Are there any problems with evolution?

[Krok]

How come when I go into most bookstores there is usually a Religion/Philosophy/Psychology section?

Probably for the same reason ID books are usually in the science section of bookstores, although ID is not science. A severe shortage in quality education.

 

[nnmartin]

How come New Age and Pagan books are often in the Science Fiction or Fantasy section though?

I've also quite often seen books about gambling in the sports section.

My local bookshop has The Celestine Prophecy (a novel) in the Religion section.

I guess the owner is allowed to be biased.

 

[rusra02]

I want to ask creationists what problems you find with the theory of evolution, then I will make topics about these problems. We can also discuss these problems if you want.

1. The unscientific dogmatism of evolution's proponents. Evolutionists assume their theory is correct, and seek evidence to support it, rather than let the evidence speak for itself.
2. The evidence does not support the ToE, but critics are attacked and ridiculed.
3. There is no evidence that mutations can produce not only new species but also
entirely new families of plants and animals.
4. "Natural Selection" cannot adequately explain the remarkable diversity of life, and there is no evidence that natural selection can produce entirely new famlies of plants and animals.
5. The fossil record does not adequately document macroevolutionary changes.
6. The ToE cannot explain how complex life began, and thus the ToE has no foundation.
7. The ToE cannot explain the complexity of living things, and posits instead that "complexity happens"; as if to say, "stuff happens"
8. The universe follows complex laws and is "fine-tuned" for life to exist. The ToE has no adequate explanation for these universal laws.

 

[nnmartin]

9. Mimicry 'just happens' to know how to cause one part of an organism to perfectly copy that part of another's.

No-one has ever been able to explain this adequately but only to just give various staged adaptations that miraculously end up with the perfect copy. The same as usual by chance theory.

Here is an example of the usual tripe put forward as an explanation: (from Wikipedia)

The most widely accepted model used to explain the evolution of mimicry in butterflies is the two-step hypothesis. In this model the first step involves mutation in modifier genes that regulate a complex cluster of linked genes associated with large changes in morphology. The second step consists of selections on genes with smaller phenotypic effects and this leading to increasing closeness of resemblance.

 

[nnmartin]

The most widely accepted model used to explain the evolution of mimicry in butterflies is the two-step hypothesis. In this model the first step involves mutation in modifier genes that regulate a complex cluster of linked genes associated with large changes in morphology

Ok, so how does the evolutionary process know what the model butterfly looks like?

The second step consists of selections on genes with smaller phenotypic effects and this leading to increasing closeness of resemblance.

Resemblance to what? How does the gene process know what it is trying to achieve?

As for the usual 'it just gradually adapts until it gets it right through natural selection' does not offer a valid explanation.

 

[johnhanks]

1. The unscientific dogmatism of evolution's proponents. Evolutionists assume their theory is correct, and seek evidence to support it, rather than let the evidence speak for itself.

No, rusra, you're describing creationism. The theory of evolution emerged from the evidence: it did not pre-date it.

2. The evidence does not support the ToE, but critics are attacked and ridiculed.

For all your jumping up and down and screaming it ain't so, it remains the case that the evidence massively supports ToE. If critics are ridiculed, it is because they say and do ridiculous things.

3. There is no evidence that mutations can produce not only new species but also
entirely new families of plants and animals.

Emergence of new species has been observed, and the genetic divergence that drove the speciation is indeed fed by mutation; as to new families, you have been asked in the past to explain the barriers that you claim limit the divergence of genomes: you have not, as I recall, responded.

4. "Natural Selection" cannot adequately explain the remarkable diversity of life, and there is no evidence that natural selection can produce entirely new famlies of plants and animals.

But the emergence of such families is a matter of record, and natural selection is a viable mechanism in their emergence; your asserting that it cannot play a role is no more than that - an unsupported assertion.

5. The fossil record does not adequately document macroevolutionary changes.

It most certainly does, and if you troubled to study the fossil record rather than parrot the drivel you read on creationist websites you would see that it does.

6. The ToE cannot explain how complex life began, and thus the ToE has no foundation.

Can it really be, after so many people patiently explaining it to you, that you still have not grasped that the theory of evolution does not incorporate theories of abiogenesis?

7. The ToE cannot explain the complexity of living things, and posits instead that "complexity happens"; as if to say, "stuff happens"

Even by your standards, a very feeble straw man.

8. The universe follows complex laws and is "fine-tuned" for life to exist. The ToE has no adequate explanation for these universal laws.

No, and it doesn't explain why the sky is blue either. That is because it is a theory about genetic change in populations, rusra, not about cosmology.

 

[Iti oj]

How come New Age and Pagan books are often in the Science Fiction or Fantasy section though?

I've also quite often seen books about gambling in the sports section.

My local bookshop has The Celestine Prophecy (a novel) in the Religion section.

I guess the owner is allowed to be biased.

hey man thats more then just a novel.... way more mannn

 

[idav]

As for the usual 'it just gradually adapts until it gets it right through natural selection' does not offer a valid explanation.

That doesn't sound like a valid explanation because it is inaccurate. It gradually changes but isn't necessarily an adaptation. Sometimes, a lot of times, evolution fails to help a species thrive.

 

[nnmartin]

Ok for sure, but in the case of , for example, a spot of the right colour developing at exactly the correct size and location on a plant to warn off an insect (that is say , scared of a predator that looks like this spot) is unlikely to just gradually arise through the standard mill of selection and adaptation etc..

How could it be possible for this spot to just gradually materialise without some kind of guide or model to work from?

 

[idav]

Ok for sure, but in the case of , for example, a spot of the right colour developing at exactly the correct size and location on a plant to warn off an insect (that is say , scared of a predator that looks like this spot) is unlikely to just gradually arise through the standard mill of selection and adaptation etc..

How could it be possible for this spot to just gradually materialise without some kind of guide or model to work from?

Unlikely, maybe, but not impossible. When there is such a diversity of species that evolve in so many different ways there are bound to be some interesting advantages that species happen upon. If the species is very prosperous they would have to have some huge advantage and mimicry is apparent in several types of animals, mainly insects.

 

[nnmartin]

Mimicry is something I have difficulty in digesting.

Now, it is obvious how a human can copy another or build a similar engine based on a previous design as we have intelligence enough to do so. But in blind nature?

for something to just morph into a copy of something else seems to be beyond the realms of chance, selection and adaptation.

Is there something else?

 

[gnostic]

1. The unscientific dogmatism of evolution's proponents. Evolutionists assume their theory is correct, and seek evidence to support it, rather than let the evidence speak for itself.

No. If the evidences didn't supported theory of evolution, it would have been still hypothesis, and Natural Selection would have died and quickly forgotten in the 19th century. The reasons why evolution is correct, because evidences were there, early on when Darwin began his journey on the Beagles, and more evidences were continually discovered.

3. There is no evidence that mutations can produce not only new species but also
entirely new families of plants and animals.
4. "Natural Selection" cannot adequately explain the remarkable diversity of life, and there is no evidence that natural selection can produce entirely new famlies of plants and animals.

The theory explained evolutionary mechanism of Natural Selection about the diversity of life as a natural phenomena; and it explained far more than the Bible, which (Bible) explained nothing at all.

5. The fossil record does not adequately document macroevolutionary changes.

In biology, there are no such things as macroevolution or microevolution, the same common theme (and common mistake) that creationists trumpeted. Macro- and micro- evolutions are something that creationists make up. All of it is evolution.

6. The ToE cannot explain how complex life began, and thus the ToE has no foundation.

Yet another thing that you (yourself) continually mistaken is that "evolution is about the origin of life", but it isn't. No matter how many times we say to this you, you keep covering your eyes, refusing to read that evolution is not about the origin of life. If you want to know science involvement in the origin of life, then you're in the wrong thread; you should seek out topic Abiogenesis.

How many times do we have to tell you the difference between Abiogenesis and Evolution?

7. The ToE cannot explain the complexity of living things, and posits instead that "complexity happens"; as if to say, "stuff happens"

And the Bible teach you the complexity of living organism?

For goodness sake, the Bible doesn't even teach or explain the human anatomy.

Do us all a favor, rursa02. Read a book on evolutionary biology. Learn something, instead of continuously make absolute fool of yourself.

The Roman Catholics officials have moved on, and now believe that Evolution as given by Darwin on Natural Selection, is the best explanation on diversity of life and how species survive through adapting to changes, and passing genes to offspring.

You should learn evolution and move on.

 

[Pegg]

I want to ask creationists what problems you find with the theory of evolution, then I will make topics about these problems. We can also discuss these problems if you want.

how about the problem of 'time'?

Do you know how much time would be needed for a chimp to evolve into a cro magnon?

We are told that chimps and homo sapiens diverged 7 million years ago. So the problem is that in 7 million years the 3billion nucleotide base pairs in each cell of our geneome needed to mutate fast enough for 90million active base pairs to significantly change. That sort of mutation is about 1million times higher then the currently observed rate of mutation in the gametes.... and even more difficult is that more then 100 million generations would be needed to reach a human.

Do you see the problem that time presents?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I see the problem:

you don't fully understand evolution

There are steps between the chimp ancestor [not an actual chimp as you know one] and a cro-magnon; they aren't neighboring steps in the evolutionary chain, for one thing.

 

[johnhanks]

Do you know how much time would be needed for a chimp to evolve into a cro magnon?

Since that has never happened, it's safe to say no-one knows.

We are told that chimps and homo sapiens diverged 7 million years ago.

Better, but still no coconut: the lineages leading to chimps and homo sapiens diverged from their common ancestor about 7 million years ago; and genetic changes accumulated in both lineages, not just the hominin one.

You might like to check this out:

Given a divergence date of 6 Mya, the maximum inferred rate of nucleotide substitution in the most divergent regions of DNA in humans and chimps is ~1.3 x 10-9 base substitutions per site per year. Given a generation time of 15-20 years, this is equivalent to a substitution rate of ~2 x 10-8 per site per generation ... A review of the spontaneous mutation rate observed in several genes in humans has found an average background mutation rate of 1-5 x 10-8 base substitutions per site per generation.

Where is your problem?

 

[bobhikes]

There are no evolutionists to blame.:sorry1:

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I like the term 'evolutionaries'; rhymes with 'revolutionaries'

 

[painted wolf]

Mimicry is something I have difficulty in digesting.

Now, it is obvious how a human can copy another or build a similar engine based on a previous design as we have intelligence enough to do so. But in blind nature?

for something to just morph into a copy of something else seems to be beyond the realms of chance, selection and adaptation.

Is there something else?

Things don't just suddenly morph into a copy of something else. If you look less like a tasty bug and more like a yucky leaf... you are less likely to be eaten.
How is that beyond selection and adaptation?

wa:do

 

[gnostic]

How come when I go into most bookstores there is usually a Religion/Philosophy/Psychology section?

Really they should be in other parts of the store if they are so different.

Perhaps I can make a law claim against the bookshop?

All these things are to do with the mind - we can throw in Spirituality and New Age for good measure.

anyway,i t's all pretty much related though I can see how an absolute atheist philosopher may not like it.

come to think of it the New Age books are usually hidden on a bottom shelf somewhere with the science fiction novels!

What does bookshelves of bookstores have to do where they put religion, philosophy, psychology?

 

[Bob Dixon]

Well, I guess this thread is just more proof that the only people who oppose the THEORY (i.e. fact) of evolution are those who don't understand how it works.

Cool.