What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[Loudmouth]

Because it is SOOOOO much easier for evolutionists to call it all "unnecessary junk", than it is to attempt to explain it.

How would functional non-coding DNA falsify evolution?

 

[elcapitan]

This is a strange turn of events. It is normally the creationist that argues that junk DNA actually has a function, not the other way around. Usually the evolutionist points to junk DNA as left over DNA from genes not longer used (since we have no method of removing DNA) and creationists object that the junk DNA does have a fuction, or at least we haven't completly ruled out that it does yet. Otherwise, they are left to explain why God created us with all of this non-fuctional DNA.

But all of that aside, why does junk DNA (assuming MOST of it doesn't have a purpose as the original poster suggested) falsify evolution? Does it in some way falsify common ancestry? The reason we have it seems quite clear. When we reproduce, even if a gene has mutuated and is now non fuctioning (like the chicken gene to make teeth), the sex cells have no way to remove the non-functioning DNA, so it is carried on forever, with more and more mutation holes been punched into it since they do not harm the organism. Indeed, these genes fit a nested hierchy pattern and are the best evidence for reconstructing common ancestry.

The junk DNA supporting evolution was out of the question because the original post about it mentioned that the puffer fish genome has drastically reduced junk DNA. In other words, there does seem to be a way to remove junk DNA.

 

[CSchultz]

This is a strange turn of events. It is normally the creationist that argues that junk DNA actually has a function, not the other way around. Usually the evolutionist points to junk DNA as left over DNA from genes not longer used (since we have no method of removing DNA) and creationists object that the junk DNA does have a fuction, or at least we haven't completly ruled out that it does yet. Otherwise, they are left to explain why God created us with all of this non-fuctional DNA.

The convenient thing about theories, is that that they can be manipulated to fit the observable facts.

This is why I personally support the teaching of both strengths, "and" weaknesses of all theories in science classes.

However I am a minority in the realm of scientists.

 

[Skaloop]

The convenient thing about theories, is that that they can be manipulated to fit the observable facts.

This is why I personally support the teaching of both strengths, "and" weaknesses of all theories in science classes.

However I am a minority in the realm of scientists.

Not in my experience. The strengths and weaknesses were generally taught in all my science classes.

 

[CSchultz]

Not in my experience. The strengths and weaknesses were generally taught in all my science classes.

I'm not sure of your own experiences Skaloop.

I am sure that it has to do with age, and or location.

I was raised with "Evolution" and that "Evolution" is a "Fact" and not a theory.

As I grew older, I began to discover many flaws in that theory.

In fact, if you are over 40, likely every theory you were taught has since been proven to be false based on recent discoveries.

My point is, that it's a pretty good "Theory" however it is a theory.

Some profess and taught it as if it were a fact. (As did many of my science teachers.)

As an adult, I can see the theory of evolution, and the theory of creation, based upon rational and reasonable conclusions, based upon discoveries, historical documentation, and plausability... etc.

However when "Theory" is presented as "Fact" it is my belief, that not only are we teaching our future generations un-scientific determination, but we are also robbing them of critical thinking skills.

That is why, based upon the current evidence, I disagree with teaching children, (and yes 20+ year olds are children to me)...that it is improper to consider the possibility of design, and creation, as a plausible explanation for the inticracies they we find before us today.

However,.... there will always be those, who insist that they are "Right" ...everyone else just lacks the understanding thet "THEY" have, and that we should all just accept what they have concluded as if it were Gospel.

Perhaps we should just go back to teaching in Latin, so that no one would have the ability to question the theories of the instructors.

 

[Skaloop]

I'm not sure of your own experiences Skaloop.

Five years of university science, including biology, evolutionary biology, and human evolution. Plus the requisite high school courses.

I am sure that it has to do with age, and or location.

Possibly. I went to a private school and university in Canada.

I was raised with "Evolution" and that "Evolution" is a "Fact" and not a theory.

I was raised with it as a theory. I have since come to know that it is both a theory and a fact.

As I grew older, I began to discover many flaws in that theory.

I found the opposite.

In fact, if you are over 40, likely every theory you were taught has since been proven to be false based on recent discoveries.

I'm only thirty, but still, yes, some things have been shown false. I find that a strength of science.

My point is, that it's a pretty good "Theory" however it is a theory and a fact.

Some profess and taught it as if it were a fact. (As did many of my science teachers.)

While perhaps not entirely adequate to teach it as such, it is in part true.

As an adult, I can see the theory of evolution, and the theory of creation, based upon rational and reasonable conclusions, based upon discoveries, historical documentation, and plausability... etc.

As can I.

However when "Theory" is presented as "Fact" it is my belief, that not only are we teaching our future generations un-scientific determination, but we are also robbing them of critical thinking skills.

Again, I have not seen it presented as only fact. I have seen it presented as theory based upon fact.

That is why, based upon the current evidence, I disagree with teaching children, (and yes 20+ year olds are children to me)...that it is improper to consider the possibility of design, and creation, as a plausible explanation for the inticracies they we find before us today.

I have never heard it is improper to consider design. Only that it is unevidenced, in comparison to evolution, which is rich in evidence. And since evolution has myriad real-world applications, whereas creation has virtually none, I see no real problem in teaching one over the other. We do want to educate our youth to succeed in the real world, do we not?

However,.... there will always be those, who insist that they are "Right" ...everyone else just lacks the understanding thet "THEY" have, and that we should all just accept what they have concluded as if it were Gospel.

That's what most Creationists do.

Perhaps we should just go back to teaching in Latin, so that no one would have the ability to question the theories of the instructors.

Certainly not. We should make science accessible by all, and questioning should be welcome. But the thing is, those being taught are not at the forefront of knowledge. Of course a student should question, but a first-year biology student is not in a position to adequately understand the technical aspects of advanced scientists studying things directly. The students can question, and they are in almost all cases appropriately answered.

 

[CSchultz]

Certainly not. We should make science accessible by all, and questioning should be welcome.

First, I thank you for your candor. And for your honest support of scientific questioning of presented ideas.

You have no idea of how refreshing that is to an American Kansan Citizen, who is living in a state where the mere questioning of data is illegal in our government school systems.

We stand to learn much from those of you up north in Canada.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/KS/610_evolution_in_kansas_board_of_e_11_8_2006.asp

Down here, we are disputing the concept of placing "WARNING LABELS" on any text that could possibly produce any criticism on the theory of evolution.

 

[Skaloop]

Down here, we are disputing the concept of placing "WARNING LABELS" on any text that could possibly produce any criticism on the theory of evolution.

Nice try, but please don't twist my words to make it sound like I support warning stickers. If you haven't, then I have misunderstood and apologize. But it sounds like you are.

Warning labels are not "questioning." Warning labels are pre-emptive strikes. Questioning should not require a student to read a sticker in the first place; it's just pushing the "do as you're told" part back a step. Shouldn't they question the stickers?

Stickers like that on science books are an abomination.

 

[CSchultz]

Stickers like that on science books are an abomination.

I wasn't trying to twist your words.

Although to be clear, they aren't trying to put warning labels on science books down here,
They are placing them on Bibles.

Questioning should not require a student to read a sticker in the first place; it's just pushing the "do as you're told" part back a step. Shouldn't they question the stickers?

I agree.

However, just a few months ago in Kansas the B.O.E. made it illegal to question the theory of evolution in the science classroom.

It was deemed a violation of the seperation of church and state.

(I'm still trying to find that in our Constitution, I suspect it may be somewhere near a womans right to kill an unborn child, but I'll get back to you when I find it.)

But questioning the theory of evolution in the classroom, or introducing alternative theory is now illegal in this state, and subject to expulsion.

 

[Skaloop]

I wasn't trying to twist your words.

Although to be clear, they aren't trying to put warning labels on science books down here,
They are placing them on Bibles.

I disagree with that as well. Although really, that sounds more like a pranky sort of contra-action to labels in science books.

I agree.

However, just a few months ago in Kansas the B.O.E. made it illegal to question the theory of evolution in the science classroom.

Again, I disagree with such a law. Provided those questions are legitimate. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.

It was deemed a violation of the separation of church and state.

(I'm still trying to find that in our Constitution, I suspect it may be somewhere near a womans right to kill an unborn child, but I'll get back to you when I find it.)

Don't even try to bring abortion into this discussion. It's wholly irrelevant.

But questioning the theory of evolution in the classroom, or introducing alternative theory is now illegal in this state, and subject to expulsion.

Well, there is no alternative theory. There may be alternative hypotheses, but those are generally not subject to scientific scrutiny. But if a student gets expelled for asking questions about evolution, I agree that that is wrong. But as a follower of the Crevo debate, I think I would have heard of it. Can you provide any links to that describe the situation?

 

[Galle]

Although to be clear, they aren't trying to put warning labels on science books down here,
They are placing them on Bibles.

Oh really? Let's see some factual support for this accusation. Who's "they" and where's "here"? Somehow, I can't help but suspect that this claim is nothing more than the result of a persecution complex.

However, just a few months ago in Kansas the B.O.E. made it illegal to question the theory of evolution in the science classroom.

It was deemed a violation of the seperation of church and state.

Do you have an actual citation, or is this just a massively dishonest misrepresentation of school policy?

For that matter, when have creationists ever questioned evolution? I've seen them dismiss it because it contradicts their religious beliefs, but that's hardly the same thing.

 

[USincognito]

However, just a few months ago in Kansas the B.O.E. made it illegal to question the theory of evolution in the science classroom.

It was deemed a violation of the seperation of church and state.

(I'm still trying to find that in our Constitution, I suspect it may be somewhere near a womans right to kill an unborn child, but I'll get back to you when I find it.)

But questioning the theory of evolution in the classroom, or introducing alternative theory is now illegal in this state, and subject to expulsion.

You're making this up.

Oh, and you might try finding the idea in the establishement clause of the 1st Amendment. Sorta like how the idea of the Trinity is found in a number of verses in the Bible.

 

[FoeHammer]

Yes. It is.

[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.

Give an evolutionist enough time and anything is possible it would seem.

FoeHammer.

 

[FishFace]

The convenient thing about theories, is that that they can be manipulated to fit the observable facts.

Yep, that's pretty convenient, otherwise we'd be stuck with geocentrism and spontaneous generation!

 

[Baggins]

Give an evolutionist enough time and anything is possible it would seem.

FoeHammer.

Whereas if you give a Christian enough time and you are still in the dark ages burning witches

 

[Split Rock]

However, just a few months ago in Kansas the B.O.E. made it illegal to question the theory of evolution in the science classroom.

It was deemed a violation of the seperation of church and state.

But questioning the theory of evolution in the classroom, or introducing alternative theory is now illegal in this state, and subject to expulsion.

As I recall, in the past the Kansas BOE had removed both evolution and the age of the Earth as required teaching. This was motivated, as shown by BOE members' comments, entirely by religious dogma.

Just what alternative scientific theories would you introduce into science classes in Kansas? What textbooks would you use and what kind of curriculum would you use? How much time would be left for teaching evolution?

 

[FoeHammer]

Whereas if you give a Christian enough time and you are still in the dark ages burning witches

Eh? Christians have never burned witches...

FoeHammer.

 

[LittleNipper]

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?

I see two main weaknesses.

1) Experimentation has never produced a living thing from inert natural materials. If scientists have the ability to manipulate an artificial environment and the chemical compounds found in that environment, then why can they not create viable life ? Since this cannot be done in a "controlled " environment, how could it be every expected in an uncontrolled one. And if it didn't happen swiftly, how much time could possibly be left for the various complexities of life to establish themselves.

2) Human manipulation of any species, has only produced hybreds of the same species and not diversely new species. Cattle remain cattle. Dogs remain dogs. Peas remain peas. Corn remains corn. Any specialization or characteristic change, only caricature some trait already existing within that species.

 

[Split Rock]

Eh? Christians have never burned witches...

FoeHammer.

Is this the "True Scotsman" argument again?

B.T.W. Considering the name you picked, "FoeHammer," you would probably have made a good witch-hunter back in the 1400s. Especially since the title of the book used in witch-hunting and witch trials was called the Malleus Maleficarum ("Hammer of Witches")

 

[Split Rock]

I see two main weaknesses.
1) Experimentation has never produced a living thing from inert natural materials. If scientists have the ability to manipulate an artificial environment and the chemical compounds found in that environment, then why can they not create viable life ? Since this cannot be done in a "controlled " environment, how could it be every expected in an uncontrolled one. And if it didn't happen swiftly, how much time could possibly be left for the various complexities of life to establish themselves.

Its kind of sad that you still don't know the difference between Abiogenesis and Evolution. Are you just pretending not to know, or do you really ignore everything anyone tells you here?

I see two main weaknesses.2) Human manipulation of any species, has only produced hybreds of the same species and not diversely new species. Cattle remain cattle. Dogs remain dogs. Peas remain peas. Corn remains corn. Any specialization or characteristic change, only caricature some trait already existing within that species.

According to the theory of evolution, we are still animals, vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes. Just as dogs will always be dogs and peas will always be peas. Nevertheless, speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature. That is all that is required.