WHy is evolution based on so many asumptions?

Question

I've been looking up proof of evolution, but haven't found much of anything but assumptions?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html

Read this and tell me what you think, I know it's a Christian site but they are stating facts, and facts are facts no matter where they come from, right?

Labgrrr just because it's in a textbook doesn't mean it is true. Surely you know that? And if you are so keen to the facts, why did you choose to attack me rather than state the facts that are supposedly so proven?

speaking of assumptions, mgerben, it's funny how you assumed this post had anything to do with the Bible.

convitcedidiots, how much of evolution could have happened in one million years? If people have the time way off, then it can cause big problems to a whole lot of the evolutionary theories. Im not saying the earth is a million years old, Im speaking hypothetically. You say that's only a part of it, but being wrong on that can make the whole idea fall to pieces couldn't it?

Answer 1

Because "natural man"has to come up with something,anything to avoid the idea of a Creator.
If no one had ever theorized evolution,they would have invented something else(just look at the pantheon of false religions in the world).
For myself,I believe evolution could have been the Lord's mechanism for creation. I could be wrong about that,but I know God is responsible for creation.

Answer 2

Hi. I'm going to answer this in two parts, first off by pointing out the flaws in the article.
First, there is no scientific evidence placing the age of the earth at 6000-1000 years. The entire concept of a 6000-10000 year old earth is based on calculations taken from the bible, specifically Genesis. And even that calculation has evolved. The original calculation from the bible, done by a priest in the middle ages, put the birth of the earth to be Sunday, 2873 B.C.

Second, the entire process of radiometric dating is highly over-simplified and the authour has "over-looked" many aspects which would refute his arguments. For an excellent amalgamation of resources, look here.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

The second part is to point out the hypocrisy of the "assumption" line of thought. New-earth/creationists are constantly shouting that evolution is based on assumptions and therefore invalid, but what about their own side? Their arguments are based on one very, very big assumption: that the bible is correct. The bible was written and re-written over thousands of years from allegorical tales passed on by word of mouth. Have you ever played the game "Telephone"? By the end of the circle the story is never what it started. Now take into account the people who were writing it. There is no such thing as an unbiased writer as everyone puts into the writing, conciously or unconciously, their own viewpoint and leanings. So even if you believe that the bible came from god originally, to beleive that the current form of the bible is "true" is somewhat naive. For proof of that look at the number of versions of the bible found today, or all of the religious schisms formed by "absolute truths" stated in the bible.

A final note to sum it all up is that, while facts are facts and are indisputable, but facts in themselves are useless. Facts must be used to make an argument, and it is the argument in which the facts are found which is good or bad and which shows you the writer's bias.

For a better forum for this discussion check out http://www.talkorigins.org/.

Remember, just keep asking questions, it's the only way we'll solve anything.

Answer 3

evolution is a process where by genetic variation is selected by a particular environment....... there are no assumptions

take antibiotic resistance in bacteria....
billions of different bacterial cells dividing and altering the their genetic make up at every division... this leads to a masive number of slightly different (almost insistinguishable) cells

when a selective pressure is added... i.e. an environmental change (in this case an antibiotic) its this variation in population that protects the species.. say 99% are whiped out its only take one cell to have the necessary requirements to keep the species alive in that location and if not and that species become extinct another will fill the space on the food chain
this is evolution.... its not an assumption its science fact and plain common sense... tiny changes may manifest into greater changes over time to form new species

people have trouble with this idea when it pertains to humans as they cant comprehend the time needed. the average human rerpoduces every 20 years or so and lives for decades more (6 billion in the world today) compared to bacteria which reproduce in minutes and countless bacteria exist today. people have had their own selective pressures over the centuries however it far easier to see in microorganisms

dont be drawn in to religious nonsense poking holes in the evidence. the whole point of science is you start off not knowing the answer not already knowing the answer and trying to find evidence to prove it. science is neutral... it only comes up with the most likey process from the evidence not what the bible tells it to believe

if someone were to genuinely disprove evolution s/he would be guaranteed to win the nobel prize instead christain scientists dont present their work for peer review as it fails to meet the rigorous requirements needed to publish and opt to flood the internet in the hope of distorting the real evidence

i hope this helps

Answer 4

If you don't make assumptions, you can't come up with any answers. However, the assumptions that scientists make are usually well-grounded in reality. Sometimes they aren't, but usually when an assumption is made, there is strong evidence to support it.

Determining the age of the earth, for example, is more reliable than one might think. The radioactive elements that we have all came from before the formation of our sun. As such, it is possible to guess pretty reliably at the amount of radioactive elements present in the interstellar dust and gas before our star - and our planet - were formed. We are able to glean things from other stars by observing millions of other stars going through the same processes as the stars before ours and our own star. Nevertheless, it is an assumption that the basic laws of the universe haven't been changing, but there is no reason to believe that they haven't.

The thing about facts is that they can be twisted to serve a lot of purposes. Many things on the site may be true, but they are stated in such a way that they seem to say something that they don't. Quotes, without proper explanation or context, can seem to say things that they weren't supposed to say.

Radiometric dating of rocks is less reliable than other methods, but the level of Carbon-14 in the environment versus Carbon-12 stays pretty constant, and the constant intake of carbon from the environment ensures that organisms have about the same amount of Carbon-14 while they are alive. Radiometric dating works on once-living organisms much better than it does rocks, because organisms usually have a well-known level of Carbon-14 while they are alive.

Answer 5

Your website does state some things that are correct. Radioactive dating can only estimate an age, it cannot prove with accuracy what age the fossil might be. However, evolution has evidence besides radioactive dating.

Take the genetic code for example. the difference in genetic code between humans and primates is very, very, small. This shows that we have a common ancestor.

Another example could be homologous structures between species. Have you ever seen the bone structure of a bat's wing, a whale's fin, and a human arm? They all look similar and are made of the same parts, but over time evolved to become a fin, wing and arm. These homologous structures show a common ancestor.

Evolution can only edit what already exists, so when you look at homologous structures, you can see that they have been merely edited, and since they were useful in thier environment, continued to be passed on from generation to generation.

Just because it is a christian site, does not make the contents true or false. i'm not saying that you shouldn't look at christian sites either. i'm saying that you should look at the bias behind anything you read. This article was trying to prove thet radioactive dating was inaccurate, hence it was biased to show whatever it could to disprove it. Whenever doing research for anything, you ought to go to more than one source, sponsored by more than one thing.

Evolution is only a theory, but a thery in scientific terms and everyday terms have different meaning. In everyday terms a theory is just guess, not supported by anything. In scientific terms, theories are tested, over and over again, and are based on observations. In order for them to ever be widely accepted, they have to have mountains of evidence. Evolution is accepted because of all the evidence surrounding it.

Answer 6

If 'facts are the facts no matter where they come from', why do you need a lawyer when you go to trial?
Can't you trust the other party to represent the facts clearly?

But you are right. Biologists have to assume things because they weren't there at the time, and all they have is a lot of bones.
And genetics.
And actual research.
The message here is: Think! Ask!

Your alternative (i.e. the bible is True) is based on only one assumption: That the bible is true, word for word.

The message is: Stop thinking! Believe! Believe in god and stop asking all these difficult questions!

Check the other website - the one that is not about religion, but about biology: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Answer 7

Actually, there are scientific facts that show evolution. Many people argue evolution with pseudo-science. But scientifically speaking, evolution is fact. The theory of evolution is that humans evolved form early primates.

If you do some more research, you would see that it is not based on assumptions. Also, the arguments against evolution can scientifically be shown to be false arguments:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Here is an observed instance of a new species through evolution:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

Answer 8

that page didnt seem to refer much to evolution at all. it was mostly saying that some dating methods can be unreliable. it was presented as evidence that the earth is only a few thousand years old but no such evidence was presented. that page is not a scientific work.

the process of evolution is commonly observed and is not scientifically in dispute.just look at a copy of your parents or grandparents school pictures. you will notice how unattractive folks were in the past compared to children today. in modern times beauty makes one more fit to reproduce so such traits have become common. in the past things like a tendency to gain weight may have been favored. this is alll that evolution is, the fact favored traits become more common.
all new breads of dogs and most domesticated animals are the result of the same selective process.
although it is logical to assume that a new species can result from this process, this has never been observed and can be considered in dispute or at least unproven. there is however, no other explanation in science.

Answer 9

Evolution is based on 3 assumptions only:

1. Variation: Not all members of a species are identical.

2. Inheritance: Organisms pass on traits to their offspring.

3. Competition: Individuals within a species compete for survival and mating.

That's all. No other assumptions.

Do you disagree with any of them?

These three assumptions are all that are used to explain how evolution occurs in nature.

The assumptions that are referred to in the article are about the age of the earth. That is not just an "assumption" by evolution, it is a *conclusion* produced by so many branches of science that it is amazing that anybody challenges it. This is not just biology, but geology, astrophysics, astronomy, physics, radiometry, chemistry, climatology, paleontology, etc.

To try and claim that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is about as plausible as the claim that it is less than 10,000 meters in diameter (10 km).

Answer 10

The religious link you quote is arguing error bars. Think about it, when someone tears down the work of others, isn't it most often because they cannot provide evidence to support their point of view? Which side then is making more assumptions? "I assume all science is wrong because they make assumptions!" Prove your assumption then.

Almost nothing in science is unaffected by something else (temperature pressure etc) so assumptions have to be made to limit how many things change at once in order to relate one effect to one cause. All new science is based on assumptions because all new science is based on original thought. I theory is put forward and an experiment is designed to observe the effect to prove or disprove the theory.

Strangely, when any new theory is put forward related to religion it is considered herecy. Evolution disproves religious beliefs therefore it must be wrong. Once again, "Which case then makes more assumptions?"

Answer 11

can we get this straight, you think statements are true if they are on a christian website but probably wrong if they are in a textbook? As you also state that facts are facts no matter where they come from you, it shouldn't matter if they come from a textbook. You do need some exercises in logic....
No facts are not facts no matter where they come from. Or do you believe everything an advertisement tells you? Snake-oil salesmen ought to love you...
I am not current with problems of radioactive dating, but there is enough data on evolution which does not depend on radioactive dating. So what's wrong with those?
Below a link with observed examples of speciations. I don't think there are many assumptions involved...