Are Sharks and People Related?

They most certainly are, but Frank Sherwin, author of the article Are Sharks and People Related?, doesn't think so. But his objections are not reality-based.

Evolutionary naturalism (as taught in American taxpayer-paid public schools) preaches that every living thing came from an unknown, unobserved common ancestor billions of years ago that—conveniently—left no fossil trace.

The common ancestor of all living things was probably some sort of microbe, so even if it was fossilized it would be pretty much impossible to tell that it was our common ancestor. I'm not sure why he thinks this is convenient, nothing would thrill scientist more than to find such a thing. Also, I'm not sure what he means by evolutionary naturalism. If he thinks that evolution mandates a philosophical naturalism he's wrong.

The best evolutionists can do is to point to studies suggesting this is so, but then insist that evolutionism is a fact and should be dogmatically taught as such.

This is simply not true. Evolution, like all of science, should be examined critically and with an open mind. The only people holding to a dogmatic view of science are the creationists. Also, evolutionism is not a word.

Recent evolution-based studies suggest that people came from marine invertebrates because we have some genes that are the same as sharks—even though these genes don't code for the same structures:

This is correct. Evolution has to work with what already exists. That's why the same genes code for different things; the process of evolution co-opts them for new uses.

The same genes that give sharks their sixth sense and allow them to detect electrical signals are also responsible for the development of head and facial features in humans, a new study suggests.

The finding supports the idea that the early sea creatures which eventually evolved into humans could also sense electricity before they emerged onto land.1

It's a miracle. It's an honest to God miracle. That number one, my friends, leads to a link. This link. And sure enough, it's true. Creationists citing sources. I think this is one of the signs of the end times. Regretfully, the rest of the article is not so grounded in fact.

On the genetic level, much regarding genes (DNA) is complex and not well understood. Particularly fascinating is how genes interact with each other to activate or deactivate other genes. For example, researchers know of sections of master regulatory genes (e.g., elements of Hox genes) that interact to direct development such as head and facial features. The Creator may very well use similar genes to operate a variety of genetic functions (just as the same switch design can turn on something as different as a motor or a light). This is true whether the genes are in people, sharks, or mice. Darwinists extrapolate, claiming that because the genetic switch is similar, therefore we have an evolutionary connection with these creatures. This is an unscientific leap of faith, but nonetheless must be made by those holding to a secular worldview.

It isn't really a leap of faith. It is a perfectly reasonable deduction to make, given the known genetic links between organisms. Genetics has provided wonderous proof for evolution. From the fusion of human chromosome two to ancient retroviral traces in both human and chimp DNA, there is genetic proof that evolution occurs. We've also seen speciation happen so we know quite a bit about the genetics of it.

Also, I've never met anyone who claims to be a Darwinist. I really don't think it's a word. And evolution has nothing to do with a secular worldview. I'm Christian, and I think evolution is great.

Creationists acknowledge the same genetic switch activating the sixth sense in sharks, and face and head development in people. But a similar switch doesn't mean common ancestry. If this were true, the fossil record should document the amusing sea-creature-to-people transition. It does not.

This is a lie.

As long as such foolishness is presented as science to the American student (and the public at large), the origins debate in school board meetings nationwide will enjoy top billet.

As long as creationists continue to deny basic scientific concepts, the origins debate in school board meetings nationiwide will enjoy top billet. But the debate in the scientific community over whether evolution occurs will not, because it was over one hundred years ago. Evolution won.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Creationists

Today we have an article from a new source, The Institute for Creation Research. This article deals not with misconceptions, but with outright lies.

What if all life evolved from a common ancestor by means of gradual changes as Darwin suggested? What evidence would we expect to find?

A wonderful question.

Certainly we would expect to find the fossilized remains of the myriads of ancestral creatures which lived and died over the millenia. At least some of the intermediate forms would have been fossilized. Remains of many varieties of present creatures have been found, including some extinct varieties, but the true in-between forms bridging gaps still elude us. Abundant soft-bodied remains have been found, so the conditions for preservation would always somewhere have existed. Why can't we find those important fossils which document evolution?

Here is where the lies begin. We have found transitional fossils. Thousands of them. This claim is not a misunderstanding. It is not a misinterpretation of the facts. It is not an honest mistake. It is an outright lie. There are thousands of transitional fossils, showcasing the evolution of many complex characteristics. The claim that transitional fossils do not exist is one of the most blatant and persistent lies made by Creationists, and is all the more astonishing for its audacity. In saying that transitional fossils do not exist, one must deny huge amounts of evidence. I would also like to refer you to the wonderful article on transitional fossils over at the TalkOrigins archive.

We might also expect to find evolution still occurring today.

We well might.

Why does it seem to have stopped?

Here we have the second lie. Evolution has not stopped. Scientists have observed the evolution of new species. Thousands of them. Evolution is not something that only happened in the past, it is going on around us all the time. Probably the most obvious example of evolution is the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Geologists think the present time is marked by rapid change; environments are changing, so why are living things not changing?

It's important to understand something aboutr Geologists; they don't look at time like the rest of us. Geology occurs on scales of millions of years. When a geologist talks about an instant, she may well be talking about a period of ten thousand years! Of course since evolution is going on around us, this point is moot.

They are unquestionably adapting, but this is not by acquiring new genetic traits as required by evolution. Mutations frequently occur, which damage existing genes, some more than others, but nowhere do we observe new genetic information arise by random mutation.

It shouldn't suprise you to learn that this too is a lie. Just look at antibiotic resistant bacteria. Scientists create antibiotic drugs that do not exist in nature. Yet bacteria evolve resistance to them. Clearly this is new information, but the author conviently overlooks even this obvious example. The TalkOrigins article on the evolution of improved fitness describes it in far greater detail than I can here.

Evolution of any basic type into another would require millions of innovative, helpful mutations which add new information to the genome, but these are nowhere to be seen. Instead of new types, we observe misfits and extinction, the opposite of evolution. Natural selection can only select between variants, it cannot act on its own to create novel types, and certainly is not an intelligent force driving innovation.

The author is right in that evolution is not an intelligent force at all. That he thinks it is betrays only his own ignorance. Needless to say, the rest of the quote is wrong. I will again point you to the TalkOrigins article above.

We would also expect to discover a universal trend in science which leads to more complexity in nature, paving the way for an increase in genetic content.

This, at least, is not a lie. It is instead a simple misconception, which is a welcome relief at this point. Evolution does not lead to greater complexity. Evolution leads to organisms that are well adapted to their environment. It is wrong to say that a human is "more evolved" than an ape, because an ape is well suited for the environment in which it lives. No creature is more evolved than any other.

Instead we discover the universal second law of science, which invariably points toward a degradation of quality in every duplication of information, such as in reproduction, and more randomness in every unguided process.

Now he's just making things up. The "second law of science" exists only in the fevered imagination of the author. He seems to be talking about the second law of thermodynamics, which does not say what he seems to think it says.

The complexity of life forms is so unimaginably great that we must account for it, and random changes in the face of a universal law can hardly be the answer.

It's certainly a good thing that evolution through natural selection is not a random process, or evolution would be in big trouble. But it isn't. While natural selection is unguided, it is not random. Mutations, the raw material of evolution, are random, but natural selection uses them to produce evolution.

At the least we should find a mechanism for evolution firmly in place. Mutation and natural selection are often cited, but these are deteriorative and conservative, not innovative and thoughtful. A theory of everything which has no mechanism is a weak theory indeed.

Are you tired of the lies yet? I know I am. This is simply not true. The vast, overwhelming majority of scientist agree that mutation and natural selection work very well to produce evolution. Note that the author gives us no citation for his claim that mutation and natural selection are deteriorative and conservatice, so we have no way of knowing where he got that piece of information from. It almost seems like he's just making it up.

Thus we do not find the expected evidence that evolution of basic types has taken place. Surely we can be excused for looking elsewhere.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are none so blind as those who will not see. The ability to overlook such massive quantities of evidence simply astounds me. The evidence is right here, dear reader. I trust that you can make the right decision.

[Citation Needed]

Today I'm going to kill two birds with one stone. I'm going to demolish a creationist argument about vestigal organs and reveal one of their favorite tactics all in one fell swoop. This is yet another article from that goldmine of creationist deception, Answers in Genesis. The article in question is titled 'Vestigal' Organs: What do they prove? As it turns out they prove evolution, although AiG would never admit that much. Let's get cracking.

First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential.

Since the article jumps into the fray without so much as a cursory explanation, I'll have to give you some background. A Vestigial structures are parts of an animals body (or even parts of its genetic code) that have lost their original function through evolution. The classic example of this in humans is the Vermiform Appendix, which has an unfortunate tendency to catch potentially lethal infections.

It's also worth noting that while the article claims that hundreds of supposedly vestigial organs are now known to be essential, it does not give a single example of one such organ. Nor does it cite a source for its claim. Remember this, because it is going to be a recurring theme throughout the article.

Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation. However the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e. those which are increasing in complexity.

Here the writers are just making up words. There is no such thing as devolution. Evolution does not work backwards, as they seem to claim. Their claim that organisms can deteriorate and thus gain useless organs is one that has no evidence to back it up whatsoever. They have not published a single paper on it. They give no mechanism by which it could happen. They have not studied this supposed process and do not have a shred of proof for its existance. And of course they do not cite a source for their claim. It's rubbish.

Wings on birds that do not fly?
There are at least three possibilities as to why ostriches, emus, etc have wings:

a) They derived from smaller birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes; acquisition of new characters, requiring new DNA information, is impossible.

The claim that DNA information cannot be gained is ridiculous. The genetic variation that is the raw material for natural selection comes from mutations. Their claim is a blatant lie.

b) The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (I’ve seen emus run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional that allow these birds to move their wings?

The wings may well have a function. Remember, vestigial does not mean useless. It just means that the structure no longer serves its original purpose. It may be useless or it may have some use, but it is not what it was clearly made to be. The wings on flightless birds may be useful for something, but they are clearly useless as wings. Yet, they are just as clearly wings. They are vestigial structures, remnants from an earlier evolutionary era. The main error that the writers make in this article, and probably the biggest mistake people make when thinking about vestigial structures, is that vestigial structures are useless. They may not be. But they are vestigial all the same.

c) It is a result of ‘design economy’ by the Creator. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model. In using the same embryological blueprint for all birds, all birds will have wings.

A wing is hardly the same thing as a mounting point. It's a major part of a bird. Why have them there at all if they don't do much of anything? It would be like an air conditioning system that has everything except a compressor. Sure, you could use it for something, but why have it there at all if it doesn't condition the air?

Pigs with two toes that do not reach the ground?
Does this mean that the shorter toes have no function? No one has demonstrated this. Pigs spend a lot of time in water / muddy conditions for cooling purposes. Perhaps the extra toes make it easier to walk in mud (a bit like the rider wheels sometimes seen on long trucks which only touch the road when the truck is heavily loaded). Or perhaps the muscles attached to the extra toes give strength to the ‘ankle’ of the pig.

The writers do not cite any proof for their theories. They can speculate as to what a pigs toes may do, but they give us no proof of any kind. Sure, a pigs toes might do a lot of things. But until they can prove that they do something, we have no reason to believe any of their baseless claims.

Why do male humans have nipples?
See also Male Nipples Prove Evolution?

This is answered in Bergman and Howe’s book ‘Vestigial Organs’ are Fully Functional (below right). Males have nipples because of the common embryological plan followed during early embryo development. Embryos start out producing features common to male and female—again an example of ‘design economy’. Nipples are a part of this design economy. However, as Bergman and Howe point out, the claim that they are useless is debatable.

What is the evolutionist’s explanation for male nipples? Did males evolve (devolve) from females? Or did ancestral males suckle the young? No evolutionist would propose this, so males nipples are not evidence for evolution or evidence against creation

This is true, as far as I can tell. Of course no citation is provided.

Why do rabbits have digestive systems that function ‘so poorly that they must eat their own feces’?
This is an incredible proposition. One of the most successful species on earth would have to be the rabbit! The rabbit’s mode of existence is obviously very efficient (what about the saying ‘they breed like rabbits’?). Just because eating feces may be abhorrent to humans, does not mean it is inefficient for the rabbit! Indeed rabbits have a special pouch called the cecum, containing bacteria, at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid digestion. The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet, a hard one and a special soft one coming from the cecum. It is only the latter which is eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria in the cecum. In other words, this ability of rabbits is part of their design; it is not something they have learnt to do because they have ‘digestive systems which function so poorly’. It is part of the variety of design which speaks of creation, not evolution.

They seem to be right about this. Of course they don't give any source for this claim, but I'm not nearly so lazy. You can learn all about cecotropes and the animals who eat them in Mammal Review 31 (1) on pages 61-80 in an excellent article by Hirofumi Hirakawa. See, it's not so hard to cite your sources! Which makes you wonder why creationists are so reluctant to do so.

Legless lizards
It is quite likely that the legless lizards, etc. could have derived from the original created kind, and so the structures would be consistent with this. ‘Loss’ of a structure is of no comfort to evolutionists as they have to find a mechanism for creating new structures, not losing them, and there is no such mechanism to explain how evolution from ’amoeba to man’ could occur. Genesis 3:14 suggests that snakes maybe once had legs. Brown (CRSQ 26:54) suggests that monitor lizards may have been the precursors of snakes.

A CITATION! It's a miracle! Sure it leads to another creationist source, but at least it's a start. There is in fact a mechanism to explain how evolution from 'amoeba to man' could occur (the Theory of Evolution), but they still don't expalain this mysterious mechanism that could allow animals to devolve. Probably because it doesn't exist.

Adaptation and natural selection are a biological fact; evolution is not.

Adaptation and natural selection are evolution. It is the thing and the whole of the thing. Natural selection describes how organisms evolve. The fact that they acknowledge natural selection but deny evolution boggles the mind. Natural selection is the mechanism through which evolution occurs, and the mechanism which just a paragraph above they claimed did not exist! Their willful ignorance is amazing!

Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms—it cannot create new information.

I'll refer to the article on mutations I linked to earlier. They are wrong again.

For example, if reptiles have no genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, but not create new ones.

It can through gene duplication or hoizontal gene transfer. In fact, I'll just link you to article on molecular evolution, a field of study which the authors apparently do not know about.

If in a certain environment a lizard survives better with smaller legs, or no legs, then varieties with this trait will be selected for. This might be more accurately called devolution, not evolution.

It certainly sounds like evolution to me. The authors seem to think that not having legs is bad for a snake, but if the environment makes a lizard with smaller legs more likely to survive, than it is evidently good. Saying that it is devolution is just an arbitrary judgement with no basis in fact.

The Appendix
See also Your Appendix—It’s There for a Reason!

It is known that the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs.

No citation is given for this either. And again, vestigial does not mean useless. Some scientists believe that the appendix does serve a purpose, but because it is prone to infection and it can be removed with no loss of health it is probably more trouble than it is worth. In any case, it is still an evolutionary relic of a more complex organ such as is seen in modern monkeys.

Hip bones in whales
These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females.

Vestigial does not mean useless. Also, no citation is given for this either. While the pelvis in whales may serve some purpose, it is clearly no the original one.

Vestigial does not mean useless. That is an important fact that the AiG team would do well to remember. But most of all, this article shows how creationists fail to cite sources for their claims. Without sources their claims are worthless. This is one thing that seperates them from real scientists.

What Evolution Is

Before we can talk about creationism, we need to first talk about evolution. Many Creationists do not really know what evolution is. In fact, many creationist arguments are based on a false version of evolution.

Evolution is the process by which organisms change in a way that can be passed on from one generation to the next. Eventually, evolution will produce new species. It is important to remember that evolution affects not only animals, but plants and bacterium as well. Evolution even works on viruses, even though they are not considered to be living things.

When most people talk about evolution, they are talking about Darwinian evolution. Charles Darwin is an important figure in the history of evolution, as he formulated the theory of natural selection. Before Darwin, many people has speculated that organisms might evolve, but Darwin was the first person to present a theory for how that might happen. This theory is called natural selection.

Natural selection is the process by which evolution occurs. Natural selection says that some organisms are better able to survive in their environment than others. Organisms that are well adapted to their environment will reproduce. Those that are not well adapted will not reproduce. If a certain trait of an organism gives it an advantage in its environment, it will be able to more successfully reproduce. That trait will be passed on to its decedents. Through this process, a species can change. It can become bigger, it can have a harder shell or a longer limb. Over time and many, many generations, complex structures such as organs can evolve through natural selection. Remember, it's not the individual organism that evolves. Evolution only takes place between generations. So one organism won't change, but it's descendants might be different than it is.

It's important to remember that evolution takes time. It can take millions of years for one species to evolve into another, and millions of generations of that species. That is why we can't really see evolution happening in our everyday lives. It is happening, but very, very slowly. Over time, small changes can become big ones, and entire species can branch off into new species.

Those are the basics of evolution. I will be getting into more complex concepts as the blog progresses.