Reasons To Doubt Evolution

[WinePusher]

In another thread a user asked for reasons to doubt evolution and, after thinking about the topic, I managed to come up with 3 objections to evolutionary theory:

1. Darwinian evolutionary theory fails to make precise, quantitative predictions. Generally speaking, a typical requirement for legitimate science is that a theory must produce precise, specific, quantitative predictions that will either bear out or falsify the theory itself. Darwinian evolutionary theory lacks this, as it only makes imprecise, abstract, qualitative predictions. Indeed, Stephen Jay Gould suggested that if all of natural history were rewound the mechanism of natural selection wouldn't produce the same species we have now.

2. The fossil record is highly discontinuous and many transitional sequences are nonexistent. Ideally, for evolutionary theory to be completely tight and sound there should be a wide array of transitional forms for every single major morphological change. The fossil record clearly lacks this.

3. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolutionary theory have yet to be successful. Inputting an appropriate algorithm into a computer is something that is done even in upper level undergrad university courses, and it is done to simulate and replicate a continuous process. It appears that attempts at encoding Darwinian mechanisms into an algorithm and inputting them into a computer have failed to yield successful results. I'm don't know much about this particular topic so input from biology experts would be extremely helpful.

Biology isn't my field so I would like to hear some input from other users (preferably those who have actually had academic training in biology like nygreenguy). Is there any truth to these three points?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

Darwinian evolutionary theory fails to make precise, quantitative predictions.

What does "precise" mean here and what are you expecting to see? Once that's clarified, you can move on to address the issue

The fossil record is highly discontinuous and many transitional sequences are nonexistent.

Yeah, that's expected by the time of life on the planet and the fossilization process. I fail to see how this would lead to any doubt of ToE unless the person making said claim has little to no scientific knowledge of, say, a 5th grader (not an attack, just a statement that this, in my time, was taugh around this grade & I would expect it would continue to be taught around the same time).

Computer simulations of Darwinian evolutionary theory have yet to be successful.

Simulation: the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another. In order for ANY simulation to be 100% accurate, all data fed into it would need to be 100% accurate. I don't know of anyone who claims to know everything about the ToE.
Science is a process of learning. Good scientists will amend their theories/claims or forget them altogether once new info is learned/gathered. Science acknowledges there are 'missing pieces' in the ToE.
Additionally, I also don't know of any scientist/biologist/physicists that claims to be 100% correct and accurate 100% of the time....

Regarding "doubting" - it's the same as believing: you can believe in or doubt anything you want no matter of the facts present.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

Hi Wine Pusher,
I have often asked many of my evolutionist friends for just one contribution to real world science that could be attributed directly to evolutionary dogma only, and results could not be otherwise gained from normal research, deduction and extrapolation.
So far all I have got back is the 'Sickle Cell Anaemia' routine.
Is there any thing else?

Jim

Antibodics and looking at procedures to reduce the making of antibiotic resistant strains. Let's look at Norway, and what they did with antibiotic resistant bacteria. (something we should adopt, actually).

Norway chose to put in very strict guide lines of when to use antibiotics. They were concerned because there were more and more antibiotic resistant strains, and the new drugs were too expensive. They restricted when people where given antibiotics, so that antibiotic resistance would not build up. The prediction was that with no advantage, not only will new antibiotic resistance bacteria develop, but those strains that are antibiotic resistant will gradually loose their resistance due to genetic drift .

This is what actually happened.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-drugs- ... ys-answer/

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

I have often asked many of my evolutionist friends for just one contribution to real world science that could be attributed directly to evolutionary dogma only...

Such contributions can and have taken the form of new advancements in pharmaceuticals, all the way up to a better understanding of the world in which we live, but...

There's more to science than "can it show me this one thing that I'm not saying what it should be". Where we take in the totality of scientific knowledge, across a broad spectrum of disciplini, we gain more and better insights. Trying to limit "new knowledge" to a single, solitary, and worse, nebulous notion is to limit what we can know.

and results could not be otherwise gained from normal research, deduction and extrapolation.

Extrapolation is what gives us the ToE. We observe the data, and we extrapolate from that data. That's pretty much the very core of science.

So far all I have got back is the 'Sickle Cell Anaemia' routine.
Is there any thing else?

There's plenty, only you seem to expect a "one piece of knowledge" that folks who ain't mind readers, well they can't tell what you seek, so that they might inform you.

The ToE is one of the most powerful, complex, and studied notions in the history of mankind. To expect it to produce a "new bit of knowledge" that you seem unwilling to tell us what that'd be, is, however, asking too much.

[Danmark]

Evolution is predictive. The easiest example is animal breeding; i.e. artificial selection. But there are many examples of natural selection. The use of antibiotics and the evolution of bacteria is predicted as has been demonstrated.

If evolutionary theory needed absolute confirmation, it received it when Crick and Watson discovered the role of DNA. Mendel and Darwin knew what happened, but they did not know the mechanism.

Another area where you go wrong, WP, is that you agree there are many examples of evolution, but that the fossil record is incomplete.

This is a bit like saying you understand and accept that Newton's laws apply to our solar system and to the moons in our system that orbit planets, and to the satellites that orbit the Earth, but that because we haven't observed this phenomenon in all the stars in the most distant galaxies in the universe, that the record is incomplete; therefore Newton's laws are not universal.

[Ooberman]

It is to the shame of our nation, and species, that there are still people who deny Evolution. How have we not reached the least among us with the facts? How can we save them from themselves?


It makes me so sad they choose to rot in their own ignorance.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 15 by Ooberman]

How can we save them from themselves?

Why? I have no use for ignorant people who refuse to accept logic and common sense. Let them destroy themselves - it has no impact on me and mine.
Live and let live.
If someone wants to believe in an apple as a god, let 'em. Just keep it to themselves.

It makes me so sad they choose to rot in their own ignorance.

It's better for your own mental health not to care. Let 'em rot - use your energy for you and yours.

[heavensgate]

From Post 10:

I have often asked many of my evolutionist friends for just one contribution to real world science that could be attributed directly to evolutionary dogma only...

Such contributions can and have taken the form of new advancements in pharmaceuticals, all the way up to a better understanding of the world in which we live, but...

There's more to science than "can it show me this one thing that I'm not saying what it should be". Where we take in the totality of scientific knowledge, across a broad spectrum of disciplini, we gain more and better insights. Trying to limit "new knowledge" to a single, solitary, and worse, nebulous notion is to limit what we can know.

and results could not be otherwise gained from normal research, deduction and extrapolation.

Extrapolation is what gives us the ToE. We observe the data, and we extrapolate from that data. That's pretty much the very core of science.

[There's plenty, only you seem to expect a "one piece of knowledge" that folks who ain't mind readers, well they can't tell what you seek, so that they might inform you.

The ToE is one of the most powerful, complex, and studied notions in the history of mankind. To expect it to produce a "new bit of knowledge" that you seem unwilling to tell us what that'd be, is, however, asking too much.

What I am really looking for is the direct application of ToE in modern science that actually produces a product for example, known processes will drive the discovery of new vaccines and pharmaceuticals, these known facts are not reliant on evolution though. If I put chemical A with B I will get C. ToE does not do this, it assumes too much so that A or B are not verified facts in the first place. The research in genetics is making this clearer every year. The loss of information via indels and mutations do not paint the picture of upward change, rather, degeneration over time.
I get the idea of extrapolation in science and that is where we get discovery. Just extrapolate from 'known' facts. Natural selection is evidence of change within species, but the mechanism for change from mollusc to man, no.
Jim

[Zzyzx]

.

The loss of information via indels and mutations do not paint the picture of upward change, rather, degeneration over time.

Geneticists have known for a century or so that mutations are most often NOT advantageous (and are often fatal). Others are just discovering this information.

Natural selection is evidence of change within species, but the mechanism for change from mollusc to man, no.

That someone does not understand the subject is no indication of anything but their own inability. Those who have not studied genetics beyond television or sermon level often attempt to define its limitations.

[Danmark]

What I am really looking for is the direct application of ToE in modern science that actually produces a product for example, known processes will drive the discovery of new vaccines and pharmaceuticals, these known facts are not reliant on evolution though. If I put chemical A with B I will get C. ToE does not do this, it assumes too much so that A or B are not verified facts in the first place. The research in genetics is making this clearer every year. The loss of information via indels and mutations do not paint the picture of upward change, rather, degeneration over time.
I get the idea of extrapolation in science and that is where we get discovery. Just extrapolate from 'known' facts. Natural selection is evidence of change within species, but the mechanism for change from mollusc to man, no.
Jim

The validity of a scientific theory does not depend upon the ability of a second party to use the theory to make a product. A scientific theory is simply an explanation of a phenomenon of the natural world acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation. TOE meets this definition so well that virtually every scientist and science organization recognizes that fact.
The alternative theory, creationism, is so ridiculous that the attempt to gain accreditation for the institutions that attempt to offer a degree in it has met with failure even in the 'Bible Belt.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_ ... reditation

The creationist's false dichotomy between micro and macro evolution has no merit. The critics of evolution have given up and conceded that TOE is valid, so they have been reduced to complaining about 'gaps', arguing about false explanations of TOE, and ignoring facts. Mollusks did not change into men. The TOE does not make such an absurd claim. Vertebrates and invertebrates diverged millions of years ago.
If you did some very basic research into the phylogenetic tree you would not cling to this straw man.

[WinePusher]

Evolution is predictive. The easiest example is animal breeding; i.e. artificial selection. But there are many examples of natural selection. The use of antibiotics and the evolution of bacteria is predicted as has been demonstrated.

This doesn't address what I said since I already agreed admitted that evolutionary theory does make abstract, qualitative predictions. What I requested were precise, quantitative predictions on an observable and macro level. For example, what are the needed amounts of genetic changes required to produce a morphological change in a particular organism? Will this numerical value vary when considering different species? If so, by what amount? Additionally, how will particular environments and ecosystems impact this quantitative prediction?

Biology, especially evolutionary biology, is really one of the only natural sciences that isn't rich with mathematics. Contrary to fields like chemistry and physics, you don't really need to have a strong education in math to know and understand biology. Haven't you ever wondered why this is? Seems like it's because evolutionary biology tends to be bent more towards qualitative analysis as opposed to quantitative analysis. However, this isn't necessarily true for microbiology and genetics where mathematics is used quite often.

Another area where you go wrong, WP, is that you agree there are many examples of evolution, but that the fossil record is incomplete.

Uh and how is this wrong? Both of these statements are true. There are many examples of evolution and the fossil record is incomplete. To be clear, the discontinuity of the fossil record doesn't disprove evolution. It merely limits what we can say about certain evolutionary lineages and it is a legitimate unexplained anomaly that needs to be reconciled with.

This is a bit like saying you understand and accept that Newton's laws apply to our solar system and to the moons in our system that orbit planets, and to the satellites that orbit the Earth, but that because we haven't observed this phenomenon in all the stars in the most distant galaxies in the universe, that the record is incomplete; therefore Newton's laws are not universal.

No, I'm simply suggesting that we distinguish between empirical based science and ad hoc assumptions. Uniformitarianism is an assumption of the natural sciences, and with this assumption in place we can reasonably conclude that Newton's laws are universal even though we haven't observed every corner of the universe.

The creationist's false dichotomy between micro and macro evolution has no merit.

Again, this isn't a creationist concept. Yes, creationists do tend to abuse and exaggerate the distinction between micro and macroevolution but it doesn't mean that the concept is illegitimate.