WTEL 5

Where the Evidence leads episode 5. In this show Paul and I are joined by popular YouTube personality DonExodus2. We will be discussing David Klinghoffer's article about Darwin as found on the Huffington Post. We'll also answer some of the criticisms of evolution as found on http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#Introduction. SPecifically we'll be answering the following criticisms of evolution: 1. Mutations only remove information rather than add information. 2. Mutations are always negative and would never make the recipient of said mutation more likely to procreate. 3. Mutations are too rare to have any real impact upon as pecies. 4. Most organs and biological features are far to complex to be the result of random mutations. (Irreducible complicity). 5. The Cambrian Explosion itself disproves the notion that life evolves slowly. In the span of 20 million years we witnessed the development of most complex life forms; where prior all life were simple single celled lifeforms. 6. No single mutation could possibly give a species any discernible advantage. 7. Punctuated equilibrium has been demonstrated to be impossible. 8. DNA or RNA could never randomly come into existence. Life could never have formed without a designer. (note: not related to evolution a common tactic) 9. The second law of thermo dynamics means that life is impossible. 10. The sun is not enough to overcome entropy. “Raw energy from the sun, if not for the ability of living things to convert it to useful energy such as sugars, proteins etc. would be a destroyer of life. In many of the scenarios of primitive life the UV radiation is looked as the driver of the mutations need for evolution, but it conversely would destroy the organism as well if not protected. In fact the mutation rate being very slow and the energy being very fast the destruction would be very many times faster than the creation. Raw energy from the sun, cannot create the specified complexity needed for life. It can only cause complexity to be lost in mutations. In the labs scientists use sophisticated equipment to polymerize proteins in the right way. If sunlight were to enter this process it would destroy the proteins.” ( from http://www.evanwiggs.com) (note: sounds like his conclusions are mere assertions to me). 11. The Big Bang is false. (note: not related to evolution). 12. “The fossil record does not show an increasing complexity. Evolutionist Dan McShea of the University of Michigan had approached this question in a detailed study of the backbones of creatures that evolutionists believe represent ancestor – descendant pairs. He wanted to see if the ‘descendant’ was more complex than the ‘ancestor’ on the average for each case. What he found was no trend at all. Other scientists studied the shells of ammonoids, a spiral shelled creature, to see if apparently related types got more complex higher in the rock strata and found there was absolutely no trend. Creationists would expect this result of these studies. McShea said: “Everybody knows that organisms get more complex as they evolve. The only trouble with what everyone knows is that there is no evidence it’s true" (http://www.evanwiggs.com/) (note: this argument contradicts the claims about the Cambrian Explosion about the rate at which life simple to complex.) 13. Where are the transitional fossils? 14. The theories regaurding Bird evolution are fabrications. • Archaeopteryx, which has been shown as a fully formed bird has been dated as evolving before many of the dinosaurs with allegedly primitive feathers. • The Archaeoraptor hoax from China in 1999 caused a cloud of “faked fossil’ that hangs over everything coming out of China. (note: a single incident of fraud completely discredits all subsequent claims? Wonder if he would apply this same standard to Christianity?) • Scale cells could never have evolved into feather cells. Music by Kevin McLeod at http://incompetech.com/