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?

[heavensgate]

[Replying to post 89 by Nickman]

Hi Nickman,
These are the very things that make me think ToE is not science as such and does not produce results. As you would agree, math is not evolution, physics is not evolution, chemistry is not evolution, astronomy is not evolution. These all stand in their own right a separate (yet complimentary sciences) and will quite happily continue to make great advances in their own capacity (without the need to apply Toe).
It seems to me that ToE is to plastic, to pliable to be a science in its own right but seems to have the lions share of the limelight. I notice this is a common complaint from sciences when it comes to dishing out the funding pie. ToE is over represented, but actually contributes little in the grand scheme of things.
Jim

[WinePusher]

What your asking for is precision, but that is impossible with change over time. You demand every last bit of evidence, but evidence is how it comes. I am sorry but evidence diminishes over time. What has been shown is that biology evolves. That means changes over time. Even in our incomplete fossil record, we still see a change in biology.

I am simply asking for the same level of precision that is found in the other natural sciences. For example, let's consider the 2 following theories: kinetic gas theory in chemistry and the theory of relativity in physics. Both of these scientific theories make precise, quantitative predictions and both of these theories can be expressed mathematically. Evolutionary theory doesn't even come close to the precision found within these two theories, and this does harm it's credibility to a certain degree. Remember, the basic idea being conveyed by evolution is descent with modification. Biological change occurs overtime, and this is a qualitative prediction made by evolutionary theory that is obviously true. However, the theory fails to specify the precise rate of change, the precise number of genetic changes needed to induce a change to an organisms phenotype and how evolutionary change manifests itself. The last point is still being debated among biologists today.

This doesn't address what I said since I already agreed admitted that evolutionary theory does make abstract, qualitative predictions. What I requested were precise, quantitative predictions on an observable and macro level. 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?

As I said earlier, you require precision, even though that is impossible given the circumstances. There is no precision in any field of study. Even in politics or economic studies we cannot be certain. What we can do is show what happened in the past and make predictions based on that evidence.

I'm not speaking about social sciences like politics and economics. The social sciences are notorious for being imprecise, and they are in fact criticized for this very reason. Biology is not a social science, it's a natural science and the natural sciences are often considered to be superior to social sciences.

Biology, especially evolutionary biology, is really one of the only natural sciences that isn't rich with mathematics. Contrary to fields like chemistry and physics, you don't really need to have a strong education in math to know and understand biology. Haven't you ever wondered why this is? Seems like it's because evolutionary biology tends to be bent more towards qualitative analysis as opposed to quantitative analysis. However, this isn't necessarily true for microbiology and genetics where mathematics is used quite often.

No I haven't wondered, because biology is not reliant on mathematical propositions. This is because flora/fauna have a need to survive. This is opposed by other flora/fauna that also have to survive. It is not a constant which we find in physics. Mathematics is used when we find constants.

What? Physics and chemistry are not 'reliant on mathematical propositions' either. These fields use mathematics to describe fundamental relationships in nature. Geometry describes shapes, trigonometry describes triangles, calculus describes change and statistics describes data. Mathematics is very much a descriptive discipline, which is why it is so prevalent in the sciences (even the social sciences). Even economics can be expressed in mathematics, whereas a natural science like biology cannot (except for certain sub disciplines of biology).

Of course it doesn't go against evolution. In fact, anybody who actually observes the fossil record would have to conclude that 'macro'evolutionary change is a real thing. But, the point about the fossil record is that it fails to substantiate particular evolutionary sequences. The reptile to mammal sequence is well documented in the fossil record, while other sequences such as the invertebrates, the tetrapod's and the insects are not.

Just like is said, fossils are hard to make. We would expect insects and invertebrates to be reluctant to create fossils, and they are. Science has known this for years. We don't expect to have a complete fossil record, but the creationists do expect a complete fossil record. This is because they don't understand how fossils are formed.

You do realize that we do have fossils of insects and invertebrates, there just aren't many that are transitional. I've looked into this 'fossils are hard to make' excuse and even inquired my biology professor about it and it doesn't seem like it's an appropriate answer. It's an all or nothing issue, if fossils are so incredibly difficult to form then we should see very few fossilized remains. Yet, there are a good amount of fossils and there are even a pretty good amount of transitional fossils for certain evolutionary sequences. The problem is that transitional forms are lacking for other sequences, and therefore we can only infer that they exist. Even though we lack many transitional fossils that DOES NOT mean that evolution is false and that all these other descendent organisms popped into existence out of nothing. It's still extremely likely that these organisms evolved. However, there is no way to empirically substantiate this claim using the fossil record.

I don't find this point particularly compelling since modern computer science has been perfectly capable of simulating the expansion of the universe (Source).

That is because, what we know about the universe is based on mathematics. We knew about Pluto, Uranus, and Jupiter before we saw them visually, based on mathematics. We calculated that there were certain bodies further out there pulling us away from the sun and keeping us in a specific orbit. This was calculated against the pull of the sun, and was confirmed when we developed telescopes powerful enough to actually see them.

I don't see how any of this supports your original point. Your original point was that a computer cannot "simulate millions of years of conditions and selective pressures." Computers have successfully simulated the expansion of the universe, and many attempts to simulate evolution on a computer have been tried by the scientific community (according to you these are all futile efforts). The problem is that evolutionary theory is not precise and quantitative, and therefore cannot be expressed in a set of equations and inputted into a computer. As biology progresses this problem will probably be resolved.

[Danmark]

You do realize that we do have fossils of insects and invertebrates, there just aren't many that are transitional. I've looked into this 'fossils are hard to make' excuse and even inquired my biology professor about it and it doesn't seem like it's an appropriate answer. It's an all or nothing issue, if fossils are so incredibly difficult to form then we should see very few fossilized remains. Yet, there are a good amount of fossils and there are even a pretty good amount of transitional fossils for certain evolutionary sequences. The problem is that transitional forms are lacking for other sequences, and therefore we can only infer that they exist. Even though we lack many transitional fossils that DOES NOT mean that evolution is false and that all these other descendent organisms popped into existence out of nothing. It's still extremely likely that these organisms evolved. However, there is no way to empirically substantiate this claim using the fossil record.

[emphasis mine]
That's a fair assessment and you are basically not disagreeing with the evolutionary model then. Correct? What are the transitional fossils you believe are missing from the record when you write, "we lack many transitional fossils?"

[Goat]

[Replying to post 89 by Nickman]

Hi Nickman,
These are the very things that make me think ToE is not science as such and does not produce results. As you would agree, math is not evolution, physics is not evolution, chemistry is not evolution, astronomy is not evolution. These all stand in their own right a separate (yet complimentary sciences) and will quite happily continue to make great advances in their own capacity (without the need to apply Toe).
It seems to me that ToE is to plastic, to pliable to be a science in its own right but seems to have the lions share of the limelight. I notice this is a common complaint from sciences when it comes to dishing out the funding pie. ToE is over represented, but actually contributes little in the grand scheme of things.
Jim

Would you care to address the examples given, including the results of how to use antiboidotcs that Norway has devise, and relay how your remarks fit into those examples?

[WinePusher]

You do realize that we do have fossils of insects and invertebrates, there just aren't many that are transitional. I've looked into this 'fossils are hard to make' excuse and even inquired my biology professor about it and it doesn't seem like it's an appropriate answer. It's an all or nothing issue, if fossils are so incredibly difficult to form then we should see very few fossilized remains. Yet, there are a good amount of fossils and there are even a pretty good amount of transitional fossils for certain evolutionary sequences. The problem is that transitional forms are lacking for other sequences, and therefore we can only infer that they exist. Even though we lack many transitional fossils that DOES NOT mean that evolution is false and that all these other descendent organisms popped into existence out of nothing. It's still extremely likely that these organisms evolved. However, there is no way to empirically substantiate this claim using the fossil record.

[emphasis mine]
That's a fair assessment and you are basically not disagreeing with the evolutionary model then. Correct?

Yes, I fully accept the theory of evolution. I've never been an evolution skeptic and (hopefully) never will be unless a new scientific theory comes along supersedes evolution. And I apologize for going on a bit of a rant here, but I find the term 'denier' to be completely unfounded. Evolution proponents and global warming proponents will often label anyone who disagrees with them as being a 'denier,' but the appropriate term that they need to use is 'skeptic.' A person who doesn't accept a particular hypothesis or theory is a skeptic, not a denier. I realize you haven't used the term Danmark, but how would you like it if I constantly called you a denier of God or a denier of Christianity?

What are the transitional fossils you believe are missing from the record when you write, "we lack many transitional fossils?"

I've listed three sequences that lack an abundance transitional forms: the tetrapod's, the invertebrates and the insects.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 89 by Nickman]

Hi Nickman,
These are the very things that make me think ToE is not science as such and does not produce results. As you would agree, math is not evolution, physics is not evolution, chemistry is not evolution, astronomy is not evolution. These all stand in their own right a separate (yet complimentary sciences) and will quite happily continue to make great advances in their own capacity (without the need to apply Toe).
It seems to me that ToE is to plastic, to pliable to be a science in its own right but seems to have the lions share of the limelight. I notice this is a common complaint from sciences when it comes to dishing out the funding pie. ToE is over represented, but actually contributes little in the grand scheme of things.
Jim

I previously gave examples of the predictive power that biological evolution gives us. Without evolutionary theory, most of the planet would be sick because we wouldn't understand how or why bacteria gain immunity or how they evolve new strains. This would cause our medicine to be ineffective.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 91 by WinePusher]

I'm going to address the whole of your post for brevity.

My point is that biological evolution is not precise, because we cannot know what every condition and selective pressure there was at every moment in history. The mathematical models calculated on computers rely on human input of algorithms. If the above sentences are both true, then trying to create a computer model with predictive power for evolution would be futile.

I don't think that we could, currently, create a proper mathematical model that would take into consideration all conditions and selective pressures.

On fossils, yes fossils are difficult to make and require the proper conditions. What we know is that there are many fossils, and we are finding more everyday. Even for insects and plants. What we predict is that plant and insect fossils would be harder to find because of their decomposition rate. It is no surprise that these two groups have incomplete fossil records. I don't see a problem with that.

[Peter]

I am simply asking for the same level of precision that is found in the other natural sciences.

You're skeptical because there are no precise mathematical formulas that describe the mechanism of evolution? Thats a totally unreasonable demand from what is a biological mechanism with so many moving parts that are influenced by completely unknown future environments.

Are you seriously asking for something like a formula that can predict how many fingers humans will have in 50 million years?

The answer is 8 with two vestigal.

BTW, we won't find many transitionals for the simpler lifeforms because they can change so quickly there simply weren't many transitionals around to fossilize.

[Ooberman]

To the OP. Evolution is Theory as much as the others, and offers many predictions. I'm not sure where the problem is.

[Zzyzx]

.
The best reasons to doubt evolution

1) Know nothing about it (or even what the term actually means)

2) Adopt the views of a preacher who knows nothing about the subject but has a vested interest in condemning anything that contradicts what he tells believers.

3) Refuse to learn