C: “If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?” If you read my last article, or anything that explains what evolution actually is, and still don’t know the answer to this question then just give up on ever doing anything involving brain cells.
C: “There are no mutations in which genetic information is actually added!” This is a very common one I hear and it is completely wrong! There are numerous examples of duplications, unhindered replications, and mRNA additions that cause a gain of genetic material. Any “scientist” who tells you otherwise probably bought his degree off ebay.
C: “All mutations are harmful.” This is a misunderstood one. Not all mutations are harmful. In fact, some are beneficial. If you have one copy of the sickle-cell anemia allele you actually will live a long, healthy life and will still be immune to malaria. The sickle-cell allele resulted from a mutation in the gene that codes for normal red blood cell shape/structure.
C: “There is no way for a one celled organism to go to a two celled organism.” This is actually a good argument. We literally have no knowledge of a way in which a one celled organism can go into a two celled organism. At least not that I’m aware of. Two cells working in conjugation with each-other is not “uncommon” per-say. But at what point would the two celled organism learn to reproduce into another two-celled organism? This one is nearly impossible to explain. This is one of the few good arguments.
C: “Why are there male and female?” This is about the only other good argument against evolution I can think of off the top of my head, and this one is strong enough for me to not believe in it. Asexual reproduction results in less deleterious mutations, you have nearly a 100% chance of passing your genetic code on to the next generation, and you completely avoid inbreeding depression. There is absolutely no reason an organism would have a good, environmentally selected reason to evolve separate male and female reproductive organs.
C: “Evolution breaks the laws of thermodynamics.” Basically one of the laws of thermodynamics states that systems tend to lead towards disorder as oppose to order. So some creationists say that a single-celled organism becoming a more complex organism breaks this law. This isn’t true. In fact it’s quite the opposite. The inside of us humans is far more complex, and thus one could argue, more disordered than any amoeba could ever be.
C: “There is lack of missing links.” This one can be argued either way depending on how you look at the evidence.
E: “Vestigial organs prove evolution!” This is actually not true. Most organs we consider “vestigial” actually serve significant purposes. The appendix helps to break down starches, the coccyx is a major attachment point for many muscles, wisdom teeth held chew food….like any other tooth, and body hair still helps to regulate our body temperature by keeping our pores open.
E: “Who created God, if God created the world?” I hear this argument a lot and it’s stupid. A creationist can just as easily ask “who created the universe from which the molecules which created the universe were created from by creation?” I mean seriously, no matter what you believe you have to believe something was here first, plain and simple.
E: “Small changes over time cause large changes.” This comment is frequently followed by “you idiot,” when actually they’re the ones who are fools. You see, there is a limit to how much something can change. This is observable in everything. Race horses have been bred for their best attributes for year, and yet they haven’t gotten any faster in a while. This is because of what is called a “selection limit.” The selection limit is the magnitude to which a quantitative trait (anything that can be measured, such as height, weight, length, sixe of nose, speed, etcetera) can be magnified or reduced. Nobody is really 100% sure why it exists, but it seems to on every organism in some form.
E: “Bigfoot proves evolution.” Believe it or not I’ve heard this argument. The reasonable reply is: “And the Loch Ness monster proves it isn’t happening.”
E: “There is no evidence of a world-wide flood, thus the Bible is a lie.” Personally I feel that if you read everything in the Bible with a literal eye you will misinterpret everything. You have to think, the “world” at the time consisted only of the Middle East and North Africa. So world-wide by today’s standards is different from then.
Any other arguments you wish to discuss, leave them in the comments. Give me your input on these while you’re at it.
