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]

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

"...no life, no biology, only physics and chemistry, and the details of the Earths chemistry were very different. Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea. Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying"a replicator. This may seem like a big stroke of luck... Freakish or not, this kind of luck does happen... [and] it had to happen only once... What is more, as far as we know, it may have happened on only one planet out of a billion billion planets in the universe. Of course many people think that it actually happened on lots and lots of planets, but we only have evidence that it happened on one planet, after a lapse of half a billion to a billion years. So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet"because here we are talking about it (Dawkins, 1996, pp. 282"283, emphasis in original)."

There comes a point when the difference between our two world views is the question of what our faith is directed toward.

[Danmark]

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.

So you agree with me. Evolution has simply resulted in a species with an incredibly complex brain. From this sheer physical material composed of 100 billion neurons, some with as many as 1000 connections, a complex mind emerges. No need for resort to 'supernatural' explanations.

But somehow you turn this on its head to say evolution didn't take place. The 747 is not a product of the evolution of the species. How does that demonstrate evolution did not take place to create the species that made tools, even as complex as a 747?

This religious 'supernatural' or magic, 'I give up, god done it' absurdity is not even a competing viewpoint to rational man. Superstition simply is not part of the equation. It doesn't even make the quarter finals.

[Goat]

[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.

I see a lot of denial. yet.. I do not see you support the 'flawed'. I see hand waving away of the evidence.

How about examples.. and show that you actually understand what is said, rather than vapid rhetoric that means nothing?

[Danmark]

There comes a point when the difference between our two world views is the question of what our faith is directed toward.

Wrong. Faith in superstition, magic, or religion is not even a competing world view for the thoughtful, well educated rational man.

In the beginning all phenomena were explained by superstition, magic, or religion.
99% or so of phenomena [probably 100% of man's questions about nature 3000 years ago] have been answered by hard science with no resort to 'God' for an explanation. Why anyone would continue to claim the last 1% or less is explained by a 'god' is completely beyond by comprehension. The 'god' explanation is about zero for a million. Why would I bet on the Christian Crusaders? Their team is
0 for 1,000,000 or more.

[Swrrws]

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.

So you agree with me. Evolution has simply resulted in a species with an incredibly complex brain. From this sheer physical material composed of 100 billion neurons, some with as many as 1000 connections, a complex mind emerges. No need for resort to 'supernatural' explanations.

But somehow you turn this on its head to say evolution didn't take place. The 747 is not a product of the evolution of the species. How does that demonstrate evolution did not take place to create the species that made tools, even as complex as a 747?

This religious 'supernatural' or magic, 'I give up, god done it' absurdity is not even a competing viewpoint to rational man. Superstition simply is not part of the equation. It doesn't even make the quarter finals.

"This is not an evolutionary process" is not an ambiguous statement. Human moral reasoning is not a form of technology.
You previously stated that moral reasoning is not unique to humans.
You then concede that humans possess a more complex form due to evolutionary processes.
When presented with actual instances of human morality radically diverging on a massive scale from what would be expected from an evolutionary process of human morality forming over time you provide a smaller example and confirm that "this is not an evolutionary process".

To reject an arguement out of hand as "absurdity" is not the action of rational man nor is it a valid defense of your position. To assert that theism is not a competing viewpoint is to deny the world around you. The number of google results alone proves that people throughout the world are debating these issues from all sides. The volumes of historical and recent writings in support and defense of both sides show that everyone concerned with this debate is defending their view against the other and has been for quite some time.

[Hatuey]

In another thread ... these three points?

I don't doubt evolution because of invisible unicorns that obviously exist. Problem solved.

[Danmark]

"This is not an evolutionary process" is not an ambiguous statement. Human moral reasoning is not a form of technology.
You previously stated that moral reasoning is not unique to humans.
You then concede that humans possess a more complex form due to evolutionary processes.
When presented with actual instances of human morality radically diverging on a massive scale from what would be expected from an evolutionary process of human morality forming over time you provide a smaller example and confirm that "this is not an evolutionary process".

To reject an arguement out of hand as "absurdity" is not the action of rational man nor is it a valid defense of your position. To assert that theism is not a competing viewpoint is to deny the world around you. The number of google results alone proves that people throughout the world are debating these issues from all sides. The volumes of historical and recent writings in support and defense of both sides show that everyone concerned with this debate is defending their view against the other and has been for quite some time.

I reject the supernatural as an explanation of anything. Indeed, I reject it out of hand. It is not worth considering no matter how many people believe in astrology or other silly forms of belief.

I did not state that animals had 'moral reasoning.' That is your terminology. I said animals behave morally. That religion and nationality and race and other artificial divisions between people drive them to kill each other is part of the problem that religion and other false beliefs bring to the equation.

Why believe in something that there is no evidence for? Rather than cite the billions of people who still slog around in the dark ages, I'm more interested in the highly educated. As education increases, the belief in ancient superstition decreases. Try googling that.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 55:

Precisely. Humans are the only specie capable of rational thought and discourse.

Being capable of it doesn't mean all are sitting there a-doin' it.

We exist on a higher mental plane than any other animal.

I'll remember that the next time I see someone picking up their dog's poops.

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.

The scientific method is a poor way to go about determining that which is based solely on opinion.

Ask the Gnu how he feels having to look over his shoulder every time some momma lion has her some young'ns to feed. Ask those young'ns how proud they are of Momma.

Morality is purely in the mind of the one doing the judging.

One rat removing another rat from a cage instead of eating chocolate does not demonstrate moral reasoning equal to that of humanity.

'Specially when humanity wages war on some others of it.

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.

How "highly complex" is our "moral reasoning", when we try to declare the ToE fails 'cause of it?

I would further argue that evolution cannot explain many moral actions.

That's 'cause morality is the opinion of the one sitting there doing all the moralizing.

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?

Thus we see that where murder of individuals and groups is a-happenin', trying to declare the ToE invalid 'cause of it, is the wrong way to go.

I have no moral qualms with killing the man sittin' there trying to kill me. Only he's trying to kill me 'cause he caught me in bed with his old lady. Now, who's the moral one here. Him? His old lady? Or me, trying to get my freak on?

Morality is, as I said, purely and solely in the eye of the moralitor.

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

That the ToE fails to live up to your misguided demand that morality offers some form of "purpose" is no reason to scrap it for all the rest of it that it does get right.

Morality never occurs 'til someone sits there and thinks, "Well that ain't right".

[Swrrws]

"This is not an evolutionary process" is not an ambiguous statement. Human moral reasoning is not a form of technology.
You previously stated that moral reasoning is not unique to humans.
You then concede that humans possess a more complex form due to evolutionary processes.
When presented with actual instances of human morality radically diverging on a massive scale from what would be expected from an evolutionary process of human morality forming over time you provide a smaller example and confirm that "this is not an evolutionary process".

To reject an arguement out of hand as "absurdity" is not the action of rational man nor is it a valid defense of your position. To assert that theism is not a competing viewpoint is to deny the world around you. The number of google results alone proves that people throughout the world are debating these issues from all sides. The volumes of historical and recent writings in support and defense of both sides show that everyone concerned with this debate is defending their view against the other and has been for quite some time.

I reject the supernatural as an explanation of anything. Indeed, I reject it out of hand. It is not worth considering no matter how many people believe in astrology or other silly forms of belief.

I did not state that animals had 'moral reasoning.' That is your terminology. I said animals behave morally. That religion and nationality and race and other artificial divisions between people drive them to kill each other is part of the problem that religion and other false beliefs bring to the equation.

Why believe in something that there is no evidence for? Rather than cite the billions of people who still slog around in the dark ages, I'm more interested in the highly educated. As education increases, the belief in ancient superstition decreases. Try googling that.

You are incorrect in your assumptions.


http://www.norc.org/PDFs/Beliefs_about_God_Report.pdf

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-10-mo ... world.html

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/rel ... gion_n.htm

http://www.gallup.com/poll/7729/does-mo ... gious.aspx

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morally

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-moral

Is it your argument or not that evolutionary processes are the force behind human morals, nationalities, religion, and other artificial divisions?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 64:

...
When presented with actual instances of human morality radically diverging on a massive scale from what would be expected from an evolutionary process of human morality forming over time...
...

The deal here is that no man-made calamity has been enough to wipe out the species, so, in evolutionary terms, all is well.