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]

Gotta be a troll!

Last time i checked, one line posts aren't really allowed.
I gave my reason and an analogy and all you gave is 4 words and an exclamation mark.

[sizzle-d]

[Replying to post 115 by Danmark]
Even with humans, we have evolved . . .

No we haven't

. . . but you can already see the changes that have occurred via evolution

None have.

Creationists cannot . . .

How do you know what they can and can't do?

This is why the ToE is too plastic and flexible to be called a science in its own right.

Science that violates science.
It seems that science = story change with time.

(even though it is, just don't ask me to believe it).

My signature pretty much explains it.

[heavensgate]

When bones are dug up, they do not come with a tag saying how old they are. They are in fact a piece of bone.

I didn't understand much of what you said, or at least didn't see an argument fully developed. But I understood at least one thing, quoted above.

Your remark about an age 'tag' is erroneous. Fossils do come with age 'tags.' Since radiometrics is a well established technique for dating fossils, do you have some new evidence or discovery that suggests otherwise?

Have you not wondered about the anomalies in the dating method. A single lab can date the same material at wildly distant ages.
What happens in reality is a bone is found somewhere in the geologic column. Then the scientist will expect (before any testing is done) that the age of it should fall into a certain bracket. What is most important, is that the results from the lab fit the ages in the geologic column. Any aberrant data ignored. Ever heard that scenario?
This subject though is probably a discussion apart and is morphing from the OP.
There is significant research to suggest that dating methods have not taken into account of many factors and may be up for a major rethink anyway.
PS I did not think my post was that convoluted that you could not make out what I was saying?

[heavensgate]

When bones are dug up, they do not come with a tag saying how old they are. They are in fact a piece of bone.

I didn't understand much of what you said, or at least didn't see an argument fully developed. But I understood at least one thing, quoted above.

Your remark about an age 'tag' is erroneous. Fossils do come with age 'tags.' Since radiometrics is a well established technique for dating fossils, do you have some new evidence or discovery that suggests otherwise?

Yeah, I think much of my reply was lost in the 'quote' function when looking back at it. Still getting used to how this works. I may have to read the manual

[Nickman]

Creationists can and do explain these things, and the changes fit very well into the creationist model of origins. As noted before in this discussion, what you say about the geographical spread of humans across the globe has a huge bearing on our final attributes of colour, size etc, etc. Essentially though, one race, and one origin. We are all still human. We call the changes environmental selection, this is not added information in the gene pool, in fact white people have most likely suffered a loss of information, which when interbreeding occurs can be restored. That is why we should all consider ourselves one race, just different families.
Change is not evolution. Changing into something else is. It's the "something else" is where we part company.

Change over time is the definition of evolution. Please tell me how this "environmental change" caused Asians to have smaller eyes and smaller statures. Tell me how Africans became black. P!ease, also explain what the first skin color was with your environmental change?

The timeframe for evolution depends on the basic philosophy of evolution and itself is a circular argument. This is why the evolutionary time is expanding at a great rate of knots most of the time. This is why the ToE is too plastic and flexible to be called a science in its own right. (even though it is, just don't ask me to believe it).

Biological Evolution is not a philosophy. If it were, it would be deemed as such. The definition of evolution is "change over time." So yes time is required. You just will not allow vast amounts of time to have happened based on an ancient text. So you are force to try and cram all of the evidence into a short period of time, and that obviously doesn't work. Since, that doesn't work, you attribute god, even though evolution in time explains it.

[Nickman]

Science that violates science.
It seems that science = story change with time.

Yes, science changes over time, because of evidence. Would it be fair to a plaintiff if a jury never changed their opinion, even though new evidence showed them to be innocent?

What Christians do is make a statement based on scripture from people they don't even know, and whom would probably disagree with them, and their lifestyle, and their values, yet they assume them to be right. Do you really trust anyone in the bible based on the lack of personal knowledge and the fact that you cannot relate to them whatsoever? Do you even know who any author was in the bible?

[sizzle-d]

Science that violates science.
It seems that science = story change with time.

Yes, science changes over time, because of evidence. Would it be fair to a plaintiff if a jury never changed their opinion, even though new evidence showed them to be innocent?

What Christians do is make a statement based on scripture from people they don't even know, and whom would probably disagree with them, and their lifestyle, and their values, yet they assume them to be right. Do you really trust anyone in the bible based on the lack of personal knowledge and the fact that you cannot relate to them whatsoever? Do you even know who any author was in the bible?

[sizzle-d]

What Christians do is make a statement based on scripture from people they don't even know,

We are supposed to listen to some materialist lab coated guys, right?

Do you really trust anyone in the bible based on the lack of personal knowledge and the fact that you cannot relate to them whatsoever?

Now you're getting serious. You think you have ANY personal knowledge about science and not some google me up procedure. Ok.
Where is your personal research on evolution? If you have none then rethink what you are saying and don't claim you have personal knowledge.

[Danmark]

So far here, I think I am the only one giving reasons. A simple dismiss of Intelligent Design (ID) is not a scientific answer either. It is actually a scientific Hypothesis.

No. Actually it is not. It is a scientific hypothesis like astrology is a scientific hypothesis. "God did it" is not a hypothesis, it is a conclusion based on a religion, not on scientific data.

"Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community."_ testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)" _ finding of the court

"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86"87)" _ finding of the court

"In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath...."
_ finding of the court
" It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
_ finding of the court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District
BTW, the judge in this case, as well as the lead witness for the plaintiff are devout Christians. At best it appears to require willful ignorance to continue to tout 'ID' as a scientific theory devoid of religious motivation.

[Danmark]

We are supposed to listen to some materialist lab coated guys, right?

Translation: "When it comes to science, we don't listen to scientists."