Home / Best / 10 Bizarre claims that refute evolution

10 Bizarre claims that refute evolution

Without going too deep into the weed when explaining the theory of evolution, it is an established scientific theory that explains the evolution of species. It is one of the things that fully supports people who understand it, who do not consider it, and the people who view it as rejecting their faith are obsessed with it.

Over the years, since Darwin and Wallace For the understanding of natural selection, which forms the basis for the theory, many strange and bizarre claims have emerged that they try to deny. Some are known, while others are found only in the deepest and darkest niches of the Internet. Here are the ten most bizarre assertions of people trying to prove that evolution is "just a theory."

See also: 1

0 Ways Evolution makes man worse

10 Evolution Is Just One Theory [19659005] As any scientist will tell you, a science theory is not the same as this idea when You want to find out who stole your pudding from the fridge in the office. In science, a theory is a collection of observable and verifiable facts gathered over a generally longer period of time by a large number of people. Consider the theory of gravity or the theory of planetary motion. These are not assumptions made by people like Copernicus, Newton, and Kepler in the bathroom one evening. They have collected data from years of study and put it together to form a theory that has since been tested, proven, refuted, supplemented and changed.

The beauty of a scientific theory is that it is not carved in stone. Nothing is absolute, as any new observation can change it. The current theory of evolution contains observations that were impossible in Darwin's and Wallace's times. With new technologies and advancements that allow the study of single cells, DNA, and other aspects of life, theory has changed significantly since its introduction in the 19th century. The claim that "evolution is only a theory" serves only to prove that the person says they do not understand what a theory is – it does not prove that evolution is not true. [1]

9 The fossil record is incomplete

The fossil record is of course incomplete. When an organism is petrified, it has essentially won the price that few animals or plants have ever received. Petrification is a truly rare event that only occurs when the perfect situation allows it. An organism must be in the right place at the right time so that its body can be petrified. This is no guarantee that the fossil will survive for millions of years until it is found by humans. Because of this, the smallest part of living organisms is ever fossilized and found. Granted, we've found millions of fossils, but considering how many living organisms there were on the planet since the beginning of life, the number is infinitely small.

Because fossils are so rare, we constantly find new organisms that fits into the file to explain what changes have led to new species over time. In any case, new answers are provided, but new questions are also created. Those who do not believe in evolution refer to these so-called "gaps" because the reason that evolution is wrong. The animated series Futurama once did a great deal to help create a new void every time a new species was found to fill a void. There will always be "missing links" in the fossil record, but that refutes the theory. [2]

8 It's too much of a coincidence that makes it mathematically impossible

In 1973, an article by Acts & Facts published the creationist attitude of Outlined "The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution". The article fails in a number of respects, but most arguments against evolution favor the biblical story of The Creation shows that the author Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. did not fully understand the theory he was trying to refute. Nevertheless, since then people have addressed the mathematical impossibility of evolution.

The postulate states that due to the adventitious nature of mutations and the fact that only the so-called "good" mutations are preserved, the time is needed for the development of unicellular organisms, humanity is impossible. Dr. Morris threw out some numbers, suggesting that an organism with 200 consecutive mutations needs a 1060 (10th to 60th potency) chance. It seems that his position is based on the complete misunderstanding of how natural selection works, but this has not stopped people from addressing this issue when they argue against evolutionary theory. [3]

7 Evolution has never been observed

The argument that evolution has never been observed, is not verifiable and not forfeitable is obviously wrong. Regardless, this claim is widespread on the Internet and is generally based on the false assumption that an animal has a kind of offspring of a completely different kind. This is not how evolution … or an aspect of biology works. These claims are often associated with a different misunderstanding regarding microevolution and macroevolution. The former deals with changes within species over time, while the latter involves changes that can lead to speciation.

Macroevolution can be observed in the fossil record and by DNA analysis, although this takes a considerable amount of time, but microevolution can be observed. As microvolution revolves around the study of changes in gene frequency in a population, it can be observed in much shorter time periods. Insects work well in this area because of their short lifecycle. An easy-to-explain example shows how insect populations pass on a gene responsible for pesticide resistance to subsequent generations. This reduces the effectiveness of pesticides and shows how the DNA changes from one generation to the next, making this pesticide "largely harmless" to the population. [4]

6 It contradicts the second law of thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics states that "the entropy state of the entire universe as an isolated system increases with time. The second law also states that the changes in entropy in the universe can never be negative. "When people who try to refute evolution raise the second law, they can only prove that they do not understand the second law. The argument suggests that living cells could never have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and that due to increasing complexity, no multicellular life could have evolved from protozoa.

The misunderstanding would also apply to something like a snowflake, which is a complex structure made up of disorderly parts, but as we all know, snowflakes exist. In essence, the misunderstanding of a closed system is the reason why this argument is often cited. The planet earth is not a closed system, because the energy of the sun can increase the complexity. Similarly, multicellular life can increase in complexity by consuming lower lifeforms, thus compensating for the alleged decrease in entropy throughout the universe. [5]

5 Not all scientists support it, so it must be wrong

This argument always comes up when someone tries to poke holes in the theory of evolution by saying that it is not 100% of scientists % is supported. That may be true, but if only four out of five dentists can come behind a product, which equates to 80% support, does that mean that the product is absolutely worthless? In contrast to biologists who understand and accept the theory of evolution, it is rather 98%. Honestly, it is not possible to work in biology without properly understanding evolution, but this is not necessarily true for scientists working in other areas, possibly accounting for 2%.

The number of people who do not work in biology a scientific field are very different. About three quarters of Americans believe that there is a scientific consensus about the evolution of life. When people who did not support the theory of evolution were interviewed in a Pew research study, 46% believed that there was a scientific consensus, while 52% believed that most biological scientists believe that humans (and other life forms ) in their always existing present form. The difference is enormous, but it is easy to understand why this argument is often brought up in an attempt to disprove evolution. Of course, to be intellectually honest, we must say that a lack of consensus does not refute a theory, but a full consensus does not prove any theory. Science is not a popularity contest. [6]

4 Evolution can not explain how life first appeared on Earth

Evolution is the study of how life changes over time, it has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life, but most people who do not understand what evolutionary theory is often use that argument. Evolution certainly has a lot to do with what happened to life after its first appearance, but it's not about how life ever got there. The research area that revolves around the origin of life is called abiogenesis and addresses the prevailing scientific hypothesis that a single event led to non-living materials becoming living ones, though this event still needs to be identified.

This is the time when evolution intervenes in the equation, not before, and it does not try to explain how life began. Even if the scientific community accepts the theory that life began by extraterrestrial or supernatural means, the development of organisms in the following 3.5+ billion years is observable and quantifiable. Besides, biochemists have discovered a means by which primitive nucleic acids and amino acids may have formed and organized into self-replicating entities, which could be the case that made inanimate ingredients fundamental elements of cellular biochemistry, but that is not the case evolution theory. [7]

3 When humans evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys left?

For some reason, this question is often repeated by people trying to disprove evolution, but the answer is simple. Humans have not evolved from monkeys. That should clear up the argument, but unfortunately it rarely works to calm the question down. Humans are hominids, an animal family known as apes. These include humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas and bonobos. Man is still the only surviving species of the genus Homo, which once belonged to Neanderthals, Homo erectus and many more.

Monkeys, on the other hand, are monkeys who share a common ancestor with humans and other members of the primate order. Humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, who share a common ancestor that is about six to seven million years old. The common descent of monkeys and humans goes much further in the fossil record. The common ancestor between apes and humans lived about 25 million years ago. In fact, this argument has no foundation and instead relies on a misunderstanding of how speciation works in the transition from one species to another. [8]

2 The Banana Argument

Ray Comfort is a New Zealand creationist and televangelist who once used a banana as an example of the so-called intelligent design theory. Comfort tried to explain that "the banana and the hand are perfectly matched". He believed that the human hand was destined to hold a banana that was perfectly shaped for our enjoyment. He further explained that the shell is nature's way of keeping bananas safe and edible for humans, that it has a flap at the top for easy opening, and therefore refutes evolution and proves God's existence. Here's the problem with his claim: Modern bananas are the product of years of genetic manipulation by cross-pollination. If this proves anything, the species may change over time as bananas are an example of human manipulation of evolutionary mechanisms.

Wild bananas are small, filled with seeds and taste terrible. Finally, Comfort admitted his mistake / misconception about the emergence of modern bananas and said he was "unaware that the banana was so altered by hybridization". Intelligent design was developed as an attempt to bring creationism into the classroom by claiming it was another theory that could explain the origin of life. It was not long before lawsuits and common sense prevailed, but creationists are still trying to advance Intelligent Design as a viable theory to be taught in biology classes. [9]

1 The Crocoduck

Unfortunately, Ray Comforts did not stop using the banana to explain his beliefs against evolution in the fruits. In collaboration with Kirk Cameron of Growing Pains, it refutes the existence of transitional fossils, which are organisms found in the fossil record and have characteristics of parent and progeny. They are useful to show how one species has changed to another over a long period of time, but Cameron and Comfort have completely misunderstood what transitional fossils were when they took a picture of what they called "crocodile" and claimed that evolution is wrong because no one had ever found one. Cameron acted as an expert on Fox News, where he made his claim, and the Internet had a big day.

Amusingly, Cameron's and Comforts creation returned to bite them in the back when an organism was discovered that had features of both ducks and crocodiles. In 2003, a new crocodile species was found and later identified, whose large, flat snout reminds of a duckbill. The new species was called Anatosuchus, which translates as "duck crocodile" or, in Cameron's words, "a crocodile!" Means. Technically speaking, it's not a duckbill because it contains rows of teeth and consists only of crocodiles, but you can not. Paleontologists had no laugh when the crocodile entered the dictionary. [10]

Source link