What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[GoSeminoles!]

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?

1. Fails to provide tingling sensation when I shampoo, so I can't tell if it's really working.

2. It's not low-fat, low-carb.

3. Can't plug it into my iPod.

4. No good disco songs about it.

5. Four out of 5 wackjobs reject it.

 

[CSchultz]

yes it is, Most animals are taken by scavengers when they die. Fossilization is a very rare phenomena.

Especially the 68 million year old ones that still contain red blood cells.

 

[Loudmouth]

Especially the 68 million year old ones that still contain red blood cells.

Especially the creationist dishonesty that you are (unintentionally?) spreading. Red blood cells were not found. From talkorigins

Claim CC371:

Schweitzer et al. (1997a) found evidence of hemoglobin and red blood cells in an unfossilized Tyrannosaurus rex bone. This indicates that the dinosaur died rather recently, not millions of years ago, which in turn indicates that the earth is young.
Source:

Wieland, Carl, 1997 (Sep.-Nov.). Sensational dinosaur blood report. Creation 19(4): 42-43. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp
Ham, K., J. Sarfati and C. Wieland, 2000. The Revised and Expanded Answers Book. Green Forest AR: Master Books, pp. 246-247.
Response:

1. Schweitzer et al. did not find hemoglobin or red blood cells. Rather, they found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. They emphasizd repeatedly that even those results were tentative, that the chemicals and structures may be from geological processes and contamination (Schweitzer and Horner 1999; Schweitzer and Staedter 1997; Schweitzer et al. 1997a, 1997b). The bone is exceptionally well preserved, so much so that it may contain some organic material from the original dinosaur, but the preservation should not be exaggerated.
2. The bone that Schweitzer and her colleagues studied was fossilized, but it was not altered by "permineralization or other diagenetic effects" (Schweitzer et al. 1997b). Permineralization is the filling of the bone's open parts with minerals; diagenetic effects include alterations like cracking. Schweitzer commented that the bone was "not completely fossilized" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997, 35), but lack of permineralization does not mean unfossilized.
3. An ancient age of the bone is supported by the (nonradiometric) amino racemization dating technique.
4. Soft tissues have been found on fossils tens of thousands of years old, and DNA has been recovered from samples more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, recovering DNA and non-bone tissues from them should be routine enough that it would not be news.

Links:

Hurd, Gary S., 2004. Dino-blood and the young earth. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html or http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/YEC_and_dino_blood.htm
References:

1. Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey, 1997a. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 6291-6296. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/12/6291
2. Schweitzer, M. H., C. Johnson, T. G. Zocco, J. H. Horner and J. R. Starkey, 1997b. Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(2): 349-359.
3. Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter, 1997. The real Jurassic Park. Earth, June, pp. 55-57.
4. Schweitzer, Mary Higby and John R. Horner, 1999. Intrasvascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex. Annales de Paléontologie 85(3): 179-192.
5. Stokstad, Erik. 2003. Ancient DNA pulled from soil. Science 300: 407.
6. Willerslev, E. et al. 2003. Diverse plant and animal genetic records from Holocene and Pleistocene sediments. Science 300: 791-795.

If you are warming up for the Gish Gallop, I would strongly suggest that you check out this list of common creationist claims before proceeding. The quote above from talkorigins is from that list. It is long list so use the "Find" function under the Edit option in your web browser to sort through it.

So I guess the only weakness that evolution has is that some christians prefer creationist dishonesty over actual evidence.

 

[Baggins]

Especially the 68 million year old ones that still contain red blood cells.

Unless that is a joke you should really check your facts

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Especially the 68 million year old ones that still contain red blood cells.

That specimen is actually quite an amazing find. The protein sequencing showed that the T-rex's closest living relatives are birds. This is perhaps the greatest paleontological discovery of the last hundred years. Finally paleontologists have a way to biologically test hypotheses about relationships that were derived from the skeletons. With preservation three or four orders of magnitude older than was thought possible, who knows how long such soft tissue can last if preserved correctly.

 

[JamesDaJust]

Natural selection, mutation giving rise to traits not previously found in the population(new information), and speciation have all been observed both in the lab and in nature. The kinds of changes you are probably thinking about (eyes and wings or ape to man) span the lifetimes of several entire species and take millions of years to occur.

Where are the millions of years of decaying species evolution to support your thery? Why is it that we can't find all the links? Did they disolve? We have the dinasoaurs, but wher are the real remains of the millions of years of decaying evolutionary matter to support this theory of evolution aside from your natural selections.

 

[JamesDaJust]

That specimen is actually quite an amazing find. The protein sequencing showed that the T-rex's closest living relatives are birds. This is perhaps the greatest paleontological discovery of the last hundred years. Finally paleontologists have a way to biologically test hypotheses about relationships that were derived from the skeletons. With preservation three or four orders of magnitude older than was thought possible, who knows how long such soft tissue can last if preserved correctly.

The frog is the only God made evolution we can witness to extreeme degrees.

 

[JamesDaJust]

Especially the creationist dishonesty that you are (unintentionally?) spreading. Red blood cells were not found. From talkorigins
[/list]If you are warming up for the Gish Gallop, I would strongly suggest that you check out this list of common creationist claims before proceeding. The quote above from talkorigins is from that list. It is long list so use the "Find" function under the Edit option in your web browser to sort through it.

So I guess the only weakness that evolution has is that some christians prefer creationist dishonesty over actual evidence.

I beleive there was a magnificent destruction and Gods Word Speaks repeatedly about it. Somewhere was about 12,000 years ago. One day we will begin to understand the truth in Gods Word.

 

[JamesDaJust]

1. Fails to provide tingling sensation when I shampoo, so I can't tell if it's really working.

2. It's not low-fat, low-carb.

3. Can't plug it into my iPod.

4. No good disco songs about it.

5. Four out of 5 wackjobs reject it.

Poor ole Kramer.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Where are the millions of years of decaying species evolution to support your thery? Why is it that we can't find all the links? Did they disolve? We have the dinasoaurs, but wher are the real remains of the millions of years of decaying evolutionary matter to support this theory of evolution aside from your natural selections.

Missing links also known as transitional fossils:
Tiktaalik rosea(fish-amphibian)
Arechaeopteryx(dinosaur-bird)
Probainognathus(reptile-mammal)
Then there are the transitional series which have several species in them:
horse(hyracotherium, mesohippus, merychippus)
whale(pakicetus, ambulocetus, basilosaurus)
human(australopithicus afarensis, homo habilis, homo erectus)
There are lots of transitional fossils it's just that creationists dont concede them as being transitional which leads to glaring problems. Archaeopteryx had a wishbone and modern bird feathers, it also had teethladen jaws and a hyperextended second toe which is only known to exist in the group that would later give rise to velociraptor. This animal was very clearly a bird, yet very clearly a dinosaur. Transitional fossils dont get much better than that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where are the millions of years of decaying species evolution to support your thery?

In the ground.

Why is it that we can't find all the links?

Because we haven't dug through all of the dirt yet. Paleontologists are finding new transitional fossils on a monthly basis.

A good example of why fossils are rare is the passenger pigeon. Before it's extinction at the hands of man some 200 years ago it was the most populous bird species in North America. There were literally billions of passenger pigeons when Eurpopeans first moved to this continent. Guess how many passenger pigeon fossils have been found? Zero. Nada. Zip. Why is that?

However, if you think an absolute lack of transitional fossils is a weakness of the theory then you are sorely mistaken. There are many, many, many known transitional fossils including those between modern humans and our common ancestor with chimps. Would you like to learn about them?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The frog is the only God made evolution we can witness to extreeme degrees.

That is not evolution. evolution does not occur over the lifetime of an individual, this idea was defeated over a century ago. What a frog has is a life cycle, it isnt evolving. individuals dont evolve, populations do. populations that become isolated accumulate change and eventually this change renders the populations unable to breed. This is called speciation and it has been observed.

 

[Loudmouth]

I beleive there was a magnificent destruction and Gods Word Speaks repeatedly about it. Somewhere was about 12,000 years ago. One day we will begin to understand the truth in Gods Word.

Why are your beliefs a problem for a well supported scientific theory? Since when do beliefs trump evidence? If I really, really, really believed that the moon was made out of cheese would the moon suddenly turn into cheese? Would my beliefs be worthy of being presented in science classrooms, or be worthy of overthrowing decades of moon research?

For that matter, science is still waiting for the Sun to start orbitting the Earth. It seems that even the Pope's beliefs are trumped by science.

 

[CSchultz]

If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, recovering DNA and non-bone tissues from them should be routine enough that it would not be news.

This is absurd!

When a creationist says; How could red blood cells have survived for 68 million years?

An evolutionist spouts...

who knows how long such soft tissue can last if preserved correctly.

or...

you should really check your facts

In other words, "We will MAKE the pieces fit the puzzle, Ye need not question the wisdom of "our faith."

If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, recovering DNA and non-bone tissues from them should be routine enough that it would not be news.

Then when a creationist says; "Well, if the planet is as old as some claim, there should be more than ample fossil evidence of speciation, so ,....Where is it???

And we get...

The sea floor is inhabited by many scavingers, even the bones are consumed.

or...

Fossilization is a very rare phenomena.

And you people claim that faith in God is a stretch!

BWAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA!!!

 

[Loudmouth]

This is absurd!

When a creationist says; How could red blood cells have survived for 68 million years?

An evolutionist spouts...


or...

You missed what I spouted. There were no red blood cells in those bones. They were lucky enough to find heme molecules with a few short peptides stuck to them.

In other words, "We will MAKE the pieces fit the puzzle, Ye need not question the wisdom of "our faith."

No, that would be you, the person who is falsely claiming that red blood cells were found in dino bones.

Then when a creationist says; "Well, if the planet is as old as some claim, there should be more than ample fossil evidence of speciation, so ,....Where is it???

Where are the passenger pigeon fossils?

Where is the long stretches of dino DNA in these fossils? We can get decent DNA from 30,000 year old neanderthals and mammoths, so why can't we get dino DNA?

 

[FishFace]

This is absurd!

When a creationist says; How could red blood cells have survived for 68 million years?

An evolutionist spouts...

"What do you mean red blood cells?"

and then they spout,

"Your incredulity is inconsequential."

Then when a creationist says; "Well, if the planet is as old as some claim, there should be more than ample fossil evidence of speciation, so ,....Where is it???

And we get...

Missing links also known as transitional fossils:
Tiktaalik rosea(fish-amphibian)
Arechaeopteryx(dinosaur-bird)
Probainognathus(reptile-mammal)
Then there are the transitional series which have several species in them:
horse(hyracotherium, mesohippus, merychippus)
whale(pakicetus, ambulocetus, basilosaurus)
human(australopithicus afarensis, homo habilis, homo erectus)
There are lots of transitional fossils it's just that creationists dont concede them as being transitional which leads to glaring problems. Archaeopteryx had a wishbone and modern bird feathers, it also had teethladen jaws and a hyperextended second toe which is only known to exist in the group that would later give rise to velociraptor. This animal was very clearly a bird, yet very clearly a dinosaur. Transitional fossils dont get much better than that.

That's what you actually get if you'd been reading along.

BWAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA!!!

Golly gosh, the humour. If only you'd bothered to read what people have been telling you, or do your own research. You'd know that little fragments of stuff that looks like blood can survive for a long time, you'd know that there are loads of transitional fossils (as quoted above) you'd know all sorts of things.
And you wouldn't be pestering us with PRATTs.

 

[CSchultz]

you'd know that there are loads of transitional fossils (as quoted above) you'd know all sorts of things.
And you wouldn't be pestering us with PRATTs.

Sorry, Actually I do know "All sorts of things."

But it wasn't my intention to upset anyone.

Anytime one theology encounters another in a debate, there will be differing opinions.

I was just attempting to offer evidence to support my faith along side of the evidence you have provided to support your own.

 

[us38]

Sorry, Actually I do know "All sorts of things."

But it wasn't my intention to upset anyone.

Anytime one theology encounters another in a debate, there will be differing opinions.

I was just attempting to offer evidence to support my faith along side of the evidence you have provided to support your own.

Yeah, science isn't a theology, and conflating the two shows just how ignorant you are of both.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Sorry, Actually I do know "All sorts of things."

But it wasn't my intention to upset anyone.

Anytime one theology encounters another in a debate, there will be differing opinions.

I was just attempting to offer evidence to support my faith along side of the evidence you have provided to support your own.

This is not a theological discussion, this is a scientific one. Evolution is a scientific theory and as such it lives and dies by the evidence, which there is mountains of. Evolution has no implications as to the existance or otherwise of God, i say that as both a scientist and a theist. Evolution does refute biblical genesis. But biblical genesis is scientifically laughable. days, light, and plant-bearing earth all before the sun is a joke.

 

[CSchultz]

Yeah, science isn't a theology, and conflating the two shows just how ignorant you are of both.

Oh, but it is.

The thing about science, is that the perspective of the observer is the variable when we do not have all of the facts.

EXAMPLE: I live in Kansas, at what temperature does water boil?

How about a person who lives in Denver?...At what temperature does water boil for him?

Today, science has provided each of us with an understanding of this differentiation in altitude and barometric pressure, but before we understood all of those factors, science was at a loss to explain the phenomenon.

Here, today, we are discussing a situation for which we lack all of the factors.

I have attempted to approach the issue from a "Monotheistic" perspective, others on this forum, have approached it from a "Polytheistic" point of view, and you have addressed this issue from an "Atheistic" perspective.

As far as I can tell, the only differentiation between each of our views, assumptions, theories, and evidence, is your own particular snyde, rude, pampas, demeening, attitude toward civil debate.

But perhaps it is my own ignorance of "your" theological truths that blind me to "your" reality.

I can find fossilized cowboy boots, less than 60 years old, fossilized leather hats, recently petrified wood, etc... I'm sorry, but I haven't located a pigeon, but I presume that you would disregard any of these evidences, regardless. (Pigeon or not)

But what greatly bothers me is the fact that I will go to bed this evening, resting safely in the arms of a well planned, and created universe.

You on the otherhand will lie down, just a blob of flesh floating somewhere in a vast vacuum of nothingness.

I cannot prove to you that I am right, and you are wrong, (I wish I could)

But your anger, and hostility over the matter do stand out quite visibly.

I can only pray that you are not in a position of teaching these beliefs to our future generations.

May the Lord Bless you and keep you.


....and may that mean something to you one day.