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?

[Danmark]

On a planet with no life and with no ability in anything anywhere to self replicate then there can be no natural selection. Correct?

Wrong. Incorrect. You are conflating evolution with abiogenesis.
And you are supposing a false situation that certainly 'begs the question.'

What you are suggesting in your hypothetical is begging the question when you state, contrary to the evidence here on Earth, is that there is

no life and with no ability in anything anywhere to self replicate.

Yes, if there is no life and no chance of life then of course there will be no life. But that is the equivalent of saying 'suppose there is a universe that has no spheres and has no possibility of developing spheres, then there will be no spheres.' Yes, under that absurd postulation, there are no spherical planets or stars, by definition.

[Swrrws]

Evolution also fails to explain human morality so again it must be none. I did not want to include that in my original post because it veers quickly way off topic.

Indeed it does, and rather than repeat the refutation of your claim, please search this forum for the convincing arguments that demonstrate not only how evolution explains morality without need to plug in the 'god did it' argument; but also demonstrate the fact that other apes and mammals have morality. We don't have to speculate or argue about it. Morality in animals has been demonstrated.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... at-me-out/

Thank you for the references. I love TEDx and will watch it. I was aware of animal altruism stories. I however am talking about human morality. The difference being between me calling my dog good and me saying that you are a good person. Nor was I talking about rules and norms in a societal setting. I do not wish to debate this issue since we both can probably make each other's arguement.

[Zzyzx]

Evolution itself does not say that it just happens or proceeds.

Evolution says nothing at all but evolution theory stipulates that genetic change occurs over generations. That is demonstrated so frequently that it is indisputable (except in the minds of some ardent, zealous religionists).

It follows 4 of the 5 of Darwin's tenets.

Mr. Darwin shook the tree 150 years ago and religionists are still falling out -- and still try to debate (or dispute) a man who died in 1882.

You are correct when you say it does not reflect a divine desire for higher organisms. It does absolutely require that organism to be the best adapted to its environment that it can be.

Correction: There is no requirement in genetics / evolution theory that "organisms to be the best adapted to its environment that it can be."

All that is required is that organisms be well enough adapted to survive and reproduce.

Misunderstanding of the concept often occurs when a geneticist states (correctly) that individuals best adapted are more likely to survive and to produce offspring that carry their genes into future generations.

Individuals that are less well adapted are less likely to produce viable offspring or to produce them in lower numbers. Thus, the better adapted have an advantage, however slight.

A seemingly minor change may improve a genetic line's survivability " for instance a slight color change in butterflies may make them less visible to predators and more likely to survive and reproduce.

So my question still stands. How can the path of least resistance be all of recorded human history when the original monkey would have either slightly adapted or become extinct?

A reasoned answer to your question would be a suggestion that background information is available for those who are sufficiently interested and motivated; however, debate is not the appropriate venue for learning basic biology and genetics. It takes most people a year or two of college courses to grasp applicable concepts and terminology.

A background in theology is not adequate preparation to understand advanced engineering, geology, aeronautics, or dentistry " the same is true of biology and genetics.

[Danmark]

Evolution also fails to explain human morality so again it must be none. I did not want to include that in my original post because it veers quickly way off topic.

Indeed it does, and rather than repeat the refutation of your claim, please search this forum for the convincing arguments that demonstrate not only how evolution explains morality without need to plug in the 'god did it' argument; but also demonstrate the fact that other apes and mammals have morality. We don't have to speculate or argue about it. Morality in animals has been demonstrated.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... at-me-out/

Thank you for the references. I love TEDx and will watch it. I was aware of animal altruism stories. I however am talking about human morality. The difference being between me calling my dog good and me saying that you are a good person. Nor was I talking about rules and norms in a societal setting. I do not wish to debate this issue since we both can probably make each other's arguement[sic].

This is a poor attempt at best. You virtually concede the argument, then declare it inconclusive. You concede that animals have morality without God, but for some inexplicable and unsupported reason claim that the ape homo sapiens, the only surviving ape species of the genus homo, somehow is without morality.

[Swrrws]

On a planet with no life and with no ability in anything anywhere to self replicate then there can be no natural selection. Correct?

Wrong. Incorrect. You are conflating evolution with abiogenesis.
And you are supposing a false situation that certainly 'begs the question.'

What you are suggesting in your hypothetical is begging the question when you state, contrary to the evidence here on Earth, is that there is

no life and with no ability in anything anywhere to self replicate.

Yes, if there is no life and no chance of life then of course there will be no life. But that is the equivalent of saying 'suppose there is a universe that has no spheres and has no possibility of developing spheres, then there will be no spheres.' Yes, under that absurd postulation, there are no spherical planets or stars, by definition.

Not at all. Spheres exist because of gravity. A force that has existed for as long as time has.
I am stating nothing contrary to the evidence of life on earth. We know that there was a time on earth where no life existed. Then abiogenesis occurred. Literally meaning a spontaneous generation. Which is not begging the question but proving the logic. Spontaneous generation is precisely what I am talking about. Life exists and came from a state of non existence through no discernible natural process. It is at this point where rational creationism and rational naturalism intersect.

[Ooberman]

I however am talking about human morality. The difference being between me calling my dog good and me saying that you are a good person. Nor was I talking about rules and norms in a societal setting. I do not wish to debate this issue since we both can probably make each other's arguement.

This is what is known as a "FAIL".

Do I need to show why? Please let me know.

[Danmark]

On a planet with no life and with no ability in anything anywhere to self replicate then there can be no natural selection. Correct?

Wrong. Incorrect. You are conflating evolution with abiogenesis.
And you are supposing a false situation that certainly 'begs the question.'

What you are suggesting in your hypothetical is begging the question when you state, contrary to the evidence here on Earth, is that there is

no life and with no ability in anything anywhere to self replicate.

Yes, if there is no life and no chance of life then of course there will be no life. But that is the equivalent of saying 'suppose there is a universe that has no spheres and has no possibility of developing spheres, then there will be no spheres.' Yes, under that absurd postulation, there are no spherical planets or stars, by definition.

Not at all. Spheres exist because of gravity. A force that has existed for as long as time has.
I am stating nothing contrary to the evidence of life on earth. We know that there was a time on earth where no life existed. Then abiogenesis occurred. Literally meaning a spontaneous generation. Which is not begging the question but proving the logic. Spontaneous generation is precisely what I am talking about. Life exists and came from a state of non existence through no discernible natural process. It is at this point where rational creationism and rational naturalism intersect.

You are confusing the analogy with the argument. Your hypothetical stated there was no life and there could be no life. It is no surprise that under your hypothetical there is no life. This makes as much sense as saying 'there is nothing but black and can be nothing but black. Now prove there is white.' This is both silly and has nothing to do with the argument.

Then you state, "Then abiogenesis occurred." I agree. Abiogenesis + evolution = life as we know it in 2014. No magic 'god' necessary.

[Swrrws]

Evolution also fails to explain human morality so again it must be none. I did not want to include that in my original post because it veers quickly way off topic.

Indeed it does, and rather than repeat the refutation of your claim, please search this forum for the convincing arguments that demonstrate not only how evolution explains morality without need to plug in the 'god did it' argument; but also demonstrate the fact that other apes and mammals have morality. We don't have to speculate or argue about it. Morality in animals has been demonstrated.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... at-me-out/

Thank you for the references. I love TEDx and will watch it. I was aware of animal altruism stories. I however am talking about human morality. The difference being between me calling my dog good and me saying that you are a good person. Nor was I talking about rules and norms in a societal setting. I do not wish to debate this issue since we both can probably make each other's arguement[sic].

This is a poor attempt at best. You virtually concede the argument, then declare it inconclusive. You concede that animals have morality without God, but for some inexplicable and unsupported reason claim that the ape homo sapiens, the only surviving ape species of the genus homo, somehow is without morality.

I do not concede that animal altruism and human morality are the same. I do not concede that a scientific classification renders humanity on the same level as an animal. Nor does the world you live in.

[Swrrws]

On a planet with no life and with no ability in anything anywhere to self replicate then there can be no natural selection. Correct?

Wrong. Incorrect. You are conflating evolution with abiogenesis.
And you are supposing a false situation that certainly 'begs the question.'

What you are suggesting in your hypothetical is begging the question when you state, contrary to the evidence here on Earth, is that there is

no life and with no ability in anything anywhere to self replicate.

Yes, if there is no life and no chance of life then of course there will be no life. But that is the equivalent of saying 'suppose there is a universe that has no spheres and has no possibility of developing spheres, then there will be no spheres.' Yes, under that absurd postulation, there are no spherical planets or stars, by definition.

Not at all. Spheres exist because of gravity. A force that has existed for as long as time has.
I am stating nothing contrary to the evidence of life on earth. We know that there was a time on earth where no life existed. Then abiogenesis occurred. Literally meaning a spontaneous generation. Which is not begging the question but proving the logic. Spontaneous generation is precisely what I am talking about. Life exists and came from a state of non existence through no discernible natural process. It is at this point where rational creationism and rational naturalism intersect.

You are confusing the analogy with the argument. Your hypothetical stated there was no life and there could be no life. It is no surprise that under your hypothetical there is no life. This makes as much sense as saying 'there is nothing but black and can be nothing but black. Now prove there is white.' This is both silly and has nothing to do with the argument.

Then you state, "Then abiogenesis occurred." I agree. Abiogenesis + evolution = life as we know it in 2014. No magic 'god' necessary.

Getting to a place where we both can shake hands on the spontaneous generation of life through no discernible natural means is good. I believe that the only explanation for something found outside of nature is God. I respect your choice to believe in something else.

[Danmark]

Thank you for the references. I love TEDx and will watch it. I was aware of animal altruism stories. I however am talking about human morality. The difference being between me calling my dog good and me saying that you are a good person. Nor was I talking about rules and norms in a societal setting. I do not wish to debate this issue since we both can probably make each other's arguement[sic].

This is a poor attempt at best. You virtually concede the argument, then declare it inconclusive. You concede that animals have morality without God, but for some inexplicable and unsupported reason claim that the ape homo sapiens, the only surviving ape species of the genus homo, somehow is without morality.
Swrrws :

I do not concede that animal altruism and human morality are the same. I do not concede that a scientific classification renders humanity on the same level as an animal. Nor does the world you live in.

I take your "I do not wish to debate this issue" as a concession. The plain fact is that homo sapiens is an animal.

The plain fact is that rats exhibit behaviors indistinguishable from altruism.

University of Chicago neuroscientist Peggy Mason and psychologists Inbal Ben-Ami Bartal and Jean Decety placed pairs of rats in pens. One rat was caged in the middle of the pen, whereas the other was free to run around. In this experiment, 23 of 30 rats liberated their peers by head butting the cage door or leaning against the door until it tipped over.
To actually test the rodents selflessness, Mason placed rats in pens with two cages: in one was another rat; in the other was a pile of chocolate chips. The unhindered rats could easily have eaten the chocolate themselves. Instead most of the rodents opened both cages and shared the sweets. In rat land, that is big, Mason says. This is the first study to show altruistic behavior in rodents.