What are some scientific arguments that refute evolution?

Question

Please help--I'm stuck!

please help! I have to do 12 and I've only got 5!

Its for a school project and the topic is required. Please help.

Answer 1

You are probably stuck because there really aren't any.

Answer 2

One of the biggest problem with evolution is that it is only a theory. While I personally believe in evolutions and the theory behind it, I can't deny there is a weakness.

The world of science is based on what is called a "scientific method." You should have learned this already. Basically, for any science to be valid, a scientist must define what he is studying, theorize how it is done, and prove his theory by experiments.

This is easy for many other field of science where a theory can be proven by setting up an experiment and making it happen in short amount of time.

Since one step in evolution takes a life time of the animal. AND, many MANY steps must be taken before any significant change would occur. It is impossible to actually prove the entire process. The best a scientist could do is prove a small portion of it. Rest is still a theory.

To me, that is a very weak proof to say a bacteria eventually became a human. Also, the theory has it that hydrogen and helium (most abundant element in universe) has become organic compound which later became single cell organisms. It hasn't been proven completely either. The best they could do is put hydrogen and helium in a vessel and create some sparks, then it ended up in black residue that resembled organic material.

Hope this helps you some what.

Answer 3

Great question, but, I don't think you will get an answer based on facts, simply because we did not evolve from the ocean or anywhere else.
There is no scientific proof. However there is lot's of scientific theory. One is not comparable to the other. I definately believed we have evolved in the sense that we have become taller, fatter, more intelligent , etc. These are qualities that existed before though. They are just inhanced and more advanced.
Any one that say the Bible is incorrect or wrong is just not listening.
It is the only book that is actually used for scientific studies and is accurate as well.
You have 2 choices of what to believe.
Either you do belive in evolution or you don't.
My answer is, I don't

Answer 4

Here is a great one.
Evolution is based on the idea that over a LONG period of time our expierences and environment have changed us because we adapt over time. LOGIC dictates then that we could find examples of "people" anywhere along this time line from then to now. However, there are at most 4-5 different types of "cavemen" and a recent study found that two types existed at the SAME TIME.

So how did one evolve out of the other? Why did one evolve and the other same the same? If we evolved out of apes why are there still apes? If there are still apes why not different types of cavemen? If evolution is true we should be finding a multitude of different examples of man over time and be able to place the type we find on a timeline. Evolution cannot do this.

It points to 4 or 5 different types and says, "religion is completely wrong, and oh, by the way, we ask you to connect the dots because we cannot." Why are there no examples of "in between" cavemen? Because by the same logic subscribers of evolution say religion is wrong, so is their "theory".

That is my last point, it is a "theory" of evolution, but people defend it like it is fact.

Answer 5

Remember the theory for evolution is exactly that...it is a theory developed with the knowns of 19th century science.
Today we know that chicken embryos, for example, are more than just globs of gels that grow into a chick, as Darwin thought. It is a combination of factories on the molecular level that have the information to develop that embryo into parts and functions of any variety of chicken that is known to exist.

Answer 6

None. Evolution exists. The only people who refute it are the very pious religious fokes.

Answer 7

i am not sure of the name but it is something like the buttlerfly effect. it has butterfly in it, I am not sure of teh second word. i believe it says that things evolved not slowly and gradually but in sudden spurious moments every once thousands of years. It is evolved from the observation that caterpillars become suddenly into butterflies.