Evolution vs. Creation--show what's wrong with this answer?

Question

Even an AP biology student should have fun with this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtCQ35sd_QiOz6YOQ9I.6Hjsy6IX?qid=20070901164119AABDpLg&show=7#profile-info-qtuwcKFeaa

I always get annoyed when people ask questions and answers that are flat-out wrong get chosen. Of course, many of the science questions are asked by students for their classes, so this is a particular problem. I'm a Ph.D biochemist who has taught both undergraduate and graduate students. Recently an answer was chosen that is so horribly wrong on just a factual level--even when not related to evolution. What's worse is that the answerer claims to be an "expert"--a medical student. I can guarantee that someone would fail freshman biology with these answers.

I thought this deserved a follow-up question since very few people read the comments following the resolution of a question.

Answer 1

What's wrong with the answer...?
Well:

Paragraph 2:
"evolutionists say that it started with the amino acid - smallest unit of a protein. they say that it "by chance" formed the correct chemical structure of the amino acid we know today"
Do we? I thought the most currently-accepted theory was the "RNA World" of ribozymes. Protein has no heredity, so it seems most unlikely to have started with them.

Paragraph 3:
What the hell is he talking about with amino-acid structure? He plainly doesn't understand basic biochemistry. For example - the peptide bond happens between a Carbon of one amino acid (-COOH) and a Nitrogen of the next one (-NH3), not *within* the amino acid.
Of course, he is correct that amino acids are always the D-form, rather than the L-isoform. But "everything in life"? Nope - sugars, for example, are found in the L-form in life.

Paragraph 4:
"mathematics predicts that anything near 1 in 900 is pretty near improbable"
What does this even mean?

Paragraphs 4-8:
He plainly has no grasp of the mechanism of evolution. He is making the old "tornado through a junkyard forming a 747" argument. That is *not* how it works.
For those unaware of the argument, it says "evolution is like sending a tornado through a junkyard, and having it make a boeing 747"
When, in fact, it is more like sending millions of tornadoes through millions of junkyards, examining the products, and seeing if anything made in any way resembles any part of a 747. If it does, keep it, if it does not, take it apart. Add the "looking like a 747" bits back in, and repeat as many times as neccessary to make a 747.

Paragraph 9:
"mutations always lead to a worsening of the previous situation"
Oops. Wrong again. Sure - they will *often* lead to a worsening, but they *sometimes* lead to a benefit.

Also Paragraph 9:
"97% of DNA is non-functional"
Really? In which organisms? Because the amount of coding vs "junk" DNA varies hugely across different species. Some viruses have none at all. And much work suggests that the "non-coding" portions of DNA may indeed have a function such as DNA repair, gene expression regulation, and chromosome structure.

Paragraphs 10 & 11:
Here he is citing the Cosmological Argument for proving the existance of God. "Everything has a cause, so there must be one ultimate cause for everything"
Sadly, this argument is little more than a statement of faith. There is no logical reason why causes cannot infinitely regress "going back forever".

Well - that was fun ;-)

Answer 2

Chirality either left or right handed ? He is talking about abiogenesis in the first place it has nothing to do with evolution. In the second place he is talking about the impossibility of all the right handed molecules lining up precisely. I think that the agrument could be made that when the first amino acids came into existence that being right or left handed didn't matter,and that was something that developed much later. Maybe I'm talking out of my a$$ here but his answer didn't make any sense.

Answer 3

Geeez! The asker didn't even bother to give my answer a thumbs down!

People who ask these questions aren't looking for the science answer. So, they choose the answer that best suits their own ID beliefs. Students who ask for help with there homework on this forum should take note. The answer you get may be totally worthless.

I have to admit one of my reasons for even being on YA is to respond to these creationist questions and to give all the thumbs down I can to the likewise answers.

Answer 4

>"Recently an answer was chosen that is so horribly wrong on just a factual level--even when not related to evolution."

:-) You must be new around here.

Welcome to Yahoo Answers.

Answer 5

The question was asked by a creationist-leaner, and answered by another. Don't expect someone who's ignorant to be able to choose a best answer. He asked because he didn't know... and therefore couldn't be expected to know which answers were good. Our Yahoo Answers system is inherently flawed.

Answer 6

Aaaaarrrrgggghhhhh! It's enough to make you lose faith
in humankind! Wait. I already did....

This "best answer" is peppered with blatant innaccuracies, but I think my favorite was "mutations always lead to a worsening of the previous situation"; that must be why the pool of human knowledge is getting smaller & smaller, people are getting dumber & dumber....

Answer 7

You are quite right the first person to answer should be hunted down and flunked from Med school. If he doesn't understand the basics how can he be let loose on real patients.

Answer 8

97% of our DNA is junk? Wow, didn't know that...

I hope people like that opt not to have children and spare our future generations of their stupidity...

Answer 9

why can't it be both we were created and have evolved and we keep recreating ourselves ok think of it this way we were created by a perfect being in his own image, we evolved, and now we improve on the creator's design with genetic engeneering. cool huh

Answer 10

There is no proof of evolution. There are no links between any animals, you find bones of cats you find bones of rats, but you never find any bones of rat-cat animals. different spices appeared suddenly. they don't change over time. all Darwin discover is that birds can have different beaks, none of the birds turned into anything other than a bird. Scientist have tried to prove in Labs that life can be created from none living things, they have never done it, you think if Scientist who spend there lives, in a controlled envirment with exactly the wright amount of amino acids and oxygen and everything. But still cant create life they whats you to believe that life happened by accident.