flaws

[rmwilliamsll]

this thread is prompted by:

There are just too many flaws in evolution, because evolution has none of the answers.

Would you care to share some of the specific points you consider flaws in the theory?

from:http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31273025&postcount=6

is anyone aware of a single "flaw" in the overall theory of evolution?

it appears that the biggest theoretical discussion is still over saltation vs gradualism. With significant effort being put into phenotypic plasticity and the basis for developmental evolution which may challenge some of the ideas about inheritance(and hence the central dogma), making the signalling molecules and binding elements of the genome in the egg more important than they are presently.

but, afaik, there is no major flaws that people are presently studying ....

 

[Xeriar]

The only theory in evolution is common descent. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis but not, technically a part of evolutionary theory, though creationists like to put it there.

Everything else - generally wrapped up in the term 'change in allele frequency over time' - is fact. This includes mutations, natural selection, and so on. You can only argue against it by denying one or more factual observations - often repeatable in a classroom lab.

There are some parts of the theory that are difficult to make sense of. Oddly, I've never met a creationist knowledgeable enough in the subject to point these out.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The only theory in evolution is common descent.

so i didn't have to read the whole The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
by SJG? you could have told me that sooner! *grin*

so natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift aren't part of the TofE?
nor is exadaption and cooption of retroviral DNA and duplicated genes like pseudogenes?

surprise!!!

 

[[serious]]

to the OP:
Yeah, that's pretty much it. They argue over a few small details that would at best modify some minor aspects of evolution and then try to claim some sort of victory.

The only theory in evolution is common descent.

so i didn't have to read the whole The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
by SJG? you could have told me that sooner! *grin*

so natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift aren't part of the TofE?
nor is exadaption and cooption of retroviral DNA and duplicated genes like pseudogenes?

surprise!!!

read it more carefully. He's saying common descent is the only part of evolution that remains theoretical. The rest of it is direct observation of how genes work.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Personally, my questions all seem to have to do with evo-devo. Of course, that could be symptomatic of my ignorance.

 

[Avatar]

I'm an adherent of evolutionary theory, but I do wonder why if super-intelligence is a survival trait why out of the millions or hundred of millions of species that have existed on this planet, only we possess it.

(Wasn't that an ugly run-on two 'why', not enough comma having sentence? Its late)

 

[AV1611VET]

is anyone aware of a single "flaw" in the overall theory of evolution?

I know of 4 major flaws:

1. Evolution requires too much time to operate.
2. God didn't leave room for improvement.
3. There was no death prior to Adam and Eve.
4. Jesus "taught" its antithesis - (creation).

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I don't know if this really constitutes a "flaw", but the uncertainty around the early evolution of life and how much genome swapping went on is an area of question.

And naturally, sorting out the finer details of phylogenetic relationships is another.

Can't think of any Earth-shattering flaws, at least not on the level that creationists dream of.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I know of 4 major flaws:

1. Evolution requires too much time to operate.
2. God didn't leave room for improvement.
3. There was no death prior to Adam and Eve.
4. Jesus "taught" it's antithesis - (creation).

e: none of the above has the least thing to do with evolutionary theory.

 

[[serious]]

I know of 4 major flaws:

1. Evolution requires too much time to operate.
2. [goddidit]
3. [goddidit]
4. [goddidit]

Actually, there is enough time for things to evolve in the standard model.

There isn't enough time for the "kinds" that might fit on the ark to become the currently observed numbers of species however.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

[staff edit]


now, back to my OP.
is anyone aware of scientific flaws in the TofE?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Thread has been cleaned of many many posts - its now back on track , please remember the following when posting and do not derail threads with off topic side issues and flames and bickering , create new threads and also remember other members arent the topic

[rule2.1] [rule2.8]

Failure to heed this mod hat will result in thread closure so please stick to the topic - thanks

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I know of 4 major flaws:

1. Evolution requires too much time to operate.

How much time do you suppose would be necessary?

God didn't leave room for improvement.

For a literalist, you do an awful lot of reading between the lines. Nowhere in Genesis does God say that.

There was no death prior to Adam and Eve.

Unsubstantiated belief, irrelevant to science.

Jesus "taught" its antithesis - (creation).

So you say.

 

[EdwinDeNicholas]

this thread is prompted by:


from:http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31273025&postcount=6

is anyone aware of a single "flaw" in the overall theory of evolution?

it appears that the biggest theoretical discussion is still over saltation vs gradualism. With significant effort being put into phenotypic plasticity and the basis for developmental evolution which may challenge some of the ideas about inheritance(and hence the central dogma), making the signalling molecules and binding elements of the genome in the egg more important than they are presently.

but, afaik, there is no major flaws that people are presently studying ....

Posting the OP because it seems that some peeps are getting stuck on a weak reply and missing the point of this thread...

 

[AV1611VET]

How much time do you suppose would be necessary?

I don't know what the current theory says, as I'm not that familiar with evolution. My guess would be two eons and an epoch; but again, the point is that anything over 6100 years would be an impossibility.

For a literalist, you do an awful lot of reading between the lines. Nowhere in Genesis does God say that.

Six times in Genesis 1, God calls His Creation "good":

[bible]Genesis 1:4[/bible]
[bible]Genesis 1:10[/bible]
[bible]Genesis 1:12[/bible]
[bible]Genesis 1:18[/bible]
[bible]Genesis 1:21[/bible]
[bible]Genesis 1:25[/bible]

Now, I could stop here and make the point that what God calls "good", there is no microscope or telescope ever made, or ever will be made, that will find a flaw ---BUT --- notice this:

[bible]Genesis 1:31[/bible]

He steps back and sums up all of His creation as "very good".

Therefore I submit that not only was it perfect, it was superperfect.

Unsubstantiated belief, irrelevant to science.

Keep in mind that Genesis 1 is a listing of effects without natural causes --- thus no amount of science will be able to substantiate it.

When anyone assigns a natural cause to any of the events mentioned in Genesis 1, he errs.

So you say.

[bible]Mark 10:5-6[/bible]

Applying standard English semantics, who (or Who) did the "creating" in this passage?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Appologetics do not constitute flaws in the theory of evolution.

PS Added in edit. It's interesting that just a few verses later God repents himself of this supposedly superperfect creation and decides to destroy it all with a big flood. But this is all off topic here. Interpretations of Genesis are not relevant to the scientific theory of evolution in the least, so what are the scientific flaws called for in the OP?

 

[corvus_corax]

And once again, another viable thread on the C&E forum (which, I may remind us is a-and I quote- Scientific Discussion Forum) which is quickly finding its way being distracted with GA arguments

 

[[serious]]

AV, it seems like your chief argument for a young earth is that the earth is young. That's a bit cyclic of an argument to be taken seriously. Oh, and saying you don't know what evolution says doesn't put you in much of a position to argue against it.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, it seems like your chief argument for a young earth is that the earth is young.

I'm on record as saying the earth is 4.55 billion years old.

Oh, and saying you don't know what evolution says doesn't put you in much of a position to argue against it.

I don't have to --- I know Someone Who does though, and He says it's wrong --- I just agree with Him, that's all.

 

[JohnR7]

is anyone aware of a single "flaw" in the overall theory of evolution?

All of evolution is based on random mutations. It has been shown time and time again that random mutations are NOT a driving force and so evolutionary theory becomes null and a mute point.

Evolution is based on Natural Selection. But in order to have a Selection, you have to have something to Select and that is where the theory begins to fall apart.

The mutation theory is a desperate attempt to try and produce something to select because with nothing to select you have no theory.