This post is chock full of them, but several really jumped out at me.
Was the first single cell organism an animal or plant? If it was an animal what did it eat? Animals only eat organic material. If it was a plant, it would have needed to synthesize it’s own food. It would need to bio-originate with a fully functioning photosynthesis capability. Probabability? Zero Point Zero to 20 decimal places.
But for the purpose of exploration, lets just allow that the immaculate bio-origination with a fully functioning photosynthesis actually happened.
No, it isn’t the blazingly obtuse notion that the first single cell life form had to be either a plant or an animal (hint: it would be neither). What gets me is that this guy thinks that a serious criticism of evolutionary theory is his own personal incredulity of the whole thing (evolution). Well, I personally find it a bit odd that a supreme being who oversees billions of stars, a multitude of galaxies…an entire universe, decided to put life on a infinitely small speck of a planet in a completely normal galaxy. That is just way too unlikley.
And note the language, “immaculate bio-origination”. Cute, eh? But what about immaculate conception? That never happens. Ever. How many women (besides the ones cheating on their husbands) have conceived a child with no sex? Answer: Zero. Probability of this happening: “Zero Point Zero to 20 decimal places.”
If you are going to criticize evolution, for crying outloud don’t use an argument that can be used against your own religious beliefs. Basically his complaint is that evolution requires something highly unlikely happens suddenly. Uhhh…excuse me, but isn’t that precisely what happens in the bible’s abiogenesis story? How likely is that? Oh…not likely? Well then, didn’t happen did it.
And as for these kinds of probability arguments don’t use them if you are a creationist. Or if you do think they are persuasive, please never go to Las Vegas. Here is a test: Flip a coin 10,000 times. Or better yet, get 100 friends, family, etc. together and each of you flip that a coin 100 times and record the sequence of heads and tails. What is the probability of getting that exact sequence? How about 210,000. Well that is impossible. But you just did it…but it is impossible…but…you just did it. See how this argument doesn’t work?
Here is another argument that creationists trot out all the time.
Suddenly at some point, a plant mutates and stops consuming carbon dioxide and begins to burn oxigen and feed on plants. Or suddenly a plant gives birth to an animal. I like science fiction, and that one sounds like science fiction to me. A plant giving birth to an animal. What are the odds on that one? Add some more zeroes.
If a plant suddenly “gave birth” to an animal we’d have ironclad evidence that evolution is false. Demanding evidence that would disprove evolutionary theory is…well let us just say it marks you as suffering from severe ignorance. I know that sounds kind of harsh, but this question is so common it is simply astonishing. “I ain’t seen no goat give birth to no fish…evolution is wrong!” Gee, maybe because a goat giving birth to a fish would be evidence of the supernatural? Could that be it? Heck, if I saw that I’d probably say, “Okay, you win God really did make Adam and Eve. Game over. Too bad evolutionary theory and all you biologists, better start looking for new jobs.” Instead, this lack of evidence of the divine is somehow a mark against evolutionary theory.
These are the kinds of “standard arguments” that creationists think are terribly devastating to evolutionary theory. They don’t realize that things like chemistry has rules and certain things aren’t going to happen, or that natural selection is not random, etc. And from this ignorance are born the doppy objections to evolutionary theory.
Oh…and one last piece of advice, no, most mutations are not fatal, most are neutral. Don’t use that one either.
