Evolution Facts and Creationist Fallacies

A number of misconceptions exist regarding evolution. To begin with, subjects like Paleontology and Anthropology aren't exactly mainstream classes in high school. In addition to this, there exists a large population of religious people who believe evolution contradicts their beliefs. This makes for a sizable market for what are known as creation scientists to write books or give lectures they claim refute evolution facts. Because evolution is not usually taught in a thorough manner, and the taboo it appears to have among many, creation scientists are able to draw a sizable number of supporters.

The Fossil Record is based on circular logic

A common misconception among creationists is that evolution is based on interpreting the fossil record through circular logic. In circular logic, the premise is based on the conclusion, and the conclusion is based on the premise. In this manner, creationists believe that the age of the fossils is determined by the strata they are found in, and the age of the strata is determined by the fossils that are found within. If it were this simple, then indeed it would be circular logic.

However, the succession of fossils can be verified independently. Finding a rabbit in the Cambrian period, or a human in the Triassic would indeed disprove the principle of faunal succession. Hence, the fact of evolution can be verified independently without depending on circular logic. Furthermore, carbon and radiometric dating have given geochronologists a method for determining the dates of strata and the fossils found within.

There are no Transitional Fossils

One of the more well-established evolution facts is the existence of transitional fossils. Fossils bearing resemblance to two separate classes of animals have been discovered. In dealing with these findings, creationists have used straw man arguments and played with semantics in order to convince their followers that transitional fossils do not exist.

Perhaps the best example is Archaeopteryx lithographica; a Jurassic bird which retains certain reptilian characteristics (teeth, claws, a reptilain mouth as opposed to a beak or bill, a tail with multiple vertebrae, etc). It has so many overlapping features with theropods (ie velociraptor, tyrannosaurus, etc) that if it weren't for the fossilized wing imprints, it could easily be mistaken for one. Creationists have responded mostly by playing on semantics like claiming "it's just a bird." Technically they are right. Paleontologists classify it as a bird (it needs to be classified somewhere). Furthermore, paleontologists classify birds as avian dinosaurs.Another trick creationists play is naming such features in modern birds. For example; Ostriches have small remnant digits. Since ostriches are birds, and have digits, then having digits doesn't make Archaeopteryx not a bird. Oddly enough, some creationists argue that there are no living intermediates. And yet, they use examples of intermediate structures to deny the existence of transitional fossils.

Finally, they are fond of referring to Alan Feduccia (a professor of Paleobiology and North Carolina Chapel Hill). Feduccia is perhaps the leading dissenter of theropod-to-bird evolution. What creationists fail to mention is that Feduccia's argument is that birds actually came from another line of reptiles. So whether birds came from theropods or another line of reptiles, Archaeopteryx is a bird with several reptilian traits not found in modern birds. By Feduccia's reasoning, Archaeopteryx is an early bird with some ancestral reptilian traits.

Phylogenetic and Homologous structures are evidence of a common creator

It's well established that vertebrates share similarities in structures. A whale fin, a bird's wing, and a human hand are surprisingly similar internally. Creationists respond by claiming that this fact can just as easily argue for a common designer instead of common ancestry, and can therefore need not be considered an argument for evolution any more than for creation.

However, whereas evolution has no choice but to work with and modify the same structure over and over, a creator isn't limited to modifying the same structure over and over. Evolution predicts that vertebrates will share similarities in structures since they share ancestry. On the other hand, a creator doesn't need to create a number of similar structures and is free to create new and separate structures for different vertebrates. A creator would be free to create 6-legged mammals, or reptiles with 8 eyes.

Embryonic similarities don't exist

One of the most compelling evolution facts is the existence of embryonic similarities. Tetrapods (four-limed creatures such as ourselves) show many of their evolutionary traits as embryos. Human embryos have tails. Snake and whale embryos have legs. Horse embryos have 5 digits. These traits can be seen thanks to modern technology.

Rather than address the above facts, creationists dwell on misleading drawings by Ernst Haeckel who, more than a century ago, created misleading illustrations of human embryos. Creationists dwell on Ernst Haeckel's drawings as if the entire concept of embryonic similarities rested on his exaggerated drawings, and if no other evidence for embryonic similarities existed.

Vestigial Organs/structures don't exist

A vestigial structure is a structure that has lost its previous purpose. In attempting to refute the existence of vestigial organs, creationists have adopted their own definition of the phrase in order to create a straw man argument. Creationists treat vestigial structures as if being vestigial means "useless." From their they go on to explain how the so-called vestigial structure is not in fact useless.

Perhaps the best example of this is the existence of remnant legs (called "spurs") in certain snakes in the python family. The fact that the python-like snakes (which according to the fossil record, diverged from lizards about 100 million years ago--this is still being debated) are closely related to lizards and have small remnant legs is seen as another fact that points to evolution. However, creationists point out that pythons use these spurs to assist in mating, and therefore they are not vestigial legs (since they are no "useless"). Of course, outside of the few snakes that have spurs, there exists a world of snakes that are apparently able to mate without the use of spurs. Furthermore, these spurs are attached to small remnant hips. And finally, snake embryos (not just in the python family) have legs during that phase of their life. The creationist answer to the fact of vestigial organs is nothing more than a play on semantics and does nothing to refute the fact of evolution.

Evolution is only a theory and therefore not a fact

There is a bit of a disparity over the use of the word "theory" in everyday vernacular as opposed to how it's used in science. In everyday vernacular, the word theory is used interchangeably with the word hunch. Because of this, often times non-scientists believe the words theory and fact are mutually exclusive. In scientific vernacular, a theory describes a hypothesis that's been tested and has survived these tests. A theory explains a set of facts. In the instance of evolution, the theory of evolution explains facts like faunal succesion, vestigial structures, embryonic similarities, and other facts. The overwhelming data from such facts coalesce into the overarching theory and fact of evolution.

Cecil J Cloud has been involved with the evolution vs creation debate for several years and has written several pieces explaining various facets of the evolution vs creationism debate. He resides in Southern California and maintains blogs on evolution and climate change denial.