenesis, but this is fundamentally wrong. They may also say things like “Evolutionists say that we came from rocks.” Be sure you are working with strict definitions and do not let them muddy the issue with incorrect generalizations.

The “Entropy Issue”: Amateur YEC’s who aren’t in the loop still use the entropy issue. See my previous post regarding common YEC claims.

Over-focusing: No one argument listed above will single-handedly prove Evolution. It is the collection of data, observations, and experiments that establishes Evolution as a well-supported theory. Don’t let the YEC’s dominate the discussion by finding the weakest support and attempting to debunk it. Force them to deal with your stronger arguments.

Other Miscellaneous Information

Here are some other links to check out that support Evolutionary theory.

2 Comments so far

  1. Robert Morane March 7th, 2008 2:03 am

    Other evidence for evolution: biogeography. Animals are not distributed randomly - animals found in isolated ecosystems are not found anywhere else (ex. mammals in Australia); no fresh water fish or indigenous land mammals on oceanic islands (ex. Hawaii) because they evolved on the continents and have no way to get to those islands; the fauna and flora on coastal islands is the same as on the nearing continent.

    Nice blog!

    Robert M.

  2. Robert Morane March 7th, 2008 2:09 am

    I forgot to mention: the reason there are land mammals and fresh water fish in Australia (which is an island) is because it was linked to the main land millions of years ago, when the ocean level was much lower.

    Robert M.

Leave a reply