Rebuttal #2 & Closing Argument
- Fred Williams, 5/12/2000
In my final installment of this debate, I will try to focus most of my
comments to new material from Budikka, and not rehashed topics (such as
Neanderthal and Dino-bird). His comments will appear in aqua.
I would like to take this moment to thank Budikka for the time he has
taken to participate in this debate.
Budikka's present-day "intermediates"
Budikka entertains us with a fanciful claim of a present-day fish with
legs! This almost tops his previous whale tale, the now debunked cetacean
leg myth! Oh what a fairy tale our dear evolutionists weave. Any cursory
review of information on frogfish reveal that what Budikka thinks are
legs, are fins!1
Regarding lungfish, Budikka unwittingly brings up yet another point that
only serves to strengthen the argument for creation. The lung fish is
befuddling to evolutionists, because they are forced to accept that the
complex lung evolved down totally independent paths. It is yet another
baffling oddity that defies chance that evolutionists must explain away
as a "convergence". Irrespective of this, why would Budikka
think this is an "intermediate"? Are cars with diesel engines
intermediate between gas cars and diesel trucks? Is the platypus an "intermediate"
between ducks and beavers? Shared characteristics among vastly different
animals argues against evolution, and is strong evidence for a sole Creator.
Budikka's complaint that Creationists don't change their views
Budikka makes this complaint in lieu of the recent Turkey-bird scandal
that put mud on the face of evolutionists. He lauds evolutionists for
admitting mistakes, then protests that creationists never admit mistakes.
But as Budikka has done on several previous occasions, he has proven to
be my best witness. Just a few lines after making this protest, he provides
an example of a creationist who admits making a mistake! Here's Budikka
providing the goods:
"[Reverend Carl] Baugh...appeared on an area television station's
evening news claiming that a Cretaceous fossil tooth...was human...They
later recanted when microscopic examination demonstrated that the
item in question was a fossil fish tooth."
Answering Budikka's fossil record questions
Budikka asks regarding the global flood, "why
is the record of land-dwellers so poor?"
There are various reasonable possibilities, but since no one was there
we can only speculate on the available evidence. I will first note that
fossil preservation almost always requires rapid burial in sediment.
So the very fact we have as many fossils as we do is a strong testament
to a global catastrophe involving water. Most notable is that sea-dwelling
marine fossils can be found in great abundance anywhere in the world,
including the great plains of the US, in the walls of the Grand Canyon,
and every mountain range.
To summarize why there are far fewer land-dwelling fossils:
1) Ecological zones - sea-dwelling zones would be the first to be destroyed
2) Land animals would naturally seek higher ground
3) Differential Suspension - land animals tend to "bloat and float",
causing rapid decomposition
4) evolutionary bias - if a fossil is found in flood strata, the evolutionist's
interpretation will be clouded since they insist the fossil shouldn't
be there. Then the "flood" of excuses begin.
Budikka and the Cambrian Explosion
If the Cambrian explosion (which covers 15
million years - hardly sudden) represents the week of creation, then what
does the 3 billion year period prior to the Cambrian represent? ...It
is impossible for the Cambrian explosion to prove sudden creation!
This is a strawman since 1) I never claimed the Cambrian explosion represents
the week of creation (it would actually represent the subsequent flood
some 1000+ years later), 2) I did not claim it proves sudden
creation. No ancient, unobserved event can strictly "prove"
anything. However, if creation is true, particularly the Biblical account
which records a global flood, then finding fossils that appear suddenly
with no trace of ancestors, followed by stasis, is undeniable corroborating
evidence. Creationist antagonist Richard Dawkins once wrote:
"...the Cambrian strata of rocks...are the oldest in which
we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them
already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they
appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary
history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted
Conversely, the Cambrian explosion argues strongly against Darwinian
gradualism. Where are the intermediates in adjacent strata to the complex
Cambrian organisms? There should be literally trillions of examples, yet
we only get a handful of wildly subjective ones. Of the few we're given,
it doesn't take long for evidence to arise that contradicts the claim.
For example, many evolutionists for years claimed that soft-bodied chordates
evolved into vertebrates, yet vertebrates were recently discovered in
early Cambrian strata!3 This same
cache of fossil evidence is also squeezing the Cambrian to a period of
less than 3 million years (on the evolutionary timescale)4.
The Cambrian Explosion's strict contradiction to Darwinian gradualism
has caused some evolutionists to flee to the punctuated equilibrium
camp. Punctuationists acknowledge that there is no evidence of gradualism
in the fossil record, so they instead put their faith in a belief that
evolution happened in bursts in small populations. They actually
claim that the punctuation theory predicts that fossils should
be missing!5. Therefore, the punctuationists
core belief is essentially rooted in missing evidence!
Budikka's response to mutation rate problem
Regarding the study6 in the journal
Nature regarding mutation rates that are way to high for man to have evolved
from anything, Budikka replies:
...therefore there must be something wrong with
the figures, or with the study, or with the interpretation.
I agree that there may be something wrong with the study. I emailed Dr
Crow an article I wrote on the problem, and he graciously
responded back saying my methods were valid regarding the reproductive
cost, and acknowledged that it was indeed a "serious problem"
for the theory of evolution (he added that he did not believe it was "fatal"
to the theory, as would be expected due to his commitment to naturalism).
Since there is no apparent problem with the study's peer-reviewed methodology,
the only logical answer is that the study's base assumption that man and
chimp share a common ancestor is flawed.
My article also rebuts Budikka's charge
that the genetic code could not mutate this badly in 6K years. In fact,
the model I used to demonstrate that the high mutation rate supports a
recent creation is almost identical to a model Dr. Crow used in a paper
he sent me which tried to explain how truncation selection could soften
Budikka on Genetics
I read recently that we share 90% of our genes
with mice...that would mean a difference of only about 8,000 genes between
us and them. Creatures like mice existed 65 million years ago. Based on
that difference, it would require only one successful mutation every 8,000
years for one of them to become one of us. I challenge MO to explain,
scientifically, why this is impossible.
Budikka's genetics is incorrect. He is treating genes as singular units
for mutation, where in fact the gene is comprised of many base-pairs in
a specific sequence (the average human gene contains roughly 1500 sequential
base pairs). Mutations occur at the base-pair level, not the gene level.
These base pair sequences can suffer various types of mutation, such as
insertions, deletions, and substitutions (substitutions, or point mutations,
affect a single base-pair; they are by far the most common mutation).
So, if we assume that there is an 8000 gene difference between mice and
men, we may differ up to 12 million base pairs. Note that this is in the
coding portion of the DNA only, which is commonly estimated to be about
3% of the entire genome. There is another 97% of non-coding DNA unaccounted
for (3.8 billion base pairs!). Even if this DNA is useless (which it is
not, as evidence now clearly shows), any differences in this DNA must
still be accounted for because it constitutes a difference that must be
substituted into the population over time So, if we differ from
mice by 10%, this amounts to 400 million base pairs that over 65 million
years must be substituted in. Budikka's own numbers quickly escalate from
1 every 8000 years to 6 per year. This is extremely untenable, for several
1) Information cannot build up by random processes. NeoDarwinists require
beneficial, organism-improving mutations to be random (they require
this because non-random means the information is already present, ie no
upward evolution). Randomness without fail destroys information, it cannot
build it up. Natural selection cannot help because it is a blind
process. Information theory tells us very loud and clear that new information
can only arise in the presence of already-existing information - that
is, from an information Giver7.
2) The renowned geneticist J.B.S. Haldane used very favorable assumptions
to determine that 300 generations are needed just to fix one beneficial
mutation in a population. What this means is that as a new trait is substituted
into a population, eventually over many generations a lot of animals that
do not have the trait have to die off. This puts a reproductive load on
the organism. It needs to reproduce enough to account for 1) offspring
that will not contribute to the gene pool (random death, no mate, etc),
2) those that will not inherit the defect (only 50 percent will inherit
any new substitution, and if the trait is recessive the problem is much
worse), and 3) those that have the trait. The human reproductive cycle
is way too long and produces way too few offspring to pay this enormous
cost8. If there a word for vastly
impossible it would be applicable here.
Budikka's link to a FAQ
at Talk.Origins that he claims addresses Haldane's cost problem does no
such thing. This subject requires much bandwidth to address, so if anyone
would like to see why the Talk.Origins FAQ is impotent, and I will send you my rebuttal to this FAQ. Walter Remine in his
book The Biotic Message
has a great section on Haldane's Dilemma, which also addresses some of
charges made in the T.O. FAQ.
Budikka's genetic strawman
Budikka is passing on a flawed argument from Mark Vuletic's web site, which states:
An example of allele number that directly
contradicts Genesis 1 and 2, is locus HLA-DRB1 - one gene in the human
leukocyte antigen (HLA) complex - which has 59 alleles (Ayala, et
al., 1993, 78). If all humans descended from Adam and Eve, and no
new alleles ever arose though mutation, the current human population
would have at most only 4 alleles at this locus (two from Adam, two
This strawman rears its head on a regular basis, and Budikka even repeats
it later in his post. No creation scientist states that "no new alleles
ever arose through mutation." Of course mutations arise, and of course
a wide variety of alleles can be expressed. The Creator unquestionably
programmed each kind or creature the capability to adapt under various
conditions. But there are clear barriers to variation, that is
why birds remain birds, cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, people remain
people, apes remain apes9.
So the germane question really is whether a new allele represents new
information to the population's gene pool. The creationist says no way,
and there are in fact there are no known mutations that have been demonstrated
to add information at the genetic level10.
I should also note that there is growing evidence that some types of
mutations, including insertions, deletions, and those mysterious transpositions,
appear to be non-random mutations triggered by environmental stimuli!11
(Please don't mistake this for strict Lamarckism, which it is not). The
implication of this is that the capability is already present in the genome,
so the NeoDarwinist cannot claim upward evolution.
Budikka Arkansas syndrome
Regarding my comments on our high mutation rate, Budikka writes:
Very little inbreeding?!! This from a guy who
believes that our 6 billion population came from only eight people (half
of whom from the same gene pool) only 4,300 years ago? Is this a joke?
You completely misunderstand. My assumption of little inbreeding is a
favorable assumption for evolution. Hopefully you realize that
inbreeding hastens the spread of harmful mutations. If I assume
more inbreeding then the problem obviously gets worse for evolution!
Regarding the original population of 8, it is likely they had a much
lower genetic load, so they could more easily overcome the reproductive
cost of "genetic deaths". It is also very likely our gene pool
has lost a fair amount of genetic information over time. Finally, it's
a little ironic that you forget that evolutionists believe our 6 billion
population arose from a handful of small, in-breeding populations!12
Budikka unwittingly illuminates the problem
Since the latest information coming out of the
human genome project supports the contention that some 95% of DNA is noncoding,
most mutations are going to fall into that wasteland and do no harm at
all. 187,500 mutations looks to me like less than .007% of the 3 billion
base pairs How is this a problem even if it's true?
Again you misunderstand. The numbers I used were coding mutations only!
I was not accounting for non-coding DNA, if I did then 10 million years
we wouldn't be a snail, we'd be a piece of slimy dirt! James Crow in his
follow-up article13 to the Nature
study I referenced even acknowledged that disregarding non-coding mutations
gives a rate lower than the true rate.
Budikka's responses to evolution's failed predictions
1. Gradualism in the fossil record has been
Again, why is it so easy to find evolutionists who disagree?14
2. [Lamarckism] was never a part of Darwin's
theory. It was argued against by Darwin himself in "On The Origin...."
Absolutely incorrect. The best refutation comes directly from Darwin
"In every district some one kind of animal will almost certainly
be able to browse higher than the others; and it is almost equally certain
that this one kind alone [giraffe] could have its neck elongated for
this purpose, through natural selection and the effects of increased
of Species, Chapter 7 [emphasis mine]
Confirmation from Britannica:
"Not only Lamarck but also other 19th-century biologists, including
Darwin, accepted the inheritance of acquired traits." 15
3. [recapitulation in embryology] was not a
Biogenetic Law - also called RECAPITULATION THEORY, postulation,
by Ernst Haeckel in 1866, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny--i.e.,
the development of the animal embryo and young traces the evolutionary
development of the species. The theory was influential and much-popularized
earlier but has been of little significance in elucidating either evolution
or embryonic growth.16
Despite the theory being invalidated by the 1920s, it was taught in schools
for another 50 years and still persists among some uninformed evolutionists.17
4. What possible purpose do [sebaceous glands]
have in humans
Sebum helps to form the slightly greasy surface film of the skin;
it thus helps keep the skin flexible and prevents the skin's loss of
absorption of excessive amounts of water18.
So much for another "useless" evolutionary leftover!
5. TBC's failure to address [molecular phylogenies]
in scientific forums refutes MO's claim.
Translation: "I don't have a clue how to refute this, so I'll claim
I've refuted it by saying my opponent hasn't demonstrated it!".
Heck, I'll let evolutionists demonstrate this for me:
"During the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a wide-spread
assumption that taxonomic data from chemical analyses of plants and
animals would suggest classifications similar to those based on anatomical
and morphological data. ... Confidence in [this hypothesis] is now waning."19.
Or consider this recent article in the evolutionist's secular journal
"When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing many
different genes in different organisms, the comparisons proved confounding.
Rather than clarifying the tree that seeks to show how life evolved,
they often produced new trees that differ from the traditional tree
and conflict with each other as well."20.
Budikka continues to perpetuate junk-DNA myth
Regarding an article
I cited, Budikka notes the problem was not the
functioning of an intron, but the fact that defective splicing failed
to remove introns. Here's the part of the article he failed to cite:
"It's also possible that there is an acquired or inherited mutation
in the introns of EAAT2 that gives the wrong cues during the editing process,
Rothstein says." Also, the Britannica reference I previously cited offers
Budikka's only citation to support junk-DNA is from someone completely
outside of his field (Don
Lindsay). I have provided several references from geneticists, including
those from qualified evolutionists, of mutations in the non-coding
region that cause disease. For yet another, widely recognized geneticist
J. Crow confirms the validity of harmful mutations to non-coding DNA13. Its plainly obvious that this stuff isn't
so "junky" if changes to it can cause harm.
Evolutionists were way too quick to label something they didn't understand
as junk, because they believed left-behind "junk" fit nicely
with their theory. I am sure that if they were not so blinded with the
flawed assumption of evolution, they would not have made such an inaccurate
conjecture. Regardless, the ever growing evidence
is undeniable, and many scientists are now tossing "junk" DNA
on the trash heap of urban legend. Hopefully Budikka will come to realize
this soon, as it does no good to continue to perpetuate a myth. Even many
secular government and college web sites I've checked that provide genetic
information and tutorials no longer refer to introns as "junk".
...he must also agree that humans and chimpanzees
are the same kind, because there is less genetic difference between humans
and chimpanzees than there is between the two vireos or between the two
elephants (see "Next of Kin" by Roger Fouts, Avon Books, 1997).
There are several very good reasons to chalk this one off as another
1) We are far from sequencing all the afore-mentioned genomes (at least
3 years more for the human, with the others lagging much farther behind),
so to make such a preliminary claim is bound to be founded in philosophy
and not science. In fact such a ludicrous extrapolation would be laughed
out of reverse-engineering circles.
2) Even after we have fully sequenced the human, elephant, and vireo,
we will still have a long ways to go in understanding all the complex
interactions and intricacies of the genome and its cell counterparts;
the non-coding area alone is still a huge mystery (estimated to be between
67 and 97% of the human genome).
3) The book Budikka cites was written by a primatologist, not a geneticist.
Again Budikka cites someone outside his field. He also failed to provide
a page number, making it very difficult to verify his claim (its a 420
Budikka on plants & information
Plants often speciate by polyploidy - which
is an increase of available information, refuting creationist claims that
information cannot increase...a single gene mutation created a 50% reproductive
advantage in Monkeyflowers.
Polyploidy is a doubling of chromosomes in plants, which may result in
a new "species" since the plant can't interbreed with its parent
species. But simply duplicating already existing information is not an
"increase in available information"any more than if you were
handed two identical dictionaries. Regarding the monkeyflower, the study
he cites suggests that minor changes to a few select genes make a significant
difference in pollinators' responses. Such a wide discrepancy clearly
argues that we are really dealing with a "switch" that enables
or disables already existing information. The onus is on evolutionists
to show that the enabled information was novel and had previously accumulated
by random mutations, something they have been unable to do.
Budikka on out-of-place fossils
The [Laetoli] footprint size certainly was not
Again the evidence does not support Budikka's claim. Note what a specialist
had to say:
"In discernible features, the Laetoli G footprints are indistinguishable
from those of habitually barefoot Homo sapiens 21
He then added:
"(If the) footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily
conclude that they were made by a member of our genus"
So again we have the theory determining the evidence, instead of the
evidence determining the theory. This is the epitome of evolution "science"!
Note a similar reaction to the out-of-place Kanopoi elbow:
The humeral fragment from Kanapoi, with a date of about 4.4 million,
could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by
multivariable analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967...We suggested
that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation
to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one
without the time element."22
Amidst all this contradictory evidence, Budikka tries to find a way out
by asking: why cannot an ancestor of a human have a human elbow and foot?!!
This is surely a desperate attempt around the problem, since there is
absolutely no evidence that this is true. In fact, these extinct apes
the evolutionists dig up and try to put on the human ancestral line have
clear ape-like characteristics among all its limbs, including the feet
Budikka continues his something-from-nothing fairytale
Budikka continues to claim there is evidence that the 1st
Law of Thermodynamics, a law Albert Einstein claimed was the most proven
in all of science, has somehow been violated with particle physics. He
cited The Physics of Star Trek" by Lawrence Krauss, but *again* failed
to provide any page numbers so that we can attempt to verify his claim.
He also *again* cites a non-scientist outside his field (Mark Vuletic,
M.A. in philosophy) who we noted earlier made some fundamental mistakes
Since I have little background in particle physics, I would like to use
a critique of Vuletic's comments emailed to me with permission by Physical
Chemist Jonathan Barnes.
Vuletic: The uncertainty principle implies
that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even
when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are
created from uncertainties in energy.
Barnes: "The first sentence is untrue while the second is
true. Moreover, the first does not logically follow from the second
as he presents them. When we say that particles are created by uncertainties
in energy, that does not mean from energy that is not there or that
it does not exist. It means rather that the total amount of energy
a given system is uncertain and so particles that are not expected
are created sometimes when there is enough (unknown) energy to create
Barnes also noted that Vuletic's excerpt above was cited from a non-scientist
Budikka's numbers game
I count 19 challenges to MO in my last post.
He has effectively answered none, despite being asked twice in some instances.
It was just a matter of time before Buddika invoked the ploy of illusion
with numbers. After the above claim of 19 unanswered challenges, he then
goes on to list 32 items (which is really 31 due to misnumbering; reminds
me of the saying that there are three kinds of people in the world, those
who can count, and those who can't! OK I digress!). Looking at the list,
one frankly wonders how much of my previous posts he read, since I addressed
almost every item he cited. What is more likely the case is that he did
not like my answers. So, it would be entirely appropriate everywhere you
find a sentence beginning with "Failed to...", to replace it
with "Failed to give me an answer I like."
Other problems with the list include items that are poorly disguised
duplicates (see 17, 18 & 32). A couple more I have answered twice,
such as the importance of most viruses
(the bad ones are deteriorated mutants). Others are question begging or
circular reasoning (7, 8, 13, etc). Several more are attacks against what
he labels an "ignorant & primitive" Bible, a topic that
is outside of the scope of this debate (nevertheless, here is a good site
refuting Bible Contradictions;
also see my chapter on Bible Transmission
that refutes Budikka's erroneous claim that the Bible was handed down
Others are wild speculation he has no evidence for, but somehow expects
the creationist to disprove! For example:
31. Failed to demonstrate why something akin
to an ordinary squirrel could not, over the course of time, grow flaps
between its fore and hind limbs which demonstrably contribute to gliding
Since Budikka didn't like my NASA answer,
I'll leave him with this:
If one practices hard enough you can believe
six impossible things before breakfast- Red
Queen, Alice in Wonderland.
I think any reasonable person following the debate, whether they agree
with my position or not, recognizes how silly and frivolous Budikka's
CLOSING ARGUMENT: Calling Budikka back to
the Witness Stand
I have been debating creation/evolution for some time now, and can safely
say Budikka's views are very representative of the evolutionary community.
Budikka's testimony therefore serves as a good representation of mainstream
In my last post, I challenged Budikka to give his three best evidences
for evolution. He felt I was "setting him up", but I can honestly
say I was not plotting some grand scheme. It's a question I've asked before
in internet discussions with evolutionists, because the answers are very
revealing as to the quality of the evidence for the theory of evolution.
If evolution is such an established fact, then it should not be difficult
for evolutionists to quickly reel off the top evidences for it. But what
often happens when you ask this question, especially in person and on
the spot, is a spree of all kinds of hemming and hawing! The answers you
get often include out-of-date evidences that have long since been disproved,
such as the gill slit and tail bone fallacies. But in Budikka's case he
has plenty of time to think about it. So why did he show such an uneasiness
that I was up to some ploy? If evolution is so easily defended, you would
think that nothing would make them uneasy about defending the theory,
especially when asked to produce just three evidences for it.
Let's now consider Budikka's top choices:
#1 The fossil record.
For some reason, instead of offering any fossil evidence, Budikka immediately
begins by claiming a global flood did not occur! I asked for evidence
of evolution, and I get an argument against a global flood! Budikka really
has it out for the Bible. Anyway, what is truly ironic is the fact that
fossils by their very existence cry out for some kind of catastrophe involving
water, since most fossils require rapid burial in sediment!
To be fair, in other parts of this debate Budikka did attempt to provide
fossil evidence for evolution. But in my challenge to him to find evidence
for intermediates to the complex invertebrates that the reader could confirm
on the internet, he was unable to offer any. This
is where the fossils are most abundant, in fact it constitutes 95% of
the record and we have now catalogued over 200,000 species. You would
think with the numerous soft-shelled fossils we have unearthed in the
strata beneath the Cambrian, we would find plenty of examples of ancestors
to the complex invertebrates which our evolutionist friends would have
plastered all over the internet. But we don't find any. Where did they
all go? Are we really this unlucky that such an enormous group simply
didn't fossilize, while billions upon billions of their descendants did?
Or is it the more reasonable answer that evolution is simply not true?
When I pointed out to Budikka that "many
evolutionists acknowledge that there is no evidence of evolution among
the invertebrates", he replied that this was "another unsupported assertion." What better
support can I offer than a quote from a book hot off the presses, that
I had cited in my 2nd post:
"...This observation suggests that animals of staggering complexity
appeared on Earth without evolutionary precursors. It is as though
an orchestra began playing without sounding a single tone to tune
Also recall Budikka's adamant defense of the bird-dino link, despite
several prominent bird experts equating this hypothesis to "paleobabble"
Additionally, why is it so easy to find evolutionists who admit the fossil
record does not show gradualism? In this debate I have cited quote after
quote from evolutionists who have acknowledged this failure. Here is yet
another from a prominent evolutionist:
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction
between Darwin's postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings
So, Budikka's first choice right out of the gate is one that many evolutionists
themselves struggle to justify as reasonable evidence for evolution!
#2 The DNA Record
Immediately Budikka again refers to "junk" DNA as evidence
of evolution, but this has already been refuted and is quickly becoming
urban legend. It is this false assumption that led Budikka to the strawman
argument where he asks creationists to explain "800,000 introns since
Adam". Since introns are not junk, creationists expect that
most introns were already in Adam's original genome.
Another problem with Budikka's 2nd choice is that again we
can easily find evolutionists who recognize this as evidence against
naturalistic origins. Since DNA is a very complex code, information theory
tells us it requires an information Giver. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer
of DNA, was so moved by the unexpected complexity of the DNA code that
he abandoned Neodarwinism in search of another answer. But because of
his commitment to naturalism and unwillingness to accept a higher Authority
for whom he would be accountable to, he opted for "panspermia",
the belief that life was seeded on earth from outerspace!25
#3 Meteorite impacts
I must say this was an interesting choice as one of Budikka's top three,
since it is hardly direct evidence for evolution! Instead it is evidence
(allegedly) for an old moon, and hence an old earth, which is required
by evolution. He then speculates that the earth must have many craters
as well, but admits erosion has "hidden" the evidence. So his
indirect evidence is hidden! This "evidence" ought to fit right
in with the punctuated equilibrium theory, which finds its roots
in missing fossil evidence!
(Irregardless of the fact that #3 is not evidence for evolution, a discussion
of moon craters from a recent creation perspective can be found here)
I hope this debate has demonstrated to the objective reader that when
one tries try to defend a theory so full of holes, their best imaginable
evidence ends up being imaginary. As I mentioned earlier, Budikka is well-versed
in the theory, yet he could not provide a single compelling evidence for
evolution when provided the opportunity. Evolutionists invariably provide
the best witness to the inescapable truth that the theory of evolution
1) founded on wild conjecture and just-so stories
2) so plastic it can accommodate any evidence, no matter how contradictory
3) propped up by misleading illusions, such as the ever-shifting meaning
These truths simply render the theory as unscientific. In reality it
deserves no better status than that of low-grade hypothesis. It truly
is a travesty that evolution is portrayed as fact through the media and
in our schools. Malcolm Muggeridge once wrote: "I myself am convinced
that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which its been
applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future".
The sooner this joke is exposed, the better!
Some 200 years ago, William Paley argued that if you found a watch in
the desert, you would not think for a moment it came about by some natural,
chance process. He asked how one could so easily recognize that a watch
requires a watchmaker, yet believe that vastly more complex organisms
could come about by sheer blind chance. He made this argument long before
we knew about the amazing complexity of the cell, and the programming
code in the DNA that absolutely demands a Programmer. Paley's argument
from design is as unshakable now as it was then.
In a last bit of irony, Budikka's closing argument is an argument from
design! His murder scene can only be solved by identifying patterns that
are not the result of random chance, but show intelligence. He
claimed I failed to show creation as "science", yet he just
used the same scientific method I argued for in my opening post for creation, and used by William Paley
two centuries ago!
I again extend my gratitude to Budikka for his time and effort in participating
in this debate, and to you for taking the time to read this debate.
Return to Debate Table
1 - National Geographic
2 - R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker,
3 - D-G. Shu, et al., Lower Cambrian
vertebrates from south China, Nature 402, pp 42-46 (1999)
4 - Fazale R. Rana, Cambrian Flash
5 - Note this statement by S. Gould in
Evolution as Fact & Theory, 1984, 'Montagu', p 123: "Niles
Eldredge and I ... argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record
-- geologically 'sudden' origin of new species and failure to change thereafter
(stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections
of the fossil record" (as cited from Remine, 'The Biotic Message',
6 - Peter D. Keightley;
Adam Eyre-Walker; Nature, Volume 397 Number 6717 Page 344 - 347
7 - This refers to specified
8 - See my online
article, or W. Remine's The
Biotic Message, ch. 8, or this online discussion.
9 - See discussion of organism barriers in previous post.
10 - Lee Spetner, Not
By Chance!, 1998, p 138
11 - Ibid., chapter 7. Also see Long-McGie
J, et al., Rapid in vivo evolution of a beta-lactamase using phagemids,
Biotechnol Bioeng 2000 Apr 5;68(1):121-5
12 - Daughters
of Eve, ABCNEWS.com, 4/21/2000
13 - J. Crow, "The odds of losing
at genetic roulette", Nature 397, p 293 - 294.
14 - I've cited quite a few throughout
this debate, here's more.
15 - "heredity"
Encyclopędia Britannica Online.
16 - "biogenetic law"
Encyclopędia Britannica Online.
17 - S. Gould, Onteogeny and Phylogeny,
1977, p 1
18 - "sebaceous gland"
Encyclopędia Britannica Online.
19 - Harris & Bisby, Classification
from Chemical Data, 1980, p305-306, as cited in W. Remine, The
Biotic Message, p. 399
20 - E. Pennisi Science 1999 May 21;
21 - As cited by M. Lubenow, Bones
of Contention, 1992, p. 174
22 - W. Howells, "Homo erectus
in human descent: ideas and problems" Homo erectus: Papers in
Honor of Davidson Black, B. Sigmon and J.. Cybulski, eds., 1981 p. 79-80.
23 - ICR Interview of Dr.
Charles Oxnard in 1996.
24 - E. Mayr, ne Long Argument:
Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991,
25 - See ICR Impacts 111 & 180.