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 ofsaid 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 theresult of random mutations. (Irreducible complicity).5. The Cambrian Explosion itself disproves the notion that lifeevolves slowly. In the span of 20 million years we witnessed thedevelopment of most complex life forms; where prior all life were simple single celled lifeforms.6. No single mutation could possibly give a species any discernibleadvantage.7. Punctuated equilibrium has been demonstrated to be impossible.8. DNA or RNA could never randomly come into existence. Life couldnever 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 thesun, if not for the ability of living things to convert it to usefulenergy such as sugars, proteins etc. would be a destroyer of life. In many of the scenarios of primitive life the UV radiation is looked asthe driver of the mutations need for evolution, but it converselywould destroy the organism as well if not protected. In fact themutation rate being very slow and the energy being very fast thedestruction would be very many times faster than the creation. Rawenergy from the sun, cannot create the specified complexity needed forlife. It can only cause complexity to be lost in mutations. In thelabs scientists use sophisticated equipment to polymerize proteins inthe right way. If sunlight were to enter this process it woulddestroy the proteins.” ( from http://www.evanwiggs.com) (note: soundslike 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 approachedthis question in a detailed study of the backbones of creatures that evolutionists believe represent ancestor – descendant pairs. He wantedto see if the ‘descendant’ was more complex than the ‘ancestor’ on theaverage for each case. What he found was no trend at all. Otherscientists studied the shells of ammonoids, a spiral shelled creature,to see if apparently related types got more complex higher in the rockstrata and found there was absolutely no trend. Creationists wouldexpect this result of these studies. McShea said: “Everybody knowsthat organisms get more complex as they evolve. The only trouble withwhat everyone knows is that there is no evidence it’s true" (http://www.evanwiggs.com/) (note: this argument contradicts the claimsabout the Cambrian Explosion about the rate at which life simple tocomplex.)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 beendated as evolving before many of the dinosaurs with allegedlyprimitive feathers.• The Archaeoraptor hoax from China in 1999 caused a cloud of “fakedfossil’ that hangs over everything coming out of China. (note: asingle 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/