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?

[Danmark]

In this regard evolution works remarkably well in some instances and fails in others. Speciation, which is Darwin's purview, can be easily observed in places such as Lake Tanginika. True evolution is much harder to observe. True evolution is when one specie separates itself due to external pressure and the antecedent perishes leaving only the new specie with its new and necessarily better adapted traits. Fossil records can hint at this but come nowhere close to prove it. How could they when all one can observe is a representation of skeletal remains?
When it is said that the fossil record is incomplete it doesn't only mean that the majority of fossils are missing, which they are. It also means that unless the mutation expressed itself in skeletal form which could be preserved by fossilization we have no way of detecting a mutation ever took place. Mutations do not half form. One either has Bone A or one does not. All other information must be inferred. Inference is the basis for a theory. That is why Darwin has no provable laws.

Natural selection can also be observed in some instances. Elephants being poached in Africa are undergoing natural selection and evolving into animals with small or no tusks. However when applied to the human timeline this and by extension evolution falls apart. According to Darwin the least adaptive specie always evolves into the better adapted specie. In the human timeline, a timeline that is not at all agreed upon by evolution scholars, we see different species appearing and disappearing with no relation to external pressures. Both Neanderthal and Sapien lived through the same conditions in a world that was too big for both to be true competitors yet one died off and the other did not. We see Dionysus appear and disappear for no discernible reason.
We see Heidelgbergensis, superior to Neanderthal but inferior to Sapien, appear during the timeline of both then disappear before Neanderthal. None of this follows Darwin's theory.

Your error is in your assumption that somehow, magically, evolution only works intermittently or in some small limited area. Evolution is an all or none theory. The proof that you agree with about TOE is evidence that the whole system works. For more than a Century and a half fossils and other evidence of evolution have reinforced and proved this elegant theory. The discovery of DNA by Crick and Watson supplied the final piece of the puzzle, the mechanism by which evolution takes place. The feckless effort by creationists to point to 'gaps' in the fossil record is amusing, in that whenever a 'gap' is filled by new evidence the creationist ignorantly and arrogantly cries out, "See! Two new gaps!" This is an intellectually dishonest argument.

[Danmark]

We see Heidelgbergensis, superior to Neanderthal but inferior to Sapien, appear during the timeline of both then disappear before Neanderthal. None of this follows Darwin's theory.

In addition there is no explanation for why primates began to evolve in the first place. There were not so many monkeys on earth that population pressures forced them to become other slightly different monkeys. Monkeys are perfectly suited to their habitats through speciation. Even if that habitat changed they would just become slightly different monkeys. Are we to believe that the easiest path for a natural process is for a monkey to need food, the food to become harder to obtain, the monkey to evolve over millions of years, labor at and learn technology over hundreds of thousands of years, create a system of civilization that eventually when combined with that technology will allow that new monkey to grow all the food it would ever need? No. Natural selection would make a monkey that just ate other food.

Evolution cannot answer many, many origin questions no matter how technical the vocabulary. Many proponents assume it does. Conversely creationism cannot hope to exist intellectually by simply stating that God merely popped everything into existence....

There are two major flaws to this section of the argument. One is that creationism is a competing theory with TOE. It is not. It is an absurd, unscientific, poorly thought out bit of nonsense that has no scientific backing whatsoever.

The second error is more subtle. Underlying it is the idea of purpose, another vestige from religion that assumes a teleologic universe. Evolution simply proceeds. It has no central purpose or plan. It does not reflect some divine effort to move to 'higher' organisms. Evolution just happens. It is indifferent to some artificial purpose someone tries to impose upon it. Evolution is simply a process; it is not a god.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 15 by Ooberman]

How can we save them from themselves?

Why? I have no use for ignorant people who refuse to accept logic and common sense. Let them destroy themselves - it has no impact on me and mine.
Live and let live.
If someone wants to believe in an apple as a god, let 'em. Just keep it to themselves.

It makes me so sad they choose to rot in their own ignorance.

It's better for your own mental health not to care. Let 'em rot - use your energy for you and yours.

Probably should.. It's just so sad that we have this amazingly powerful tool (Science) to help us solve real problems, but good minds are choosing to steep themselves in ancient superstitions.

I just don't get it. Don't they care about others? They seem to only care to wallow in their own dream of living forever. They only seem to think "I've got mine, to hell with everyone else!"

[Danmark]

This is an interesting issue, WP. And it affects moderation considerations.

So the anti TOE argument is typically one that demands the debater demonstrate personal expertise AND set forth a hundred page explanation. I think that is an unfair demand.

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Personal expertise and long posts are not required in order to post here. In fact, there seems to be tons of 'debaters' here who have very little personal expertise in anything and, additionally, there are a fair amount of people here who tend to post one liners and short remarks. If someone makes an argument against evolutionary theory that you consider to be factually incorrect, all you have to do is simply correct them and leave it at that. An intellectually honest debater will either accept the correction or disagree and qualify their argument with additional support.

You are correct that 'Personal expertise and long posts are not required in order to post here.' But to really explain the process by which evolution works takes those 100+ pages and if not expertise, voluminous quotes from experts culled from searches on the internet. This is why ultimately I settle for the opinions of virtually 100% of the experts on the subject and dismiss the opinions of non experts who just don't like the implications of the fact and theory of evolution.

[Swrrws]

In this regard evolution works remarkably well in some instances and fails in others. Speciation, which is Darwin's purview, can be easily observed in places such as Lake Tanginika. True evolution is much harder to observe. True evolution is when one specie separates itself due to external pressure and the antecedent perishes leaving only the new specie with its new and necessarily better adapted traits. Fossil records can hint at this but come nowhere close to prove it. How could they when all one can observe is a representation of skeletal remains?
When it is said that the fossil record is incomplete it doesn't only mean that the majority of fossils are missing, which they are. It also means that unless the mutation expressed itself in skeletal form which could be preserved by fossilization we have no way of detecting a mutation ever took place. Mutations do not half form. One either has Bone A or one does not. All other information must be inferred. Inference is the basis for a theory. That is why Darwin has no provable laws.

Natural selection can also be observed in some instances. Elephants being poached in Africa are undergoing natural selection and evolving into animals with small or no tusks. However when applied to the human timeline this and by extension evolution falls apart. According to Darwin the least adaptive specie always evolves into the better adapted specie. In the human timeline, a timeline that is not at all agreed upon by evolution scholars, we see different species appearing and disappearing with no relation to external pressures. Both Neanderthal and Sapien lived through the same conditions in a world that was too big for both to be true competitors yet one died off and the other did not. We see Dionysus appear and disappear for no discernible reason.
We see Heidelgbergensis, superior to Neanderthal but inferior to Sapien, appear during the timeline of both then disappear before Neanderthal. None of this follows Darwin's theory.

Your error is in your assumption that somehow, magically, evolution only works intermittently or in some small limited area. Evolution is an all or none theory. The proof that you agree with about TOE is evidence that the whole system works. For more than a Century and a half fossils and other evidence of evolution have reinforced and proved this elegant theory. The discovery of DNA by Crick and Watson supplied the final piece of the puzzle, the mechanism by which evolution takes place. The feckless effort by creationists to point to 'gaps' in the fossil record is amusing, in that whenever a 'gap' is filled by new evidence the creationist ignorantly and arrogantly cries out, "See! Two new gaps!" This is an intellectually dishonest argument.

Which is why I do not attempt to make a "god of the fossil gap" arguement. I contend that the fossil record merely supplies limited evidence which is used to make a massive inference. I heartedly disagree with evolution being all or none! For in that instance when applied to the creation of life itself it must be none!
Evolution also fails to explain human morality so again it must be none. I did not want to include that in my original post because it veers quickly way off topic.
I do not believe that evolution magically does anything. I believe in looking in a logical and evidentiary based way at the world and making and testing assumptions based on what is at hand. When looked at objectively evolution is not the total all encompassing brute fact it is purported to be. Where evolution fails should probably not be referred to as magic. That seems a bit too creationist to be a supporting arguement. To believe that humans have figured the entirety of life out and found any last piece to anything is to be woefully ignorant of the many times that has been claimed in the past.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 26 by Danmark]

The arguement [sic] succeeds even when you replace "life" with "self replicating matter". Self replication did not exist. Then it did exist. It came of existence in a closed system in which the components did not self replicate and self replication was not present in that system. In this universe that is impossible. Use whatever word you would like. You cannot provide one instance where something was created from nothing.

Wrong again. I wrote:

Where you go wrong is in your completely unfounded assumption that organic self replicating matter is not matter. The 1st law of thermodynamics is not contradicted by a mere change in the organization of a particular instance of matter and energy.

I make no distinction between 'life' and 'organic self replicating matter.'
The problem with your argument is that you, without any support, logic or reference whatsoever, make the unfounded assumption that when matter is organized in a new way, the new organization somehow violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. Please demonstrate how matter and energy are created or destroyed when a new molecule is formed. This is not creating 'something from nothing.' The burden is on you to demonstrate that the combination of atoms to form a new compound, even a complex protein, is somehow a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics as you claimed.

[Danmark]

Evolution also fails to explain human morality so again it must be none. I did not want to include that in my original post because it veers quickly way off topic.

Indeed it does, and rather than repeat the refutation of your claim, please search this forum for the convincing arguments that demonstrate not only how evolution explains morality without need to plug in the 'god did it' argument; but also demonstrate the fact that other apes and mammals have morality. We don't have to speculate or argue about it. Morality in animals has been demonstrated.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... at-me-out/

[Swrrws]

We see Heidelgbergensis, superior to Neanderthal but inferior to Sapien, appear during the timeline of both then disappear before Neanderthal. None of this follows Darwin's theory.

In addition there is no explanation for why primates began to evolve in the first place. There were not so many monkeys on earth that population pressures forced them to become other slightly different monkeys. Monkeys are perfectly suited to their habitats through speciation. Even if that habitat changed they would just become slightly different monkeys. Are we to believe that the easiest path for a natural process is for a monkey to need food, the food to become harder to obtain, the monkey to evolve over millions of years, labor at and learn technology over hundreds of thousands of years, create a system of civilization that eventually when combined with that technology will allow that new monkey to grow all the food it would ever need? No. Natural selection would make a monkey that just ate other food.

Evolution cannot answer many, many origin questions no matter how technical the vocabulary. Many proponents assume it does. Conversely creationism cannot hope to exist intellectually by simply stating that God merely popped everything into existence....

There are two major flaws to this section of the argument. One is that creationism is a competing theory with TOE. It is not. It is an absurd, unscientific, poorly thought out bit of nonsense that has no scientific backing whatsoever.

The second error is more subtle. Underlying it is the idea of purpose, another vestige from religion that assumes a teleologic universe. Evolution simply proceeds. It has no central purpose or plan. It does not reflect some divine effort to move to 'higher' organisms. Evolution just happens. It is indifferent to some artificial purpose someone tries to impose upon it. Evolution is simply a process; it is not a god.

Your second statement is the only statement that does not beg the question at issue so I will only respond to that.
Evolution itself does not say that it just happens or proceeds. It follows 4 of the 5 of Darwin's tenets. You are correct when you say it does not reflect a divine desire for higher organisms. It does absolutely require that organism to be the best adapted to its environment that it can be. So my question still stands. How can the path of least resistance be all of recorded human history when the original monkey would have either slightly adapted or become extinct? Are you really going to tell me that the most probable thing to occur in an externally pressured monkey population is the evolution of humanity over an incredibly long period of time with innumerable variables? You know where that arguement is going to lead.
For the record I am not an old earth creationist nor am I arguing from that viewpoint.

[Swrrws]

[Replying to post 26 by Danmark]

The arguement [sic] succeeds even when you replace "life" with "self replicating matter". Self replication did not exist. Then it did exist. It came of existence in a closed system in which the components did not self replicate and self replication was not present in that system. In this universe that is impossible. Use whatever word you would like. You cannot provide one instance where something was created from nothing.

Wrong again. I wrote:

Where you go wrong is in your completely unfounded assumption that organic self replicating matter is not matter. The 1st law of thermodynamics is not contradicted by a mere change in the organization of a particular instance of matter and energy.

I make no distinction between 'life' and 'organic self replicating matter.'
The problem with your argument is that you, without any support, logic or reference whatsoever, make the unfounded assumption that when matter is organized in a new way, the new organization somehow violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. Please demonstrate how matter and energy are created or destroyed when a new molecule is formed. This is not creating 'something from nothing.' The burden is on you to demonstrate that the combination of atoms to form a new compound, even a complex protein, is somehow a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics as you claimed.

On a planet with no life and with no ability in anything anywhere to self replicate then there can be no natural selection. Correct?
With no natural selection there can be no evolution. Correct?
At some point during the time where no life and no evolution existed life then existed.
Correct?
Therefore, with this logical progression, life could not have been created by the processes called evolution since at the time of creation of life no evolution existed on earth.
I cannot possibly be any clearer than that.

[Danmark]

It [evolution*] does absolutely require that organism to be the best adapted to its environment that it can be.

....
This sentence betrays a typical misunderstanding of the process of evolution. That process is ongoing. The changes certainly do not "absolutely require that organism to be the best adapted to its environment that it can be." If that misconception were correct there would likely be no evolution. All that evolution requires is that each discrete and tiny incremental change result in an organism that survives long enough to reproduce. If the new and slightly different organism survives and reproduces, it may eventually die out, or it may survive and may change again and its 2d or 3d generation may or may not replace the 1st. Or there may simply be a divergence and both lines continue.
_____________________________
*Any effort to discuss 'Darwinism,' whatever that is, will be ignored. I proceed on the assumption that we are discussing the theory of evolution as currently understood.