Why Would An Agnostic Doubt the Theory of Evolution

[Loudmouth]

There was a good amount of fossil evidence. However, the nested hierarchy was created prior to Darwin.

And Darwin discovered the mechanism that produces that nested hierarchy. The theory of evolution is still testable by using newly discovered living species, newly discovered fossil species, and the best area of evidence of them all, DNA.

Why would DNA that has nothing to do with the morphological nested hierarchy produce the same nested hierarchy? Why would the wolf cytochrome C gene be more like human cytochrome C than yeast cytochrome C when cytochrome C has nothing to do with the morphology of a species?

The geological column was already determined by then. So it was not predictive but was established for the most part.

You lost me on this one. How did they establish that nowhere in sediments anywhere in the world were there bird to mammal transitionals?

Not the same as the past.

Why not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Since boobs are not fossilize how would we find a bird with boobs?

New living species are being found all of the time.

What if nested hierarchies are nothing but an illusion as your pig in the cloud.

Then show me a list of obvious violations of the nested hierarchy. Why can't we find a single fossil with feathers and three middle ear bones? Why don't seals lay calcified eggs like penguins do? Why don't penguins have teats like seals do? Why keep calcified eggs and teats separate? Why not combine them into a single design? What is stopping the designer from doing this?

 

[Smidlee]

New living species are being found all of the time.

I thought you wrote fossil.

Then show me a list of obvious violations of the nested hierarchy. Why can't we find a single fossil with feathers and three middle ear bones? Why don't seals lay calcified eggs like penguins do? Why don't penguins have teats like seals do? Why keep calcified eggs and teats separate? Why not combine them into a single design? What is stopping the designer from doing this?

Scientist are finding surprises all the time. Like in this case
Unsettling Data: Algae Findings Rock Principle Dating Back to Darwin | Behind the Scenes | LiveScience

One of Charles Darwin's hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.

Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin's theory — at least in one case.

Just because we have yet to find a creature with both three bones and feather doesn't prove they never existed. This is using evolutionist own reasoning. They assume there are a lot missing fossil in the Precambrian.
And even if they are found they would still believe in ToE.

 

[HitchSlap]

Just because we have yet to find a creature with both three bones and feather doesn't prove they never existed. This is using evolutionist own reasoning. They assume there are a lot missing fossil in the Precambrian.
And even if they are found they would still believe in ToE.

What say you find a creature with three middle ear bones and feathers, then we'll see what happens?

 

[Smidlee]

What say you find a creature with three middle ear bones and feathers, then we'll see what happens?

I feel the same way with the mythological creature that had two offspring , one went to Harvard and the other went ape. By the way have they found a chimp fossil yet?

 

[HitchSlap]

I feel the same way with the mythological creature that had two offspring , one went to Harvard and the other went ape. By the way have they found a chimp fossil yet?

I'm no Google expert, but...

First Chimp Fossils Found; Humans Were Neighbors

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So several users seem to be saying that Zosimus' criticisms of Darwinian evolution are wrong because he has yet to explain the flaws in Intelligent Design theory. Can't we think of any other arguments to support Darwinism other than "well creationism is wrong, so there"?

I'm going to assume (if only to keep the thread on topic) that Zosimus genuinely is an agnostic, and does not support any form of creationism or Intelligent Design. The only other suggestion he has made has been the theory of panspermia.

In that case, it might be better to criticise why panspermia may be wrong, or if it actually conflicts with either Darwinism or abiogenesis?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So several users seem to be saying that Zosimus' criticisms of Darwinian evolution are wrong because he has yet to explain the flaws in Intelligent Design theory. Can't we think of any other arguments to support Darwinism other than "well creationism is wrong, so there"?

I'm going to assume (if only to keep the thread on topic) that Zosimus genuinely is an agnostic, and does not support any form of creationism or Intelligent Design. The only other suggestion he has made has been the theory of panspermia.

In that case, it might be better to criticise why panspermia may be wrong, or if it actually conflicts with either Darwinism or abiogenesis?

Well, panspermia only conflicts with ID theory actually.

 

[Loudmouth]

I thought you wrote fossil.

I thought you were asking about features that wouldn't fossilize?

Scientist are finding surprises all the time. Like in this case
Unsettling Data: Algae Findings Rock Principle Dating Back to Darwin | Behind the Scenes | LiveScience

What does that have to do with violations of a nested hierarchy?

Just because we have yet to find a creature with both three bones and feather doesn't prove they never existed.

Correct. This is why all theories are held tentatively and open to falsification. So why aren't creationists out there looking for these fossils? I think even creationists know that they won't find them because the theory of evolution is correct.

And even if they are found they would still believe in ToE.

Projection at its finest.

It is creationists who ignore the fossil evidence.

 

[Smidlee]

What does that have to do with violations of a nested hierarchy?

I don't have any problem with nested hierarchy as creationist first recognize it nor do I have a problem with "evolution" mechanism which is simple "trial and error" when it comes to fine-tuning but I do see the limits of "trial and error" and don't believe it can magically produce the nested hierarchy itself. Just as man have used "trial and error" for centuries then I would expect a living cell can also use "trial and error" to help find some solutions to problems.

It is creationists who ignore the fossil evidence.

It more like ignore evolutionist story telling. The fossils interpretions are constantly changing because the interpretations are based on human opinion more than hard facts. the fossil evidence points to three things ; Stasis , stasis and more stasis.

 

[biggles53]

I don't have any problem with nested hierarchy as creationist first recognize it nor do I have a problem with "evolution" mechanism which is simple "trial and error" when it comes to fine-tuning but I do see the limits of "trial and error" and don't believe it can magically produce the nested hierarchy itself. Just as man have used "trial and error" for centuries then I would expect a living cell can also use "trial and error" to help find some solutions to problems.

Please explain the mechanism which enforces these "limits"...? What is it that permits change up to a particular point, but no further...?

It more like ignore evolutionist story telling. The fossils interpretions are constantly changing because the interpretations are based on human opinion more than hard facts. the fossil evidence points to three things ; Stasis , stasis and more stasis.

So...on the one hand you say that you accept change ("fine tuning"), but in the next breath you negate this by claiming that things remain in "stasis"...!

Are you even sure of your own position...?

 

[Smidlee]

Please explain the mechanism which enforces these "limits"...? What is it that permits change up to a particular point, but no further...?

Time ( when it comes to life it's generations). It's take a computer a lot longer to crack (using trial and error) a 16 characters password than it does a 8 characters password. There is even limits of how much a super-computer could crack in 5 billion years.
Wright Brothers used trial and error to fine-tune their wing shape but you got to be in the ball park before trial and error can work.

 

[Sofaman]

Time ( when it comes to life it's generations). It's take a computer a lot longer to crack (using trial and error) a 16 characters password than it does a 8 characters password. There is even limits of how much a super-computer could crack in 5 billion years.
Wright Brothers used trial and error to fine-tune their wing shape but you got to be in the ball park before trial and error can work.

This issue you raise with trial and error shows a common misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. Trial and error assumes it is trying to achieve something. It isn't, evolution has no goal and it isn't a random process

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't have any problem with nested hierarchy as creationist first recognize it nor do I have a problem with "evolution" mechanism which is simple "trial and error" when it comes to fine-tuning but I do see the limits of "trial and error" and don't believe it can magically produce the nested hierarchy itself. Just as man have used "trial and error" for centuries then I would expect a living cell can also use "trial and error" to help find some solutions to problems.

What are these limits, and what is your evidence that evolution can not go beyond those limits?

It more like ignore evolutionist story telling. The fossils interpretions are constantly changing because the interpretations are based on human opinion more than hard facts. the fossil evidence points to three things ; Stasis , stasis and more stasis.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for YOU to accept it as being a transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

 

[Smidlee]

This issue you raise with trial and error shows a common misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. Trial and error assumes it is trying to achieve something. It isn't, evolution has no goal and it isn't a random process

As others agree mutation are not all the random but often a cell (bacteria) allowing mutations occur at hot spots in order to find a solution. (using trial and error just like an engineer would) While ToE has no goal while living cells do. Evolution is out of touch with life.

 

[Sofaman]

As others agree mutation are not all the random but often a cell (bacteria) allowing mutations occur at hot spots in order to find a solution. (using trial and error just like an engineer would) While ToE has no goal while living cells do. Evolution is out of touch with life.

1. Mutations are random.

2. Evolution is most definately the opposite of random.

3. The are no hotspots of mutations to find a solution as that would imply purpose. We have already established mutations are random.

Can you decide prior to procreation, how your offspring will differ from you?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Why are we debating creationists about evolution? Wasn't the whole point of this thread to udnerstand why an agnostic would doubt evolution?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why are we debating creationists about evolution? Wasn't the whole point of this thread to udnerstand why an agnostic would doubt evolution?

So Notedstrangeperson, you do not believe that God created the universe and all there is?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So Notedstrangeperson, you do not believe that God created the universe and all there is?

I would like to remind you and everyone else that evolution and a creator deity are not incompatible ideas.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I would like to remind you and everyone else that evolution and a creator deity are not incompatible ideas.

I totally agree, I am a case in point. However, Creationists are just believers that believe God created the universe. So that is why I asked.