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?

[Swrrws]

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.

So a rat who kills and eats another rat bears the same moral responsibility as a human that does the same?

[Danmark]

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.

So a rat who kills and eats another rat bears the same moral responsibility as a human that does the same?

Why not? You are the one imposing 'moral responsibility' on various species. Rats do what rats do, whether it is altruistic, or cannibalistic. Men do what men do. Human society has judged the incidents of cannibalism with ambiguity depending on the circumstances. Both rats and men appear capable of altruism and cannibalism. Your question seems to support the fact that both men and rats are animals. I agree.

[Swrrws]

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.

So a rat who kills and eats another rat bears the same moral responsibility as a human that does the same?

Why not? You are the one imposing 'moral responsibility' on various species. Rats do what rats do, whether it is altruistic, or cannibalistic. Men do what men do. Human society has judged the incidents of cannibalism with ambiguity depending on the circumstances. Both rats and men appear capable of altruism and cannibalism. Your question seems to support the fact that both men and rats are animals. I agree.

I am attempting to understand if human morality is of more, less, or equal value than a rats. And if it is of equal or less value I must ask why we do not punish rat on rat murder in the same way we punish the crime between humans.

[Jashwell]

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.

So a rat who kills and eats another rat bears the same moral responsibility as a human that does the same?

Why not? You are the one imposing 'moral responsibility' on various species. Rats do what rats do, whether it is altruistic, or cannibalistic. Men do what men do. Human society has judged the incidents of cannibalism with ambiguity depending on the circumstances. Both rats and men appear capable of altruism and cannibalism. Your question seems to support the fact that both men and rats are animals. I agree.

I am attempting to understand if human morality is of more, less, or equal value than a rats. And if it is of equal or less value I must ask why we do not punish rat on rat murder in the same way we punish the crime between humans.

We're aware human beings are capable of rational thought and discourse.
We don't know that rats are.

We're also biased towards our own species for obvious evolutionary reasons.

[heavensgate]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?
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.[/quote]

Hi Danmark
It seems there is a 'virgin birth' problem in your statement above. Magic it seems is everywhere. (Abiogenesis = unproven theory + evolution = unproven theory) = Magic. This is the formula that is the answer to everything? Hmmmm
Regards
Jim

[Swrrws]

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.

So a rat who kills and eats another rat bears the same moral responsibility as a human that does the same?

Why not? You are the one imposing 'moral responsibility' on various species. Rats do what rats do, whether it is altruistic, or cannibalistic. Men do what men do. Human society has judged the incidents of cannibalism with ambiguity depending on the circumstances. Both rats and men appear capable of altruism and cannibalism. Your question seems to support the fact that both men and rats are animals. I agree.

I am attempting to understand if human morality is of more, less, or equal value than a rats. And if it is of equal or less value I must ask why we do not punish rat on rat murder in the same way we punish the crime between humans.

We're aware human beings are capable of rational thought and discourse.
We don't know that rats are.

We're also biased towards our own species for obvious evolutionary reasons.

Precisely. Humans are the only specie capable of rational thought and discourse. We exist on a higher mental plane than any other animal. So much so that we are the only animal to use the scientific method to determine if we are the only animal with moral reasoning.
One rat removing another rat from a cage instead of eating chocolate does not demonstrate moral reasoning equal to that of humanity. The study itself refers only to behavior. Not to be pithy, but upon consulting the criminal and civil codes for any animal specie we can pretty easily see that our form of moral reasoning is highly complex compared to our animal brethren.

I would further argue that evolution cannot explain many moral actions. If morality evolved through societal pressures in order to ensure the survival of the group and individual then what explains the decisions to murder both the individual and the group in a society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killi ... viet_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Roug ... f_Cambodia

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killi ... c_of_China

Where in human evolutionary history did this evolve and for what purpose?

[Swrrws]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?
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.

Hi Danmark
It seems there is a 'virgin birth' problem in your statement above. Magic it seems is everywhere. (Abiogenesis = unproven theory + evolution = unproven theory) = Magic. This is the formula that is the answer to everything? Hmmmm
Regards
Jim[/quote]


Correct although I would be careful to not throw all of evolution under the bus as we can clearly observe much of it around us. And you risk ending the debate with that statement. The problem is, and I believe our discourse ultimately showed, that at some point an unnatural occurrence happened which created life on earth. Wether or not you call it abiogenesis or creation you are still describing spontaneous generation of life outside of natural processes.
Naturalists will say "no God needed". But there is something needed. Nothing in our universe happens without a cause yet abiogenesis describes just that and purports to still be a natural process!
I would posit that anything outside of nature is by definition supernatural. This outside of nature force also has the ability to create life. Because it exists outside of nature it exists outside of time, space, matter, and energy.
This is either God or a synonym with the same properties we attribute to God.

[Danmark]

Precisely. Humans are the only specie capable of rational thought and discourse. We exist on a higher mental plane than any other animal. So much so that we are the only animal to use the scientific method to determine if we are the only animal with moral reasoning.
One rat removing another rat from a cage instead of eating chocolate does not demonstrate moral reasoning equal to that of humanity. The study itself refers only to behavior. Not to be pithy, but upon consulting the criminal and civil codes for any animal specie we can pretty easily see that our form of moral reasoning is highly complex compared to our animal brethren.

I would further argue that evolution cannot explain many moral actions. If morality evolved through societal pressures in order to ensure the survival of the group and individual then what explains the decisions to murder both the individual and the group in a society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killi ... viet_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Roug ... f_Cambodia

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killi ... c_of_China
Where in human evolutionary history did this evolve and for what purpose?

What's your point? That God and religion are responsible for mass murder, rather than evolution? Evolution has resulted in species that have various capacities and instincts. With humans the nature vs. nurture argument has been going on for hundreds of years. Most mass murder and genocide take place when one tribe defines another as 'other.'
The ancient Hebrews had laws against murder, but when an 'other' tribe had land they wanted they killed women, children as well as men to get the land and cited their God as having given them permission. This is not an example of evolutionary process, but of man's capacity for more complex thought and rationalization.

[Danmark]

Naturalists will say "no God needed". But there is something needed. Nothing in our universe happens without a cause yet abiogenesis describes just that and purports to still be a natural process!
I would posit that anything outside of nature is by definition supernatural. This outside of nature force also has the ability to create life. Because it exists outside of nature it exists outside of time, space, matter, and energy.
This is either God or a synonym with the same properties we attribute to God.

This is a good description of the religious process. When something is not fully understood, the first resort is to the 'supernatural' and the 'God did it' approach.
The approach of science is to keep looking, keep exploring, to find out what really happened or happens. Without the approach of science, the religious would still be crediting thunderbolts to Zeus or whomever is their god du jour.

When it comes to abiogenesis, this is an example of the approach of science:
Abiogenesis (/eba.dnss/ ay-by-oh-jen--siss[1]) or biopoiesis[2] is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.[3][4][5][6] The earliest life on Earth existed at least 3.5 billion years ago,[7][8][9] during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon. The earliest specific evidence for life on Earth is biogenic graphite in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland[10] and microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia.[11][12]

Scientific hypotheses about the origins of life can be divided into a number of categories. Many approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. On the assumption that life originated spontaneously on Earth, the Miller"Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can be racemically synthesized in conditions which were intended to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[Swrrws]

Precisely. Humans are the only specie capable of rational thought and discourse. We exist on a higher mental plane than any other animal. So much so that we are the only animal to use the scientific method to determine if we are the only animal with moral reasoning.
One rat removing another rat from a cage instead of eating chocolate does not demonstrate moral reasoning equal to that of humanity. The study itself refers only to behavior. Not to be pithy, but upon consulting the criminal and civil codes for any animal specie we can pretty easily see that our form of moral reasoning is highly complex compared to our animal brethren.

I would further argue that evolution cannot explain many moral actions. If morality evolved through societal pressures in order to ensure the survival of the group and individual then what explains the decisions to murder both the individual and the group in a society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killi ... viet_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Roug ... f_Cambodia

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killi ... c_of_China
Where in human evolutionary history did this evolve and for what purpose?

What's your point? That God and religion are responsible for mass murder, rather than evolution? Evolution has resulted in species that have various capacities and instincts. With humans the nature vs. nurture argument has been going on for hundreds of years. Most mass murder and genocide take place when one tribe defines another as 'other.'
The ancient Hebrews had laws against murder, but when an 'other' tribe had land they wanted they killed women, children as well as men to get the land and cited their God as having given them permission. This is not an example of evolutionary process, but of man's capacity for more complex thought and rationalization.

My point was stated above and is confirmed by your response. The ancient Hebrews made a complex rationalization in relation to behavior.
You state that this is not an example of evolutionary process. I agree that the complex rationalization demonstrated by this particular tribe in relation to behavior is not an example of evolutionary process. Furthermore, I contend that not only is it not in this particular tribe at this particular time, but also all human complex rationalization in relation to behavior is not an example of evolutionary process.
That complex human rationalization of behavior exists in humans apart from evolutionary explanations.