Where is the evolution tree for DNA?

[RobRit]

Hi, I was sent this meme (attached) and was wondering what it meant and how to argue against it... Is this guy who sent the meme talking about the phylogenetic tree?

- Appreciate any help. Thanks.

 

[Daecon]

Which creator? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[Strange]

Hi, I was sent this meme (attached) and was wondering what it meant and how to argue against it... Is this guy who sent the meme talking about the phylogenetic tree?

 

I suppose the argument is that because we don't know all the details about how DNA came about then it must have been created fully formed. It is a version of the Cretinist "irreducible complexity" argument. And it is equally invalid.

 

We know that some viruses use RNA, a simpler molecule than DNA. We also know that many of the component molecules that can be used in the creation of RNA and DNA can be found in nature (even in space). So although we don't know all the details about how life arose, we certainly don't need to invoke magic.

[Phi for All]

It seems so wrong that a scientist would tell you science isn't a tool for trying to show god(s) don't exist, yet creationists try to use science to show they do. And since they ignore most of mainstream science, their arguments are always trivially refutable, laughably ignorant, yet always phrased in such a way to trap those as ignorant as they.

[Prometheus]

It seems so wrong that a scientist would tell you science isn't a tool for trying to show god(s) don't exist, yet creationists try to use science to show they do. And since they ignore most of mainstream science, their arguments are always trivially refutable, laughably ignorant, yet always phrased in such a way to trap those as ignorant as they.

 

But in a way is it not tacit acknowledgement that evidence trumps faith when it comes to saying things about the world? By torturing data and misrepresenting evidence they validate the idea that data and evidence are prerequisites to believing in something. Their god is to be known via his works rather than faith. It's a step forward perhaps (unless they really don't care about the evidence and are just trying to 'win' a debate.

[Phi for All]

 

But in a way is it not tacit acknowledgement that evidence trumps faith when it comes to saying things about the world? By torturing data and misrepresenting evidence they validate the idea that data and evidence are prerequisites to believing in something. Their god is to be known via his works rather than faith. It's a step forward perhaps (unless they really don't care about the evidence and are just trying to 'win' a debate.

 

Interesting perspective. I have heard a lot of religious folks claim that asking for evidence of their god's work is an affront to faith, that it basically invalidates your faith if you need something real to support it. I suppose you could say creationists show that evidence and reality are more important to them than to the average theist.

[Arete]

1) What is an "evolution tree"? Do they mean phylogeny? Given that they are generally constructed using nucleotide variations between species/individuals, it seems nonsensical to expect one for DNA.

 

2) There is no metric by which DNA is the most complex molecule in the universe.

 

3) DNA is reducible. It HAS to be reduced to RNA and individual nucleic acids to be translated. It wouldn't actually function if it couldn't be.

 

The "meme" is therefore thoroughly incorrect and comprises a notably poor critique of evolution based on a complete lack of basic biological knowledge.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Arete