Want to take an Evolution challenge?

Question

Want to take part?

Here is my challenge. Give me good scientific evidence that at least questions evolution. But beware, I will not tolerate an answer that shows ignorance to science. So only answer if you are sure your argument is genuine science, rather then based on ignorance.

lb_centaur: It has been found that humans have a chromosome that is a fusion of two chromosomes found in our ancestors.

Again, I am looking for aruments that DON'T show ignorance.

Conan the Grammarian: Good point. Although, you have only successfully falsified the Aviator Knows All Theory,

stpolycarp77: I am assuming you went down this list, and said the exact opposite of what they explain.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Answer 1

The Cambrian Explosion.
Over what appears to be a short period of time (perhaps as few as five million years), a great number of new body plans entered the fossil record.

We don't know why.
Possible (speculative!) explanations:
a) This is an artifact of not having good fossils from the periods just prior to this time, and evolution was proceeding at a normal pace
b) This represents an actual event, caused by many different different phyla obtaining a "biomineralization" gene family at about the same time, possibly through some lateral gene transfer mechanism that operated then but isn't operating now.

Answer 2

A lot of empirical observations have led to this idea of evolution, that living things change and mutate in such a way as to become different living things over time. The problem is all of the evidence is empirical, and as such is not sufficient to prove the theory. To prove evolution, you would have to watch it happen and that's not possible given the time frames involved. Also, most theories attain results when applied to a given situation. Evolution never does. I cannot use the theory of evolution to predict how something will evolve, the number of variables seems too great and ultimately our understanding of the mechanism is nowhere near 100%. In science we use experiments to prove a theory. You can't conduct an evolution experiment (at least not entirely, some computer evolution experiments on virtual creatures has been useful), you can't have a 'control' variable. Evolution really is just the observation that life forms change and adapt over time, and all of its evidence is observation based.

Keep in mind that the ancient Greeks thought that all matter was composed of the elements, fire, water, wind and earth. They believed this based on empirical observations. They realized you could light wood on fire, this made them think the fire was contained in the wood. They strongly believed this for a long time. This is why you don't use empirical observations to justify a theory, because they can be wrong, they are not necessary and sufficient conditions.

Answer 3

If there was any valid scientific evidence that invalidated evolution then evolution would no longer be recognised as a scientific theory.

For the answerer above on stomach acid:-
Acidity comes in a whole range of concentrations. Orange juice is acid but doesn't burn your mouth. Stomach acid evolved by becoming progressively more acidic and the lining of the stomach evolved in parallel. Each increase in acidity permitted a greater degree of digestion which gave more nutrition to that particular individual, thereby giving an evolutionary advantage over rivals with stomachs with less acidity. Thus over many generations those which produced more concentrated acid (and whose stomach linings has evolved to deal with it) came to dominate the gene pool.

Answer 4

For Darwinian evolution to be correct, information gaining mutations must occur (and be selected for) millions of times.
In a search of the literature involving almost 20 million references all of the beneficial mutations located were loss mutations and mutations such as sickle cell anemia that have a beneficial effect only in very special circumstances. In most situations they have a decidedly negative effect on the organism’s health. Not a single clear example of an information-gaining mutation was located. It was concluded that molecular biology research shows that information-gaining mutations have not yet been documented.

Answer 5

Hooray! An Em Adjineri reference by someone who isn't me!

I don't have any evidence that casts doubt on evolution.

EDIT:
lb_centaur: It's the result of a fused chromosome and isn't really an argument against evolution.

Answer 6

Evolution has been put to the challenge since the idea originated. It has lasted over 100 years under scientific scrutiny. I cannot wait to see some of the replies.


"Why would you want to believe that a monkey was your uncle" is a common one.

Answer 7

I can give you a few things that question rather we really know the entire mechanism, but I can't go against the big idea.

For instance the human little toe is shrinking worldwide. How would natural selection possibly explain that?

Answer 8

Let me guess, you dusted off your science books and scanned over evolution in wikipedia. You probably already have a 2ND window set up now. So now you feel like you are confident enough to quiz others on evolution. As if Dawkins or maybe even Darwin in a dream told you "Go forth and ask the fools about evolution".

So full of yourself.

Answer 9

Which evolved first; stomach acid or the stomach lining? If the acid evolved first, it would eat up the stomach tissue. If the lining evolved first, why? There was no need for it before the acid came into being. If they evolved mutually, that's quite a coincidence.

Also, for something to bear the label of true science, it must be able to be repeated over and over through subsequent testing. Evolution cannot and does not qualify as true science since it has never been able to be repeated. Until such time as it can be "proven" in fact, it must remain conjecture or theory. As theory, it finds itself on equal footing with creation, which also cannot be duplicated in the lab.

Answer 10

In answer to lb_centaur--two of the chromosomes found in primates fused together to become one chromosome in humans.

;-)