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?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 186 by Goat]

So, tell me, why should I take what ever Doctor Dino says ?? His representation and knowledge of evolution has been shown to be .. very wrong over and over again.

I keep hearing the same broken record over and over? Prove him and the rest of us wrong by providing empirical evidence? None have be given at all. Oh do mean the geologic column with layers of bones they dug up and by flapping on the great interpretation "YES, humans come from a ROCKS". Yep, plenty of reasons to DOUBT Evolution MATE!

Tell you what. Why don't you invite him to expound on his claims here, I am sure he can show up as soon as he is released from prison.

That is very cute to say Goat. Then again why would he waste his time on someone like you?? Sorry, what are you're credentials again? Probably not worth KENT'S time so you won't be important to debate with as anyone else who think they are!

My creditials are that when it comes to science, I actually know what i am talking about.

I don't debate badly put together videos. How about if you extract some information you think back up your claims, and we can examine it's accuracy when you present it yourself. Or, is that too advanced for you>

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 187:

I keep hearing the same broken record over and over? Prove him and the rest of us wrong by providing empirical evidence? None have be given at all.
...

That evidence exists, whether you accept the conclusions borne therefrom or not.

With all respect, I think you do yourself and others a disservice by declaring that "none" deal about the evidence, as we'll see...

Oh do mean the geologic column with layers of bones they dug up...

That right there would be the evidence, even if you and me both rejected the conclusions.

...and by flapping on the great interpretation "YES, humans come from a ROCKS". Yep, plenty of reasons to DOUBT Evolution MATE!

I accept your doubt as legitimate, even reasonable, but doubt alone does not refute.


As to "humans come from rocks", I consider such a statement as expressing one's lack of understanding of the ToE more than anything else. My whole life, as an amateur studying evolution, the most common argument I've heard is about how a "primordial stew" (or similar term), which is not a rock, is the most likely place for life to have originated (though lately "alien seed" notions have caught attention).

I would beg you to include this notion in your understanding, whether you accept it as valid / accurate / factual or not.


I propose that when you say such as "humans come from rocks", even as "shorthand", you do more potential damage to your own credibility than to the credibility of those who spend their lifetime in pertinent fields of study.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 191 by JoeyKnothead]

Joey, there is a way to think about "humans come from rocks" as being valid. All life forms on Earth eventually "come from" Earth material -- which is rock (excluding perhaps core material).

Many Christians assert this when they claim that "god" made humans from "dust" (which is largely decomposed or disintigrated rock material).

The difference between naturalistic and theistic viewpoints is that the latter wish to inject their favorite "god" into the process -- and thereby attempt to take credit for their religion.

[Wootah]

[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/

Moderator Comment
Hi heavensgate,

These comments are unacceptable:

- Are you trying to break me with volumes of writing?

- You so disparage the ancients. This is the foolishness of youth.

- Where are you getting your information about Christianity from? Mother Goose?

Please just reply to the content of someone's post.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 192:
^edited 'cause I goofed

Joey, there is a way to think about "humans come from rocks" as being valid. All life forms on Earth eventually "come from" Earth material -- which is rock (excluding perhaps core material).

Many Christians assert this when they claim that "god" made humans from "dust" (which is largely decomposed or disintigrated rock material).

The difference between naturalistic and theistic viewpoints is that the latter wish to inject their favorite "god" into the process -- and thereby attempt to take credit for their religion.

While not necessarily plowin' 'em under, I amend my previous comments to include this notion, and 'preciate the schoolin'.

Maybe I hear "rocks to humans" too literally.

[acehighinfinity]

[Replying to post 190 by Goat]

My creditials are that when it comes to science, I actually know what i am talking about.

Geez, the same apply we should take your word seriously??

I don't debate badly put together videos. How about if you extract some information you think back up your claims, and we can examine it's accuracy when you present it yourself. Or, is that too advanced for you

OK, let's start with observing a 'Change of Kind' from one to another? Can you provide evidence e.g. banana to a dog? Give any if you can.

[Artie]

OK, let's start with observing a 'Change of Kind' from one to another? Can you provide evidence e.g. banana to a dog? Give any if you can.

You obviously know nothing about how evolution works so I recommend you start with http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-For-Dum ... 0470117737

[Strider324]

From Post 192:
^edited 'cause I goofed

Joey, there is a way to think about "humans come from rocks" as being valid. All life forms on Earth eventually "come from" Earth material -- which is rock (excluding perhaps core material).

Many Christians assert this when they claim that "god" made humans from "dust" (which is largely decomposed or disintigrated rock material).

The difference between naturalistic and theistic viewpoints is that the latter wish to inject their favorite "god" into the process -- and thereby attempt to take credit for their religion.

While not necessarily plowin' 'em under, I amend my previous comments to include this notion, and 'preciate the schoolin'.

Maybe I hear "rocks to humans" too literally.

I hear ya. Maybe the Joni Mitchell description is more palatable -

"We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon...."

[Goat]

[Replying to post 190 by Goat]

My creditials are that when it comes to science, I actually know what i am talking about.

Geez, the same apply we should take your word seriously??

I don't debate badly put together videos. How about if you extract some information you think back up your claims, and we can examine it's accuracy when you present it yourself. Or, is that too advanced for you

OK, let's start with observing a 'Change of Kind' from one to another? Can you provide evidence e.g. banana to a dog? Give any if you can.

Now, this is what is known as a 'straw man'. A banana turning into a dog would actually disprove the TOE.

Now, before I answer, I have to know what you mean by a certain word, so we don't get the logical fallacy of equivocation going.

Can you define what a 'kind' is, in such a manner that would be logically consistent in a biological manner. Can you give me one that is useful to this discussion? First, let's define terms. I don't want give an answer, and then have you say that is not what you meant.

[Bust Nak]

OK, let's start with observing a 'Change of Kind' from one to another? Can you provide evidence e.g. banana to a dog? Give any if you can.

Perharp a bit of reverse roleplay would demostrate the folly of that statement. What you said is the equivalent of:

"OK, let's start with observing the evidence of Christianity? Can you provide the bones of Jesus?"

The bones of Jesus would disprove Christianity the same way Banana to dog would disprove evolution.