What are some non-biblical/religious arguments against evolution?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mooncancook

Platinum Member
May 28, 2003
2,874
50
91
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: mooncancook

I think it makes more sense that they just die off in that case. Having such a process occurring so many times at such a wide-spreading scale is really stretching it.

Unfortunately, your wishes are in contradiction with fact. Gravity is a process occurring on a widespread scale all the time too...

you win

 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
When someone says that there is no proof of evolution, the correct answer is not "there is no proof of creationism either". The correct answer is "yes there is".
 

pcnerd37

Senior member
Sep 20, 2004
944
0
71
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: pcnerd37
Originally posted by: Zolty
Originally posted by: Citrix
its a theory not fact. there is no proof of evolution.

just like gravity?

We have been wrong about gravity for 300 years. Recent results from experiments based on Einstein's theories have proved that. We have always assuming Newton to be true when actually he was wrong and Einstein was right. I sincerely hope you aren't so naive to think that what we believe to be true now might not be true in 300 years.

Gravity wasn't "wrong" -- Einstein offered an "amendment" to Newtonian physics. Why do you think that Newtonian physics is still taught as the basis for all freshman college students? Because it's correct in 99.999% of cases. They then teach Einstein's 'refinement' later.

Considering they just got the results back from the latest tests, I wouldn't expect all of the college curriculum's to change overnight.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: pcnerd37
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: pcnerd37
Originally posted by: Zolty
Originally posted by: Citrix
its a theory not fact. there is no proof of evolution.

just like gravity?

We have been wrong about gravity for 300 years. Recent results from experiments based on Einstein's theories have proved that. We have always assuming Newton to be true when actually he was wrong and Einstein was right. I sincerely hope you aren't so naive to think that what we believe to be true now might not be true in 300 years.

Gravity wasn't "wrong" -- Einstein offered an "amendment" to Newtonian physics. Why do you think that Newtonian physics is still taught as the basis for all freshman college students? Because it's correct in 99.999% of cases. They then teach Einstein's 'refinement' later.

Considering they just got the results back from the latest tests, I wouldn't expect all of the college curriculum's to change overnight.

What *are* you talking about? Yeah there was more proof of *frame dragging* generated recently, but relativity itself was proven with evidence within a decade of it's discovery (so shortly after World War One).
 
Apr 17, 2005
13,465
3
81
Originally posted by: mooncancook
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: XMan
I don't deny that species can adapt to changes in environment, and those that do tend to survive, but the one question I've had about evolution (and never had explained to my satisfaction) is - if mankind descended from apes, why are there still apes? Dinosaurs were the predecessors to birds, but there aren't any more dinosaurs.


because apes are still well-adapted to their environment (which has not changed drastically since their appearance--unlike that of the Dinosaurs). This is really far more simple than you want to believe it to be...

Also, evolution is a tree--not a ladder. Species don't dissapear when they speciate. Lineages tend to continue on within several species.

If apes are well-adapted to their environment, what environmental change occured that resulted in primordial apes evolving into humans? By that argument the evolution ought never have happened.

to simplify it, think of it this way. apes are chillen in the jungle eating bananas and sh1t. then some of them get lost and end up somewhere else outside the jungle where the cant do their regular monkey stuff. they set up their own new apetown and have kids and stuff, but since this new place is different, little changes that would have otherwise not mattered in the jungle matter and they start diverging from the apes they used to be around. this is called speciation...it is well accepted and there are literally thousands of documents cases of it.

and those apes in the jungle evolved differently to suit the jungle but since they were already adapted, they didnt have to change very much.

According to that, we might be witnessing evolution in Survival the tv show.

look out of your window...you're witnessing evolution
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
Originally posted by: pcnerd37
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: pcnerd37
Originally posted by: Zolty
Originally posted by: Citrix
its a theory not fact. there is no proof of evolution.

just like gravity?

We have been wrong about gravity for 300 years. Recent results from experiments based on Einstein's theories have proved that. We have always assuming Newton to be true when actually he was wrong and Einstein was right. I sincerely hope you aren't so naive to think that what we believe to be true now might not be true in 300 years.

Gravity wasn't "wrong" -- Einstein offered an "amendment" to Newtonian physics. Why do you think that Newtonian physics is still taught as the basis for all freshman college students? Because it's correct in 99.999% of cases. They then teach Einstein's 'refinement' later.

Considering they just got the results back from the latest tests, I wouldn't expect all of the college curriculum's to change overnight.

Validation for the some of the basic premises of general relativity occurred a few years after Einstein published his ideas. There is nothing wrong with teaching Newtonian physics and I would expect it to be taught for another 300 years. While Newtonian physics is not completely correct, it's correct for most applications and I agree with So that any further descriptions of gravity will act as further refinements.

EDIT: Ok, So, I see how it is. Reading my mind eh?
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: XMan
I don't deny that species can adapt to changes in environment, and those that do tend to survive, but the one question I've had about evolution (and never had explained to my satisfaction) is - if mankind descended from apes, why are there still apes? Dinosaurs were the predecessors to birds, but there aren't any more dinosaurs.


because apes are still well-adapted to their environment (which has not changed drastically since their appearance--unlike that of the Dinosaurs). This is really far more simple than you want to believe it to be...

Also, evolution is a tree--not a ladder. Species don't dissapear when they speciate. Lineages tend to continue on within several species.
And if that XMan's argument was the case, we'd have exactly one species left on the planet.


Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: Citrix
its a therory not fact. there is no proof of evolution.

Ahh, but there is no proof of creationism either.
Creationism is unfortunately exempt from needing proof. For one, the religion upon which it is based requires faith - absense of proof, and the refusal to seek it. Proof destroys faith.
Secondly, creationism is not falsifiable. Scientific theory must be falsifiable. Evolution can be proven wrong. If one day a chicken lays an egg which hatches into a bear, well then we've got a problem. The most likely place I see that happening would be in the lab of South Park's resident genetic scientist.


Originally posted by: sao123
Because no-one has been able to explain how the first single living creature came about.
You cannot base a theory from point A1 to point AN unless you can guarantee that point A1 is your absolute starting point. As soon as someone comes along and says the journey actually started A0 or A3, then your entire theory is bunk.

Until (a/bio)genesis can be explained, evolution is meaningless.
Heavier-than-air flying machines were also unexplainable for quite some time. Fire was unexplainable for a long time.
Nature had the chance for trillions of iterations in ancient oceans, in salt flats, or in lakes, trillions of places where it "tried" various combinations of chemicals over many many millions of years. We've had the technology to replicate this for only several decades, isolated to a few laboratories.

Sure, the chances of abiogenesis are slim, but nature had a whole planet to toy around with, over a very long time. The lottery is winnable too. All that was really needed was for just one complete iteration to work.


Originally posted by: XMan
If apes are well-adapted to their environment, what environmental change occured that resulted in primordial apes evolving into humans? By that argument the evolution ought never have happened.
Check around this planet. We have more than one kind of ecological system. Maybe some apes decided to leave because one area was getting crowded.
Each life form has a niche in its environment. Maybe animals are all competing for a certain food source, so some decide to try other foods. Former carnivores may find that nuts are tasty, and a lot easier to catch than animals. Over many generations, traits that help those animals survive better, such as stronger teeth for breaking open and chewing hard legumes, would become dominant. In this way, you can get one species evolving into two while still living in the same ecosystem.


Originally posted by: pcnerd37
Originally posted by: Zolty
Originally posted by: Citrix
its a theory not fact. there is no proof of evolution.

just like gravity?

We have been wrong about gravity for 300 years. Recent results from experiments based on Einstein's theories have proved that. We have always assuming Newton to be true when actually he was wrong and Einstein was right. I sincerely hope you aren't so naive to think that what we believe to be true now might not be true in 300 years.
But it's as good as we can do. That's always what we can do - our best. Newton's best was good enough for the time. It worked on Earth, and had a very low margin of error for objects moving at non-relativistic speeds. Hell, some simulations of galactic behavior still use Newtonian Physics, if only because calculating gravity's behavior with respect to general relativity would require more powerful computers. (Incidentally, this omission may be responsibile in part to the reason why we "need" dark matter to exist.)

Right now, relativity is the best we can do, and for the most part, it works, and has been proven. GPS satellites rely on precise timing and positioning relative to one another. To do this, they rely on very accurate internal clocks. However, since they are moving at such high speeds as they orbit Earth, if they did not account for general relativity's effects on their clocks, they'd lose a great deal of precision in reporting the location of objects below., such to the point that they'd be completely useless.
Maybe Einstein's theories were only part of the story, just as Newton's were.
Newton's equations worked fine for most calculations here on Earth. Einstein's equations have been tested on small scales on Earth and some in space, and they seem to work. But his equations seem to break down at objects such as black holes. That's where you start hearing talk of quantum gravity and other crazy effects - not really something we can effectively test. Yet.
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Originally posted by: Citrix
its a therory not fact. there is no proof of evolution.

ugh... you ... like the rest of america... do not know what the word theory means.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
as this thread shows... evolution threads are a waste of time. no matter how many people whose beliefs you correct, there's always more. the funny thing is, it's always the same fallacies. part of me wonders if it's some kind of conspiracy by the catholic church to drive people crazy.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: Citrix
its a therory not fact. there is no proof of evolution.

ugh... you ... like the rest of america... do not know what the word theory means.

or what evolution means, apparently...
 

Superrock

Senior member
Oct 28, 2000
467
1
0
Evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy and things progressing towards greater and greater disorder.

In order for a complex organ like the eye to evolve it would need simultaneous, complex connections to evolve simultaneously. Statistically this isn't possible, nor would it make sense for it to occur because the construction of the eye is an all or nothing in terms of functionality.
 

FeuerFrei

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2005
9,144
929
126
variation is not "micro-evolution"

Evolution requires increased net genetic complexity (between the first cell and man, there had to be new genes). Recombination reshuffles chromosomes. Mutations restructure DNA. Neither increases net genetic complexity. Darwin's finches, Kaibab and Albert squirrels, industrial melanism (spotted moths), penicillin-resistant bacteria, and DDT-resistant insects are non-evolutionary adaptations of existing life forms to new environments, involving no increased net genetic complexity.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: Superrock
Evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy and things progressing towards greater and greater disorder.

In order for a complex organ like the eye to evolve it would need simultaneous, complex connections to evolve simultaneously. Statistically this isn't possible, nor would it make sense for it to occur because the construction of the eye is an all or nothing in terms of functionality.

just curious, where did you learn this?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: Superrock
Evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy and things progressing towards greater and greater disorder.

In order for a complex organ like the eye to evolve it would need simultaneous, complex connections to evolve simultaneously. Statistically this isn't possible, nor would it make sense for it to occur because the construction of the eye is an all or nothing in terms of functionality.

Before addressing the arguments in particular, let me ask: Do you believe these to be convincing arguments against evolution, or are you just offering them as examples of non-religious arguments, but ones that you do not believe to be sound?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
variation is not "micro-evolution"

Evolution requires increased net genetic complexity (between the first cell and man, there had to be new genes). Recombination reshuffles chromosomes. Mutations restructure DNA. Neither increases net genetic complexity. Darwin's finches, Kaibab and Albert squirrels, industrial melanism (spotted moths), penicillin-resistant bacteria, and DDT-resistant insects are non-evolutionary adaptations of existing life forms to new environments, involving no increased net genetic complexity.

How do you measure "genetic complexity"? Please be specific.

And if you do not know, how can you judge these claims to be true?
 
S

SlitheryDee

The origin of species is in the fiction section of my local bookstore. Obviously only fiction would be found in the fiction section right? :confused:
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
I swear, a week can't go by on AT without an evolution or religion thread.
 

Cooler

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2005
3,835
0
0
I think human genetic mutations are best evidence for evolution such as 6 finger hands.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: Superrock
Evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy and things progressing towards greater and greater disorder.

In order for a complex organ like the eye to evolve it would need simultaneous, complex connections to evolve simultaneously. Statistically this isn't possible, nor would it make sense for it to occur because the construction of the eye is an all or nothing in terms of functionality.
2nd law requires a CLOSED SYSTEM!!!!!!

The presence of the sun, and its continual infusion of billions upon billions of watts of energy into Earth's environment makes it very much not a closed system.

This second law argument is always easily debunked in this manner. Fish in a barrel.

Thank you, come again!
 
Apr 17, 2005
13,465
3
81
Originally posted by: Superrock
Evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy and things progressing towards greater and greater disorder.

In order for a complex organ like the eye to evolve it would need simultaneous, complex connections to evolve simultaneously. Statistically this isn't possible, nor would it make sense for it to occur because the construction of the eye is an all or nothing in terms of functionality.

very very very wrong.
 

GregGreen

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2000
1,681
3
81
What is so hard to believe about natural selection? Is it that hard to draw the conceptual link from humans doing artificial selection on domesticated animals to animals that will reproduce more successfully in the wild because they are better suited to the environment? Of course I wouldn't believe in evolution either if I thought the world was only 6,000 years old...
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: GregGreen
What is so hard to believe about natural selection? Is it that hard to draw the conceptual link from humans doing artificial selection on domesticated animals to animals that will reproduce more successfully in the wild because they are better suited to the environment? Of course I wouldn't believe in evolution either if I thought the world was only 6,000 years old...

Natural selection is a whole other theory.

What is so easy is poking holes in Evolution. One can do this when they aren't blinded by their faith in evolution and step outside their own beliefs to see the shortcomings.
 

GregGreen

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2000
1,681
3
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: GregGreen
What is so hard to believe about natural selection? Is it that hard to draw the conceptual link from humans doing artificial selection on domesticated animals to animals that will reproduce more successfully in the wild because they are better suited to the environment? Of course I wouldn't believe in evolution either if I thought the world was only 6,000 years old...

Natural selection is a whole other theory.

What is so easy is poking holes in Evolution. One can do this when they aren't blinded by their faith in evolution and step outside their own beliefs to see the shortcomings.

Actually natural selection is the mechanism through which evolution occurs...

there have been other mechanisms... like Lamarck's version of transformism, which is downright batty if you ask me
 

MikeSci457DC

Member
Aug 24, 2005
129
0
0
What I don't get is how people always compare evolution to gravity....

Evolution works through a mechanism called natural selection. It's observable. I've observed it.

If anyone could point me towards a clear, concise, and correct mechanism of gravity it would be wonderful. Until then I am more apt to believe in evolution than gravity.


Edited for spelling:confused:
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: MikeSci457DC
What I don't get is how people always compare evolution to gravity....

Evolution works through a mechanism called natural selection. It's observable. I've observed it.

If anyone could point me towards a clear, concise, and correct mechanism of gravity it would be wonderful. Until then I am more apt to believe in evolution than gravity.


Edited for spelling:confused:

We don't understand gravity and still can't truly explain it.

Similar to evolution.

A true scientist understands this. I'm not trolling.