what scientific facts are violated by the evolution theory?

Answer 1

hmmm as things evolve the original "stuff" dies off. correct? i haven't seen a sabretooth nor any mammoths. if everything eveolve from something and that origianl something is gone...then why are their primates? if man evolved from monkeys, apes then why are they still around?

to me that's a flaw...if not a huge flaw...because how is that the only species that survived or continued to "evolve" into what???apes, monkeys, gorillas...

Answer 2

How exactly do you violate a fact? I'd be fascinated to know. No, really. Oh wait, you mean there are 'facts' and then there are "facts"? NOW I understand.
A "theory" shouldn't violate any known facts. Aside from wishful thinking and the inertia of a dogma. If however you're talking about the implications of a theory, well, thats a horse of a different color. Implications imply extrapolation of a theory into areas where it is not well established. For instance there was, a couple of years ago, a discrepancy between the consensus models of global warming and some satellite data. Facts seemingly contradicting Theory, if you will. Turned out that the people doing the analysis of the satellite data forgot to account for the almost infinitessimal drag on the satellites caused by the (almost but not quite non-existant) atmosphere (we're talking hard vacuum, here!). This along with the changes in the drag accounted for the discrepancy. For some strange reason, this well known effect was not considered by the original researchers and hence it would seem that the Theory violated the facts (or vice versa).
What your question SHOULD have been is: What scientifically accepted evidence is not in agreement with evolution? (or vice versa). When evidence violates a theory, its usually because of flawed interpretation. In the rare cases where it is not, (AND assuming the evidence is correct {not mistaken}) then we throw out the theory. Since we haven't done that with Evolution, you have your answer.
Here are some things whose existence most scientists would agree are facts, but have not been accounted for by the Theory of Evolution:
Beauty, Truth, Reverence, Love, Intelligence. Oh sure, some practitioners of psychobabble will have their own glib "scientific" explanation of these things making claim that it is evolution that underlies them. But we have not scientifically established how or why evolution allows these things (and many others). So giving a plausible explanation consistent with evolution may make a nice story, but until there is solid science to back up every word then its just psychobabble. And, I can assure you we are not even close, yet. Not to say that someday we won't be. So, is the Theory complete? No. Violated? Not as far as we know.

Answer 3

Most of the people opposing the theory of evolution believe that it's not possible for complex design to emerge "by chance", so one very commonly cited law that is being "violated" is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that in any system, entropy must always rise. The fallacy of this argument is that entropy is not a direct measurement of disorder in the first place, even though a great many people believe that it is. Secondly, it's the overall entropy of a system that rises, regardless of any complexity that may arise, so emergent complexity doens't necessarily violate the law. Another "law" also cited, but less frequently so, is Dembski's "Law of Conservation of Information", which is a law not accepted in the mainstream information theory, as it is an unproven and unsubstantiated "law". Supposedly, the amount of "information" in any complex structure, such as the DNA, is constant, regardless of any mutations or changes it may undergo, so that evolution into organisms of greater complexity is impossible. Strangely enough, this law doesn't work in the reverse, where the DNA is simply destroyed and the information vanishes?

There aren't any "scientific law" that are being violated in the theory of evolution, otherwise any such law being violated would be getting top billing in a lot of scientific papers, as many would love to be authors of such. An outright violation of some law in science? That's a dream for many gunning for attention, including Dembski, but he's not getting anywhere with his "law", and he's not getting much help from others, because they know it's a dead end and a waste of time.

Answer 4

There aren't any scientific facts violated by the theory of evolutionism but the reason that it was widely frowned upon in the 1800s was because people back then weren't as secular as we are today. The people didn't want to believe it because it went against the creationist theory of Christianity and everyone saw right through the evidence. Darwin was criticized and almost executed for his beliefs They would not believe this theory in the 19th century but it is widely accepted and globally acknowledged by scientist today.

Answer 5

NovelT....that is not a flaw, the sabertooth and mammoth simply were not able to survive. There were various reasons including predation by man and lack of available food during the ice age. They weren't adapted well enough to the colder climates, and it didn't help that they were also being hunted. We shared at one point long ago a common ancestor with today's primates. However, this ancestor does not reflect what we see today in man or ape. Also, for the most part (at least until the end of the 20th century) loss of species occured on evolutionary timescales, millions of years. This does not include mass extinction events, just normal selection occurring on disadvantageous phenotypes.

Answer 6

none, why? Evolution lines up beautifully and meshes perfectly with everything we know about science and the world...

novelT - nobody claims humans are descended from apes any more than they would claim that ducks are descended from chickens - it's a common ancestor we share, just like ducks and chickens share a common ancestor - put in those terms even the most radical uneducated christian must realize the sense...

Answer 7

none, evolution is not a theory but a fact. It's been proven. All life on this planet shares a common ancestor and all biological life is connected.

Answer 8

umm don't organisms adapt to change of environment etc and evolve. The organisms that are less suited to change of environment die out leaving organisms with adaptable features or wateva. so if u could think of a scientific fact that clashes with this idea then there u go.

Answer 9

I think its the fact that its a theory like all creation theories that cannot be proved. The problem arises when it is the only theory the school system teaches and does not allow students to draw their own conclusions in comparison to all other theories that are out there. IE Creationism or Big Bang.

Answer 10

Can't call this scientific "fact" per se, but...
Evolution tends to work against simple systems remaining "simple".

Evolution from singular cell organisms to multi-cellular entities introduces greater entropy into the overall system.

Answer 11

this may be wrong but isn't there the theory...i can't remember the name...and it says that all cells must come from other cells, and i'm probably wrong but i think that this fact was violated by the evolution theory cause it says everything came from gas and lightening or basically two nonliving things that didn't have cells...