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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

1. Darwinian evolutionary theory fails to make precise, quantitative predictions.

"Precise" being itself quite subjective, is just as imprecise.

The ToE is the logical conclusion of reams and reams of data. That it lacks a precision one requires to accept it, well that's on them. I still find it far more powerful a notion than, "God's up there, and he created us, y'all".

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

Fossilization is far too cumbersome a process to expect that each and every species would be preserved. Indeed, I propose an uninterrupted fossil record'd be better support for the creation stories I hear tell of.

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

Until a computer can spit it out a baby, we should expect that simulations would not capture the entire record of evolution.

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).

It never fails to amuse me that a proponent of religious beliefs'd all of a sudden consider only the notions of experts valid.

Pray tell, from what learned institutions did these ancients get their degrees?

Is there any truth to these three points?

'Pends on what one considers "any". That the fossil record is incomplete is hardly reason to reject the voluminous amounts of data, beyond fossils, in support of the ToE.

[Zzyzx]

I managed to come up with 3 objections to evolutionary theory:

1. Darwinian evolutionary theory fails to make precise, quantitative predictions.

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

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

Let's start by identifying the creationist website(s) that proposes these objections.

Then 1) kindly demonstrate that modern evolutionary theory fails to make precise, quantitative predictions. What level of precision is being criticized? Gregor Mendel (a Christian monk) started the quantification process in genetics 150 years ago. A great deal of work has been done since.

2) The people who expect a complete fossil record without discontinuities are those who fail to recognize (or ignore) that the remains of living organisms tend to decompose or be destroyed -- and that only very rarely are they preserved for thousands or millions of years.

Additionally, when an intermediate (transitional) form "B" is found between A and C, the "debunkers" then criticize the lack of a form between A and B ("A+") or B and C ("B+"). If such things are found the new "debunker" request is for A++ or B++, -- then A+++, ad infinitum.

3) Kindly cite studies that verify the lack of success with computer simulations. So far we only have your word.


Edited to add:

More important that all the above -- That evolution (genetic change through generations) occurs is beyond dispute. Microbes DO adapt (genetically) to become resistant to antibiotics. That IS evolution at work. It DOES happen.

[Divine Insight]

Is there any truth to these three points?

No.

(1) "Darwinian Evolution Theory" Anytime you hear the term "Darwinian Evolution Theory" you know that you are talking to a creationists who is using straw-man arguments.

Charles Darwin was merely the man who first realized that evolution occurs. He did not have a full insight into the concept.

Charles Darwin died in 1882. A full understanding of DNA and modern genetics wasn't truly known until about 1950 when Watson and Crick discovered the true structure of DNA.

Modern day evolution theory is not a naive as "Darwinian Evolution Theory". So don't be fooled by outdated straw-man arguments.


(2) "Missing Links" The "Missing Links" arguments made by creationists is also another straw-man argument. That argument simply doesn't hold water. There are countless transitional fossil found. I didn't save the link, but Danmark had once linked to a page that contains thousands of examples of fossils of transitional species.

The creationists are just demanding an impossible level of evidence. A level of evidence that simply isn't necessary to recognize that life has indeed evolved on planet earth.

Evolution is a fact. There's no getting around it.

At best creationists can argue that God "stepped in" to create man. But even that is an extremely feeble argument because the DNA between man and the other Great Apes is simply too similar to have been a separate unique design.


(3) "Computer Simulations" I can't really address this one other than to say that it's most likely straw-man too. In other words, if no one has yet been able to model evolution in a computer it is most likely because we simply don't yet have the computing power needed to make those calculation. Not because it's not possible to simulate.

In fact, I would actually be shocked if geneticists haven't already had some success with this on very simple examples. I would need to look into this one in more depth, but I seriously doubt that there is anything to it. Like I say, if they aren't already running working simulations in simple cases it's most likely due to a lack of computer power rather than anything else. It may take a lot of computing power to calculate so many possibilities over any length of time.

And if it's just a matter of lack of computing power then this argument holds no water.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Right on DI.

Creationists are still fighting Darwin 150 years later. Evolution-deniers have difficulty with the obvious genetic changes that allow antibiotic resistance to develop. They often resort to "Evolution happens sometimes, but not others" or "It can go only so far" -- neither of which is supported by actual studies (outside theology).

Their "missing links" concern may be related to "god of the gaps." As knowledge of biology (and everything else) increases the "god links" shrink. It appears to be traumatic for those unable to adapt to loss of stature for their favorite "creator god."

[WinePusher]

Anytime you hear the term "Darwinian Evolution Theory" you know that you are talking to a creationists who is using straw-man arguments.

Divine Insight, if you want to read a brilliant example of what a straw man argument is then please refer to your very own post. You're railing against creationism when in fact I am not a creationist and none of my objections were meant to support creationism. Creationism wasn't even mentioned in the topic. Even if all the objections outlined in the OP were 100% true, that doesn't mean that evolutionary theory would be false nor does it mean that creationism is true.

Charles Darwin was merely the man who first realized that evolution occurs. He did not have a full insight into the concept.

Now here's a straw man for ya. I never said otherwise, so what's the problem? I simply referred to evolution using the proper nomenclature: Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Evolution is a scientific theory that was first formalized by a man named Charles Darwin, thus the title 'Darwinian Evolutionary Theory' seems perfectly appropriate.

Modern day evolution theory is not a naive as "Darwinian Evolution Theory". So don't be fooled by outdated straw-man arguments.

I think you may be confusing Darwin for Lamarck. Contemporary evolutionary biology has rejected many of Lamarck's ideas concerning evolution, however Darwin's contributions have been and continue to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. You claim that Darwin's conception of evolution is naïve in light of 'modern day evolutionary theory.' Can you actually pointed out any major areas where modern evolutionary biology has superseded classical/Darwinian evolutionary theory?

The "Missing Links" arguments made by creationists is also another straw-man argument.

The discontinuity of the fossil record is a scientific fact, not a 'creationist argument.' Granted, creationists do tend to abuse and exaggerate this fact.

That argument simply doesn't hold water. There are countless transitional fossil found. I didn't save the link, but Danmark had once linked to a page that contains thousands of examples of fossils of transitional species.

For certain evolutionary sequences there are an abundance of transitional forms. Other evolutionary sequences lack the needed amount of transitional fossils required to sufficiently document evolutionary change.

The creationists are just demanding an impossible level of evidence. A level of evidence that simply isn't necessary to recognize that life has indeed evolved on planet earth.

I'm not a creationist, so please stop trying to portray me as one. If you look at the reptile to mammal evolutionary sequence there are an abundance of transitional fossils that document change over time, and this particular sequence beautifully substantiates evolutionary theory. However, situation becomes more and more bleak when analyzing other evolutionary sequences, such as the insects, the invertebrates and the tetrapod's. So, an amount of transitional fossils that is comparable to the amount found in the reptile to mammal sequence will suffice, no more no less.

Evolution is a fact. There's no getting around it.

I agree. Never said otherwise.

[WinePusher]

Let's start by identifying the creationist website(s) that proposes these objections.

I would ask you to refrain from making these unwarranted assumptions. I am not a creationist and I do not visit creationist websites. It would be productive for you to stop assuming that all theists are creationists who are literalists and visit creationist websites, like how I do not assume that all non theists are atheists who are immoral, satanic criminals.

Then 1) kindly demonstrate that modern evolutionary theory fails to make precise, quantitative predictions. What level of precision is being criticized?

What I mean by this is that evolutionary theory fails to specify the precise conditions required for observable, morphological change to occur. 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? This is an area I'm unsure about and unfortunately it doesn't seem like there's any academic literature dealing with the specific subject, which is why I asked for input from people who are academically trained in biology. Unfortunately none of yet to post in this thread.

3) Kindly cite studies that verify the lack of success with computer simulations. So far we only have your word.

I was referencing a computer simulation undertaken by Richard Dawkins. According to the Wikipedia article, Dawkin's computer simulation fails to accurately model evolution and has been highly controversial. Again, this is something I'm not well versed in so commentary from an actual biologist would be appreciated.

More important that all the above -- That evolution (genetic change through generations) occurs is beyond dispute. Microbes DO adapt (genetically) to become resistant to antibiotics. That IS evolution at work. It DOES happen.

I agree. However, it is necessary to point out that not all genetic changes will result in changes to an organisms phenotype. Creationists seem to object to 'macro'evolution, that is evolutionary change that is observable and alters an organisms physical makeup (phenotype). From what I understand creationists fully accept 'micro'evolution, which is what you outlined above so it's ineffective to counter a creationist argument simply by pointing out how microbes become resistant to antibiotics. In order to effectively refute creationist dogma it is necessary to demonstrate how natural selection affects an organism's phenotype and produces observable, morphological changes.

[jimdavis]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

To anyone who doubts that evolutionary theory makes precise, falsifiable predictions, I would recommend checking out this very well-constructed collection of proofs for evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Also, the fusion of human chromosome 2 is a strong evidence for evolution that involves staggering odds. Apes have 1 more chromosome* than humans. If humans are closely related to apes, fusion of two chromosomes would have had to take place, resulting in humans having one less. In fact, there are two ape chromosomes which, when lined up end to end, match the banding pattern of the larger human chromosome 2. We're talking about millions of base pairs matching up, the odds of which would be staggering.

In addition, creationists have a hard time explaining why humans have inactive gene coding for a tail, which is just like a mouse' (but a mouse' is active). In fact, in a rare mutation (atavism), this gene can get switched on, causing the human to be born with a tail! It has been documented and studied; you can look up pictures.

If we evolved from "lower" mammals, then this vestigial tail DNA is perfectly understandable and even expected. But creationists have no good explanation.

*by chromosome, I mean chromosome pair, of course.

[WinePusher]

(3) "Computer Simulations" I can't really address this one other than to say that it's most likely straw-man too. In other words, if no one has yet been able to model evolution in a computer it is most likely because we simply don't yet have the computing power needed to make those calculation. Not because it's not possible to simulate......

......And if it's just a matter of lack of computing power then this argument holds no water.

I just read that last sentence and I think it's a very good point. I would agree that these three objections I listed aren't very powerful objections at all, but still they do need to be dealt with by the scientific community. Even if all three of my objections were true I wouldn't see a need to reject evolution. However, carelessly tossing these objections aside and making it seem that evolution has absolutely no holes in it doesn't seem to be intellectually honest imo.

[heavensgate]

[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