Non-religous objections to Darwinism?

Question

Are there any legitimate scientific objections to accepting Darwinism 100%? I'm not at all interested in faith based arguments.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to give such great answer. Biology was never my strong suit and I very much appreciate your input.

Answer 1

Sure. The fossil record has two qualities. First, it shows a sudden apprearance of most all phylum of organisms around 600 million years ago. Its called the pre-cambrian explosion.
The second feature of the fossil record is the lack of any significant transistional fossils between genus or even familiy organisms. These are two undeniable facts of the fossil record. Now try to merge these facts into a gradual evolution framework and it does not work. In fact, that lack of fossil record "evidence" has forced the new popular theory that organisms make massive "leaps" in genetic code to create ofther species(Goldschmitt, Gould,etc...).
That is a non-religious objection to darwinism. Deal.

Answer 2

Only one real objection: I believe that it would be possible to disprove Darwin's original take on mutation. I think it's entirely more probable that ALL variations regardless of relative application to the environment of today, were very deliberate, completely with designated purpose, driven by the memories of the mitochondria, with trial and error, but are ALL ADAPTATIONS in response to A NEED in the status quo at the time of said organism's development AND based upon the cyclic history of that organism's RNA. (Meaning that some characteristics of adaptation around us that seem either utterly useless or destructive, may be a necessary profolactic measure in the CONTINUED exist of any such lifeform.)

Answer 3

OK, to the best of my knowledge, the scientific fact of evolution is unmovable. Evolution of species did occur. It is the "mechanism", the exact method that is still incompletely understood. Much in the same way that the exact mechanism underlying the fact or gravity is not fully understood. While biological mutations is certainly one important factor in the process of evolving, it alone does not provide a complete picture. Something is still missing. Here is a thought: evolution cannot be completely understood based just on biology alone. In order to fully understand the precise nature of evolution, quantum physics is required. I believe that one has to consider not only biological evolution but symmetry, and the breaking of symmetry at the atomic and molecular level, as well. Symmetry means uniformity in structure no matter what angle you happen to view it. When symmetry is broken different structural forms and irregularities can result. It seems only logical to me that mutations and the breaking of symmetry would complement each other as the minute mechanism that drives both micro- and macroevolution. Give some thought to the concept of symmetry breaking as a component of the evolutionary process.

Answer 4

there r many objections 2 darwinism. some of them listed below
1. Darwin explained survival of the fittest due to struggle for existence and variation but did not explained arrival and causes of variation
2. only complete variations are useful or harmful in struggle for existence bot not those which are incomplete or just born.
3. as per darwinism nature always selects useful features (variations). on this basis existence of vestigial organs in organisms cannot be explained.
4. as per darwinism variation is only and exclusive cause of evolution. but now it is established that it is one of the causes of evolution
5. natural selection is very slow process of evolution. the time required to evolve present day complex form would be much more than the age of earth itself.
6. darwin considered that all the variations are heritable which is not true.

Answer 5

Darwin did not know about Mendel and the ideas of inheritance, so there is that part lacking in his ideas.

Also Darwin beleived in gradualism as opposed to punctuated equilibria which is thought to happen MUCH much more often than gradualism.

We obviously understand more about natural selection than Darwin did as we have had time to study and experiment, and we are able to pick holes in his ideas as we have learnt more....I guess tho his main ideas about Natrual slelction...or at least the essence is fine and stands well today.

Answer 6

a extensive ingredient of the black civil rights got here below Lyndon Johnson and the Republicans at that factor vehemently adversarial those civil rights. Heck, up till the previous due 1980's or later, maximum Republicans adversarial the marriage of a white and black guy or woman. those are 2 that are in basic terms on the top of the iceberg. while a occasion became traditionally against your rights, it takes an prolonged time before people start up balloting for that occasion. by way of fact in the adventure that your loved ones votes Democratic, you will maximum probable have comparable perspectives on your loved ones and could additionally vote Democrat. a similar normally is going for Republican families. yet you ought to have a small share which will change events. you in addition to could could desire to look at it from the viewpoint that Republican law in many situations favors the wealthy. And the proportion of black families below the poverty line is a lot greater than for white families.

Answer 7

Many of the arguments are written by scientists and sound very convincing to someone who doesn't know that what they are talking about. I have heard hundreds of arguments against evolution. They always have used the same sort of twisted logic and false premises that are common with conspiracy theories The anti-evolution theories are just as lacking in logic as the wackiest conspiracy theories but have slicker marketing by intensionally deceptive scientists. I am sure that some are sincere in their belief but most are just selling crap to satisfy a market.

Answer 8

Good try, but you'll get some christians trotting out the usual nonsense - gaps in the fossil record, irreducible complexity.
Note, though, that evolution is one thing, and Darwin's explanation of evolution is another.

Answer 9

timminfrisbie. Consider another career, as you do not know biology. The lab has seen speciation, with both Drosphilia and micro-organisms. Go here for your master's.

Questioner. No. All the objection to evolution by natural selection have " shot their bolt " and been found wanting. You go here, too.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 10

I can't think of any that stood the test of time (like Lamarck). Darwin's theory of natural selection has reached paradigm proportions.

Edit: Evolution HAS been observed. Its called the fossil record.