Your nightly evolution question....?

Question

I'm really tired of the evolution skeptics. I have read Darwin's work, and I have read many other papers about evolution in general, and to me evolution is no longer debatable, it is fact. However, I am only educated about evolution as it pertains to its "correctness". Can any skeptic point me to a NON RELIGIOUS website that puts forth any realistic arguments in an attempt to debunk the theory of evolution. This means I DO NOT WANT ANY SITES ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN OR SITES LED BY RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS. I am not bashing your unwillingness to believe, I just want to see why.

Great...a whole lot of answers that I didn't ask for. Come on people

Answer 1

Excellent question (or rather point),

I recall no such site. You will run into some peer-reviewed articles that critique aspects of evolution as a theory. Because these papers can be read to support (arguably) intelligent design as a theory, you see them cited on various web sites that support intelligent design and/or creationism. Four of the more commonly cited are as follows:

1. “Investigating a General Biology” by John Bracht, Complexity 8(3):31-41 (2003)
2. “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories” by Stephen C. Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239 (2004)
3. Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004).
4. Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?,” Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, 98:71-96 (2005).

Answer 2

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty— above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.

Answer 3

If you have already made up your mind then why bother. To me it is obvious that all of the complex and interdependent life forms on this planet didn't come about because of time + chance + random genetic mutations + natural selection.

Let me ask you a question. How does the butterfly fit into that equation? What evolutionary process led up to a caterpillar going from eating leaves to building a cocoon and hanging there in that vulnerable state while it evolves? transforms? into a totally different creature?

How long did it take for a caterpillar to adapt(?) the process of making silk for whatever hypothetical reason it made it before it was able to weave a cocoon around itself, a cocoon that doesn't provide a great deal of thermal insulation or protection from predators? How many caterpillars do you think it took via random genetic mutations before one was actually able to turn into a butterfly? Do you think that there were thousands or millions of failed butterflys before the first one finally made it? Oh wait, there would have had to have been at least two since caterpillars are not able to reproduce unless you want to further the guesswork by saying that the first butterfly was actually a hermaphrodite.

Then when you get through coming up with a complicated and completely hypothetical explanation for that creature you can start on thousands of others and tell me that every one of them just came about by the above formula with no force directing it but chance.

Answer 4

Actually, you don't want a site that debunks Evolution. You should want a site that explains an alternate theory which is supported by more scientific evidence than evolution; that ties together the laws of science better than evolution; and that is able to accurately predict results better than evolution. This is really the only way that evolution can be unseated scientifically. Just to beat someone to it, Intelligent Design does not meet this criterion.

Answer 5

You can not get your answer. You just eliminated the only other theory about origins-religion. It all boils down to two possibilities. Either this world made itself or something made it. If you do not allow discussion from the "something made it" side of this argument-then you can never have the answer.
There is no other possible explanation other than special creation. This argument has been around too long. Many possibilities have been brought up-however remote. But they all fall into one or the other. Either all this whole entire universe made itself from nothing or God did it. You, my friend , are stuck in your own hole.

Answer 6

I, for one, do no longer beleive that evolution and production are diametrically adversarial. We see data of evolution day by day whilst organisms adapt to regulate. guy often promotes evolution whilst he differences plant life and animals by employing decision. could no longer a writer do the comparable. in all probability our theory of the 7 days is what is wrong. After finding at your reference, some substitute is powerful and a few substitute is undesirable.

Answer 7

Read a Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel. Was on the NYT Best Seller List for a while. Generally factual. Makes many, many good points to consider. If you can refute this book, you are a genius.

Answer 8

you may want to look into the works of francis crick and fred hoyle. (sorry, those are the only two names which spring to mind.)

cheerio

Answer 9

Sorry but evolution has , remains a THEORY ( you can find the definition of the afore mentioned word in ant good dictionary )
and will continue to be until you are forced to acknowledge the hand of god in our lives. ( i don't mean Maradona 1986 ! )

Answer 10

WELL GOOD LUCK WITH THAT ONE.
GOD BLESS