Is there scientific evidence against evolution?

Question

if there is, what is it?

Answer 1

In response to the first response, actually you CAN find some of those things. Scientists just found another example of something that looks like a dinosaur, but it had feathers.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html

How about the fact that whales have legs? Sometimes we see them even protruding from their body

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007F0DF-DD6D-1C67-B882809EC588ED9F

What this poster is trying to do is point out perceived holes in the theory of evolution. (S)he has not posted scientific evidence FOR an alternative.

SO, back to the original question:
There isn't any credible scientific evidence against evolution. If there was, the theory of evolution would be discarded or modified. Once again, the 1st poster is using an old argument about it being just a theory. 'Theory' in science has a much stronger meaning than we might use it for in normal conversation. (google 'scientific method') A scientific theory is supported by considerable evidence, and there can be NO contradicting evidence. IF there is, the theory is WRONG. But this is not the case.

The theory of evolution has been tested by believers and non-believers for quite some time. The theory has been adjusted some because of this, and even today scientists debate minor nuances of it, but overall the theory is rock solid. As it stands today, ALL evidence supports it, NONE contradicts it. (That is the definition of a scientific 'theory'.)

Add: in rsponse to FengHuaXueYue, we HAVE seen evolution. We've made it happen in the lab (fruit flies - its easier with short lifespans), and we've seen it happen in the wild (a new flower species in Washington state - happend in the 50's). And think about the fact that we haven't been looking very long at all when you consider the kinds of times scientists talk about with regards to evolution.

Answer 2

As you may have gathered from the above answers, people usually answer this question by screaming their opinions at the tops of their lungs and often do not even address the question. There are two meanings that people associate with the word, "evolution."

The first is that evolution is the tendency for lines of organisms to change over time due to internal and external factors. Evidence against this phenomenon has not been found, and much supporting evidence has been found. Since we witness the phenomenon happening sometimes, and sometimes we don't, we don't label the times when it does not happen "evidence against evolution." It's probably safe to say that nothing will ever be found which will be labeled as such.

The second meaning is that evolution is the hypothesis that all life on Earth has descended from simple molecules. To find evidence against this would be to find evidence that something now unobservable did not happen many millions of years ago. Whether or not the hypothesis is true, evidence against it is impossible to find. The best we can do is suggest theories from what we can observe, so that is what we have been doing.

Answer 3

Why do people believe that it counts as "evidence against evolution" to simply deny the existence of evidence in favor of it? I.e. to simply insist that it is not there no matter how many scientists believe that it is?

alieninthehills, here you go:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

The reason you can't see the same thing that a trained paleontologist sees when they look at a series of *thousands* of fossil specimens, is that you start with a very simplistic understanding of what you *expect* to see, and then declare the fossil record a failure if it doesn't satisfy that expectation.

First, regarding the fragmentary nature of fossils ... you need to really look at the record. There are a suprising number of almost complete specimens. And for those that are partial specimens, there is usually enough overlapping parts that they can piece together what they're looking at. (E.g. specimen A is a skull + pelvis, and specimen B is skull + forelegs, if the skulls are identical, we can assume they are the same species and have a good piece of evidence of what the pelvis and forelegs look like ... add this to specimens C, D, E, F, and G, and the species starts to take shape.)

Also, it's not just (a) the shape of the bone fragment that tells us what it came from, but also (b) the size of the fragment, (c) microstructures in the fragment that tell us how old the individual was (an adult, a juvenile); (d) the geographic location of the find; (e) stratigraphic location of the find (what period did it live); (f) other organisms found in the same layer (which tells us more about when it lived); (g) radiometric dating of the layer (which again tells us *when* the specimen lived); (h) microorganisms embedded in the fossil or surrounding rock; etc. etc.

In other words, if you are a laymen glancing at a handful of photos of fossils, then yes you will be quite unable to see any evidence of evolution at all. But if you really genuinely care about understanding why the trained paleontologists *overwhelmingly* see a pattern of evolution in the fossils ... then you really owe it to yourself to read more about it before you come to your conclusion.

Answer 4

No, there is no concrete scientific evidence that unequivocally dis-proves Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

To address the first person to respond to your question's point, the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record can be attributed to a number of things:

i) Stratigraphic incompleteness - not every moment in time is represented in the fossil record due to periods of no deposition, erosion, etc.
ii) Organismic incompleteness - many of the attributes of organisms are not suitable for fossilisation - for example ammonite fossils only inform as to the size and volume of the ammonite and not about the soft tissue.
iii) Taxonomic incompleteness - not all organisms are equally suited to fossilisation - for example hard-shelled organisms are much more likely (35-30%) to be fossilised than soft-bodied fauna (eg. nematodes, etc. 1%).

Intermediate forms are found in the fossil record:

Archaeopteryx retains some of the characteristics of reptiles yet has feathers and winds (intermediate between the reptilia and birds)

In the evolution of mammals from reptiles fossils such as procynosuchus (a Permian cynodont) represent intermediates.

There are many other examples.

To return to your original question no, there is no concrete irrefutable evidence against evolution.

Answer 5

There is NO "scientific" evidence against evolution. What creationists do is point out gaps in evidence or other potential problems (have you heard of the "god of the gaps'?). The lack of any evidence against evolution is the major problem with "creationism" and/or "intelligent design"; the proponents themselves admitted in the Dover, Pa court case about teaching evolution that to accommodate their beliefs, the definition of "science" would have to be changed!

Answer 6

> Is there scientific evidence against evolution?
There is no hard evidence against evolution. But - if you are interested in speculative discussions, read
Darwin's Black Box
by Michael Behe

and also search the web for "Cambrian explosion."

The Behe book proposes "intelligent design" of biochemical systems that appear to be "irreducibly complex."
The "Cambrian Explosion" is about the appearance of the sudden (5 million years) appearance of many different types of animals.

Answer 7

First note that evolutionists and creationists have exactly the same evidence.

There is a lot of evidence that refutes evolution.
There is no mechanism to drive evolution - mutations are proposed, but all observed mutations are information neutral or lossy. So where does new genetic information come from?

The fossil evidence is lacking - just a handful of controversial alleged missing links.

The probability of evolution happening is vanishing small - as sir Fred Hoyle put it - like a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a jumbo jet.

There is much evidence that the earth and universe are not billions of years old.

Lots of refutations of evolution here:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3302

Unfortunately the uncomrtable evidence is ignored by evolutionists. But check it out for yourself.

kt above is talking through his hat. Let's talk evidence, not just hurl platitudes.

Answer 8

Darwin, made very clear if his "theory" was correct that the fossil record would be found to prove it. This has not occurred. I have tried many times to find on-line and everywhere a clear direct fossil record showing the stages of evolution, it is not there. Yes you can find bone fragments, of this and that, but you can not find say a fish, a fish with small legs, a fish with longer legs, a fish with small legs and lung chambers, a fish with legs, lung chambers and claws for climbing. it is not there. a deformity here and there proves nothing. we still have people born deformed. The elephant man in the 1800's or the movie Mask. Children are born with 6 finger or toes. That evidence means nothing other than mistakes happens. if any of the responders know of a clear line showing otherwise, please respond. don't just "thumbs down" show me the money as they say, show me a web link that has the real stuff, not just a "example of what may have happened."

Answer 9

a lack of 100% facts to support it. it's too iffy for me. noone's witnessed real evolution. just advancements and adaptations and if that's proof then how are we better off now. you could say that our whole purpose is to evolve into a higher being and that's why it happened but that's just a guess and backed by facts as much as we're here to praise a higher being. which i might add was thought of by almost every culture in it's infancy so maybe there was one at one time. i don't know but i'm not putting all my faith and reasoning into one thing.

Answer 10

No, there isn't.
If there were, believe me it would be big news, and whoever discovered it would eventually win a big science award.