Vi bruger Cookies!     


Intelligent Design, Creationism and Evolution in Denmark and the rest of the world

Comments on 'Creation Answers Book'

The book can be found here

As most of the book is on more religious questions, I will only comment on chapter 7: "What about arguments for evolution"

Similarities in general
The general idea is that similarities point to a common creator rather than a common ancestor.
At first glimpse this is an OK argument, until you look at few details.
Whales and Sharks both have flippers that look fairly similar on the outside. But the sceleton is revealing. Why is the sceleton of whale flippers resempling that of forelimbs of mammals and in no way that og Shark flippers? Under evolution the answer is straight foreward. Under creation the answer is ...?

Human - Chimp homology
If Humans and Chimp DNA is much less than 90% identical, publish the result in a peer reviewed journal! It needs no reference to creationism, it just needs a detailed dscription of how the analysis was done. Truth is that such analysis cannot be published because they are flawed.
A question that is not even touched on is why Chimp DNA is more homologous to Human DNA than to Gorilla or Orangutan DNA. Or why this homology is repeated in the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA), which has influence on anatomy. Or why all the rest of life show the same pattern of groups within groups when DNA homology is analyzed.
MtDNA from horses are more homologous to mtDNA from Rhinos and Tapirs, than to any other animal, just as would be predicted from evolution. And remember: anatomical similarity can have nothing to do with that.

I am not strong in this complicated field, so I refrain from commenting.

Useless organs
This is based on a misunderstanding of concepts. A vestigial organ is not useless. By definition 'Vestigial' means 'Small and imperfectly developed'1
Except that this is a somewhat imprecise definition (imperfect compared to what) this more or less takes care of the issue. The structures mentioned are vestigial in the correct sense of the word. This does not imply that they are useless.

Apemen (The word is not used in the scientific literature)
Nowadays Human evolution is considered much more bushy than it was several decades ago. This means that most fossils should be expected not to resemple direct ancestors, but closer or more distant relatives to our ancestors. This explains most of the information in the paragraph.
DNA from Neandethals, Denisovas and Homo heidelbergensis show that these are all more different from modern Humans than we are from each other. Exactly as evolution predicts if they were our contemporaries rather than our ancestors. Not what you would expect if they were just within the variation of one species of Humans.
Under 'Other transitional fossils' Transitional fossils is just dismissed with no further argument.
The transition from four mandible bones (in our 'reptillian' ancestors) to one in mammals is well documented. Transitions between dinosaurs and birds are found regularly. Transitions between land mammals (within the even toed ungulates) and whales have been found, and the relationship is confirmed by DNA.

Of 40 references four are peer reveiwed scientific journals. 7 others are text-books or journals without peer review. The rest is refences to creationist journals or books.
Not convincing if you want to establish the weakness of the theory of evolution.

1: Henderson's Dictionary of Biologcal Terms, Eighth edition, Puvlisher: Oliver and Boyd, 1963

Opdateret 18/04/2016