What are the arguments against the theory of evolution?

Question

Are they all philosophical/spiritual reasons?
Are there scientific ones as well?

[e-mail]

Answer 1

Here are many of the arguments:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

"mxcardinal" obviously does not understand the [second] law of thermodynamics.

Answer 2

I have a few that are mostly scientific (some are beyond evolution, going into origin of life)
1 - It has never been observed. One species has not produced an entirely new species in a recordable, and confirmable fashion (ie no biological observations of offspring)
2 - The theory implies that a species must recognize a needed change in order for a single one to change. Becuase the just randomly change to meet a climatic change isn't a sufficient explanation
3 - Although individual steps of the theory can be accomplished in the lab, there is no evidence that steps can happen interelate and function given the required system for the previous step. Also, any experiment that has been produced in the lab has required very controlled systems (ie Miller Urey looses product when the system is not still, according to their own conclusions)
4 - Current science books are the result of the telephone game. One person researches, another interprets, another interprets, etc. What you get is incorrect conclusions based on others' conclusions
5 - When there is a genetic change in an animal, and we observe it, we generally find that the change has a negative survival effect, which counters the evolutionary process.
6 - Many of the origin of life steps cannot be reproduced in a laboratory experiment (ie, making a cell out of parts)
7 - If it is so true, why is it still called a theory?
8 - Many of the steps require "I don't know how, but more research will answer that" answers to fill the gaps.
9 - The genetic system is set up in a way that changes are destroyed, or fail. I am talking on the molecular level of DNA. Mutations can create new proteins, but that requires specific mutations that don't result in non-sense (that is the scientific word) mutations. Other mutations result in cancerous cells. It is a very complex and fragile process.

Answer 3

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

According to evolutionists, after the first fishes had evolved, they dominated the seas and gradually grew legs—another transition that is missing from the fossils. Complex lung structures had to develop, and new reproductive methods had to be in place for the arrival of reptiles. Some unknown ancient reptile gave rise to what we know today as reptiles, birds, and mammals. The countless number of changes in genetic information that would be necessary to make even the smallest of these changes is impossible based on what we know about genetics today. Despite terms like “evolutionary milestone” and “key adaptations” used in the textbook stories of evolutionary history, there is no evidence that these changes actually happened. As we look at the fossil record, fish have always been fish, and mammals have always been mammals. There is certainly a great amount of diversity within all vertebrate groups, but this diversity was preprogrammed into the created kinds by God.

Answer 4

There are many. For instance, there is the issue of irreducible complexity. In our cells, for example, there are structures that must all be in place together at the same time to function. This is not explained by evolution that suggests that when "something" is needed it either appears by chance or is sustained where others fail. This does not explain essential life structures that must all come together at the same time.

The Flood significantly altered our atmosphere and planet. Before the Flood, an ice layer created a greenhouse like effect, allowing lush rainforests as far north as the poles. In fact, a fissilized rain forest was just discovered in an Illinois mine. The oxygen content prior to the Flood was much higher than today. The ice from above and water from below consistuted the Flood. Flood sediment has been found in places all over the planet, to include the arid deserts of the Middle East. The life and rainforests that became buried is one of the only ways to account for the vast amounts of oil we have today.

The carbon in the atmosphere was also altered. This skews extrapolated results of carbon-dating today.

Then there is the Cambrian Explosion, i.e. almost all the kinds of life that exists today occurred in a relatively the same time. This flies in the face of evolutionary timeframes of chance. Further, no one has ever witnessed one kind begetting another kind.

There are many, many more arguments that refute evolution. I suggest you get a more authoritative set of answers by googling "Creation Science."

That said, I do believe in adaptation, or micro-evolution, within a kind. Clearly, we have documented accounts of animals adapting and changing over time. These changes are small, and do not cause a creature to change its kind.

Answer 5

The ones you will hear most often are "Irreducible Complexity," which says things like eyes are too complex to have evolved step by step, and the absence of "missing links," or "transitional species" which implies that the fossil history has too many gaps for evolution to work as theorized.

Both have been shot down 100 different ways, but their adherents ignore that.

There are Transitional Species all over the world, alive, TODAY. If you were to simply look at the different species of birds that ring the Arctic, for example, you will see that adjacent populations are close enough genetically to breed with each other, but the ends of the ring are so genetically differentiated that they cannot breed with each other, showing new species development right in front of your eyes, without the need for fossils. Google "Ring Species"

Irreducible compexity is also ridiculously easy to debunk... just google it. The eye is the most commonly used exampe against evolution, but sources as easily available as wikipedia show step by step why the argument is nonsense (yet creationists still deseprately throw it out there).

And speed of evolution has nothing to do with superiority; microorganisms, like drug-resistant diseases, evolve faster than anything else does.

To the unanmed person above BlueSky, evolution doesn;t say and never said that a monkey had a human baby. But the gradual changes over time, as observed over and over again, eventually yields something very different . A tiger and a Lion can have a cub, and it won't be tiger or lion.

Answer 6

If there was a credible scientific reason why the theory of evolution was wrong then all the biologists would be rushing around trying to create a new theory for why life is as it is. And whomever found this reason would be incredibly famous.

Evolution is a fact, it is happening all around us and is well documented. The theory of evolution is the best explanation of those observed facts.

The only reasons against the theory of evolution are religious ones, based on desired belief, not on reality.

Answer 7

If there were any valid scientific arguments against evolution, then evolution would not be a Theory as it is today. 99% of scientists accept evolutionary theory as it is currently, although new discoveries are often made. These new discoveries, however, do NOT prove evolutionary theory to be wrong.

Creationism, on the other hand, can only "prove" itself by attempting to demolish evolution, using pseudoscience and misinformation and scripture. You will note that NO Creationist can provide actual real scientific evidence of the HYPOTHESIS, which is why it has failed to meet the scientific establishment's criteria for acceptance.

Take mxcarddinal for example. He attempts to sound intelligent invoking the Second Law of Thermodynamics as PROOF that life on earth could not have evolved. Unfortunately, the Second Law applies only to closed systems - and the earth is not a closed system, as it received sunlight, magnetic and gamma rays from outer space. Back to the drawing board with your alleged "proof", cardinal...

Answer 8

I believe in microevolution. I even believe that animals come from some common ancestor (all cats, perhaps, come from one type of cat). But as for macroevolution and common ancestry for all living organisms? That sure takes a lot of faith, especially regarding the evidence against:

1) Failure of the Miller experiment
2) The immense gap between turning a nonliving thing into a living organism
3) The Cambrian explosion
4) Differences in the earliest stages of animal development
5) Failure of common developmental pathways theory
6) Weak fossil record to demonstrate missing link

That's the beginning...

Answer 9

Evolution is real. People evolve and even mutate within each of their own respective species. However, there is no such thing as evolution from one species into another. For example, Ape did not evolve into man. Apes have evolved physically and mentally from differences in changes of weather and environment. The house cat evolves by shedding its fur in the summer to adapt to the warm weather. The fur gets thicker in winter. This is a form of evolution. Evolution is a physiological change to adapt to different environments. Another example, people in cold climates have evolved into having hooded eyes to protect them from snow and a short stocky body to help keep them warm, such as Asians, Russians, Eskimoes,etc. Humans who live in high elevations such as mountainous regions have developed bigger lungs to accomodate big deep breaths to keep their breathing steady in their mountainous environments. People who live below sea level such as Gulf Coast, East or West Coast, have adapted to a low elevation environment. Lungs in these humans are much smaller because deep breaths are not required. These people who live near water may also develop a very slight webbing between their fingers and toes. Ape did not evolve into man because apes have an Rh factor. I'm Rh- (negative) which is biological proof that I don't have apes blood. I am living proof that I did not evolve from apes. Rh- is either a lack of the Rh gene or the Rh gene is present in DNA but does not function. This is caused by a genetic mutation. Since I am Rh-, I am a mutant. My mother is a mutant too. Personally, I'm proud to be a mutant. I would much rather prefer being a mutant then an evolved ape. My family and I are proud of our mutant heritage.

Answer 10

Well I just tried to search the web for "uniforinatarism" and couldn't find it anywhere. So what's the definition?
Apparently, all of the arguments against the theory of evolution are philosophical and spiritual.

Answer 11

Supposedly Grandpa Darwin admitted he "made it all up" while on his deathbed.

My main point it that a corn seeds always brings forth corn. And ape seed always makes more apes. And human seed makes only humans.

Somewhere along the way somebody thought it important to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. They will research and research to the microscopic degree to prove there is no God, but turn right around and believe the most loopholed theory in a snap.

Gulp! Maybe I should give an evolutionist some ketchup to go with the camel on his plate.