An Evolution Primer for Young Earth Creationists

Evolution 101 for Young Earth Creationists who want to know better.

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Logic & Persuasion, Natural History, Religion

Skeptoid #10
November 30, 2006
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe
Also available in Japanese

Some Young Earth Creationists may be concerned that some of their standard arguments against evolution sound dismissive or patronizing. This is probably true: in any debate, it's common to frame your opponent's arguments in a weak light. Sometimes this is done deliberately to make evolution sound ridiculous, and sometimes it's done accidentally through ignorance of what evolution is and how it works. Since misinformation and ignorance are poor platforms on which to build any conversation, I present the following Evolution 101 Primer for the benefit of Young Earthers who want a correct basic understanding of their foe. I think the best way to do this is to dispel the three most common evolution myths.

Myth #1: Men evolved from modern apes.

This is the oldest and wrongest misconception about evolution. Nobody has ever suggested that one living species changes into a different living species. Some criticisms of evolution show illustrations that fraudulently purport to show what evolutionists claim: that a salmon changed into a turtle, which changed into an alligator, which changed into a hippo, which changed into a lion, and then into a monkey, and then into a human being. Of course such a theory would seem ludicrous. But it's pure fantasy and has nothing in common with real evolution.

The diversification of species is like a forest of trees, sprouting from the proverbial primordial soup. Many trees die out. Some don't grow very tall. Some have grown a lot over the eons and are still growing today. Trees branch out, and branches branch out themselves, but branches never come back together or combine from two different trees. The path of a species' evolution is shaped like the branch of a tree, not a donut, not a figure 8, not a ladder. To embrace evolution, you need not — must not — think that a salmon turns into a zebra, or that an ape turns into a man. It's simply not genetically possible.

We've all seen the other famous illustration, where a monkey morphs into an ape, that morphs into a caveman, that morphs into homo sapiens. If you climb back down the tree branch, you will indeed find earlier versions of man where he was smaller, hairier, and dumber, but it won't be a modern ape. To find a modern ape, you'd need to go even further down the tree, millions and millions of years, find an entirely different branch, and then follow that branch through different genetic variants, past numerous other dead-end branches, past other branches leading to other modern species, and then you'll find the modern ape. Never the twain shall meet.

Myth #2: Evolution is like a tornado in a junkyard forming a perfect 747.

This is a popular manifestation of the argument that evolution depends on randomness, and so it would be impossible for complex structures to evolve. Well, this is half right, but completely wrong in its totality. Random mutations are one driver of evolution, but this argument completely omits evolution's key component: natural selection.

Obviously, in reality, if a tornado went through a junkyard, you'd end up with worse junk, not a perfect 747. No evolutionary biologist, or any sane person, has ever claimed that you would. It's ridiculous. The tornado is meant to represent the random element of evolution, but genes don't mutate catastrophically all at once, like a tornado. Here is a more accurate way to use this same analogy.

Imagine millions of junkyards, representing any given population. Now imagine a group of welders, who walk carefully through each junkyard, twisting this, bending that, attaching two pieces of junk here, cutting something apart there. They do it randomly and make only a limited number of small changes. Sometimes they don't change anything. This is a far more accurate representation of how genes mutate within an organism. It's not a single cataclysmic tornado.

Now comes the natural selection. Let's test every piece of junk in every junkyard. Does anything work better? Does anything work worse? With millions of changes in millions of junkyards, it's inevitable that there will be some improvements somewhere. Part of natural selection is the eventual removal from the population of any organisms that are less well adapted, so to simulate this, we're going to eliminate all the junkyards where the junk was worse after the welders made their mutations. This leaves only junkyards that are stable, or that are improved. To simulate the next generation of the species, we replicate all of our current improved gene pool of junkyards, and again send in the welders. They make a few random changes in each, or no changes at all.

Each time this entire process happens, the population of junkyards improves. But this doesn't happen just a few times. It happens millions or billions of times. The changes made by the welders are countless. The vast majority of changes are either useless or make things even junkier. Since natural selection automatically filters out the poorly adapted junkyards and rewards those rare improved junkyards with additional procreation, our population of junkyards gets better and better. Things start to take shape in the junkyards. Useful things. Stronger things. Things with abilities that nobody could have predicted. Any given piece of junk that improves is replicated in many junkyards, and reappears in millions of slightly altered forms each time. Pick the best version from each generation, and you can literally watch the same piece of junk evolve into a better, stronger, more useful, and better adapted machine with more capabilities. This is evolution.

Myth #3: Evolution is just a theory.

First of all, if you believe that most biologists consider evolution to be "just a theory", you're behind the times. Almost all biologists call it a fact, and not because they feel any particular need to respond to Young Earthers.

Second, when Young Earth Creationists try to put evolution down by dismissing it as "just a theory", they're actually acknowledging its scientific validity. To understand why, it's necessary to understand exactly what a theory is. When Young Earthers use the term to disparage evolution, they really should be using the word hypothesis. A hypothesis is a provisional idea, a suggested explanation that requires validation. Evolution is well beyond that stage, though; even the staunchest anti-evolution creationists assign evolution the much higher status of theory.

In order to qualify as a theory, evolution had to meet the following criteria:

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

Notice that last one: tentative, correctable, and allowing for future changes. Young Earthers often point out that the theory of evolution is incomplete, like any theory, as if this disproves it. To be a theory, evolution must be incomplete by definition, and (no pun intended), constantly evolving.

The strict scientific definition of a fact is both simpler and hazier. A fact is a verifiable observation, and evolution is verified so many times throughout the entire science of biology that most biologists call it a fact. However many scientists contend that every fact has some element of theory to it, so in this sense, it doesn't really make any difference whether evolution is called a fact or a theory. Since biologists are always learning more and adding to our knowledge of evolution, it's probably best to leave it as a theory.

I hope some Young Earth Creationists find value in these explanations. As always, your comments are welcome on the web site.

Brian Dunning

© 2006 Skeptoid Media Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Carroll, Sean B. Endless Forms Most Beautiful. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2005.

Cincinnati Skeptics. "Is Evolution As Unlikely As A 747 Forming Out Of A Tornado In A Junkyard?" Cincinnati Skeptics. The Association for Rational Thought, 1 Jan. 2005. Web. 11 Nov. 2009. <>

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1996.

Isaak, Mark. "Only a Theory." The TalkOrigins Archive. The TalkOrigins Foundation, 10 Apr. 2003. Web. 11 Nov. 2009. <>

Larson, Edward John. Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. New York: Modern Library (Random House), 2004.

Popper, Karl Raimund. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge, 2004.

Smith, Cameron McPherson, Sullivan, Charles. The Top 10 Myths About Evolution. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2007.

The Understanding Evolution Team. "Understanding Evolution." Understanding Evolution. Berkeley, 17 Sep. 2005. Web. 30 Nov. 2009. <>

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "An Evolution Primer for Young Earth Creationists." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, 30 Nov 2006. Web. 6 Oct 2015. <>


10 most recent comments | Show all 1022 comments

How, in the face of proof that Brown's hypothesis is not possible according to the laws of physics, can you continue to uphold that the hydroplate hypothesis is valid?

How can you ask for a scientific discussion of evolution vs creationism but then deny the use of the fossil record as evidence of evolution and the discussion of the necessary creator?

What peer-reviewed scientific evidence do you have that refutes evolution?

Will you PLEASE stop with the ad-homme attacks? Thanks.

John, New York
July 26, 2009 7:44pm

So Joe, How about that ambulocetus?
Is it an excellent example of a transitional fossil? Or was it planted by proponents of evolution by natural selection. Or Satan? or Santa?
Down, John!. Bad dog!!

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia.
July 26, 2009 8:15pm

No,no,no. You use fire and acid on trolls, not logical argument or reasoned debate.

Yes, I completely agree that I was just pointlessly facetious. But really Joe, your posts are increasingly incoherent and/or pointless ad hominems. Is your increasingly pointless trolling something your god-given morals has lead you to?

I openly admit that I usually only reply when it's relatively simple to do so. The others currently running rings around you know the actual technical stuff better than me (all that stuff about Gould and Brown - still trying to understand the basics there) but when I go through your last two posts I find...nothing to reply to.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 27, 2009 2:36am

Adrian: Short primer on Brown's hydroplate hypothesis:

6000 years ago the earth's crust floated on a layer of water. At some point in time, that water was forced to the surface resulting in the biblical flood.

This is, of course, another example of creationist wishful thinking concerning geology, physics, and the fossil record.

John, New York
July 27, 2009 1:11pm

John, really? seriously? I haven't heard anything so silly since the expanding earth guy on Skeptic's Guide to the Universe(that interview is still painful to listen to). Thank you for the post, real life keeps getting in the way of my research of these things.

Have you seen latest stupidity where they're claiming Thomas Jeffersen (not American - did I get the name right?) would have been a creationist, despite his death decades before Origin of the Species was published and despite the fact that he was a real thinker who published a bible with all the supernatural aspects literally cut out.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 27, 2009 11:09pm

Yeah you got the name right. He does write in some of his letters about finding fossilized seashells on a hill top. He was definitely a naturalist, and would probably been fascinated by Darwin.

Craig, Washington DC
July 28, 2009 10:56am

The branches do converge sometimes. It´s really weird in the animal kingdom, but in the other four kingdoms it´s quite common. The only example I know in mammals is the red wolf.

The 747 myth is just an extremely good example of how badly people understand evolution, and thermodynamics, and chaos theory.

Elena, Buenos Aires, Argentina
July 29, 2009 5:28pm

So Joe.

Can you or any other Faither, please suggest a 'use' for a shrunken leg bone in a whale; now that we've got you to finally admit they even exist.

And, please don't come up with the one about it being a storage facility for calcium and other minerals otherwise I may have to spend hours looking into the biochemistry of marine animals to show you that they actually live in a salted environment and get plenty of minerals - thanks.


Maybe then you'd convince us...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
July 30, 2009 2:58am

The bone in question is very handy for hanging on to when you eat this part of the whale, Griff.
The creator (the Great green Arklesezure) thought that if it works for chickens, then why not those tasty whales?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
July 30, 2009 7:52am

Well I've heard tell that the camera never lies...

I've just remembered:it was "Mills" who demanded a photo shoot of Moby et al...

Mills. Oh Mills. Are you out there?

....Echoey silence.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
July 31, 2009 7:54am

This episode is closed to further comments.


What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid

About That 1970s Global Cooling...
Skeptoid #487, Oct 6 2015
Read | Listen (12:13)
The Flying Saucer Menace
Skeptoid #486, Sep 29 2015
Read | Listen (12:29)
Holocaust Denial
Skeptoid #485, Sep 22 2015
Read | Listen (12:54)
More Unsung Women of Science
Skeptoid #484, Sep 15 2015
Read | Listen (12:56)
Unsung Women of Science
Skeptoid #483, Sep 8 2015
Read | Listen (13:13)
#1 -
The St. Clair Triangle UFO
Read | Listen
#2 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#3 -
Read | Listen
#4 -
That Elusive Fibromyalgia
Read | Listen
#5 -
SS Iron Mountain
Read | Listen
#6 -
A Skeptical Look at the News
Read | Listen
#7 -
The War of the Worlds Panic Broadcast
Read | Listen
#8 -
Ancient Astronauts
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal


Follow @skeptoid

Tweets about skeptoid

Support Skeptoid

Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.