Someone I won’t bother naming did an anti-evolution blog with the above title and I guess I’m bored enough to refute it so here goes.
“Arguments that destroy the Theory of Evolution are found in the areas of simple reason, science and mathematics.”
Emphasis on simple.
“1. Evolution doesn’t make sense. Why would Mother Nature evolve a creature who has the power to destroy Mother Nature herself?”
Setting aside that the theory of evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with personifying or attributing conscious intelligence to nature, mankind doesn’t remotely have the power to destroy mother nature. Mother nature would be the universe which we can’t even begin to dream of blowing up, and even if we ignore everything but our tiny planet we no more have the capacity to destroy it even with our combined nuclear arsenals than a child has the capacity to blow up a sidewalk with fire crackers. There have been meteor impacts on earth that have released more energy in a single blast than all our nukes combined.
“I mean how sane could Mother Nature be to evolve the only creature who doesn’t have a niche, or if that creature disappeared it would have no significant impact on any other niche on the planet.”
Our species disappearing would effect many if not every species, directly or indirectly, especially domesticated species, bacteria which exist only in our digestive tracts, parasites that exclusively feed on us etc. Sudden disappearance of humans would also effect the average global temperature and in turn weather systems etc. Just because you don’t know of the impacts it would have doesn’t give you license to pretend there wouldn’t be any.
“In short, why would Mother Nature evolve a creature that’s unnatural?”
Meaningless term, circular reasoning. We didn’t evolve therefore we’re unnatural therefore we didn’t evolve.
“2. Science has not proven evolution as a model for all life on Earth. Yes, evolution works for microscopic bugs but that’s about all.”
No it’s been demonstrated that mutations and natural (and artificial) selection work in animals as well. Any why on earth wouldn’t they? All the same mechanisms are present in both, we both are based on DNA which mutates causing variations which are then inhereted at different frequencies due to their impact on our rate of survival and/or reproduction. The process is just easier to observe in species that reproduce quickly because then it is easier to observe multiple generations, but we’ve been using similar principles to modify plants and animals for thousands of years and we know they are just as malleable. These are both adults of the same species:
That life doesn’t vary and that natural selection wouldn’t function for an animal are both nonsense. I don’t even have to get into ERV’s and ring species and all the examples of human evolution etc.
“It is completely unscientific to generalize the Theory of Evolution for all of life when it has only been shown to work on viruses and bacteria.”
The theory was developed to explain why turtles and finches had the characteristics they have. And subsequent studies actually tracked the evolution of those finches in real time. Whatever.
“3. When scientists do the math, the math says that random evolution is impossible. There simply isn’t enough time in the universe for life or anything else to have evolved randomly.”
I’ve never found anti-evolution “math” that reflected how evolution actually works, usually it relies on the assumption that every slight incremental change requires 99.9% of the population to be wiped out and repopulated, which is only true of certain types of microbes and ignores the fact that sexual reproduction or any kind of gene transfer (as countless single-celled organisms have too) completely changes this and allows natural selection to function gradually over time in a population selecting for not just one variation at a time but countless ones within the same population without the population needing to even decline.
“If you’d like an example just ask.”
No thanks, I’ve heard of haldane’s dilemma before.
“Why is it that people are called trolls and other nasty names for destroying such pet hoaxes as global warming, renewable energy, and evolution?”
Because it’s the internet, people are called nasty names for throwing their hat into any discussion. But especially if they’ve trolled xanga for years like some people.