Debunking James Tour and Rob Stadler's Flawed Arguments Against Evolution

James Tour and Rob Stadler recently published a video attempting to discredit evolutionary theory, but their arguments reveal a profound misunderstanding of the evidence and concepts involved. Let's examine some of their key claims and why they don't hold up to scientific scrutiny:

Misrepresenting "High Confidence" Science

Stadler presents a set of criteria for what he calls "high confidence" vs "low confidence" science. However, these criteria are not widely accepted in the scientific community and seem designed specifically to exclude historical sciences like evolutionary biology.

He claims no one has debated him on these criteria, but evolutionary biologist Dan Stern has reached out multiple times offering to discuss them, only to be ignored. This reveals a lack of genuine engagement with experts who could point out the flaws in his framework.

Misunderstanding Comparative Genomics

Tour displays a striking lack of knowledge about comparative genomics when discussing human-chimp DNA similarity. He conflates entirely separate research projects and misinterprets what the similarity percentages actually mean.

The ~96% whole genome similarity and ~99% protein-coding similarity between humans and chimps has remained consistent as sequencing has improved. Tour seems unaware that these numbers already include non-coding DNA, erroneously claiming the similarity has decreased as more of the genome was sequenced.

Misrepresenting Orphan Genes

Stadler and Tour present orphan genes (genes unique to a particular lineage) as a major problem for evolutionary theory. In reality, orphan genes are well-understood and entirely compatible with common descent.

They arise through various evolutionary mechanisms and are found at every taxonomic level - not just between distantly related groups. The number of orphan genes between humans and chimps is less than between many species creationists accept as related, like rats and mice.

Mischaracterizing Experimental Evolution

Stadler uses experiments like Lenski's long-term E. coli evolution study as supposed evidence for limits to evolutionary change. However, this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution operates.

These experiments involve adaptation to very specific, stable environments. Major evolutionary innovations require changing selective pressures over time. Using these studies to argue against macroevolution is like claiming humans can't walk a mile because they don't move when standing on a treadmill.

Ignoring Observed Evolutionary Transitions

Tour and Stadler act as if no significant evolutionary changes have ever been observed, but this is false. Scientists have documented numerous examples of major evolutionary transitions occurring in real-time, including:

• The evolution of multicellularity in algae
• Lizard populations transitioning from egg-laying to live birth
• Wolves evolving webbed feet as they adapt to fishing
• Animals acquiring photosynthetic capabilities through endosymbiosis

These observed changes directly contradict their claims about the limits of evolution.

Misrepresenting "Junk" DNA

Tour and Stadler repeat long-debunked creationist talking points about non-coding DNA, claiming scientists used to think it was all "junk" but now know it's mostly functional. This is false on multiple levels:

1. Scientists never claimed all non-coding DNA was non-functional. Important non-coding elements like promoters were known before the term "junk DNA" was even coined.

2. While some non-coding DNA has regulatory functions, the majority still appears to lack selected function based on multiple lines of evidence.

3. The ENCODE project's claims of widespread functionality have been widely criticized within the scientific community for using an overly broad definition of "functional."

Conclusion

James Tour and Rob Stadler's arguments against evolution rely on misrepresentations of the evidence and fundamental misunderstandings of evolutionary theory. Their claims do not stand up to scrutiny when examined by experts in relevant fields like evolutionary biology and genomics.

Tour has hinted at plans to "take down" evolutionary theory in the future. However, given the poor quality of arguments presented here and his demonstrated lack of understanding of key concepts, such attempts are unlikely to be persuasive to anyone with a solid grasp of the evidence for evolution.

Rather than engaging in good faith with evolutionary biologists to address their misconceptions, Tour and Stadler appear more interested in presenting misleading arguments to audiences lacking the background knowledge to evaluate their claims critically. This approach may be effective as creationist apologetics, but it fails as a serious challenge to evolutionary science.

Article created from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFt0wEGrrCQ