h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Problems in Evolutionary Theory - A3543941
Author: evoskepsis - U1262278

Although h2g2 contains two entries yet that mention descrepancies in the theory of evolution, this entry has surplus value. It describes additional discrepancies and puts all problems in short in a nutshell, contributing to the assessment of the scientific tenability of the theory of evolution.

What a lot of old cobblers!

How many times are the anti-evolutionists going to rehash the same old arguments, which have been proved wrong by scientists time and time again?

OK. Now that I got that off my chest, here's an expanded answer.

This entry should not become part of the guide because it is totally unbalanced. It is the view of a small group of people who refuse to accept the standard view of science. They keep rehashing the same arguments over and over again, although they have been proved wrong many times.

To answer each of the points in detail:

>>1. In homes, offices, factories and laboratories, order never emerges by accident and never starts maintaining itself

But Evolution explains how this can happen in real life. If it happens once, it is self perpetuating.

>>2. Organic soup cannot have existed

Oh yes it can! Similar organic soup exists on some of the other planets, without the intervention of life.

>>3. The change and adaptation in living nature is not the result of the process of “gene mutation and selection” but of the process of “gene recombination and selection”.

Correct. That's exactly what Evolution says.

>>damaging the DNA cannot be the motor for development and improvement of the gene pool of a species

Yes it can. It happens all the time around us. Look at sickle cell anaemia for a good example.

>>4. No intermediate species in the fossil record

The fossil record is very sparse. Only something like 1 in every billion animals is preseved. Nevertheless, there are a few intermediate species.

>>Many indications however suggest the earth is relatively young

None of the examples given are valid. All these processes are kept as they are by a continuous process. For example, the level of salt in the sea is kept constant by mechanisms which remove salt from the ocean. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that the Earth is very old.

>>5. These systems cannot be the result of a long sequence of small, useful steps, as each element of the system only makes sense and can only survive in combination and in harmony with all the others

It's about 150 years since Darwin showed that there's no such thing as an irreducibly complex organ. Hasn't the message got through your thick skulls yet? It would be nice if you could learn to spell these "scientific" terms that you bandy about, too!

>>The events the theory of evolution postulates are said to have happened millions or billions of years ago. They are untestable.

Not so. They are testable by reviewing the evidence of the past.

A few final comments. Evolution happens all around us. New species are emerging all the time and this is well documented. Evoltion is accepted by all the world's scientists, and the major world religions (Christianity, Islam etc). What crazy logic makes you think you know better?

I was going to post a line-by-line assassination of this piece, but quite frankly Gnomon's response is just about perfect. What a load of old cobblers!

Anyone out there feel like having a go at converting the misguided?
** Glances towards Hoo **
or shall we just sit and giggle?

I am very uncomfortable about this entry, and I think it is simply a troll. This page is a reproduction of a similar page on his/her/their website. I would like to understand the author's motivation a bit better before engaging with this page.

And I still prefer your first response Gnomon.

I've a feeling that the author will be able to say later "My arguments against evolution were published on the BBC site and nobody could find anything wrong with them".

OK... before this gets unpleasant (as these things have a tendency to do...)

Surely, in PR terms, the validity of the piece is secondary to the fact that, as the author states, there is already an Edited Guide Entry covering this very subject area (A675858). Therefore, the correct place for this discussion is as a conversation attached to that Entry (or attached to the Evolution Entry: A673319).

Alternatively, the <./>Update Forum</.> lists several ways that this author can add their viewpoint to the existing Entry.

Please also note that, in the interests of balance, a thorough demolition of the viewpoints in this Entry is also available in the Edited Guide (A670213).

Well in that case, if the entry exists on another website elsewhere, shouldn't this one get yiksed on the basis that it is plagiarised (sp)

Not if the same person wrote both of them. On the other hand, we could yikes it until the h2g2 author proves that he wrote the other one as well. But I don't think we should.

The Cornish Rex/Devon Rex cat is another example of a spontaneous mutation which was not in the gene pool but it is now a recognised breed of cat. Nectarines are yet another.

God created the world with all the evidence for evolution in place. He obviously really wants us to believe in it.

Whooaa! Now thats a bit cryptic! So, are you saying that God lied to us? Isn't "bearing false witness" a sin somewhere? Ah, obviously not if you're God.

Gnomon, that's a bit of a shame. Oh well, never mind.

Perhaps we could encourage them to add to their GuideML. They really ought to have copies of the tags ... within each set of their ... tags

I don't want this entry yikesed. I want us to kick seven shades of sh*t out of it then then toss it bleeding and broken onto the garbage heap where it belongs. It has been posted in direct contravention of the Writing-Guidelines and therefore deserves all the opporbium it's going to get.
Right (he says putting on his Doc Martens)


'In homes, offices, factories and laboratories, order never emerges by accident and never starts maintaining itself, but always demands directed and continuous external effort.'

Systems far from equilibrium spontaneously order themselves. Where the systems are nonlinear, order tends to arise:
"The most well-known dissipative structure is perhaps the so-called Benárd instability. This is formed when a layer of liquid is heated from below. At a given temperature heat conduction starts to occur predominantly through convection, and it can be observed that regularly spaced, hexagonal convection cells are formed in the layer of liquid. This structure is wholly dependent on the supply of heat and disappears when this ceases."
Moreover, the decrease in entropy of the system is compensated for by the huge increase in entropy in the surrounding environment. This is why life is so energetically inefficient.

'Simple chemicals never start combining themselves into ever larger and more complex constructions when directed external effort is lacking.'

Ever heard of micelles? If not look them up. And what is a crystal if not a 'more complex construction'?

'The change and adaptation in living nature is not the result of the process of “gene mutation and selection” but of the process of “gene recombination and selection”. '

More tripe. Where did all the variation in the gene pool come from in the first place, if not through mutation?

'No intermediate species in the fossil record'

So I suppose Archaeopteryx is a fake, then?

'For example, the light-sensitive cells of the eye, or the motor that drives the flagella of sperm cells. These systems cannot be the result of a long sequence of small, useful steps, as each element of the system only makes sense and can only survive in combination and in harmony with all the others.'

Well, I think Richard Dawkins demolished this argument brilliantly in the 'Blind Watchmaker'. Incremental change can lead to a complex system rather rapidly.


'The events the theory of evolution postulates are said to have happened millions or billions of years ago. They are untestable. '

Utter tripe. Speciation is going on right now. Ever heard of the peppered moth? Or even this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3790531.stm ?

This whole entry is complete and utter rubbish. The pity is that I've heard it all before. Still, if the creationists insist on sending straw men into battle...

personally it took me a while to work out what inches have beaks ?

Can I just say - back to entry and begone with it ?

Hi evoskepsis, can I ask that since this articel isn't inline with the wirting guidelines, that you can click on the remove tag next to this artilce in the peer review forum, and then you and Gnomon get togther over a beer and talk over your scientific views .

tjm

'Can I just say - back to entry and begone with it?'

I don't think that's an option. These people think that if a lie is repeated enough without it being challenged then it automatically becomes the truth. To them, Back to Entry just means that we can't challenge the arguments properly. Besides, this was deliberately posted in bad faith.

What do you mean by "deliberately posted in bad faith", FM?

Oh, just the ususal: author reads two commendably balanced h2g2 entries, gets the idea of what the EG is about, and then goes and posts biased and untruthful creationist polemic. They're not interested in actually contributing to the Guide, just ramming their ill-informed opinions down the throats of others. I'd call that 'bad faith'.

I would call it trolling. Let's hear what the author has to say, if indeed he/she/they come back at all.