What is wrong with evolution?

[So]

Originally posted by: Rastus
Survival of the fittest is misstated. It should be extinction of the unfittest. There is no evidence of any evolution ever having happened beyond extrapolation and conjecture. But there are many species that have gone extinct.

Both evolution and inteligent design are theories, and as such, they are both probably wrong.

ID is not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis because it's not testable. It's not science, period. It just RESEMBLES science.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Rastus
Survival of the fittest is misstated. It should be extinction of the unfittest. There is no evidence of any evolution ever having happened beyond extrapolation and conjecture. But there are many species that have gone extinct.

Both evolution and inteligent design are theories, and as such, they are both probably wrong.

ID is not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis because it's not testable. It's not science, period. It just RESEMBLES science.

QFT

 

[Rage187]

Once they can prove link by DNA link that it happened, then I'll believe. Right now there are too many holes and guesses.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Rage187
Once they can prove link by DNA link that it happened, then I'll believe. Right now there are too many holes and guesses.

Uh, the DNA link is well known...we share much of our genome with creatures dating back to amoebas.

What holes?

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Only thing wrong with evolution is it's a theory, yet to be proven, and forced as an anti-religious system taught to school children as a fact to dismiss thier rights to learn multiple views about the origins of life. (Kansas is fighting a losing battle I'm afraid, partly because of the way they are fighting of course.)

In school I was never convinced of this theory no more that I was convinced that a little fairy took my lost teeth and exchanged them for money under my pillow. The design we see in nature could never have happened by pure chance, there are far too many specimines that rely so fragile on each other to be anything that could be coincidence.

edit: The funny thing is many current Scientific discoveries are actually disproving evolution but are not widely publicized. (creationmoments.com, is a little wacko sometimes but often has good resources regarding that)

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think the study of evolution is one of those fields where every time something may be found it just opens up doors to other questions. Basically the more we know, the more questions we have.

I think a possible doubt to evolution would come to the statistic probability of things happening. Just about every organism on the planet shares some DNA, so that points to what amounts to everything in the world having a common ancestor (I read something recently stating that humans and dandelions share ~70% of our DNA). So for one organism to differentiate into the huge astronomical different species that have existed, both now and in the past, does beg the question of how likely that is to happen.

Then one has to address possible concepts like punctuated equilibrium and what factors (natural or divine) would cause an "explosion" of speciation followed by little change. Why and how would nature cause every single organism in the world to experience evolution then all of sudden stagnate?

Just for the record I work as a research scientist (analytical chemistry though) and I would not say I "believe" in evolution because I do not like using that term "believe" but rather I understand, acknowledge and accept it. I just wanted to point out what the OP was asking for: possible hang-ups with evolution; devil's advocate I suppose.

This is true of all science. It provides the best explanation for observed phenomenon based on the best information and technology available. The explanation changes when better information and technology becomes available.

Exactly. If ID had anything compelling behind it, science wouldn't shun it, but rather incorporate it into evolution theory or even replace evolution theory with it. Science seeks truth.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: kingpinxB
personally, i believe in Intelligent design and evolution through God. athiests really don't like that idea but honestly, it's better than the idea that all this randomly came together purely by chance.

And therein lies the problem! Science has nothing to do with a person's feelings about a theory! Science requires that we acknowledge the theory that best explains the facts we have collected -- whether or not we find that theory personally pleasing.

It's hard to twist the fossil and geological records to support the strict biblical story of creation (although there's certainly been a lot of effort put into it). It's hard to argue that forms of living things haven't changed over the long period that they have existed on this planet (which is the gist of evolution). The reasons for evolution or that rate at which it has occurred are still up for debate, but the conclusion that evolution happened is pretty certain (nothing in science is absolutely certain).

So-called "intelligent design" argues that we can't see how living things managed to evolve, and therefore we must invoke some intelligent designer. That's poppycock! It smacks of the same silly reasoning used by UFO enthusiasts: if we can't explain what those lights in the sky were, why then they MUST be alien spacecraft! Thinking scientifically, we need to be comfortable with the notion that some questions can't be answered -- at least right now. Hopefully we'll uncover additional facts and new testable theories that might move our understanding of evolution forward. Our unanswered questions about evolution do NOT form a scientific basis for "intelligent design"!

The scientific version of reality is not affected by what people want it to be.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
Only thing wrong with evolution is it's a theory, yet to be proven, and forced as an anti-religious system taught to school children as a fact to dismiss thier rights to learn multiple views about the origins of life. (Kansas is fighting a losing battle I'm afraid, partly because of the way they are fighting of course.)

A theory is the highest form of scientific rule. Like 'newton's theory of gravity' or 'einstein's theory of relativity' -- the 'law' is not something higher, but a statment of a rule (like the formula ke=1/2mv^2) for general use. Evolution has LONG been respected as among the highest rank of scientific proof.

In school I was never convinced of this theory no more that I was convinced that a little fairy took my lost teeth and exchanged them for money under my pillow. The design we see in nature could never have happened by pure chance, there are far too many specimines that rely so fragile on each other to be anything that could be coincidence.

You're not convinced of the 'tooth fairy' but you are of a magical man in the sky making you? Life is MUCH more robust than you give it credit for, and the 'complexity' that exists in it comes from extrapolation of simple principles.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
Only thing wrong with evolution is it's a theory, yet to be proven, and forced as an anti-religious system taught to school children as a fact to dismiss thier rights to learn multiple views about the origins of life. (Kansas is fighting a losing battle I'm afraid, partly because of the way they are fighting of course.)

You have no clue then what a scientific theory means. Therefore if you have no clue at all what a theory actually is, how can you form an opinion one way or another?

Basically if you don't even understand the terminology then you sure as heck can't understand what the theory actually involves.

I am all sorts of receptive to different opinions, ideas, and suggestions; however, I just ask people to know what the heck they are talking about before they give their opinion.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: RBachman
Exactly. If ID had anything compelling behind it, science wouldn't shun it, but rather incorporate it into evolution theory or even replace evolution theory with it. Science seeks truth.

While I do not necessarily agree with the ID premise, apparently it is very compelling and that is why these sorts of conversations are even taking place. Furthermore while it is nice to think that science seeks the "truth" one can, and has, argued that ID, religion and so forth also seeks the "truth."
I think it sounds good to say we are looking for the truth, but is truth something that can be found in the laboratory or is it found in church or is it found imprinted on a grilled cheese sandwich?
Everybody seems to be seeking the truth, it just varies on where people are seeking it at.

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
Only thing wrong with evolution is it's a theory, yet to be proven, and forced as an anti-religious system taught to school children as a fact to dismiss thier rights to learn multiple views about the origins of life. (Kansas is fighting a losing battle I'm afraid, partly because of the way they are fighting of course.)

You have no clue then what a scientific theory means. Therefore if you have no clue at all what a theory actually is, how can you form an opinion one way or another?

Basically if you don't even understand the terminology then you sure as heck can't understand what the theory actually involves.

I am all sorts of receptive to different opinions, ideas, and suggestions; however, I just ask people to know what the heck they are talking about before they give their opinion.

I went to school just like the rest of you. (College too) I don't have a degree in this field mind you, but think about this. Only a few years ago, it was theorized that moving faster than the speed of sound was impossible, it was later disproven by scientific facts, this is no different. Should concrete facts be available to disprove a designer (or designers) I'd be more than happy to change my beliefs/views on that subject as well. I don't go around bashing those that have different views, don't you think you should grow up and do the same?

There are millions more arguments about scientific theory vs. scientific fact that can be found troughout our current histroy, so you might as well live with it, theory and fact are not necissarily equal.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
Only a few years ago, it was theorized that moving faster than the speed of sound was impossible, it was later disproven by scientific facts, this is no different.

Actually, this is the exact opposite. AFAIK, people speculated that traveling faster than sound was impossible, but it was not backed up by proof. Science disproved a nonscientific concept.

Should concrete facts be available to disprove a designer (or designers) I'd be more than happy to change my beliefs/views on that subject as well. I don't go around bashing those that have different views, don't you think you should grow up and do the same?

The problem is, ID (and all religion) has adapted since the dawn of the scientific revolution to word itself so as to say essentially 'whatever test you come up with is not sufficiently good' -- then they make a claim that god exists (which they have no evidence for) and demand that science disprove it. This is the opposite of scientific reasoning which is inductive -- to conclude something is real, we have to have evidence that it exists. The burden of proof lies with religion, not a 'burden of disproof' with science.

To provide a current day example, It's the exact same thing as the WMD in Iraq question (I'm not passing judgement on the justification of going to war with Iraq here, or anything else) How could saddam ever definitively prove he had no WMDs? He couldn't.

There are millions more arguments about scientific theory vs. scientific fact that can be found troughout our current histroy, so you might as well live with it, theory and fact are not necissarily equal.

The only people who involved on those arguments are uneducated ones who have no idea what they're talking about. Doesn't mean the debate is any more valid than one over whether the empire state building exists or not.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: RBachman
Exactly. If ID had anything compelling behind it, science wouldn't shun it, but rather incorporate it into evolution theory or even replace evolution theory with it. Science seeks truth.

While I do not necessarily agree with the ID premise, apparently it is very compelling and that is why these sorts of conversations are even taking place. Furthermore while it is nice to think that science seeks the "truth" one can, and has, argued that ID, religion and so forth also seeks the "truth."
I think it sounds good to say we are looking for the truth, but is truth something that can be found in the laboratory or is it found in church or is it found imprinted on a grilled cheese sandwich?
Everybody seems to be seeking the truth, it just varies on where people are seeking it at.

It's compelling because Joe Average, who'd rather watch people eat slugs on TV than pick up a book and learn something, can feel like he's as knowledgeable as people who devote their lives to science. Previously inclined to keep his mouth shut, under the current administration he feels empowered - after all, the president of the United States feels the same way he does!

Religion doesn't seek truth. If it did it would embrace evidence of our origins and how we came to be what we are. Religion seeks power.

 

[Rage187]

Originally posted by: So


The only people who involved on those arguments are uneducated ones who have no idea what they're talking about. Doesn't mean the debate is any more valid than one over whether the empire state building exists or not.

way to make a blanket statement.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Rage187

Originally posted by: So


The only people who involved on those arguments are uneducated ones who have no idea what they're talking about. Doesn't mean the debate is any more valid than one over whether the empire state building exists or not.

way to make a blanket statement.

It's true though. There is no debate among people who know what they're talking about over whether certain 'theories' are fact or not. A theory is a theory. It is well defined.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
Only thing wrong with evolution is it's a theory, yet to be proven, and forced as an anti-religious system taught to school children as a fact to dismiss thier rights to learn multiple views about the origins of life. (Kansas is fighting a losing battle I'm afraid, partly because of the way they are fighting of course.)

You have no clue then what a scientific theory means. Therefore if you have no clue at all what a theory actually is, how can you form an opinion one way or another?

Basically if you don't even understand the terminology then you sure as heck can't understand what the theory actually involves.

I am all sorts of receptive to different opinions, ideas, and suggestions; however, I just ask people to know what the heck they are talking about before they give their opinion.

I went to school just like the rest of you. (College too) I don't have a degree in this field mind you, but think about this. Only a few years ago, it was theorized that moving faster than the speed of sound was impossible, it was later disproven by scientific facts, this is no different. Should concrete facts be available to disprove a designer (or designers) I'd be more than happy to change my beliefs/views on that subject as well. I don't go around bashing those that have different views, don't you think you should grow up and do the same?

There are millions more arguments about scientific theory vs. scientific fact that can be found troughout our current histroy, so you might as well live with it, theory and fact are not necissarily equal.

First off, I suppose I was a bit harsh and for that I apologize. However it just gets under my skin like crazy when people may use a word (i.e. theory) in a context that they do not understand.
Next, I never questioned your education. College is good and all, but that hardly means you understand certain scientific principles if you never studied them. If you don't know, then you just don't know. I don't know jack about early impressionists artists, but I consider myself a relatively smart guy and I went to college and all that - I just don't know anything about art history. My point is it is okay not to know something, but just don't be surprised if people get on your case when you attempt to use certain terms incorrectly.

Fact and theory are not necessarily equal, and I don't recall ever stating that they were the same. Even what we know of as 'facts' in science really are not 100% true and accurate all of the time. Everything is dynamic and changing and that is why most things are referred to a theory. However when people such as yourself state that "it's only a theory" implies that the theory itself is not very concrete or otherwise meaningful.
Scientific "theories" are all we really got, and to casually dismiss them like you have basically trivializes everything that science is about. Hell life is all about dynamics and change, regardless if it is philosophy, entertainment, religion and science.

Finally I think your example unintentionally highlights what theories are all about. They are dynamic and more evidence (I prefer not to use the word "fact") is demonstrated and the theory evolves (no pun intended).

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: RBachman
Exactly. If ID had anything compelling behind it, science wouldn't shun it, but rather incorporate it into evolution theory or even replace evolution theory with it. Science seeks truth.

While I do not necessarily agree with the ID premise, apparently it is very compelling and that is why these sorts of conversations are even taking place. Furthermore while it is nice to think that science seeks the "truth" one can, and has, argued that ID, religion and so forth also seeks the "truth."
I think it sounds good to say we are looking for the truth, but is truth something that can be found in the laboratory or is it found in church or is it found imprinted on a grilled cheese sandwich?
Everybody seems to be seeking the truth, it just varies on where people are seeking it at.

Religion doesn't seek truth. If it did it would embrace evidence of our origins and how we came to be what we are. Religion seeks power.

I think many religious people would argue otherwise.
I am a scientist and I find it somewhat interesting that people who claim to support science can be just as, or more, close-minded than the people they claim to be against.

 

[GroundZero]

This explains the true beginings of everything

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: RBachman
Exactly. If ID had anything compelling behind it, science wouldn't shun it, but rather incorporate it into evolution theory or even replace evolution theory with it. Science seeks truth.

While I do not necessarily agree with the ID premise, apparently it is very compelling and that is why these sorts of conversations are even taking place. Furthermore while it is nice to think that science seeks the "truth" one can, and has, argued that ID, religion and so forth also seeks the "truth."
I think it sounds good to say we are looking for the truth, but is truth something that can be found in the laboratory or is it found in church or is it found imprinted on a grilled cheese sandwich?
Everybody seems to be seeking the truth, it just varies on where people are seeking it at.

Religion doesn't seek truth. If it did it would embrace evidence of our origins and how we came to be what we are. Religion seeks power.

I think many religious people would argue otherwise.
I am a scientist and I find it somewhat interesting that people who claim to support science can be just as, or more, close-minded than the people they claim to be against.

It's not close-minded; the fact is a deity or deities have no evidence supporting their existence. Show the scientific community that and they'll adjust. But you can't.

 

[FoBoT]

God invented evolution

 

[OdiN]

Here's the problem.

Evolution...whether it did happen in the form thought currently or whether it didin't....it doesn't matter. It's still possible that God could have decided to create things using a process of evolution rather than simply snapping fingers and making stuff materialize.

I know the Bible says that he made the earth in 7 days and all...but people take that too literally.

There is no real way to prove that God does or does not exist with scientific fact. That's why we have a thing called faith.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Who came up with the cocept of God anyway?

 

[GroundZero]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
Who came up with the cocept of God anyway?

people who needed an explanation for things they couldn't explain.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: RBachman
Exactly. If ID had anything compelling behind it, science wouldn't shun it, but rather incorporate it into evolution theory or even replace evolution theory with it. Science seeks truth.

While I do not necessarily agree with the ID premise, apparently it is very compelling and that is why these sorts of conversations are even taking place. Furthermore while it is nice to think that science seeks the "truth" one can, and has, argued that ID, religion and so forth also seeks the "truth."
I think it sounds good to say we are looking for the truth, but is truth something that can be found in the laboratory or is it found in church or is it found imprinted on a grilled cheese sandwich?
Everybody seems to be seeking the truth, it just varies on where people are seeking it at.

Religion doesn't seek truth. If it did it would embrace evidence of our origins and how we came to be what we are. Religion seeks power.

I think many religious people would argue otherwise.
I am a scientist and I find it somewhat interesting that people who claim to support science can be just as, or more, close-minded than the people they claim to be against.

It's not close-minded; the fact is a deity or deities have no evidence supporting their existence. Show the scientific community that and they'll adjust. But you can't.

The fact that you won't attempt to wrap your brain around a concept that is not approved by the scientific community is, by it's very definition, close-minded.
Newton was a religious man, and Einstein was religious to a degree (granted unorthodox compared to many standards, but he was not without a system of faith) as were many of the greatest scientific minds.
Furthermore by just casually slandering all religions by being power hungry is further evidence of closed mindedness.

You want scientific facts to support deities, but on the other hand you need no facts at all to support your claim that religions do not seek truth and they only thing they (religions) want is power?

You ask for facts about a deity, but what about a fact involving gravity? Gravity is not defined by any factual evidence, but rather a phenomena that we observe which we define as the theory of gravity.
So, in a way, you have no facts supporting a deity and you also have no facts at all to support gravity, and as such neither exists.
Or they both do.

 

[OdiN]

I should also point out that the problem with Religion is that it is man-made. Denominations/Religions, etc. are not made by God but by man and hence will be flawed.

I belive in God, but I am not a huge fan of Religion - there is too much politics in religion these days. Not saying going to church is bad or being part of a denomination is bad - for some people it is very good and fulfilling.

I'm all for fellowship and all but different denominations, etc. all have their own rules that they basically made up based off of certain interpretations and well it gets to be kinda messy.

 

[Vic]

How is this thread NOT a flamebait troll? :roll:

What is "wrong" with evolution? Simple, the idiots who abuse it like a religion (likewise, the only thing wrong with religion are the idiots who think it's a science). Otherwise, evolution is a rather solid and dynamic theory giving us factual understanding into the evolution of living things, but NOT the initial origins of life itself.
I have found that the easiest way to tell when someone knows nothing about both religion and science is when they intentionally place the 2 at odds with each other.