Can you give me a good, scientifically based argument for why evolution should be questioned more?

Question

I am looking for a good, scientific reason. I'm not saying try to give evidence of another hypothesis, just a good reason for why evolution might be a weak theory. Now comes the hard part. If your answer shows ignorance toward science, I will call you on it. I want people who are knowledgeable on the science, not people who parrot arguments when they themselves are ignorant.

I post this in R & S because there seems to be the highest population of people who don't accept evolution here.

vava82000: You answer must be a joke.

Rev. Albert Einstein: You brought up one question that is partially answered by science. But you also have lots and lots of ignorance. Your failure to understand the very basics of science forces me to disregard everything you said.

Matt M: evolution doesn't claim we came from monkeys. And there is no one missing link between us and our common ancestors to monkeys. There are several, and they have been discovered.

Christanti: our transitional ancestors are found, and evolution is in no way a myth, by any defenition.

pstod: This question is answered. All parts to an eye didn't evolve at the same time. But thank you for at least using logic in your answer and showing at least a little knowledge of evolution. You just haven't run across the answer yet, but it is there.

starjumper: A theory can never become a law by defenition. And a theory needs to be supported by evidence, as well as not proven false. Thus God is not a theory, but a hypothesis.

josephwiess: We actually do have clear evidence from fossils, genetics, and other forms that show we do share a common ancestor to apes.

L.C.: The only answer thus far that I don't have a response to is that evolution takes to long for the time allowed. I haven't heard about this and would like a link. But it is hard to believe you becuase you also put forth a lot of ignorance in your answer.

Answer 1

Evolution relies on some form of life genesis to take place. Since this is impossible, evolution should be disposed of as a theory of life on our planet (accept for those who believe in both a creator, and evolution).

Evolution is also based on circular knowledge and understanding of our world. It does explain life process from the standpoint of what evidence we have to observe, but it is so very incomplete that to say that this is a fact is simply foolish. There is also evidence that evolution is too slow and that life is too complex for life to exist as it does today. I could go on but if you disagree you have already given me a thumbs down.

Please note that I am not arguing against micro evolution, just macro.

Answer 2

Egad...you don't know the first thing about evolution, physics, biology, or chemistry do you? There isn't a group of people called "evolutionists" the way you have creationists. It's nothing more special than the multiplication table. Evolution only covers the period AFTER life began on earth. It traces the development of life forms, not their formation. That would fall under abiogenesis, another topic entirely. Let's take it from the top...evolution and abiogenesis don't cover the formation of the universe. No, chemicals were not around forever. The evidence you listed above has been known for about 20-30 years, since the time of Edwin Hubble. What we have found recently is that the structure of reality might not even be consistent. Don't jump so quickly to "supernatural." "If we can't explain it, it must be supernatural!" Well can you explain how a computer screen works? If not, it must be supernatural! There IS such a thing as not knowing...yet. And sometimes you have to be fine with that. Yes there are plenty of failed dials. Mars, Venus, Mercury, and every planet besides earth. Enough debunking. Time for some answers. Big bang started off the universe with extreme expansion. Initial energy density meant atoms couldn't even condense. Think of steam. After a few billion, stars began to form. We know this because light travels slowly enough for some of these events to just reach us now. After few more billion, planet earth formed. Water everywhere, mud, land, etc. Ahh too much to write and too tired. Google it.

Answer 3

Yes. Because no scientific theory is ever "proven". It's merely waiting for someone to come along and challenge it and the whole basis of science relies and thrives upon this concept! However, and here's the really important bit, any such challenge must be based on scientifically verifiable facts. Evolution stands on a massive tried and tested confirmed data base such that no other hypothesis can remotely claim the depth and volume of evidence.
The whole creationist thing is a myth based on a few ancient scribblings and cannot claim to have passed the remotest scientific scrutiny!

Answer 4

No--because there is no such scientific reason. And the reason for that lies in one of the points of your question.

A "scientific theory" is never "weak." That statement contains an assumption that is simply wrong--namely, that the word "theory" is used in the same sloppy way by scientists as it is in common speech. It is not. In science the term "theory" has an exact meaning: a theory s a set of statments that explain the observed data; further, each point of the theory--each statement--has been throroughly tested and shown to be correct.

Thus, the "theory of evolution" doses not refer to someones opinion, and is neither "weak" or " strong"--it is simply established fact.

That doesn't mean evolution--or any other scientific theory--is complete in the sense that we "know al there is to know." We will learn more in the future--and our understand of evolution will grow and change over time. But the facts--and thus the validity of evolution--will not change.

Answer 5

In the scientific world only Laws are definite. Evolution might be thought of as an sound theory, but in order for it to become law, it must be put to the test. A hypothesis that is cannot be disproved turns into a theory right? But someone can say the same about God.
Overall, Evolution still has a long way to go before it even stands a chance of becoming Law, simply due to the fact that concrete substantial evidence is lacking, and the fact that most human beings would rather believe in something tanglible and of this earth than rather an ambigious creator that is mentioned in the bible. These are the only two options humans have.

Answer 6

Evolution should always be questioned more. However, these questions only end up reinforcing the theory. The fact is so many experiments have been done that line up so beautifully and accurately with evolution means that it must describe some "truth" that is in fact going on.

However, if we can ask more questions I am sure that we will see more and more accurate descriptions of how life originally formed and prospered on this planet.

Science IS questioning.

Answer 7

Any good scientific theory has to be based on what can be observed, whether directly through the senses, or indirectly through instrumentation.

While microevolution can be, and has been observed, the theories that drive macroevolution have never been observed as they have happened, or supposedly happened. Frankly, there was nobody recording what happened at the time the universe was created, so any evolutionary theory would have to be driven by the mindset and the biases of the proponents of those theories.

Answer 8

*hint* The people who question evolution don't usually have very good scientific backgrounds. It's a matter of BELIEF to them, not rationality.

The only answer I've ever really seen is, "What about all the missing links?" or "Why aren't the fossils showing gradual change over geological strata consistently?" or "MONKIES!"

So in other words, your breath is wasted. Several of them don't even know the difference between a laymans' theory and a scientific theory.

Answer 9

A) it's not 100% proven true yet, and that's what science is about

B) Scientists need federal grants to live off of while they are doing "research" even if that research is completely useless or never bears fruition, so it's a good excuse to let people make millions playing a mind game with themselves that they will never win--nice easy life, eh?

Answer 10

If you are talking about evolution within the species, such as a black moth turning grey, or evolution of mankind from earliest homo-habiblis to Homo-sapien, then we don't have a problem.

As A christian and a scientist, I know that life evolves daily. Every day that we survive, is something that we can tell our children about and thus insure their survival.

However, if you are talking about cross-species evolution, such as monkey to man, that is where I will argue with you.
It has never been proven that we started out as apes, or even as monkeys. We have monkey bones, ape bones, and man bones, but no missing link between the three. Or to say, we don't have that one specimen that displays the characteristics of all three species in one, or even between man and ape.

I believe that we will continue to evolve and as we move from mother earth to outer space, we'll evolve to work in the low gravity environmnet.