So what flaws are there in evolution again?

Question

Before you answer, I'll respond to the obvious dumb arguments that Christians are going to come up with.

"Transitional fossils"- This means you don't know how evolution works. ALL fossils are transitional fossils. Evolution isn't like on the ninja turtles or Xmen. ALL organisms are undergoing change. You're a transitional organism from your parents to your children.

"Why are there still monkeys?"-
1. I'm sure you've heard this 100000 times, even though you ask this anyways. We evolved from the same ANCESTORS.
2. This also means you have no idea how evolution works. One population would be isolated from another population of the same species so that they wouldn't be allowed to interbreed. Over time, respectively, the populations would change enough to become new species.

Simple stuff.

If you don't want to go take a biology class, go wikipedia evolution and/or transitional fossils. READ ALL OF IT and I'm sure, even you're openminded enough to realize there are no flaws.

pstod- OF COURSE WE CANT, it takes millions of years. Microevolution is just an excuse made up by Christians. Macroevolution is basically a bunch of microevolutions.

starbuck's- how about you point them out for me? THE MISSING LINK? I just went over that with the transitional fossils issue, it's the same thing.

supertop- go take a science class. The first organism came from bonds of amino acids. Science has already produced a protocell. Look up Sidney Fox.

phax- carbon dating?
goatman-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg
wrong
only 70% of mutations are delete

smiley-
society ;)

Mike M-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils
Read the first section and read the "misconceptions" section.
after that, watch this video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg

jeremiah-
1. Look up the big bang. It's nothing like you portray it and on top of that, it has nothing to do with evolution.
2. Believe it or not, you're actually helping my mutations causing new information in the genome argument.
3. http://youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4
Watch this video. Richard Dawkins explains how the eye was formed through evolution.

guppy- lmao I can't find the science department? Then I guess 95% of scientists cant either, because almost all of them believe in evolution. What do you mean I can't answer how everything began? Life? I already pointed out that life started through bonds of amino acids and that science has already been able to make a protocell. If you mean everything, I'm actually not 100% sure myself, but for now, the big bang works pretty well.

Answer 1

Interesting approach. Care to investigate some truth? Check out these three problems with Evolution.

1. Origin of the Universe
How did the universe start? Some evolutionists claim it exploded from literally nothing. Others say the universe existed as a point (a singularity). What do you think could have the ability to make the universe appear from nothing or would have the power to modify the singularity?

I really want an answer to this one, friend. I have never seen any scientific answer to this problem. Remember, no faith-based answers allowed; evolution is supposed to be a science.

2. DNA.
This chemical code also has check and redundant characteristics only found in the most complex intelligently designed systems. Any computer programmer worth his salt can understand DNA is a chemical language for designing and growing replicable life forms. The implications of the known nature of DNA are obvious to all but the close-minded.

Also, generational mutations are not equal. More mutations will occur creating excesses of one of the four chemicals. Left to time and chance, all DNA combinations would tend to become (for example) strings of Ts with only the occasional; G, A or C.

3. The Eye.
Charles Darwin pointed out his own theory can't explain the Eye. He really did. Try actually reading the last chapters of his book. He pokes holes in his own theories so big you can sail a Beagle through them.

No scientific answer has ever been provided for these three problems. Only the faith-based answers by evolutionists which boil down to "because that is what I believe."

P.S. I just read a ton of "answers" to this, lots of religions, non-scientific answers from the pro-evolution crowd, as expected. As a scientific subject, I was hoping for more intelligent input in respose to your question. Instead it reads more like dueling church services (Evolution vs Creation). Maybe next time, post this question on a science page for hopefully less dogma and more excercise of the Scientific Method.

p.p.s. LOL I just got a thumbs down for a reasoned scientific answer to your question.

Re response to 1. Too bad you think ignoring a problem makes it go away.

Re response to 2. So, all genetic codes everywhere are now a bunch of Ts? We have more variety than time and scientific chance allows.

Re respose to 3. Nice video, it was sweet of Richard Dawkins to intelligently step us through his design of the origin of the eye, but doesnt that support a contrary thesis to evolution, just like Darwin said in disclaiming his own theory?

Answer 2

OK, here are a few as I see it.

It violates scientific laws like, the laws of thermodynamics and the law that organic material cannot come from inorganic material.

Last I heard, there has never been an example shown of increased DNA code. All genetic shifts found are from existing DNA.

Your statement of transitional fossils is not correct. There are no transitions between species found. Evolutionists used to think it took millions of years for a new species to gradually evolve. As more fossils are found, this is not being shown. Now they think that sudden changes in the climate would cause rapid mutations that are not preserved in the fossil record. This information came from my college biology class teaching evolution, by the way.

Also with transitions. Things not fully developed would be a hindrance and be wiped out, because of the "survival of the fittest" thing. Therefore, if evolution does happen, it should be more rapid.

As far as I know, there has never been a beneficial mutation of a species observed. They have all been birth defects without advantage.

There is a lot of deceit told about fossils that are later found out. That has got to be an embarrassment for archaeologists. For example:
Java man was later found to be a skull of a Gibbon.
Nebraska man was a tooth of a pig.
Piltdown Man was found to be an orangutan
Ramapithicus was just a jaw and a couple of teeth. Additional skeletons show he was just an ape.
Lucy's knee bone was found 200 feet deeper than the rest.

There is evidence that the universe is not millions of years old. For example, the sun shrinks a certain amount each year. For it to be millions of years old, it would have taken up all the space between the Earth and Sun, so it would be too large for the current orbits of the planets in the solar system. Another example is that space dust is accumulating on the moon. We expected there to be a lot since it is so old, but there isn't that much.

Evolution will be a theory forever, because the experiment cannot be repeated. The earth was formed and life came. Even if we could get some goo to come to life in a laboratory, it doesn't prove that's how it really happened way back when.

Science is good at repeatable experiments. Science assumes a natural and ordered cause for things. If we use the tool to look at things with a supernatural cause and experiments that cannot be repeated, it's possible to be incorrect and hard to prove one way or the other.

Christians and evolutionists have the same facts and evidence. Their starting assumptions are different. Evolutionists assume there is no God. Christians assume there is a God and looks to see if the facts line up with the Bible. If there is a God, He is the only one that was there when the Earth was formed, so He would know best.

Also, being open minded can be a good thing, but I try not to be so open minded that my brain leaks out. I'm afraid it happens too often.

Edit:

I read the article you mentioned. Yes, we are saying the same thing. Punctuated equilibrium would HAVE to happen. Gradual evolution of things would not occur. An eye would have to just appear in one generation and be useful for example. New useful organs have not been observed to just appear - that's my point. We can zap something with radiation, heat, cold, all kinds of stuff. The organism just dies instead of adapting.

Therefore, macro evolution cannot be just a bunch of micro-evolutions. A pair of wings has to pop out and be useful - not a gradual bunch of micro-evolutions producing a wing.

I watched the video. Yes, bacteria mutates and combines with other genetic code. I have never heard of anything beyond that happening. Shifting gene sequences and combining existing bacteria genes together is a BAD experiment to prove evolution though. You need a controlled environment. To repeat the experiment of evolution, we need to start with non-organic material and have an organism develop with genes somehow. Starting with the whole world of genetic material and sloshing it together does not show how life started. Once you have a cell with genetic material, you need to have additional genetic material added without bringing in EXISTING genetic material. In the beginning, that EXISTING genetic material was not there, right?

Did you notice that they are still bacteria?

Yes, protocells. Even if we mix up a cell in the lab and can create life and DNA (after all, God did it somehow, why couldn't we re-create the process), that does not show that is how it was actually done. Perhaps there are 2 ways to create life or more. Which one would have been the one. Science cannot show what happened historically.

Did you notice that someone is creating the protocells and they aren't just appearing?

P.S. StormDevil. Macro evolution is NOT just micro evolution over time. Micro evolution is drifts in EXISTING genetic code and within a species. Macro evolution is changes in the genetic code and creates a new species. Polar Bears with white fur can happen, because the genetic code was already there.

Answer 3

Evolution is still a theory. It is a theory in which I humbly agree, but I'm not so quick to say, "Yeah, it is fact."

A Theory is that idea for which there is substantial evidence that point to it's legitimacy, but insufficient evidence to label it as "fact".

In today's day and age, we seem to forget the scientific methods: An idea is an "hypothesis"; and after enough evidence is collected to support that it does, indeed, exist or happen, it becomes a "fact"; then after the fact is shown to happen always, without fail, it finally becomes a "law".

Many theories in our time are touted as "fact" and you rarely hear "law" and hardly EVER do you hear "hypothesis".

Problems with the evolution theory do include the fact that it's not all tied together, and probably never will be. There is that "missing link" and new theories about evolution constantly emerge that challenge or invalidate previous theories. Then, there is this riddle which, at present, is unsolvable: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

However, I see much more problems against it than I see problems supporting it. The anti-evolutionists continually use the "apples to oranges" approach to disprove it, such as stating that Mount Rushmore couldn't have been created by nature, so how could we? They also take isolated incidents of mistakes and tout them as being the norm, when this is not the case. They continually accuse the evolutionists of attacking them, yet they attack just as much and just as hard.

So, between anti-evolution dogma, misquoting scientific laws to fit their conclusions, blowing isolated incidents out of proportion and attacking the intelligence and character of those who do believe in evolution, they are not worth listening to, for me. All the while they are attempting to debunk this, they can not provide ONE SHRED of scientific evidence in support of any alternate theory; all they can do is attack the theories presented which they fanatically disagree with because it challenges their religious beliefs.

To me, this does not invalidate the theory, but at the same time, the theory is far from proven.

Oh, Mike M, the theory of evolution does NOT violate the 3rd law of thermodynamics, which has been seriously misquoted by anti-evolutionists since time and memorial. I have heard it before -- "The third law of thermodynamics is that all things are in a constant state of decay." You have been decieved, my friend, for the third law of thermodynamics is that "All things IN MOTION are in a constant state of decay", and refers to such things as ballistics, inertia, planetary orbits, etc. It has no application within the realm of biology.

Also, cars and vehicles and machines are not biological organisms. This is the "apples to oranges" approach I detest. Talk about lacking scientific backbone...

Jeremiah, you are melding 2 sciences which should not be melded; One, as in the "single polarity" and the "big bang" are theories about the creation of the universe, of space, time and matter. Evolution is the theory of the origin of the species. The theory of evolution begins with the first speck of "life" as we know "life", not the first speck of space debris.

Nonetheless, don't be so sure to latch on to evolution as the final answer. There is evidence to support it, but not enough to label as "fact".

Answer 4

Evolution is too complex for some people to understand. They will hear bits and pieces and put it together in their minds however they can. It will then seem ridiculous to them. So they will dismiss it completely rather than attempting to learn more.

It seems as though this is more of a flaw of rationality on the human side. However, if fault must be found in evolution for this common occurrence, I would have to say that the term "evolution" has been mistakenly attached to some of the oldest theories, which proved to include false assumptions.

I would like to note the hypocrisy involved though. It is mostly Christians who criticize evolution. They will pick one or two details of an old theory, attach these details to evolution as a whole, and dismiss the entire thing because these details happen to be false. Science removes the junk and continues to move forward as new evidence is found. The opposition says it's all or nothing, so it must be wrong. The hypocrisy comes into play when they defend their beliefs. When biblical contradictions and historical inaccuracies are presented, they will twist scriptural interpretation to fit their predetermined beliefs rather than sticking with the same mentality of "if part of it is wrong, it must all be wrong". The irony is quite laughable.

Answer 5

All the mutations we have observed go downword, with the mutant having less information than the original It could happen the other way but we havent observed it so if it can happen its exceedingly rare
I have more against evolution than that, but I cant remember it all
The only thing that supports evolution is the fossil record.
I dont believe in the common theory of evolution, but I think where on the right track. A new theory will surface, and this theory will be LIKE evolution but not identical. Creationism cant work, no evidence at all.

Answer 6

I guess the guppy scared you. Having the answer deleted shows your insecurity.

Too bad.

Since you told her that you can't find the science, but how scientists believe in evolution...then she must be right that you belong in that area with your question.

Tell me again...since you know how life began...where did these amino acids come from, and what caused the big bang and what did it consist of?

But, wait... all of these are science issues and belong in the science section, don't they?

Answer 7

Evolution depends on flaws - mutations - in order to happen. As far as *whether* this happens is no longer in question, except by brainwashed ignoramuses who think ancient religious texts thousands of years old have anything worthwhile to say about it.

Besides biological evolution, though, there is also cultural evolution, the passing on of knowledge and ideas. Nothing says that ideas have to be "good" though - they only have to survive by appealing to enough people. Even though the idea (or "meme" as Richard Dawkins calls it) may be expensive in terms of outlays of time or money and/or flat-out factually *wrong* such as religion and its rituals, it may still fulfill an emotional longing - which is too bad for the rest of us sometimes.

Answer 8

Is it a since class or Yahoo Answers web site. Any ways as I understand since we or any one of the learned scientists have not come across any missing links we can not say for sure that the theory of 'evolution ' is 100% correct.

Answer 9

There is no more proof for evolution than for creation, if Evolution were proven it would not be called the "Theory" of Evolution. You seem to forget that Theory is not the same of Proven Fact. But then that is a trait of Evolutionist they take a Theory and try to claim it as fact, and claim that to be scientific.

Answer 10

big-bang was proved wrong by science over 20 years ago, due to the lack of dark matter in space.

i suggest you take a science class. Einstein has several theories that might be simple enough for you to understand. all objects contain and are made up of energy. yes? you can not argue that, it is proved fact. energy never dies. it changes form, becomes different types of energy, like kinetic to potential and so forth. yes, proved fact. so there is a collection of energy that has been made up of everything that ever is, was, or will be, what name do you give it????? God to some, Buddha to others, "the force" to socially retarded geeks.

call it what you will, it is still there.
and remember, you do not have to believe in God, he still believes in you.