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?

[sizzle-d]

[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..

Thanks for expressing what I've been trying to say in simpler words and welcome to the forum.

[Goat]

[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..

That is right. No animal became a whole new animal, in one generation.

however, , over many suceeding generations, the species change. If two populations do not interbreed, over time, they change enough so they are not the same species.

[Ooberman]

[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..

That is right. No animal became a whole new animal, in one generation.

Which is ironic that Theists accuse Evolution of saying just that, when they believe God made everything whole in NO generations.

They seem to believe animals popped into existence (because of God), then accuse Evolution for not being true because it doesn't take this into account.

From my POV, this seems to be the presupposition they bring to the table as an unstated premise, which is why they will never understand Evolution.

[sizzle-d]

Error post.

[sizzle-d]

If two populations do not interbreed, over time, they change enough so they are not the same species.

Not really, they adapt but don't change species.
A person living in a forest adapt to it but remain human. No species changing, they are still Homo Sapiens.

[Danmark]

If two populations do not interbreed, over time, they change enough so they are not the same species.

Not really, they adapt but don't change species.
A person living in a forest adapt to it but remain human. No species changing, they are still Homo Sapiens.

The factor you are not accounting for is time. You are correct, at least for fairly advanced species, that a few thousand years will not result in dramatic differences between the populations. But over several million years our past history says otherwise. We only need go back 1 to 2 million years to find a different species of the genus homo; homo habilis.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... mo-habilis
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledg ... n-89010983

[sizzle-d]

The factor you are not accounting for is time. You are correct

I am.

for fairly advanced species, that a few thousand years will not result in dramatic differences between the populations.

Not really, even if the universe was 10^99999 years old, evolution will NEVER occur.

But over several million years our past history says otherwise. We only need go back 1 to 2 million years to find a different species of the genus homo; homo habilis.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... mo-habilis
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledg ... n-89010983

Yeah, stories made by men who believe order can come from randomness.
Evolution NEVER, IS NOT and WILL NEVER OCCUR and nothing produces nothing thereby erasing the bigger story of the big bang.

[Danmark]

The factor you are not accounting for is time. You are correct

I am.

for fairly advanced species, that a few thousand years will not result in dramatic differences between the populations.

Not really, even if the universe was 10^99999 years old, evolution will NEVER occur.

But over several million years our past history says otherwise. We only need go back 1 to 2 million years to find a different species of the genus homo; homo habilis.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... mo-habilis
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledg ... n-89010983

Yeah, stories made by men who believe order can come from randomness.
Evolution NEVER, IS NOT and WILL NEVER OCCUR and nothing produces nothing thereby erasing the bigger story of the big bang.

Since you give no analysis whatsoever and since you cite to no authority, your mere opinion as a non expert in the field carries little weight. I have actually analyzed the weight of your opinion, and after exhausting calculations can announce:
Your opinion on matters evolutionary weighs in at .00125 yoctogram. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... -weighs-in

[Jashwell]

Yeah, stories made by men who believe order can come from randomness.

Evolution is not a uniform random process.
Order regularly comes from biased random processes.
Snowflakes, for example.

Evolution NEVER, IS NOT and WILL NEVER OCCUR

That's quite the assertion. Do you have evidence?
What about observed evolution of artificially cultivated species such as cattle, domesticated cats, and the (albeit artificially accelerated) natural evolution of bacteria that is regularly observed?
What about all the simulations that don't explicitly code for evolution, but generate it by emergence?

and nothing produces nothing thereby erasing the bigger story of the big bang.

And if the big bang required "nothing producing something" then I might consider that a problem.
But it doesn't.
It doesn't even address cosmogenesis, it describes how the Universe went from a very dense point to a massive Universe. Not how said concentration came into being.

[sizzle-d]

[Replying to post 117 by Danmark]

You are a non expert so your opinion is ~= a dove's feather near a turbo jet propeller.
I hope you are ready to read (with a mind at least 5mm open):
1) the arguement for God in my signature (yes, it talks about the story of evolution).
2) http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... tions.html
3) http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c029.html
4) http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resou ... evolution/
5) http://www.changinglivesonline.org/ques ... k?.html
6) http://creation.mobi/evolution-creation ... ics-part-2
7) http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... exity.html
8) http://www.changinglivesonline.org/ques ... sses?.html

There . . .