Do people really believe there is any scientific evidence AGAINST evoution?

Question

I read that time and time again on this forum.

There is NO scientific evidence that is contrary to evolution having occured.

NONE

I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Answer 1

Only the illiterate believe that.....

Proof positive...the dude above me....BRAVO!!!!

Answer 2

i once heard an idea that suggests in evolution there are some peculiarities. For example an advanced circulatory system and a three chambered heart in lizards. It would need a 'blood vessel' (or something) for the third chamber. But it's unreasonable to think that two necessary and dependent features would form from the same minute mutation. Did it walk around with a chamber but no third ventricle making the mutation useless or did it have a vessel but no chamber?

Without the need chamber or vessel the the adaptation would be useless until further developement in 100,000 years. So why would natural selection even favor something with a useless mutation.

It is also always possible that we're just missing something glaringly obvious, a small minor thing perhaps purely scientific that explains things much better. The theory of evolution has already evolved itself the more we find.

Answer 3

The scientific method works like this:
1) a scientist comes up with a hypothesis to explain something in the natural world.
2) his hypothesis is tested through observation and experimentation. If the hypothesis passes the tests, it then becomes a theory. (if it doesn't pass the tests, go back to step 1)
3) If the test can be duplicated time and time again with the same results, the theory then becomes a scientific law.

If we apply this test to evolution, given our current capabilities and understanding of the universe, evolution can never become more than a viable theory because it is beyond our means to dublicate. The same is true of creationism.

I also believe that you're asking the wrong question: "is there any scientific evidence against _____". The goal of science isn't to prove ideas wrong, but rather to prove to the best of our ability that an idea is correct. I would argue that approaching a scientific question with the goal of disproving an opposing viewpoint presents an inherent bias that is inappropriate in any scientific field. Any good scientist knows that his idea is either true or false, and he will be able to accept whichever result his observations and experiments provide.

Staunch creationists and staunch evolutionists are more alike than disalike in my humble opinion. They both have their established orthodoxy that they blindly place their faith in, neither one willing to even entertain the other's argument, and they both come across more like the flat-earth theologians of the 12th century than reputable scientists.

To the creationists: The book of Genesis is basically ancient Hebrew POETRY. How does a poem's failure to mention a scientific process like evolution, because it's totally irrelevant to the point of the writing, in any disprove that the process took place?

To the evolutionist: Please show me the lineage of JUST ONE species, along with skeletal remains and other archaeological evidence, that demonstrates each individual adaptation that occurred as one species gradually evolved into another.

Answer 4

You sound surprised that there is scientific evidence against macroevolution. Just goes to show how limited your education is.

I have studied evidence for and against macroevolution. Two of my major problems with macroevolution are :

1. That living things come from non-living things. Isn't this against the scientific facts?

2. Where are the MILLIONS of transitional forms that are still missing? The Geologic Column shows fully-formed species suddenly appearing.

And yes, there is the problem resulting from the concept of Irreducible Complexity.

I am actually surprised that so many people still accept macroevolution.

Edit : Since AfricanAfrican brought up the term, "punctuated equilibrium" is also called 'hopeful monsters' in the scientific realm. This means that many EVOLUTIONISTS cannot accept evolution as proposed by Darwin so they came up with some other mechanism. No need to comment on the term 'hopeful monsters'.

Answer 5

The problem comes when religious leaders insist that their followers believe the mythology of the "Bible" as fact. Upon reading the evidence of evolution and now understanding the facts and mechanism of DNA it is very hard to dispute the "theory" of evolution. On the other hand, the "Bible" is so full of myth, fasntasy, magic and contradiction that it is almost impossible to take literally.

Answer 6

How many more species do you think will be found? Why is the search for them so difficult? Not one found to date is suitable to serve as a link. An alternate solution exists. Both lack solid scientific evidence as absolute proof. Couldn't this also be by design?
Science does not explain the use of most of the human brain. That is a thing that is ever present for testing purposes, yet science has so far proven impotent in the attempt to understand. Could the evidence needed to understand be outside the scope of science? Is it possible that denial of spiritual evidence would preclude a full scientific understanding? Why has that seemingly unused part of anatomy not de-evolved over time? Too many questions.
Why is it that as science increases, so does faith?

Answer 7

Most of the responses here are outright depressing. The education in this country is in such a sorry state that some schmoes here even bring up arguments against evolution that CREATIONISTS TELL PEOPLE NOT TO USE. Don't believe me? Go here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Why are there still monkeys?
Why don't we have gills?

Better question - Why are so many people ridiculously uneducated!? Most of the responses here just display a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution..

Evolution is the foundation of biology. There are literally mountains and mountains of evidence supporting it. Go to talkorigins.org and educate yourself.

Answer 8

For the sake of discussion, I remind you that until the fall of the Soviet Union, Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired traits was the official policy of Soviet biology. I don't personally agree, but Lamarck's theory (which predated Darwin's) was used to explain genetic diversity for a century and a half. If Lamarck was correct, then Darwin would've been wrong. Western science has universally accepted Natural Selection as the best available "explanation." (I would've used the word "theory" but I don't want to encourage those who shamelessly twist language to distort the truth.)

Answer 9

As a Christian I believe that evolution is definitely a scientific process. Simple experiments can prove that evolution exists. However, when applied to the Bible, and namely Genesis, I believe that we are talking about the restoration of the earth, rather than the creation of the earth. When God says he created animals "after their kind," to me that implies that prehistoric animals existed before that, and God used their blueprint or DNA structure to create similar modern animals. I believe the same thing happen to man, accept he was also made in the image of God, that is given a spiritual nature as well as a physical one. I take it that the only opposition to evolution is genetic engineering.

Answer 10

"Creationist science" is a huge contradiction in terms. Not once do they propose any scientific experiments to prove their assertions, not once to they point to any real-world evidence that supports their claims. In the end, the only thing the Creationist "scientists" have is their Bible and deliberate distortions of what the ToE actually is.

As for the folks who insist that there is no evidence of evolution, the only way you can possibly claim that is if you aggressively close your eyes:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/HTML/live.html
http://talkorigins.org/

Answer 11

On the other hand, there is no concrete evidence to support the idea that one species can evolve into another species by random mutation, that is pure speculation. Material evolutionists (as opposed to theistic evolutionists) usually accompany their evolutionary theory with the theory of abiogenisis, the idea that life began spontaneously due to random molecuar interactions. If you are interested you can find a very convincing argument against abiogenesis at the site below. If abiogenesis is impossible you must admit that life was created.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html