Duane Caldwell | posted 30 April, 2017
UnMasking Mistakes in Memes of Evolution - Part 3
Codes and Complexity
We come now to some particularly egregious errors in our series to unmask the faulty logic and science behind defenses given for the theory of (neo) Darwinian evolution. Stated simply, neo-Darwinism says all life on earth derived via natural selection acting on random mutations in a population, with no purpose, design or intelligence used anywhere. As this series points out, there are many, many reasons why this is impossible. Yet Darwinists try to come up with reasons why (according to them) it's not only possible, but actually happened.
In this round up of memes, some of the defenses employed are so far off the mark, I wonder if the author of these mistakes is merely feigning ignorance, or if he is really ignorant of the glaring mistakes he is making. I'll leave that to your judgment. Since I've subtitled this articles "Codes and Complexity", let's start with a meme that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the code that's involved with DNA.
Since I was a bit harsh on our
evolutionist above, let's start with what he manages to get right. He is
correct in this: London is not a map, London is a city. And DNA is not a
code, it is a long molecule. Now onto what he gets wrong. To
clarify, the creationist claim is not that "DNA is a code." The claim is
that DNA contains information, and that information is transmitted by a
code. Or put another way, DNA contains encoded information.
This presents a number of problems for the evolutionists, a number of which I point out in DNA and WindTalkers, with the two main ones being:
The problem for evolutionists is that information and codes - are both immaterial, designed entities. And immaterial entities cannot come from the material processes of evolution. Nor can anything that is designed. Such items only come only from intelligent minds. But as pointed out above, evolution claims there is no intelligence involved anywhere in the evolutionary process. Where then, did the information and the code in DNA come from?
In passing, the evolutionist comparison of DNA to a map is ironic, because even though the comparison falls far short - DNA contains much more info than a map, the same questions come up: Where did the information on the map come from? And where did the encoding system of symbols on the map come from? And for what purpose was the whole system created? If DNA is like a map, the same questions apply.
The eye is too complex to have evolved.
The eye is such a marvel of intricate
design it deals a devastating blow to evolution. In response,
evolutionists cannot turn to logic or science to refute the testimony
the eye provides that it was clearly designed. So instead they do what they do
best: tell stories. To demonstrate how silly their story telling
is, I will use their technique to show the evolution of planes, the
premise being of course, they evolved without design. First we start
with pictures that go from simple to complex:
Next, we provide a narration of how evolution supposedly accomplished moving from simple to complex. As the evolution of the eye diagram doesn't bother starting with the very beginning, neglecting for example, where nerve fibers or photosensitive cells come from, I likewise won't bother starting from the very beginning either and will jump right in. Thus the story of the evolution of planes goes something like this:
The errors of oversimplication, disregarding known science and wishful thinking (among others) applies to any sequence of pictures the evolutionist wants to show you - claiming the members in the series "evolved" by Darwinian evolution. These errors apply whether it be the eye sequence above, or the famous ape to man sequence. Such pictures are not science. Without detailed descriptions backed by controlled tests and verifiable processes showing how the item moved from one picture to the next without design, they are mere wishful story telling - just like my airplane evolution story above.
But that's not the only error. Evolution of the eye also suffers from another fatal blow, though most evolutionists either haven't recognized it, or won't acknowledge it. It's the same problem evolution has with DNA: where did the code come from? Most people recognize the eye is not like a movie projector, capturing what's in front of you and projecting it on the brain. Rather, much like a computer sending a digital data stream, the eye captures the information, encodes it and transmits it to the brain, where it is then decoded and interpreted. Who created the code? How did those abilities get incorporated in the brain? Here again evolution has no answer. In fact, evolutionists don't even want to acknowledge the problem, much less try to answer it.
Meme: Accepting evolution
There are a number of problems with
this one. Let's start with the evolutionist's
attention. In the
picture the evolutionist would prefer to present, he shows elephants
protecting a female as it gives birth. That's all fine and good, but
what if we chose other scenes, like the one I chose above, where one
wolf appears ready for a fight in order to steal the food from another. In the animal
kingdom, might makes right, so if a bear comes to your tent trying to
steal your food, are you going to lecture it about it being wrong and immoral to
steal food? Bigger animals have no qualms exerting their will over weaker
ones. And they don't worry about the dictates of morality when they do
it. (As far as we know.) Thus if morals "evolves" as the evolutionist claims it does, it's a
very limited, very corrupt one.
Meme: The rocks date the fossils and
the fossils date the rocks
First, let's get straight that this isn't a "creationist misconception." Highly respected evolutionists acknowledge this problem of circular reasoning in the evolutionary dating process. For example, Niles Eldredge, co-author of the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium acknowledges: "If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" In other words he saying if we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then date the various fossils by where they're found - which is in the rocks. The problem: it's a circular argument with no basis in fact.
So we can dismiss the false contention that it's just creationist pointing out this problem. Anyone who examines the dating process carefully will necessarily reach the same conclusion about its circular nature, because that in fact, is the process.
Second, radiometric dating is known to be an inaccurate dating method. Not only is it inaccurate, the various methods don't even agree with each other, as again, even evolutionists acknowledge. Evolutionist John Whitfield: "...in the past decade it has become clear the results from different techniques and different labs don't agree."
As for the inaccuracies, radiometric dating evolves three assumptions that regularly provide inaccurate results. Again, I won't belabor the point here. For details see my article, Radiometric Dating: Science or Guesswork?
Finally this is a classic example of selective attention. In addition to refusing to see the circular reasoning involved in dating fossils, evolutionist refuse to acknowledge the many problems with the geological column (depicted above) itself:
Darwinist would rather not talk about these problems because they know they don't have a leg to stand on.
Meme: "Language can't evolve"
Once again I'm driven to wonder if evolutionists are feigning ignorance, or if they really think this addresses the multiple problems presented by language. Let's start with the first and most obvious mistake. The claim creationists make is not that language can't change, or "evolve" as he puts it above. Of course language can change. The claim is the origin of language (and languages) - of which there are many - none of whose origin can be explained by the material processes of evolution.
Why not? We run again into the code
issue. So let's list a few of the problems.
2) Evolution can develop neither the code nor the specialized part of the brain that that handles that code that is key to encoding language (Broca's area).
3) Evolution can develop neither the code nor the specialized part of the brain that handles that intelligence that is key to decoding language (Wernicke’s area).
4) For both of these abilities to be useful, they would need to be developed simultaneously, which of course would require planning and foresight to do so. Such planning and foresight are of course elements of design, which of course is not and cannot be part of any evolutionary process.
Therefore evolution is wholly, and totally an inadequate explanation for the origin and use of language. For further detail, see my article: Can Evolution Explain the Origin of Language?
This wraps up this round up of memes. As with all the previous memes, shortcuts to the refutation of these meme mistakes can be found here: http://rationalfaith.com/mememistakes/
Duane Caldwell | posted 30 April, 2017
2. "DNA is more like a
library," he [Meyer] said. "The organism accesses the information that
it needs from DNA so it can build some of its critical components."
4. Dr. Rebecca
Grant, Author, The B-2 Goes to War,
6. The eye produces
discernible colors in a process very similar to the way a computer is
programmed to do so:
7. Niles Eldredge,
Time Frames, 1985, p. 52) ref from Geologic Time Scale, All
About Creation, accessed 7/18/2011
9. Regarding the
Cambrian Explosion, Darwin acknowledged: "Consequently, if my theory be
true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian* [i.e. Cambrium]
stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far
longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian[Cambrian] age to the
present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of
time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do
not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no
Masquerade black mask© BortN66 | Fotolia | used by permission
Geologic Column, Public Domain (National Park Service)
DNA Background, © Leigh Prather | Fotolia | used by permission
Eye Evolution, Matticus78 English Wikipedia [GFDLor CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
The Evolution of Planes composite by Duane Caldwell © 2017
Wright Flyer, Louis P. Christman, Public Domain via www.wright-brothers.org
Avia B-534, CC0 (Public Domain) via pixabay.com
Cessna 152, CC0 (Public Domain) via pixabay.com
Embraer Bandeirante, Used by permission, www.skybrary.aero
Boeing 727, By Julien.scavini (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Boeing 707, CC0 (Public Domain) via pixabay.com
Rockwell B-1 Bomber,by Dave Hahn [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Northrup B-2 Stealth Bomber, By US Government (Technical order 00-105E-9) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Grey wolves Canis lupus. Dangerous fight for food © valeriyap | Fotolia | used by permission
Thank you, © aaabbc | Fotolia | used by permission