Looking for scientific objections to evolution...?

Question

from a source other than a creationist website?

Answer 1

Scientists continuously test any theory to test its voracity. If conclusive evidence were found to refute the theory, then that would be the end of it. However, the real evidence that is being accumulated continues to support and strengthen the theory.

For opposition to the facts that have been discovered so far you are stuck with the loonies of creationism.

Answer 2

This is a list of answered objections to evolution. It should give you an idea of the majority of claims made and the reasons why the claims are baseless.

Consider that there are around 30 thousand scientists that devote their lives to their area of expertise and have a better than working knowledge of related disciplines. Do you really think a amateur will suddenly pop up with something that will make them slap their heads and say "Wow, I never thought about that!" Be real.

Edit:
There is not a "super abundance" of evidence against evolution, in reality it is exactly the opposite. Every time I check out a creationist claim (and I do it a lot, just in case) it turns out to be a misunderstanding of the principles involved or a intentional misquote - shouldn't intentional misquotes be considered a lie?

Edit 2:
Interestingly "www.evolutiondeceit.com/ " is marked as a "Use caution site" by McAfee software, I haven't seen that before on creatist or other science sites.

Answer 3

There are lots of people who study evolution that feel that the changes happen more rapidly than can be easily explained by the chemical processes within cells, as they currently understand it.

That isn't an objection to the concept - more to the understanding of the mechanics of mutation and cell reproduction.

The one thing I think is absolutely safe to say: Mutations happen in more ways than is currently understood by modern biology.

That doesn't mean we won't understand these ... it just means we don't understand them now.

Given that, the theory still enables scientists (and others) to predict ... something that no creationist theory does. That is, creationism simply says that somebody that we have no control over and who is utterly unpredictable is controlling what species do ...

Even if that is true, it is utterly useless for predicting what is going to happen in the future.

So ... the evolutionary model may be incomplete ... hey, it may be utterly wrong ... but it is still the most useful theory out there.

Answer 4

"The scientific method can't be used to prove evolution. It is a theory, one I think you can never prove."

Is it just me or does anyone else get bored of people thinking that science can prove things? It can't, it simply makes the best of what evidence there is. It can prove beyond reasonable doubt, but it can never hope to be as air tight as mathematics.

Besides, we see evolution all the time. Notice how bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, and how headlice require stronger and stronger chemicals to kill. Due to random mutation some survive the first time round, these reproduce and pass the resistant genes to their offspring, which are then better adapted to survive antibiotics/chemicals. That's pretty much the definition of evolution.

On a more macroscopic level it is possible to induce the speciation of fruit flies:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml

Fairly strong evidence, I feel. Because of this, you will never find a scientist opposing evolution unless he has some evidence contrary to it, which as yet, has not been seen.

Answer 5

Well the only thing even close that passed peer review was a paper by a Dr. Michael Behe. It is just an objection to a missing step in some development in the eye if I remember right. From what I can tell even he doesn't object to the big idea of common decent, though his books are all on irreducible complexity.

He has an email address posted on Lehigh University's web site. I couldn't get a reply. You can get links to his paper's here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Answer 6

None of this is saying anything against evolution so don't have a cow. Only that Darwin is not the final word.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/
What Makes Biology Unique?
Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline
Ernst Mayr
Harvard University, Massachusetts

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/

There is nothing BIG about problems with Darwin. I hate some of his racial ideas. I think the bigotry of the times influence him more than science. He admitted he didn't have all the answers like the eye.

Answer 7

uh yeah, good luck with that.

it is true of course that various historical scenarios are debated within science, as to which aspects of evolution best explain the facts... but very few scientists think that a wholly different theory is required for that purpose. that doesn't stop creationists from trying to pretend that scientists are about to abandon evolution, when the creationists quote scientific work as "supporting" their conclusions.

Answer 8

Off the top of my head: You'll never "see" evolution happen. All of the evidence collected thus far is empirical, and results are based on observations. We can't test evolution hypotheses or execute experiments. The scientific method can't be used to prove evolution. It is a theory, one I think you can never prove.

By the way: I do believe in evolution. It's a very complicated subject, even researchers know it can't be completely proven according to what we know of proof.

Man of Ideas: that's survival of the fittest, evolution concerns mutation of one species into another. It takes hundreds of thousands of years, no human can observe it.

I think it's funny that I get thumbs down when I give a legitimate answer :) I'm a computer programmer that writes genetic algorithms. I know more about evolution than probably all of you combined :D

Answer 9

Do you mean scientific objections to the idea that evolution happens? You won't find any of those.

You can find papers that discuss objections to certain evolutionary mechanisms, but that's not the type of objection creationists are talking about. (The conclusion of those papers isn't to reject evolution but generally to modify a small part of the theory.)

Answer 10

It is not too complicated........

1. Many more individuals are born than can possibly survive, thus there is competition for limited resources

2. Within this vast number there is variation, and because of this variation some of these individuals will have an advantage--however slight--over others

3. The ones who have the advantages are more competitive and thus they are more likely to obtain the limited resources

4. The ones who are succeeding in securing the limited resources are more likely to reproduce and thus pass onto their offspring the more competitive traits

Darwin