Any convincing scientific evidence against evolution?
Most people I know accept evolution as a fact. But a few don’t. No one has ever given me any decent scientific evidence against it and the one book I tried to read on it had so many logical and factual flaws that I had to either stop reading it or find a busy street to dance in the middle of. But, I’ve heard there is some good scientific evidence against evolution, so I’d like to see some.
Note: Please try to be open minded on this thread. No making fun of creationists or anything. But, pointing out bad reasoning is welcomed.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
42 Answers
Nope. There’s no credible scientific evidence supporting any alternative theories than evolution.
There are plenty of people who will point out problems/holes in evolution, but don’t generally put forward credible theories as to what should fill that hole. And most of the gaps & holes have been filled over the last couple of decades.
If there was such a thing, we wouldn’t accept evolution as fact. And I’m talking about evolution the process not evolution theory.
no there is no convincing scientific evidence
There is debate about what “level” natural selection takes place.
For example, in the 70’s, Richard Dawkins argued pretty forcefully that the only level selection takes place at is the level of the gene. (The Selfish Gene makes the argument for “gene-centered evolution.) But nowadays, some scientists have made the case for “group selection”—that, for example, groups or colonies of organisms can undergo natural selection. Evo-devo argues that natural selection happens within the developing organism.
That’s about the closest thing to controversy about evolution, and it certainly isn’t evidence “against” the theory of evolution as a whole.
Many people confuse philosophical theory with scientific theory.
Evolution as a scientific theory is based on scientific fact. wikipedia
grumpyfish put it best above. I would add that creationism was shot down by the US Supreme Court in 1987, then resurrected in the form of ‘intelligent design’ by an arguement called ‘irreducible complexity. They gathered their ‘experts’ and gave it their best shot in the 2005 Dover PA trial. The judge concluded it was breathtaking inanity!
Not really. People who are opposed to the teaching of evolution are invariably fundamentalist Christians, but it doesn’t stop them from making up stuff that might sound “scientific” to the uninitiated. But in order to buy into their ideas, you have to accept more than their notions that life is too complex to have arisen merely through natural physical processes. They also claim that radiometric dating is invalid, the speed of light is not constant, and a whole lot of other things that go against scientific consensus – and reason itself.
The fossil record contains an overwhelming amount of evidence that evolution is valid, and so does a study of genetics. That’s not to say there are no gaps in our understanding – we’re talking billions of years here – but you can’t point to any one of those gaps and say it’s evidence that another idea must be the correct one. This is nevertheless what Creationists love to do.
Young-earth creationists indeed comprise a pseudo-scientific subculture. Read “Why People Believe Weird Things” by renown skeptic Michael Shermer. Or earlier stuff by Martin Gardner, Carl Sagan, et al. Look at Skeptical Inquirer back to the 1980s. Religious insanity is very common in the United States.—Tocqueville 1835
“No making fun of creationists or anything. But, pointing out bad reasoning is welcomed.”
(points at creationists)
Whoops, now I made fun of them after all.
I don’t see how someone with so much scientiifc knowledge who can so easily debunk years of study by all scientists needs us to convince him.
Thats no fun at all. I was hoping for something.
Sorry, mate. It’s just a really one-sided non-issue that certain people try to blow way out of proportion.
@Symbeline
Am I reading you wrong, or are you implying creationists study anything?
@Fyrius I do what I can without a sarcasm emoticon.
@Fyrius I know at least one very intelligent person who knows biology pretty well who argued against evolution (at least to some degree). She argued that the records show a “jump” where all of a sudden beings could generate energy from within themselves rather than getting them from outside sources (e.g. the sun). I wasn’t able to find any good sources on this.
Anyway, it was worth a shot to ask. I’ll post a follow up question later on.
@roundsquare You’re intelligent person obviously doesn’t know biology pretty well if s/he argued against evolution.
I recommend that your friend read a book by Jerry Coyne called “Why Evolution is True”.
@Rarebear Well, I suspect its less a lack of knowledge and more of lying to herself in order to reconcile her faith with her scientific knowledge. In fact, I suspect this is what happens with a lot of people on this issue.
Its also easier and self re-enforcing when she argues with someone like me who doesn’t know any biology because she’ll say things for which I cannot, during the midst of the conversation anyway, work up a decent counter-argument.
@roundsquare Then I recommend that you read the book too. It’s really well written.
@Rarebear Good call. Its accessible for someone who can barely remember high school biology? (Kingdom Phyllum Class Order F…. Genus Species).
@roundsquare Without question. It’s the most simple, clearly written books on evolution I’ve ever read. In fact it’s written for people EXACTLY like you—intelligent people who haven’t taken biology in years.
In an interview Coyne was talking up Dawkins’ new book “The Greatest Show on Earth” which is also about evolution, but I can’t recommend it as I’ve not read it. I’ve read Coyne’s book.
Oh, and I can never remember that Kingdom, Phylum…stuff either. I’m not a biologist.
@Symbeline
People seem to use a tilde ~ in lieu of a sarcasm emoticon here. Like so.
Of course, intelligent and knowledgeable people know better than to indulge in religion-based denialism.~
As a Christian i believe in god created evolution, there’s overwhelming evidence for it. The bible is only partially god’s word and the rest are parables not to be taken literally. Noah’s ark never happened, nice bedtime story however. I wonder if we’ll ever find those dinosours in the amazon somewhere.
One of the more recent discoveries of “human footprints” along side the same rocks/fossils in along a riverbed in Texas was something the 6000 year old earth before the stars creationalists try to sell as proof for creatonism has many flaws, most of the footprints were found to be fake, the ones that were not fake was the results of erosion. I get attacked WAY more than athiests ever do by fundamentalist christians so don’t feel too bad athiests.
REAL scientific studies aren’t biased for the most part and are only looking for the truth, including evolution. Creation “science” only has one goal, to DISPROVE scientific facts. It will be a sad day in this country if creationism is made as a mandatory teaching along with evolution in public schools, thats what private schools are for you know.
@Jabe73
“I get attacked WAY more than athiests ever do by fundamentalist christians so don’t feel too bad athiests.”
High five, brother.
Don’t worry about getting flak from the nutters. Worry when they cheer at what you say.
@Jabe73 I’m a little unclear on your answer. Are you saying that there is overwhelming evidence that God created evolution? If so, please cite your evidence.
@Rarebear If the claim is, “god started the big bang,” I can’t imagine evidence one way or the other. Science, so far, has nothing to say of what happened before the big bang (to whatever degree and in whatever way that makes any sense at all).
@roundsquare Just because the answers of what happened before the Big Bang (caps are correct) are not elucidated, does not mean those answers exist. If you want to say God did it, that’s fine. Design an experiment to prove it, perform the experiment, have the results reviewed in a peer-reviewed journal, and I’ll believe it. That’s how science works.
@Rarebear Not sure why you think I disagree with you on that. All I was saying is that as far as I know, no one has been able to design such an experiment much less carry it out.
@Rarebear No worries. This tends to happen to me. I think I need to find a way to clarify my statements. Need to anticipate what people will think when I write instead of assuming they will take the literal meaning and nothing more.
Too much time with mathematicians and philosophers…
@Fyrius Your wisdom known no bounds.
Oh, don’t say that. Of course it does. My wisdom knows everything.
Incidentally, my boundless wisdom detects sarcasm.
@Fyrius Also, you have the coolest picture I’ve seen yet on Fluther.
Sarcasm? Whats that?
I meant overwhelming evidence of evolution itself. I don’t expect anyone to believe whether or not god created evolution, those are just my personal beliefs.
I liked @bongo‘s referenced material. Instead of debunking natural selection and evolution, they only show that the whole process of how we came to be isn’t as simple as Darwin suggested and at the same time make “intelligent design” totally irrelevant to the discussion.
The way I understand Mr. Bongo’s answer is that the evolution of all living things is affected by environment, our grandparent’s experience, and infection from outside sources like virus and bacteria. Sounds like evolution is quite unpredictable and certain unnecessary traits like floppy ears just come along for the ride, It turns out that humans like floppy eared dogs and breed them to maintain the trait, therefore the trait become a part of the animal’s evolutionary path. I expect that there are many other traits that come along with ones that improve an organism’s survivability.
The whole process adds depth to evolution but in no way debunks it.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
