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.
"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."
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, Buddha is a man not a god, and Buddhism does not talk about creationism. His religion is born out of a philoshopical one, essentially a humanistic religion where to focus is on oneself rather than worrying about creation.
But I like your article
Cheers
"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."
ReplyDeleteThis is not true. I have 4 bikes in my back yard that cannot propel nor steer themselves. They need humans to do the work.
I think Tisdall does a great job expressing his views. I've sat on the fence bewtween creation and evolution for years. But after considering the arguments on both sides, and the rebuttals of both sides, I am personally satisfied that creation more accurately describes our origins than evolution does.
"God done it" doesn't describe anything; it's a null statement.
DeleteTisdall was using the analogy without adding in the external factor of human involvement. The "machine" in this sense would be a part of a cell or an important cell in a life form. In this sense, taking the "engine" out of a life form today would result in the life form not being able to function, however it is highly likely that the first forms of life are not exactly the same as life forms today, and as such, the "engine" would not have been needed.
ReplyDeleteBut again, this is abiogenesis. Not evolution. This is all theory, both on the part of the creationist and the evolutionist. The problem I see with creationism is that they provide no evidence. Rather, they try and debunk anything evolution comes out with. I was a staunch Christian once, but I see no evidence anywhere for creationism.
Assuming that one day evolution proves to be false, it does not mean creationism is true. There is more evidence that ET's stopped by and planted seeds of life here than that an almighty God working 6 hard days to shape the universe and us people.
basicly, my philosophy about the origin of the universe ends at this. i dont know where all this shit came from any more than the next guy, but i would rather trust the guys with labcoats, PhD's and that dont make me get up early on sunday and apologize for being human.
ReplyDelete