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?

[WinePusher]

2) Negative mutations don't disprove evolution. If anything, they support a requirement of evolution.

I do not view this as an issue between positive vs. negative mutations, and this isn't a particularly interesting question because the answer already exists. The majority of mutations tend to be neither deleterious or beneficial. Overall, mutations are neutral in the sense that they neither help nor harm the organism. Now, the interesting question being focused on by biologists today is whether evolution is deterministic or stochastic. Mutations tend to be neutral and random, and we know that wherever random changes are introduced into a system the system will fail. This fact alone gives pause to the traditional, stochastic view of evolutionary change and lends support to a deterministic model of evolution.

5) Evolution doesn't address abiogenesis at all.

Correct, and this means evolutionary theory fails to one of the two major questions concerning life. These two questions are, 1) How did life first arise out of inorganic matter and 2) How did life become so diverse and complex. Evolution succeeds in answering the second question but fails to account for the first.

6) a God is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Why would a God, an entity defined as a supernatural being by philosophers, be bound by the physical laws of our universe?

[Jashwell]

2) Negative mutations don't disprove evolution. If anything, they support a requirement of evolution.

I do not view this as an issue between positive vs. negative mutations, and this isn't a particularly interesting question because the answer already exists. The majority of mutations tend to be neither deleterious or beneficial. Overall, mutations are neutral in the sense that they neither help nor harm the organism. Now, the interesting question being focused on by biologists today is whether evolution is deterministic or stochastic. Mutations tend to be neutral and random, and we know that wherever random changes are introduced into a system the system will fail. This fact alone gives pause to the traditional, stochastic view of evolutionary change and lends support to a deterministic model of evolution.

I was paraphrasing. That was the jist of the article - "all mutations are these horrible diseases".

And no, random changes in a system do not make it fail. I see no reason to think this at all. I see plenty of systems which (albeit bad comparisons) deal with random changes quite easily.

5) Evolution doesn't address abiogenesis at all.

Correct, and this means evolutionary theory fails to one of the two major questions concerning life. These two questions are, 1) How did life first arise out of inorganic matter and 2) How did life become so diverse and complex. Evolution succeeds in answering the second question but fails to account for the first.

And the first doesn't have an answer.
As I've said before, there's no reason to rule out the natural ergo there's no reason to invoke the supernatural. "God created life" doesn't explain anything. Especially how life was created.

Nobody is expecting evolution to explain abiogenesis except people who don't understand evolution.

6) a God is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Why would a God, an entity defined as a supernatural being by philosophers, be bound by the physical laws of our universe?

[/quote]

The article was using the second law as an argument that life couldn't spontaneously arise. Which is firstly wrong because the second law doesn't saw entropy ALWAYS increases, it regularly goes down by chance. We also don't know what proto-life was like, so we're in no position to say how high or low the entropy of early life was.

My point is if you're gonna say "This doesn't work with the second law of thermodynamics, therefore I'm gonna invoke something else that also doesn't work with the second law of thermodynamics", you need to look back at what you've written

[sizzle-d]

[Replying to Danmark]

Funny translation. Is that what you do?
Scientists were doing what God asked but then decided that they didn't want to be judged by God so they started making silly claims the science and religion don't work together. Considering the religion of the greater number of scientists, i listen to them with care.

[sizzle-d]

[Replying to post 121 by Jashwell]

You didn't read them, did you. I was wondering how you read 8 articles in < 5 minutes (subtracting time to make post and click links) and i realised all you did was go to the headers and then create an idea and post it. You didn't even check it's content.

[Goat]

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?

[/quote]
Please provide evidence that the same lab will have 'wildly diffferent ages' for the same material. Back up your claim, and show that you speak accurately. Show the source for your claim, and demonstrate that they are reliable.

[Danmark]

[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 . . .

Sorry. No cigar. None of those sites are about science. They are about religion. These are the same people who preach the nonsense that was rejected in Kitzmiller v. Dover, and some of them even the same witnesses.
These are not citations to authority. Even the scientists called be the school board admitted that ID is not science, but religious creationism. And that was the finding of the court.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 121 by Jashwell]

You didn't read them, did you. I was wondering how you read 8 articles in < 5 minutes (subtracting time to make post and click links) and i realised all you did was go to the headers and then create an idea and post it. You didn't even check it's content.

I admit I skimmed. Though I don't know how much time you subtracted considering I wouldn't think of "clicking links" as any significant amount of time (3 seconds at most to open each new tab), and the post didn't take an immense amount of time to write.

Since you've read them, you can easily show the flaws in what I've said, correct?

For instance, I addressed a single flaw - which is enough to make a logical argument invalid if not unsound - in each of William Lane Craig's arguments.
Including the two arguments that RELY ON THE BIG BANG THEORY BEING TRUE, the same theory you describe as a story.

I'll include this for reference

But anyway, to the point, I'll just give one flaw because that's all that is necessary:
1.1 and 1.2 - cosmological arguments - I don't accept the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
1.3 - I object to both premises. Could you demonstrate even one of them?
1.4 - We have one sample Universe. Who would trust statistics from one sample?
1.5 - I don't accept the premise

To clarify on 4, the teleological argument, I don't accept that the Universe is fine tuned. I also don't accept his objections to a multiverse hypothesis.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

Funny translation. Is that what you do?
Scientists were doing what God asked but then decided that they didn't want to be judged by God so they started making silly claims the [sic] science and religion don't work together. Considering the religion of the greater number of scientists, i listen to them with care.

Yes, I translate English into clearer English.

sizzle-d wrote:
"We are supposed to listen to some materialist lab coated guys, right?"
My translation:
"When it comes to science, we don't listen to scientists."
Your sentence implied that you thought it ridiculous to listen to materialists wearing lab coats, AKA 'scientists.' I shortened the sentence, making your meaning more clear.

Scientists, as scientists don't make claims about religion, silly or serious. It's not their field. That's the point. Religion is not science. It's religion, and many of its ideas and doctrines persist in the minds of the religious despite facts in the real world that contradict those doctrines. Evolution is one of those facts.

Scientists are not telling any one to abandon his religion. Religion is irrelevant to science. When religionists try to use science to support their religious claims, that's their choice. But when they think science does not support their claims they cry "Foul!" And try to bend science to their religious will. It ain't happ'nin'.

[sizzle-d]

Including the two arguments that RELY ON THE BIG BANG THEORY BEING TRUE

I don't have a problem with the big bang theory but do have a problem with the theory of the universe creating itself.

[sizzle-d]

Yes, I translate English . . .

. . . to suit you.

My translation . . .

. . . is wrong

I shortened the sentence, making your meaning . . .

. . . wrong.

Religion is . . .

. . . the source of science.

And try to bend science . . .

. . . which is already bent.
-
You say you shortened my sentence to make it clearer and represent the meaning which is not only not true but could get me a warning because last time i checked, one line clear statements aren't allowed.