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?

[Artie]

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?

I am not certain what you mean. Do you mean like the Tibetans? http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... ved-humans

[Zzyzx]

.
Top ten reasons to doubt that evolution occurs:

1) Real world knowledge conflicts with religious dogma

2) Ignorance of the entire concept

3) - 10) There is nothing else

[Ooberman]

At this point, can we safely say that Evolution deniers are simply people who have nothing better to do? Who seek attention by being "shocking"? Instead of getting a mohawk, or being really 'out there' they take the safe route and hide behind ancient religious beliefs?

This is how it seems to me.

I really can't imagine they have honest questions or concerns. They all seem to be incredibly ignorant of the basic science - so it's not as if they are looking into the subject.

[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

So we are to suppose then that the environment remained static for millions of years?

[Goat]

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

So we are to suppose then that the environment remained static for millions of years?

The environment is static enough for the organism to keeps it shape. You don't know what other changes might or might not have occurred.

[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?"
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?

Question one - I was alluding to the same accusation of atheists to Christians that they are incapable of reversing an opinion because of faith. The same applies to anyone with a fixed paradigm, and that certainly applies to evolutionists
Question two - I will agree if you can agree that there is a similar interest group in evolutionism (from henceforth will not include the word science and evolution together) that is dedicated to reinforce the evolutionary paradigm, and in the dedication to the destruction of religion in society. What about it?
Question three - I agree. What of it?
Question four - Firstly it is unlikely in the current climate to expect that that would happen. Secondly, the reason for the first is that evolutionism is so plastic there is an endless regress occurring where the current position is likely to change in the advent of new discoveries, so disproving evolution is more impossible than to prove creation. The openness of the scientific community would have to undergo major reformation.

[heavensgate]

.
Top ten reasons to doubt that evolution occurs:

1) Real world knowledge conflicts with religious dogma

2) Ignorance of the entire concept

3) - 10) There is nothing else

Can you tell me how you raised to the level of 'savant' with responses like that?
I know, because of countless responses just like that.
Keep it real.

[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

So we are to suppose then that the environment remained static for millions of years?

The environment is static enough for the organism to keeps it shape. You don't know what other changes might or might not have occurred.

I think my points exactly.
ToE is so plastic that it cannot be falsified by any means. On one hand environment and fitness drive the change in the organism, and in the same breath environment is static enough to disallow change. Heads I win, Tails you lose kind of an argument.
And yes, we do not know what conditions were like previously, which makes ToE look less like science every time we discuss this.

[dianaiad]

.
Top ten reasons to doubt that evolution occurs:

1) Real world knowledge conflicts with religious dogma

2) Ignorance of the entire concept

3) - 10) There is nothing else

Can you tell me how you raised to the level of 'savant' with responses like that?
I know, because of countless responses just like that.
Keep it real.

Moderator Warning


If you do not agree with the contents of a post, address the contents of the post. Do not make personal remarks about the writer.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

I think my points exactly.
ToE is so plastic that it cannot be falsified by any means. On one hand environment and fitness drive the change in the organism, and in the same breath environment is static enough to disallow change. Heads I win, Tails you lose kind of an argument.
And yes, we do not know what conditions were like previously, which makes ToE look less like science every time we discuss this.

It's not that evolution is plastic, it is the environment that is plastic. Sometimes changes are quick, other times it is slow. Which is exactly what we expect to see if evolution is true.