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?

[Zzyzx]

.

Is it your argument or not that evolutionary processes are the force behind human morals, nationalities, religion, and other artificial divisions?

My personal opinion, aside from anything presented in the thread so far, is that humans are animals who have developed (evolved) sufficient mental capacity to conduct complex societies that require certain limitations on behavior " and that some of those limitations are what has become known as morals.

Other animals also have evolved to develop complex societies and social behaviors. Whether those behaviors can be considered "moral" is perhaps disputable. Other life forms elsewhere in the universe may also exhibit "morals" or codes of behavior.

So what?

Many seem to claim that their favorite invisible, undetectable, proposed, supernatural entity poofed humans into existence with morals ingrained. However, they have yet to produce evidence that their proposals are anything more than imagination or wishful thinking.

[Swrrws]

There comes a point when the difference between our two world views is the question of what our faith is directed toward.

Wrong. Faith in superstition, magic, or religion is not even a competing world view for the thoughtful, well educated rational man.

In the beginning all phenomena were explained by superstition, magic, or religion.
99% or so of phenomena [probably 100% of man's questions about nature 3000 years ago] have been answered by hard science with no resort to 'God' for an explanation. Why anyone would continue to claim the last 1% or less is explained by a 'god' is completely beyond by comprehension. The 'god' explanation is about zero for a million. Why would I bet on the Christian Crusaders? Their team is
0 for 1,000,000 or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... in_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Je ... ilosophers

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie ... nd-belief/

As you can see theists have a bit of a better record...batting for science?...than you assume they do.

[Swrrws]

[Replying to post 24 by Goat]

Richard Dawkins book is one of the most flawed attempts at making the evolution argument. In fact he does not even define the term evolution in the book. Additionally he incorrectly defines the word "fact" and attempts to use humor to make a clever blur between fact and inference which he then uses as a foundation for his arguement. When he does get down to presenting evidence he uses micro evolution, which is really intellectually indisputable, and infers macro evolution which in many applications is an impossibility both logically and scientifically. A few chapters in he forgets about is fact/inference switch-a-roo and just plugs along with inference which is once of the major objections to macro evolution in the first place. Never trust a man who acts like Richard Dawkins. He is the atheist's televangelist. There are much smarter people who do your claims much better justice.

I see a lot of denial. yet.. I do not see you support the 'flawed'. I see hand waving away of the evidence.

How about examples.. and show that you actually understand what is said, rather than vapid rhetoric that means nothing?

These are quotes from the book which support my claims as to his method.

"Fact: Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction; a datum of experience, as distinguished from the conclusions that may be based upon it.

The implied pejorative of that merely is a bit of a cheek. Careful inference can be more reliable than actual observation, however strongly our intuition protests at admitting it.

This book will take inference seriously " not mere inference but proper scientific inference " and I shall show the irrefragable power of the inference that evolution is a fact.

The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eye-witness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time. "

Dawkins defines fact as opposed to inference. Then changes his definition to include it while also attempting to keep his original assertion that facts are only based on observable evidence. He also states that he is going to use inference to prove a fact. Besides the obvious issue his own definition of fact makes this impossible. Furthermore, Dawkins does not define Evolution. He does however give us this timeless quote of hard science:

"Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past.

As to my appeal that Dawkins is maybe not the best guy for the job

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/1 ... 79412.html

[Danmark]

As you can see theists have a bit of a better record...batting for science?...than you assume they do.

Let's cut to the chase:

In a 2013 meta-analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, of 63 scientific studies about IQ and religiosity, a negative relation between intelligence and religiosity was found in 53 out of 63, and a positive relation in the remaining ten. Controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... telligence [emphasis applied].

Professor Lynn told Times Higher Education: Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/n ... 81.article

But of course the real issue in this subtopic is evolution. Virtually 100% of scientists in biology believe in evolution. And creationism has been found to not be science by a court of law.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_s ... _evolution

[WinePusher]

Darwinism was not intended nor can it be extrapolated to explain the creation of life. Life did not exist. Then life existed. Existence is not something that can evolve since its antecedent is nonexistence or nothing. Something cannot come from nothing.
Evolution can explain how the earliest of chemical structures formed into more complex structures. However since the first law of thermodynamics is true the attribute we call life cannot have merely happened since it would involve the creation of life out of components without life in a closed system in which life did not exist. This is an impossibility or the first law of thermodynamics is wrong. Since the first law can be proven and no circumstances exist outside its parameters in the observable universe then the evolution of living matter from non living matter in a closed system with the absence of life is an impossibility. There is no other option.

Evolution must therefore only be used in application to things which are already alive. In this regard evolution works remarkably well in some instances and fails in others. Speciation, which is Darwin's purview, can be easily observed in places such as Lake Tanginika. True evolution is much harder to observe. True evolution is when one specie separates itself due to external pressure and the antecedent perishes leaving only the new specie with its new and necessarily better adapted traits. Fossil records can hint at this but come nowhere close to prove it. How could they when all one can observe is a representation of skeletal remains?
When it is said that the fossil record is incomplete it doesn't only mean that the majority of fossils are missing, which they are. It also means that unless the mutation expressed itself in skeletal form which could be preserved by fossilization we have no way of detecting a mutation ever took place. Mutations do not half form. One either has Bone A or one does not. All other information must be inferred. Inference is the basis for a theory. That is why Darwin has no provable laws.

Natural selection can also be observed in some instances. Elephants being poached in Africa are undergoing natural selection and evolving into animals with small or no tusks. However when applied to the human timeline this and by extension evolution falls apart. According to Darwin the least adaptive specie always evolves into the better adapted specie. In the human timeline, a timeline that is not at all agreed upon by evolution scholars, we see different species appearing and disappearing with no relation to external pressures. Both Neanderthal and Sapien lived through the same conditions in a world that was too big for both to be true competitors yet one died off and the other did not. We see Dionysus appear and disappear for no discernible reason.
We see Heidelgbergensis, superior to Neanderthal but inferior to Sapien, appear during the timeline of both then disappear before Neanderthal. None of this follows Darwin's theory.

In addition there is no explanation for why primates began to evolve in the first place. There were not so many monkeys on earth that population pressures forced them to become other slightly different monkeys. Monkeys are perfectly suited to their habitats through speciation. Even if that habitat changed they would just become slightly different monkeys. Are we to believe that the easiest path for a natural process is for a monkey to need food, the food to become harder to obtain, the monkey to evolve over millions of years, labor at and learn technology over hundreds of thousands of years, create a system of civilization that eventually when combined with that technology will allow that new monkey to grow all the food it would ever need? No. Natural selection would make a monkey that just ate other food.

Evolution cannot answer many, many origin questions no matter how technical the vocabulary. Many proponents assume it does. Conversely creationism cannot hope to exist intellectually by simply stating that God merely popped everything into existence as is in six 24 hour periods. Both sides must come to grips with the fact that neither position is logically or empirically tenable in its present form. Once we can debate in a manner that recognizes the deep flaws in both assumptions I believe humanity will not only make great intellectual strides but will also become much closer to its Creator.

While this is undoubtedly a well written and substantive post, it fails to address my topic. Both theists and non theists will often claim that evolution has holes in it and isn't an error free theory, yet when pressed they fail to specify what is supposedly wrong with evolution. From what I can gather, there are only 3 real objections that need to be dealt with by evolutionary biologists:

1) Evolutionary theory doesn't make quantitative predictions concerning evolutionary change over long periods of time.
2) The fossil record fails to substantiate many evolutionary sequences.
3) Attempts to accurately simulate evolution on a computer have yet to be successful.

These seem to be the only 3 legitimate objections to evolution. All other objections posed by creationists, such as the complexity of the eye or the existence of vestigial organs or the existence of monkeys etc, are not scientifically valid.

Now, like I said your post seems to demonstrate a good understanding of biology so I appreciate your input. You and Danmark seem to be the only ones making a productive contribution to the thread, and your exchanges have been interesting to read. Unfortunately, this thread seems to be full of people who 1) don't know how to write in standard English, 2) are making personal comments and 3) are writing unproductive one liners. This is disappointing to say the least.

Anyways, you seem like a serious debater so welcome to the forum. This place is in desperate need of more people like you.

[Danmark]

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie ... nd-belief/

The only article you listed that spoke directly to the issue was the one above.
Did you even read it?
From that article:

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006.

[Goat]

There comes a point when the difference between our two world views is the question of what our faith is directed toward.

Wrong. Faith in superstition, magic, or religion is not even a competing world view for the thoughtful, well educated rational man.

In the beginning all phenomena were explained by superstition, magic, or religion.
99% or so of phenomena [probably 100% of man's questions about nature 3000 years ago] have been answered by hard science with no resort to 'God' for an explanation. Why anyone would continue to claim the last 1% or less is explained by a 'god' is completely beyond by comprehension. The 'god' explanation is about zero for a million. Why would I bet on the Christian Crusaders? Their team is
0 for 1,000,000 or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... in_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Je ... ilosophers

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie ... nd-belief/

As you can see theists have a bit of a better record...batting for science?...than you assume they do.

And what do these raw links have ot do with anything what so ever? I mean, what point are you trying to make?? It seems to have no value what so ever without any further context. That is not debate.

[Danmark]

If I were hired to give public relations advice to Christians and other theists, the first thing I would tell them, is to quit talking about evolution being a questionable theory. That approach only weakens the argument for their more important claim, that God is present and active in the universe and that he loves you and cares for you.

The better course is to stress meaning and purpose and that scripture does not dwell on how the Earth was created, but on why it was created and by whom. Trying to argue against evolution, given its virtually total support by bonafide scientists, injures the standing of the advocate so dramatically, that his more important message is lost or dismissed as coming from someone who is not a serious student of science or is not intellectually objective.

[Swrrws]

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie ... nd-belief/

The only article you listed that spoke directly to the issue was the one above.
Did you even read it?
From that article:

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006.

Yes I have read it and used its findings. The intent was to show that theists, or Christian Crusaders, have in fact contributed at a high and truly foundational level in every aspect of science. This is true also of Jewish and Muslim Crusaders as the other lists showed. Scoffing at theists as somehow "less than" when it comes to scientific achievement is unwarranted.
I used the PEW study to show that even today "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity to higher power".

[Swrrws]

If I were hired to give public relations advice to Christians and other theists, the first thing I would tell them, is to quit talking about evolution being a questionable theory. That approach only weakens the argument for their more important claim, that God is present and active in the universe and that he loves you and cares for you.

The better course is to stress meaning and purpose and that scripture does not dwell on how the Earth was created, but on why it was created and by whom. Trying to argue against evolution, given its virtually total support by bonafide scientists, injures the standing of the advocate so dramatically, that his more important message is lost or dismissed as coming from someone who is not a serious student of science or is not intellectually objective.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Not the best lead in for a Theist commercial! We do have to have answers for some of the things it is used to do.
My advice to the naturalist is to not be so adamant that mankind and his knowledge is the be all an end all. That there are things we don't understand and truly may never be able to understand. That as long as they defend against a "God of the Gaps" they still be open to logical arguments for a theistic worldview. They do not have to agree. They should be open to the debate without an outright dismissal. Ultimately right or wrong theism makes a massive footprint on mankind that cannot be ignored.

With that, and in light of our beginning to stray way off winepushers topic, I would like to say thank you for the discussion and debate. You are a worthy advocate and adversary. I look forward to locking horns with you on another topic soon.