What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[Loudmouth]

The current battlecry of creationist/ID institutes like AiG, the Discovery Institute, and ICR is that science classes should discuss the weaknesses of the theory of evolution. So what are those weaknesses?

 

[monkeypsycho62]

It doesn't include God. That's the main one.

Then there's holes in the fossil record, but these can be explained simply because of how difficult it is for a fossil to be created. We're not going to have a fossil for every single species that ever lived.

 

[Baggins]

Actually a very good question.

I don't know, but I hope somebody may have an idea

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The current battlecry of creationist/ID institutes like AiG, the Discovery Institute, and ICR is that science classes should discuss the weaknesses of the theory of evolution. So what are those weaknesses?

The supposed gap between macro and microevolution, the supposed problem of evolving complex structures, the supposed problem of humans having common ancestors with other animals, you know all the PRATTs!

 

[fromdownunder]

Not a weakness in evolution actually, but the lack of popular works on the subject is a minus. Most works are either text books for classrooms, or purely academic tomes for fellow Biologists and academia.

The average person will not read these sort of books, and therefore will sometimes accept the one liners and simplistic psuedo scientific "rebuttals" put forward by creationists.

One example. I read Jones Almost Like A Whale which I found very easy to read and quite a simple volume to go through and understand. I recommended it to a creationist who gave it up after ten pages saying it was too scientific and she could not understand any of it.

But she devoured Hovind's tapes and Philip Johnson's (a lawyer!) apologetic books like A Theory in Crisis. Go figure!

Something like Sagan's hatchet job on woo in The Demon-Haunted World,or the popular science books written by the late Isaac Asimov could do wonders.

Norm

 

[FishFace]

Easy:

"Was your great great great great grandfather a chimp?"

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

It doesn't go with the historical eye witness account of the begining of the world.

 

[CSchultz]

I would begin with the fact that "LIFE" is a property of organization, and not one of substance.

In order for evolution to be scientifically plausible one must prove that life, even on the simplest level, can suddenly take place. That either happens by random chance, (Which would be reproduceable), or by design, (Which requires a designer.)

If everything changes into something else, natural selection weeds out the weak, environmental changes shape and form the future generations, etc. Then surely we can reproduce the most basic conditions necessary to "kick" this common and frequent process into gear.

I'm not talking about making a human being, or a mouse, or a fish, or even a microscopic organism.

I'm talking about a simple cell.

The most basic building block from which the process of evolution takes place.

Just a tiny collection of molecules that gather and form the most simple living systems.

We could even cheat,... skip the entire DNA-protein relationship, that's like the chicken and the egg, you can't have complex protein without the DNA code to tell it what it is, and you cannot have the DNA blueprint, without it somehow knowing what codes it is supposed to contain.

But that's not evolution, that is creation, so we could use existing materials, and simply reproduce, a simple form of the primordial goo from which all of this evolutionary process formed.

Just a simple little cell.

Surely, if this theory has any basis at all, and we have even the most basic understanding of it, and considering the millions and millions of plant and animal speces we observe today, we could reproduce a simple evidence.

The conditions necessary to create just ONE....Simple...cell.

So what are those weaknesses?

I'd call that a pretty strong weakness.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

The conditions necessary to create just ONE....Simple...cell.

Do you hold the theory of probability up to the same standards?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I would begin with the fact that "LIFE" is a property of organization, and not one of substance.

In order for evolution to be scientifically plausible one must prove that life, even on the simplest level, can suddenly take place. That either happens by random chance, (Which would be reproduceable), or by design, (Which requires a designer.)

If everything changes into something else, natural selection weeds out the weak, environmental changes shape and form the future generations, etc. Then surely we can reproduce the most basic conditions necessary to "kick" this common and frequent process into gear.

I'm not talking about making a human being, or a mouse, or a fish, or even a microscopic organism.

I'm talking about a simple cell.

The most basic building block from which the process of evolution takes place.

Just a tiny collection of molecules that gather and form the most simple living systems.

We could even cheat,... skip the entire DNA-protein relationship, that's like the chicken and the egg, you can't have complex protein without the DNA code to tell it what it is, and you cannot have the DNA blueprint, without it somehow knowing what codes it is supposed to contain.

But that's not evolution, that is creation, so we could use existing materials, and simply reproduce, a simple form of the primordial goo from which all of this evolutionary process formed.

Just a simple little cell.

Surely, if this theory has any basis at all, and we have even the most basic understanding of it, and considering the millions and millions of plant and animal speces we observe today, we could reproduce a simple evidence.

The conditions necessary to create just ONE....Simple...cell.


I'd call that a pretty strong weakness.

PRATT police: you have been convicted of confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the origin of life. Evolution is the origin of biodiversity(the millions of species on this planet).

 

[CSchultz]

Do you hold the theory of probability up to the same standards?

I admit that I know very little about quantum mechanics.

I will say what I believe, and that is that I can toss a coin, and have it come up heads 9 times in a row, and the chances of it coming up heads the tenth time are still 50/50.

God will decide how it falls.

But in regards to evolution, a theory that many claim takes place all around us all of the time, I see it's greatest weakness as the fact that we cannot even reproduce its most basic components.

It's like having a "cave man" tell me that he has proven that gasoline is flamable without having discovered the fire necessary to prove it.

Is the "cave man" wrong? ...No.

But untill he can prove it, it's just a theory along side of many others.

 

[CSchultz]

PRATT police: you have been convicted of confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the origin of life. Evolution is the origin of biodiversity.

Accused, not convicted.

If evolution is a fact it takes place frequently.

I'm not talking about creation. As I said, we can cheat. We have the entire periodic table of elements to play with. We can create any atmosphere, a vacuum, any level of humidity, and degree of light, electricity, time, etc.

Make one living cell.

Surely something that happens by random chance, all of the time, can be reproduced by the people who have such a powerful understanding of it.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

But in regards to evolution, a theory that many claim takes place all around us all of the time, I see it's greatest weakness as the fact that we cannot even reproduce its most basic components.

That's not true, scientists can and have made computer algorithms that simulate evolution. Evolution would never happen the same way twice. There is far too much variability. There are some mutations that if never arisen would remove entire taxa and the entire make up of life on earth would be different. Even those individuals that are otherwise "fit" can be plagued by bad luck: they were born during a drought season or fell off a cliff or hit by a new strain of disease. There are so many variables that come into play that the course of evolution on this planet is a very difficult thing to reproduce on a computer.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Accused, not convicted.
...
Make one living cell.

Surely something that happens by random chance, all of the time, can be reproduced by the people who have such a powerful understanding of it.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!! Evolution cannot make a cell. Abiogenesis is the science that deals with such questions.
Evolution is what happens when living things reproduce and consume resources. That's it. It explains why we do not resemble the first living things. It explains how life has changed SINCE the first life appeared.

 

[CSchultz]

Evolution would never happen the same way twice. There is far too much variability.

Hmmm. That certainly is a convenient argument for debate.

 

[CSchultz]

Evolution is what happens when living things reproduce and consume resources. That's it. It explains why we do not resemble the first living things. It explains how life has changed SINCE the first life appeared.

Okay. That's very fair.

Now...The Bible, Gods revealed Word, is what happens when created living humans, reproduce, are fruitful and multiply, and it completely, and without error, explains Gods gracious, and merciful covenants since the first life appeared.

Now.... My beliefs are based on one book, yours upon another.

How do we determine which one of us is correct?

 

[us38]

Hmmm. That certainly is a convenient argument for debate.

Unless you can propose a way to control all of the relevant variables in the universe, it also happens to be true.

 

[CSchultz]

Unless you can propose a way to control all of the relevant variables in the universe, it also happens to be true.

That's not true, scientists can and have made computer algorithms that simulate evolution.

Sounds to me, like some "Dude" did it on a "Dell."

Why not prove it?

 

[monkeypsycho62]

Okay. That's very fair.

Now...The Bible, Gods revealed Word, is what happens when created living humans, reproduce, are fruitful and multiply, and it completely, and without error, explains Gods gracious, and merciful covenants since the first life appeared.

Now.... My beliefs are based on one book, yours upon another.

How do we determine which one of us is correct?

Malachi 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

Err..........the same book that says "I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces" is the basis of your life?

Seems kinda unwise, don't you think?

 

[CSchultz]

Err..........the same book that says "I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces" is the basis of your life?

Yes. It is.

Seems kinda unwise, don't you think?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken; lest thou hear thy servant curse thee: for oftentimes also thine own heart knoweth that thou thyself likewise hast cursed others. Ecclesiastes 7:21-22[/FONT]

Wisdom is a gracious gift. A blessing from God.

Wisdom teaches us kindness, respect, appreciation for others, and for the beliefs of others.

Perhaps in time, you will come to understand this.