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?

[WinePusher]

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.

Zzyzx, this statement really wasn't necessary. Heavensgate made a comment about natural selection and tried to make a substantive contribution to the debate, and you responded to his comment by insulting his intelligence and by assuming that he doesn't understand the subject. You are making the debate personal when it shouldn't be. Try to focus on the argument instead of the person making the argument. Remember this quote?

"Those who cannot honorably defend their position in debate frequently announce their failure by focusing attention on their adversary personally rather than on the issues or the questions that they cannot / will not answer."

[Danmark]

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.

Zzyzx, this statement really wasn't necessary. Heavensgate made a comment about natural selection and tried to make a substantive contribution to the debate, and you responded to his comment by insulting his intelligence and by assuming that he doesn't understand the subject. You are making the debate personal when it shouldn't be. Try to focus on the argument instead of the person making the argument. Remember this quote?

"Those who cannot honorably defend their position in debate frequently announce their failure by focusing attention on their adversary personally rather than on the issues or the questions that they cannot / will not answer."

This is an interesting issue, WP. And it affects moderation considerations. It is absolutely true that some of the anti evolution arguments are indeed made from a position of ignorance. The most common being the straw man argument that fails to recognize the phylogenic tree and suggests that insects developed into humans [for example] in a direct line without recognizing a very early common ancestor.

The other problem is that no one on this forum, or at least almost no one, understands the details of evolution sufficiently to be able to explain it well on a comprehensive and molecular level AND has the will to do so. The plain fact is that it would take years and hundreds of pages to go thru the basics which would include expertise in molecular biology. So we fall back on the fact that virtually 100% of reputable scientists agree not only with TOE but with the FACT of evolution.

I try to refrain from the effort unless someone makes a very specific claim about a problem in TOE. And then, I look for an expert witness to cite, rather than make the effort myself.

So the anti TOE argument is typically one that demands the debater demonstrate personal expertise AND set forth a hundred page explanation. I think that is an unfair demand.

[Swrrws]

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.

[Swrrws]

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.

[Goat]

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

Why, nothing makes sense in biology, including the development of new vaccines and pharmaaceuticals except in the light of evolution. As for single celled animals to man, the evidence , step by step, is laid out in a book by Richard Dawkins called 'The greatest show on earth.'.

[Zzyzx]

.

Zzyzx, this statement really wasn't necessary.

I agree. The statement was not necessary and was redundant.

Heavensgate made a comment about natural selection and tried to make a substantive contribution to the debate, and you responded to his comment by insulting his intelligence and by assuming that he doesn't understand the subject.

I say or imply nothing about intelligence. I do comment on lack of understanding evident in "mechanism for change from mollusc to man."

A person can be quite intelligent while lacking understanding of the topic of discussion.

You are making the debate personal when it shouldn't be. Try to focus on the argument instead of the person making the argument.

1) I will keep this "reminder" available for use in our future conversations.

2) Notice the hypocrisy of devoting a post to personal comments while criticizing personal comments

3) If you think my comments inappropriate the proper response is to report the post

[Danmark]

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. . . .

[emphasis applied]
This argument assumes the 1st law of thermodynamics says more than it does.
Or to be more blunt, the argument demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of that law.

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_ ... modynamics
Where you go wrong is in your completely unfounded assumption that organic self replicating matter is not matter. The 1st law of thermodynamics is not contradicted by a mere change in the organization of a particular instance of matter and energy.

[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.

[WinePusher]

This is an interesting issue, WP. And it affects moderation considerations.

I believe the moderators have been pretty clear that personal comments are not allowed.

It is absolutely true that some of the anti evolution arguments are indeed made from a position of ignorance.

The same is true for those who make pro-evolution arguments. This forum is full of people who make arguments from a position of ignorance (excluding people like you of course).

The most common being the straw man argument that fails to recognize the phylogenic tree and suggests that insects developed into humans [for example] in a direct line without recognizing a very early common ancestor.

Correct. But, it doesn't take 10+ pages to correct this misconception. From what the moderators have told me, instead of attacking somebody by saying they don't understand (a sin that nearly all of us have been guilty of) one should simply point out how they are wrong as you've done here.

So the anti TOE argument is typically one that demands the debater demonstrate personal expertise AND set forth a hundred page explanation. I think that is an unfair demand.

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Personal expertise and long posts are not required in order to post here. In fact, there seems to be tons of 'debaters' here who have very little personal expertise in anything and, additionally, there are a fair amount of people here who tend to post one liners and short remarks. If someone makes an argument against evolutionary theory that you consider to be factually incorrect, all you have to do is simply correct them and leave it at that. An intellectually honest debater will either accept the correction or disagree and qualify their argument with additional support.

[Swrrws]

[Replying to post 26 by Danmark]

The arguement succeeds even when you replace "life" with "self replicating matter". Self replication did not exist. Then it did exist. It came of existence in a closed system in which the components did not self replicate and self replication was not present in that system. In this universe that is impossible. Use whatever word you would like. You cannot provide one instance where something was created from nothing.