What are they key challenges facing evolution/Darwinism today?

Question

I understand that there are some challenges from critics of Darwinism. Do any of them have merit, and if so, which issues are the most challenging? Please provide documentation wherever possible. Thanks.

Answer 1

The big challenges that these topics face are simple ones. The biggest seems to be that a large group of Westerners (and maybe beyond) are simply unwilling to accept the ideas, no matter how well proven they are, because they see certain truths as challenging the truth of what they believe through their religious faith (say, where we came from and how we came to be on Earth). Whether or not you see the process evolution as a threat to what people should believe is ultimately up to you, but let's face it, the Bible was written by the wise men of 2000 years ago, who were unfortunately not aware of much that science would later uncover. There are also many of religios faith who will claim that life arising chemically from non-life is simply impossible - a view not based on any large-scale tests, but on faith.

Another hindrance is that to take the theory to the lab and actually put it to the test in real time, as most theories can and do, I might need to observe hundreds of generations of an organism, which can be a hell of a long time to wait. Experiments with bacteria and fruit flies have already been done, and the results support evolutionary predictions. Heck - our new breeds of dogs do.


I've yet to see any substantial scientific criticism of Darwinism, except by those who would expand its concepts into something more complete.

Answer 2

The biggest challenge is that people like luvdalz6 will present pseudo-scientific rubbish, and some people are persuaded by it. I don't have time to address all of them, so I'll just do the first five:

1. "Polystrate fossils" - Two words: 'petrified forests'. Go visit one of the many petrified forests in the U.S. and you have your answer. These are petrified trees that have been *partially* exposed due to erosion, tectonic uplifiting etc. They also get reburied. Over and over. So a single large fossil will extend through multiple layers of strata (polystrata) of different ages.

2. "Fossils found "out of place" according to the geologic column." The handful of cases are easily explained by translocation due to erosion and are *dwarfed* by the tens of thousands of fossils, the vast majority, that are found "in place" according to the geologic column. Such sequentially stacked fossil layers are impossible to explain by any "flood" scenario.

3. "Lack of transitional fossils." - Baseless nonsense. Transitional fossils are abundant. Here, pick a branch and enjoy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.

4. "The law of Biogenesis - that life can only come from pre-existing life." This was Pasteur's proof that a sterilized environment isolated in a jar for a many *days* will not produce life. That creationists will infer that this applies organic molecules churning for 1.2 *billion* years is laughable ... and an indication of the level of scientific logic you can expect from people who really don't understand the science at all.

5. "The Second Law of Thermodynamics - which says that everything tends toward decay." A baldfaced mis-statement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is about entropy in a closed environment, and the earth is most certainly NOT a closed environment. A snowflake is a trivial example of an increase in order as long as the system has transferral of energy. Again, either a deliberate, or an ignorant, misunderstanding of the science.
And oh, why does a bicycle not self-assemble the way that life self-evolves? Maybe because a bicycle is missing all the elements needed for evolution ... namely variation, replication with inheritance, and competition? Could it be that the creationists are unaware of this? Or just counting on you not to notice?

.... And that's all I have time for right now ... but you get the picture. A skin-deep understanding and misapplication of scientific terminology and people like luvdalz6 claim they have found scientific "problems" with evolution.

The dishonesty and ignorance of creationists, and their ability to sell it to well-meaning laypeople and children even while scientists find them laughable ... *that's* the biggest challenge.

Answer 3

> key challenges facing evolution/Darwinism today?
Ignorant religious zealots have the ear of stupid politicians.

> which issues are the most challenging?
Other than the stupid political stuff, then:
a) the fossil record is sparse and incomplete
b) it's impossible to tell a direct lineal ancestor in the fossil record from an also-ran extinct cousin.
c) we don't know whether the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" was a real event, or just an artifact we're observing as a result of the paucity of fossils prior to that time.
d) we didn't directly observe abiogenesis, so it'll remain very speculative.

Answer 4

Darwinism as a Theory is pretty well documented, natural selection as a process of evolution within a species is shown in fossil records.

However, those same fossil records do not show evidence of cross species evolution.

The only challenge Darwin is as an explanation for the beginning of life. That has never been a proven part of the theory. There is nothing in science that shows that human life “evolved” from some other form of life. Just as it has not shown that an animal has evolved from a plant or a plant from an animal.

The fact that a Chimpanzee’s DNA is 99% identical to human does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees; 99% is not 100%. And just because it is “close” does not make it true.

Answer 5

The biggest challenge is illustrated by the willful ignorance of religious fanatics who refuse to accept the monumental evidence that supports a rational, natural law based explanation of how life works. This is illustrated by one of your answers and some of those points have been rebutted. These arguments against evolution, which appears to use the language of science and has an air of technical authenticity, are actually ignorant rants that shows how little the writer knows about biology, geology, physics and astronomy.

Creationist can't seem to go beyond fossils. Fossils are the weakest pieces of evidence for Evolution by Natural Selection. If every fossil on the planet were to disappear, it would not make any difference on how scientists view the driving force behind biology. That is because the data from genetics and molecular biology so clearly spell out the origin of species that to deny evolution is to cover ones eyes and to plug ones ears to avoid the only rational explanation for how life works.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. Our bodies are not closed systems which is why organisms are capable of growing and living in apparent contradiction to the 2nd law.

Polonium 214 is not a molecule. It is an isotope. And the type of halos that creationist use to argue for a young earth supposedly comes from polonium 218. This creationist is mixing up the misinformation that they are indoctrinated with. These halos are consistent with Radon 222 decay which is conveniently ignored by these fanatics.

The only form of radioisotopic dating that creationist are familiar with seems to be C14 which is accurate to about ~50,000 year range (give or take a few thousand). There are numerous other isotopes used to date older rocks of different ages that are accurate to millions and billions of years.

Anyone who believes the sun is fueled by gravitational collapse is a few centuries behind in physics. There is no solar neutrino deficit because of neutrino oscillation which is predicted by the Standard Model of physics.

These are the same types of people who burned others at the stake for uttering the heresy that the earth was not the center of creation but that it revolves around the sun or that the stars are suns like our own. There is a lot of ignorance out there and we have to work harder at science education.

As for actual biological problems that Evolution by Natural Selection needs to answer...one would be the origins of altruism. If it is in the best interest of an individual to acquire resources, then why does altruism exist? Does this threaten the validity of Darwin's theory? Absolutely not. There is so much evidence for Evolution by Natural Selection, it would require extraordinary findings to seriously challenge the foundation of modern biology.

Answer 6

If you mean scientific challenges, there are none, despite the ranting of Luvdalz6. The
current challenges to evolution are political,
religious and sociological, not scientific. The
creationists' most recent attempt, intelligent
design has already failed a court test and was
never based in science at all, though it is more
sophisticated than their other arguments. See
the reference below.

Answer 7

The major challenge facing evolution is antisecularism, a movement in which radical members of generally monotheist faiths find all things which do not support their religion (even if not against their religion) to be evil and in need of being destroyed.

For the most part, it comes in two kinds-radical antisecularism, which leads to terrorism (like McVeigh and the 9-11 hijackers) and subtle antisecularism, which leads to radical antisecularism often.

Answer 8

Yes, there are "challenges", but none of them are really valid. The one about the second law of thermodynamics is laughable--if that were really an objection then people couldn't exist, either, since all living organisms are more complex than their environment. What a joke. Anyway, I've added some references with some good information.

Answer 9

The main "challenges" are usually called "Creationism" and/or "Intelligent Design". Both are basically based on religious objections. Most of the objections have been demolished (see accounts of the trial Kitzmiller vs. Dover; the trial judge's comments were very interesting (See
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ and
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol26/6833_the_dover_victory_12_30_1899.asp)
There's more information about misconceptions about evolution (deliberate and otherwise) at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

Answer 10

It is 90% fiction. and I am not going to document that 90%, you can and might end up Christian. hahaha.

Calling something a transitional form is still a big pile. These forms are at most related and usually simply wishful - period. It is thoughtful yet arbitrary, self deceiving and out right lie - period.

That is what it faces.

No doubt there is survival of the fittest in many ways but the fiction must be dropped.