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?

[Ooberman]

You have a metaphysical provlem wirh a Theory you don't understand? Maybe thats the source of your metaphysical problem? That you dont understand the Theory?

I'll alert the scientific community to stop work, as you are about to undermine everything they know about their work..

Would you like me to tell them the "scientists" you have faith in died more than1500 years ago?

[Clownboat]

In what world do you think a complete scientific Theory needs to be debated on a religious internet forum? Are you and I and a few other people who care to chime in going to debate Electromagnetism too?

I am not the one who announced on an Internet debate forum that anyone who so much as questions the logic of evolutionary theory has an "anti-science bias" and longs to shroud the world in darkness and ignorance. In a debate forum you have to back up your claims. Now please get on with it.

Do you really think you and I are going to make some grand discovery that has eluded almost every scientist for the last 300 years? Think of the number of Christian scientists who have tried to undermine it, yet support is not only growing, it's overwhelming.

No more discoveries are necessary as far as I'm concerned. At issue is not so much the facts in evidence, but their interpretation.

You recognize that there are Christian scientists who have tried to undermine evolutionary theory? (Presumably you mean Christians who are also scientists, not devotees to the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy.) In that case you recognize that not all scientists are accepting of evolutionary theory.

But you, me and google are going to straighten them all out, is that it?

Even if we took a small part of evolution - say genetics - we'd both be out of our league after the first scholarly paper.. but you think we should get to it, eh?

Have you had any genetic training? Have you done any of the science that is relevent?

Don't kid yourself. The broader claims of evolution are not about genetics but metaphysics, and in many circles specifically formulated to repudiate theism. Read The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins or Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennett if you doubt. (Those are the last books I read in the genre – I'm sure there are some more recent publications offering the same sort of anti-religious polemics all dressed up as science.) The basic idea, as Dawkins put it memorably, is to enable one to become "an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

What do you think this is? The Bible? Theology? Where anyone can have an opinion and we are supposed to admire it?

No. I think this is a debate forum, where anyone who makes controversial claims is obligated to defend them. If you don't want to defend the claims, don't make them. It's really that simple.

Theories are the things we can trust because they transcend us. They are too true to question unless overwhelming data comes in. Christians have had 2000 years to provide data.

Theories transcend us? No, theories are human constructs, abstractions devised to make better sense of the world and more effectively harness its resources. Because theories are human constructs, they are continually being revised and, under the right set of social conditions, are sometimes completely replaced – which means at minimum that no particular theory is "too true to question." The history of science should tell you that much. By comparison Christianity has been with us (as you mentioned) for over 2000 years. If transcendence and staying power are the criteria, Christianity beats Darwinism hands down.

But I think you've unwittingly put your finger on the problem: The theory is deemed unquestionably true because there are no disconfirming data to falsify it, but disconfirming data cannot be permitted to falsify the theory because it's already deemed unquestionably true. This only leads to more evolutionary doublespeak. Thus we are told that evolution is a sound scientific theory that remains falsifiable in principle, indeed that the person to falsify it would immediately win a Nobel Prize. At the same time anyone who actually attempts to falsify it is said to be attacking the very institution of science itself and attempting a return to the Dark Ages. Those propositions are not easily reconciled.

ev·o·lu·tion [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, esp. British, ee-vuh-] Show IPA
noun
Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.


The Theory of Evolution:
This is the theory that explains the fact of evolution.

Saying that Evolution is not a fact seems strange to me. Questioning the theory that explains this fact is done all the time, thus not as strange.

So, for clarification. Do you think that the gene pools of populations from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift doesn't happen?

I'm trying to understand if you have a problem with the fact that evolution happens, or just a problem with the theory we have that explains said fact.

[dianaiad]

I've noticed that the only people who question Evolution are the people who are the most religious and and the most ignorant of science.

They have absolutely nothing to add to humanity.

Do not make negative comments about people who have opinions contrary to yours. You can comment upon their opinions...but claiming that they 'have absolutely nothing to add to humanity' is uncivil and completely uncalled for.

Moderator Warning



Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

[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

Then your friends have some obvious limitations, or they don't understand what you mean by 'evolutionary dogma,' a contradiction in terms. If I am correct in understanding what you think you are saying, the first thing that easily comes to mind is the breeding of work animals and livestock and the bountiful harvests we've enjoyed because of artificial selection and plant hybrids.

Here's a brief example that refutes your claim:

Concepts and models used in evolutionary biology, such as natural selection, have many applications.[273]

Artificial selection is the intentional selection of traits in a population of organisms. This has been used for thousands of years in the domestication of plants and animals.[274] More recently, such selection has become a vital part of genetic engineering, with selectable markers such as antibiotic resistance genes being used to manipulate DNA. Proteins with valuable properties have evolved by repeated rounds of mutation and selection (for example modified enzymes and new antibodies) in a process called directed evolution.[275]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Applications