I Couldn't Think of Anywhere Else to Post This...
Recently I have come across this list of "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher". It's being distributed by creationists (mostly in the US), and even though professional biologists have refuted these claims (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/ten_questions_to_ask_your_biology_teacher/), my goal was to show that you don't have to be a biology teacher or even a professional biologist to do so.
(Keep in mind that I did not read the text of that above link until AFTER I wrote this, and in fact I urge to compare our two refutations to see how accurate I was.)
The knowledge of Biology that I have gained through high school, the first 3 weeks of University-level Biology and Anthropology, as well as my own personal research of what scientists are saying was used to create this refutations.
And now, on with it!
DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional Biologist, and many of the things I say may not be 100% accurate. However, were you to ask a professional, I can say with 99.9% certainty they would agree with me in whole or in part, and what they didn't agree with they would embellish, thus making the argument better.
The knowledge of Biology that I have gained through high school, the first 3 weeks of University-level Biology and Anthropology, as well as my own personal research of what scientists are saying was used to create these refutations. I have cited three excellent sources at the end.
And now, here we go:
1. ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey
experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth
-- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in
the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
The Miller-Urey experiment may not have used the exact conditions, but other experiments
using different atmospheric conditions have gotten the same results.
The origin of life is not a mystery, but we are still in the process of discovering it.
Light has indeed been shed on it in meaningful ways.
2. DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the
"Cambrian Explosion" in which all major animal groups appear
together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common
ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
This is an overstatement of fact. The “explosion”
is really a span of 50 million years, and in fact there ARE many “transitional”
fossils that have been discovered. Also remember that just because we don’t have a fossil
for it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. We can show the existence of
common ancestry via rRNA and DNA.
3. HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common
ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular
argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
Homology is NOT the only way we show common ancestry, we can show common ancestry using genetics,
as well (As mentioned above). Genetics alone can produce the evidence for common ancestry, and we
do not need to dicker with accusations of this “circular argument”, which is really only the product of
simplified textbook definitions meant for high schoolers.
4. VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in
vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though
biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most
similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
Because even though biologists have indeed discredited those drawings, many old textbooks that show those pictures
are still being used . In addition, although the pictures themselves are caricatures, the ideas behind
them have been corroborated by other scientists. Embryonic similarities in vertebrates do exist: For example, all
vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail.
5. ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link
between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not
descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of
years after it?
This is one of the biggest misunderstandings, and cannot be explained fully in a simple
paragraph. See here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
6. PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths
camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists
have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks,
and all the pictures have been staged?
Because the textbooks are old, and the example (though now shown to be not as
accurate or reliable as once thought) is still a good one to show natural selection in
action. However, the better example are the Galapagos finches, and newer textbooks
(in biology as well as anthropology) do not talk about the moths.
7. DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in
Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by
natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought
ended, and no net evolution occurred?
The changes were only reversed in ONE SPECIES. In the case of
the drought, this drought affected one species living on one island, and during
the drought caused a selection for large beaks. However, once the drought ended,
the equilibrium was re-established because there is a higher natality for young finches
with large beaks. This is because the energy required to maintain a larger beak is much
higher than a normal sized beak, and many finches could not survive it. Remember that
this particular example is evidence of microevolution/natural selection, NOT speciation.
8. MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair
of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution
-- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants
cannot survive outside the laboratory?
I have yet to see a textbook using this example, and if it is used, it is probably only to show the
changes that mutations can create. Mutations are not ALL bad, in fact it is a misconception that they are
such. Even in humans, a point mutation on a certain gene can cause an increase in bone density, something
that could be beneficial depending on where you lived. Examplesof positive mutations do exist, despite
what some would have us believe. Also note that mutation is not the ONLY source of diversity which causes
natural selection. The inherent genetic differences caused by chromosome-mixing (“crossing over”) in meiosis
cause individual variation (such as the beak depths in the above example).
9. HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to
justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a
mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed
ancestors were or what they looked like?
It can be agreed on who our ancestors are! The extinct species of the genus Homo are an
important example, the most important being H. erectus. We can trace descent
farther back than that, even, to H. habilis and its ancestors, the Australopithecines.
Note this quote: "The direct evidence suggests that there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa,
then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. erectus in Africa. (There is little evidence
that this speciation occurred elsewhere.) Then a subsequent migration within and out of Africa eventually
replaced the earlier dispersed H. erectus. However, the current evidence doesn't preclude multiregional
speciation, either. This is a hotly debated area in paleoanthropology."
Note that it is not WHO our ancestor is, but WHERE they came from that is debated.
10. EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a
scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations
of the facts?
What does this even mean? Which claims are misrepresentations of facts? If you mean the ones above, then
I think it has been shown that it is the Creationists who are using misrepresented facts.
Oh, the irony.
All creationists who don’t believe that there is real evidence for evolution and the origin of life need to look
at the following links:
Evidence for Evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
(lots of good info here)
Creationist Claims Refuted: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
(this is an excellent resource)
Evolution of Homo sapiens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Homo_sapiens
(obviously wikipedia is NOT a scientific source that could be used to justify things in a real paper, but the article is well supported by the references and external links.)
My Personal Worldview:
My view is that neither science, philosophy, religion, theology, or really any field of human endeavour can give us a 100% accurate picture of what goes on in the world. I see it like two-dimensional men looking at a three-dimensional object (Gildenlow, 2005). However, I believe that some of those men are wearing better glasses, and thus can see the object just a little more clearly. They still may be completely wrong in the third dimension, but in their dimension, they are more right than the others.
Judging by what I am defending, I'm sure you can guess who I think have the better glasses.
Brandon Eric Beasley
September 25, 2005
This may be freely distributed, as long as my name and all information (from the disclaimer to this notice) remains intact
Please comment and let me know what you think.
(Keep in mind that I did not read the text of that above link until AFTER I wrote this, and in fact I urge to compare our two refutations to see how accurate I was.)
The knowledge of Biology that I have gained through high school, the first 3 weeks of University-level Biology and Anthropology, as well as my own personal research of what scientists are saying was used to create this refutations.
And now, on with it!
DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional Biologist, and many of the things I say may not be 100% accurate. However, were you to ask a professional, I can say with 99.9% certainty they would agree with me in whole or in part, and what they didn't agree with they would embellish, thus making the argument better.
The knowledge of Biology that I have gained through high school, the first 3 weeks of University-level Biology and Anthropology, as well as my own personal research of what scientists are saying was used to create these refutations. I have cited three excellent sources at the end.
And now, here we go:
1. ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey
experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth
-- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in
the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
The Miller-Urey experiment may not have used the exact conditions, but other experiments
using different atmospheric conditions have gotten the same results.
The origin of life is not a mystery, but we are still in the process of discovering it.
Light has indeed been shed on it in meaningful ways.
2. DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the
"Cambrian Explosion" in which all major animal groups appear
together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common
ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
This is an overstatement of fact. The “explosion”
is really a span of 50 million years, and in fact there ARE many “transitional”
fossils that have been discovered. Also remember that just because we don’t have a fossil
for it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. We can show the existence of
common ancestry via rRNA and DNA.
3. HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common
ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular
argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
Homology is NOT the only way we show common ancestry, we can show common ancestry using genetics,
as well (As mentioned above). Genetics alone can produce the evidence for common ancestry, and we
do not need to dicker with accusations of this “circular argument”, which is really only the product of
simplified textbook definitions meant for high schoolers.
4. VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in
vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though
biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most
similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
Because even though biologists have indeed discredited those drawings, many old textbooks that show those pictures
are still being used . In addition, although the pictures themselves are caricatures, the ideas behind
them have been corroborated by other scientists. Embryonic similarities in vertebrates do exist: For example, all
vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail.
5. ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link
between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not
descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of
years after it?
This is one of the biggest misunderstandings, and cannot be explained fully in a simple
paragraph. See here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
6. PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths
camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists
have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks,
and all the pictures have been staged?
Because the textbooks are old, and the example (though now shown to be not as
accurate or reliable as once thought) is still a good one to show natural selection in
action. However, the better example are the Galapagos finches, and newer textbooks
(in biology as well as anthropology) do not talk about the moths.
7. DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in
Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by
natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought
ended, and no net evolution occurred?
The changes were only reversed in ONE SPECIES. In the case of
the drought, this drought affected one species living on one island, and during
the drought caused a selection for large beaks. However, once the drought ended,
the equilibrium was re-established because there is a higher natality for young finches
with large beaks. This is because the energy required to maintain a larger beak is much
higher than a normal sized beak, and many finches could not survive it. Remember that
this particular example is evidence of microevolution/natural selection, NOT speciation.
8. MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair
of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution
-- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants
cannot survive outside the laboratory?
I have yet to see a textbook using this example, and if it is used, it is probably only to show the
changes that mutations can create. Mutations are not ALL bad, in fact it is a misconception that they are
such. Even in humans, a point mutation on a certain gene can cause an increase in bone density, something
that could be beneficial depending on where you lived. Examplesof positive mutations do exist, despite
what some would have us believe. Also note that mutation is not the ONLY source of diversity which causes
natural selection. The inherent genetic differences caused by chromosome-mixing (“crossing over”) in meiosis
cause individual variation (such as the beak depths in the above example).
9. HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to
justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a
mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed
ancestors were or what they looked like?
It can be agreed on who our ancestors are! The extinct species of the genus Homo are an
important example, the most important being H. erectus. We can trace descent
farther back than that, even, to H. habilis and its ancestors, the Australopithecines.
Note this quote: "The direct evidence suggests that there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa,
then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. erectus in Africa. (There is little evidence
that this speciation occurred elsewhere.) Then a subsequent migration within and out of Africa eventually
replaced the earlier dispersed H. erectus. However, the current evidence doesn't preclude multiregional
speciation, either. This is a hotly debated area in paleoanthropology."
Note that it is not WHO our ancestor is, but WHERE they came from that is debated.
10. EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a
scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations
of the facts?
What does this even mean? Which claims are misrepresentations of facts? If you mean the ones above, then
I think it has been shown that it is the Creationists who are using misrepresented facts.
Oh, the irony.
All creationists who don’t believe that there is real evidence for evolution and the origin of life need to look
at the following links:
Evidence for Evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
(lots of good info here)
Creationist Claims Refuted: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
(this is an excellent resource)
Evolution of Homo sapiens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Homo_sapiens
(obviously wikipedia is NOT a scientific source that could be used to justify things in a real paper, but the article is well supported by the references and external links.)
My Personal Worldview:
My view is that neither science, philosophy, religion, theology, or really any field of human endeavour can give us a 100% accurate picture of what goes on in the world. I see it like two-dimensional men looking at a three-dimensional object (Gildenlow, 2005). However, I believe that some of those men are wearing better glasses, and thus can see the object just a little more clearly. They still may be completely wrong in the third dimension, but in their dimension, they are more right than the others.
Judging by what I am defending, I'm sure you can guess who I think have the better glasses.
Brandon Eric Beasley
September 25, 2005
This may be freely distributed, as long as my name and all information (from the disclaimer to this notice) remains intact
Please comment and let me know what you think.