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?

[heavensgate]

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.

Some quotes from secular scientists.
You are very naive " it has everything to do with creationism " of course, to deny adaptationism is not to endorse creationism " but to write a piece slagging off natural selection in that way, is to give a piece of candy to the creationists " I am sure that Duane Gish has already incorporated it into his talks.
Of course selection has to work on an array of given things, but this is not to deny selection " especially through Fodors silly arguments about analogies " and certainly not adaptationism.
The point is of course is that Fodor did not simply write a technical piece on adaption " he wrote a piece flamboyantly denying selection. In todays climate, where we have had two ultra-right supreme court justices appointed, I think his behaviour is somewhere between stupid and wicked
(Michael Ruse, Philosopher [email replies to Jerry Fodors article Why Pigs dont have Wings London Review of Books Oct 2007])

To my mind, self-organisation does not represent a challenge to Darwinian i.e. the modern synthesis and the perceived understanding of evolutionary theory. People are concerned " though I do not agree with them for being concerned about it. " but people are concerned that if they open up the door to non-Darwinian mechanisms, then they are going to allow the creationists to slip through the door as well..they are fearful of that.
(Stuart Newman, Professor Cell Biology and Anatomy, NY Medical College " Interview with Mazur)

NCSE director Eugenie Scott told me her organisation does not support self-organisation because it is confused with intelligent design i.e. design beyond laws as Michael Behe describes it. NSCE also pays lucrative fees to conference speakers who keep the lid on self-organisation by beating the drum for Darwinian Natural Selection. NCSE and its cronies completely demonise the intelligent design community, even those who agree evolution happenedso it seems the real target is those who fail to kneel down before the Darwinian Theory of natural selection and prevent the further fattening of the Darwinian industry tapeworm (Suzan Mazur " Journalist specialising in evolutionary science, Author The Altenberg 16 [interview with Stuart Newman])

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. (Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997)

[heavensgate]

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.

This is tongue in cheek but check out this, http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/201 ... bined-clay
and I have read a fairly high profile secular scientist that is talking the same language.
So maybe the bible is not that far off after all.

[heavensgate]

[Replying to post 201 by acehighinfinity]

If we could observe large changes, that would falsify evolution.

.

I think S J Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium thesis actually contradicts this statement.
In fact the thesis was formulated for this very purpose. To ameliorate the gap between the lack of evidence for changes between phyla level and natural selection.
There is no evidence that species have leaped from one 'kind' / 'family' to another. Punctuated Equilibrium fits the bill though. Problem is, there is no evidence for that either.
But wait, there is always the stasis theory. This one is an evolutionary theory that popped up just to answer the fact that there are many 'living fossils' that have not changed from the fossil record to the current time. This theory recommends that because the environment was perfect for that organism, there was no need for a selective process to change anything? (Sounds a bit like determinism to me and a bit scary, almost spiritual).
So the fact that the common duck is found in layers that also produce dinosaurs, is no problem at all for the theory.
It's just too plastic for my liking.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 221:

This is tongue in cheek but check out this, http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/201 ... mbined-cla...
and I have read a fairly high profile secular scientist that is talking the same language.
So maybe the bible is not that far off after all.

I can dig it. I understand now (after an earlier correction) that I might have read your previous statement perhaps more literally than you intended, and that if used as "shorthand", the notion of rocks to man ain't too far off. That said, I find it most commonly used as almost an epithet, as if scientists propose a rock hopped up from the dead

Your reference could, in some measure, help support the biblical notion of God making life from clay, if one took such a perspective. We see in that link, relatively mundane natural processes proposed, and not so much the god breathing

So, as relates to the OP, I contend that the reasons to doubt evolution, or the ToE in general, are less compelling than the reasons to accept such a notion.


All retractions and 'pologies are submitted if I've mischaracterized your position, now, or previously.

[Goat]

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.

Some quotes from secular scientists.
You are very naive " it has everything to do with creationism " of course, to deny adaptationism is not to endorse creationism " but to write a piece slagging off natural selection in that way, is to give a piece of candy to the creationists " I am sure that Duane Gish has already incorporated it into his talks.
Of course selection has to work on an array of given things, but this is not to deny selection " especially through Fodors silly arguments about analogies " and certainly not adaptationism.
The point is of course is that Fodor did not simply write a technical piece on adaption " he wrote a piece flamboyantly denying selection. In todays climate, where we have had two ultra-right supreme court justices appointed, I think his behaviour is somewhere between stupid and wicked
(Michael Ruse, Philosopher [email replies to Jerry Fodors article Why Pigs dont have Wings London Review of Books Oct 2007])

To my mind, self-organisation does not represent a challenge to Darwinian i.e. the modern synthesis and the perceived understanding of evolutionary theory. People are concerned " though I do not agree with them for being concerned about it. " but people are concerned that if they open up the door to non-Darwinian mechanisms, then they are going to allow the creationists to slip through the door as well..they are fearful of that.
(Stuart Newman, Professor Cell Biology and Anatomy, NY Medical College " Interview with Mazur)

NCSE director Eugenie Scott told me her organisation does not support self-organisation because it is confused with intelligent design i.e. design beyond laws as Michael Behe describes it. NSCE also pays lucrative fees to conference speakers who keep the lid on self-organisation by beating the drum for Darwinian Natural Selection. NCSE and its cronies completely demonise the intelligent design community, even those who agree evolution happenedso it seems the real target is those who fail to kneel down before the Darwinian Theory of natural selection and prevent the further fattening of the Darwinian industry tapeworm (Suzan Mazur " Journalist specialising in evolutionary science, Author The Altenberg 16 [interview with Stuart Newman])

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. (Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997)

Ah yes.. those are addressed in the 'quote mine' project. For example, the Eugene Scott quote is addressed here

A 'quote mine' is using a fragment of statement to make it appear someones position on a subject is opposite from what it actually is. The discovery institute does that quite frequently, and they are supposedly educated enough that they KNOW they are doing it.

The Richard Lewontin quote mine is addressed here

Now, I find the technique of quote mining dishonest, don't you?

[Artie]

But wait, there is always the stasis theory. This one is an evolutionary theory that popped up just to answer the fact that there are many 'living fossils' that have not changed from the fossil record to the current time. This theory recommends that because the environment was perfect for that organism, there was no need for a selective process to change anything?

The exact opposite. The environment wasn't perfect for that organism, the organism had become perfectly adapted to the environment. http://www.animalplanet.ca/Article.aspx?aid=630

[Danmark]

Heavensgate wrote:

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

I have some questions:
1st, what is the relevance of challenging a debater's "capacity to question it?"
2d, Do you agree that there is a significantly powerful and well funded interest group comprised of people like yourself who are motivated to discover credible evidence that would disprove current theories of evolution that are universally accepted by mainstream evolutionary biologists?
3d, Do you agree that, in general, scientists who have made breakthrough discoveries and had their controversial theories confirmed have reaped the approval of their peers or otherwise been richly rewarded?
4th, Do you agree that any scientist who could discover evidence that proved creationism, or completely refuted the theory of evolution would be awarded a Nobel Prize?

[heavensgate]

[Replying to post 225 by Artie]

Sorry old bean, haven't you just done a quote mining exercising on 'quote mining'?
The fact regardless is that these people said the things I quoted. Some retrospective recanting by supporters of these people is irrelevant. (you really only need to see the mission statements of these sites to work that out. They have their own agendas.
I remain unmoved.

[heavensgate]

But wait, there is always the stasis theory. This one is an evolutionary theory that popped up just to answer the fact that there are many 'living fossils' that have not changed from the fossil record to the current time. This theory recommends that because the environment was perfect for that organism, there was no need for a selective process to change anything?

The exact opposite. The environment wasn't perfect for that organism, the organism had become perfectly adapted to the environment. http://www.animalplanet.ca/Article.aspx?aid=630

Cool. So can you tell me why any other species supposedly undergoing change are not perfectly adapted to their environment? And then show the difference between these and the ones that are?

[heavensgate]

Heavensgate wrote:

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

I have some questions:
1st, what is the relevance of challenging a debater's "capacity to question it?"

It is more the willingness of parties to a debate to just admit that each come from a given paradigm. Some paradigms are quite pervasive in that it gives little scope within those working within it to challenge the paradigm itself. I have been there, only in a religious setting.

2d, Do you agree that there is a significantly powerful and well funded interest group comprised of people like yourself who are motivated to discover credible evidence that would disprove current theories of evolution that are universally accepted by mainstream evolutionary biologists?

Well, I would say that obviously funding occurs, I would not say on the level of those in the evolution camp. Significantly powerful? I don't think so given that there are large parcels of Christianity that are either disinterested, or being persecuted and therefore have no time for such debates, or that are themselves evolutionist. The creationist camp is quite small.

3d, Do you agree that, in general, scientists who have made breakthrough discoveries and had their controversial theories confirmed have reaped the approval of their peers or otherwise been richly rewarded?

You will need to provide context to this question. What are you asking? Is it that scientists that have observed the natural world, made assumptions and extrapolated the information to make breakthroughs? Of course. Thats what science is about isn't it? How does this relate to my posts?

4th, Do you agree that any scientist who could discover evidence that proved creationism, or completely refuted the theory of evolution would be awarded a Nobel Prize?

Two things are against this proposal.
One, you assume that the resources of a group of scientists that are already shut out of the community are able to make such a case (we are talking about not just scientific achievement, but capturing industry, the popular press, the science community, and the politicians as well.) You are setting a task beyond what is reasonable. But, if that happened (which I sincerely believe will not happen) then yes, that would be incredible.