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]

.
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

This is exactly right.

There is an anti-science bias that forms in religious groups, much like the anti-Western bias that forms in Islamic cults. It's based on ignorance and hatred.

There are no scientific or reasonable objections to Evolution.

We should ignore anyone who thinks otherwise - they are vampires, sucking our time and energy, and trying to cover the world in the darkness of ignorance.

[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.

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.

Sure it can be.

central characteristic of science is that it must be falsifiable; this feature of a theory is attributed to Karl Popper, who mentioned it in a criticism of darwinism.[3] Scientific theories cannot be proved outright " they can only fail to be disproved, and this means pointing out what evidence could disprove the theory. If a theory cannot be disproved, such as with Russell's Teapot, it makes no difference whether it is true either way.
Now that's a grip on reality.

Disproving evolution first requires to look at what the theory predicts and see where it can be shown to make incorrect predictions. It is easy to be side-tracked by specifics of the theory, such as individual evolutionary pathways of certain features, and confuse these with what would falsify the overall theory of evolution by natural selection. Indeed, many creationists do this whenever a new discovery is made in biology that causes scientists to rethink some pieces of evolution. To avoid this problem, it is best to be clear what evolution is. It is based on three main principles: variation, heritability and selection. Given these three principles, evolution must occur, and many features of evolution appear given only these three guiding principles.[4] If any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory would be untenable.

Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

Charles Darwin made the case a little differently when he said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."[5]

[Ooberman]

I've noticed that the only people who question Evolution are the people who are the most religious and and the most ignorant of science.

They have absolutely nothing to add to humanity.

[Artie]

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

Most Catholics, Orthodox and Mainline Protestants in the US believe in evolution... http://www.ipatrix.com/2862/do-only-ath ... evolution/

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.

Are most Catholics, Orthodox and Mainline Protestants in the US part of your interest group dedicated to the destruction of religion in society?

[Danmark]

....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.

[emphasis applied]

"God" is whatever you want to make him/her/it. That is part of the reason these 'god' claims are so preposterous and unfalsifiable: therefore, literally nonsense.

Many theists rightly claim, "God is beyond definition; beyond defining." I agree.
Other theists define 'God' in whatever way they want to, to suit their purpose.

This 'God' is like a wild card in a game. He is a 'Crazy 8.' 'God' is infinitely amorphous. 'God' is a handy logical jigsaw puzzle piece; the puzzle has a million pieces and when all but one have been fitted neatly together, the Godster pulls out his secret weapon, the 'Godpiece' and it fits the empty space perfectly.

There is no natural problem, no puzzle, no question imaginable, that cannot be solved in the mind of the Godster by pulling out his secret weapon:
The Godpiece.

If God needs to be outside of time, voila! The Godpiece fits perfectly. If God needs to be within time, voila! The Godpiece fits perfectly.

Does God need to be personal and walk among us fully as a man, yet also fully God, not a being, but the very ground of being? Voila! The Godpiece comes to save the day. The Godpiece is like Superman in a Justice League comic book. When Superman has been traveling in a different dimension and all the other superheroes have fecklessly tried to save the world from the menace, Superman returns to Metropolis and saves the day in a single panel.

God is whatever you want him to be because, just like Superman, he is a fictional character.

[Clownboat]

so disproving evolution is more impossible than to prove creation. The openness of the scientific community would have to undergo major reformation.

Find a fossil that is out of place. Like a rabbit in the Cambrian.
You make a mistake to call that "more impossible than to prove creation".

[Fundagelico]

.
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

This is exactly right.

There is an anti-science bias that forms in religious groups, much like the anti-Western bias that forms in Islamic cults.

Forgive me, but I don't think calling into question the more deeply metaphysical postulates of evolution (e.g., natural selection, universal common ancestry) is "anti-science." Nor do I think that valiantly defending evolution as some sort of ultimate truth is especially scientific.

It's based on ignorance and hatred.

Relax, it's only skepticism. Think of it as merely lacking a belief in evolution, or maybe believing in one less totally unverifiable theory than you do. Remember, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, not the one who doubts it. That means when it comes to evolutionary theory you are the "apologist" and I am the "unbeliever." Your burden of proof, then, is to justify your belief in evolution by presenting evidence. Now get to work.

There are no scientific or reasonable objections to Evolution.

Assertion noted. Feel free to actually present an argument for that proposition.*

We should ignore anyone who thinks otherwise - they are vampires, sucking our time and energy, and trying to cover the world in the darkness of ignorance.

Raising the call to "ignore anyone who thinks otherwise" is not exactly what I would expect from a free thinker. Should I take this as your way of striking up a civil, respectful conversation about Christianity? (Be careful how you answer; you're already sworn to silence.)

________
* When I say an argument, I mean just that " not a link to "Index to Creationist Claims" at the Talk Origins website or some such.

[Hatuey]

Forgive me, but I don't think calling into question the more deeply metaphysical postulates of evolution (e.g., natural selection, universal common ancestry) is "anti-science." Nor do I think that valiantly defending evolution as some sort of ultimate truth is especially scientific.

Absolutely correct. Thank you for pointing out this fact. The more scientists challenge unproven ideas implied within evolutionary theory, the more accurate and sound the theory becomes. That's how science advances: It puts forth hypotheses and then does everything it can to find fault with them until the ideas are rejected, refined, or otherwise defined in a more accurate way. Evolutionary science, like any science, REQUIRES skeptics to challenge its weakest ideas in order to make the theory more sound as inconsistencies and identified and problems are resolved through the application of the discipline. (This is exactly opposite of what dogma/religion does, by the way, as the establishment does not allow dissent nor does it provide any testable hypotheses which might prove or disprove any of its tenets..and it's why science provides fact that allows workable technology and it's why dogma provides rationalizations for brutalizing children and killing those who disagree with what can't be proved).

Relax, it's only skepticism. Think of it as merely lacking a belief in evolution, or maybe believing in one less totally unverifiable theory than you do. Remember, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, not the one who doubts it. That means when it comes to evolutionary theory you are the "apologist" and I am the "unbeliever." Your burden of proof, then, is to justify your belief in evolution by presenting evidence. Now get to work.

Completely agree, however, enough of "the work" has been done. The evidence is there and is more than satisfactory. There is more evidence that evolution occurs than that the moon is in orbit around the earth or that the earth is in orbit around the sun. Certainly scientists who wish to challenge those ideas should do so with the proven maths and physics that are beyond reproach, but it's ridiculous for any learned person to "debate" or "provide evidence" to a non believer that the earth is round or that the planets orbit the sun or that evolution occurs. Skeptics of those theories can certainly work towards producing a better model which may show a slightly altered orbit of Neptune than what we thought or a slightly adjusted model for one aspect of evolution that occurred with one of the genetic markers in some species a couple million years ago. Science needs those accurate, slight adjustments to become better and better.

Raising the call to "ignore anyone who thinks otherwise" is not exactly what I would expect from a free thinker. Should I take this as your way of striking up a civil, respectful conversation about Christianity? (Be careful how you answer; you're already sworn to silence.)

Interesting take. If ANY religion, including Christianity, had one millionth the amount of solid data and collected evolution of evolution, I'd probably believe in it.

[Ooberman]

Relax, it's only skepticism. Think of it as merely lacking a belief in evolution, or maybe believing in one less totally unverifiable theory than you do. Remember, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, not the one who doubts it. That means when it comes to evolutionary theory you are the "apologist" and I am the "unbeliever." Your burden of proof, then, is to justify your belief in evolution by presenting evidence. Now get to work.

In what world do you think a complete scientific Theory needs to be debated on a religious internet forum? Are you and I and a few other people who care to chime in going to debate Electromagnetism too?

Do you really think you and I are going to make some grand discovery that has eluded almost every scientist for the last 300 years? Think of the number of Christian scientists who have tried to undermine it, yet support is not only growing, it's overwhelming.

But you, me and google are going to straighten them all out, is that it?

Even if we took a small part of evolution - say genetics - we'd both be out of our league after the first scholarly paper.. but you think we should get to it, eh?

Have you had any genetic training? Have you done any of the science that is relevent?


What do you think this is? The Bible? Theology? Where anyone can have an opinion and we are supposed to admire it?

Theories are the things we can trust because they transcend us. They are too true to question unless overwhelming data comes in. Christians have had 2000 years to provide data.


Which leads me to my part of the challenge.

If you want to discuss Evolution, I suggest you pick a scholarly paper and submit your criticism of it, have it published in a peer reviewed document.

Because at this point, the Theory of Evolution is so well established that this is the only way you are going to chip away at it. Our discussion would be meaningless.

Undermining religion starts on the internet. Undermining the Theory of Evolution will take a lot more. I dare say it'd take a miracle.

[Fundagelico]

In what world do you think a complete scientific Theory needs to be debated on a religious internet forum? Are you and I and a few other people who care to chime in going to debate Electromagnetism too?

I am not the one who announced on an Internet debate forum that anyone who so much as questions the logic of evolutionary theory has an "anti-science bias" and longs to shroud the world in darkness and ignorance. In a debate forum you have to back up your claims. Now please get on with it.

Do you really think you and I are going to make some grand discovery that has eluded almost every scientist for the last 300 years? Think of the number of Christian scientists who have tried to undermine it, yet support is not only growing, it's overwhelming.

No more discoveries are necessary as far as I'm concerned. At issue is not so much the facts in evidence, but their interpretation.

You recognize that there are Christian scientists who have tried to undermine evolutionary theory? (Presumably you mean Christians who are also scientists, not devotees to the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy.) In that case you recognize that not all scientists are accepting of evolutionary theory.

But you, me and google are going to straighten them all out, is that it?

Even if we took a small part of evolution - say genetics - we'd both be out of our league after the first scholarly paper.. but you think we should get to it, eh?

Have you had any genetic training? Have you done any of the science that is relevent?

Don't kid yourself. The broader claims of evolution are not about genetics but metaphysics, and in many circles specifically formulated to repudiate theism. Read The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins or Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennett if you doubt. (Those are the last books I read in the genre " I'm sure there are some more recent publications offering the same sort of anti-religious polemics all dressed up as science.) The basic idea, as Dawkins put it memorably, is to enable one to become "an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

What do you think this is? The Bible? Theology? Where anyone can have an opinion and we are supposed to admire it?

No. I think this is a debate forum, where anyone who makes controversial claims is obligated to defend them. If you don't want to defend the claims, don't make them. It's really that simple.

Theories are the things we can trust because they transcend us. They are too true to question unless overwhelming data comes in. Christians have had 2000 years to provide data.

Theories transcend us? No, theories are human constructs, abstractions devised to make better sense of the world and more effectively harness its resources. Because theories are human constructs, they are continually being revised and, under the right set of social conditions, are sometimes completely replaced " which means at minimum that no particular theory is "too true to question." The history of science should tell you that much. By comparison Christianity has been with us (as you mentioned) for over 2000 years. If transcendence and staying power are the criteria, Christianity beats Darwinism hands down.

But I think you've unwittingly put your finger on the problem: The theory is deemed unquestionably true because there are no disconfirming data to falsify it, but disconfirming data cannot be permitted to falsify the theory because it's already deemed unquestionably true. This only leads to more evolutionary doublespeak. Thus we are told that evolution is a sound scientific theory that remains falsifiable in principle, indeed that the person to falsify it would immediately win a Nobel Prize. At the same time anyone who actually attempts to falsify it is said to be attacking the very institution of science itself and attempting a return to the Dark Ages. Those propositions are not easily reconciled.