Need arguments for and against evolution?

Question

I have to wright a paper on evelution. I have lots of information for evolution but not any good argument against evolution. Would like your opinion on evolution. Try to use some facts in your answer if posible give me a web page. Or If you know of any good web pages about evelution or the lack of let me know.

Answer 1

The reason you don't have any good arguments against evolution is because there aren't any.

Creationists, try as they do, attack evolution at every step. The problem is, if they wish their "theory" to have equal ground, then they must come up with their own evidence.

There is NO evidence that anything ever was created without any kind of predecessor, that anything comes from nothing, or that the laws of physics ever become violated. Even evolution and abiogenesis doesn't claim such things, although Young Earth Creationists falsely claim that they do.

There is no evidence that we came from mud (Creationists think that is somehow better than coming from apes, but I don't know why), or that the earth is 6,000 years old.

What creationists do most often is argue against the evidence for evolution and a young earth. The problem with that tactic is that even if the argument is valid, THAT isn't proof of literal creation. Even if they prove beyond a doubt that evolution is false (and they can't), they must PROVE literal creation to be true, before it can or will ever be an accptable scientific theory. The only proof that the earth is 6,000 years old is the geneology given in the bible. One can believe that to be accurate if they wish, but it is not an acceptable scientific proof.

The problem with your question is that you are asking for evidence against evolution. I assume that you accept evolution as a viable and correct theory, but asking for evidence against evolution is a difficult thing to actually receive. In science, it is almost always impossible to prove a negative. It's like proving that Santa Claus doesn't exist. I might be able to prove that it is actually your parents that place the gifts under your tree. But there still might really be a Santa Claus, even if he doesn't have eight tiny reindeer and a sleigh that flies around the world in a night.

Allow me to elaborate...
For example, in the beginning, most scientists were theologans who believed it was their clerical duty to discover and explain how God worked in nature. The first evolutionist was not Darwin, but were these theists. They looked at the very limited evidence that they had, and they realized that the earth was not very young. They looked at other evidence and postulised that because of the similarities between different species, and some of the fossils that they already had, perhaps there was a common ancestor between them. Geology and paleontology haven't proven YECism false. They proved an ancient earth and evolution to be true.

What I'm trying to tell you is that, in science, the only real way to prove anything to be false is to prove something different to be true. Often, in science, a theory must be adjusted to accomodate new data, or new technological discoveries. Very rarely are these theories entirely discarded. sually, they are simply modified, with the bulk surviving the emergence of the new theory. This is because theories, in science, are based on hypothesis that are proven true through prediction, experiment, and observation.

Evolution was not an arbitrary invention of Charles Darwin. The Greek philosopher Anaximander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander) was the first documented person to delve into the possibility of common ancestry. He and others postulized common descent, but had no real explanation how it could occur. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck later came up with his own theory, but it was later refuted, throroughly. Although he had common descent correct, he had the wrong mechanism. Lamarck, for example, thought that traits were aqcuired through use and disuse. In other words, under Lamarckian theory, giraffes grew long necks because they, as a species, tended to stretch their necks more than other species. It didn't take long for this theory to be disproven, because of the mechanism used to qualify it. Alfred Russel Wallace independently came to the same theory as Charles Darwin, which prompted Darwin to hurry the publishing of "Origin of Species." Had Wallace beaten Darwin to the publisher, evolution would be recognized as Wallace-ism, instead of Darwinism. However, due to the very restricted information available in Darwin's time, pertaining to genetics and heredity, evemn that theory has undergone the necessary modifications, but not total discardment.

Creationism, if it is to become an accepted scientific theory, must not only explain the evidence FOR its own theory, but it must also explain the evidence that is seemingly against it. This explanation cannot be "ad hoc," but must be reasonable and naturalistic.

Naturaism is abhorred by creationists, but methodological naturalism in science is not ahered to because of an adversity to theism, but because it is the only objective method of describing the natural world in a scientific manner. Appealing to the supernatural stifles scientific inquiry. Centuries ago, cultures of mold in a sealed jar was celebrated as an act of creation by God. Lois Pastuer proved through his experiments that there was a microbial world that we were previously unaware of. Prior to that, the "proof" of creationism was that, "Since you can't explain it in terms that are acceptable/understandable to me, it must be an act of God."

If that were an acceptable scientific explanation, there would be no pasteurized milk, sterilized surgical instruments, or vaccines.

But that is what 99.9% of creationist "evidence" relies on: Appeal to the Supernatural, Appeal to Incredulity, and Appeal to Ignorance. All of which are fallacies.

Those "evidences" which creationists offer that does not fall into the category of these or other fallacies are psuedoscience. Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method. The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning. Creationists fail that test for the simple fact that any evidence that contradicts their goal of proving the bible to be literally correct is ignored or dismissed without DUE consideration.

For hundreds (literally) of creationist "psuedosciences, visit the following two links.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments
The second link is especially useful, because it tells you exactly which fallacies the argument falls into, assuming that the argument isn't a psuedoscience.

The thing to understand is the difference between a fallacy and psuedoscience. It's hard to differentiate, because they are often interwoven. For example, (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Some_fossil_species_are_still_living) "Some species, such as the horseshoe crab, cockroach, ginkgo, and coelacanth, are 'fossil species.' They haven't evolved for millions of years." This is psuedoscience, because the scientific theory of evolution doesn't say that all species MUST evolve, or that if some ancient species exist for millions of years without evolving, then other species must do the same. It also falls into two fallacies. Exclusion (the information that the "living fossils" are different from their ancetors is omitted), and Hasty Generalization (if one species is not extinct, that doesn't mean no species is extinct)

So, if the "evidence" for creation that you wish for is either a fallacy, psuedoscience, or both, then you aren't really going to get any evidence.

Doubtlessly, creationists are going to bombard you with various claims. Please seek the refutations of these claims on the two links I provided above. If they aren't covered there, I would love to hear something new.

Creationists tend to be lazy. They hear what they want to hear, then repeat it, expecting that others will just accept what they say as a fact, and believe it.

Likewise, they will tell you that you should not just accept whatever is said on talkorigins and evowiki. They are absolutely correct when they tell you this. Don't just accept it. Learn it. Study it. Know who is being truthful and who is being deceptive. Don't take my word for it, or anyone elses'.

Most important of all, don't think that just because the bible isn't literally true, that you can't learn its lessons.

Answer 2

Can I ask what class this is for (biology, sociology)? And what grade level?

If this is for a debate class, or essay writing class, or sociology class this is great. It is a good opportunity to learn the skills of research on a social controversy and/or skills in discourse and debate.

Or if this is for a philosophy of science class, this is also great. This debate cuts to the heart of what divides science from pseudoscience.

But if this is for a biology class, this is *deplorable*. This is some teacher or administrator making sure the students get the impression that there is some "controversy" among scientists ... which there most certainly is NOT. In other words, unless the teacher is very very good, and after all is presented can explain why scientists come down *overwhelmingly* on the side of evolution, this will have no effect but to leave students hopelessly confused ... which is precisely the intent of creationist educators, and teaching with the goal of confusion is *deplorable* in a teacher.

(Sorry, I can't help you with the anti-evolution stance. There are a handful of borderline valid theological arguments, but there a NO valid scientific arguments ... and I have been studying this stuff for a LONG time.)

Answer 3

More complicated than that. It goes more like this. You start with the "knowledge" that god exists, and that he cares about the universe and humans in particular. It is then hard to believe that he wouldn't have been messing around with his creation in order to get what he wanted (us, apparently). So they go looking for the transitions in evolution that are very hard to explain. That isn't hard - we've only been studying evolutionary biology for a bit over a century. They either deduce that evolution was helped along or that it just didn't happen. If you look at the same evidence with the idea that god does not exist or does not interfere in the universe, you are amazed by how well evolution explains everything, and you assume that sooner or later we'll understand how those "odd" transitions came about. There really is no point arguing, since the positions are really separated by the starting assumptions, not the evidence or the logic.

Answer 4

Have you ever taken penicillin? Doctors say you should take the full course, because otherwise you impose selective pressures, and allow the disease to evolve.

Why doesn't chloroquine work to treat malaria anymore? Because the disease evolved resistance.

Where do all those new strains of staph come from in hospitals, that are resistant to what had killed them before? Evolution.

Why is it so hard to treat AIDS patients? Because the disease has such a high mutation rate, and therefore evolution rate, that doctors can't make new medicines fast enough to treat it as it evolves into essentially new populations in the human body.

Why do farmers have to use new pesticides every year? Because the insects that damage their crops evolve resistance due to the selective pressures imposed by the pesticides currently being applied.

Evolution is a fact, and it overwhelmingly affects all of us agriculturally, medicinally, and economically. Human imposed selective agents are driving evolution, and the consequences are turning out to be very expensive.

And then, there's also conservation of Hox patterning, genetic conservation, evidence of selection driving phenotypic change in the Galapagos, the fossil record, phylogenetics, the astounding similarity of vertebrate body plans, and pretty much everything around you with the exception of religious dogma.

Answer 5

It is important to distinguish between evolution and a theory of evolution. You could disprove Darwin's theory, root and branch, but not that evolution happens. It is independent of any theory, just like gravity and combustion are independent of theories of gravity and theories of combustion. The "Talk Origins" site and archive are valuable resources and a lot of the material in them has been written by really informed people.

A good deal of the "evidence" against evolution has been thoroughly debunked by scientists or even by ordinary people. Among those pieces of "evidence" are the Paluxy footprints, bombardier beetle chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics and the human eye. Creationists keep repeating these, often because they don't know any better.

If you see the Piltdown man advanced as evidence against evolution, recall that it was evolutionists who exposed the fraud and publicised the matter within weeks.

The English peppered moth was not put forward as "proof" of evolution, whatever text book authors or schoolteachers may have said. It did illustrate the adaption of a variable species to a particular environmment though.

Just a few hints, you may well be aware of them.

Answer 6

ok...I won't argue AGAINST evolution, but I'll meet you half way.
I believe that God may have created man through evolution. The reasons I believe this is (1) In the Bible it says that God made Adam from dust, but it doesn't say how. It says how long it took for all creation...7 days. It also says in the bible that God doesn't experience time the same way we do, and that to Him a thousand years is as one day and one day is as a thousand years, so...
from dust like particles with the breath of life breathed into them by God(one celled organisms?)to humans in a few thousand years...yeah. Who's gonna tell God that He can't use evolution?
Wanna know something even stranger? I think Eve(made from a rib) was created by some sort of cloning method or something similar. I know...I'm a weirdo with a big imagination. I still think it's possible.
Oh, if you REALLY want arguments against evolution post this question in the Christian category.
I am a Christian so I've been around Christians when this subject comes up. They/ we can't resist. Good luck.

Answer 7

You cannot use the origin of the cell or life in your arguments, as the theory of evolution does not by its nature shed light on these subjects as heredity has not yet come into action to allow for natural selection for these cases. Also, persons such as CoolBreeze who are obviously non-scientists need to stop trying to distinguish between theories and laws. Theories incorporate laws, just as the theory of gravity or electromagnetism or chromosomal theory of inheritance with law of independent segregation. How non-scientists define a theory is completely different from how scientists do, a theory must have a lot of support from experimental data otherwise it is just a hypothesis or even speculation without reason.

Answer 8

You are unlikely to find any middle ground on this one!

Try the following:

http://richarddawkins.net/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Wikipedia is also worth looking at (although tends to be more biased against Intelligent Design as a viable theory).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

My personal preference is natural selection as the mechanism because there is measurable evidence which supports it and it is simpler than either creationism or intelligent design (i.e. it doesn't depend on the existence of an external, supernatural entity). I feel that intelligent design is a rather cynical reworking of Creationism that has been devised to help bypass regulations about teaching religion in schools. You will find that people who are fundamental Christians are more likley to support Creationism/Intelligent design than those who are not fundamental Christians.

Answer 9

Evolution makes for a poor debate topic, that is for the one trying to debate against evolution. That is analogous to debating against gravity. There is NO good arguments against evolution. Good luck with that.

PS Cool breeze; you do not understand law or theory. " Theory of gravity " I will let someone else explain " law " to you.

Answer 10

Check the link below for arguments against evolution. For each line, click the link and it will give detailed info including references. And remember, there is a reason it's called the "Theory of Evolution," rather than the "Law of Evolution." Laws have incontrovertible proof, such as the Law of Gravity or the Laws of Thermodynamics (btw, the second law of thermodynamics is an argument against evolution). Theories are not proven. They are a plausible explanation, but they have not been proven to be fact.

Answer 11

Dr. Spencer Wells-Geneticist, We are all related there is only 1 species of human.Also, we have 99% the same DNA as some primates.