Replying to Singaporean Creationists

4 days ago, a creationist letter was published in the Voices section of TODAY. I was going to write a blog post for it but it was literally rehashing common creationist misconceptions of evolution -- boring shit.

The letter is: Creationism still part of the evolution debate -- reposted in full below (since I don't know if TODAY's online articles stays online).

I refer to the commentary "Theory of evolution in crisis - and it's a good thing" (Sept 7). There are problems with the idea that creationism has never posed an intellectual challenge to evolutionary thinking.

First, creationists do not pose a threat to scientific thinking. The founders of modern science and many modern scientists are creationists who study an orderly, non-random universe.

Dr Marc Kirschner of Harvard Medical School has remarked that almost all of biology over the last 100 years has proceeded independent of evolution.

In fact, evolution hinders medical discovery. The writer himself highlighted the crisis in traditional evolutionary thinking, which has been so dogmatic as to not even consider creationism as a viable option.

Whilst science comprises experimental and historical types, the issue of beginnings and the past falls within the latter and should not be accorded the same authority as the former.

Natural selection and mutation do not equate to evolution.

The former is a principle also recognised by creationists. It might explain the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. One cannot modify a Mr Potato Head into a GI Joe.

How do genes "move" in sexual reproduction in higher animals? Do we presume that once moved, they can just be "absorbed"?

Does the recipient genome have the machinery or resources to process the "absorbed" gene?

The idea of two bacteria forming the first eukaryotic cell (the more complex cell type found in multicellular animals) is speculation.

There are many questions for evolutionists:

How did life originate? Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment, with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed long age of the universe, not one average-sized functional protein would have formed.

So how did bacteria form? How did the DNA code, biochemical pathways, multicellular life and gender all originate?

There are more fundamental questions: From where do natural laws come? From where does logic come? These are non-material stuff but often taken for granted.

A quick summary of the letter (in paragraphs): introduction; trivial; quote-mine; false, projection; false; misconception; expression of incredulity; expression of lack of study; expression of lack of study; lack of understanding of scientific terms; creationist "probabilities"; expression of lack of study; irrelevant, logic fail.


Fortunately, two awesome letters have been published in response to the truckload of "creationism".

One from the fine professors of our NTU School of Biological Sciences: Profs respond to debate on evolution, creationism

The letter "Creationism still part of the evolution debate" (Sept 28) reproduces some misunderstandings of the theory of evolution. Some fundamentals should be emphasised for the record.

The evolution of new species from pre-existing species is recognised as a fact, not a conjecture, by a great many scientists due to abundant, robust and mutually supporting evidence from multiple fields of science, and the absence of findings to the contrary.

We use the term "theory" in the scientific sense: We are certain that evolution has generated all life on Earth.

Our current inability to explain every detail of its processes does not disprove evolution, just as gravity cannot be denied despite an inability to explain fully how it works.

Disagreements on these details do not imply that the theory is shaky. To the contrary, disagreement between scientists in any field is the norm, the necessary outcome of vigorous inquiry and an impetus to refine our knowledge through further investigation.

For the broader review this question deserves, we refer interested readers to Science and Creationism, and Science, Evolution and Creationism from the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies in the United States.

Both documents are free for downloading. We also recommend the book Why Evolution is True, the related blog by Professor Jerry A Coyne and many other books on the subject.

That addressed mostly the lack of understanding for scientific method, terms and process.

Thank you professors.

The other letter is from the Humanist Society (Singapore): Creationism yet to earn intellectual spurs

We refer to Dr Luke Tan's letter "Creationism still part of the evolution debate" (Sept 28). Several Humanist Society (Singapore) members read with alarm Dr Tan's claims about evolution, and creationism as its intellectual challenge in modern biology.

Evolution is the unifying theory of biology. So, it was surprising to read the assertion that Harvard Medical School's Mark Kirschner claimed that evolution had played only a minor role in the last 100 years of biology.

We contacted Dr Kirschner for verification and, as it turned out, his quote, taken from a Boston Globe article in 2005, was a lament that evolution has not been a more integral part of biology. Also, he noted that "broadening the inquiry into evolution beyond natural history and population genetics only adds more evidence for evolution and explains more of the mechanistic transitions".

"We thought of that because the molecular, cellular and developmental insights very much increase our appreciation and confidence in evolution."

While Dr Tan's letter rehashes several misconceptions, there is no scientific debate over evolution's validity. The wealth of experimental and observational evidence in its favour is astounding; the only objections to evolution are theological.

The theory of evolution accounts for the origins of species, not life, as he implied. To claim evolutionary biologists have been dogmatically rejecting creationism as a viable option is to suggest creationists have been putting forth viable evidence to no avail.

There is no international conspiracy spanning two centuries; there is just no evidence. The theory of evolution is part of an experimental science: Biology. The experimental-historical boundary that he perceived is artificial.

Even if the theory of evolution is overturned, however unlikely that may be, creationism will not become the default explanation for the origin of species. It must earn the title of intellectual challenger on its evidential merits.

HSS' letter addresses the quote mined statement of  Dr Kirschner and directly points out that creationism does not contribute to our knowledge AT ALL even if the theory evolution is false.

For those who are actually interested in learning, here's my recommendations.

Berkeley has some resources on Evolution 101 and the Scientific Method.

If you like textbooks, there are 3 sample chapters from Mark Ridley's Evolution available online

And if you're a creationist who got most/all of your information from church, I don't know how to put it nicely... you've probably been thoroughly misinformed. In which case, do watch this playlist of AronRa's videos. I can assure you this does not attack the belief in god -- it only attacks the lies that some unscrupulous men of god like to tell.

If videos ain't your thing, do check out TalkOrigins' Index of Creationist Claims. If you heard it from creationists, it's there. They also have a couple of other pages worth seeing.

Stay smart. Be well informed.

Creationist Crap (in Singapore)

The church is doling out lies (as usual). And this one is about anti-scientific misinformation. The following image is taken from outside St Andrew's Cathedral in... Singapore. Yes, American creationist crap on display at an Anglican church in Singapore.

I'll ignore the large chunk of text that constitute the bottom half of the poster. If you want to believe the words of a compilation of books written by unknown authors, probably altered by innumerable scribes through the ages, about stories transmitted orally for centuries by a Bronze Age tribe of desert nomads who have no scientific knowledge whatsoever, that's your thing. I don't think that is prudent to say the least. But if you want to call it your holy text, whatever.

I take issue with the top half, just three line stating:

The Theory of Evolution is false!
Even science has discovered that.
Human beings are not descended from apes.

False. Lie. Trivially true.

Firstly,

The Theory of Evolution is false!

Wrong. That's one of the stupidest thing anyone can state about biology.

The Theory of Evolution is one of strongest scientific theories around. Some would even argue that it's the strongest theory we have. Every piece of evidence gathered thus far are in agreement with the theory. In addition, the Fact of Evolution is not in dispute at all; Biologists may be working on the details in the theory but no sane scientist would challenge the Fact itself.

So, if you believe that the theory of evolution is false, go get educated. Seriously.

Check out:
Evolution 101
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

And if you prefer videos, check out my playlists:
The Collapse of ID (Kenneth Miller lecture)
Evidence for Evolution
Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism (Content-heavy Youtube series)
Intelligent Design on Trial (Nova Documentary)
The Genius of Charles Darwin (BBC Documentary)


Next,

Even science has discovered that.

Wrong. Again. The theory of evolution is accepted amongst scientists in general. But more importantly, accepted by biologists.

By the way, a few fringe biologists and non-biological scientists dissenting does not demonstrate the rejection of the theory. I hope this doesn't require explanation.

Regarding the scientific consensus, the Wikipedia has a rather comprehensive article on the issue. Check that out. The National Center for Science Education (USA) has some information on the scientific consensus as well.


Finally,

Human beings are not descended from apes.

Only trivially true. Because, while we didn't descend from modern apes, we ARE apes.

If "apes" in that statement is taken to mean "modern great apes", then yes, we cannot have evolved from modern animals. That makes no sense. The theory of evolution does NOT make such a obviously false claim.

However, we DID evolve from a common ancestor that we share with Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas and  etc. It makes sense to call the common ancestor an ape since it would have the characteristics of one. In that sense, we ARE descended from apes.

This video should shed some light on how this is the case.

To end off, I want to say that it is arguably fine and dandy for creationists to hold their religious beliefs about the origins of humanity. Freedom of religious belief is granted in Singapore. However, if you cross the boundary and make factual claims about reality, then be assured that there will be people  to call you out on your lies.

Additionally, making something a matter of faith does not render it immune to rational criticism. If a religion were to claim that 2+2=5 on the basis of their religious faith, they would be factually completely WRONG. Similarly, it would be just as wrong to claim that evolution is false.

Science is evidently NOT on the side of creationist religious claims. Evolution is a FACT and the THEORY have overwhelming support from the scientific community. To state the contrary is to LIE (by the way, doesn't that contravene the 9th commandment?).

Creationism Attack on Singapore

It has just come to my attention that Singapore is actually one of the 7 countries targeted by Creation Ministries International's "Question Evolution" campaign.

So if any Singaporeans has visited my blog, please be aware of this piece of religious nonsense attempting to spread itself further within our communities.

For more information and resources on the alleged Evolution-Creationism controversy, do visit the following sites:

National Center for Science Education (USA)

This US non-profit organization has been defending the scientific theory of evolution for more than 2 decades. Check the site out for information pertaining to anti-Evolution movements by creationists in the US.

TalkOrigins Archive

The TalkOrigins archive is home to the Index of Creationist Claims where practically all creationists claims has been answered/refuted. This is a quick resource for people looking for answers from mainstream science about creationists' "questions".

Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial

Creationism's pseudoscientific disguise, Intelligent Design, has been demolished in a federal court. The event was made into a NOVA documentary. This is worth a watch!

Question Evolution: Answers 

15+1 Youtubers, Christians and non-believers, has put together a 4 part video series to answer/rebut the 15 questions from the Question Evolution Campaign.

Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

For those who enjoy being immersed in a stream of information, check out AronRa's Foundational Falsehood of Creationism series on Youtube.

PZ Myers - Science Ed: Science vs Religion

Yea, this is old stuff. This is PZ Myers at Skepticon 1 back in 2008. It's kinda sad considering that it still applies after more than 2 years.

Enjoy!

PZ Myers at World Atheist Convention

An entertaining rant/speech by PZ Myers at the World Atheist Convention Ireland 2011.

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiL8Xqf9w1o
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzHO3fVRLbA
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cun4VsQpQMU
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-pML7cfV-o

Enjoy!

Noah's Ark: Reality Check

The following video, by NonStampCollector, is a response to people who believe that the Noah's Ark story actually happened.

Question Evolution: Answers

Via TheLivingDinosaur, it came to my attention of Creation Ministries International's campaign, Question Evolution. As a response, 15+1 Youtubers came together to produce videos to answer the ludicrous questions in the campaign's pamphlet.

Here are the 4 videos collated:

Links to the creationist's site and pamphlet can be found on the Youtube page of the first part of the video. Links to the individual contributors can be found on the Youtube page of the video part they appear in.

Confusing Abiogenesis and Evolution

Coming from a creationist's perspective, religious folk advocating some form of creationism always seems to fail to the grasp the distinction between the field of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. Deliberately or not, they frequently conflate the two, claiming a "flaw" in abiogenesis therefore constitutes a flaw in the theory of evolution.

Even Wikipedia states different definitions for abiogenesis and evolution:

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose.

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such variation are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor, which are described by Charles Darwin as "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful".

Notice the distinction, please. Abiogenesis is the field of study of how life arose. Evolution is the theory which explains how life diversified. Even if I grant that we have no clue whatsoever as to how life arose, we know that once it did, it most surely diversified by the mechanisms proposed by the theory of evolution.

I'll be referring to this post made by a Christian in Singapore.

Right of the bat, the post would be more accurately describing its content if it were titled "The irrationality of Abiogenesis".

Probably the greatest difficulty of all for evolutionary theory is explaining how any life could have begun in the first place.

The theory of evolution is not supposed to explain how life begun. It describes how life diversified. Even if you want to shoehorn god into the picture as the creator of the first cell, that cell would be the ancestor of all life on Earth and evolved by mechanisms described by the theory of evolution. We know life evolved as surely as we know that the Earth orbits the Sun.

The spontaneous generation of even the simplest living organism capable of independent life (the prokaryote bacterial cell) from inorganic materials on the earth could not happen by random mixing of chemicals: it requires intelligent design and craftsmanship so complex that no advanced scientific laboratory in the world has been able to do it

The simplest living organism today is certainly more complex than the simplest living organism when life first started. This argument from complexity fails right there. Scientists studying abiogenesis are not proposing that the first cell is as complex as the simplest modern cell.

Also, this strange ultimatum between spontaneous generation of complex cells and intelligent design is a false dichotomy. Scientists are not proposing that the complexity of life as we know it today arose purely by chance. You get this monstrous error by conflating abiogenesis and evolution.

A living organism emerged by chance from a pre-biotic soup is about as likely as that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.’ Chance assembly is just a naturalistic way of saying ‘miracle’.

Again, this results from a confusion of abiogenesis and evolution. No scientists is proposing that a cell displaying the modern complexities appeared by chance. That would be just as nonsensical to you as to the scientists.

For example, check out the RNA World Hypothesis for what scientist mean by the first "cell".

In fact, some attempts have been made to calculate the probability of life arising spontaneously in his way. Kofahl and Segraves, authors of “The Creation Explanation”, give a statistical model in which they begin with a very generous assumption: that every square foot of the earth’s surface was somehow covered with 95 pounds of protein every year for one billion years. They then estimate the probability that even one enzyme molecule could develop in each one billion years of the earth’s history. The probability is 1.2 times 10^-11 or one chance in 80 billion. They note, however, that even with the generous assumptions and starting with fresh protein every year for a billion years, finding one enzyme molecule—for all practical purposes an impossible task—would not solve the problem at all.

The probability of finding two of the active molecules would be about 10²², and the probability that they would be identical would be 10⁷⁰. And could life start with just a single enzyme molecule? Furthermore, what is the possibility that an active enzyme molecule, once formed, could find its way through thousands of miles and millions of years to that randomly formed RNA or DNA molecule which contains the code for that particular enzyme molecule’s amino acid sequence, so that new copies of itself could be produced? Zero for all practical purposes.

Kofahl and Segraves report a study by an evolutionary scientist who formulates a model to calculate the probability for the formation, not just of one enzyme molecule but the smallest likely living organism by random processes. He comes up with a probability of one chance in 10^340,000,000—that is, one chance in 10 with 340 million zeros after it! Yet these evolutionary scientists still believed it happened!

The rest of the article is basically an attempt to awe audiences with numbers. And it's redundant - I'll explain.

But first, get this straight first. We're going to be talking about Abiogenesis - nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Unlike Abiogenesis where scientists are only proposing hypotheses, the Theory of Evolution is firmly established with mountains of evidence and has the consensus of the scientific community.

Here's the thing: Abiogenesis may have been a rare chance event. So throwing really low probabilities (even if the numbers are accurate) at abiogenesis is really redundant - we already know that.

What is important here is the claim that creationists are making: Too rare therefore God did it. But "God did it" is not an explanation at all - it has no explanatory function.

The field of abiogenesis at the very least demonstrates that it is possible for life to have occurred by natural means. The various hypotheses represent the ways by which life might have arose though we do not know definitively which path it took yet.

Postulating a god is not only unscientific, it is redundant. It is also a huge argument from ignorance. What, you scientists don't know how life arose? Ahha! Obviously God did it!

If your creationist argument take the form of "Too rare/complex, therefore God", it's a fallacious argument to begin with - still just an argument from ignorance.

Not knowing how life arose is not argument for god.

I recommend checking out TalkOrigins: Index to Creationist Claims for creationists (or any lay person) who don't understand what evolution is and is not.

Phylogeny (Tree of Life)

A new video by AronRa.

Retarded Creationists

This entry will be a follow-up rebuttal to the points the creationist (Wendy Wright) in this video have made. This is going to be long - and educational. And I will recommend videos along way - they explain more with illustrations.

Richard Dawkins tries really hard to explain that there is multitudes of evidence for evolution. Given the location of the interview, he cannot, of course, show the evidence themselves - that which Wendy wants to see now although she remains unconvinced despite having previously seen them (or so she claims).

Let's start. Here's the first video in question.

1:12 - 1:31
There has been an effort within the scientific community to censor out information... against evolution that proves that evolution may not be as many scientists believe. There has been many times in which evidence that was brought forward to bolster the idea of evolution turned out to be fraudulent.

Actually, no. There is no such thing. (Shocking, eh?)

The alleged frauds and hoaxes said to cast doubt or even disprove evolution were exposed by the scientific community itself. There is no need to "censor" such information simply because they known to be false. Not to forgetting to mention that they are not evidence that the case for evolution is built on.

Here's a video by AronRa that deals with a few of the hoaxes (Haeckel's drawings, Nebraska Man, Archeoraptor, etc) that creationists frequently claim to show that evolution is a fraud:

Moving on...

1:31 - 1:52
So what we argue for is to teach the controversy. Don't censor out the facts that goes against evolution... such as the famous pig's tooth, the tooth that was claimed to be an example of a prehistoric man and turned out to be just the tooth of a pig.

The "famous pig's tooth" example (Nebraska Man) has been dealt with in the video mentioned above.

What about teaching the "controversy" then? No, we shouldn't.

We should teach only science in a science class - thus only valid scientific theories should be taught. As much as creationists would like to believe the contrary, the Theory of Evolution is demonstrably true and is accepted by the scientific community. Non-scientific or even unscientific ideas have no place in the science curriculum.

We don't teach the "controversy" between Evolution and Creationism the same way we don't teach the controversy between Heliocentrism and Geocentrism. The same way we don't teach the controversy between Reproduction by Sex and by Storks. You get the idea (I hope).

2:36 - 2:45
There is no evidence of evolution from one species to another. There's microevolution within a species but not going from one species to another.

False. This is patently false.

There are plenty of transitional forms (ie, evidence of one species evolving to another) in the fossil record. In fact, EVERY fossil found is a transitional form.

I'd recommend these two videos, by AronRa and by standup4REALscience

3:11 - 3:58
Scientists are now claiming that they are the only ones that can speak on this issue. And yet when people who look at the evidence, go to the Smithsonian Museum on Natural History and when we look for where is the evidence to show evolution from one species to another all we find are drawings, illustrations, there aren't the actual material evidence showing it. So, while there are attempts to say that only scientists can speak on this. What we have are scientists that are then creating an isolated community and saying that we're the ones... almost like... it's almost like it's a religion in which only scientists can speak or teach on it and to teach everyone else and everyone else must believe what the scientists, what particular scientists, say...

This is what I call implicit arrogance. Look at the language used here. She paints a picture in a way that it seems that it is scientists who are being unfair. She goes so far as to claim that the scientists are operating as though they were a religion.

Now here's the wake up call.

YOU are not qualified to make valid comments with regards to the theory of evolution or any other scientific theory for the matter. If you're not trained in the field, you have as much to contribute to the discussion as a car mechanic has on performing a heart surgery.

Only scientists (biologists specifically for evolution) can speak on such issues because they are the only ones who are qualified.

So why did I say that she was being implicitly arrogant? Because she thinks her complete lack of qualifications (may I add critical thinking as well) trumps the scientific consensus by people who are trained and have worked in the field. Now, that's some fat-ass arrogance there.

6:07 - 6:34
The ad hominen attacks that people who have faith in evolution use against people who don't buy into that... I think shows the lack of confidence in the evidence. If evolution had so much evidence behind it then those people in favour wouldn't to be reduced to ad hominen attacks against those who say show us the evidence show us what's lacking

Ad hominen attacks? I'm guessing that that is referring to things like:

"You retard, can't you see the freaking evidence?"
"Faith-heads cannot be convinced even if you place the evidence right in front of them."
"Oh god, you moron. I can't be bothered to explain any further."

It's not the lack of confidence that result in such comments. It is the sheer exasperation when creationists refuse to be convinced even when presented with the multitudes of evidence for evolution.

It's NOT "you moron, you better believe what I believe."
It's more like "you moron, the bloody evidence is so freaking obvious."

7:28 - 7:39
What they claim to be the evolution of a foetus in the womb based on hand drawings which has been proven to be false and yet they continue to publish it in scientific textbooks.

That's about Haeckel's drawings. It was also discussed in the first video I recommended (watch it if you haven't).

The thing with Haeckel's drawings is that even though Haeckel admitted that a few of his drawings are not based on actual observation, he's still sort of correct.

Embryos do in fact look extremely similar during the early stages of development. Some of those features displayed during development are indicative of their evolutionary history (ie, evidence for evolution).

Here's a blog entry by biologist PZ Myers on the topic of Haeckel's embryos. (Extremely long article - you've been warned)

8:18 - 10:13 [End of video]
*Babbles on about morality and science then more on the alleged lack of evidence*

How we operate society is completely separate issue from the validity of a scientific theory. It is a naturalistic fallacy to claim that because evolution says so and so therefore we should/would do so and so.

That is a very simple concept to understand. We don't have to operate our society's on Darwinian principles. If the principles are true in nature, that's that. It is a retarded claim to say that those principles are false simply because we don't like them.

Facts are facts whether you like them or not.


** Wow, the sheer amount of crap in one video... I don't think I will start on the second one...

Videos, again

As part of my video whoring habits, here are two particular videos that caught my eye.

Evidence Vs Creationism

For the record, I'm lumping Intelligent Design with Creationism in this entry - Same shit, different guise so I'm not going to differentiate them.

Evolution explains. Creationism doesn't do much of that. In light of the evidence, the explanation Creationism offers is simply odd if not completely absent.


Atavism
An atavism is an evolutionary throwback - traits that reappear after disappearing in the lineage's evolutionary history. They occur because the genes for these ancestral phenotypical features are still present in the genome though no longer normally expressed.


Hind flippers in dolphins is an atavism - Evidence of the mammal's terrestrial ancestors. Another example would be teeth in birds. Tails in humans is also one such example.

Creationists make up excuses to account for such evidence. For example, same god, same genes - god may have just put the same genes in animals who don't need them. The excuse falls apart upon scrutiny.

If that was the case, why don't mammals display atavisms of bird traits? Why don't ray-finned fish have atavisms where legs appear? Why don't amphibians have "evolutionary throwbacks" of fur? Why are atavisms so nicely limited to organisms who can display them according to the theory of evolution?

Notice that atavisms are indicative of evolutionary history. These evolutionary throwbacks are limited by the organism's ancestral past. Mammals cannot have atavisms of bird traits because they diverged millions of years ago before their unique traits evolved. The same for ray-finned fish and tetrapods. The same for amphibians and mammals.

The first half of the following video touches on Atavism:

Pseudogenes
Closely related organisms (eg, all the apes including humans) share similar genomes. To illustrate the similarity, take the human chromosome 2. Scientists can identify the two ape chromosomes which fused some time in our evolutionary history because of the great similarity between the chromosomes - The sequence of genes on human chromosome 2 is the same as the 2 ape chromosome attached together teleomere to teleomere.

The same lame excuse: Same god, same genes is proposed. The thing is, we don't just share genes. We share the same useless genes - pseudogenes. Genes which have been knocked out by mutation.

A popular example used to illustrate this is the Vitamin C pseudogene. Human beings as well as our relatives, the primates, have most of the genes necessary to code for enzymes involved in the production of Vitamin C. However, one of these genes, the one which codes for the fourth enzyme in the cascade, has been knocked out by a frameshift mutation. The same exact mutation appears in all our relatives.

See this video which addresses the subject:

The theory of evolution requires this to be true - Descent by modification, so all descendents will have the same error in their genome. It can also account for the reason for our lost of our ability to synthesize Vitamin C.

Creationism doesn't quite account for this. Why did god (or the "designer") do this? Why knock out our ability to synthesize Vitamin C when we're not primarily fruit-eaters? Why does the other apes have the same disability like us? With the same mutation? That makes it look like we descented from a common ancestor with the other apes?


Endogenous Retroviruses
Retroviruses use reverse transcription to produce DNA from its RNA genome then it incorporates the DNA into the host genome. If a retrovirus infects a germ line cell, the organism which develops from the infected cell would have viral DNA in its genome. The viral DNA is known as endogenous retroviruses (ERV).

Although ERVs are nonfunctional, they are relics of viral infections indicative of a lineage's history. If a organism, which has ERVs, reproduces, its offsprings will have the same ERV in its genome.

If common descent is fact, we should find that humans should share ERVs with our ape relatives. Not only that, the ERV insertions should be at the same locations in our genomes when compared to our ape relatives. This is exactly what we find.

Learn more from this video:

If Creationism attempts to address this data, it just seems plain odd if not outright stupid. God, in his infinite wisdom, infected apes with the SAME retrovirus such that they all insert their ERV at the SAME exact location in the genome? That's sure some "wisdom".


Geological Record
The geological record shows a progressive change in species around at the time. Different organisms present in different rock stratas. In the earliest rocks with fossils, we find single celled organisms. Going up the strata, we find more complex multicellular organisms begining with fish. After fish, we have "fish-apods", fish with tetrapod-like features. Then we have recognizable amphibians, followed by lots of reptiles (namely dinosaurs). Dinosaurs suddenly disappears from the geological record, then we have mammals diversifying as well as birds.

If Creationism was right at all, we shouldn't even see the geological record let alone the geological progression of fossils.

Transitional fossils in the record grants weight to evolution's claims. The transitional forms can be predicted by the theory of evolution. For example, if common descent is true, we should find transitional forms depicting the transition from water to land. Not only that there should be such an animal, we should be able to find them in a specific time and specific rocks. This is dramatically illustrated by the discovery of Tiktaalik.

One unusual claim by creationists is that these fossils are god's previous creations. Funny, why did god specifically created transitional forms that conform to the theory of evolution? Why no other animal hybrids, say, like the crocoduck? No bird-fish? No mammal-insect?

The Noah Ark's story doesn't account for the data as well. Check out the following video:

It's not really Evolution Vs Creationism. It's Evidence Vs Creationism. Evidence wins of course.

Special Pleading - The Universe vs God

The Cosmological argument; The First Cause argument.
It goes something like this.

1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (the Uncaused Cause) must exist.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
4. That cause, we call god.


That cause, we call foul - That's Special Pleading
The objection is this: If the premise is "everything must have a cause" and yet the conclusion is "There is something that does not have a cause," the argument just contradicted itself.

And why specifically that the universe must have a cause but yet god doesn't need one? Where's difference? Why the exemption from the rule? That's Special Pleading.

In addition, we actually have evidence of the Universe existing. In light of the evidence, our beliefs should only go that far - We've no evidence of god.

And even if we concede that point that god is indeed the first cause, his identity is still non-specific. Is he/she/they/it even one of the theistic gods?

The Iron Chariots Wiki - Uncaused Cause


Big Bang and the Big Misconception
One absolutely moronic claim made by some theists is: Atheists believe that everything came from nothing. False.

This retarded claim most likely stem from a misconception of what the Big Bang Theory states. And since most rational atheists accept scientific discoveries, the misconception is heaped onto us.

The Big Bang theory does not state that the nothing exploded and thus the universe is born. The theory states that, based on current evidence, tracing back in time, there was a time when everything was compressed into a tiny, dense singularity. This singularity expanded rapidly and gave rise to the current state of our universe.

Nowhere does it mention that there was nothing. Current evidence ends at the singularity. Whether this singularity was created or not is unknown, it is ludicrous to assert that one is case when there are more possibilities than those.


Oh...
As part of my usual video whoring habit, I'd recommend this series by Potholer54 - From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy

Evolution - Fact and Theory

Fact AND Theory?
One of the common misunderstandings that people have with evolution is semantics. There's no error here - Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

The fact that is evolution refers to the phenomenon of evolution - The change in frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next, ie; descent with modification. This has been observed both in nature as well as in the laboratories.

The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain the Fact of Evolution. In Science, a theory is a comprehensive framework for describing, explaining and making falsifiable predictions about related sets of phenomena based on rigorous observation, experimentation and logic. Saying "Evolution is just a theory" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is about.


The Evidence
Evolution is described as the unifying theory in biology. Different scientific disciplines all point to same conclusion: Evolution. Various lines of evidence that include: Genetics, Phylogenetics, Paleontology, Morphology, Embryology, Molecular & Cellular biology etc.

The overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution cannot be described within a single blog entry. I'd suggest visiting the list of playlists that I've compiled: Here.

To learn about the evidence for common descent - See this article: 29+ Evidence for Macroevolution

If you're interested in Transitional Forms, read this article - Transitional Vertebrate Fossils or try these videos:
► Evolution is REAL Science #4 and #5
► 9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

What about Phylogenetics and nested hierarchies:
► 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
► Nested Hierarchies

On Speciation, check out:
► 11th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
► How Evolution Works 7 - Part 1 & Part 2

Here are some simple and frequently used examples of evidence for evolution:
► Human Chromosome 2 Fusion
► Our faulty Vitamin C gene
► Endogenous Retroviruses, ERV


Scientific Predictions
As with any scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution is capable of making predictions. One of the most spectacular prediction was the finding of Tiktaalik. Using the theory, researchers predicted the type of features Tiktaalik is expected to have, where it could be found and the age of the rocks it should be found in.

Check out this presentation by Neil Shubin, author of Your Inner Fish (Tiktaalik): Introducing Tiktaalik, Your Inner Fish Part 1 and Part 2.

On accurate predictions by the Theory of Evolution, see: How Evolution is Scientific - Part 2

Numerous other fossils that were found confirm the predictions made by the theory. For a list of them, see: Evolution is REAL Science #5


Modern Applications
Something that most people don't realize is that the theory of evolution is being used in our daily lives. I've heard ridiculous remarks like: "Gravity is real, it affects me daily. But evolution have nothing to do with me at all...... blah blah, evolution is not true."

The theory of evolution is utilized in the realm of medicine. Certain actions we take with regards to antibiotics is because of our understanding of evolution. Our handling of HIV and genetic diseases has also been enhanced by our understanding of evolution. Heck, the theory is even involved in agriculture and conservation efforts.

I'd recommend browsing through these: How does evolution impact my life?


Overwhelming Arrogance Vs Overwhelming Evidence
People deny the theory of evolution even before getting acquainted with the evidence are morons. It's simply irrational - How does one declare something to be false without even knowing what it is about.

In spite of the evidence, yet without learning about them, we have creationist sheeps and shepherds running around propagating lies about evolution.

That is ARROGANT.

All too frequently, atheists and scientists are the ones being slammed with the label "arrogant" for being "know-it-all's." We've seen the evidence, understood the theory and knew of its implications. When we make the claim "God did not create the lifeforms as we know them", it isn't an atheistic assertion. It's a fact - Evolution occurred.

Excuse me. Look in the mirror. Evolution deniers are the ones being arrogant. Who are you to claim that all those scientists who spent years on scientific education and working in their respective fields are wrong? Who are you say the theory is false when you haven't had the littlest clue of what the theory is? Who are you to deny the works of all those scientists when you don't even know the mountains of evidence and literature behind the theory?

That would be the height of intellectual arrogance. This might be simply because of the Skewed views of Science or worst, wilful ignorance with an intent of deceit.

Science and the Incredulous

The Argument from Personal Incredulity.
By the way, incredulity is defined by the dictionary as:

in⋅cre⋅du⋅li⋅ty [in-kri-doo-li-tee]
–noun
the quality or state of being incredulous; inability or unwillingness to believe.

The inability or unwillingness to believe is highlighted in the following typical responses.

"I don't believe I came from monkeys; I'd rather believe I came from Adam and Eve."

"If humans came from apes, why are there still apes around?"

"It's silly to believe that nothing exploded and then we came into existence."

If you've learnt about the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution, you would have already noticed the misconceptions and errors in thinking exhibited by those statements.


Skewed Views of Science
Science is seriously misunderstood by the general public. In general, these are the types of errors in perceptions:
► Science provides absolute truths.
► Science always changes; we shouldn't trust it.
► Science is just another belief system.

I'd highly recommend watching this video:

Rejection before Comprehension
This is the fate of the Theory of Evolution in the minds of religious sheeps. Even before being acquainted with the theory and its supporting evidence, it is rejected on the basis of religious dogma. That is tragic.

Having seen the responses by theists who reject evolution, one thing is very clear - They haven't got a clue what Evolution is (See my previous post - The Gems of Creationism). Often, they are fed caricatures of evolution by their own churches. Lies to propagate more lies.

If you find that you are rejecting scientific theories even before you understood them, something is seriously wrong. No established theories is without evidence.

Have you ever asked yourself - "Why am I rejecting this when the scientific community accept it as true?" A scientist isn't some bugger down the street who pulls theories out of their asses. They are trained professionals who studied the field in which they are in for years. They have seen the evidence. They have learnt the theories and the rationale behind them.

How are you rationally justified in rejecting their theories without even learning about them in the first place?


Our inability to understand the theories does not mean that the theories are false. That would be faulty logic.

Ignorance and Wilful Ignorance

Ignorance is defined by the dictionary as follows:

Ignorance [ig-ner-uhns]
The state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

That is not, in itself, a bad thing.

Different people are ignorant about different things. Most people don't know the law as well as lawyers are, so in this aspect, most people are ignorant about the law in a general sense. We don't know everything about plumbering as well as plumbers are. We don't know engineering as well as engineers. We don't know about running businesses as well as businessmen.

And in general, the public does not understand science as well as scientists are. In fact, a physicist may be ignorant to some aspects of biology. Similarly, biologists may not know everything about cosmology as well as well cosmologists.

This is normal.

Not when we add wilfulness into the equation.

Wilful ignorance.
The state of knowingly ignoring something for no good reason.

In other words, being ignorant on purpose.

To some extent, this can be said of deniers of evolution. Many times, these cretins do not even bother to study what they reject. With the littlest understanding of the subject on hand, they criticise the theory without realizing their so-called objections are invalid/incorrect.

At some level, they could be victims of creationist propaganda where they are presented with a caricature of evolution. They reject the miscontrued version of the theory without realizing that they are merely rejecting a strawman.

Of course, this cannot be said about those who delibrately propagate the lies. They probably aren't just wilfully ignorant but outright deceitful.

Does the ends justify the means?
Is lying for god justified?

Science, it WORKS! Bitches.

Perhaps, I'm the bitch for this post because I'm going to be bitching about something.

I am definitely sick of theists who say "I believe in science but I just don't believe in evolution."

I'd say that they are fricking hypocrites.

Seriously, unlike the holy books, you don't get to cherrypick stuff to believe in. The body of knowledge known as science is acquired by the scientific method. It's a package deal. You don't get to reject part of this body of knowledge (in this case, the theory of evolution) and still say you accept the scientific method.

While science may have many disciplines, they are not discrete subjects like mathematics is separate from literature. They are interlinked. They are fundamentally the results of the same methodology: the Scientific Method.

To make matters worse, those theists are rejecting science for one absurd reason: their religious dogma. Between the multitudes of evidence science offers and their ancient religious dogma, they reject the evidence and the science.

That is patently absurd. And it is also incredibly hypocritical.

If you want to reject the theory of evolution, please be acknowledge that you are not rejecting the theory itself but the scientific method also. In such a case, do yourself a favor and stop being a hypocrite about it. Don't use anything that is derived from science and that includes evey piece of technology.

You are trampling on the hard work of the many generations of scientists who devoted their lives to bettering our lives by increasing our knowledge. You dare condescendingly call scientific theories "just a theory of man" and claim that it is wrong when it contradicts your holy book. You downplay all the good that science has brought and call it the evil that leads to nazism. Yet everyday you're using the products of the method that you so lovingly despise.

Why don't you examine your presuppositions? That god exist? That the universe must have been created? That you cannot bear the thought of death? That you want so badly to believe in an afterlife? That the holy books are accurate?

Use reason and logic.
Look at the evidence and draw conclusions.
Not let your desires cloud your judgement.

Screw faith which simply is the belief with no evidence.
Don't presuppose the conclusion when looking at the evidence.
Live a life based in reality not fantasy.

Trust science not simply as an authority.
Trust it because you know what it is and how it works.
Trust it because of its fine track record.

SCIENCE, IT WORKS! BITCHES!

The Atheozoan Channel

I've created a Youtube channel for convenience of looking for videos and playlists that I've recommended on my blog.

So here it is: Atheozoan Channel.

And here's the list of playlist I have created so far. You can click on the links below to go each of the playlist and view the videos that make up each playlist or hit the "Play All Videos" button to watch the whole thing.

Evolution

These playlists deals with Evolution (with other sciences) owning Creationism/Intelligent Design. Occasional creationism arse kicking is a common feature.

From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy by potholer54

This series by potholer54 explains the scientific evidence for our origins, from the Big Bang to the human migration out of Africa. It challenges people who believe we were created by a deity 6,000 years ago to confront the evidence instead of ignoring it.

Evolution is REAL Science by standup4REALscience

Here's a series describing the various aspects of the theory of evolution. This includes the history and findings leading towards the establishment of the modern theory of evolution. Later in the series, it goes into the predictions made by the theory as well as the details of its supporting evidence.

HHMI Holiday Lectures 2005 - Evolution uploaded by djarm67

This series consist of 4 holiday lectures (approx 1 hour each) by HHMI on the topic of Evolution.

► Lecture 1 — Endless Forms Most Beautiful

► Lecture 2 — Selection in Action

► Lecture 3 — Fossils, Genes, and Embryos

► Lecture 4 — From Butterflies to Humans

How Evolution Works by DonExodus2

This series by DonExodus2 deals with the various topics on the subject of evolution.

Proof of Evolution by DonExodus2

Another series by DonExodus2 dealing with the evidence for evolution.

How Evolution is Scientific by shanedk

This is a six-part series by shanedk which explains the scientific basis for evolution while refuting lies from creationists. This series was made in response to Creation Ministries International's article found here.

Creationism

These playlists deals with creationism more directly. However, there's lots of science and evolution tidbits along the way.

The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism by AronRa

A series by AronRa which deals with the creationism movement. While exposing the fallacies and lies the movement is based upon, this series brings with it truckloads of information tidbit on the theory of evolution.

Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial uploaded by atheistonly

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in a landmark battle over the teaching of evolution in public schools. This is the trial where Intelligent Design fell flat on its face in all possible aspects.

Evolution: Fossils, Genes and Mousetraps uploaded by agnosticman77

This series is a fantastic lecture by renowned Cell Biologist and author Dr. Ken Miller. In the lecture, he discusses some of the evidence for Evolution from the fossil record, genetics, and genome analysis. He also discusses his role in the Dover trial where Intelligent Design collapsed in federal court.

Why Young Earth Creationists must deny Gravity by cdk007

This series by cdk007 shows how a belief that the universe is 6,000 years old requires one to deny the theory of gravity.

Why do people laugh at creationists? by Thunderf00t

Here's a series by Thunderf00t exposing the funny stupidity of creationists and why they deserve to be laughed at. In each case, the creationist statements are shown to be outrageously stupid by even the most rudimentary knowledge of science.

CrAP (Creation Astronomy Propaganda) Debunked by AndromedasWake

This series by AndromedasWake deals with the CrAP that is creation astronomy propaganda.

Creationist Junk Debunked by potholer54debunks

In this series by Potholer54debunks will look at the various lies, myths and misunderstandings creationists like to spread about science and bust them.

Science and Skepticism

These playlists deals with general sciences and its public perception and misconceptions. Mainly focusing on the scientific method and general skeptic thought.

Here Be Dragons uploaded by morsec0de

Most people fully accept paranormal and pseudoscientific claims without critique as they are promoted by the mass media. Here Be Dragons offers a toolbox for recognizing and understanding the dangers of pseudoscience, and appreciation for the reality-based benefits offered by real science.

Break the Science Barrier uploaded by PiroNiro

This series follows Richard Dawkins as he meets with people who have experienced the wonders of science first-hand. We'll also see how dangerous the ignorance of science can be in classrooms, courts, and beyond.

Slaves to Superstition uploaded by keuriseudo

Professor Richard Dawkins tackles the epidemic of irrational, superstitious thinking which is blotting the light of logic and evidence. After garnering tips on psychics' entirely earthly trade secrets from the illusionist Derren Brown, Dawkins attends a seance and confronts the medium. Time and again, the interviewees appeal to personal revelation or second-hand anecdote to justify their belief.

The Irrational Health Service uploaded by keuriseudo
Professor Richard Dawkins examines the growing suspicion the public has for science based medicine, despite its track record of successes like the germ theory of disease, vaccines, antibiotics and increased lifespan.

God, Religion and Atheism

Here are the playlists that deals with belief and non-belief in god.

The God Delusion uploaded by keuriseudo

Along with his million-copy bestseller The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins has helped inspire people of reason worldwide to say "Enough is enough!" Our modern world is the product of a long march from ignorance and fear to the Enlightenment and beyond, always guided by the power of science and reason. To now abandon our endeavour toward progress and knowledge for faith and superstition puts humanity in peril.

The Virus of Faith uploaded by keuriseudo

Dawkins argues that the process of non-thinking called faith is not a way of understanding the world, but instead stands in fundamental opposition to modern science and the scientific method, and is divisive and dangerous.

Christianity

Here are the playlists that deals with discussion about Christianity and the bible.

An Honest Search for the Truth by holysinecure

This video series by holysinecure addresses inconsistencies & contradictions in the Bible that were studied and researched on the way out of organized religion.

An Atheist Reads the Bible by 43alley

This series by 43alley uses a verbatim reading from lesser-known stories from the Bible. And by "lesser-known," that means horrible stories that the religious either pretend do not exist, or wish didn't.

To view videos that do not belong to any particular series, you can go straight to my favorites.

I'd also highly recommend all the channels that I'm subscribed to.

* Note: This page is no longer updated. If you find a broken link, head straight for my YouTube channel to find the playlist instead.

Fallacious Reasoning

According to my brother, a teacher in his school spouted a logical fallacy in school with reference to the theory of evolution. She was trying to explain the usage of the word "relic" and somehow she touched on evolution. The following is paraphrased from my brother's memory.

Can you believe that scientists believe that we evolved from apes? That's so low life. We are superior beings.

Er. What?

You don't want to believe in evolution because it's low life and therefore it is not true?

Wow. Perhaps cancer patients could just believe cancer is not real since it's awful.

What is the logical pathway that goes from "I don't like it" to "therefore, it is false"? Just because some fact is unpleasant to you, it doesn't follow to the conclusion that it is false. That's fallacious. That's stupid reasoning. That's also ignorance in this case.

Facts are not falsified because you don't like them. Deal with it.

Secondly, what's with the notion that we're superior? Well, yes, of course it's nice to think that but the truth is, we aren't superior in many aspects.

We are superior in terms of intelligence. That I agree. But that isn't the only criteria by which comparisons can be made.

We certainly aren't the fastest. The cheetah would win paws down if we raced with it.

We certainly aren't the fastest in the water as well. Most marine lifeforms can darn well swim faster.

We definitely cannot fly without assistance.

We don't have the sharpest teeth.
We don't have the sharpest claws.
We don't have the longest lifespan.
We don't have the best eyesight.
We don't have the keenest sense of smell.
We don't have the widest hearing range.
We don't generate enough electricity to stun.
Etc...

There's much more comparisons that can be made.

We aren't superior in most aspects but we are special indeed. We have the ability to think. For the first time, the natural processes in the universe brought about the evolution of a lifeform with an intelligence powerful enough to understand those very natural processes that brought about its existence. We are the universe's way of understanding itself.

I think that's beautiful.

So don't stop thinking.
Don't resort to fallacious reasoning.
Don't deny the theory that scientists worked so hard on in finding the multitudes of evidence that supports it.

Believe because the evidence supports it.
Evolution is a FACT.