Is evolution 'junk science'?

Question

Somebody just said evolution is 'junk science'. That's a pretty strong statement that should be backed up with some sort of supporting evidence.. Please, if you think evolutiohn is junk science, provide some evidence to back up this conviction.

Answer 1

It's actually the best supported theory in science - better supported than the theories of electricity and gravity.

Answer 2

Evolution predicted that there should be a human chromosome that appears to be nearly identical to that of 2 chimpanzee chromosomes fused together. At least three independent groups tested this prediction in the 1980s and the 1990s. There are probably more, but these are the only ones that I can reference (see the sources for their published, peer-reviewed papers below). What they hypothesized should be true was exactly what they found: -Human chromosome 2 (our largest chromosome) has identical banding structures to chimp chromosome 2p and 2q. This would only be true if they fused. -This same chromomse has a pretelomeric sequence, a telomeric sequence, an inverted telomeric sequence and an inverted pretelomeric sequence in that order in the middle of the chromosome. Teloremes are only found at the end of chromosomes, indicating that this point was once the end of a different chromosome. -Chromosomes has centroremes, where the split during mitosis occurs. A chromosome should only have 1, as it only splits at one point. On chromsome 2, the centroreme occurs at the same place as the chimp 2p chromosome. However, on the other band, there is another centroreme, at exactly the same location as you would find it on the chimp 2q chromosome. This is extremely powerful evidence of fusion. So, we had observations about the differences in genetics, we formed a falsifiable hypothesis, we tested it in a replicable manner, and other researchers repeated the experiments and found the same results. The research was then published in peer-review journals. Now tell me, how is that not science? ----- And that's just one bit of experimental data that evolution predicted and was later found to be true. I can give you dozens more to continue building the case if you'd like. And, yes, I can cite the sources for them as well.

Answer 3

Strong statements are often made to contradict other strong statements. Somebody said that in reaction to somebody who said if you don't agree with evolution, you are against science. That was a mindless, manipulating statement, that provided absolutely no argument for evolution. "It's true because it's proven". That's just like what some complain about my fellow Christians who sometimes say something like: "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true". That is a junky argument, and the person's argument against Christians was a "junk science" type of argument. And I think that is what the respondent was reacting to.
Many serious scientists are absolutely convinced of evolution. Many serious scientists are absolutely convinced evolution is not the way this world came to be. A bit of mutual respect is needed. Especially on the part of people who don't understand either the scientific issues, or the theological issues, and I suspect that is the case of many of the respondents here, on both sides of the question.

Answer 4

Junk science is generally science that disagrees with our preconceived ideas about the world. Global warming is junk science to those who choose not to believe the data, just as evolution is junk science to those who prefer to ignore evidence in support of evolution.

Answer 5

There is endless amounts of evidence of evolution, sure there are still gaps and unanswered questions but that is because we are at the very beginning of our research still. It's taken humans a while to get as smart as we are now. Some people still haven't reached that catapult yet and just turn towards religion and fairy tails for their answers...

Do you remember the days when people were killed for saying the earth was round and not the center of the universe? Probably not, but there was a time when people would have said that those theories were complete rubbish!!!

Answer 6

I held off on answering till I saw someone actually do what I expected,
list the "fake" skeletons.

Peking man or nebraska man.

This is the best the religious right has, which is heh look some other scientists found out that that skeleton isn't really 3 million years old so YOU GUYS ARE LIARS.

Thats the best they got for why its junk science.

Answer 7

They can't back it up because it's not a true statement. It's the kind of thing people say when they have no idea what they are talking about. It sounds good, so people jump on and repeat it.

Kind of like when they say evolution is "just a theory" when they have no clue what scientific theory even means.

Answer 8

Sure, evolution is "junk science" the same way trying to explain the flight of birds using Bernouli's Principal...birds flying has nothing to do with lift, thrust, and fluid dynamics. I told you, birds is magic just like the way God created us out of dirt!

Answer 9

Cleareyes///////It took us a while to get this smart. Hello, Egyptians were doing fine dentistry thousands of years ago, and complicated surgeries, lets see you build a pyramid with the tools they used with the precision that they had, blocks so tight together you could slip a piece of paper between them, move heavy objects over great distances, they were smart, smarter than us, they weren't poluting everyone to death and causing diseases like they are now, smart, give me a break.

Answer 10

Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? ... But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.(Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998, pp. 140, 141, 227)

That is just one light one, there are so many that it is a burden to choose from amongst the multitude , like choosing flavors at Baskin Robbins
When I want to increase my faith I study evolution.

Answer 11

The definition of junk science is a pejorative connotation that one's opponent (in a scientific belief) is driven by political, religious, financial or other questionable motives. (And according to this definition, I could called intelligent design junk science.)

So in the person's mind who said it (although s/he probably doesn't even know what it means), it would be, since they believe evolution is some kind of left-wing plot.

Probably heard "junk science" on a talk show somewhere.