Is there one good, logical argument against evolution?

Question

I've yet to hear one.

People like Tom...I said logical

Answer 1

It would be earth-shaking news in biology, worthy of a Nobel Prize.

Look let's reduce evolution to its basic compenents
1. heritable variation of traits
2. traits related to survival and reproductive success
3. differential survival and reproductive success

State in the form of mathematical algorithm. Given the above 3 conditions evolution must happen.

Oh and for deacon (below) the evolution of the eye has been studied and published on. No mystery there. We can even find living species today that represent every single step in the evolution of the eye (from photo sensitive cells, to eye cups with concentrations of photo sensitive cells, to eye cups with pinholes, to pinholes covered with a lens, etc.).

And for Michelle, yes the statistical odds of amino acids forming DNA are fantastic. However, evidence suggest that simple shards of phenotypic RNA preceded the evolution of DNA. And the formation of small shards of phenotypic RNA from nucleic acids is compelling, so your statistical arguement is bogus.

And for John, all paleontologists, who actually study fossils would agree that the fossil record supports evolutionary theory. We have a virtual unbroken chain of transitional forms from Paleozoic amniotes to modern primates (including humans).

For Jaherr, Behe is a cellular biologist whose book has been convincingly deconstructed by the nation's leading cellular biologists (members of the National Academy of Sciences).

For elz, Enantiornithians are known from 160 million year old fossil remains. They clearly have an arm which is in the process of evolving into a wing (much as a flying squirrel has an arm which looks like it is en route to becoming a wing).

Why do creationists try to get away with such disingenuous lies?

Answer 2

I am not sure that logic is the right word in this context.

Logic begins with premises deemed self-evident, and then proceeds through deduction to valid conclusions.

Evolution is an empirical doctrine based on a wide range of observations coordinated into a more or less coherent theory.

Something can be logical, and have nothing to do with useful observation.

On both sides of the debate, atheism v. theism, creationism v. evolution, there is too much attention and reverence given to the notion of logic. Logic can test propositions within a set of pre-recognized givens, but if there are no pre-recognized givens, logic is useless.

In my view, there are no self-evident givens. Logical premises are merely propositions that we are not at this time challenging.

Michelle C: You cannot use a statistical argument without multiple examples. All we have is the one earth/universe and what has actually happened to occur. We simply cannot make a statistical judgment. Our earth/universe may be highly unusual, or it may be the norm. And lets grant that it is unusual, we cannot really then say that it did not occur. It may be a trillion to one chance that something happened in a certain way, but that does not prove that the one chance did not occur.

Answer 3

Why do you ask for one, perhaps there are many? Why does it need to be logic based? Is evolution a logical argument or a scientific assertion? And what has your hearing got to do with it?

Obviously you will not have one species giving birth to another species but every individual is new and unique.

The problem with evolution is that it is so slow. You have to wait for beneficial mutations to occur, lots of them, until you have a new species. Its one thing to look at the diversity of life and see similarities and changes in fossil records, its quite another to say this is how it happens with anything like scientific certainty.
The absence of other assertions does not prove this one to be a fact. It can not be tested so it is only a theory.

Answer 4

No, I have never hear a really convinving argument against evolutuin. I think the mistake that many poeole make is that evolution and believing that the God's created us a re mutually exclusive. If you keep an open mind science and religion can actually go together. My god's have never informed me taht evolution is wrong. Maybe they planned it that way. Just like the Big Bang. One doesn't necessarily have to disprove the other.

Answer 5

No.


Evolution is a reality. It is just that some people refuse to accept it as such. Unfortunately for them faith does not change reality and no amount of belief will change the fact the evolution is correct.

This is like asking for a good logical argument for a flat Earth. There is not one be case the Earth is not flat.

The best you are going to get is effectively "Because The Bible Says So." Which fails both of your criteria.

Answer 6

Why can't existance be a combination of both? Why does it have to be one or the other? If you read the bible it talks of evolution already in Genesis and how we have evolved from being ageless to having a limitation placed on our time on earth. It speaks of winged creatures and giants and we have evolved into something else from the beginning. no where does it really describe what Adam and Eve look like, so what is to say they were not in the image of cavement or even apes?

Answer 7

Read "A Brief History of Everything" by Ken Wilber. He makes a great argument against it.

I'll butcher it probably, because it's been a little while since I read it, but it considers the idea that, over a very long period of time, a leg evolved into a wing. For something like a wing to become useful, it would seem to require countless small mutations that changed the way the appendage was used. The organism would have gone through an unfathomable amount of time with an appendage that was nearly useless as either a leg or a wing. The likelihood begins to become even more and more remote.

And then he makes a great argument against organized religions as well.

Answer 8

How about statistical? The odds of evolution by random mutation actually creating a different species , or for that matter actually converting amino acids into DNA, are too small to take seriously.

Answer 9

Yes, if you consider an argument based on ignorance to be logical.

Answer 10

me neither...why don't people under stand the wing theory it frustrates be so much!!! people assume a leg evolved into a wing so that's not what happened your right the chance as close to zero of that happening...READ DARWIN'S THEORYS...theist/agnostics who claim aloud of theist theory's and claim were ignorant when there acutely being more ignorant! and whats the statistics of a god creating everything it creates more questions then answers

sorry just needed a rant =S