The collapse of the collapse of evolution
Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:06:55 AM
As I mentioned in my previous post, I like watching documentaries. In particular I like documentaries about life and the universe. Every now and then I watch a documentary trying to refute the theory of evolution - maybe just as entertainment, or maybe to torture myself with agonizingly bad arguments and flawed logic, but I do sincerely look for genuine critisism with well thought out arguments. They're just hard to come by :-P. I've heard of the flagellum rotary motor and it was the best counter argument I've ever heard, but it also was refuted by showing how the standalone parts were useful elsewhere in nature. Even so, it wouldn't really matter much because the principle of evolution works. I've tested it myself, have a look for yourself. Inspect the source if you will, it's standard ecmascript. Just note that this is directed evolution, so instead of many viable evolutionary points, there's just one.
So... Just now I'm watching a documentary titled The Collapse of Evolution. At 06:22 they expose brilliantly, not how evolution is flawed, but how clueless the makers of the documentary are. They state correctly that Darwin did not address how life arose, but then goes on to claim that this somehow invalidates the theory of evolution. Why did they spend so much time making the documentary without even a basic grasp of the theory? (Folks, that's what we call a rethorical question...)
It seems to me that with statements such as "of course", "it is evident", "astonishing complexity" the attempt is to appeal to our admittedly limited intelligence and sort of say "Don't worry your tiny little brain with these complex issues. It's not even worth trying. Knowledge is dangerous". It is also very well worth your time to take a look at common logical fallacies, and the straw man in particular.
Addendum: I especially like where they state that mutations only harm the gene and that NO favorable mutation has ever been observed (at 28 minutes in). I'm not sure if they really actually believe this themselves, but that statement is false. Again, have a look at my simulation. It mutates and keeps only the best fit individuals. Most mutations are harmful, some are not. The selection takes care of filtering them out - THAT'S THE POINT!