Topic: Weaknesses in the Evolution Theory (Read 3945 times)

seanpko · « **on:** June 26, 2008, 12:59:58 AM »

Hi there I've been reading through some the material on this site for a little over a month now and decided to make a specific inquiry. I'm trying to learn some of the basic objections that people have against the theory of evolution so I was wondering if some of you could give me a list of what you believe are weaknesses in the theory of evolution (macro obviously). I don't pose this question just to the Christians here however. To the atheist or agnostic, I'd like to get your input on this too. Is there anything you perceive to be a weak point in the theory or anything that requires a stretch of the imagination?

I know there's already quite a bit of information on the forums about this but I'm trying to get a more generalized list that's a bit more accessible. Thanks,
-sean

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** June 26, 2008, 08:35:16 AM »

Hi Sean,

Thanks for your inquiry. I sure hope some of the atheists can think of some weaknesses in the theory. It would sure help establish their objectivity, don't you agree?

Not a formal list, but some things that come to mind quickly:

1. The theory begs the philosophical question of whether or not we must always seek unguided naturalistic explanations for everything we observe. I have a number of blog entries on this. My most recent may be useful to start with here

2. The theory is not directly confirmable in the old sense of the scientific method which called for experimentation and direct observation. All of the most controversial elements of the theory are hidden in the distant past and happen so slowly that the theory predicts they won't happen within a thousand of our lifetimes.

3. The theory is infinitely malleable. While it is presented as plausible because given enough time, anything is possible (see #2), the fossil record has been shown by Gould to reveal very fast changes. Dawkins 'saves' Gould by insisting that it is nonetheless gradual, but my point is that whether fast or slow, the evolutionist can say they have a plausible view. In other words, evolution is not falsifiable (see Popper), because it can be adjusted endlessly, and there never comes a point where they'll say "Ah, I guess we were wrong."

Note that the previous points speak as much to the methodology adopted by scientists on this matter as it does the scientific evidence itself.

4. The definition of 'species' is extraordinarily simplified in order to make evolutionary theory plausible. So, when an evolutionist says we've observed new species being formed, it is because they have a hand picked definition of species in mind. When a normal person uses the word species, they think of all of the morphological changes, etc, that drive our comprehension of different 'kinds' of animals.

5. If we are the result of unguided, purely naturalistic processes, how do we know we can trust our senses and our minds? Given evolution, the most assurance we could ever garner is that it produced a scenario that would maximize our ability to survive and reproduce. We have no reason to believe we are really comprehending the world around us anything like as it is- we have only enough reason to believe we comprehend it well enough to survive long enough to make more little copies of ourselves. Thus, at the heart of evolutions stands a massive inconsistency: if it is true, we cannot trust our minds to know that it is true.

6. Even given evolution, the question of how plausible it is 'because anything can happen given enough time' is in doubt. It is customary to propose that with 4.5 billion years to work with (the approximate age of the earth) anything can happen. But according to the fossil record, nearly all of the earth's bauplans (bodyplans) emerged just about 500 million years ago, which of course is far less time. They emerged, completely fully formed as far as the fossil record goes. We must now decide if it is plausible to believe our biological diversity can be accounted for in just about 500 million years. But it is worse than that, because of the famed extinction event (allegedly a meteor strike or something) around 70 million years ago, which gave rise most famously to the mammals. Can our biological diversity be explained in just 70 million years? Only when evolutionists make this argument about plausibility from the time involved they uniformly invoke the 4.5 billion year evolutionary timescale and not the time frame I have just outlined.

7. Many of the 'proofs' of evolution can be handled by other explanations, too. For example, evolutionists routinely cite examples of microevolution at work as support for their theory, and of course microevolution is not disputed. Evolutionists today are keen to point out that macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution, so they are quite confident in their assertion that evolution has been observed, citing cases of microevolution. But microevolution- 'variation within a kind' is also maintained by young earth creationists. So, since both Young Earth Creationists and Macroevolutionists both expect small scale variations within a population, the fact that they occur cannot be construed as evidence for only macroevolution- it would be evidence for both, and therefore useless to cite.

I could go on and on. I personally start and end with #5. Any concept of the world that undermines our epistemology from the beginning must be rejected out of hand. If I must trust my reason to learn about reality but adopt a theory which undermines my reason then the well is poisoned.

Copernicus · « **Reply #2 on:** June 26, 2008, 10:53:22 AM »

Quote from: seanpko on June 26, 2008, 12:59:58 AM

...I don't pose this question just to the Christians here however. To the atheist or agnostic, I'd like to get your input on this too. Is there anything you perceive to be a weak point in the theory or anything that requires a stretch of the imagination?

Sean, that all depends on how you construe "weakness" and what you mean by "evolution theory". Some have criticized the theory as being so obvious that it lacks falsifiability, but they are really talking about evolution in a very broad sense, which I think even IDers accept as valid. It is just too obvious that a biological trait that favors the production of more offspring will obviously lead to more copies of itself (other things being equal) than a competing trait that leads to the production of less offspring.

You are clearly talking about evolution as a driver for speciation--what creationists call "macroevolution". In that case, we have rather overwhelming evidence from the fossil record that macroevolution has taken place, and that record continually corroborates macroevolution. That is, we can predict with a great deal of certainty what kinds of fossils we will find in new excavations of geological strata. We also find our expectations of what we will find in DNA comparisons to fit with the theory of evolution. There are just two many pieces of evidence from a wide variety of sources to corroborate macroevolution to allow for many "weaknesses".

I suppose that one could look at ring species as the most intriguing piece of direct evolution for macroevolution, and one might challenge that evidence as weak on the grounds that we have discovered so few ring species and we don't really know for certain that the ends of the rings are incapable of producing offspring. There is some controversy over whether "doesn't mate" means "can't mate". On the other hand we have clear instances of cross-breeding in nature and the production of haploids such as mules. Furthermore, the question of how to define a "species" is itself known to be problematic, since we do get cross-bred hybrids in nature. If we cannot clearly define what constitutes a species, then it is very hard to define macroevolution itself, which depends on a clear definition of the concept.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #3 on:** June 26, 2008, 04:15:24 PM »

What, Cop? No weaknesses? Heck, there are weaknesses even in theories about gravitation, and gravity is something that we all experience. You can't think of any weaknesses of evolutionary theory? None?

Quote

In that case, we have rather overwhelming evidence from the fossil record that macroevolution has taken place, and that record continually corroborates macroevolution.

Hotly contested, and presumes the thing to be demonstrated, anyway. Stasis is also documented in the fossil record. Siegfried Scherer suggests that the fossil record supports a polyphyletic interpretatio and that gaps between 'basic types' in the fossil record are evident. This is not a rejection of descent with variation, but rather common descent- from a single ancestor. Macroevolution would require that the fossil record shows not just descent from a single ancestor, but also transitions between morphological 'classes' of organisms: such, according to Scherer is lacking. In other words, it's one thing to pretend like you're tracking the lineage of the horse from the fossils... its quite another to get from the horse to the goat, or horse to whale, or horse to fern.

Copernicus · « **Reply #4 on:** June 26, 2008, 06:11:22 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on June 26, 2008, 04:15:24 PM

What, Cop? No weaknesses? Heck, there are weaknesses even in theories about gravitation, and gravity is something that we all experience. You can't think of any weaknesses of evolutionary theory? None?

My response was that it depended on how one defined "weakness" and "evolution", not that there were no weaknesses. As for gravity, I appreciate the fact tha you have a morbid fear of floating off into the sky, but most of us are fairly convinced that the evidence is sufficient to overcome that fear.

Quote

In that case, we have rather overwhelming evidence from the fossil record that macroevolution has taken place, and that record continually corroborates macroevolution.

Hotly contested, and presumes the thing to be demonstrated, anyway. Stasis is also documented in the fossil record. Siegfried Scherer suggests that the fossil record supports a polyphyletic interpretatio and that gaps between 'basic types' in the fossil record are evident. This is not a rejection of descent with variation, but rather common descent- from a single ancestor. Macroevolution would require that the fossil record shows not just descent from a single ancestor, but also transitions between morphological 'classes' of organisms: such, according to Scherer is lacking. In other words, it's one thing to pretend like you're tracking the lineage of the horse from the fossils... its quite another to get from the horse to the goat, or horse to whale, or horse to fern.

The evidence provided by the fossil record is not hotly contested by scientists. It is only a debate that takes place between folks of a certain religious persuasion and those politicians who would like to acquire their votes. The gaps in the fossil record are significant evidence only inn the sense that they have shrunk so dramatically since Darwin's time. However, now that I have your attention, I'd like to make a modest request of you. Can you cite any evidence of fossils that contradict the theory of common descent and support the theory of spontaneous generation? What evidence in the fossil record poses a challenge for evolutionists?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #5 on:** June 26, 2008, 06:39:10 PM »

"My response was that it depended on how one defined "weakness" and "evolution", not that there were no weaknesses."

It was clear what he meant by both of those words, my friend. And you even took a stab on his intent. This isn't going to break down over what the definition of the word is, is, is it? :)

"The evidence provided by the fossil record is not hotly contested by scientists. It is only a debate that takes place between folks of a certain religious persuasion"

Some of whom are scientists, my friend.

"The gaps in the fossil record are significant evidence only inn the sense that they have shrunk so dramatically since Darwin's time."

This was not the sort of gap that I was referencing.

"Can you cite any evidence of fossils that contradict the theory of common descent"

Why, no such thing could possibly exist, since it is assumed in advance that the fossils represent the actual history of life on the earth, so that anything that 'contradicted' would simply be taken in stride as 'new information' to be factored into the construction of the history. This would fit under my #3 above. Whenever this comes up the skeptic says "Ah, but that's what makes science grand, its supposed to be open to new ideas!" Cake. Eatin' it too. :)

"and support the theory of spontaneous generation?"

Uh, who is advocating for spontaneous generation? It was a Christian, and a YECcer, Louis Pasteur, who disproved spontaneous generation. At one time abiogenesis was part and parcel to evolutionary theory. It was because the origin of life was such an intractable issue (and still is) that evolutionary apologists split the origin of life from the theory of evolution. You don't think YECcers believe in spontaneous generation, do you? That would be a hoot.

"What evidence in the fossil record poses a challenge for evolutionists?"

Well, stasis certainly poses a challenge. You have to admit that it is a little weird that with all these populations of organisms running around evolving into different forms and such to find some that haven't changed for millions of years. Also, my #6 highlights a challenge for evolutionists within the fossil record. The so called Cambrian explosion is something I'm sure you've heard about. Numerous bodyplans emerge in the fossil record virtually overnight, when considered on a geologic timescale (read: uniformitarianistic). And that wasn't the only example. Haven't you ever heard of Punctuated Equilibria? What about Hopeful Monsters?

Copernicus · « **Reply #6 on:** June 27, 2008, 12:20:42 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on June 26, 2008, 06:39:10 PM

"My response was that it depended on how one defined "weakness" and "evolution", not that there were no weaknesses."

It was clear what he meant by both of those words, my friend. And you even took a stab on his intent. This isn't going to break down over what the definition of the word is, is, is it? :)

It was clear to you, not to me. I answered as best I could.

Quote

"The evidence provided by the fossil record is not hotly contested by scientists. It is only a debate that takes place between folks of a certain religious persuasion"

Some of whom are scientists, my friend.

Very few of whom are scientists and still fewer of whom are biological scientists. The debate has led to no serious publications in science journals, only philosophical journals. There is a reason for that, and it isn't that scientists are averse to hearing criticisms of prevailing scientific theories. It is that there is no scientific substance to that debate.

Quote

"Can you cite any evidence of fossils that contradict the theory of common descent"

Why, no such thing could possibly exist, since it is assumed in advance that the fossils represent the actual history of life on the earth, so that anything that 'contradicted' would simply be taken in stride as 'new information' to be factored into the construction of the history. This would fit under my #3 above. Whenever this comes up the skeptic says "Ah, but that's what makes science grand, its supposed to be open to new ideas!" Cake. Eatin' it too. :)

That's a lot of words, when a simple "no" would have sufficed.

Quote

"and support the theory of spontaneous generation?"

Uh, who is advocating for spontaneous generation?...

Sorry, but I misspoke. I tend to think of special creation as spontaneous generation, but most people probably equate it with abiogenesis, which is what you did. My bad.

Quote

It was a Christian, and a YECcer, Louis Pasteur, who disproved spontaneous generation. At one time abiogenesis was part and parcel to evolutionary theory. It was because the origin of life was such an intractable issue (and still is) that evolutionary apologists split the origin of life from the theory of evolution. You don't think YECcers believe in spontaneous generation, do you? That would be a hoot.

Actually, Pasteur did not disprove spontaneous generation. He only demonstrated that it was not currently observable in nature. There is a nice article on the creationist claims about Pasteur's work in this talkorigins essay.

Quote

"What evidence in the fossil record poses a challenge for evolutionists?"

Well, stasis certainly poses a challenge. You have to admit that it is a little weird that with all these populations of organisms running around evolving into different forms and such to find some that haven't changed for millions of years...

No, I don't feel compelled to admit that. The theory of evolution is fully compatible with the idea that stable forms should evolve. If a biological form is perfectly adapted to an environment that exists for millions of years, then there is no reason for it to go extinct.

Quote

Also, my #6 highlights a challenge for evolutionists within the fossil record. The so called Cambrian explosion is something I'm sure you've heard about. Numerous bodyplans emerge in the fossil record virtually overnight, when considered on a geologic timescale (read: uniformitarianistic). And that wasn't the only example. Haven't you ever heard of Punctuated Equilibria? What about Hopeful Monsters?

You are raising an old canard of creationists that has been refuted many times over. Even Gould criticized creationists for misunderstanding and misusing his work, and he was an ardent defender of macroevolution. What he objected to was what he labeled "phyletic gradualism". Richard Dawkins is perhaps best known for criticizing Gould for what he considered misunderstandings of Darwin's position. In particular, Darwin did not believe that evolution would always take place at a uniform rate, since speciation is completely subject to environmental pressures that may not themselves come at a uniform rate.

End Bringer · « **Reply #7 on:** June 27, 2008, 01:28:18 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on June 27, 2008, 12:20:42 PM

Very few of whom are scientists and still fewer of whom are biological scientists. The debate has led to no serious publications in science journals, only philosophical journals. There is a reason for that, and it isn't that scientists are averse to hearing criticisms of prevailing scientific theories. It is that there is no scientific substance to that debate.

This would fall under #1 of evolution's weakness.

Quote

No, I don't feel compelled to admit that. The theory of evolution is fully compatible with the idea that stable forms should evolve. If a biological form is perfectly adapted to an environment that exists for millions of years, then there is no reason for it to go extinct.

This is why your cries of a dinosaur fossil being found along side a human's to disprove evolution shows to be just blowing smoke because one hasn't been found yet. You can always claim a some survived in "stasis" just like the crocidile or alligator. As has been shown evolution is indeed unfalsifiable.

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** June 27, 2008, 01:48:20 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on June 27, 2008, 01:28:18 PM

Quote from: Copernicus on June 27, 2008, 12:20:42 PM
Very few of whom are scientists and still fewer of whom are biological scientists. The debate has led to no serious publications in science journals, only philosophical journals. There is a reason for that, and it isn't that scientists are averse to hearing criticisms of prevailing scientific theories. It is that there is no scientific substance to that debate.

This would fall under #1 of evolution's weakness.

Sntjohnny's objection #1 is not an objection to evolution per se, but to any scientific explanation at all. You may consider naturalism a weakness, but science has a better track record than religion in explaining how nature works. So I don't consider the scientific method a weakness of evolution or any other natural theory.

Quote

Quote
No, I don't feel compelled to admit that. The theory of evolution is fully compatible with the idea that stable forms should evolve. If a biological form is perfectly adapted to an environment that exists for millions of years, then there is no reason for it to go extinct.

This is why your cries of a dinosaur fossil being found along side a human's to disprove evolution shows to be just blowing smoke because one hasn't been found yet. You can always claim a some survived in "stasis" just like the crocidile or alligator. As has been shown evolution is indeed unfalsifiable.

It is theoretically possible that dinosaurs could have survived into modern times. Books and movies have been based on that speculation, but it appears the they became extinct roughly 66 million years before humans appeared on the planet. Trilobytes, spiders, and sharks are examples of organisms with extreme longevity, but nobody thinks that they pose the slightest challenge to the theory of evolution. Humans have not existed in their present form for even a million years, and it is now beginning to look like we are an extremely unstable life form, since we quickly modify our environment to the point where it can no longer sustain us.

End Bringer · « **Reply #9 on:** June 27, 2008, 02:08:40 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on June 27, 2008, 01:48:20 PM

Sntjohnny's objection #1 is not an objection to evolution per se, but to any scientific explanation at all. You may consider naturalism a weakness, but science has a better track record than religion in explaining how nature works. So I don't consider the scientific method a weakness of evolution or any other natural theory.

That would work if the "scientific method" actually applied to evolution. All you ever sight is that "expectations" are met, that can equally fit into a creationist's model.

Quote

It is theoretically possible that dinosaurs could have survived into modern times. Books and movies have been based on that speculation, but it appears the they became extinct roughly 66 million years before humans appeared on the planet. Trilobytes, spiders, and sharks are examples of organisms with extreme longevity, but nobody thinks that they pose the slightest challenge to the theory of evolution. Humans have not existed in their present form for even a million years, and it is now beginning to look like we are an extremely unstable life form, since we quickly modify our environment to the point where it can no longer sustain us.

I see you dodged the issue. Evolution is indeed unfalisfiable no matter what "ultimatum" you can think of, as your "dinosaur fossil being found near a human's" defense already has a ready and waiting explanation. Like SJ said:

Quote

Why, no such thing could possibly exist, since it is assumed in advance that the fossils represent the actual history of life on the earth, so that anything that 'contradicted' would simply be taken in stride as 'new information' to be factored into the construction of the history. This would fit under my #3 above. Whenever this comes up the skeptic says "Ah, but that's what makes science grand, its supposed to be open to new ideas!" Cake. Eatin' it too. :)

Copernicus · « **Reply #10 on:** June 27, 2008, 03:51:33 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on June 27, 2008, 02:08:40 PM

That would work if the "scientific method" actually applied to evolution. All you ever sight is that "expectations" are met, that can equally fit into a creationist's model.

It turns out that it is crucial that scientific explanations set up "expectations" that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by observation. Special creation sets up no such expectations. The data can be said to "fit" the "creationist model" only in the sense that anything at all we find in nature fits with that model. It makes no testable predictions.

Quote

Quote
It is theoretically possible that dinosaurs could have survived into modern times. Books and movies have been based on that speculation, but it appears the they became extinct roughly 66 million years before humans appeared on the planet. Trilobytes, spiders, and sharks are examples of organisms with extreme longevity, but nobody thinks that they pose the slightest challenge to the theory of evolution. Humans have not existed in their present form for even a million years, and it is now beginning to look like we are an extremely unstable life form, since we quickly modify our environment to the point where it can no longer sustain us.

I see you dodged the issue. Evolution is indeed unfalisfiable no matter what "ultimatum" you can think of, as your "dinosaur fossil being found near a human's" defense already has a ready and waiting explanation...

Being distracted by all the trees, you have failed to see the forest. Evolution's concept of 'common descent' makes a very testable prediction: that we should expect to find precursor fossils. We find such transitional precursors everywhere, and we keep finding them all the time. We can trace hippos and whales back to forms that suggest a common ancestor. Your so-called "creationist model" does not explain why that observation should be continually corroborated by new fossil discoveries for well over a century of excavations now. Every fossil dig is a new experiment that has the potential to overturn established theory, but every one has so far held true to the prediction.

Quote

Like SJ said:

Quote
Why, no such thing could possibly exist, since it is assumed in advance that the fossils represent the actual history of life on the earth, so that anything that 'contradicted' would simply be taken in stride as 'new information' to be factored into the construction of the history. This would fit under my #3 above. Whenever this comes up the skeptic says "Ah, but that's what makes science grand, its supposed to be open to new ideas!" Cake. Eatin' it too. :)

That fossils represent the actual history of life on earth is a reasonable assumption to make, is it not? What else could they represent? An effort by God to deceive us into believing a false history? Do go on

.

End Bringer · « **Reply #11 on:** June 27, 2008, 10:13:30 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on June 27, 2008, 03:51:33 PM

It turns out that it is crucial that scientific explanations set up "expectations" that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by observation. Special creation sets up no such expectations. The data can be said to "fit" the "creationist model" only in the sense that anything at all we find in nature fits with that model. It makes no testable predictions.

In other words you proudly declare something as fact then go on to look for the proof to support it later. And it's the "observation" part that fails. No one "observes" millions of years of evolution. What you have is an interpretation based on a philosophical a priori belief which is what the evolutionist interpretation to the fossil record amounts to. And your generalization is grossly inaccurate as the creationist model does indeed make predictions that we would see variation with kind, and the gradual loss of genetic info. The gaining of genetic info that is a requirement for evolution has never once been observed.

Quote

Being distracted by all the trees, you have failed to see the forest. Evolution's concept of 'common descent' makes a very testable prediction: that we should expect to find precursor fossils.

Which as I recall in a previous discussion, you compensated for by declaring everything a "precursor fossil" as you sighted that evolution doesn't stop. How convenient.

Quote

We find such transitional precursors everywhere, and we keep finding them all the time. We can trace hippos and whales back to forms that suggest a common ancestor. Your so-called "creationist model" does not explain why that observation should be continually corroborated by new fossil discoveries for well over a century of excavations now. Every fossil dig is a new experiment that has the potential to overturn established theory, but every one has so far held true to the prediction.

Nope. As everything is a "transitional precursor" it makes it impossible not to find one under such a view. Even the one's that are "stasis" can be said to be transitional precursors. Just simply slower than all others. No, there is no single piece of fossil evidence that can overturn evolution as evolution has become unfalsifiable.

Quote

That fossils represent the actual history of life on earth is a reasonable assumption to make, is it not? What else could they represent? An effort by God to deceive us into believing a false history? Do go on .

A single catastrophic event that occured at one point in the past. A global flood would fit such a description.

Copernicus · « **Reply #12 on:** June 28, 2008, 12:55:35 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on June 27, 2008, 10:13:30 PM

In other words you proudly declare something as fact then go on to look for the proof to support it later.

It is probably a futile exercise to try to explain to you how science works, but I'll give it a try. A hypothesis is not a declared fact, nor is it an a priori belief. It is a proposition that can pass or fail a test. The test necessarily comes after the formulation of the hypothesis.

Quote

And it's the "observation" part that fails. No one "observes" millions of years of evolution. What you have is an interpretation based on a philosophical a priori belief which is what the evolutionist interpretation to the fossil record amounts to.

No, what we have are carefully researched theories about how sedimentary rock forms, how long it takes to form, and how old it is, based on independently calibrated radiometric data. We can calculate time scales based on that kind of data. We also have continually verified observations about the kinds of fossils that we find grouped together in those strata and their probable age. So scientists have come to conclusions about the natural history of the Earth that not only fit with a vast storehouse of accumulated observations, but that continue to be verified every day.

Quote

...And your generalization is grossly inaccurate as the creationist model does indeed make predictions that we would see variation with kind, and the gradual loss of genetic info. The gaining of genetic info that is a requirement for evolution has never once been observed.

It seems that you are the one with the "proudly declared fact", but you lack an important ingredient: a prediction that can be tested. To the extent that we have any expectation from that model, it is that we will find no coherent groupings of fossils according to radiometric data at all. It gives us no reason to expect that at least some of the millions of dinosaur and human fossils should occur in the same rock strata or in strata that can be dated to the same era, but that never happens. There have been some attempts by creationists to produce such evidence (e.g. human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock), but no credible evidence of that sort has ever turned up. And why would creationists try so hard to produce such evidence? Because they are embarrassed by the lack of it.

Quote

Which as I recall in a previous discussion, you compensated for by declaring everything a "precursor fossil" as you sighted that evolution doesn't stop. How convenient.

Strawman. I have never declared all fossils to be precursor or transitional fossils. Those are fossils of animals that combine traits of different species that show up later. These kinds of fossils prove, for example, that hippos and whales have a more recent common ancestor than humans and whales. We can now corroborate such findings by comparing the DNA of whales and hippos. So we can establish common ancestry for whales and hippos from two very different sources: the fossil record and DNA comparisons.

Quote

...As everything is a "transitional precursor" it makes it impossible not to find one under such a view. Even the one's that are "stasis" can be said to be transitional precursors. Just simply slower than all others. No, there is no single piece of fossil evidence that can overturn evolution as evolution has become unfalsifiable.

Again, I never said that everything was a transitional fossil, and you fail to take into account that the science is based on more than one type of evidence. A lot of other science would need to be invalid or false in order to falsify common descent claims.

Also, you equivocate on the term "evolution", as I've pointed out before. Creationists tend not to dispute evolution in its broader sense, but they (not scientists) make a big distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. It is the later that creationists try to deny. The picture of common descent in "macroevolution" that has been built up would be clearly falsified if we were to discover human and dinosaur remains in the same sedimentary stratum or in strata dated to the same age.

Quote

Quote
That fossils represent the actual history of life on earth is a reasonable assumption to make, is it not? What else could they represent? An effort by God to deceive us into believing a false history? Do go on .

A single catastrophic event that occured at one point in the past. A global flood would fit such a description.

You avoided the question. Why would God have created a world in which science would be led to believe that the Earth is immensely older than biblical scripture tells us? You implied that the fossil record might not reflect the natural history of the Earth. If so, why did God make it appear that way?

Now, regarding the flood myth, that is a separate, but interesting question. There is not enough water on Earth to have inundated all land masses. If there was an ancient global flood, why can't scientists find evidence of it in sedimentary patterns? Any thoughts on that? Did God cover up the evidence to test our faith?

seanpko · « **Reply #13 on:** July 07, 2008, 07:14:38 PM »

Hey guys thanks for your responses! Very thought provoking! If anyone has anything else they perceive as a weakness or hole in the evolution theory I'd love to read more.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #14 on:** August 10, 2008, 09:36:38 AM »

Quote

Why would God have created a world in which science would be led to believe that the Earth is immensely older than biblical scripture tells us? You implied that the fossil record might not reflect the natural history of the Earth. If so, why did God make it appear that way?

Wow, does that miss the point. If you were paying attention, God didn't create a world in such a manner. At least, you don't know that he did. The reason why the fossil record might not reflect the natural history of the earth is related specifically to the premise that a global flood happened. You call this a 'separate' issue. Dude, it's part of the whole package of the terms being discussed. If there was a global flood then the fossil record is the result of a single, catastrophic event and it is wrong to view it as the record of earth's 'natural history' ala the geologic column.

This is a classic case of evaluating one outlook, with its own set of terms, based on the terms of an entirely different outlook. It would be like evaluating the claim that a tree crashed through a window on the assumption that it was actually a car. Assuming you have neither tree nor car in hand, taking the assumption that it was actually a car when evaluating the proposal that it was a tree is foolishness. You're doing the same thing.

Now, what age the earth would have appeared to be prior to the flood is a different story but to say that God created things to be this way flies in the face of the terms of the story, which is that people were nasty nasty nasty and God did something about it... ie, the flood was not his original intent nor his original creation.

And this relates to a weakness of the evolutionary theory in that the fossils alone only give you relative dating, anyway. To get absolute dating we have to employ radiometric dating and this imports a whole host of new suppositions. For example, how did the radioactive elements get created in the first place if indeed they are always decaying? Nucleosynthesis? Prove it.

SirGuilesdragon · « **Reply #15 on:** August 10, 2008, 05:40:39 PM »

Nucleosynthesis does create radioactive atoms. That is scientifically proven and undeniable. However, these atoms are the product of certain processes in which other atoms absorb neutrons, alpha particles and the like. They then radioactively decay into the so called "valley of stability" Please do not include in your argument (which is a good one) the calling into question factors that can be, and have been, scientifically proven. The real question here is not where the radioactive isotopes come from; they certainly could have come from one great event in the past, when the earth was bombarded with neutrons at a phenomenally higher rate than today. Rather ask the real question, which remains: Where did the atoms and neutrons involved in the Nucleosynthesis come from? To that, there is no answer.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #16 on:** August 10, 2008, 07:20:27 PM »

I should have been more precise: stellar nucleosynthesis. It is not my point that we cannot create radioactive atoms. My point is that the source of all of the radioactive elements is a process in the distant, foggy past. Can it really be shown that all of the radioactive elements on our planet were birthed in our sun or 'from one great event in the past'?

You say: "they certainly could have" but where I come from that is not an equivalent statement to "scientifically proven and undeniable."

Before we go much further I should inquire: are you a young earth creationist? An old earth creationist? A creationist at all? That will help me understand where you are coming from.

To review and briefly expand on my argument, if the Genesis account is to be believed then it follows that the fossil record is not the natural history of the earth, recounting eons upon eons, but is rather the consequence of a single event and is not a 'deception' by God since the very nature of the flood is that it was inflicted because of the evils of man, not the original purpose of God. Whether or not prior to the flood the earth and the universe could have been dated at all is impossible to say. However, the fossil record would only give relative dating anyway and the mechanisms for absolute datings have their own problems- especially if you are claiming to have the scientific high road.

Just because you can create radioactive elements in a lab doesn't mean that they can be created in a star. Just because they can be created in a star that doesn't mean that we can directly demonstrate where and how our radioactive elements arrived on our planet. In other words, the invoking of stellar nucleosynthesis as an explanation is a brute force imposition of a set of assumptions- and within the scientific community all of those assumption exclude by their very methodology the possibility of a personal God.

For just as you say "they certainly could have come from one great event in the past" so too can I, except I might say that that event was creation itself- by God. What mechanism can we use to exclude that 'certainly could' from your 'certainly could'?

SirGuilesdragon · « **Reply #17 on:** August 10, 2008, 09:40:52 PM »

First off, I am not claiming the scientific high ground, I am actually pointing out that apologists should not either. There is no high ground in science, it is all a matter of being proved. Secondly, stellar nucleosynthesis is a well studied phenomenon. Look at the Google Scholar search on that topic. It contains thousands of scientific papers about people studying this topic. This really has nothing to do with the fossil record, except that radioactive dating is how the fossil's are "dated". And in this technique, there are so many issues that the issue of where the radioactivity comes from, and how long those radioactive isotopes have been present, is the one of the weakest issues.

Secondly, the past is actually not something that science is very good at. It can only really look at present trends, assume a linear regression of some sort, and then make a statement. There are so many fluxes and such, that a possible explanation that fits all the facts is generally taken as a good one. Besides, I don't see how stellar nucleosynthesis can be an explanation of anything we are talking about.

So, let us get on with the main point here. I believe, through faith, that God created the world and all that is in it. I also believe he did so in 6 days. I don't know what that might mean when there wasn't a sun, or moon to tell 'days' with, but let us say that basically, for an omnipotent God, how could it be impossible? There are many scientific issues, and difficulties I know; I deal with them as a constant challenge. However, one thing I am scientifically convince of, as well as through faith, that evolution is an impossibility. This notion that amino acids could happen out of accident, that then meaningful proteins would happen, accidentally, that these would form any sort of coherent structure, is absolutely ridiculous. And so here we are, now you know where I stand on the main issue, so let me explain my previous post.

I was basically questioning the apologetic move you made by saying.

"To get absolute dating we have to employ radiometric dating and this imports a whole host of new suppositions. For example, how did the radioactive elements get created in the first place if indeed they are always decaying? Nucleosynthesis? Prove it."

I firmly believe that when using anything as evidence, or to cast doubt on another's wrong belief, the apologist must be extra careful to remain inside the bounds of what he is certain he knows. Even the smallest thing, if proven wrong, will send the whole task to shambles. Perhaps I made this point in the wrong way. I am a forum novice. However, I stand by my point. If one makes objections outside his realm of expertise, it is very hard not to sound like someone who memorized responses that they don't actually understand. (by the way, I am not a physicist by any means, I have had a decent amount of physics, but chemistry is really my thing. So the amino acids are more in my area...)

I actually agree with you on one major point. When I said that the radioactive elements certainly could have come from a great universal event... what I had in mind was creation by the spoken Word. I hope this clears this up.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** August 10, 2008, 10:00:12 PM »

"First off, I am not claiming the scientific high ground,"

Actually, the 'you' in my statement "especially if you are claiming to have the scientific high road" is a generic you and not you in particular. The you I had in mind are those who claim the scientific high ground, and that means the atheists, the materialists, and the philosophical naturalists.

"There is no high ground in science, it is all a matter of being proved."

That is so old fashioned. :) You say that you are familiar with chemistry which is a 'hard science' but I think what passes as science these days is a lot more flexible than what you experience daily and what passed as science even a hundred years ago. Moreover, by 'high ground' I am speaking again of the philosophical naturalists and the like and if you hang out in these kinds of forums long enough (or read Dawkins and stuff from his sort) one will quickly see that the high ground is science. If you can say something is backed by science that's the gold standard. None of that revelation business. See for example Copernicus's reply to you in the other thread.

"Secondly, stellar nucleosynthesis is a well studied phenomenon. Look at the Google Scholar search on that topic. It contains thousands of scientific papers about people studying this topic."

Every time that I've looked at such materials they are rooted in certain presuppositions- and they all exclude the possibility of a young earth. I doubt that anything has popped up in the last five or six years that is any different than what I first saw when I looked into it.

"Secondly, the past is actually not something that science is very good at."

Which is really my point. :)

"I firmly believe that when using anything as evidence, or to cast doubt on another's wrong belief, the apologist must be extra careful to remain inside the bounds of what he is certain he knows. Even the smallest thing, if proven wrong, will send the whole task to shambles."

All I said was prove it. I neither invoked evidence nor presented it. I merely anticipated what the stock answer would be and upped the ante immediately. Remember: Evolution is FACT. It is a scientific FACT. That the earth and the universe is old is a FACT. Because of this common mindset among atheists (I'll avoid the generic 'you') my apologetic technique is to insist that when someone says that something is a scientific fact then by golly they had be better ready to prove it. Scientifically.

And, like you said, science- and here we mean science in the classical sense, you and I, where direct experimentation and observation matters- has trouble with the past.

The source of the radioactive materials on our planet is a viable question since upon them rests the whole weight of the materialist outlook. It would be like going into a closed room with a clock in it. It is counting up, consistently, one second at a time. It currently shows 5,000,000 seconds. The materialist takes this as proof positive that the room has been around for 5 million seconds- scientifically. I want to know how the clock got there in the first place and I want assurances that it didn't start out at, say, 10,000 seconds. Also, they had better be prepared to answer this scientifically, if they are claiming the 'high road' of science.

SirGuilesdragon · « **Reply #19 on:** August 10, 2008, 10:31:54 PM »

"Evolution is FACT. It is a scientific FACT."

Actually, only the public call it a fact... in science it is called a theory, which in itself is far too dignified for it, as it is based on no observation, (other than micro), no experimentation, and cannot be repeated. If it was not a heavily weighted issue, that people would rather believe than God, it would be categorized and the hypothesis of evolution, which it is.

The earth and the universe being scientifically old, is as I have said something that bothers me, and is much better substantiated. My way to deal with that at present is this: that those observations and theory's were made, with the preconceived notion that the earth must be old. That perhaps there are other explanations that fit all the facts and permit a young earth that are not even thought about, because the earth is already deemed old.

Author Topic: Weaknesses in the Evolution Theory (Read 3945 times)