Champneys, Evolution DemolitionWatch the vidoe before reading this. Look here.
minutes into the video.
starting point is that disproving evolution is easy. You just describe what is
says, then it more or less disproves itself. At that is what he intends to do.
My intention is to prove him wrong.
they really know or is it speculation’ To do science you have to start with ‘Speculation’.
He should have said ‘Theory’. Clearly, he uses ‘speculation’ to makes it sound like
National Geographic, July 2010. ‘4 million years old Women’. He postulates that
the dating solely depends on evolution. I have to look into the actual article
to see what it says.
kinds of evolution: Abiogenesis. He presents the Urey/Miller experiment and
claims that it shows that proteins could not form on earth. He doesn’t mention
coal chondrites, which essentially disproves his point.
The he claims that there is no theory of abiogenesis. It turns out that what he
means is that there is no complete theory describing all the details from a
self-replicating RNA-molecule all the way to a modern cell. OK - he’s right. So
what? 150 years ago, no one knew what an atom looked like. That doesn’t mean
they didn’t exist.
Neo-Darwinism. Various on genetics. It sounds as if he doesn’t know that the
humans have 23 chromosome pairs. He keeps talking about ’one single molecule’!
Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are referred to as ’critical terms’.
He suggest that micro-evolution should be called ‘Horizontal evolution’, as he
thinks it doesn’t involve real genetic changes but only shuffling of existing
Macro-evolution he prefers to call ‘Vertical evolution’ as it involves new
information, but he refuses that this can take place.
scientists (he calls them evolutionists) refer to ‘new genetic information’ it
is always just a mix of already existing information. He apparently haven’t
heard about the ‘nylonase’.
concludes (or rather postulates) that ‘Horizontal evolution is not evolution.
Vertical evolution is not science.’
Natural selection. He apparently thinks that he has some new information when he
says that all natural selection does is to sort between existing information.
Nothing new there though.
could the first reproductive system evolve when evolution only starts when you
have reproduction. Apparently, he hasn’t understood that the starting point in the
RNA-world is a self-reproducing molecule.
he turns to Intelligent Design (ID). ID says nothing about God or religion. This
is obviously nonsense, as ID talks about a designer that obviously cannot be
the result of evolution, so it must either have popped into existence, or be
eternal. The first is impossible, the last is religious.
Mutations: ‘Most of the time mutations will kill’ ‘Mutations destroy
information, they do not create it’. Actually most mutations are neutral.
compares a mutation to what would happen if you touch a hard disk with magnet. Apparently,
he have never heard about procedures for automatic evolution of computer programs.
He claims that no mutation have ever resulted in new information.
mutation has ever resulted in new information. Again, he hasn’t heard of the ‘Nylonase’.
sounds as if he totally rejects any method for dating fossils.
law of thermodynamics. This has been refuted so many times, that it is unbelievable
he think it is valid. He forgets about the enormous amount of entropy that is
build up in the sun and on earth. The tiny little loss of entropy due to
evolution is orders of magnitude less than that.
cannot possibly emerge by itself, no matter how much time is available. Probably
he haven’t heard about random protein sequences having the information necessary
to bind ATP.
intelligence san overcome the second law of thermodynamics. Nonsense. Not even
intelligent can do that. It just seems that way.
Then comes a strawman argument. Scientists refer to photosynthesis when they
say that entropy can fall on earth. And then the natural question would be: where
did photosynthesis come from?
It sound relevant, but actually, it is not. There are so many other possible
ways to extract energy from the environment that does not depend on
photosynthesis. Those could have preceded photosynthesis and made the evolution
of it possible.
of the Universe. Or rather earth as the ‘privileged planet’
He mentions a number of things that should be in place for earth to support
life, in order to show that the possibility of just one planet like that is
vanishingly small. He doesn’t attempt to put numbers on any of them. Needless
to say, he fails to support his claims.
Mass of the earth - He has no idea of what the limits are for a life-supporting
Distance to the sun - First it depends on the atmosphere. Second, with any
given atmosphere there is probably an about 30% possible variation.
Size of the sun - The sun is a very typical star.
Size of our orbit - this is a result of the distance, and as such a new demand.
Tilt of the earth’s axis - Hugh possible variations would be compatible with
Speed of rotation of the earth - Again huge variation is compatible with life.
Magnetic field - Most planets have one.
Thickness of atmosphere - Again huge possible variation. Partly connected to
the distance to the sun.
Makeup of atmosphere - Presence of oxygen is due to life itself, and life can
thrive in an oxygen-free atmosphere. Content of CO2 and water vapor
is critical to the temperature, but again it is related to the distance to the
sun, the thickness of the atmosphere.
Content of oxygen is involved in a negative feedback loop. Low oxygen will
result in very few fires and therefor result in building up the levels of oxygen.
Very high levels will result in frequent fires, lowering the content. Vapor
content and mean temperature influences the resulting level of oxygen in the atmosphere.
Ozone layer - any atmosphere with oxygen will have one.
Amount of water - could be anything from much less to several times more. Again
connected to temperature, and therefore to distance to the sun and other
Abundance of carbon - carbon is actually very rare. What levels of abundance is
acceptable? How does he know?
Amount of countless other elements. Only Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Carbon and
Phosphorus are essential. The importance of the rest is due to on evolution.
Size of the moon - Again room for great variation.
Its exact distance from us - Again room for great variation.
36:00 The probability
of a random planet supporting life is 10511 .
When he cannot even see the interconnection of many of these points, why should
we believe the calculation?
small protein could e.g. contain 125 amino acids in an exact sequence. No, it
couldn’t. All proteins are very variable in there sequence.
An extreme example is Reverse Transcriptase. When a number of proteins are
compared, you can identify a low pairwise homology (less than 5%), but there is
no part of sequence that is shared by all specimens.
chance of forming a cell by coincidence. This is completely ridiculous. No one
postulates that the first modern cell formed by accident. It was the result of
a long chain of evolution, starting with a single self-replicating molecule.
from evolution: intermediate forms. As usual, he just postulates they do not
42: 30 Who
has ever expected to find a complete geological column anywhere?
evolution of the horse is just rejected without further comment.
moon is residing. Once it was much closer resulting in huge tide waves washing
away the continents. Sorry, ever heard of plate tectonics?
usual story about C14 in diamonds and coal. Here presented as final
as code. Symbols are signs of intelligence. This is actually just Irreducible Complexity