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?

[Ooberman]

Duh, it's your theory. Except your are saying the universe has always existed.

Its not my Theory. It was a guess made by a Christian.

1. Do you know what the Big Bang is?
2. You claimed there was a BB, how do you know this? Are you God?

So, unfortunately he was banned before he had a chance to digest anything that was offered to him..

My goal was to show how Creationists are happy to accept science that supports their ignorant beliefs (ignorant in that they really don't understand science. They may be very smart, or even educated in other fields, for example).

Had sizzle-d ever attempted to engage in conversation, I would have pressed him on how he knew there was a Big Bang? That even if someone - a Christian, no less - came up with the hypothesis, it still took extensive investigation to elevate the idea of the Big Bang to a solid Theory. And, we learn only recently there has been additional confirmation - something scientists predicted.

Likewise, Evolution has gone through the same process. In 300+ years, there has been ample opportunity for people to prove the basic idea of Evolution wrong, but no one has been able to.

How do you demonstrate this?

I should become God?

well thats one way, i suppose.
Can you think of any other possible way you might convince someone there was a Big Bang?

My goal here was to suggest that we do have the ability to ask questions and come up with tests to see if our hypotheses have merit.

Had he explored the idea, he would have seen that through physics, he could prove the Big Bang. He wouldn't have to become a God, he'd just have to read a few books and apply his "god-given" intelligence.

Claiming God made the Universe by a Big Bang is like saying I'm going to build a 747 by setting off a bomb in a junk yard.

Aww, you'll have to do better. Setting off a bomb in a junkyard is not the same because there is something in a junkyard, there was nothing before the "big bang/squash".

But you claimed there was a big bang! Why do you say things you dont beleive?

My goal here was to show how he's still claiming there was a Big Bang, and that this Bang created the forms we see today.

If God created the universe, why an explosion first? Wouldn't we see a Big Forming? Or something else?


It seems odd that physics predicts the Big Bang and we've had confirmation, yet most religions predict a series of orderly steps - the Big Bang hypothesis was never a prediction by religion, and in fact, was met with the same skepticism as Evolution.

Likewise, the same scientific process led to our almost universal acceptance of the Big Bang, but only Evolution is challenged because people don't want to think of themselves as different than their priests tell them: that we are animals.


I'd still like an anti-evolutionist to tell me why they don't believe:

1. Children inherit traits from their parents
2. 100% of babies don't live to reproductive age
3. Of those that could reach reproductive age, some traits are better equipped to live to that age and reproduce than others.

If one of these is falsified, then Evolution by Natural Selection is destroyed.

It's such a simple thing, yet they turn it into an exploration for the Gaps.

[Danmark]

May I suggest that a 'google' search should not be confused with 're' search. On both your previous posts you unreasonably castigate me for not knowing, not doing the research. I tell you now, that I will never be in the habit of chasing down blind ally's [sic] that you yourself have not researched. All you have stated is smear tactics which is probably the basest of debating skills.
I am amused.

You may suggest the obvious whenever you like. I disagree you were 'unreasonably castigated.' You state you shouldn't have to 'chase down blind alleys.' I agree, there are many goofy, or oddball ideas that are not worth investigating. Astrology and creationism are two of them. It's a total waste of time to bother researching either.

It is certainly not a 'smear tactic' or a 'base debating skill' to point out that creationism has been declared to not be scientific by both the courts and by science.
"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_s ... _evolution
What is interesting is the importance some people place on science to prove their point, but their rejection of it if it confounds their religious beliefs.
If you don't believe in science, that's your prerogative. But picking and choosing what scientifically established facts and theories you believe in, based on your religion, suggests you have no belief in the scientific method in the first place; that you only reference it when you think it happens to coincide with a religious precept.
Doesn't that approach suggest hypocrisy?

[heavensgate]

May I suggest that a 'google' search should not be confused with 're' search. On both your previous posts you unreasonably castigate me for not knowing, not doing the research. I tell you now, that I will never be in the habit of chasing down blind ally's [sic] that you yourself have not researched. All you have stated is smear tactics which is probably the basest of debating skills.
I am amused.

You may suggest the obvious whenever you like. I disagree you were 'unreasonably castigated.' You state you shouldn't have to 'chase down blind alleys.' I agree, there are many goofy, or oddball ideas that are not worth investigating. Astrology and creationism are two of them. It's a total waste of time to bother researching either.

It is certainly not a 'smear tactic' or a 'base debating skill' to point out that creationism has been declared to not be scientific by both the courts and by science.
"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_s ... _evolution
What is interesting is the importance some people place on science to prove their point, but their rejection of it if it confounds their religious beliefs.
If you don't believe in science, that's your prerogative. But picking and choosing what scientifically established facts and theories you believe in, based on your religion, suggests you have no belief in the scientific method in the first place; that you only reference it when you think it happens to coincide with a religious precept.
Doesn't that approach suggest hypocrisy?

The only real hypocrisy here is you suggesting that's I do not believe in science wheN I ask you to give me a scientific reason to believe in evolution.
Still, what are are still not getting is that science does not equal evolution, you don't seem to get that.
Consensus is never a good measure of truth, in fact, it can be an indicator that something is seriously wrong. Hitler had consensus too (by hook or by crook) and had nearly two hundred years of enlightened philosophy to back him as well.
All I am asking is for a product that actually come from evolution. You haven't answered yet

[Danmark]

The only real hypocrisy here is you suggesting that's I do not believe in science wheN I ask you to give me a scientific reason to believe in evolution.
Still, what are are still not getting is that science does not equal evolution, you don't seem to get that.
Consensus is never a good measure of truth, in fact, it can be an indicator that something is seriously wrong. Hitler had consensus too (by hook or by crook) and had nearly two hundred years of enlightened philosophy to back him as well.
All I am asking is for a product that actually come from evolution. You haven't answered yet

The last refuge of the defeated is the 'Hitler' card. But even in that you are wrong. Hitler never had the overwhelming agreement among scientists for any of his foolish positions. He had political power, but never scientific consensus. Hitler's idea of the 'master race' had approximately the same percentage of agreement in the academic world that creationism does today, which is close to ZERO.

It isn't just that there is virtual 100% agreement among scientists and the courts that creationism is not science and that evolution is a valid, confirmed scientific theory; it is the reasons for that agreement that are important.

Give me your theory for why the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity is wrong. Tell me why nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design are wrong. Tell me why the 72 US Nobel Prize winners reject creationism and believe in evolution have erred. Given this overwhelming agreement after 150 years of testing, the burden has shifted to the detractors of science to prove them wrong.

The only reason you and others have submitted for your rejection of evolution is that you believe your dusty old book, written by men who had no training in science have put forth a creation myth that disagrees with the facts.

Come up with a believable theory, supported by facts that will demonstrate the falsity of evolution and you'll win a Nobel Prize and become the darling of the scientific community. But you cannot do that because you don't have the facts on your side. You are free to believe in astrology, phrenology, creationism, and a host of other disproved theories, but don't claim your beliefs are based on science.
They are not. Your beliefs are based on your interpretation of the Bible and not on science.

Given the virtual unanimity of the scientific community's belief in and acceptance of the theory of evolution as a description of reality, the burden is on the religious anti science crowd to prove them wrong.

It's not as if this debate is something new. The religious anti science crowd has been complaining about the theory of evolution for 150 years, but still has not been able to overturn it. Instead the scientific evidence has grown stronger; the gaps filled in. Watson and Crick discovered the mechanism that Darwin predicted, but did not know. The game is over. There remains no controversy except in the minute details.

[heavensgate]

[Replying to Danmark]

The last refuge of the defeated is the 'Hitler' card. But even in that you are wrong. Hitler never had the overwhelming agreement among scientists for any of his foolish positions. He had political power, but never scientific consensus. Hitler's idea of the 'master race' had approximately the same percentage of agreement in the academic world that creationism does today, which is close to ZERO

.

I know, but Hitler is such a perfect example of why we need to be saved from our selves, I will try to limit it to other despots in future. But you are wrong. If you consider that the Darwin family were famous for their belief in Eugenics (there is not just a few modern ones either) and here is a good link to get you started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

Unfortunately it was also the Rockefellers that also supported it in the west so it was quite widespread. One of those prefer to forget times for the atheist / evolutionist camp perhaps.
Who do you think was doing the experimenting in Hitlers Germany? Farmers? No, it was scientists (though not all would have the lack of conscience to participate). Eugenics had incredible currency in those days, and if you dont look too hard, you see it in the progressive camp still in the west. Zero?

It isn't just that there is virtual 100% agreement among scientists and the courts that creationism is not science and that evolution is a valid, confirmed scientific theory; it is the reasons for that agreement that are important.

A silly statement. And the reasons are?

Give me your theory for why the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity is wrong. Tell me why nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design are wrong. Tell me why the 72 US Nobel Prize winners reject creationism and believe in evolution have erred. Given this overwhelming agreement after 150 years of testing, the burden has shifted to the detractors of science to prove them wrong.

Are you trying to break me with volumes of writing? I think the first rule of a skeptic should be that one should be skeptical of the skeptics. If you perhaps even break from the faith for a moment and call into question the monumental interest groups that have investment in the evolution industry then you might begin to see it. But if not, I doubt if you have the capacity to question it.
So I will simply state a few.

Evolution is the reigning paradigm

Scientists careers and welfare of their families are inextricably tied to conformance

Huge investment from private corps guarantee conformance to the paradigm

Only those scientists that are either confident or secure will challenge the paradigm (see http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ 20 pages at 40 per page as at July 2013)

Courts and judges must take advice on these matters. Courts are not experts and they are unable to judge the differences between Creationism and the standing paradigm. In this they must go with the paradigm. (I thought that line of argument was a no brainer)

Nobel prizes are awarded for achievements I see no statement in the negative from such an institution in regards to creation scientists.

You say overwhelming agreement after 150 years of testing. What is lost in that statement, and is still lost in this thread, if there has been so much confirmation from testing just give me something to go on. All I ask is for you to give me one thing we can discuss that will clearly dismiss the creative work of God.

Lack of product that comes from the evolution industry (and I am not talking about publications

As I have stated, scientific endeavour will happily continue and most likely advance in the absence of any religious evolutionary dogma.

The only reason you and others have submitted for your rejection of evolution is that you believe your dusty old book, written by men who had no training in science have put forth a creation myth that disagrees with the facts.

You so disparage the ancients. This is the foolishness of youth. Perhaps you should put forth your own scientific credentials so that I can have confidence that you are more than a cut and paste Google fanatic. But I say that of us all actually.
True theologians and scientists would not be bothered with this site (even though I think it is a good site) just that they move in completely different circles.
And in saying that, if I read a journal paper that is highly technical in content, I do not have the context or the content to fully understand it. The bible is the same. It is high context and high content literature, without some idea of what it is stating, or even the will to consider what it is saying; atheists will just not get it.

Come up with a believable theory, supported by facts that will demonstrate the falsity of evolution and you'll win a Nobel Prize and become the darling of the scientific community.

Nobel prizes may be in some cases over rated. It is not recognition that Christians are after. I think the design in creation is believable, and even more so as we get into particles and the makeup of cells and information. It kind of makes chance or even self organisation look a tad silly.
Should I put it in a context that will satisfy your critical and forensic mind? No, God has made the wisdom of this world as foolishness, and by foolishness confounds the wise. Its just the way He is.
Im am not sure if it is His sense of Humour, or His sense of Righteousness.

But you cannot do that because you don't have the facts on your side. You are free to believe in astrology, phrenology, creationism, and a host of other disproved theories, but don't claim your beliefs are based on science.

Where are you getting your information about Christianity from? Mother Goose?
Astrology has always been prohibited from Jewish and Christian indulgence; Phrenology has always been the domain of evolutionary biology. You seem to want to disown this fact and lump creationism in with them, thus exonerating yourself from the obvious flaws in your own science.

They are not. Your beliefs are based on your interpretation of the Bible and not on science.

Again, it would be interesting to look at your library and your Internet searches. Christians work, play and breathe in the same world as you do. Some of us do science, some politics, some good deeds, some just care for our kids. We have the advantage of thousands of years of wisdom to complement our existence. Besides that, Christians have a vibrant sense of community, justice and the Presence of God. Join us, you will be welcome.

Given the virtual unanimity of the scientific community's belief in and acceptance of the theory of evolution as a description of reality, the burden is on the religious anti science crowd to prove them wrong.

I have just been asking for one proof of evolution from you. I have been asking the same question for many years now. All I get is this kind of rhetoric. Since you are making the claim for evolution (as against the obvious design in the creation) I believe the burden of proof rests squarely in your lap.

It's not as if this debate is something new. The religious anti science crowd has been complaining about the theory of evolution for 150 years, but still has not been able to overturn it. Instead the scientific evidence has grown stronger; the gaps filled in. Watson and Crick discovered the mechanism that Darwin predicted, but did not know. The game is over. There remains no controversy except in the minute details.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

The last refuge of the defeated is the 'Hitler' card. But even in that you are wrong. Hitler never had the overwhelming agreement among scientists for any of his foolish positions. He had political power, but never scientific consensus. Hitler's idea of the 'master race' had approximately the same percentage of agreement in the academic world that creationism does today, which is close to ZERO

.

I know, but Hitler is such a perfect example of why we need to be saved from our selves, I will try to limit it to other despots in future. But you are wrong. If you consider that the Darwin family were famous for their belief in Eugenics (there is not just a few modern ones either) and here is a good link to get you started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

Unfortunately it was also the Rockefellers that also supported it in the west so it was quite widespread. One of those prefer to forget times for the atheist / evolutionist camp perhaps.
Who do you think was doing the experimenting in Hitlers Germany? Farmers? No, it was scientists (though not all would have the lack of conscience to participate). Eugenics had incredible currency in those days, and if you dont look too hard, you see it in the progressive camp still in the west. Zero?

Again, this entire section of your post is nothing but ad hominem. Instead of explaining how evolutionary science is not science, you talk about 'the Darwn family, Hitler, and 'the Rockefellers.'

Do you have something that is actually about science, or is the ad hominem your only argument?

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

The last refuge of the defeated is the 'Hitler' card. But even in that you are wrong. Hitler never had the overwhelming agreement among scientists for any of his foolish positions. He had political power, but never scientific consensus. Hitler's idea of the 'master race' had approximately the same percentage of agreement in the academic world that creationism does today, which is close to ZERO

.

I know, but Hitler is such a perfect example of why we need to be saved from our selves, I will try to limit it to other despots in future. But you are wrong. If you consider that the Darwin family were famous for their belief in Eugenics (there is not just a few modern ones either) and here is a good link to get you started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

Unfortunately it was also the Rockefellers that also supported it in the west so it was quite widespread. One of those prefer to forget times for the atheist / evolutionist camp perhaps.
Who do you think was doing the experimenting in Hitlers Germany? Farmers? No, it was scientists (though not all would have the lack of conscience to participate). Eugenics had incredible currency in those days, and if you dont look too hard, you see it in the progressive camp still in the west. Zero?

It isn't just that there is virtual 100% agreement among scientists and the courts that creationism is not science and that evolution is a valid, confirmed scientific theory; it is the reasons for that agreement that are important.

A silly statement. And the reasons are?

Give me your theory for why the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity is wrong. Tell me why nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design are wrong. Tell me why the 72 US Nobel Prize winners reject creationism and believe in evolution have erred. Given this overwhelming agreement after 150 years of testing, the burden has shifted to the detractors of science to prove them wrong.

Are you trying to break me with volumes of writing? I think the first rule of a skeptic should be that one should be skeptical of the skeptics. If you perhaps even break from the faith for a moment and call into question the monumental interest groups that have investment in the evolution industry then you might begin to see it. But if not, I doubt if you have the capacity to question it.
So I will simply state a few.

Evolution is the reigning paradigm

Scientists careers and welfare of their families are inextricably tied to conformance

Huge investment from private corps guarantee conformance to the paradigm

Only those scientists that are either confident or secure will challenge the paradigm (see http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ 20 pages at 40 per page as at July 2013)

Courts and judges must take advice on these matters. Courts are not experts and they are unable to judge the differences between Creationism and the standing paradigm. In this they must go with the paradigm. (I thought that line of argument was a no brainer)

Nobel prizes are awarded for achievements I see no statement in the negative from such an institution in regards to creation scientists.

You say overwhelming agreement after 150 years of testing. What is lost in that statement, and is still lost in this thread, if there has been so much confirmation from testing just give me something to go on. All I ask is for you to give me one thing we can discuss that will clearly dismiss the creative work of God.

Lack of product that comes from the evolution industry (and I am not talking about publications

As I have stated, scientific endeavour will happily continue and most likely advance in the absence of any religious evolutionary dogma.

The only reason you and others have submitted for your rejection of evolution is that you believe your dusty old book, written by men who had no training in science have put forth a creation myth that disagrees with the facts.

You so disparage the ancients. This is the foolishness of youth. Perhaps you should put forth your own scientific credentials so that I can have confidence that you are more than a cut and paste Google fanatic. But I say that of us all actually.
True theologians and scientists would not be bothered with this site (even though I think it is a good site) just that they move in completely different circles.
And in saying that, if I read a journal paper that is highly technical in content, I do not have the context or the content to fully understand it. The bible is the same. It is high context and high content literature, without some idea of what it is stating, or even the will to consider what it is saying; atheists will just not get it.

Come up with a believable theory, supported by facts that will demonstrate the falsity of evolution and you'll win a Nobel Prize and become the darling of the scientific community.

Nobel prizes may be in some cases over rated. It is not recognition that Christians are after. I think the design in creation is believable, and even more so as we get into particles and the makeup of cells and information. It kind of makes chance or even self organisation look a tad silly.
Should I put it in a context that will satisfy your critical and forensic mind? No, God has made the wisdom of this world as foolishness, and by foolishness confounds the wise. Its just the way He is.
Im am not sure if it is His sense of Humour, or His sense of Righteousness.

But you cannot do that because you don't have the facts on your side. You are free to believe in astrology, phrenology, creationism, and a host of other disproved theories, but don't claim your beliefs are based on science.

Where are you getting your information about Christianity from? Mother Goose?
Astrology has always been prohibited from Jewish and Christian indulgence; Phrenology has always been the domain of evolutionary biology. You seem to want to disown this fact and lump creationism in with them, thus exonerating yourself from the obvious flaws in your own science.

They are not. Your beliefs are based on your interpretation of the Bible and not on science.

Again, it would be interesting to look at your library and your Internet searches. Christians work, play and breathe in the same world as you do. Some of us do science, some politics, some good deeds, some just care for our kids. We have the advantage of thousands of years of wisdom to complement our existence. Besides that, Christians have a vibrant sense of community, justice and the Presence of God. Join us, you will be welcome.

Given the virtual unanimity of the scientific community's belief in and acceptance of the theory of evolution as a description of reality, the burden is on the religious anti science crowd to prove them wrong.

I have just been asking for one proof of evolution from you. I have been asking the same question for many years now. All I get is this kind of rhetoric. Since you are making the claim for evolution (as against the obvious design in the creation) I believe the burden of proof rests squarely in your lap.

It's not as if this debate is something new. The religious anti science crowd has been complaining about the theory of evolution for 150 years, but still has not been able to overturn it. Instead the scientific evidence has grown stronger; the gaps filled in. Watson and Crick discovered the mechanism that Darwin predicted, but did not know. The game is over. There remains no controversy except in the minute details.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

[emphasis applied]
I hope you see the irony in your "Are you trying to break me with volumes of writing?" You misunderstand the judicial system. The courts listen to expert witnesses. When even the "intelligent design" experts agree that creationism is not science and the testimony from all the experts is that evolutionary biology IS science, what did you expect the court to do? Yet somehow you insist that the burden is on the scientist to disprove creationism. Well, that has already been done.

[Peter]

Scientists careers and welfare of their families are inextricably tied to conformance.

Whoa my friend, your whole argument fails right there. Pick any really well known scientist and the odds are he's famous for bucking the status quo. There isn't an evolutionary scientist alive who wouldn't give their left nut to discover that a god really did it all.

Religion requires conformance not science.

[Ooberman]

Scientists careers and welfare of their families are inextricably tied to conformance.

Whoa my friend, your whole argument fails right there. Pick any really well known scientist and the odds are he's famous for bucking the status quo. There isn't an evolutionary scientist alive who wouldn't give their left nut to discover that a god really did it all.

Religion requires conformance not science.

His comment made me laugh out loud.

Here is is accusing scientists for being afraid of taking on the status quo, when Christianity not only has a history of burning heretics at the stake, but in fact, says explicitly what someone is to believe, and if they don't, they get tortured for eternity!

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing!

[acehighinfinity]

I found a champion Creationist KENT HOVIND and after watching his videos I think there are 1000s of reason to DOUBT Evolution!! https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... nxZ_kWtND-

Many have tried to defend Evolution but KENT took them all apart. I was so amazed. It won't be long before ATHEISM is thrown out the window. The Victory is inevitable and all knees shall bow - Philippians 2:10 "so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,"

This is an awesome feeling to have. All your questions has already been answered.