Has anybody seen the website titled "16 Theses which refute Darwinian Evolution"?

Question

If so, or if you would like to take the time to read through it, would anybody be willing to provide me with a concise peer review?

You can find the page at:
http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm

Thank you all for your time.

The article states, "Survival of the Fittest was originally used by Spencer as above, and its use was urged upon Darwin by both Spencer and Wallace..." It does not attribute that exact phrase to Darwin, nor does it state that he ever endorsed it.

All I ask is that you please read the whole article before you answer.

vorenhutz: Very succinct and clear. Thank you for your input. If you would like to add to your answer, I would love to hear your take on the "Five Senses Hypothesis" that the author discusses further down.

BTW...I am not trying to argue creationism vs evolution here. If that had been my intention, I would have placed this quesiton in R&S, not here. I am simply asking for a review of the material.

Nimrod: Thank you also for taking the time to look through it. Your input is very thought provoking. I would also like to hear your take on the "Five Senses Hypothosis" that the author talks about, if you would care to comment.

vorenhutz: I guess you missed his definition of the hypothesis. So that you won't have to go back and read it again, I'll post it here.
"This is an unstated belief system which, for many scientists, underlies the study of all the physical sciences. The most important feature of this belief is that all phenomena in the universe are capable of being measured, or acknowledged, by one of the five senses of man."
And in the addendum, it's a bit simpler:
"Nothing exists in the universe that is not perceptible to the senses of man".

That is what I referring to, not trying to equate it to natural selection. He does make the comment that this hypothesis belongs more in the field of Philosophy, even though it's accepted by almost all scientists as fact.
Sorry for the confusion.

Answer 1

I will point out that this is one of *many* anti-evolution sites listed in the TalkOrigins index of such. So it is not something new or unknown. And I don't see a single argument here that I have not seen in many other creationist sites ... and refuted quite successfully (and in many cases easily) in such sites as TalkOrigins.

There are a few unusually outstanding responses already posted above, so I'll try not to duplicate their efforts.

Instead, I'll jump down to your question about the "Five Senses Hypothesis", which you seem particularly interested in.

The author's statement of said hypothesis starts with "This is an unstated belief system ..." which right off the bat should raise a red flag. If it is "unstated", then this opens the possibility that it is not a belief system shared by scientists at all, but rather the author's declaration of what scientists believe. In other words, the word "unstated" is a red flag announcing that what follows may be a straw man.

And indeed it is. There is no assumption, stated or unstated, in science that "Nothing exists in the universe that is not perceptible to the senses of man."

All science knows is that anything that is not perceptible to the senses is not ACCESSIBLE THROUGH SCIENCE. Science is based on empiricism ... evidence, evidence, evidence. That is what distinguishes science from philosophy, or even mathematics, which are willing to address concepts of pure thought. Science ultimately comes down to evidence. Science is wisely drawing a boundary around what it can and cannot address (a lesson that would be well heeded by religious leaders in their zeal to address science issues through scripture), not what can and cannot *exist*.

So science does NOT eliminate the "existence" or "possibility" of things inaccessible to the senses. It just tries first to find a rational explanation for things in terms that *are* verifiable to the senses. Science is very, very good at this.

This willingness by the author to introduce straw man arguments is pervasive throughout the article. From the preamble conflating abiogenesis with Darwinism, to complete misrepresentations of Darwin's words, to the "Closure" paragraph equating evolution with astrology. This is an article brimming with deceit and intellectual dishonesty.

Answer 2

1. Bogus.
a) Artificial selection and mutation can produce new species. If you tell me a mini-dachshund and a gray wolf are the same species, you'll hear "get glasses" from me. Another couple of favorites are corn, which isn't teosinte any more; and true-breeding triticale, which isn't either of its natural grain ancestors.
b) If leopards eat all the monkeys that like to sit on the ground, it won't be long before the ones that are left are the monkeys that like to sit in trees. Doesn't matter if it's a leopard or a man who's the selection pressure; natural selection and artificial selection have pretty much the same effect.

2. Long and confusing, laced with crap, and worthless. The author should break this down into a number of subarguments and refrain from mentioning Piltdown man at all.
Example of crap:
> extinction: non-explainable in Darwinian terms.
No it isn't. Species with a limited range are always at risk when a new predator migrates in. Consider bird species in Hawaii. They're being killed by introduced predators faster than they can reproduce.

Each of the other points made in this section is loaded with crap. While it's not as stinky as the sort Hovind makes, it's still crap.

3. It's part of science to make hypotheses that are a "best explanation for the observed phenomena."
I don't see a point to this section.

4. *shrug* Same as (3) above.

5. All populations contain variants. Selection may increase the ability of a particular subgroup of variants to reproduce; or, conversely, to reduce the ability to reproduce in another subgroup. Allele frequencies in the population change as a result of this selection. That's evolution.
A few hoaxes don't discredit evolutionary theory any more than the fakeness of the Shroud of Turyn would cause Christianity to be discredited.

6. Is he making a point here?

7. *shrug*

8. Crap. If I hired a bunch of guys and told them "shoot the elephants with tusks" then I would know the outcome in advance. The fittest would be the elephants without tusks.

9. The ones that survive to reproduce and actually do reproduce are the ones that reproduced. *shrug* Ignore "fittest" and substitute "parent." Evolution may still occur -- remember, change in allele frequency in a population. Genetic drift is also a mechanism by which that occurs.

10. Oak trees and fruit flies reproduce well enough. Stop harping on "fittest." Get over it.

11. Isolation kept one species from taking over. *shrug*

12. A fruit fly that eliminated fruit production would eliminate itself. This may be why we have no fruit flies that eliminate fruit production. Duh.

13. A variant which can reproduce is a variant which can reproduce. See (9) above.

14. A specialist predator which eliminates its prey species is doomed. *shrug* It happens. There aren't any sabretooth cats any more (although it's likely that humankind had a hand in depleting the prey populations of sabretooth cats).

15. It's part of science to make hypotheses that are a "best explanation for the observed phenomena." Creationism and Theistic Evolution are not ruled out. They're just not the best explanation at this time -- because (say it with me)
CREATOR(S) NOT IN EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.

16. There aren't any competing theories!

Answer 3

Wow... I just put in a package to my sister, who's overseas, a copy of "Mommie Dearest", because she cannot find it where she's at and some of her friends want to see it. I also have a copy and I watched it a few times... It's incredible, isn't it? Did you know the movie is based on the book Christina Crawford, Joan's daughter, wrote? Yes, that's real; and real events lived by her and her little brother under the same roof with their mother, Joan Crawford. Everything was taboo back then, all hush-hush, otherwise Joan Crawford would of been in prison for Child Abuse... It is just incredible what an adult would do to a child. Just... Speechless. But incredible is the outstanding performance by Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford. She was nominated for the Oscar as Best Actress that year, but she didn't win. Too bad. She was excellent.

Answer 4

You have gotten a lot of good and detailed answers to your questions so I won't go there.

I would like to say, though, all of the people who write things like your source are looking to pick holes and not looking for any evidence for anything else. The best way to refute any scientific theory is to develop another theory with some evidence and facts. The people who write the kind of articles you have referred to never do that. They have no alternate theory and no alternate facts to even propose what could be called a reasonable alternate hypothesis. If I tell you I have a thumb on my right hand and a thumb on my left hand and 1 + 1 = 2 so I have two thumbs, and then I show you my hands and sure enough, I have 2 thumbs. But, maybe you are visually impaired and can't see my two thumbs. Then, if you said I had any other number of thumbs or no thumbs at all, it would be up to you to show me some alternate evidence and not just deny that I had two thumbs.

Answer 5

nitpicking at the phrases 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' is beside the point, but of course that is what the majority of the essay consists of. for me the meat of the argument boils down to this:

"For those who believe that mutations are ultimately the "cause" of evolution, it is first necessary to prove that mutations which increase functional ability are "random"; see the comments on "devolution", in (3) above. Secondly, scientific proof of an increase in functionality due to mutation must be demonstrated, mutagenic activity of bacteria notwithstanding; this aspect evolution has yet to be proved. It is strictly a belief, based on the acceptance of evolution as a fact; the circle of reason is thus closed"

anyone who understands molecular genetics, even if only murkily as i do, should understand that these objections are pretty silly. it doesn't matter if mutations are random, it is a good null hypothesis and as far as biologists can tell it is true. it would only matter if mutations were non-random such that they *never* resulted in favorable mutations. this is what creationists always try to claim, but sadly for them it is not true. the best they can do is obscure this fact as far as possible. bacteria have DNA just like all other life on earth. it is hard to tell whether the author is admitting that bacteria have been observed to undergo mutations which are favored by selection (they have). if it happens with bacteria, there is absolutely no good reason to think that it doesn't happen in other organisms. to be skeptical of that would amount to doubting that crocodiles experience gravity only because one has never seen a crocodile falling. also, favorable mutations have been observed in other organisms too but it's easier to see in bacteria due to their simple genomes and short generation times.

if you like you can match the claims made in this article to this handy list, and see if any claims remain unrefuted:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

edit: concerning the 'five senses hypothesis' (a rather silly name, naturalism is indeed what it is)

"Ruled out as well is the possibility of a Creator, miracles, conceptual thought, free will, and many other phenomena, which are entirely possible and routinely believed in by the great majority of people, as well as many unbiased scientists."

it would be nice if it was explained how naturalism rules out the *existence* of these things. i think it currently rules out *investigation* of those things simply because no one has been able to figure out how to investigate them scientifically (some things to a greater extent than others, for instance thought can be studied somewhat by monitoring the activity of the brain). this could mean that they don't exist, or that they are difficult to study. time will tell. this claim seems very much like a straw man - naturalists must be incredible dopes. i would say that scientists as scientists don't have to accept naturalist metaphysics - there would be far less scientists who are also theists if that were required. they follow a method and see where it leads. to me the test is whether or not it works, and it's not like science is obviously floundering around in the dark, actually our understanding of nature has improved a lot over the last few hundred years... but this guy seems not to have noticed.

Answer 6

Charles Darwin did not use or endorse the phrase "survival of the fittest," so im going to have to question the validity of the whole article.

The phrase [survival of the fittest] is a metaphor, not a scientific description; and it is not generally used by biologists, who almost exclusively prefer to use the phrase "natural selection".

Answer 7

The errors are too numerous to state and correct here in detail. There are errors of simple understanding and command of the language. If one doesn't understand the terms being used, incorrect conclusions are to be expected.

There are errors of fact. Starting with an incorrect supposition will usually lead to incorrect conclusions.

There are errors in logic. The conclusion is not supported by the chain of arguments.

Looking only in the "Preamble" shows that the author is confused about the definitions of:
Science
Fact
Theory
Evolution

That pretty much dooms the rest of the page.

Evolution exists. It is a fact. It can be measured. It is observable. That is because the definition of evolution used by biologists is: change in allele frequency in a population over time. Replace "evolution" with another observable phenomenon and the ridiculousness of the claim becomes clear.

The mutual attraction between two bodies with mass exists. It can be measured. We just happen to call it gravity. There is the phenomenon of gravity and there is the explanation of how gravity works (the Theory of General Relativity). Likewise, there is the phenomenon of evolution, and the explanation of how it works (the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection).

"[...]From current appearances, the DNA molecule simply "ocurred", intact as it is today, about 3+ billion years ago."...

I have no idea why the author would think that. Even in 1999, that statement is false. This is also an example of a common error made by those who deny the existence of evolution. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (TENS) has nothing to do with the origin of life. TENS explains why the allele frequency in a population changes over time. It deals with already existing populations of living organisms. Abiogenesis is the area of study for the development of life from inorganic material. And the author has a wrong view of abiogeneis. The oldest evidence of life goes back almost 4 billion years ago and the currently accepted model (theory) is that there was an "RNA world" first before the development of life. No scientist thinks that DNA just popped into existence, no credible one at least. And, abiogenesis is an active field of study. Darwin did not set out to explain how life arose, he even invoked a creator in later editions of The Origin of Species. Darwin explained how life (species) changes.

The author does have a point about one thing though it is presented poorly. The education system is doing a terrible job of teaching science as shown by the existence of this web site.

I'll end with the last sentence from the first edition of Darwin's book.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Translation: Life started a long time ago (how is not important here). From a few or (even a single) primitive original ancestor descended all the species we see now and new ones still being created.

======================
[addendum]
The "Five Senses Hypothesis" is utter crap. It was coined by whom? I know that no one with any critical thinking ability would lay claim to it so I am guessing that this "hypothesis" is something the author of the page came up with and for some reason thought that it was a stroke of genius.

Science is a tool that is used to figure things out. It is a way of thinking that goes something like:

1. Examine or collect data/observations (facts).
2. Come up with possible explanations for these observations. (hypothesis)
3. What are the consequences (predictions) of the hypothesis? Design an experiment that tests the hypothesis.
4. Do the experiment. Again.
5. Outcomes: If the data do not match the predicted outcome, then the hypothesis is wrong. Return to step 2.

If the data are consistent with prediction, then you test some more. This only shows that the hypothesis is accurate under certain experimental conditions, not that it is true. No hypothesis can ever be proven to be true, only that it is consistent with experiment and data. A hypothesis can only be proven to be false.

Only after successfully surviving repeated testing of the predictions, will a hypothesis become theory. A theory can endure for decades or centuries but if we find something that is inconsistent with the theory, it must be rejected and a better explanation has to be found.

Note: this is where science diverges from religion. Evolution by Natural Selection vs. Creation. One is a powerful tool that explains all of modern biology and predicts real world outcomes. The other is a dogma that explains something but predicts nothing.

Back to the 5 senses crap. What is it trying to explain? What does it predict? What experiment will falsify it?

For one thing, scientists don't trust their senses nor are they limited to what can be perceived by our body. Our common sense interpretation of what we perceive is often wrong. Experiments depend on unbiased, quantitative data. Hard, concrete numbers. How fast? What temperature? How many? What percent? Our senses can't distinguish between fractions of a second, or measure from absolute zero to trillions of degrees. We extend our senses with tools that are better. Unbiased. Quantitative. I can't directly feel a magnetic field, but I can find a tool that does. I can't see into the ultraviolet, x-ray or gamma ray spectrum but I build something that does. I can't see atoms or count the number of molecules of X that are present in a sample but I have tools that can. There are things we can't observe/measure directly but we infer what must be there by its effects on other parts of the system.

Mathematicians and physicists deal with things that can't be perceived. I have no idea what 11 dimensional space-time looks like. But there are formula that are used to figure out how it must behave and the consequences it must have.

There is an assumption that underlies science that is not talked of that the author missed. The use of science depends on the assumption that the universe is governed by a set of rules. Our tools and implementation of science depends on consistent obeying of natural laws. It cannot deal with super-natural phenomena. It can't deal with fairy dust and magic. No theorem, no experiment will ever include the step, "a miracle happens here."

That doesn't mean that miracles don't happen. That doesn't mean that fairies and gods abound. We just can't use science to study them. It is possible that there was some supernatural being that created life and got the world started. But there is no evidence for it and invoking it is not science.

Answer 8

I agree with several of the posts above that point out the inaccuracies of the website. I'll just add my personal opinion here - if evolution were wrong, then one thesis would have been enough - not 16!

Answer 9

It's a theory. All theories all flawed.
Fossils (DNA) tends to prove him right though.
And some just turn the scientific world on its head.