This page is dedicated to posts that explore the weaknesses of Darwinism [Macroevolution]. The term “Darwin’s Dyke” comes from the observation that no matter how many holes form in their theory, they seem oblivious to the fact that they cannot forever hope to stem the flow with rhetoric and dogmatically insulating their theory from criticism.
- Independence Day: the antiDarwin Day – Happy Independence Day, Darwinists! Now have an independent thought!
- Why Darwinists Argue – The pointlessness of the arguments of atheistic science versus the noble duty of theistic argument. Origins chapter 6 discussed briefly: Darwin’s argument from ignorance.
- Why Do Darwinists Bother Arguing? A shorter version of this argument.
- Building on a Cracked Foundation: Darwin in light of the Kant’s demise – The danger of capitulating to a scientific fad. Darwin’s weakness in light of the time limits set by a finite universe.
- No Arguments Here – Straw Man [Evolution as Fact AND Theory] Rebutted
- Similar Simian Simpletons: Why the Darwinian Argument from Homology Fails – G.K. Chesterton comments on the argument from homology.
- Taking on TalkOrigins: Evolution IS an Unfalsifiable Tautology – Debunking a well-known list [and then some] of alleged ways evolution might be falsified. None of them make the cut.
- The Moral Implications of Darwinism: Why Does Natural Selection Seem So Unnatural To Us Morally? – A philosophical examination of the contradiction of antiDarwinian morality.
- Transitional Forms: Dinosaurs & Bunny Rabbits, or Why the Speculative Nature of Darwinsim Makes It Unfalsifiable – More on why Darwinism is an Unfalsifiable Tautology
- Why Naturalism makes Darwin Unfalsifiable – Another Reason Darwinism is Unfalsifiable
- There Is No Science But Naturalism & Darwin Is Its Prophet! – Why stifling Scientific and Academic Freedom by excluding the consideration of Intelligent Design [the message of Ben Stein’s Expelled] is both Unscientific and Irrational. No one has yet successfully refuted these logical propositions.
- Darwin’s Dyke: Monkeys and Their Typewriters – Exposing the weakness of Infinite Monkey Theorem, including Dawkins’ “weasel shakespeare” proposal.
- Darwin’s Dyke: So Much Depends On Evolution: On Philadelphia’s Year of Evolution, Darwin Day & the New Desperation of Darwinism – Why pretty much nothing depends on Darwinism. Hey, is that Emperor naked???!?
- Darwin’s Dyke: What the Fossil Record Actually Shows – Showing why the fossil record is actually better evidence of Biblical Catastrophism than the Old Earth Evolutionary view we’ve been shown on those lovely, but misleading charts. This is probably the single most viewed article on this site.
- Darwin’s Dyke: The Lobster’s Ear – Who told lobsters they needed to do this? And how did they survive until they figured it out? More evidence of the Intelligent Designer.
- If Evolutionists Were Smart… – If Darwin’s theory is so ironclad, why do they resort to these cheap tactics instead of just presenting their evidence?
- If Evolutionists Were Smart… Redux – Just a reminder that none of the many trolls who commented regarding the original post ever answered the main point!
- Darwin as Pseudoscience – Evolutionists sometimes accuse Creationism of being a pseudoscience, but what if we hold evolutionism to the same standards it critiques others by?
- Scientific American’s January 2009 Darwin Propaganda issue Debunked – Ian Juby did a wonderful job of debunking this ‘Evolution of Evolution’ issue. It’s amazing what sort of Evo of the Gaps fairy tales these evos imagineer in the absence of evidential support.
- The Evolving Post-darwin Evolutionism: Part 1 – Darwin’s Glass Chin – Part one of this three-part series examines the evolving tactics of evolutionists, notably their shift from evidence-based debate to mockery, parroted dogma and personality cults.
- The Evolving Post-darwin Evolutionism: Part 2 – Climbing Mount Absurdity – Part two of this series examines why the Post-Modern Synthesis was necessary to begin with and why the theory requires further modification if it is to avoid being falsified.
- The Evolving Post-darwin Evolutionism: Part 3 – The Emperor’s New Evolution – The final part of this series explores what I think the New Evolution must look like.
- Deflating Dobzhansky’s Grand Assumption, or Why Microevolution Does Not Lead To Macroevolution – Why “small changes” do not lead to “big changes.” Why speciation is not microbes-to-man evolution.
- Deflating Dobzhanky’s Grand Assumption Revisited: Is the Assumption Still Necessary? – Why the answer to this question is a resounding YES!
- Is Stephen Hawking’s new Book Science or Science Fiction? – In The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking leaves us with evolutionary Just-so stories better suited for science fiction.
- Vestigial Arguments: Begging the Question for Darwin – A look at so-called vestigial structures and organs, a commonly cited proof of microbes-to-man evolution.
- Does Whale Evolution Hold Water? – A look at the flaws in one of evolution’s most famous Just So Fish Stories.
12 Comments Add yours
Dude. Darwinism is a theory, just like gravitation. If you don’t like the theory of gravity, then go walk of a cliff.
Note that Darwin’s theory of evolution has stood up to 150 years of scientific theory. It is still their. Yes it has got ‘gaps’ but any good theory has. At least we don’t pretend to know everything. Has creationism stood up to 150 years of scientific testing? I think not!
There’s a post by a fellow blogger on this very subject that you reeeeeeeeally ought to read before you go repeating this absurd comparison between gravity and evolution. It’s called Evolution & Gravity.
Two comments to that blog stand out and sum up your problem:
It is not an absurd comparison.
I was trying to point out that it is ABSURD that people quote ‘evolution is just a theory’ as if it was a bad thing.
I did read that article. It was… Interesting.
The similarities between chimpanzee and man are quite similiar because… maybe they evolved from the same common ancestor! a theory that has been tested.
If we all have the same common ancestor, then we should all have the same number of chromosomes (chimps, humans, etc.).
They did genetic testing and saw that the 3 other species had 24 chromosomes, but we only had 23.
HOWEVER, further testing showed that chromosome 2 had merged with another chromosome.
Which means that we did share a common ancestor.
This is their proof for evolution.
Another thing people don’t seem to get is how slowly evolution occurs. Almost no-one can truly imagine it. Can you imagine even 10000 years ago?
Evolution theory is quite well established.
However, it is being frequently updated to suit new evidence.
We don’t need more proof that the earth orbits the sun because we have without a doubt, proven it, and everyone believes it.
The theory of evolution is still being constantly worked on.
I will leave you with this comment:
CREATIONISM: BECAUSE GOAT HERDERS 3,000 YEARS AGO NO MORE ABOUT SCIENCE THEN WE DO.
I probably should read more of your work, but be teeth would probably be reduced to a third of their original size through constant gnashing. I enjoy a good debate, and from they way you responded, i’m sure you do as well.
Firstly, that ‘goatherder’ thing was just a joke, ok? I know that their were advanced civilizations at the time. However they were (from archeological evidence) nowhere near as advanced are we are currently. I am also pretty sure the jews weren’t given the bible by god. It wasn’t sent down by fax from heaven, it was the product of man. If you look at the god in the old testament, he is a reflection of man at the time. Sexist, genocidal, homophobic, etc. In case you haven’t realised already, I’m an Atheist, therefore, in my books, god can’t exist, and therefore him knowing more about science isn’t the true (or as you put it ‘tue’-just a typo I’m sure) analogy.
By constantly worked on, i don’t mean ‘propped up’ or hastily repaired ad hoc’; I am quite clearly saying, like all scientific theories (I don’t count creationism as one) the theory of evolution is being updated and refined because of incoming data. That’s the thing about science; we don’t pretend to know everything. We don’t say ‘one answer fits all’. We do tests on a theory, and if something happens that doesn’t support it, we record it, try it again, etc. and if necessary, update the theory.
We can find evidence for ‘Macroevolution’. Paleontologists have found many animals that are ‘transitional’; animals that are a bridge between one group of species and another. Archeopteryx, Homo Erectus, Tiktalik, etc. are examples of these. A theory the accounts for everything, obviously does explain everything. But what do you define by everything? do you mean all animals on this planet, or everything in the universe?
As for the genetic testing on the monkeys and humans, i did mean that the 3 species of apes that supposedly share common ancestry all have 24 chromosomes each-thanks for clarifying. Please don’t do what you did with the rest of the section though. It was not needed. The hypothesis was that if we all had a common ancestor (chimps, orangutans, gorillas and humans) then we should all have the same number of chromosomes. The result was that humans only had 23, were as all the others had 24. The scientists then tested another hypothesis, and found that chromosome no.2 had merged with another. This is evidence, and it is quite valuable evidence. You cannot use hearsay as scientific evidence, because it is not ’empirical evidence’.
I hope i have covered everything worth covering. Please don’t edit what i write though, because it is written so everything meshes nicely. Write a reply, and quote what i say.
I have also read your rules on commenting. I will abstain from insults and likewise because this argument could get interesting.
Chromosome research, wonderful! Yes, of course monkeys have 24 and we vastly superior humans have 23! Of course two merged! Wait, chromosomes are part of genetics and genetically we are 99 percent like monkeys, and also 90 percent like a banana. Does this mean we evolved from a banana? If it saves evolution we did!
Please excuse any grammatical errors in the theretical text and have an independant thought
Genetically, you have 120 differences from your father and 450 differences from your nephew. Does this mean you are descended from your nephew?
Same flawed logic.
Actually, evolutionists trump up their number when they claim we share 98 to 99% similarity with chimpanzees. Here’s a good ICR.org article that exposes the flawed research and logic that goes into such inflated claims:
Hello Mr. Science Denier.
I thought this was an interesting question:
“This is a dead giveaway that a theory is in trouble. Evolutionary theory is supposed to be as well established as the fact that the earth orbits the sun. When was the last time you saw an article touting further evidence that the earth orbits the sun?”
There’s much more evidence for evolution than for the idea our planet circles our star. And that evidence is still growing. It grows every time molecular biologists compare DNA sequences of two different species and they do this every day.
To help you understand please read this quote from PZ:
My point here is that there is an incredible amount of evidence for evolution, far more than any one person can digest, and that it is a vital field, still growing and still producing new results. All those papers don’t get published unless they contain some new observation, a new experiment, a new test of the idea…and evolution has weathered them all.
— PZ Myers http://tinyurl.com/6qn3gm
Evolution is the strongest basic fact of science. It has more evidence than any other scientific concept. It is the foundation of biology. It is the most important fact of science.
But you (and a few million other non-scientists including all the world’s terrorists) deny it anyway. To me that’s extremely interesting. The USA is unique because it has a higher percentage of evolution deniers than any other advanced country. It’s no coincidence that America is also the most religious country of the Western world. Always the reason for the denial of the massive amount of evidence for evolution is because of the religious implications. Evolution makes the Christian death cult ridiculous. If we are just apes descended from ancient apes (a basic fact of nature) then the cowardly childish idiotic heaven fantasy makes no sense. If evolution is true (it’s true) then what do we need a magic god fairy for? It’s obvious Darwin killed God, and it’s obvious the thousands of biologists who came after Darwin and who have made evolution stronger than ever have killed your fairy even more.
If a scientific fact kills the cowardly heaven fantasy, what would cowards do? They would just deny the scientific fact. Also, like you, they would make absolutely no effort to study or understand what they’re denying.
You might be surprised to know I am a bit grateful to evolution deniers for one thing. I always knew evolution made sense, especially when compared to the childish religious alternative (a god fairy made every creature out of nothing, an idea only insane people could believe). When I found out there’s millions of these crazy people I wanted to explain to them why they are wrong. But first to do that I wanted to know everything I could about the subject. So I used the internet to research evolution. I read some excellent books about the subject. I made my own observations in museums and in forests.
When I learned a few things about the molecular evidence I was shocked. This stuff was so extraordinarily powerful I didn’t think anyone could deny it. I was wrong. I found out evidence is meaningless to an evolution denier. They are not interested in understanding any scientific evidence. They are only interested in lying about evidence to defend their dead Jeebus.
I write these comments not just for you to censor. I also put this on my blog at darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com Otherwise I would be just wasting my time because it’s obvious you will never bother to understand anything I wrote.
I am obviously not a science denier. I only deny microbes-to-man evolution. Creation, not evolution, is actually foundational to science.
I’m aware of PZ’s article. I did not find it as awe-inspiring as you did. Would you like to know why? Because he never says what he manes by evolution. Does he mean the sort of observable, horizontal change [e.g., speciation, adaptation, mutation, natural selection, etc] that Creationists likewise affirm happen? The sort of change that gives us antibiotic resistance and flightless beetles? There’s no controversy there. Surprised? Or does he mean the presumed vertical [phyletic] microbes-to-man changes that evolutionist claim occur over long ages? We would object here that a dog remains a dog and recognizeably so, be it a wolf, Germen shepherd or an English bulldog, so that there are apparent limits to variability, consistent with the Biblical claim of created kinds; and that the fossil record reveals stasis and sudden appearance rather than gradualism, again more consistent with the Creation model.
Despite your dogmatic prose that “It has more evidence than any other scientific concept. It is the foundation of biology. It is the most important fact of science,” you misunderstand a great many things. For example, evolution does not have more evidence than creation; we have exactly the same evidence, but fact require interpretation. The question is which interpretation better fits the facts. Neither is it the foundation of biology, for Bible-affirming scientists conduct normal, orbservable biology with no need of evolution. Again, we Creationist affirm the observable parts of biology; it’s the presumption of goo-to-you evolution that we deny. Neither is it the most important fact of science for the reasons previously stated and likewise stated in the links provided.
You assert [baselessly] that the Biblical position is childish. One is tempted to defer to your expertise in all things childish. Yet to be more serious on the matter, your statements are dogmatisms rather than logical arguments. Would it interst you to know that Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s Bulldog, allowed, rationally speaking, more than your faith commitment to close-minded atheistic evolution will allow:
And I do say close-minded, Human Ape, for the excellent reason that your blog, as it currently stands, is a testament to dogma rather than rational thought. You truly have nothing more to say? Then you have admitted that you are likewise through thinking, you are through considering new evidence, you are through revising your thinking in terms of new evidence and arguments… and these are all hallmarks of blind dogma rather than rational independent thought, you poor marionette.
By the way, you Pharyngula fanboy, His name is Jesus. Only a child would keep using the sophomoric term “Jebus” and wonder why no one takes him seriously.
Sorry, just one more thing then I will at least try to stop wasting my time here writing comments you will never publish.
I noticed your “Comment #23” came from Uncommon Stupidity. This shows you get all your science information from uneducated morons. How do expect to learn anything from imbeciles who don’t know what they’re talking about?
You could study the discoveries of 21st century scientists by reading what those scientists wrote about their discoveries. Believe it or not, scientists know more about science than the idiots at Uncommon Insanity.
I’m sorry, but you are so typical. So afraid of reality you go way out of your way to know nothing.
Comments I will never publish?
I get this from someone who doesn’t even post to his own site anymore???
Thank you for the associative ad hominem. When you simply insult a source and try to discredit it with insult, you’re really saying that you don’t have anything to say other than you don’t like it. You’re certainly not backing up your claims with evidence so much as mockery.
BTW, the facts may be too much for you but there are PhD’d scientists with real educational degrees who disagree with the validity of microbes-to-man evolution and espouse the exploration of intelligent design.
Try bringing a bigger brain next time, Human Ape.