Evidence for Supernatural Origin of ...
Retorts to Evolutionists' Objections and Criticisms
The following list of creation representations and claims (total of fifteen) are in the words of Rennie, and do not necessarily reflect legitimate creation claims or represent all creationists' positions.
9. The Second Law states that the total entropy of a closed system cannot decrease but permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy. Rennie’s answer to: The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
Rennie poses another straw man argument that represents a position held by some non-scientists regardless of their creation-evolution persuasion.
Amazingly, Rennie shows his lack of understanding of the entropy when he cites crystal formations such as snow flakes. The formation of crystals is thermodynamically efficient as energy is reduced in the system (lowering temperature of water to freezing point). The formation of a crystal increases in complexity, but there is no increase in entropy or violation of the second law of thermodynamics. In contrast, the formation of proteins and other biological building blocks require an input of energy to facilitate its organization.
10. Molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Rennie’s answer to: Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
Rennie misrepresents this position and then argues against his own straw man. Intelligent design adherents argue that mutations may eliminate or modify existing information, but in no case has mutation supplied new, additional information to a genetic system. Thus, genotypes change and subsequently phenotypes may change as well. This phenomenon is well documented in creationist essays discussing genetic variability and adaptability in organisms.
As for the Hox gene, this gene controls placement of whole body parts. Its message may be altered to change the position of a body part or to produce extra body parts, but no increase of genetic information occurs. Likewise, polyploidy only serves to duplicate existing genetic information. It does not increase new, additional information.
11. Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. Rennie’s answer to: Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Once again, Rennie sets up a straw man argument, this time by omission. The fact is that creationists recognize change and variability within population kinds. These changes can be significant enough that a new species name is assigned. The term species, however, is so loosely defined that often creationists use the term to refer to a kind or baramin. In conventional classification, this could include genus or family.
Even evolutionists are known to make comments similar to the one Rennie objects to saying for example: "No one has actually witnessed the birth of a species in the wild, so researchers must come up with clever experiments to see whether differences in ecology, and the adaptations they spur, can isolate species reproductively" (Morell, V. 1999. Ecology Returns to Speciation Studies. Science 284: 2106-2108).
The problem is with the definition of species as Ernst Mayr explains: “Obviously one cannot study the origin of gaps between species unless one understands what species are. But naturalists have had a terrible time trying to reach a consensus on this point. In their writings this is referred to as ‘the species problem.’ Even at present there is not yet unanimity on the definition of species” (Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, p. 163).
What Rennie states as fact, others question. Evolutionist Orr writes: "At their best, Schlichting and Pigliucci's discussions force biologists to face a fact whose magnitude has been obscured by a good deal of wishful thinking: Our understanding of phenotypic evolution remains appallingly weak" (Orr, H.A. 1999. An Evolutionary Dead End? Science 285: 343-344).
The designation of new species name to organisms does not change the fact that natural selection is insufficient to account for the development of new higher taxa beyond the creationists’ “kind.”
12. Scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. Rennie’s answer to: Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
This point is redundant since speciation and the term species have already been explained. Creationists recognize speciation as an occurrence within a population kind (baramin). Typically what creationists will argue is that change is limited within a population kind and that nobody has produced evidence to suggest otherwise.
To repeat, such comments are not exclusively stated by creationists. Evolutionist Morell writes: "No one has actually witnessed the birth of a species in the wild, so researchers must come up with clever experiments to see whether differences in ecology, and the adaptations they spur, can isolate species reproductively" (Morell, V. 1999. Ecology Returns to Speciation Studies. Science 284: 2106-2108).
13. Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. Rennie’s answer to: Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils -- creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Rennie cites the classic examples including the horse series, mollusks, Archaeopteryx, and whales. However, each of these examples have been amply disputed as being irrelevant to significant change, mosaic rather than transitional, and far-fetched respectively.
Contrary to Rennie, evolutionist Francis Hitching wrote: “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group and that” (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe: where Darwin Went Wrong, New Haven, Conn.: Ticknor and Fields, 1982, pp 56-57;p. 19).
Ernst Mayr wrote: "Wherever we look at the living biota … discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent…The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates" (Mayr, E. 2001. What is Evolution, pg. 189).
Regarding the prized horse series: Science writer B. Rensberger wrote: "The popularly told example of Horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to the today's much larger one toed Horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown" (Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle. 1980).
Evidence for Supernatural Origin of ...