Now in this debate, Tisdall supposedly "disproves" evolution. He has even written a book "how to debate an evolutionist and never lose". I use the terms 'creationist scientist' and 'evolutionary biologist' because it is important when trying to understand their arguments. Tisdall, doing the complete opposite of normal scientists, only accepts theories that suit his ideologies and agenda while dismissing all others. This will become apparent soon in this article.
In the words of sarah marshall, "bu'shit bu'shit bu'shit bu'shit bu'shit"
Tisdall's entire argument rests on abiogenesis. He feels that if there is a problem in abiogenesis, then evolution would not be possible. In the video he identifies the minimal gene set to be at 397 (this was 2006, to date scientists have managed to reduce it to 250) genes and claims that evolution is dead because for evolution to be feasible, you must be able to start at 0 genes all the way to human genes.
There are a number of issues with Tisdall and his work. At the moment, the minimal gene set is indeed at 250 but noone is saying that the first form of life was a fully functioning cell that is exactlysimilar to the cells as we see today. Tisdall makes the assumption that the first form of life MUST be exactly the same as cells today. Without evidence or thought he readily accepts and preaches this (mis?)information. The minimal gene set only pertains to a cell. There were precursors to the cell even though we only associate 'life' with minor metabolic functions and the ability to replicate. Tisdall uses the analogy "you can take a bumper out of a car but not the engine". It is true that a car cannot function without an engine, but a bicycle can. Also he often compares life to a computer - "we know the computer is created". This again is absurd, comparing an ever evolving life matter to a man-made machine. Considering the latest discoveries of how there are organisms that don't require phosphorus (previously thought to be one of the 6 only building blocks of life), it is very possible that 'life' millions/billions of years ago was very different from what we observe.
Also, Tisdall's entire argument is based on his opinion which is that a jump from 0 to 397 (250) cannot happen. This is another assumption (and one that he uses only because it suits him). If this jump actually happened, it is of course very unlikely, but then again so is getting struck by lightning.
Secondly, evolution is NOT dependent on abiogenesis. Even if somehow abiogenesis is proven to be wrong (which Tisdall failed to do), it would in no way disprove macro-evolution. Even if buddha, or shiva or krishna or zeus, allah, god, jesus, yahweh or whoever else created the first gene or the first cell, it would not refute evolution.
It is difficult to take Tisdall seriously as a scientist. He is clearly biased towards the side of creation. His first sentence in the video was "Im here to tell you today that evolution is dead, long live the creator". His credibility is immediately shot down as it becomes clear that he is more interested in proving creation than disproving evolution. This can easily be seen as throughout the debate he uses psuedo-science to get his false message across - "If theory A is wrong, theory B is automatically right by default".
Tisdall ignores the fact that creationism doesn't have a shred of evidence itself. He adopts the 'god of the gaps' mentality, that is "if science does not have an answer yet, it MUST be God".
This coming from a "scientist" who claims that dinosaurs found in fossils are still alive today and we have yet to find them (and who believes that the PROVEN hoaxes of footprints in fossils are real)
Tisdall in this case seems to be more of a debater than a scientist, very much like a lobbyist. Anyone who has seen the movie 'thank you for smoking' may remember this quote, "I don't have to prove I'm right, I only have to prove you're wrong". This is the strategy that Tisdall adopts. He fires off question after question rapidly, some which require entire lectures to answer. When Wiles is unable to give an immediate short answer, Tisdall immediately concludes that there is no answer and proclaims that creation is the only answer. Another thing to note is that although Tisdall continuously proclaims that evolution is dead and creation is the answer, he does not offer a single shred of evidence to back that claim and avoids dwelling on this topic.
Tisdall fails at science.
I'd like to see him debate PZ meyers.
