Was the theory of evolution defective from the outset?

Question

1) Darwin was upfront about the fact that the evidence was not in favor of his theory.

2) He described "Origin" as "one long argument" (his phrase). The point of this argument was that the "common ancestry thesis" was so logically appealing that it did not require rigorous empirical testing.

3) Darwin himself started the tradition of explaining away the fossil record. This tradition continues to this day.

4) Darwin cited selective breeding as a verification of his theory, but he did not acknowledge its limitations.

5) He did not subject his theory to any rigorous experimental testing.

These are all examples of odd deviations from regular and accepted methods of science. What does it mean for his theory, and for all the theories built upon his research?

Love Jack

I never heard of any "Answers in Genesis."

I haven't copied anyting from any "creationist websites." I haven't visited any of them. In fact, I haven't visited any "evolutionist" websites either - I actually read "books" - surely you've heard of them?

garwy - the fossil record is STILL a big problem for evolutionary science.

Answer 1

Been visiting those creationist websites again have we?

Answer 2

Okay, so you haven't been to Creationist websites. But there are also Creationist books, maybe they are what you have been reading.

Evolution has been well tested by regular and accepted methods of science by many, many scientists since Darwin. It's moved on a lot, and is much more strongly supported than it was in Darwin's day. Many more fossils have been found, and they all fit the theory. They all fit into the nested hierarchy that the theory of evolution predicts. If a chimera, for instance, a mammal with avian wings was found, it wouldn't fit, but none have been found. Flying mammals all have wings that are modified mammalian forelimbs. No mammal fossils have been found in rock that is older than the theory of evolution predicts they should be.

Although fossil evidence strongly supports the theory of evolution, genetic evidence supports it even more strongly.

Even if Darwin's methodology was faulty, the theory has held up because it has been subjected to 150 years of peer review. It really doesn't matter by now whether Darwin himself subjected it to any rigorous experimental testing, thousands of other scientists have done so since. Scientists don't just build their research on other scientists theories without testing the theories for themselves. In fact, any scientist who could falsify evolution would win a Nobel Prize. The so-called Creation scientists are not able to falsify it, their arguments against it are misrepresentations that are easily refuted by any scientist with a reasonable amount of expertise in the relevent field.

Answer 3

1. the evidence is in favour of his theory, what gave you the impression it wasn't? Surely you give scientists some credit that someone might have noticed in the last century it didn't work.

2. all theories are one long argument waiting to be disproved, that's how science works.

3. There is no problem with the fossil record, it will never be complete but there's mountains of fossils known and more being discovered each day. None have disproven the theory so far.

4. what limitations?

5. he based his theory on observations, esp. life on the Galapagos islands. It's enough to postulate a theory, after that its in the public domain and can be tested against evidence (as it has for 150 years) by other scientists.

Answer 4

Even if Darwin never existed, research done by others shows this theory to be consistant and useful for purposes of prediction. There are occasional problems with details that some people have extended the theory with, but the concept of natural selection and species changing has been shown in the lab over and over again.

Much of the science behind modern drug research and production, particularly antibiotics, depends on these concepts.

Unfortunately, no theory involving a being that can change ALL of the rules can ever be useful for prediction. Why? How dare we to claim to know the mind of God? Cowering in awe does nothing to improve anything.

Indeed having religions categorically state that evolution doesn't exist with no evidence other than hand waving comes down to scientists challenging the "truths" of the religious power structure and them responding with "because I said so".

Much as they responded to Galileo's assertion that the Sun did not orbit around the Earth.

So - even if Darwin repudiated everything he ever said (and he didn't), the validity of these concepts is currently the operating model for anyone who ever understood and followed the scientific method of skepticism, theory, test, etc.

So far any argument against this concept as a whole has been purely a reaction to how it changes our concept and definition of God, not as a result of scientific research producing evidence contrary to the theory.

Answer 5

*blinks* Have you not happened to notice that we have advanced a great deal since then? Have you not noticed that Darwin didn't even have access to anything real about the workings of genes? Have you not noticed that WE DO? Like... oh I don't know... mapping the genetic code?

It doesn't matter one damned bit what happened when it was first created, what matters is that there's mountains of evidence to support evolution that weak minded Christians are unwilling to accept simply because it would require work to understand it.

Now, stop with the incredibly weak arguments. Science isn't like Christianity. It isn't just accepted because some book said so. Science is subject to rigorous testing and has been thoroughly tested for 150 years by millions of scientists around the world.

I think those scientists happen to know just a tiny bit more about science than 99% of Christians who just want to deny science because it doesn't favor their delusion.

After all, without that science, you would not have that computer, cars, heat in your homes, or much else you have right now.

Answer 6

Like most theories, Darwin's "suggests" what might have happened but does not "prove" what happened.

His theory implies that man is descended from "apes", whatever that means. Scientific research suggests that crude "ape-like" humans evolved to what we are today. I use the word "suggests" because nothing has been proved and probably never will be. We can only surmise what occurred by studying bits of pieces of man-like creatures found buried around the world.

So I concede that Darwin did not prove anything. But what does trashing his theory prove?

Nothing. It certainly does not prove that "religious" explanations of our origin are any more accurate.

Not sure what you "think" you've proved by disproving Darwin.

Answer 7

One can also point to where the theory of natural selection really comes from. It was actually theorized by William Edward Blyth, a Christian Creationist, well before Darwin. Blyth wrote articles on natural selection as early as 1835 from which Darwin ‘borrowed’ his ideas and expanded them on them assuming the evidence would be forthcoming.

However, not all change is evolution, and all the changes we see are not proofs of evolution but rather contrary evidence moving in the opposite direction of evolution. The idea that a finch could become a giant purple snorklewhacker is not supported by any real evidence. We are not seeing any life forms advancing in information up the ladder of evolution in the fossil record or anywhere else.

We've learned a lot through science since the Civil War. So many seem to be still trying to apply Darwin's 19th century thinking to a 21st century reality, and it doesn't work. Explanations from the steamboat era are no longer adequate in the fast changing world of cosmology, physics, astronomy, biochemistry, biology in this age! The evidence against macro evolution is mounting rapidly. The only option left is that God exists!

Answer 8

All of the above are lies copied from Answers In Genesis.

Go read "On The Origins Of Species" before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

In the 150 years since its publication, Darwin's book has birthed many new scientific disciplines and helped modern medicine save more lives than ever.

Answer 9

Yes, it was defective. It is still defective. But it has gotten consistently better over time and is still our most accurate explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

That's kind of the thing about science. We start out knowing very little, and end up knowing a lot, but we never know everything.

Answer 10

Actually yes, it was defective from the outset. Like virtually all scientific theories. The idea is that it becomes more refined as more data become available. Darwin's theory, while it provided the framework for the modern theory of evolution, was indeed flawed.

Answer 11

when darwin advanced his theory of evolution by natural selection he pointed out that the evidence available at the time was inadequate (palaeontology was in its infancy) and that his theory would be confirmed only when further evidence was delivered from the fossil record.

darwin suggested what kinds of confirmatory evidence were needed (and to some extent where they would be found).

in the subsequent decades the finds that darwin predicted were discovered, and his theory was vindicated.

this is the difference between faith and science: both prophesy, but the prophecies of science come true.