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?

[Swrrws]

[Replying to post 74 by WinePusher]

Thank you. I believe I was responding originally to an assertion that the argument against, or at least the challenging argument, could be done in less than 100 pages. I think Danmark and I have conclusively proved this to be impossible.
Sorry we moved so far off the topic.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 74:

...
Both theists and non theists will often claim that evolution has holes in it and isn't an error free theory, yet when pressed they fail to specify what is supposedly wrong with evolution.

What's wrong with evolution, is some folks think it didn't occur.

From what I can gather, there are only 3 real objections that need to be dealt with by evolutionary biologists:

What "needs to be dealt with" is folks who prefer the "Dover Defense"]

2) The fossil record fails to substantiate many evolutionary sequences.

'Cause don't it beat all, "God did it" does.

3) Attempts to accurately simulate evolution on a computer have yet to be successful.

Who here among us has seen two computers copulate? And ain't ya shamed for having looked in?

These seem to be the only 3 legitimate objections to evolution.

"Legitimate" being in the eye of the beholder.

All other objections posed by creationists, such as the complexity of the eye or the existence of vestigial organs or the existence of monkeys etc, are not scientifically valid.

Yet here we are, having to yet again explain that evolution occurs, and that reasoned, logical conclusions borne witness of it are valid.

Now, like I said your post seems to demonstrate a good understanding of biology so I appreciate your input. You and Danmark seem to be the only ones making a productive contribution to the thread

One's inability to gather that contributions have been made is best an example of one's inability to understand just how much contributin' has occurred.

and your exchanges have been interesting to read. Unfortunately, this thread seems to be full of people who 1) don't know how to write in standard English

"Standard English" here being best understood as if you don't tell it like I think ya oughta, well you's just another sinnin' sinner, you sinnin' sinner you.

One's inability to recognize English should not be an argument about how those who speak it don't.

2) are making personal comments

How quaint.

"Those who speak English that I understand, well they speak English that, and follow me here, I understand."

Poppyfeatherhorseratedcockamamiebifurcatedbullstuffthtthemodsmightgetontomeforsayin'itlikeitneedsbesaid.

One's inability to understand words they ain't ever encountered before oughta it not ever be an argument that those words lack merit.

and 3) are writing unproductive one liners. This is disappointing to say the least.

Why write a book, when a sentence tells it?

Anyways, you seem like a serious debater so welcome to the forum. This place is in desperate need of more people like you.

'Cause only them that I can understand, well only them can be serious 'bout it, 'cause there's this absolute inability on my part to understand arguments that they ain't presented in the way that makes me proud.

I call shenanigans, heaped upon a pile of dooficity, steeped in arrogance, and smothered in grits. Cheesy, cheesy grits. This entire argument boils down to that if I can't understand it, that it ain't worthy of me trying to.

[Danmark]

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie ... nd-belief/

The only article you listed that spoke directly to the issue was the one above.
Did you even read it?
From that article:

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006.

Yes I have read it and used its findings. The intent was to show that theists, or Christian Crusaders, have in fact contributed at a high and truly foundational level in every aspect of science. This is true also of Jewish and Muslim Crusaders as the other lists showed. Scoffing at theists as somehow "less than" when it comes to scientific achievement is unwarranted.
I used the PEW study to show that even today "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity to higher power".

Perhaps you misunderstand the use of statistics. They only show generalizations. The do not stand for the proposition that because X is a member of group A, he or she has this or that quality or characteristic.

You will note that the Pew study discussed belief in 'God or a higher power.' "Higher power" means many things to many people. I am not a theist, but I believe in a 'higher power.' I think it is the unconscious mind. In any event, no matter how you want to slice it belief in God and belief in creationism correlate negatively with both intelligence and education. What is much more telling is when you look at the statistics on how belief in evolution correlates with religion. It is only the more fundamentalist Christian religions that have a majority that does not believe in evolution. This tells us something very important. They are not making their belief decisions based on science. Their scientific beliefs are influenced very strongly by their religion. This is very telling in terms of their intellectual objectivity.

[Nickman]

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.

What predictions has it failed to make?
Link
Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.


Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.


There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.


Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.


Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.


Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.


Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.


Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.


In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.


It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.

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.

But science has also predicted that fossils are rare, and rare they are. It would be optimal if all animal carcasses and plants would fossilize, but they don't. What we do have from the fossil record does not go against evolution.

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.

I don't think computer simulations can even compete with the natural selective pressures in biology. You are asking a computer, with human input, to simulate millions of years of conditions and selective pressures. That, to me, is futile and bound to result inconclusively.

[Nickman]

To add, my link in my last post was from a creationist.

[Danmark]

I call shenanigans, heaped upon a pile of dooficity, steeped in arrogance, and smothered in grits. Cheesy, cheesy grits. This entire argument boils down to that if I can't understand it, that it ain't worthy of me trying to.

Moderator Warning

Joey, you know better. We all like your style, but the rules require you to focus on the argument, not the person. There's a certain amount of leeway given, but words like 'arrogance' nudge it over the line.
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.

[WinePusher]

What predictions has it failed to make?

Evolutionary theory has failed to make precise, quantitative predictions. I've expounded upon this point in earlier posts:

.....
What I mean by this is that evolutionary theory fails to specify the precise conditions required for observable, morphological change to occur. For example, what are the needed amounts of genetic changes required to produce a morphological change in a particular organism? Will this numerical value vary when considering different species? If so, by what amount? Additionally, how will particular environments and ecosystems impact this quantitative prediction? This is an area I'm unsure about and unfortunately it doesn't seem like there's any academic literature dealing with the specific subject, which is why I asked for input from people who are academically trained in biology. Unfortunately none of yet to post in this thread.

.....
This doesn't address what I said since I already agreed admitted that evolutionary theory does make abstract, qualitative predictions. What I requested were precise, quantitative predictions on an observable and macro level. For example, what are the needed amounts of genetic changes required to produce a morphological change in a particular organism? Will this numerical value vary when considering different species? If so, by what amount? Additionally, how will particular environments and ecosystems impact this quantitative prediction?

Biology, especially evolutionary biology, is really one of the only natural sciences that isn't rich with mathematics. Contrary to fields like chemistry and physics, you don't really need to have a strong education in math to know and understand biology. Haven't you ever wondered why this is? Seems like it's because evolutionary biology tends to be bent more towards qualitative analysis as opposed to quantitative analysis. However, this isn't necessarily true for microbiology and genetics where mathematics is used quite often.

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.

But science has also predicted that fossils are rare, and rare they are. It would be optimal if all animal carcasses and plants would fossilize, but they don't. What we do have from the fossil record does not go against evolution.

Of course it doesn't go against evolution. In fact, anybody who actually observes the fossil record would have to conclude that 'macro'evolutionary change is a real thing. But, the point about the fossil record is that it fails to substantiate particular evolutionary sequences. The reptile to mammal sequence is well documented in the fossil record, while other sequences such as the invertebrates, the tetrapod's and the insects are not.

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.

I don't think computer simulations can even compete with the natural selective pressures in biology. You are asking a computer, with human input, to simulate millions of years of conditions and selective pressures. That, to me, is futile and bound to result inconclusively.

I don't find this point particularly compelling since modern computer science has been perfectly capable of simulating the expansion of the universe (Source). However, I do tend to agree with Divine Insight, who said, "And if it's just a matter of lack of computing power then this argument holds no water." This problem may very well be the fault of the computer's capability to process an evolutionary algorithm.

[JoeyKnothead]

I call shenanigans, heaped upon a pile of dooficity, steeped in arrogance, and smothered in grits. Cheesy, cheesy grits. This entire argument boils down to that if I can't understand it, that it ain't worthy of me trying to.

Moderator Warning

Joey, you know better. We all like your style, but the rules require you to focus on the argument, not the person. There's a certain amount of leeway given, but words like 'arrogance' nudge it over the line.
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.

Full 'pologies, however weak they seem, given my many transgressions. In my heart I meant arrogance of thought, but failed to have said it.

My doing stupid makes it kinda goofy for folks to think I ain't.

Any other terms there I said that don't reflect my trying to get at the ideas, I swear I mean it about the ideas, and not that'n there.

[Danmark]

What predictions has it failed to make?

Evolutionary theory has failed to make precise, quantitative predictions.

Seems to me that theory of evolution is not the type of theory that lends itself to 'precise quantitative' predictions.

As Nickman has pointed out, its predictive value has been enormous. But I don't see biology as the type of science that demands numbers the way physics does. If you can rebut my thoughts on this, I'd welcome it. The education you'd be giving me might be worth the loss of 'face.'

[Nickman]

What predictions has it failed to make?

Evolutionary theory has failed to make precise, quantitative predictions. I've expounded upon this point in earlier posts:

.....
What I mean by this is that evolutionary theory fails to specify the precise conditions required for observable, morphological change to occur. For example, what are the needed amounts of genetic changes required to produce a morphological change in a particular organism? Will this numerical value vary when considering different species? If so, by what amount? Additionally, how will particular environments and ecosystems impact this quantitative prediction? This is an area I'm unsure about and unfortunately it doesn't seem like there's any academic literature dealing with the specific subject, which is why I asked for input from people who are academically trained in biology. Unfortunately none of yet to post in this thread.

Well, I am not a biologist because I went with business and supply chain management, but I study biology on my off time. I derived my ideas on the subject from study.

What your asking for is precision, but that is impossible with change over time. You demand every last bit of evidence, but evidence is how it comes. I am sorry but evidence diminishes over time. What has been shown is that biology evolves. That means changes over time. Even in our incomplete fossil record, we still see a change in biology.

.....
This doesn't address what I said since I already agreed admitted that evolutionary theory does make abstract, qualitative predictions. What I requested were precise, quantitative predictions on an observable and macro level. For example, what are the needed amounts of genetic changes required to produce a morphological change in a particular organism? Will this numerical value vary when considering different species? If so, by what amount? Additionally, how will particular environments and ecosystems impact this quantitative prediction?

As I said earlier, you require precision, even though that is impossible given the circumstances. There is no precision in any field of study. Even in politics or economic studies we cannot be certain. What we can do is show what happened in the past and make predictions based on that evidence.

Biology, especially evolutionary biology, is really one of the only natural sciences that isn't rich with mathematics. Contrary to fields like chemistry and physics, you don't really need to have a strong education in math to know and understand biology. Haven't you ever wondered why this is? Seems like it's because evolutionary biology tends to be bent more towards qualitative analysis as opposed to quantitative analysis. However, this isn't necessarily true for microbiology and genetics where mathematics is used quite often.

No I haven't wondered, because biology is not reliant on mathematical propositions. This is because flora/fauna have a need to survive. This is opposed by other flora/fauna that also have to survive. It is not a constant which we find in physics. Mathematics is used when we find constants.

Of course it doesn't go against evolution. In fact, anybody who actually observes the fossil record would have to conclude that 'macro'evolutionary change is a real thing. But, the point about the fossil record is that it fails to substantiate particular evolutionary sequences. The reptile to mammal sequence is well documented in the fossil record, while other sequences such as the invertebrates, the tetrapod's and the insects are not.

Just like is said, fossils are hard to make. We would expect insects and invertebrates to be reluctant to create fossils, and they are. Science has known this for years. We don't expect to have a complete fossil record, but the creationists do expect a complete fossil record. This is because they don't understand how fossils are formed.

I don't find this point particularly compelling since modern computer science has been perfectly capable of simulating the expansion of the universe (Source).

That is because, what we know about the universe is based on mathematics. We knew about Pluto, Uranus, and Jupiter before we saw them visually, based on mathematics. We calculated that there were certain bodies further out there pulling us away from the sun and keeping us in a specific orbit. This was calculated against the pull of the sun, and was confirmed when we developed telescopes powerful enough to actually see them.

However, I do tend to agree with Divine Insight, who said, "And if it's just a matter of lack of computing power then this argument holds no water." This problem may very well be the fault of the computer's capability to process an evolutionary algorithm.

This is my argument also. We are relying on humans to input the algorithms that would coincide with the conditions from a time we don't completely understand. Computer science is good for mathematicians, but thus far it is not viable for biological applications.