• Chance – Revisited

    Creationists have a choice.  They can continue to be morons or they can actually learn about what they are arguing against.  I’m not saying they are morons for arguing against evolution.  No, they are morons because the majority of their arguments aren’t even against evolution… like this hoary, old classic.

    Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show your math solution.)

    The creationists are absolutely right.  It is much more unlikely for a human to appear by chance alignment of molecules and elements as it would be for a 1993 US quarter (with the Denver Mint stamp) to appear from chance alignment of molecules and elements.

    It’s a damn good thing that it isn’t required for humans to appear by random chance alignment of molecules and elements.  That’s not what evolution says.

    By saying this, the creationists either A) have no idea what biology is or B) are lying in order to set up a false dichotomy.

    If the creationists actually want to play this game, then they might be in a bot of trouble.

    The 1993 Washington quarter was designed by John Flanagan in 1931.  The obverse (Washington’s bust) is an image modified by Flanagan of Houdon’s 1786 plaster bust of George Washington.  The 1993 coin is made of a coating of 75% Copper and 25% nickel over a solid copper core.

    Every coin minted in that year has a mint mark.  The letters D (Denver), S (San Francisco), or P (Philadelphia) is stamped in a specific location.

    Coins are made from dies.  Flanagan’s design is etched, reversed, into dies which are then slammed at high speed into a blank, a coin shaped piece of metal.  Allowing for minor wear to the die over the course of the stamping run, every coin is exactly the same.  Heck, every coin is examined and those found to be not 100% exactly the same (or whatever standard the US Mint uses) are rejected and destroyed.  The entire point is to have millions of coins that are exactly the same.

    Who designed humans?  When?  Using what tools?

    In the claim above, humans are not more than coins, designed to be the same by a ‘creator’.  So, when a creationist says that humans (and other living things) have a creator.  Simply ask, “Who, what, where, when?”  Then ask them why it wasn’t any one of these other versions of the creation myth?  In other words, what evidence do they have that they are right?

    They have none but the Bible and since it is not self authenticating, it’s even self contradictory in many places (PDF), it really can’t be used as evidence.

    But let’s talk about something, really important here.  There’s a fundamental mistake in how the creationists are presenting their claims here.

    Onlycreationists believe that humans were created as is.  No biologist believes that.  You see, humans (and all living things on this planet) have this ability.  They can reproduce themselves.

    Another interesting factor is that, amazingly enough, reproduce and the offspring are slightly different than the parents.  Sometimes traits mix (say height) and sometimes one trait dominates (say a widow’s peak).  Sometimes, the offspring has a trait that is totally unique from the parent (mutation).  Further, no one checks out each offspring to make sure it meets spec.  What determines if an organism can produce offspring?  The environment and other organisms.

    All these factors combine to produce something that Charles Darwin described as ‘survival of the fittest’.  Traits that increase the ability to reproduce tend to become a major trait in a population in a short time.  Traits that decrease the ability to reproduce tend to disappear from a population in a short time.

    That is what evolution is.

    I wasn’t created by a chance alignment of molecules.  I was created by the merger of a single sperm and egg from my parents.  The traits that I carry are a chance arrangement of traits, but that’s easily explained by genetics.  Let me know if you need a big explanation of this.

    It is extremely unlikely that I would be the result of my parents mating.  However, the chances of some human resulting from that mating are nearly 100%.

    So, my dear creationists, if you are going to make an argument about evolution, then I would encourage you to argue against an actual concept used in evolutionary theory.
    See the rest of the posts on this topic here.

    Category: BiologyCreationismEvolutionGeneticsScience


    Article by: Smilodon's Retreat