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

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?

Hi Goat, I think if I respond to you I will probs be replying to the others after you.

I see it like this. The scientist observes the way organisms work. By constant observation, we see that there is potential for change within a species, we see that the complex systems of any given organism have built in defences, and potential for selecting advantageous traits within the potential of the gene pool.

Armed with this information, we know that if we tweek A with B and get C which will enhance the defence mechanism against threats.
Are you assuming that because we have powers of observation in biology and in the suggested area of pharmaceuticals, and we tamper with it this proves evolution?
I know I am dumb, but I just can't get it. I am thinking that biology and evolution are synonymous terms for you?
So anything that happens as an advancement is evolution. Advancement = evolution.
I say observation and application = advancement.

Regards
Jim

[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?

Hi Goat, I think if I respond to you I will probs be replying to the others after you.

I see it like this. The scientist observes the way organisms work. By constant observation, we see that there is potential for change within a species, we see that the complex systems of any given organism have built in defences, and potential for selecting advantageous traits within the potential of the gene pool.

Armed with this information, we know that if we tweek A with B and get C which will enhance the defence mechanism against threats.
Are you assuming that because we have powers of observation in biology and in the suggested area of pharmaceuticals, and we tamper with it this proves evolution?
I know I am dumb, but I just can't get it. I am thinking that biology and evolution are synonymous terms for you?
So anything that happens as an advancement is evolution. Advancement = evolution.
I say observation and application = advancement.

Regards
Jim

Biologist has said 'Nothing in biology has made sense except in light of evolution'.

Let me, if you don't get it. what do you think the definition of biological evolution is? Can you state it in one or two sentences that you think biologists will agree with? Is your conception of what evolution is the same as evolutionary biologists

[Ooberman]

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.

Whenever I see this "closed system" by apologists, the voice of Brian Regan goes off in my head: "The big yellow one's the Sun!"

[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

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?

Hi Goat, I think if I respond to you I will probs be replying to the others after you.

I see it like this. The scientist observes the way organisms work. By constant observation, we see that there is potential for change within a species, we see that the complex systems of any given organism have built in defences, and potential for selecting advantageous traits within the potential of the gene pool.

Armed with this information, we know that if we tweek A with B and get C which will enhance the defence mechanism against threats.
Are you assuming that because we have powers of observation in biology and in the suggested area of pharmaceuticals, and we tamper with it this proves evolution?
I know I am dumb, but I just can't get it. I am thinking that biology and evolution are synonymous terms for you?
So anything that happens as an advancement is evolution. Advancement = evolution.
I say observation and application = advancement.

Regards
Jim

Biologist has said 'Nothing in biology has made sense except in light of evolution'.

Let me, if you don't get it. what do you think the definition of biological evolution is? Can you state it in one or two sentences that you think biologists will agree with? Is your conception of what evolution is the same as evolutionary biologists

Hi Goat
I assume that the ToE can be summed in non technical terms as the gradual change in species and phyla due changes in allele frequency over time.
Obviously I do not agree with that.
Where I and most creationists disagree with ToE is that the potential for change is checked within kinds of animals. And yes, there can be great variation within species which is easily seen. These changes due to the already present potential of the gene pool, and yes via loss of information or reintroduction of information into that pool.
What we do not see is this happening between cats and dogs, fish and reptiles to human etc.
I would like to know how a biologist cannot know the intricacies of living organisms without a grounding in evolution?
How do biologists that believe in creation succeed and cope if that is the case?
Regards
Jim

[Joab]

How do biologists that believe in creation succeed and cope if that is the case?

Do you have some widely accepted and corroborated peer reviewed papers, supporting creation, from such?

[Ooberman]

I assume that the ToE can be summed in non technical terms as the gradual change in species and phyla due changes in allele frequency over time.
Obviously I do not agree with that.
Where I and most creationists disagree with ToE is that the potential for change is checked within kinds of animals. And yes, there can be great variation within species which is easily seen. These changes due to the already present potential of the gene pool, and yes via loss of information or reintroduction of information into that pool.

Scientists have found there is plenty of variation available, hence, all the species we have today.

They have found there are plenty of mechanisms available to produce such wide variety over millions of years.

What we do not see is this happening between cats and dogs, fish and reptiles to human etc.

Right, no one is suspecting that. This misconception is based on an ignorance of the subject.

I would like to know how a biologist cannot know the intricacies of living organisms without a grounding in evolution?

They could know it to a level of intricacy, but ultimately, understanding genetics is understanding Evolution.

How do biologists that believe in creation succeed and cope if that is the case?

Are they coping? I don't know if they are or not/

Regards
Jim

A personal note: Can people stop signing their posts? This is a debate site, not a pen pal site.

This makes a post personal, and thus, any response becomes tacitly personal.

I know it's an attempt to be polite, but if one is worried about etiquette, then they should realize it is poor form use a personal greeting in a debate.

This is a public debate forum. If you want to get personal, send a PM; a "PERSONAL message".

[heavensgate]

Point taken re sign on and off.

Scientists have found there is plenty of variation available, hence, all the species we have today.

They have found there are plenty of mechanisms available to produce such wide variety over millions of years.

VCR

Can we talk about a specific mechanism that you feel cannot be interpreted any other way than evolution?

What we do not see is this happening between cats and dogs, fish and reptiles to human etc.

Right, no one is suspecting that. This misconception is based on an ignorance of the subject

.
Hmmmm, someone should notify the school curricula gurus of this fact, perhaps at the professional scientific level they have moved on, but for goodness sake, recapitulation theory is still in the schools, along with the old canards of vestigial organs and so on, and so on

I would like to know how a biologist cannot know the intricacies of living

organisms without a grounding in evolution?

They could know it to a level of intricacy, but ultimately, understanding genetics is understanding Evolution.

This is exactly what I was alluding to in my original post. Can you also tell me a specific that will take this statement further. To me, genetics are doing just the opposite. One is hard pressed to look at the irreducible complexities of the cell, ATP Synthase, kinesin, etc, etc, and they each work in an irreducible complex system, and assign all that to evolution?
It rather speaks of design.

How do biologists that believe in creation succeed and cope if that is the case?

Are they coping? I don't know if they are or not/

Yes they are coping with the science, I am sure that they find it much more difficult dealing with the politics.

Regards
Jim

A personal note: Can people stop signing their posts? This is a debate site, not a pen pal site.

This makes a post personal, and thus, any response becomes tacitly personal.

I know it's an attempt to be polite, but if one is worried about etiquette, then they should realize it is poor form use a personal greeting in a debate.

This is a public debate forum. If you want to get personal, send a PM; a "PERSONAL message".[/quote]

[Ooberman]

Point taken re sign on and off.

Scientists have found there is plenty of variation available, hence, all the species we have today.

They have found there are plenty of mechanisms available to produce such wide variety over millions of years.

VCR

Can we talk about a specific mechanism that you feel cannot be interpreted any other way than evolution?

Natural selection is one. Let's talk about that.

Hmmmm, someone should notify the school curricula gurus of this fact, perhaps at the professional scientific level they have moved on, but for goodness sake, recapitulation theory is still in the schools, along with the old canards of vestigial organs and so on, and so on

Is your problem with the funding of schools and the process of creating text books, or the Science of Evolution?

I hope you realize the difference. Let's stay on point.

This is exactly what I was alluding to in my original post. Can you also tell me a specific that will take this statement further. To me, genetics are doing just the opposite. One is hard pressed to look at the irreducible complexities of the cell, ATP Synthase, kinesin, etc, etc, and they each work in an irreducible complex system, and assign all that to evolution?
It rather speaks of design.

IC is not a scientific hypothesis, why are you mentioning it?

I thought we were talking about science?

Yes they are coping with the science, I am sure that they find it much more difficult dealing with the politics.

I don't know if they are coping. I've heard them complaining about the scientific community rejecting them and their ideas.


They shouldn't worry. Many Theories started off by being rejected by the scientific community.

Creationists can always have Faith!

[charlo921]

[Replying to post 3 by Zzyzx]

adaptation is an action evo is a thought..things adapt but no one animal ever became a whole new animal..kind after kind...heredity,prevents this..dinos died out as did all animals in the first earth age..these are the fossils we find..

[Danmark]

A personal note: Can people stop signing their posts? This is a debate site, not a pen pal site.

This makes a post personal, and thus, any response becomes tacitly personal.

I know it's an attempt to be polite, but if one is worried about etiquette, then they should realize it is poor form use a personal greeting in a debate.

This is a public debate forum. If you want to get personal, send a PM; a "PERSONAL message".

It is sufficient that people simply follow the rules. Issues like this should be brought up in "Comments, Suggestions, and Questions"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2