Christoforge Vs Creationism

As a student in the field of biology I feel it is my fundamental right to counter the crap spread around the Internet that undermines the very principles of my chosen subject. Evolution is for some reason still a controversial area of science despite it being one of the most easily proven fields in science. It was once said by Theodosius Dobzhansky, who interestingly was also a creationist, that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", unless of course you're a creationist. But in any case let's see where the subject of biology would be if morons had dominated the field and analyse their scientific methods. This is an exert from one of the leading creationist movements on the Internet allegedly disproving the existence of evolution.
____________________________________________________________________
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
____________________________________________________________________

Well this argument is over quicker than I expected. Of course I forgot that if you can't see something happening it obviously doesn't exist. You know that thing called oxygen? Another scientific creation that doesn't exist because you can't see it. Good news is that now I don't even have to mow the lawn anymore being as that doesn't grow, and it never will because I don't see it happening, and therefore according to this article an impossibility. This primitive logic is simply misrepresenting what evolution actually is. Evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles within a population over a period of time, which as this text states may arise in the phenotypic change in an organism. At its most basic level evolution is something that cannot be seen anyway considering that phenotypes change in accordance with allele frequency, and although this genetic change is not observable, the phenotypic changes certainly do lead to observable evidence. This website would have you believe that these changes cannot be sampled, but in actual fact there are countless pieces of solid evidence that disprove this point, which aren't hard to find considering that in theory every species on Earth is under the same process. A great example of evolution in action is the medium ground finch on the Galapagos Islands that has been thoroughly studied in terms of population and morphology for around 30 years. Other similar studies include that of the colouration in wild Guppies, and the change in wildlife around the Chernobyl site.

This website manages to mix up basic phylogeny with the process of speciation, completely ignoring the fact that a biological species is commonly defined as a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring. This is the reason why there isn't an emergence of a so called 'transitional species' such as a liger, which would bridge the gap between lions and tigers, when in reality that gap would have been bridged by a common ancestor. Speciation is not in fact microevolution, considering as microevolution is defined as the molecular changes in an organism, and this is in turn the basis for the model of macroevolution that this source states is impossible to cause the diversification of life. This point is then backed up with some false evidence surrounding fruit fly studies, which you will note is without citation. Fruit flies are indeed a model organism and have very short life cycles, so scientists often use them in laboratories to show evolutionary change within a species over multiple generations, and not as this website suggests, to create a whole new species. However what this website doesn't explain is that fruit flies have in fact been forced into reproductive isolation, which is a component of speciation, so in actual fact a new species has been created, proving that speciation is a process that can be artificially created by scientists.

Really? Are you absolutely sure there aren't any transitional fossils? I can think of two very famous transitional fossils off the top of my head. The most notable is the archaeopteryx that linked birds and dinosaurs, and more recently the tiktaalik that linked amphibians and fish. Apparently this website will have you believe these well preserved specimens are 'doubtful' despite conforming to every piece of reasoning this piece stated was necessary to prove evolution. In actual fact there are many recorded transitional fossils in the scientific record, but not according to this website who apparently live in denial. This piece then goes on to quantify the level of evolution within an organism and use that as evidence when in actual fact evolution isn't forward thinking, and certainly doesn't have a predetermined goal. Even if you do believe this archaic reasoning of falsely defining evolution, you still can't disprove evolution as a concept without providing any primary evidence.

Oh how unfortunate for me. Turns out I've been taught wrongly that Stanley Miller's revolutionary experiment is evidence for the origin of life. In actual fact I wasn't taught his experiment like this, rather that Miller's experiment proved that the components found in nature could produce amino acids, the building blocks of life, under natural conditions. Turns out that's not the case though, because this website told me otherwise without actually giving any evidence as to why Miller's experiment is irrelevant. The only points they make is just vague waffle stating that nobody else had done anything to further the research since, which is a bit like saying the moon landings were faked because humanity hasn't been to mars yet. And anyway, scientists have followed up on Miller's experiment, which I recommend you give a read before making such a false and ignorant comment as the one above. But no, Miller's and subsequent experiments since cannot possibly prove evolution because we said so. Fuck the evidence, that's just what scientists like me use to trick you.

Yes aside from the literally hundreds of organisms that have observably changed in human history, including humans, there is still apparently a lack of evidence. This statement from a source who uses hypothetical bullshit instead of evidence to try and disprove a scientific argument, so in reality are in no place to start criticising the validity of an argument that relies on evidence instead of assumptions that are so far unfounded. They still haven't produced any counter evidence to dispel the apparent myth that the further away an organism evolved from another over time has a relationship with the content of the genome. Again, basic information is also incorrect. DNA is not common to all organisms, in fact the majority of life is prokaryotic, and therefore uses RNA in the genetic sequence, which is much less stable, so I highly doubt that a number of well informed evolutionists are going to be claiming that incorrect statement.

Yes there are problems with the widely debated classification system. That's however a classification system and not relevant to the phylogenetic argument you're using in the example, which would have been a relevant point had you backed it up. All you're doing here is admitting that there is a wide diversity of life on the planet that Linnaean classification systems aren't always able to accurately sort, weakly linking this to the evolution debate. Furthermore the reference to vestigial organs was also weakly explained. If vestigial organs really aren't evidence for evolution then please explain what the wings of a penguin or a kiwi do? What do goosebumps achieve on human skin? What's the purpose of the hind legs found on a whale? Is this honestly evidence for the intelligent design you're banging on about? Evolution would only remove these drawbacks if there was an inherently negative consequence of this trait, so to simply dismiss them as useful to the organism doesn't disprove evolution in any way.

Anyone see the irony in this article saying evolutionary scientists have a 'creative imagination', when they themselves literally believe in a creator? However that's not the most stupid part of this paragraph, as the second law of thermodynamics will only decrease entropy in a closed system. Since the whole planet is one big open system this is an irrelevant point, and pretty damn hypocritical when earlier the article claimed that Stanley Miller's experiment was in isolated conditions and therefore couldn't apply to the natural world. If you do actually want a physics explanation of why this is bollocks then you'd be better off having it explained by people who know what they're talking about, and not an article that relies on illogical assumptions.

All in all this article does nothing of the sort to disprove the well credited discipline of evolutionary science. The theme is essentially that you shouldn't believe in such a preposterous science when you could believe in a far less plausible explanation that lacks any counter evidence to defeat the primary evidence. This author has the audacity to bang on about the lack of proof for evolution, whereas not once did I ever see a reliable explanation as to the evidence surrounding a higher creator, and only idle waffle that brought up some of the most elementary and basic points possible.